Battleships & Battlecruisers - Out of balance in SC-36/-36U

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
geminif4ucorsair
General
Posts: 1286
Joined: Jun 08 2005

Battleships & Battlecruisers - Out of balance in SC-36/-36U

#1 Post by geminif4ucorsair » Jul 01 2017

Below is a record that was first posted on Steam Forums:

Battleships and battlecruisers are serviously UNDER-RATED in all three games.

Battleships are generally only 25-40% (depending on their age and size) of what they should be!

This creates the situation where it is almost not worth building them if they can be overwhelmed (defeated) by a small group of enemy cruisers. The USN Naval War College general gaming results indicated it would take 5 heavy cruisers to have a change to defeat any one of the then-"slow" battleships (Oklahoma, Nevada, etc. classes) - a criteria set before "Washington"/"South Dakota"/"Iowa" classes were commissioned.

The current attack numbers assigned cruisers (usually in the low-400s to low-500s) and battleships are only a moderate percentage above these numbers.

This needs to be changed.

While BG was provided a 'standard' method of rating all ships prior to terminating development of SR-1936, providing some 400 new units (air, land, sea and modifications to existing units), the spreadsheet provided was not used (apparently due to time constraints when the SR-36 plug was pulled (so to speak).

IF spreadsheet still exists and woud do wonders to improve the balance of martime warfare within all three games. [In addition to SR-36, a hundred or so new units were provided to extend the time period from 1945 thru early-60s, allowing (in particular) Germany and Japan to continue with units past 1945 (which as current designed, they have no units for domestic Research). Including in the Unit options were fifty or so new units in the period, including SAM and SSM-equipped units (a Yamato w/SAMs, German and Japanese proposed 20"-gunned battleships, a IJN late-45 heavy cruiser to follow "Tone" class (comparable units to USN Baltimore class), and a host of other for France, UK, and "Worldwide" research. Other units incuded went from the 1918s forward, including BB/BC, CA/CL and smaller ships, aircraft, etc.)

On that spreadsheet all units thru 1937 were fully ready for BG download.

Given the coming SR-Great War and the proliferation of new designs likely, this has some urgency for BG to implement.
---------
Nevel's Response:
Makes good sense.

The spreadsheet includes some uncompleted line Unit entries that must be finished to mesh with BG program, but at least individual Units thru '37 are done, along with a hundred or so post-45 designs (including some really cool German and Japanese aircraft types!), etc.

The naval units are balanced with a common forumula used for all ships in the game, so there are also changes to existing units.....have been playing SRU and some the earlier spreadsheet entries on aircraft and ground units are included in SRU (something CL must have gotten done after release of SR-36), That all good news........


Will try and get this spradsheet posted up somewhere (everything was thrown off balance when old computer failed and just now gettting WIN10 dowloaded, blah, blah, blah.)

Zuikaku should know how to contact me from BG forum posting of old but it is a good solution.
-------------
The Naval Attack rating is basically main and secondary (3" & above only) guns and torpedoes. Naval ships are also rated for various Target Types: soft, hard, and clsoe range.

The below data does not inlude other rating factors in Supreme Ruler series, including armor, sonar detection, etc. etc.

All types of ships are rated, from PC (patrol craft) to battleships, carriers, submarines, etc. etc. - including a re-rating for missile cruisers that began appearing in the late-50s. This does not reflect engagement Range, which a lot of WW One period ships can only engage within the single Hex (16-km) range, where more modern ships of the late-30s can engage into 2xHex range (not Tennessee/California Rebuild ('43-44) and Montana "naval attack" number is only ten percent or so differnt, but the range factor makes Montana signficantly more dangerous).

Some exxamples:

* * USS Nevada (as Mod. '42-as planned modernization) - [not assigned BG Unit # in SR-36)
Naval Attack - Soft TGT - 1025; Hard - 1400; Close - 1200
Naval Attack: 215
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 88; Low-Air: 192
This includes provision of Mk.8 FCS, new 5"/38 DP mounts, augmented 40-/20mm AA

* * USS Tennessee (BB-43) - As '43-44 rebuild - Unit #17875
Naval Attack - Soft: 1075 Hard: 1450; Close: 1400
Naval Attack: 410
Cost: $21.5M; Days to Build: 915
THis includes provision of Mk.8 FCS, new 5"/38 DP mounts, augmented 40-/20mm AA

* * USS Montana (BB-67) - As design, 1941 [not assigned BG Units # in SR-36]
Naval Attack: Soft: 1575; Hard: 510; Close: 1525
Naval Attack: 380
Cost: $87.5M; Days to Build: 1150

* * USS Montana (BB-67) - As commissioned, '46 [with twin 3"/50cal DP AA mounts]
Naval Attack: Soft: 1600; Hard: 550; Close: 1665
Naval Attack: 440
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 152; Low-Air: 188
Cost: $90M; Days to Build: 1150

* * Sovietskii Soyuz (Project 23) '36 as designed
Naval Attack: Soft: 1018; Hard: 425; Close: 1350
Naval Attack: 302
As designed at 59m,150-tons, 9x16"50, 12x6"(152mm), 8x3.9"(100mm), 32x37mm AA
Cost: $83M; Days to Build: 1125

* * Minas Gerais (Brazil) - Unit #17820 [As SR-36 '36 date]
Naval Attack: Soft: 720; Hard: 375; Close: 730
Naval Attack: 172
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 12; Low-Air 16
Cost: $8.86M; Days to Build: 850

* * Richelieu (France) - As designed, 1935
Naval Attack: Soft: 1298; Hard: 525; Close: 1200
Naval Attack: 205
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 39; Low-Air: 58
Low-Air anti-air only included 12x3.9" (100mm) , 8x37mm, 20x13.2mm, plus some capability with 6"(152mm)/55 tripl dual-purpose mounts.
Cost: $75M; Days to Build: 1045

* * Nazario Sauro (Spain) - Armored Cruiser, ahistorical; 1928; No assigned # in SR-36
Naval Attack: Soft: 437; Hard: 132; Close: 460
Naval Attack: 155
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 11; Low-Air: 36
Gun: 6x15"; 8x6" (152mm); 9x3.9"(100mm)
Cost: $29M; Days to Build: 800

* * Hermes (CVL 95) (UK) - Aircraft Carrier, 1921 as built
Naval Attack: Soft: 160; Hard: 45; Close: 90
Naval Attack: 13
Guns: 6x5.5" Mk.1; 3x4" Mk.V (102mm) DP, 8x12.5mm (.50cal) AA
Cost: $6.75M; Days to Build: 425

* * Independence (CVL-22) - 1942 - Unit # 16028
Naval Attack: Soft: 245; Hard: 145; Close: 245
Naval Attak: 2
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 6; Low-Air: 31
Guns: 2x5"/38 DP single, 16x40mm, 10x20mm AA
Cost: 15.75M; Days to Build: 645

* * Tiger (C.20) (UK) - As design for commissioning, 1946 - Unit #17236
Naval Attack: Soft: 368; Hard: 105; Close: 405
Naval Attack: 276
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 122; Low-Air: 43
Guns: 4x6" Mk. 26 twin auto; 6x3"/70cal DP
Cost: $33.75M; Days to Build: 560
Note: This was as rebuild from origional "Swiftsure"-type hull.

* * Fiji (C.58) (UK) - As design for commissioning, 1938 - Unit # 17716
Naval Attack: Soft: 314; Hard: 97; Close: 487
Naval Attack: 168
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 23; Low-Air: 53
Guns: 12 x 6" (152mm), 8x4" (102mm), 12x2-pdr. AA
Note: Similar to Uganda/Ceylon classes as designed, though both these were redesigned with reduced 6" to 9xguns and augmented light anti-air.

* * North Carolina BBG (SAM) - 1955; rebuild with twin-arm Terrier SAM - Unit #17898
Naval Attack: Soft: 408; Hard: 175; Close: 1064
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 222; Low-Air: 190
Guns: 9x16", 16x5"/38 DP; two twin Terrier I/II SAM launchers aft

* * South Dakota BBG (SAM) - 1963; rebuilt with twin-arm RIM-8 Talos SSM - Unit #17897
Naval Attack: Soft: 408; Hard: 175; Close:1064
Naval Attack: 262 (guns + Talos SSM)
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 326; Low-Air: 245
Guns: 9x16", 16x5"/38 DP, one twin RIM-8 Talos SSM launcher aft replacing 16" mount;
RIM-8A was conventional warhead, RIM-8B was nuclear warhead (not in SR-36). Talos was both anti-air and anti-ship capable.

* * Wichita (CA-45) - As designed, 1935 - Unit #17711
Naval Attack: Soft: 334; Hard: 135; Close: 446
Naval Attack: 135
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 26; Low-Air: 36
Guns: 9x8"/55 Mk.12; 8x5"/38 DP single; 10x20mm, 8x1.1" quad AA
Cost: $21M; Days to Build: 800

* * Baltimore (CA-68) - As designed, 1940 - Unit #17728
Naval Attack: Soft: 400; Hard: 144; Close: 534
Naval Attack: 135
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 46; Low-Air: 119
Cost: $41.54M; Days to Build: 950
From 1943, class anti-aircraft light weapons would be greatly augmented and post-war would be fitted with twin 3"/50cal DP replacing 40-/20mm AA mounts, furthering the anti-air range out to 7-nm.

* * Kitakami Class Torpedo Cruiser (CL) - No unit # in SR-36
Naval Attack: Soft: 66; Hard: 9; Close: 11
Naval Attack: 400 (significant impact of massive torpedo numbers)
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 11 Low-Air: 13
Guns: 4x5"/55, 4x25mm AA; 40x610mm (24") (Long Lance) torpedoes
Cost: $6.00; Days to Build: 400

* * Fletcher (DD-445) - As designed 1941 - Unit #17126
Naval Atatck: Soft: 110; Hard: 20; Close: 123
Naval Attack: 110
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 25; Low-Air: 51
Cost: 4.5M; Days to Build: 400
Fletcher class has several mod's, including the DDE (ASW), Anti-Air Warfare ( 1947 AAW Upgrade w/3"/50 mounts) and the earlier AAW Upgrade (1944, anti-kamikaze upgrade).

* * Emden CL (as in service, 1921) - Unit not included in SR-36
Naval Attack: Soft: 140; Hard: 47; Close: 164
Attack: 48
Anti-Air: Mid-Air: 6; Low-Air: 11
Guns: 8x5.9", 3x88mm C/16 DP single, 6x20mm AA
Cost: 7.5M; Days to Build: 500

* * Amatsukaze DD - 1915 - Unit #17316
Naval Attack: Soft: 42; Hard: 4; Close: 52 (impact of torpedoes carried)
Naval Attack: 44
Anti-Air: Low-Air: 2
Guns: 4x4.7" Type 1914)l 2x7.7mm AA, 6x450mm (18") torpedoes

* * Kanawha (AO-1) - Fleet Oiler - Unit #20050
Naval Attack: Soft: 9; Hard: 6; Close: 10
Naval Attack: 7
Anti-Air: Low-Air: 15
Guns: 4x5"/25cal single, 2x3"/50 single DP, 4x40mm, 4x20mm AA
US tanker design post-WW One; 4,990-tons.

———————-
Nevel's Response:
I mainly suggested sending it to Zuikaku (or posting it on the bgforums mod thread) as I am not sure how he is on the steam boards. I do not think the modding community is that active on these boards. I personally am not.

Also those statistics do look more appropriate than the original. However with the increased number of warships and upgrades of existing ships it just begs for the ability to upgrade units.
----------

If interested Zuikaku, you can contact me off-line at geminiad@widbey.com :-)

Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”