Triple Turret/TPS restriction are too strict

[Tankaxe]

I find it strange and very ridiculous that standard type battleships are impossible to make until the 1930s. And if you want to build one earlier it's gonna have to be with completely lackluster torpedo protection.

I highly recommend that the triple turret configuration with TPS greater than 2 speed limitation be boosted to 23kts at most, 21 kts at the least. These restriction should only be applied to fast BBs, BCs and CAs that would have narrow hullforms in an attempt to achieve high speeds.

18knots is just too mind boggling low of a speed limit and I highly recommend to be revised.

[WLRoo]

As far as I can tell, the 'Standards' had a 3" torpedo bulkhead that testing demonstrated was adequate against 140kg (300lb) of TNT - or slightly less than the warhead of a British 'light' 18" torpedoes of WW1.

That's definitely TPS 1, maybe TPS 2 at a squeeze.

[Squarehead]

Agreed.
It makes sense to apply the restriction to fast ships, (the Lexington, Pensacola, and Borodino classes all come to mind) but a wide slow standard battleship should really be fine. Ideally the system would be more involved and use some combination of speed displacement and turret diameter, but just raising the speed limitation slightly would go a long way.

[rs2excelsior]

Just dropping in to voice my agreement as well. I pointed out during the beta that you cannot build the US standard battleship templates which are in the game - I posted an example of a completely unchanged autogen design done a couple of years after the first standards which was illegal due to the triple turret rule. So the fact that those templates have TPS1 implies the devs think that’s a valid assessment of the early standard torpedo defense, but then the game doesn’t let you build them when they historically were built.

To be clear, I do like that there’s a reason to build a Pensacola style triple over twin arrangement, as otherwise that makes no sense to do in game and having the design considerations which drove that choice reflected in game can be a great teaching moment, but as-is it’s far too restrictive imo.

[GeneralNukeEm]

Torpedo protection in the Wyoming and New York classes was pathetic, consisting of nothing more than the double-bottom extended up the side and a narrow void space outboard of a coal bunker (which can't really be counted because its inboard bulkhead is pierced by scuttles). The Nevada and Pennsylvania class Standards had as a minimum a two-layer void system with armored torpedo bulkheads, although these were not of much greater effectiveness. The New Mexico class had a three-layer void system that was of greater depth, but it still provided only marginal protection. Only the last two designs, the Tennessee and Colorado class ships, had a highly advanced TDS which was again ahead of its time (1915).

According to this the last two Standard-type classes definitely should qualify as having TPS 2 in this game, while the first three Standard-type classes might have TPS1.

TPS hull/turret diameter restrictions should be determined by a combination of desired speed, displacement, and gun caliber (given that length and beam aren't modeled in game). The difference between the Tennessee, Colorado, and South Dakota (1920) classes illustrates this. A basically identical hull with TPS2 could fit triple 14" or twin 16" turrets, while moving to uniform triple 16" turrets required an additional 10,000 tons and 9' of beam (presumably, the South Dakota would not have worse TPS than its predecessor:

Tennessee and Colorado: 33,000 tons was enough for 4x triple 14" turrets in ABXY but only twin 16" turrets at 21 knots with the equivalent of TPS2.
South Dakota (1920): 43,000 tons was enough for 4x triple 16" turrets in ABXY at 23 knots with (presumably) the equivalent of TPS2.

Notably, the game doesn't have TPS restrictions for ships with all-forward gun layouts. A historical Nelson class is possible, with three triple 16" turrets all forward at 23 knots (or any speed you want) on 33,000 tons and TPS2.

[MaximKI]

Thanks for the feedback! We'll consider this for future updates.