Protected Cruisers

[Carthaginian]

I am planning on using Grand Fleets to simulate battles between two fictional fleets that my friend and I are creating using Springsharp http://www.springsharp.com/. These fictional fleets are going to start off in the late 19th century, and as a result, there will be a large number of protected cruisers included in the fleets.

What would some of the more experienced players recommend as the best way to simulate a protected cruiser's armor scheme?

[cricket]

I'll defer to Kevin on this, since he's spent more time with the data than I; however, I believe for the most part PCs in Grand Fleets will have a belt/end armor value of 6 (i.e. unarmored) and a deck armor value of no more than 7 or 8.

[underling]

I guess it depends on whether you're talking first or second edition.
Most of my involvement, stopped with first.

In first edition, most PCs will have a belt of 5, with deck armors of 6 or 7.
Don't know what those quivalents will be in second.
Kevin

[Carthaginian]

I'm dealing with 2nd Edition. Thanks for the help.

What happened to this game? Seemed like a good one when i played through it, and it's completely dead in here.

[ericrrrm]

The armor formula changed in the 2nd edition? I suppose I might have to break down and buy the pdf just to see the changes.

I checked out Diadem, Edgar, and Powerful, and they do, indeed, have belts and ends of 5, and decks of 7 and 8 (1st edition).

One might wonder if the belts should be better because of the protection offered by the coal bunkers, but I think that protection was more theoretical than practical.

[Carthaginian]

The armor formula changed in the 2nd edition? I suppose I might have to break down and buy the pdf just to see the changes.

I checked out Diadem, Edgar, and Powerful, and they do, indeed, have belts and ends of 5, and decks of 7 and 8 (1st edition).

One might wonder if the belts should be better because of the protection offered by the coal bunkers, but I think that protection was more theoretical than practical.

THANK YOU!!!
I think the coal bunker protection was only a factor if the ship was on a short-duration mission. The full bunkers would afford a measure of protection to the ship... but empty ones- intentionally placed in the most likely areas for a shell to impact- with a lot of coal dust floating around in them might pose a greater hazard!

[ericrrrm]

Now I understand why you were asking.

I think the "empty dusty bunker" issue would not arise in the normal course of events. I think the plan was to use the "protective" coal last. Another plan was never to be steaming around on the last shovelful of coal, so unless something very unusual had happened, I think those bunkers would be full.

I suggested that the protection afforded by the coal bunkers was theoretical, rather than practical, because I know of no action in which a protected cruiser actually was protected by shells bursting relatively harmlessly in the bunkers. If anyone else knows of such an action, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

I envy you having a campaign. If your friend is insistent that some gesture be made taking protected cruisers' bunkers into account, how about this (which is totally off the top of my head, so I don't know if it works, and even if it does work, I don't know if it's worth the effort):

"Protected cruisers that have steamed less than 3/4 of their maximum range ignore critical hits caused by shells whose penetration die rolls were exactly the minimum needed for penetration."

The "3/4" is just a guess, but it probably should be something greater than 1/2. 2/3 is also reasonable.

If you're afraid this give protected cruisers an advantage without any corresponding disadvantage, how about this (accounting for those emptying bunkers and the potential for coal dust explosions):

"Hull damage caused by critical hits on protected cruisers that have steamed more than 3/4 of their maximum range is doubled."

[Christopher]

I was just reading about coal bunkers in Robert Massie's "Castles Of Steel" last week.

The book mentions that it was the German navy's practice in the years leading up to and during WW1 for coal bunkers to always be kept at the very least half full. It does not, however, go into great detail as to why. Protection may have been a factor, but more likely it was to have a large enough coal reserve for sudden bursts of speed.

[elsyr]

I was just reading about coal bunkers in Robert Massie's "Castles Of Steel" last week.

The book mentions that it was the German navy's practice in the years leading up to and during WW1 for coal bunkers to always be kept at the very least half full. It does not, however, go into great detail as to why. Protection may have been a factor, but more likely it was to have a large enough coal reserve for sudden bursts of speed.

Reading the same book myself - I got the impression that it was more the latter than the former - like making sure your car's gas tank never gets below 1/2 full, just in case.

Doug

[Carthaginian]

I was just reading about coal bunkers in Robert Massie's "Castles Of Steel" last week.

The book mentions that it was the German navy's practice in the years leading up to and during WW1 for coal bunkers to always be kept at the very least half full. It does not, however, go into great detail as to why. Protection may have been a factor, but more likely it was to have a large enough coal reserve for sudden bursts of speed.

Reading the same book myself - I got the impression that it was more the latter than the former - like making sure your car's gas tank never gets below 1/2 full, just in case.

Doug

Given the Emden's SOP while at sea (long ago read CoS), I'd say it was indeed the latter... after all, German cruisers were seemingly intended to be raiders more than anything else. In their unique state, coaling at every opportunity only made sense.