Matrix Games Forums

Is there any hard-coded attributes to the CLAA designation that one would need to be aware of before not using it for ship classes?

Thanks.

It has the attributes of a warship - and probably also a cruiser. I use it for some ships that are not exactly light cruisers - for example BBAA.
This means mainly that it can be added to most kinds of TFs and does not behave like a total wimp in combat.

Nemo's EA mod has quite a few available for the IJN as well ... thank goodness!

2 main types the Samurai Class only has 15 durability and 538AA, 4ASW, while the Nemo class 75 and 1616AA...

They are both really useful for CV & SC protection.

I don't see any attributes that make them problematic on the design side

As far as I can see the CLAA attribution may give them a bonus to AA defence but doesn't seem to cripple them in surface combat. As such it works as one would expect.
 
The one thing I'd say is that just because the designation is CLAA doesn't preclude one from applying it do DD-sized or even BB-sized vessels.

Nemo is correct. I have reclassified a US ex BB which is a gunnery training ship as a CLAA - and a number of other vessels - and they work fine. The training ship starts with guns disabled - she doesn't have a proper crew and is not manned when the war begins - preventing her from being effective until repaired up. In a similar way another BB converts from decoy ship to CLAA - both historical roles - although as a BBAA she has very few AA guns for her size. This was a World War I ship with good engines used in three different roles during WWII - HMS Centurian - first a duplicate HMS Anson for deception purposes (this works too) - then a AA defense ship - finally a self propelled breakwater at Normandy.

Thanks for this information but I was really wondering if there was any special characteristics the game had hard-coded into the CLAA designation like it does with certain database slots (such as slot 1618 for the US A-Bomb squadron).

I'm going to make the assumption there isn't so I've removed it from my ship designations.

Nah nothing special, and if there was this would apply to AI created TFs. There are plenty of rules for such and even more in AE. But CLAA is not treated differently for such. And BTW, IIRC, the CLAA desgination was actually not used until the post war period! So if we want to be purists, we should not have such, at least not in the USN!
[:)]

Actually the earliest date I found referencing the CLAA classification was 28 March 1948.

Thanks

Well, you made me go look. So this link looks useful, I think I'd stumbled over it before. Also note that "CVE" should only be used sparingly!

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_ships_list.htm

Interesting to note in there that the BC- Battlecruiser designation does not exist in that form, rather as a CC- Battlecruiser.

Well - in USN the things we usually call "battlecruisers" in WWII were officially CB -

but in the 1920s - the things we were building (that got turned into Lex and Sara) really were battlecruisers.

And - for those who want to outdo the Japanese BB wise - there was a monsterous design for an 80,000 ton ship - with eighteen inch guns - not in WWII - but WWI. The only limit on the design was it had to pass the Panama Canal. If memory serves - these were twin 18s - in four mountings. The only foreign contemporary with eighteens was HMS Furious - designed with two singles - built with only one - and that was wholly impractical (bursting rivets when fired). The same thing happened to the Yamato class - which could not salvo fire - and likely would have also been a problem for the US design. There is such a thing as too big.

IIRC, there was also a mega-maniacal idea for a project out there for a five triple turreted 18" gun ship. I don't think it got much beyond the "Hey, let's make a line drawing of this" stage, but someone in BuShips at least thought of it. Don't know how fast it would have been, but you would definitely have to pay attention if it showed up.