I've found battlecruisers to be just as key to winning large fleet battles as battleships. Use the battleships to tank the damage, then use the battlecruisers to rush flanks or create openings. I had one battle with the US that was about 152 ships on their fleet with roughly 60 on my own. I saw an opportunity for the battlecruisers to break through a weak line, so I pushed them through. Because they had the speed and the firepower, they broke right through and started obliterating the US fleet in a crossfire. I crossfired a fleet over twice my size. That couldn't have been done without battlecruisers. A good battlecruiser is just as important as a good battleship design.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

Very much an ideal use case of the ‘true’ battlecruiser in a fleet action!

Eh, the notion of a battlecruiser wasn't a stripped down battleship. it was a cruiser with battleship guns. It's battleCRUISER, not BATTLEcruiser. They extended a protected cruiser schema to fit more boilers and bigger guns on it, rather than stripping down a battleship concept. The only exception to this rule outside the German Navy (where they instead used smaller guns) was HMS Hood, which had battleship guns in battleship amounts, with battleship armour, and cruiser speed. But she was the first "true" fast battleship really.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

Depends which batttlecruiser you look at 😂 The Renowns started their design with the Revenge class battleships as a base, similarly the Admiral Class (which morphed into Hood) were supposed to be based on the Queen Elizabeth class. Then you’ve got the courageous class which were definitely upgunned cruisers. They are a bit of a weird class of ship, that’s why for the game I point out that there are two pretty good archetypes, a ‘true BC’ with (fewer) battleship grade weapons, and the ‘cruiser killer’ with a normal amount of smaller guns. The ‘lightly armoured’ type that existed in real life isn’t a great choice in game for the same reason that they were phased out in actual navies - they’ll be thrown into a brawl and explode.

My favourite 1930s cruiser-killer is the Battlecruiser II hull from ~1907... because hulls with wing turrets can multi-target. For wiping out a dozen destroyers in as many seconds, there's not much better. My latest refit (playing as China they were part of the auto-gen fleet at the start of the campaign) has four triple 10"/42s Mk5, autoloaders etc. In a brawl with small ships, the ability of the wing turrets to auto-target something different to the centreline turrets is a superpower. And cheap too. These ships are fully tricked out with the best tech I can give them. Krupp V, coincidence V, top-tier radio, sonar, max bulkheads, max anti-flood, max range, and so on. All for $90,900,970. I really really cannot and will not scrap these ships.

Before the current patch, I'd occasionally build a sort of "artillery ship" battlecruiser: enormous guns, lots of speed, and not much else. Marginally useful against some of the armored bricks the AI can come up with late game, but definitely not designed to operate alone, and more of a "for fun" build than anything.

@htc3293

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but no armor was the same thing that let to the british battlecruiseres sinking at jutland

@pedrofelipefreitas2666

Жыл бұрын

My battlecruiser build is armored only for 8-inch guns, but those 4x 2 15-inch's are deadly.

Good stuff and a good concept for vids. You might also consider doing a country guide outlining critical hull developments and such for each country. I like your focus on keeping ships efficient (affordable and effective). Congrats on 10k and keep up the good work.

In my Brit campaign in the last patch, I had a bunch of really really effective BC classes. They were more along the cruiser killer style, with 12", 13", or 14" guns. One of the classes had 15" guns, but I refit them down to 13" seeing as those ships had proven themselves so much more effective. And cost effective too! Most of the 12-14" classes had a unit cost of around 90m, even with their 1940's refits. None lost, none scrapped, from 1916 to 1950. I built some "true" BC's too, but they were overall less effective, even in fleet battles, as the AI loved spamming hordes of CL's. I'm looking forward to the current game version being de-bugged a bit more so I can start a new campaign and more or less replicate them.

I personally with that setup probably would have gone with 4x triple 12" gun turrets for a battle cruiser

@ObsydianShade

Ай бұрын

I've found that works for me as well, and I'll often use 12.6"/320mm, which saves a good amount of weight to invest in protection.

Always love your UAD stuff Brother! Been playing for years but its always nice to see others takes on shipbuilding in UAD. I always sort of struggle with BCs depending on the era 1/2 the time I don't use them simply because the game likes to put them in unideal situations. So I usually make a 1st line and 2nd line BB and then a 1st and 2nd line CA instead.

I tend to do the opposite when it comes to citadel armoring, set the belt and deck to 20 & 10, max out all three layers, but then drop the belt and deck to like 12 & 6 and the game lets you keep the citadel armor values. 12 inch belt plus like 24 inchs total citadel armor is dumb but very effective

this battlecruiser design really proved itself in my campaign. thank you for sharing, guy. i was able to engage 1xBC, 1xCL and 1xCA from a distance, maneuver and chase down wounded ships very effectively.

the problem is the all or nothing armour having a 1.5 inch belt extended is going to cause massive damage to the hull still and deck extended always better to have more rounded protection. a battlecruiser is supposed to be a cruiser killer in itself

I absolutely swear by the Alaska/Stalingrad-style supercruiser concept with medium-calibre high-velocity long guns. My single most successful design in all my time playing this game used the Russian Experimental Battlecruiser hull with 12x autoloaded 12"/60 Mk5s in four triple turrets firing heavy capped AP with a muzzle velocity of ~1200m/s at 32kts on 51,000t. They were so ridiculously accurate and had such a ridiculous amount of pen that not even the 1940+ AI bricks could defeat them. Paired with a fast super-Nelson with 9x16" all-forward and heavy armour, nothing could even hope to stand in my way.

36:45 I should probably put shells with more pen on my cruiser-killers... but seeing the big damage numbers that SAPC can make activates my monke brain. Besides that, I put them in a task force with 2 BBs to help protect against anything that slips through the screening force of 5 CAs, 5 CLs, and 10 DDs.

Ive watched all of these tutorials now, and i can see where i have kept going wrong in my own game. I only got the game this week and i started probably the worst start imaginable, LOL. British 1890. I know i know, im an idiot. LOL But i always start my builds by making the displacement as big as possible, and then it takes me ages to sort the thing out. If i do it your way of lowest displacement then push it up to what's needed. OMG would that save me so much time. Thanx for that little nugget.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

You’re welcome! ☺️

I've usually maxed out displacement as the first thing, regardless of ship That may be why I keep getting bankrupt

I've not been playing for that long but I'm already a fair bit ahed on tech and facing off against and sinking fleets of almost 30 ships whilst only using 2 battlecruisers and 4 very heavily armed Heavy Cruisers and coming out without losing more than 20 crew, let alone any vessels. All I do is just sail around the edge of an enemy fleet in a long battle line and bombard them from the flagship's maximum visual range. I absolutely love the 4 and 5 triple gun turret setups with high speed and light armour but I have to say, balancing the weight ratios for longitude, roll and pitch is beyond painful sometimes.

Seems the German navy in the early days followed your pattern of deesign..Derfflinger and Moltke were reported as rather tough ships..

Battlecruisers are my faves. What’s yours?

@furlosifurfox5794

Жыл бұрын

Ive probably spent the most time building CAs or BBs but BCs can be interesting as well.

@lanequick7451

Жыл бұрын

@@furlosifurfox5794 I can't resist building an epic heavy cruiser. Cruiser battles are my favorite naval engagements.

I prefer to have ABYX or even AYX set up on BCs. The reason is biggest threat for them is Cruisers' ambush missions. Where you are outnumbered and often can't just leave. And keeping distance and having the firepower of two turrets is very helpful. And in other missions, I can just broadside, and does not matter if turrets are in front or in the back

I prefer the german style smaller guns but high armour. Found them to be most useful I can disengaging from battleships but hammer cruisers.

Interesting. The way I interpret it is: LC and AC/C are scouts, leaders and fast lone cruisers whilst battlecruisers are part of the battle line, hence the battle in the battlecruiser.

this video made me realize the US is limited to 15 inch guns on BCs i didn't realize that the US was the only nation with a limit like that on BCs considering i have only ever played them because i like how broken their economy is, and that you get generally let alone unless you involve yourself.

The most important ship in the game in my opinion. Sure, you can have the biggest battleship ever, but without battlecruisers, it’s pretty much dead against any fleet. Most battles hinge on good battlecruiser gameplay. Build them light, fast, but with smaller calibre and more accurate guns than battleships, stocked full of HE, and chase all those pesky cruisers and destroyers away!

I'd personally go for an Alaska style BC, fast with decent firepower

@lanequick7451

Жыл бұрын

Alaska is considered more of a cruiser killer I would say.

I find if you want to follow hulls historically then you have to lower the beam and raise the draft the starting beam is a bit much especially on capital ships. The gun barrels also need lowering too starting calibre on the later mark guns are a bit much. The Large cruiser should be part of the cruiser section as this is a true heavy cruiser this is what heavy cruiser's would have been without treaties.

You build a battle cruiser by minimizing beam and maximizing drought minimum top speed of 40 knots everything can be filled out afterwards

My battlecruiser are just battleships but on miniture and fast

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

This is a great way of running them

@antonhengst8667

Жыл бұрын

Germany is that you

@htc3293

Жыл бұрын

@@antonhengst8667 what do you mean?

@MrNicoJac

Жыл бұрын

He probably meant pocket battleships, lol

17:51 Gameplay Testing a Warship Design is a good idea. 18:30 Having an Established Enemy Fleet Custom Battle Scenario will help with determine the Strengths & Weaknesses and Design Flaws of your Warship Design. The Custom Battle Scenario isn't only about "How To Play With A Desired Warship Design". 26:32 Weapons Fire Rate Of Fire-Range-Damage Capability VERSUS Armor Capability / Speed Capability / Movement Range Capability / Damage Repair-Sustenance Capability / Detection Capability Weapons Fire Rate Of Fire VERSUS Weapons Fire Range VERSUS Weapons Fire Damage 28:46 That why Battlecruisers became a Pariah in Real Life; and, no Nation will ever classify a Warship Design as a Battlecruiser; even if, it is designed specifically for Battlecruiser Mission Roles. 29:34 "Real Battlecruisers" weren't designed for battling Battleships; however, often "Real Battlecruisers" were the only Warship present for dealing with an Enemy Battleship that had to be dealt with immediately. The "Cruiser Killer" Battlecruisers won't be tasked with killing an Enemy Battleship; at least, not by its lonesome like a "Real Battlecruiser". -- HMS Hood Versus KMS Bismarck 29:48 If your Standard Speed Battleship is a 25+ Knot Warship; then, your Battlecruiser needs to be a 30+ Knot Warship. If your Standard Speed Battleship is going to be 30+ Knot Warship; then, your Battlecruiser needs to be a 35+ Knot Warship. 42:15 That is a good Battlecruiser Design; although, it is a bit slow for Battlecruisers. 42:33 I would recommend creating a Custom Battle Scenario that has a given Enemy Fleet Complement with given Player-Designed AI-Controlled Enemy Warship Designs. 45:24 I have a prejudicial preference towards the 12-Inch Guns; so, my Battlecruiser Designs would be armed with 12-Inchers more often than not. -- Alaska-Class Battlecruiser 49:28 The 2-Inch Guns are totally useless; and, they are very few in number. It is better not to have the 2-Inch Guns altogether. Their Weight could be put elsewhere; or, be used as Reserve Displacement for Future Upgrade Designs.

Admiral Fisher memes are best memes

@silentneighbour4865

Жыл бұрын

Except that Jackie was right 😏

Is there a point in having radio's like RDF ?

@A_p_T53040

Жыл бұрын

If you have money to spare yes as they help a lot of things, if money is an issue I'd spend it elsewhere first.

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

The improve aiming speed and reconnaissance - you don’t need it at all if you have radar but the bonuses do stack so if you have spare displacement it can be useful

I play Germany so you get tons of big battleships and CAs the, I just build very small ship to kill cruisers

50 million in an extra knot in speed I was like aw helllll no

What's a "Jacky Fisher type ship"?

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

Big guns, big speed, tinfoil armour

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

The Invincible class battlecruisers are a good example of that design philosophy

@BrotherMunro

Жыл бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_battlecruiser

@lanequick7451

Жыл бұрын

The kind that was famously derided after the Battle of Jutland.

@senioravocado1864

Жыл бұрын

@@BrotherMunro ah okay nice

Here’s how, select a BC hull 😂😂😂

Okay but BC is $457,495,100 I can’t afford that

I had recently asked in another Video that you made what is the difference between a "Real Battlecruiser" and a "Cruiser Killer" Battlecruiser. I had to jump around this Video upon seeing it the first time (just now -- 14 December 2022 @ 14:00CST) to get my answer. As far as I am concerned, there are many Sub-Classes to Battlecruisers; as much as, there are many Sub-Classes to Battleships; as much as, there are many Sub-Classes to Cruisers (which is Sub-Classed either as CLs or as CAs within ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS); as much as, there are many Sub-Classes to Destroyers. Your Classification System isn't flawed. = = = = = = = = = = ¿Is it possible to create a Battlecruiser with a Battleship Hull? -- Most likely the Game System will recognize it as a Battleship; instead of, as a Battlecruiser. A Fast Battleship isn't a Battlecruiser. A Battlecruiser tends to be 5+ Knots faster than a Battleship. A Fleet with a 25+ Knot Standard Speed Battleship, would have a Fast Battleship that is a 30+ Knot Warship, within a Fleet with 30+ Knot Cruisers and 35+ Knot Destroyers; thus, a Battlecruiser within this Fleet would be a 30+ Knot Warship. A Fleet with Standard Speed 30+ Knot Battleships would have 35+ Knot Cruisers and 35+ Knot Battlecruisers and 40+ Knot Destroyers. = = = = = = = = = = One of the issues that I have with ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS as a Game System Concept is that the Player can't Mix-N-Match Nationality Technologies. The Evolutionary Nature of ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS is that NAVY FIELD 1 Players and WORLD OF WARSHIP Players can actually Custom Create/Design a New Warship Class based on a Chosen Nationality Technology Tree. = = = = = = = = = = As much as I talk about Battlecruisers on your Videos and on "Stealth17 Gaming" Videos and on "Battleship New Jersey" Videos and on "Drachinifel" Videos, I really don't know if I would, or wouldn't, utilize Battlecruiser Designs for my Naval Fleets within ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS Game System. Because of the nature of ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS, I would experiment with Battlecruiser Design within the Custom Battle Scenarios; and, within the Naval Academy Scenarios. = = = = = = = = = = 04:51 The Displacement Slider also Lengthens/Shortens the Hull Length. Longer Hulls will allow Higher Speeds; but, reduces the Ship's capability of making Smaller Turning Circles. Shorter Hulls reduces Higher Speed Maximum; but, increases the Ship's capability of making Smaller Turning Circles. Fast & Non-Maneuverable VERSUS Slow & Maneuverable 05:52 When it comes to Superstructure Design Selection, I am of two different camps: -- Visual Appearance (my Primary Camp Selection) -- Game System Mechanics Bonus/Penalty (my Secondary Camp Selection) -- Funnel Design & Placement (my Tertiary Camp Selection) Visual Appearance Camp is primarily about Weapon System Placement as the Main Factor for Superstructure Design. Visual Appearance Camp also is applied to choosing between Superstructure Designs when weighing in the differences between Bonuses & Penalties; as well as, choosing Funnel Design & Placement; when, Funnel Design is the Main Factor in Superstructure Design Selection. Funnel Design & Placement Camp is generally reserved for other Warship Designs; such as, Destroyers (Primarily). Funnel Design & Placement and Propulsion System Performance are important Design Features for creating High Speed Warship Designs like Battlecruisers. A Battlecruiser with the same Maximum Speed as a Standard Speed Battleship is a poorly designed Battlecruiser. 06:38 The Forward Superstructure Barbette is designed for Smaller Guns than Battleship Main Guns. -- 1930s Battleship Main Guns = 13-Inch Guns and larger My First Choice for the Forward Superstructure Barbette would be 9-Inch Guns (Battleship Main Guns). My First Choice for the Aft Superstructure Gun Mount Position would either be the 9-Inch Gun or the Main Gun Size on the Bow Deck. I am very prejudicial towards having the 9-Inch Gun as a Secondary Main Gun on my Battleships and Battlecruisers. 06:55 Constant Fore-Aft Weight Offset Balancing is necessary for good Warship Design. The Main Gun on the Forward Superstructure Barbette looks funny; because, the Barbette Structure is too small for the Main Gun Turret Size. -- Something that you mentioned in your recent Campaign How-To Video. Upon the Initial Superstructure Selection, I thought that the AB-X Main Gun Placement, or the A-XY Main Gun Placement, on the Main Desk would be possible. Now I see that it isn't. And, I see that the Aft Superstructure Gun Mount Placement can't support the Main Gun Deck Turret Design, as well. Thus, with this Hull Size (Minimum Hull Length), I would have a Two Turret Main Gun Battlecruiser. 07:21 "Destroyer Shooing" ¿Do you mean "Destroyer Shooting"? Oh, wait ... "shooing" is a word that I haven't heard in some time. 09:58 Another Main Issue that I have with ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS is that you can't customize HE Shell Designs and AP Shell Designs for each Gun Size; as well as, you can't customize the Ammunition Loadout for each Gun Mount Type, on the Player-Created Warship Designs. Main Gun Armament, and Secondary Gun Armament, and Tertiary Gun Armament, for each Warship Type have different Performance Requirements; because, each Warship Type has its own Expected Survivability Characteristics against the various different Warship Types. How I want the 2-Inch Guns to perform will be different from how I want the 4-Inch Guns to perform; therefore, the 2-Inch Guns should have different HE Shell & AP Shell Designs & Loadouts from the 4-Inch Gun He Shell & AP Shell Designs & Loadouts. 11:02 ¿How do you want to use the "True Battlecruiser" Design within the Campaign? -- A Fleet Warship (maybe as a Battleline Warship) -- "Lone" Open Ocean Hunters (maybe have an Escort Destroyer for Anti-Submarine Warfare protection) The Game System AI will pit any "Sea Control" Warship against any Opposing Naval Force from 1v1 Battles to 1v5+ Battles to 2+v2+ Battles; thus, you won't get to control whether your Battlecruiser is a "Lone Wolf" Hunter or a Fleet Battle Warship. "Task Force" Deployment Fleets work differently from "Sea Control" Warships in terms of Game System AI Opposition Selection. 14:36 Using the Hull Displacement Slider to increase the Hull Length, and Maximum Displacement Allowance, at this time, will require Relocating Existent Components and Rebalancing Fore-Aft Weight Offset. 16:03 RULE THE WAVES requires that your Warship Designs have some Unused Displacement for Future Warship Upgrades. ULTIMATE ADMIRAL: DREADNOUGHTS does not; but, for Campaign Scenarios, having Unused Displacement for Future Warship Design Upgrades is a good idea. 18:50 Real Life Battlecruiser Designs were basically Standard Speed Battleships redesigned with Cruiser Armor Schemes and Cruiser Speed Capability. Thus, in Real Life, Battlecruisers got a bad rap; because, they very often had to go up against Battleships; instead of, going up against Cruisers and Destroyers.

@rpscorp9457

Жыл бұрын

wall of text zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... learn to be more succint

@stevequerin2504

Жыл бұрын

@@rpscorp9457 ... ¿What? ¿Time Stamping my Comments as I was watching the Video isn't being succinct? Yea ... Wall Of Text. -- I get that. Also, KZread sometimes Times Me Out when I do this type of Comment.

Eghh... How many times you need to tell people that BC's are work horses of "sea control"? That BC's are equally fitted with main battle armament same as battleships due their main role of naval combat as - Recon and Engage. That BC without Radar2 and RBF is just waste on funds, and BC without a punch is just a fast floating rubbish bin. 🤦 Same people gonna say... That's how master see it. Ok, fine... Right till a moment when you finally find your self in a middle of multiplayer campaign 🤣🤣🤣 BC's are not a replacement of BB's, BC's are made to bring pain and power projection right to the outskirts of your economic interests tentacles. It's a broadsword in a chainmailed gloves that are made to rapidly reach enemies arse and whip it to the certain death. That's why they shall not to be just an discounted copy of BB's, BC's shall be potent to knock down equal adversary even if it's a battleships. If we talking about Large Cruisers or also known as Capital Cruisers such as Alaska - Guam or Kronshtadt class, it's just an maximal cruiser that in many cases are made for escort duties. I personally use BC's with Turbo-electric and 2x4 17,9"/50-57 guns + 2x4/5 21"-24" torpedo launchers fore and aft each, with stereoscopic RF, full recon inventory, max spacious quarters and max bulkheads. Yup, it's even with AL2 not kind of sharpshooter, but squadron of 3 such headless horsemans of doom can do a lot of bad things for both, enemies main forces and their convoy's.