Jump to content


Photo

B* pre dreadnoughts


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Cornwell

Richard Cornwell

    Private

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:56 PM

Hi there,

One aspect of FAI that doesn't seem to work properly to me is pre dreadnought hull armour.

the B* damage column seems fine for damage once the armour is penetrated as they were smaller and less well internally compartmentalised, but it seems way too easy to penetrate for the later pre dreadnoughts, such as the Lord Nelsons. These had hull belts of 8" to 12" which is a lot better than the Bellerephon class (5" to 11"), for example, which is rated BB.

I think that the B* ships should be rated correctly for hull armour, but use the B* column for equivalent hits and damage allocation. This would more appropriately reflect their abilities. At the time the late pre dreadnoughts (like the Nelsons and the Radestkys) were thought to be nearly capable of standing in the line (albeit their armament and fire control were major deficiencies). At the moment the B* hull rating makes them pretty useless in combat, even against CAs. For example a German 11" gun can penetrate B* at all ranges, while it can penetrate BB armour only at 9000 yards. A big difference, as all the German battlecruisers (BB armour) would be vulnerable to the British 12" gun.

Similarly, a German 9.4" gun can never penetrate BB armour while it can penetrate B* armour out to 9000 yards.

All the best


Richard

#2 Jormungand

Jormungand

    Private

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:18 PM

You make an important point, the existing system degrades even the best Pre-Dreadnoughts and heavy Armored Cruisers to standard CA level protection. I modified most of the Pre-Dreadnoughts I use to have ratings like BC*, BB*, and the like to represent their relative armor protection, I still use the B* for relative damage, damage column, and torpedo damage.

However it would be far easier if the game provided some kind of special rule system to account for these ship types.

Sincerely;

Erich

#3 Cpt M

Cpt M

    Colonel

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 939 posts

Posted 11 June 2013 - 09:12 PM

You make an important point, the existing system degrades even the best Pre-Dreadnoughts and heavy Armored Cruisers to standard CA level protection. I modified most of the Pre-Dreadnoughts I use to have ratings like BC*, BB*, and the like to represent their relative armor protection, I still use the B* for relative damage, damage column, and torpedo damage.

This maybe the best solution for those very late predreadnought designs, although I'd apply it very sparingly (even to the point of discounting the armor to reflect the very different design philosophies involved). Keep in mind, the ratings are not just based on armor thickness; they also reflect the design philosophy (such as level of internal division, strength of structure, etc). Warship design went through some very radical changes during this time. The bottomline is that even the navies themselves held these older ships in low regard.

However it would be far easier if the game provided some kind of special rule system to account for these ship types.

Actually, it wouldn't be easier. To incorporate such changes would've resulted in a considerably more complex system. Keep in mind, the combat model was optimized for the WWI period and for the predominate combat of that period; dreadnought vs dreadnought. Also, historically, almost every navy quickly relegated their older predreadnoughts to secondary service due to their very limited utility. And if the feedback is any indication, the primary focus of the games being played (by a very wide margin) is dreadnought vs dreadnought.

#4 Jormungand

Jormungand

    Private

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 12 June 2013 - 04:57 PM

Thankyou for responding Coastal and elaborating on the game's perspective. I read your comments and , though I'm afraid that my previous post wasn't very clear and I wanted to clarify my point.

This maybe the best solution for those very late predreadnought designs, although I'd apply it very sparingly (even to the point of discounting the armor to reflect the very different design philosophies involved). Keep in mind, the ratings are not just based on armor thickness; they also reflect the design philosophy (such as level of internal division, strength of structure, etc). Warship design went through some very radical changes during this time. The bottomline is that even the navies themselves held these older ships in low regard.

When I said "most Pre-Dreadnoughts I use" I meant the very late model Pre-Dreadnoughts like the Lord Nelsons, Deutschlands, and similar designs and only then with rounded down armor levels to account for the poorer protection of these older vessels, for example the Deutschlands have a 9.4" belt that I round down to BC*. Also as I pointed out I still use the B* damage crit, and only use those special ratings for armor penetration itself.

Actually, it wouldn't be easier. To incorporate such changes would've resulted in a considerably more complex system. Keep in mind, the combat model was optimized for the WWI period and for the predominate combat of that period; dreadnought vs dreadnought. Also, historically, almost every navy quickly relegated their older predreadnoughts to secondary service due to their very limited utility. And if the feedback is any indication, the primary focus of the games being played (by a very wide margin) is dreadnought vs dreadnought.

And here I think you missunderstand my point, I mean it would be easier for the players like me who don't want to use the B* universally for ships to have an optional rule for Pre-Dreadnought armor for those cases where a player might want to use Pre-Dreadnoughts without completely curbing their protection.

Again thankyou for the explanation you gave, and I understand the game designers were trying to avoid complicating the game I just feel the game could be given some more flexability to deal with the Pre-Dreadnoughts, and heavy Armored Cruisers.

Sincerely;
Erich
  • Robert Trantin likes this

#5 GMG4RWF

GMG4RWF

    Private

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 04:40 PM

Hi there,
...the B* damage column seems fine for damage once the armour is penetrated as they were smaller and less well internally compartmentalised, but it seems way too easy to penetrate for the later pre dreadnoughts, such as the Lord Nelsons. These had hull belts of 8" to 12" which is a lot better than the Bellerephon class (5" to 11"), for example, which is rated BB.

Actually Lord Nelson had virtually the same structure components as the Dreadnought. The design of internal compartments and underwater protection was of the same level. Likewise the USS Michigan was basically identical to the USS Connecticut in virtually every way except armament. She wasn’t any bigger or more massive - 16,000tn, (aprx) 450’ long & (aprx) 80’ beam, VTE 16,500ihp 18kts). She was in fact 4 feet shorter and 4 feet wider. They basically took the Connecticut, stripped off her secondaries & squeezed in 2 more main turrets. The term B* should be a relative & not literal classification. Some PD’s should have BB rating with just an armament difference (like the Simi-DN’s). likewise some PDs should have even lighter armor classifications such as AC to reflect there light obsolete armor.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users