[UNIT] Mighty Ships Et Al

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Kind of reminds me of the Littoral Combat Ship and that other stealth ship Toad made. Those were great ships.

Anyone know what the Battlecruiser would upgrade into fyi? I was thinking Armored Cruisers would split off as an alternate upgrade from the Protected Cruiser, then the Armored would upgrade to the Battlecruiser. Where then does that line lead?

 

[MightyToad]

Anyone know what the Battlecruiser would upgrade into fyi?

Probably just the (modern) destroyer. It's a heavily armed capitol ship with out armor. Same as the battlecruiser (minimal armor). Not to be confused with WWII vintage destroyers which were definitely not capitol ships, and focused more on Anti-Sub Warfare.

 

[Pepo]

Kind of reminds me of the Littoral Combat Ship and that other stealth ship Toad made. Those were great ships.

Anyone know what the Battlecruiser would upgrade into fyi? I was thinking Armored Cruisers would split off as an alternate upgrade from the Protected Cruiser, then the Armored would upgrade to the Battlecruiser. Where then does that line lead?

I would say Cruisers in the vein of the Kirov Class rather than the American Ticondeoga class. Vessels mean to be the center of the fleet rather than aircraft escorts and with a good anti-surface armament.

That being said the main problem I see is that with naval combat we see a big variety of ships classes that can be difficult to fit. For example Battlecruisers could be consider fast battleships and don't think that separating them would make a big impact but make balance slower. Similarly, the heavy cruisers only make sense in the context of the Washington naval treaty, and they shouldn't really be consider that different from ligth cruisers. Overall a battleship-cruiser-destroyer distinction I think would be the optimal for civ, with maybe coastal ships included for nations without resources.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I've been reading about bigger cruisers the US and others have been working on that specialize in holding and firing massive amounts of missiles. So thought "Heavy Missile Cruiser" would be the last ship in this sub-set of Cruisers. The Kirov is in that direction, Like the old Cruisers in ww2, these new ships seem to be meant to operate without a fleet.

Here is an example:



Looks like that Littoral Combat ship you made Toad, except bigger, and longer.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Probably just the (modern) destroyer. It's a heavily armed capitol ship with out armor. Same as the battlecruiser (minimal armor). Not to be confused with WWII vintage destroyers which were definitely not capitol ships, and focused more on Anti-Sub Warfare.

That is a good idea. To maintain the distinction between Destroyer/Cruiser/Battleship in the modern eras I had the Littoral Combat Ship as an upgrade, the normal cruiser line upgrades to that as well, so the two cruiser lines(Heavy and Normal) converge.

 

[Pepo]

Honestly Littoral Combat Ships are probably one of the most useless class ever made being a product of an overinflated budget during the war of terror. Also quite specific to the USA. They only thing they have going for them is speed, and they would be more suited for a coastal ship type more than anything( although missile boats would make more sense). That being said, if you want something more creative than missile destroyers, I would suggest calling the ship corvettes. Corvettes (and frigates) aren't exactly destroyers, but sometimes they carry very respectable armaments for their class. The modern ww2 Corvettes in particular were originally intended for anti submarine warfare, which is the main role of destroyers.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I saw a picture of a stealth cruiser. They exist, only a few though. The Missile ships are a thing though, almost like a battlecruiser version of an Aegis Cruiser. A number of countries have been building them.

 

[Pepo]

I as referring to the freedom class and the independence class. Stealth cruisers (or really destroyers, as I believe the pictured one was a Russian project if I remenber correctly) are none problematic at all, even if none are currently in service as it seems as a logical evolution. But they shouldn't be confused with LCS. Is a really minor issue TBH, but I think they shouldn't be mixed even if Littoral Combat Ship sound way cooler.

 

[MightyToad]

Yeah, I agree with pepo. The LCS (independence) is a crappy ship. If you have WWII destroyers/escort destroyers they could upgrade to it in game, but definitely not a cruiser/battlecruiser. The LCS is decent in the ASW corvette role, but they were meant to serve the dual role of a corvette/frigate. They suck at both. The earliest ones didn't even have anti ship missiles. Only tiny hellfire missiles. They would drop like flies in an actual battle.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I read about a larger, basically Stealth Cruiser Missile Ship(with hundreds of missiles and even anti-ICBM capabilities), which has also been labeled "Littoral Combat Ship", but yeah the ship your talking about is crap, besides the unique design.

 

[pecheneg]

was thinking Armored Cruisers would split off as an alternate upgrade from the Protected Cruiser

1. Protected cruisers (with an only armored deck) appeared even a little later than armored cruisers. Armored - 1875, protected - 1878
2. These are two different upgrade options for unarmored cruisers/frigates. However, I think you meant something like this.
3. The unarmored ones also did not go anywhere – although they increasingly receded into the background to the level of "a few auxiliary ships".

then the Armored would upgrade to the Battlecruiser.

Keep in mind that the most common unit that depicts it is actually a very large light cruiser ("Brooklyn"), in addition, built very late - in 1938. The ships that the Americans classified as a battlecruiser at that time were 3.5 times larger and completely unlike the Brooklyn.
"Brooklyn" is generally unique in many ways.
At the same time, there is a unit depicting a "real" battle cruiser - the British "Hood". But there is a nuance.

Where then does that line lead?

If in reality, then to the big battleships of the thirties and forties. The last British battlecruisers ("Hood") were built according to the scheme:
top superdreadnought (same armament and almost the same armor)
+ 7 knots of speed (28%). The price of the issue is the displacement is almost one and a half times more.
As a result, after a pause (the Washington Naval Agreement), the era of so-called high-speed battleships came. At the same time, European battleships as a whole remained at the "Hood" level in terms of characteristics.
However:
1) among the high-speed battleships, "very high-speed battleships" stand out - for example, the American "Iowas", which are far ahead of the rest of the Americans. The second candidate is the French "Richelieu"
2) in the thirties and forties, superheavy cruisers were built, approximately equivalent to the linear ones up to the "Hood". These are not their direct descendants - rather, heavy cruisers that have grown in size. However, they were often classified as battlecruisers.

 

[pecheneg]

At the same time, the possibility of converting the American "Alaska" into missile ones was considered.
Of the later missile cruisers, only Soviet ones have grown to the size of battlecruisers.
Missile cruisers developed like this.
The Americans first had alterations of light and heavy cruisers with artillery weapons. Continuation of the line of heavy cruisers – "Long Beach".
In parallel, missile "destroyer leaders"/frigates developed. Already in the sixties they grew to the size of a typical light cruiser (the descendants were officially reclassified into cruisers), in the seventies - to the size of a very large light cruiser. But here…
The destroyers themselves developed even more parallel. As a result, advanced weapons and Aegis were installed on the hull of the destroyer Spruance. As a result, the "cruisers" of "Ticonderoga" turned out.
The Americans did not have projects of missile cruisers in the size of battlecruisers even on paper. Only heavy, not even up to "Invincible" in size.
The first Soviet missile cruisers were similarly reclassified from destroyers (project
58 "Grozny"). Ideological heirs - project 1164, "Atlant".
The USSR had a parallel line of escort destroyers/frigates - large anti-submarine ships. Completely according to the American scheme, it has grown to the size of a light cruiser
The giant cruisers of Project 1144 were originally designed as... large anti-submarine ships. However, then they added a mountain of shock weapons.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Honestly the term "cruiser" has been so muddied in the mid to late 20th century that it's painful. Things used to be simple. Originally cruiser was not a designation of size but a job description. As in a cruiser is a ship that can "cruise" that is to say has a long range all the while being lighter, faster and most essentially cheaper than proper capital ships. It was the sort of ship that you sent out to raid enemy commerce or patrol your colonies and keep the natives in line with the threat of bombardment. That is why unprotected cruisers were a thing for so long. But than people started realizing that you'd want your cruisers to fight enemy cruisers. So you started getting designs like protected and armored cruisers. Again, makes sense. But if you ask me "battlecruiser" is where it all went to hell.

I mean, just what is a "battlecruiser"? Is it a fast battleship built by people that didn't yet have the tech to build proper fast battleships? Is it an overly large cruiser meant to outshoot anything it can't outrun and outrun anything it can't outshoot? Does it trade armor for speed? Or maybe it retains the armor but trades firepower for speed? Or maybe it keeps both and is just larger?

And what is it supposed to do? Is it a cruiser-killer-cruiser that's meant to run down enemy cruisers? Is it a giant fleet screen meant to scout ahead of the main fleet and fight other giant fleet screens? Is it supposed to stand in the line of battle along side battleships or is it supposed to not get involved?

The answer to these every OR in the above and many other mutually exclusive explanation is YES. I mean, compare the British and German battlecruisers in terms of design. And throw in the Kongos just for good measure. Or hell, just compare the original ideas for the first British battlecruisers with the stuff they were building later on.

Honestly if you ask me the whole designation is basically confused to no end and basically ended up being used as "looks like a battleship, smells like a battleship but isn't a battleship so we best call it something else."

And today when destroyers basically have the same range as cruisers the whole thing basically boils down to size and what the particular navy feels like calling them.

 

[pecheneg]

Similarly, the heavy cruisers only make sense in the context of the Washington naval treaty, and they shouldn't really be consider that different from ligth cruisers.

Heavy cruisers appeared before the Washington Treaty and the same Americans built them during the war more than during the "Washington". The only thing that prevented the agreement was that the heavy cruisers could not grow to their "natural" size.
After the collapse of the treaty, strange designs with 15 152-mm guns ("very large light cruisers") died out
At the same time 1) even large light cruisers like the Cleveland were one and a half times smaller than heavy ones in displacement. 2) The vast majority of light cruisers were much smaller than the Cleveland.
Their tactical niches are also different

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Heavy cruisers appeared before the Washington Treaty and the same Americans built them during the war more than during the "Washington". The only thing that prevented the agreement was that the heavy cruisers could not grow to their "natural" size.
After the collapse of the treaty, strange designs with 15 152-mm guns ("very large light cruisers") died out
At the same time 1) even large light cruisers like the Cleveland were one and a half times smaller than heavy ones in displacement. 2) The vast majority of light cruisers were much smaller than the Cleveland.
Their tactical niches are also different

Honestly I do not think those designs would have survived either way. I mean, this may be just me but I feel that once you add that many guns on a ship you start hitting diminishing returns on your investment. Better to have 2 ships that can be in 2 places and have the same combined firepower even if the combined cost is somewhat more. It's the same reason why I don't believe we would have ever seen 20 inch battleships and 200 aircraft carriers.

Also, what is the realistic doctrinal use for such a ship? I mean, sure, you can lay down a hail of fire against enemy cruisers and destroyers. But that's about it. You'll still be unable to fight larger things like battleships and battlecruisers. But now your ship is the size of one and thus a capital ship that enemies will try and chase down with those battleships and battlecruisers.

 

[pecheneg]

I mean, just what is a "battlecruiser"

1. All cruisers are more or less universal
2. The joke is that battlecruisers are ships with a) an exemplary clear tactical niche compared to protected and armored cruisers. b) fairly uniform sizes. In fact, they are descendants of one line of armored cruisers. Large armored cruisers capable of playing the role of a high-speed ship of the line (which did not exclude use as raiders). By origin - the result of first Italian, then ... Chilean and Japanese poverty.
And armored cruisers are a model of uniformity in comparison with protected ones. There are variations only in size ranging from "larger capital ship" to "enlarged destroyer". At the same time, there are essentially two stable classes of full-fledged cruisers, 1) raiders and counter-raiders ranging in size from larger than a pre-dreadnought to slightly larger than a gunboat; they are also long-range scouts 2) cruisers for squadron service / scouts / armored destroyer leaders.
And a bunch of everything else.

 

[pecheneg]

Better to have 2 ships that can be in 2 places and have the same combined firepower even if the combined cost is somewhat more

They died out for a completely different reason - it was more profitable to put 203-mm on the Brooklyn hull. That's what the Americans did in reality, building a heavy cruiser based on it. And the Japanese simply provided for a replacement already at the design stage. This is to the question of "cruisers with 203-mm were needed only because of the contract

The problem is that one "doubled" ship will kill both competitors like cockroaches with a slipper. Even if we assume that its armament is just as light (just twice as many of the same guns).
1. "Gulliver" is twice "stronger". By concentrating artillery fire on one of the "midgets", he will drown one of the opponents twice as fast as they could drown him in the first approximation. At the same time, no one promised that the opponents would have time to disable half of his weapons.

In the second approximation

2. The Gulliver is a more stable artillery platform and it has physically better sights (the masts are higher and the rangefinder base is larger). As a result, it shoots further and more accurately in general.
That is, in reality, the ratio for midgets will be much worse.

But this is a theory. In reality

3. Gulliver at equal power... somewhat faster. 1) It is shorter than those two combined, which means it suffers less from friction resistance 2) but longer than each one individually - and suffers less from wave resistance.

4. Gulliver has a better surface/volume ratio. As a result, the armor is thicker, which creates a dead zone where he breaks through the armor, but the midgets do not.
In combination with 2. - this is an unpunished execution.

That is, Gulliver is bad for control, but good for direct combat.
At the same time , this regularity is especially obvious
will be 1) for armored ships. 2) with long-range artillery.
However, in reality, you can put a large cannon on a large ship, and in combination with 1 -2. this will give a multiplicative effect. Unless, of course, you are bound by the Washington Treaty.
Hence the whole kiloton race, especially after 1905.

Also, what is the realistic doctrinal use for such a ship? I mean, sure, you can lay down a hail of fire against enemy cruisers and destroyers. But that's about it. You'll still be unable to fight larger things like battleships and battlecruisers

1. Actually, this consideration works even better with light cruisers. They have a range of "convenient" goals even narrower.
2. In fact, he can. A 203-mm projectile relative to even a 410 mm cannon is about 152 mm versus 305 mm at Tsushima. Not a completely useless thing. But 152-mm cruisers turn out to be in the area of the then "scouts" / aviso.

 

[MightyToad]

I hope it will not be a nightmare to rig or texture. And on the texture, please don't feel pressured to go all out and make it look like the show.

Doing the color coded panels thing doesn't work that well. You can't really see if the different parts actually sync up with out an actual texture.
I finally sat down an cranked something out on blender today. This is just the ship. It isn't rigged. I will do that later this week sometime. I wanted to post it now, and let you work on the texture since this took so long to do (so far).

 

[Matsuda123]

View attachment 613799
Doing the color coded panels thing doesn't work that well. You can't really see if the different parts actually sync up with out an actual texture.
I finally sat down an cranked something out on blender today. This is just the ship. It isn't rigged. I will do that later this week sometime. I wanted to post it now, and let you work on the texture since this took so long to do (so far).

That's quite alright. I think it's coming along very well, and it's going to be a beauty once it is finished. I've got a good feeling about this ship... Pride of any Asian nation's fleet I'd say... The dragon's gold in particular is very striking. I'll working on the textures as well. Thank you for everything done so far. I'll probably make the Water Tribe's ships soon too, which will not be anywhere near as difficult since they would be Galley and Trireme replacements. They will also work well for Northern Native American ships I think.

 

[MightyToad]

I decided to rename the turret bones to distinguish them more from the new ones for the starboard side (even though there was no need). Everything seemed to be going fine. It worked in nifskope. But, in game the attachables and alpha fade weren't working.

I finally discovered that when I renamed the turret bones in the string palette in nifskope it added "DUMMY_Battleship_Hull" to every "empty" value for all of the control blocks. That meant I had to go through every single one and delete every single one. It was a long, tedious, painful lesson. Don't rename bones if you don't have to. If this had been a complex unit like the chariot I would have considered starting over. Adding new bones to the string palette is no problem. Before anyone says it; I know Sabotleihs method of using a separate string palette would have avoided all this. Adding new bones to the existing string palette is less work.

I made a alternative kfm that omits the damage geometry kfs because they are a bit obnoxious IMHO.