Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The default game defines "BattleCruiser" as 600 kt. Suppose that war ships were extended, in a mod, beyond the size of Baseships .... let's say to about 10,000 kt. Should the term "BattleCruiser" (or any other ship size "name") describe a relative size of ship instead of strictly a 600 kt size?

For example: If this mod had three small ship sizes of Escourt (200kt, tech level 1), BattleCruiser (600kt, tech level 2), and Baseship (1500kt, tech level 4), is it a desireable thing to also create a 700kt Escourt (just as fast and manueverable as the earlier Escourt, but at tech level 3), a 1700kt BattleCruiser (same speed and manueverability as the earlier BattleCruiser, but at tech level 5), and a 2000kt Baseship (also with the same speed and maneuverability as the earlier Baseship, but at tech level 6).

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Mmm... your 700kt would make the battleship useless, if it's as fast (and cheap ?) as a small ship.
Theoricaly, you can make an Escort I hull size, an Escort II hull size and an Escort III hull size (need to use different names), no matter their weight.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The sizes are completely relative. Check out Adamant Mod, which resized all the ships (and added a lot of new ones). Also, look for the Ultimate Vehicle Sizes mod (by Andres Lescano IIRC). It has huge ship sizes in it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I doubt that you will find many (if any) on the other side of the argument (unless they play devil's advocate just to spite me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

[ June 18, 2003, 08:06: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Speaking of battlecruiser, I found it interesting but the documentation a bit overwhelming or confusing, Do any of you guys have similiar views of the game?

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Completely random post (kind of) but..... keeping in mind that battlecruisers (certainly in the British navy) were generally meant to be the definitive combination of firepower, armour and speed (and were generally more expensive than battleships)... I always thought that larger vessels in SEIV should be weighted so that they take much much much longer to build than smaller ships and also consume a dissproportionate amount of resources.

Modern fleets tend to have lots of small vessels with a few large battlewagons/carriers whatever. In SEIV, you generally go for the largest hull size you can build, and build as many as your empire will support....

Is there anyway to tweak things so that you are forced to go for a mix of smaller ships and then some big boys?

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Sure. Every hull size has its own cost, which in standard SEIV is directly proportional to its size. You can tweak this to be proportional to the size squared or some such progression to make big ships reaaaaallllly expensive.

You can also tweak maintenance costs for specific hull sizes if you wish.

But remember, 'wet' navies are not a perfect analogy. Spacegoing vessels (especially the SEIV kind that never land on a planet) do not have to worry about drag and gravity as much as seagoing vessels.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

I like the idea of having the construction costs go up exponentially (size squared?), while firepower goes up linearly, and maintenance costs rise much slower (square root of size, perhaps)

This means you can pump out lots of firepower in a short amount of time by building tiny ships, but the maximum strength of your military will be limited.

In peacetime, you can spend lots of time and initial resources to build large hulls. With the lower maintenance percentages, you can get much more military strength built up before maintenance starts to crunch your economy.

Medium sized ships would be for those unsure about the political climate, with intermediate strength per maintenance dollar, and intermediate build times.

I think this would make for a very interesting game, with a variety of ship sizes being fielded.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The descriptive terms used with cruisers do not refer directly to the size of the ship. The size reference is the size of the main armament, which was mirrored by the hull displacement in most but not all ships. Cruisers in general are long ranging self-sufficient ships. The original intent was to project the might of the British fleet into the far-flung reaches of the Empire. To do this, the ship needed to be able to operate for long periods without the company of a fuel reefer. And it needed to be gunned so as to be able to deal with the locals. They also tended to have good communications gear and many had luxury accommodations. Many U.S. flagships were cruisers. Light cruisers carried 4” or 5” main guns. Mediums were equipped with 6” guns for the most part and heavies carried 8” guns. Battle Cruisers were built with 10 to 15 inch guns just like battle ships but without the armor. The first battle cruisers were cost saving designs, the idea being that speed would negate the need for armor. Jutland disproved this, in large part because the cruisers were required to keep formation with the slower battlewagons. After WW I, the Washington Navy treaty killed off most of the BC’s then under construction. The US converted their unfinished hulls into carriers, which turned into a rather large stroke of blind luck. During WW II, cruisers tended to be built around secondary requirements. Some light cruisers displaced as much weight as large medium cruisers, the added mass being made up of cargo storage. Today, US cruisers are classified without the descriptive size. They displace the weight of an old medium cruiser, but have little armor and no large guns. This makes them appear to be very large. Today’s cruisers can reach out and hit very hard, but would be quickly disabled if they got into a gun only fight. It would be interesting to see a match up between an Aegis and an old battlewagon. Harpoons would be hard pressed against 10+ inch navel armor, but one 16-inch shell could break the back of an Aegis. The SLCM’s would probably be another story, they would probably be able to end the fight before the big guns came into range.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Interesting ideas SJ. I suggest we call it the 'battle cruiser' mod idea, after this thread's initial topic.

Edit : and make it Neo Standard ++ so we can have more intermediate ship sizes.

[ June 18, 2003, 19:58: Message edited by: Chief Engineer Erax ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

See Proportions mod for larger ships that get more and more expensive, with various other reasons to have some smaller ships, and to mothball expensive ones during peace time.

PvK

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

I to have to agree with SJ. The cost should go up dramatically for larger ship hulls.

I also feel that Carriers are under used, under valued, and under powered. In a real NAVY a carrier is the key to the fleet, not the Dreadnought.

SEIV currently does not use Carries in the way that they should be used. You encounter fleets of carriers and a baseships and it should be one or two carriers to a fleet of Battle Cruisers.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

In 1805, battleships were still called 'ships of the line' and displaced roughly 2,000 tons. In 1916 the average displacement was roughly 25,000 tons and by 1945 there were battleships displacing almost 80,000 tons. To an SE4 race that's only discovered 200kT ships, 200kT probably looks like a battleship, not a frigate.

There's no reason to say "600kt = battlecruiser".

On the other hand, the ascending size scale isn't really accurate either - the terms sloop, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship etc. indicate a role not a size. The size of the ship tended to reflect it's designed role. If you want to mod the game, feel free to give your hull sizes completely different names or even call them by their size and the let the players work it out. I admit "1000kT hull" is a bit bland and uninspiring.

On a third hand (since we're dealing with alien races), does it really matter?

Personally I'm a fan of giving a wide range of hull sizes, and some form of quasi-Newtonian propulsion system - let the players decide how they want to approach ship design!

<HR>
SJ/Erax/Big Cat. Like that idea. A lot http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

<HR>
Some notes/additions to Thermodyne's post. Gets back on-topic in places! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The light cruiser/heavy cruiser distinction based on armament was prevalent during WWII. Generally 6" guns and smaller meant light, 8" guns meant heavy.

During WWI, the classes were light cruiser (fast, no armour, used for scouting) and armoured cruiser (bigger, much slower, larger weapons and... armoured). In some naval listings, you'll see light cruiser given the letters CL and heavy cruiser CA for this reason.

Note that the original design aim of the battleship-cruiser (a.k.a. battlecruiser) was to build a ship with the speed and weaponry to dispose of cruisers whilst staying away from battleships. From the British point of view it did make sense to have ships capable of hunting and killing commerce raiders. Generally, they were comparable in size with contemporary battleships - despite having much thinner armour they needed the space for engines.

As an aside, Lord Fisher was demanding ever stranger designs, to the point whereby the ships didn't even have the armour to keep out the shells from cruisers (i.e. any justification of their construction by saying they were designed to hunt commerce raiders was rendered void). The Furious was built with two 18" guns which were rarely fired as they buckled her weakened hull. Fortunately, she didn't see combat before being converted into an aircraft carrier.

The Germans took the battlecruiser concept and immediately reduced the armament and speed to fit more armour. Their designs were more balanced, and fit more neatly into the 'marginally smaller, faster, lightly-armed battleship' concept we see in SE4.

One point I think Thermo got wrong:
The two sets of battlecruisers were both used as 'heavy scouts' (both sides had light crusiers scouting ahead) during Jutland. They fought a running battle, each trying to draw the other onto the guns of their own battleships.

Other than later German designs, most battlecruisers proposed after WWI were larger and faster than the battleships of the time and nearly as well armoured. Very few were actually built, due to the various naval treaties and cost-cutting.

<HR>
Mmmmmm. I'll stop there as I'm hungry.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But it is all because of completly different medium ships and aircraft are moving through. In space there is no difference whatsoever between large and bulky ship and small crats. Except Newton's laws of cource. Translating Navy carriers into interstellar battles is an utterly ludicurious idea, IMHO. The closest we can get from the naval history is small and agile torpedo boats and their carriers. It was a fashionable idea at the end of XIX centuary.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

As I predicted, noone is arguing that BC has to be 600 kT. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

I suppose that technically the size is arbitrary rather than relative.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you're challenging someone to argue that fact. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow... in 140 years, what was called a "battleship" got 40 times bigger... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

That said, I like Soulfisher's original suggestion of ships getting gradually bigger over time - something like this stripped-down Version of the tech tree might work:

Tech Level 1
Escort I - 100 kT
Cruiser I - 400 kT
Battleship I - 1000 kT

Tech Level 2
Escort II - 120 kT
Cruiser II - 480 kT
Battleship II - 1200 kT

Tech Level 3
Escort III - 150 kT
Cruiser III - 600 kT
Battleship III - 1500 kT

etc.

where each hull size would maintain its maximum engines and other characteristics even as it gets larger and larger...

Oh, and I like SJ's proposal for maintenance costs... now all we have to do is bug Aaron to make maintenance independent of construction cost in SE5! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Too bad you can't make vehicle sizes obselete. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm sure that's been posted in the wish list for SEV then, right? If not it should be. This would open up some more modding possibilities.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The reason why aircraft carriers have ruled the seas since WWII is that seagoing ships are vulnerable to torpedoes.

Before the carrier battles in the Pacific, the rationale for building bigger ships was that a bigger ship could carry bigger guns, which would have a longer range and therefore be able to destroy a smaller ship before its guns were able to fire. Torpedo boats changed all that, because they could harm a large ship and were too manoeuverable to be tracked by the big guns.

So a battleship would be surrounded by destroyers, which would fire at any incoming torpedo boats before they could attack the main ship.

Airplanes were a new variation on the torpedo boat concept, and they were so successful that they rendered the battleship obsolete. The modern counter for them is the Aegis cruiser.

So if you want a game universe in which carriers rule the spacelanes, you need a sci-fi equivalent for torpedoes, which is small enough to be carried aboard your starfighters. The Star Wars universe has this, which is not surprising since the concept behind SW space battles has always been 'WWII in space'.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Hmm, we do have "Small Anti-matter Torpedoes", but they're completely useless because the only advantage they have (huge raw damage) is nullified by the fact that fighter damage stacks... did you notice that SAMT's are the ONLY fighter based weapons to do more damage than Emissive Armor III is capable of blocking??? Hmmmmm.....

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

So to make the battle cruiser a ship fitting the name, it should have a speed bonus and a limit on the amount of armor and shields that it can carry?

***********************************************

A note on torpedoes: During the second WW, only the Japanese had excellent results with torpedoes. English results were so so and American results were dismal. Most of Japan’s carriers and fleet units fell victim to 2000 pound bombs. American torpedoes were so bad that our interdiction units used skip-bombing to sink the vast majority of the auxiliaries that fell to them. A tactic that would put you very much in harms way against armed ships.

As for Jutland, the battle was fought from the classic “ducks all in a row” formation that was still in favor with the fleet admirals on both sides. With the exception of the scouts, most of the ships that broke formation were MTB’s and MTB-Destroyers, as they were called back then. The German gunnery was excellent, and the English battle cruisers were overly susceptible to shell hits. This was later blamed on the removal of the bLast doors between the magazines and turrets. A few years latter the Hood sank from shell fire that it should have weathered, and its bLast doors were in place! Lots of excuses have been offered, but the hard fact is that deck armor was left out of the design to save money. America also had to learn the same lesson the hard way; we built carriers with unarmored flight decks all through the war, as did the Japanese.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

You are right about the torpedoes, although IIRC the quality of the torpedoes themselves were only one part of the problem for the Americans, the other part was that their torpedo bombers were too slow and therefore an easy target for enemy AA fire.

Unarmored carriers made for wildly unpredictable battle results. They were a priority target, had no armor and were loaded with airplane fuel. A single bomb through the deck could waste them.

How were the Yamato and Musashi sunk ? Bombs or torpedoes ?

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Yamato and Musashi were technically sunk by torpedoes, but they were both heavily damaged by US bombs before they capsized.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no defenitive evidence that Bismark's shells went through the deck armor; some of it could have hit it's side armor.

And the Hood didn't sink from shell fire. It was sunk by a powerful explosion in the Hood's ammo hold, caused by the shell from the bismark, which was an extremely lucky shot.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

i think the player should be able to make any size ship he wants. some sort of slider with a scaling cost. i'm going to post that in the se5 thread.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Wanderer's description of warships from 1805 to 1942 is exactly what I've been thinking. As technology advances allow larger hulls, the size of a "battlecruiser" will change over time. But Fyron has a good point when he mentions ship sizes can not be obsoleted. That could get cumbersome.

Maybe, instead of increasing ship sizes, new Ship Construction levels could add new mounts for each size hull. Since mounts can not be obsoleted either, this would generate a huge pile of obsoleted mounts in the late game. Hmmm...

Preferably, whenever a new ship size is introduced, it should have its own identity from the other sizes (which is what un-modded SEIV does, to some extent). I also like SJ's idea of rapidly increasing cost with only a modderate increase in size.

Ed Kolis brings out a good point with his tentative ship size listing: an ability to build "Battleship" type ships on tech level 1. I like this idea; I'll probably introduce a "Battleship" size much earlier in my mod's tech tree than I was originally planning.

Perhaps a combination of both increasing ship sizes and increasing mounts would serve to keep all that obsolete clutter from accumulating too much. Of course, new mounts could be made to apply to only one ship size, then increase ship sizes slowly. Later, new mounts could revitalize older, smaller ships - if made only for them.

As a side note (as it doesn't really fit here), Ed Kolis and Chief Engineer Erax mention that fighters and Carriers are underpowered. I agree! Most "capital ships" (whatever that may be defined as) should have a very hard time dealing with fighters (except for anti-figher ships). Unfortunately, it would be difficult to get the AI to defend itself properly.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Er, I didn't exactly say that carriers were underpowered. What I said is that, if you want carriers to play the central role in SEIV, you need to create a powerful torpedo-like (or bomb-like) weapon that can be mounted on fighters.

Personally, I could play either way. I think 'Carrier SEIV' would be cool, but so is 'Battleship SEIV'.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Sorry Chief Erax! My personal feeling is that carriers in original SEIV are good only for transporting fighters into a new system (and still have the ability to launch them). I just read too much into what you wrote.

I would think the game would be better if fighters (and therefore Carriers) were stronger than they are against capital ships. Maybe a PDG weapon mount could be devised (limited to Destroyer class vessels or smaller) to make those ships better at destroying fighters than capital ships are. The AIs would then have to updated to create an "anti-fighter destroyer" ship and to not use tonnages greater than XXX for this design.

As for my initial reason for starting this thread, most people seem desirous of some sort of relative ship-size scale.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

I'd also like to see a little more diversity in the AI's ship designs - since we have fleet formations, it would be nice to have true fleet-type units - escorts, missile ships, fleet defense ships, etc.

I recently had to adjust my playing style against an AI that had all long-range, fast missile-equipped cruisers. My baseships couldn't get within range (and my dreadnoughts only with great difficulty), and I was chewed apart piece by piece.

I started building Hunter-Killer BC's (12 speed) with a single large weapon to hunt down these annoying vessels, plus fleet defense ships (equipped with lots of Point Defense). I've yet to truly try this new force mix - as my Last battle against the 20-odd capital missile-equipped cruisers went better; my 6 baseships were able to survive long enough to corner the cruisers and inflict serious losses before being wiped out.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proportions does a marveliuos job in balancing fighters and antifighter weapons. Check my proportions AIs for "anti-fighter destroyer" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The best way to protect ships from aircraft is with other aircraft. In SE4, a similar maxim would be 'fight fighters with fighters' but that sounds silly. It'd make carriers more powerful if fighters were better at killing fighters and point-defence systems were much weaker (amongst other things).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It'd help if that were fixed and/or fighters were restricted to using seekers/PD weapons.

Plus I'd like to see the armour system revamped...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">American and Japanese carriers could have 50% to 100% larger airGroups because their flight decks weren't armoured and the hangers weren't enclosed (meaning a much larger risk of a fire causing the ship's loss). Also the reduced weight ensured a higher speed. British carriers were much hardier but they didn't have the same punch (having rubbish aircraft for most of the war due to the RAF's intransigence didn't help either).

Out of interest, do people like to build carriers with the largest cargo space/fighter launching capacity possible or do you like to use some space for defences?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would be nice, wouldn't it? Sounds like something SE5 ought to be able to handle.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The deck armour was thin as the ship was designed and built at a time when bombs dropped from aircraft were miniscule and the main guns of ships didn't have the range to 'plunge' down onto the decks (most WWI ships that fought in WWII had the max elevation of their guns doubled to increase their range). Sadly, the refit that was due to modernise her a more battle-worthy standard was put-off and never happened.

A team actually discovered the wreck recently (they also had to re-discover the Bismarck as Ballard won't tell anyone where he found her) but couldn't offer any clues to her loss other than that both main magazines had exploded, ripping the ship into three pieces. Whether the fatal shell penetrated the belt or deck will probably never be known.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think we have this easily: Capital Ship Missiles are perfect, really. Mounted on Fighters they fit even better... I think...

You can launch Seekers from Fighters, can't you? I don't think the un-modded game does this...

Anyway, I think the important thing, for both the fighters and the torpedoes, is to get rid of the PDC. That thing completely overpowers Fighters, Seekers, Drones, Sats, all Units I guess.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Yes, fighters can launch seekers, although there are no such weapons in the basic game. The Crossover Mod does this with proton torpedoes and concussion missiles from Star Wars. Fighter-launched seekers behave just like ship-launched seekers during combat. You just have to be careful when modding them in because a stack of fighters with multiple launchers per fighter can fire off a HUGE stack of seekers !

I'd prefer it if PDCs were kept, but toned down (less range or less damage, perhaps). Fighter-mounted seekers will also go a long ways towards overloading enemy PDCs and reducing fighter losses.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. It makes fighters too powerful, so much that they overpower ships in the same way that ships overpower fighters in the unmodded game.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

My opinion only, In hotseat or sp against the AI, other weapons besides PD's can be used against ftrs both in unmodded and modded. My opinion is to take this ability away and only let PD's be used against ftrs. In strategic combat I'm don't think these other weapons fire on ftrs, but if they still do, then ftrs become basically useless in later parts of a game, They can't get in close enough to fire.

just some ideas Mac

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

I've have looked at the data files for Proportions mod, but I have never played in it. I'll have to study it's Ship vs. Fighter combat in detail.

Chef Engineer Erax: If PDGs were kept as they are in unmodded SE IV, how strong would this Torpedo have to be to make a difference?

Wanderer: I've been leaning toward Fighter vs. Fighter as the ideal counter-fighter solution. Probably because I've seen enough of PDG vs. Fighter in unmodded SE IV.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Arkcon

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, perhaps the most important thing that the SE4 combat model lacks is "lucky" shots that rip through a ship causing a chain reaction of massive damage. Sort of a rare, but not impossible, equalizer for large ships that would otherwise be nearly impossible to destroy with a small ship.

On the other hand, a few small ships can whittle down a large ship given enough opprotunity -- I suppose it's just a model anyway.

[EDIT]
WTH? How did that quadruple post happen? Sorry guys.

[ June 23, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. It makes fighters too powerful, so much that they overpower ships in the same way that ships overpower fighters in the unmodded game.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Point defence beams (not point defence cannons !) is a nice anti-fighter weapon. Also, did you try point-defence mounts if enemy using fighters ?

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you give fighters a good defensive bonus, a ship's main guns may still fire at them but they won't hit all that often. I like that model because it simulates the low traverse speeds on the main guns, it makes fighters hard to hit but not impossible.

PDCs have in-built offensive bonuses to simulate the fact that they can track fighters better than the main guns, that's why they hit so often.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

Posted by Soulfisher :

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's hard to say. Damage is just one variable, there's also range, seeker speed, rate of fire and the size of the launcher component (which determines how many of them you can load onto a fighter design). In the Star Wars mod, a basic proton torpedo (quite devastating, BTW) has speed 6, range 8, damage 40, reload 3. I suggest you use that as a starting point, then adjust until you reach the effect you want.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The ballistics of German navel rifles would dictate that the Hood was struck from a high angle if the damage was done by a 15 inch shell. If the end was caused by smaller shells, then the angle could have been less, but still a plunging hit. The design of the Hood offered little protection from 8 and 15 inch shells, and with the equipment the Germans had, an early hit was almost a given. There are many ideas about how the ship was killed; one even lays the blame on the reverse slope of the inner armor. But based on the reports from German survivors, it would appear that two 15 inch shells penetrated into the engineering spaces where the bLast compromised the thin bulkhead separating the rear main armament magazine from the engineering area.

The reason for this being the most likely case is the rapid sinking of the ship. A bLast from this type of hit would have vented from the rear of the ship forward, through the already damaged bulkhead, compromising the interior water tight compartments and lifting the lightly built deck above the engineering spaces. The hull, which was known to be under excessive stress in this area, would have been unable to remain intact with out the bracing of the deck structure.

The point here is that the Hood was not able to stand against ships of its own class, and was hard pressed against lesser ships. This should have been known by the Admiralty. The Hood should have been under orders to shadow and refuse engagement. To allow it to open a long range gun fight with a ship in the class of Bismarck was criminal. The fire control system on Hood was dismal by the standards of the day, and without armor to protect it while the layers probed for their targets, the outcome was an engineering given. And while the silver screen has given the impression that the situation was critical, this was not really the case. So long as the location of the Bismarck was known, the problem was manageable. IMHO, the reason for the Battle of the Denmark Strait was political, not strategic.

The Hood would have been more suited to hunting commerce raiders in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, where its vulnerabilities would have been less of a problem. Its speed would have offered more protection against the German raiders. But there were two reasons this was not feasible. The first is that the ship had become the unofficial champion of the fleet. This was because of it speed, gun power, and the fact that it was a damn good looking ship. This was something that the popular press made good use of. This also all but dictated that the ship would be part of the home fleet. The second reason was a result of its construction. Laid down during WW I, the ship was redesigned while under construction, an error often made during war time. And it also had many state-of-the-art systems, which were also untested and not quite mature in their design. The break downs and structural problems that resulted from this required the ship to be under repair more often than not. In fact, the ship was under repair at the time it sailed in pursuit of the Bismarck! The need for frequent yard work would also have required that the ship remain close to the yards that could keep her sea worthy.

Here are a couple of links that provide some of the specs and basic conclusions that are plausible in the sinking.
http://www.warships1.com/BRbc15_Hood_loss.htm http://www.warship.org/no21987.htm


One point that should be made here is that the big gun ship was probably obsolete at the time the Hood was laid down. During WW II, most capital ship engagements resulted in both side retiring after sustaining much damage, echoing the results of Jutland. Had the Allies spent a few dollars on torpedoes and developed an equal of the 21” Long lance, the situation would not have been so critical. But only the Japanese had the foresight to develop a torpedo that could be launched from outside the range of 15” guns.

As to the quality of British carrier aircraft at the start of the war, I am speechless. “Were they stupid?” is all that comes to mind. The planes of the U S Navy, while a generation newer, were not a lot better. But at least the U S was developing better designs, which would have been with the fleet had America entered the war in late 42 early 43 as was the plan. The Japanese planes were not a lot better, contrary to popular belief. But their pilots and navigators were very well trained. And this made a difference in the early going. But later, they paid for the shortcomings of the aircraft with their lives.

If one takes a look at Navel combat from Jutland to the end of WW II, there is one repeating item that sticks out. Quite often the need to limit damage to the capital ships has prevented the victor from gaining a substantial victory. If the weapon itself is not expendable, then its value is greatly limited. There are a few cases were luck played a role, and two cases where loss of tactical control allows for victories. But in most battles, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory due to the need to preserve the capitol ships.

In all fairness, I should mention that both America and Japan managed to produce Battleships that were able to stand against almost anything that could be thrown against them. But the combined war records of these ships do not justify the fuel cost to operate them, let alone the production cost. Japan was not willing to risk theirs until the end was near, and America’s super battleships did most of their fighting as artillery and AA platforms. What would have been the Last big gun fight of the war turned out to be a daring gambit by the Japanese. And they could have won a small victory if they had been willing to risk their capital ships and see the fight through to the end.

Now to address the game we all love to play, I think that the fighter needs a bigger punch. I also think that PDC need to be limited in their ability to engage large numbers of targets. The way the game is now, it is very hard to saturate the PDC abilities of a fleet. Fighters should be able to follow the Soviet tactic of launching swarms of stand off weapons that would penetrate defenses due to shear weight of numbers. Perhaps there should be a larger fighter/bomber that could carry these weapons from planets only. I also think that a fleet without fighters should be vulnerable to fighters with stand off weapons. If any of you have played Fleet Command, then you will know the difficulty of defending against mass missile attacks. This is an imbalance in SE4.

[ June 21, 2003, 20:44: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. Whereas the Kriegsmarine had strict instructions not to risk their heavy ships, the Royal Navy's spirit was to attack, even in unfavourable circumstances. This was partly due to the Germans being out-numbered, partly due to the traditions of the two navies. Control of the sea was more important to the British than the Germans.

I must point out that the situation was pretty critical. The shadowing cruisers lost contact with Bismarck shortly before the Denmark Strait battle and did so again a few days later. The second time that she disappeared off the radar screens, she didn't reappear. Naval radar was still in its infancy, and the cruisers couldn't shadow her visually for obvious reasons.

As contact could have been lost at any time, it was imperative that Bismarck was enaged quickly. Having her roaming the Atlantic was not an option, as it meant suspending the convoy operations without which Britain would quickly run out of various supplies (which of course was the aim of Bismarck's voyage).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In 1916? That's just silly! Even in WWII the big gun warship wasn't obsolete, although it was frequently mis-used by people who believed it was (especially by the Japanese).

Note that had the Japanese decided to use their battleships properly, their American counterparts would have led much more interesting (=useful?) lives. At Midway, what if Admiral Yamamoto (who was air-minded to say the least) had placed his array of battleships in the van rather than hundreds of miles behind his carriers? The US carrier force would not have been able to sink all nine, hold the island and defeat the four Japanese carriers without significant battleship support.

After Midway, the US fast battleships were recalled from the Atlantic and added to the carrier task forces.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Between the wars, the RAF top brass believed that they needed lots of heavy bombers and refused to allocate much funding to the Fleet Air Arm. Something similar happened in Germany - even had they finished their carrier(s) it's unlikely Goering would have furnished the Kriegsmarine with any aircraft. Inter-service rivalry was a sad fact of life.

The result was that the Swordfish aircraft that attacked the Bismarck and the Italian fleet at Taranto were slow bi-planes that wouldn't have looked out of place in WWI. In fact, it's said that the Bismarck's gunners couldn't hit the Swordfish as they were flying so slowly the gunners couldn't calculate the proper lead required*.

Although British designs improved during the war, the Fleet Air Arm was eventually equipped with American planes.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. I'd like to see fighters armed with seeking weapons whose range is long enough to allow them to attack a target from outside it's anti-fighter defences, but is short-ranged enough to make the attacking fighters vulnerable to defending fighters/escort ships.

But if you mod a fighter-launched missile, the ship under attack can simply move out of range once it's been fired. If the game had a setting, Seekers move immediately after being fired := True/False, I think I'd actually sit down and try to write a mod rather than just think about it.

* disclaimer - might not be true.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You can make a fighter have a much higher fighter targeting priority to do this. It does work fairly well -- the fighters swarm around the enemy fighters and knock lots of them out -- they don't get a to hit bonus for their specialization, but they do have the defence bonus, and they mill around, blocking the other fighters.

This is standrd SE4, you could always mod anti-fighter weapons. Proprotions already has serious to hit bonuses for fighters.

[ June 23, 2003, 16:50: Message edited by: Arkcon ]

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

The old Crossover mod had fighters with up to a 90% defense bonus. Non-PDC weapons have a hard time hitting those fighters, especially if they keep their distance.

Re: Is "BattleCruiser" a relative size? -- discussion
 

How about fighters equiped with "Target Type: Fighter" PDC's? I've wondered whether that would be effective.