Rule the Waves 3 - Dev Diary #4 - The Ironclad and Pre-dreadnought era

[NotTooBad]

The Ironclad age (the 1890 start in RTW3) has some marked differences from the time of the First World War, and brings its own interesting tactical challenges.

Combat ranges tend to be short. Gun sights and fire control are relatively primitive. The heavy guns that are in existence might sem impressive, some of them at 13 inches of calibre. However, these guns have short barrels with low ranges and are very slow to reload. This is denoted in game by a gun quality -2 or -3. They fire at less than one round per minute, and have poor accuracy to boot. Armor penetration is low, so even if they do manage to hit something, it is uncertain if they will cause much damage. This means that medium guns are relatively more important. They have better rate of fire compared to the heavy guns of the era, and even if they do not penetrate armor, they can wreck superstructure and cause fires. This is the reason ships from this time only have a few heavy guns, but comparatively large secondary and tertiary batteries.

French and Italian Ironclads in combat

Poor accuracy and low armor penetration tend to make battles of this era somewat indecisive. There can be a lot of firing , but not very much serious damage. Torpedoes are in their infancy, and have short range and slow speed. It is hard to hit anything with them, but when they do hit, they can cause crippling damage. Damage control is primitive and torpedo defence systems are not developed, which means that a single torpedo hit can be fatal to an ironclad battleship.

An after battle look at the French Battleship Carnot. One torpedo is bad news for a predreadnought battleship, and two means a guranteed rapid sinking. As you can see from the ranges in the log, combat in this era tends to be at short ranges.

Poor damage control coupled with a weakness to fire of ships of this time means that fires often spread and get out of control. It can be a viable tactic to try to cause fires on enemy ships instead of penetrating their armour. Hits by high explosive shells (HE) are more likely to cause fires to break out than hits from armour piercing rounds (AP). In the doctrine screen, you can set the ammunition used by your ships against variuos targets. Try experimenting with using more HE, especially for medium guns and at longer ranges where AP shells will likely not penetrate anyway. If you do try that, remeber to adjust the ammunition loadout of your ships to carry a larger proportion of HE.

The doctrine screen with options for ammunition type used against different targets depending on range

The steam engines of the era are reciprocating engines that can only keep up high speed for limited time. This means that full speed is something to be saved for when it is really needed. If you zip around at full speed before closing with the enemy, you may find that your ships cannot reach their full speed when you need it most.

However, tecnical development is fast, and already in the first years of the 20th century, gun design, fire control and loading mechanization have progressed to the point where long range fire by heavy guns becomes more practical. Also, with better guns and evolutions in armor piercing shells, armour penetration will start to catch up with armour quality, and big guns can score penetrating hits at longer ranges. Explosives have advanced too, and shell hits will cause more damage. It is not a coincidence that the dreadnought battleship is developed around 1905, as technological developments have by that time made the all big gun battleship a logical next step. This leads us to the dreadnought era, which will be covered in the next Dev Diary.

[cormallen]

This early era offers lots of points of interest and features as much technological change as the early 1900s.

Has the game's Research System be expanded to address these?

Is the emergence of true Quick Firing 4 - 6 inch guns in 1892-96 covered? (This is a critical factor in why the Pre-dreadnought evolved as they did IMHO so should be a thing and will be a major Tech drop, rather like "Turbines" in the 1900s)

Will we see older Ironclads making up a significant portion of our legacy fleets? (I know they are likely still Works-in-Progress to some extent but many of the "Lets-Plays"/AArs we are seeing have VERY modern looking start fleets, the cruisers are especially Uber-Modern, generally all being VERY fast for 1890 and not looking out of place for a 1900 force... It's nice to see some Echelen Turret ships amongst the Battleships though)

Will the advantages of the rapidly evolving new Armour technologies be fully reflected?

Are open roofed barbette mounts a thing? (in RTW2 I mimicked them by having very thin roof protection...)

Is there a functional use for having full rigging? (It should be a fairly common sight in 1890...range advantage for cruisers perhaps?)

Are there some sort of "Torpedo Boat Bases" (early MTBs effectively?) to allow a nod to the "jeune Ecole" and indeed give a reason for "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" to emerge?

Are "Torpedo Gunboats" possible?

Can ships have Rams? (Not much impact in real combat but they were still being fitted for much of the period so it's a bit Meta to ignore them maybe?)


These are all things that many will be looking out for.

Cheers

Alan

[Dasein]

Regarding armour, don’t take my word for it but watching some of the AARs, it looks to me that in RTW3 armour quality in 1890 is just a bit inferior to that in 1900.

Looking at the guns penetration figures in RTW3, it seems in 1890 battleships only need 8in belts or so to stop anything at any range (i.e. armour in 1890 is better in the game than it was historically). It may have been a conscious choice to make the game easier, because if we give battleships 18" belts in 1890, as it was historically the case, it may be a bit confusing when after 1900 we start using the far stronger Krupp armour and end up with thinner but better protection! And 8" and 9" belts is what we already use in 1900, so it's easy to understand if we start using that already in our designs in 1890.
Anyway, to give us in RTW3 the 1890 feel with some of those beautiful ships with narrow very thick belts and low freeboard, AI is the only one designing everybody’s legacy fleet, and it gives us some really nice 1890 ship designs. Of course the set up is not perfect:
1. Giving ships very thick belts but of a better armour quality that it was historically the case, makes them in RTW3 impregnable to our main guns at any range. (I guess they still may be disabled or even sunk with some luck and a lot of effort involving our secondary guns, a lucky hit and torpedoes)
2. If 9in belts are perfectly OK, that means we can start building battleships in 1890 like the ones we would build in 1900: with normal and extended armour, normal freeboard, medium range and normal accommodation if we want to. That's what youtubers are doing, and it gives us a big advantage if all other navies keep on building old designs for a while.

In fairness, going more historically accurate on armour may have complicated the game experience, and not everybody is interested in armour (they would need to make clear to the player than the 16" of armour our gun can penetrate are normal steel, or Compound or whatever but not Krupp and that can be confusing for some) and it would also add further difficulty for the more mainstream casual player they want to reach now. We may have enjoyed it as we know what Compound or Harvey or Krupp armour mean, but for the uninitiated new player, RTW3 may already be complicated enough. Still, I can’t but think that from my own point of view it’s a lost opportunity: it would have been fun if we had been forced to use 16in belts to protect us against enemy guns and on limited displacement. In any case, it’s understandable if they’ve decided to keep it simple and make the 1890 start different on what it could be different (like new "old fashion" AI ships designs or the use of KEs in battle) and keep it similar to the 1900 start in others (like armour strength and ship design by us)

[WilliamMiller]

Alan -

Some very good questions, can tell that you are an aficionado of the period!

You raise many good points! Most of the factors you mention are included in the game, but not always to the same extent that they affected ship design in real history, as that would seem 'upsetting' in game - the difference in armor thickness being a prime example of likely confusion as mentioned by the other poster. Also, one of the intended uses for an 1890 start was to allow players to better setup their 1900-era fleets using in-game play.

[cormallen]

Regarding armour, don’t take my word for it but watching some of the AARs, it looks to me that in RTW3 armour quality in 1890 is just a bit inferior to that in 1900.

Looking at the guns penetration figures in RTW3, it seems in 1890 battleships only need 8in belts or so to stop anything at any range (i.e. armour in 1890 is better in the game than it was historically). It may have been a conscious choice to make the game easier, because if we give battleships 18" belts in 1890, as it was historically the case, it may be a bit confusing when after 1900 we start using the far stronger Krupp armour and end up with thinner but better protection! And 8" and 9" belts is what we already use in 1900, so it's easy to understand if we start using that already in our designs in 1890.
Anyway, to give us in RTW3 the 1890 feel with some of those beautiful ships with narrow very thick belts and low freeboard, AI is the only one designing everybody’s legacy fleet, and it gives us some really nice 1890 ship designs. Of course the set up is not perfect:
1. Giving ships very thick belts but of a better armour quality that it was historically the case, makes them in RTW3 impregnable to our main guns at any range. (I guess they still may be disabled or even sunk with some luck and a lot of effort involving our secondary guns, a lucky hit and torpedoes)
2. If 9in belts are perfectly OK, that means we can start building battleships in 1890 like the ones we would build in 1900: with normal and extended armour, normal freeboard, medium range and normal accommodation if we want to. That's what youtubers are doing, and it gives us a big advantage if all other navies keep on building old designs for a while.

In fairness, going more historically accurate on armour may have complicated the game experience, and not everybody is interested in armour (they would need to make clear to the player than the 16" of armour our gun can penetrate are normal steel, or Compound or whatever but not Krupp and that can be confusing for some) and it would also add further difficulty for the more mainstream casual player they want to reach now. We may have enjoyed it as we know what Compound or Harvey or Krupp armour mean, but for the uninitiated new player, RTW3 may already be complicated enough. Still, I can’t but think that from my own point of view it’s a lost opportunity: it would have been fun if we had been forced to use 16in belts to protect us against enemy guns and on limited displacement. In any case, it’s understandable if they’ve decided to keep it simple and make the 1890 start different on what it could be different (like new "old fashion" AI ships designs or the use of KEs in battle) and keep it similar to the 1900 start in others (like armour strength and ship design by us)

I've always regarded the Game's "Armour Thickness" to be a value in "Equivalent Inches of Krupp Cemented" as that is the standard (near universally) in use for anything being built in 1900. The various IG Techs that then drop to incrementally improve on Armour Quality do quite a good job at reflecting the real incremental improvement that carried on throughtout the whole era of armouring ships.

This means that simulating earlier armour types merely requires coming up with some method of finding an equivalent value in "Krupp Inches". Luckily the late 19th century was abristle with enthusiastic experimenters firing massive guns at test plates and surplus Ironclads so we really do have some fairly reliable "Figures of Merit" for comparing the types that emerge (from the early 1880s when Compound turns up to roughy 1896 when Krupp becomes the new-kid) with plain Iron, which was obviously their default.

It's possible to work back from Iron to Krupp fairly easily to allow the older types to be scaled down appropriately:

For example
6" of early Krupp Steel (our "Game Inches") is roughly equal to...
c.10 Inches of Harvey Steel (as used in most of the 1st generation of Majestic style pre-Dreadnoughts designed the first half of the the 1890s, it's face hardened Nickel Steel)
c.12.8 Inches of Compound Armour (a laminate of Steel and Iron plates and the widely used in the the 1880s...)
Between 11.3 and 12.8 Inches of Steel Armour (this competed with Compound throughout the 1880s eventually, with improving alloys, winning as "Nickel Steel" becomes available in c.1889)
c.16 Inches of plain Iron. (By the way, the thick wood backing fitted behind most Ironclads armour is worth about 1 inch of Iron per Foot of Teak etc...for this game that's barely noticeable but if you're writing for the earlier era you need to factor it in)

This means that we can build (In Game)

HMS Alexandra (Central Battery Ironclad, late 1870s - at least half the protected warships afloat in 1890 should be this style of beastie)
12 inch Iron Belt = c.4.5 inches of our Krupp Steel Equivalent
Guns: 12 x 10+11 in Muzzle Loading Rifles (Q-3) : these would penetrate about 12 inches of Iron at 1000 yards, equal to about 4.5 inches of KS

HMS Inflexible (Masted Turret Ship, in service early 1880s)
24 inch Iron Citadel = c.9.5 inches of KS
Guns: 4 x 16 in Muzzle Loading Rifles (Q -3 if anything is!) : these would penetrate about 22.5 inches of Iron at 1000 yards, equal to about 9 inches of KS

HMS Royal Sovereign (proper Pre-dreadnoughts, in service early 1890s)
18 inch Compound Belt = c.9 inches of KS
Guns: 4 x 13.5 in BL (Q -2) : These would penetrate 28 inches of Iron at 1000 yards, equal to about 12 inches of our KS

HMS Majestic (Pre-dreadnoughts, in service late 1890s)
9 inch Harvey Steel Belt = c.6 inches of KS
Guns: 4 x 13.5 in BL (Q -2) : These would penetrate 28 inches of Iron at 1000 yards, equal to about 12 inches of our KS

As you see, none of these ships are utterly out of sorts with penetrating their own Armour at the expected battle ranges and reflect the endless Guns vs Armour race quite nicely... to incorporate them into the 1890 game you only need an explanation of the equivalence method and sonething to make sure the older armours are appropriately cumbersome? (when I built my own retro fleets for RTW2 - QV - I fudged the ships displacements etc as compensation as needed)

I understand that this sort of detail maybe beyond the interest and casual understanding of many players new to the ERA but since the designers CHOSE to expand into the 1890s it is a little disappointing that they are just using the early area as a vague preface to the later stuff?

Part of the joy of RTW is the challenge between building the best now vs building better in 2 or 3 years time, the race against evolving technologies lends a constant freshness to the choices you must make as "First Sea Lord" or whatever. If the new decade becomes ten years of relative stability (which it absolutely wasn't!) then that would be a shame IMHO. Hopefully patches and especially the lively modding community will be able to fill some of the gaps over time?

[cormallen]

Alan -

Some very good questions, can tell that you are an aficionado of the period!

You raise many good points! Most of the factors you mention are included in the game, but not always to the same extent that they affected ship design in real history, as that would seem 'upsetting' in game - the difference in armor thickness being a prime example of likely confusion as mentioned by the other poster. Also, one of the intended uses for an 1890 start was to allow players to better setup their 1900-era fleets using in-game play.

I'm not quite sure why technological advance and it's impact on ship design and naval warfare in general should be shied away from as "upsetting"? Surely the balancing act between "What we got" and "What we could have in five years time" is this splendid game's USP? Are there players being "upset" by Dreadnoughts or aircraft carriers? (genuinely there's always been a steady grumbling from some quarters on the forums about "Can we stop aircraft being a thing?", which you've quite rightly ignored! It's nice that delaying air techs is an option though...)

I've always wished that there was an option for players to experimentally overide some of the design limitation to allow easier duplication of real life ships that baffle the AI rather...perhaps allowing players to "unlock" 1890 legacy fleets to try their hand at making their own "Thunderchild" might emerge in a patch one day? In a Single Player game there's no great harm if they end up creating stuff for their own interest?