Converted BB/Cruiser

[Hemothep]

I actually quite like the first carrier tech, because you can get some carriers with 40/60 planes each for comparable few investments in tech and NIC, however: Is it ever worth it to actually convert BBs or cruisers?
If I take the ships you get at game start, I have yet to find a design that's more than 200 production cheaper than building one from scratch (which costs 7700 or 11500 respectively).

 

[Louella]

I'd have to check, but I think you can convert ships that you acquire from annexing countries, or taking control of navies of governments in exile. In which case it is sometimes useful, to convert old battleship 1s and cruiser 1s, into carriers, where they'd be more useful than staying as they are.

 

[STABBY5]

Make sure to not have a different engine in the design, this massively increases the cost. It's still not much cheaper.

 

[Hemothep]

Make sure to not have a different engine in the design, this massively increases the cost. It's still not much cheaper.

This may be it. Sadly it would probably slow the hole strike force down.

 

[STABBY5]

This may be it. Sadly it would probably slow the hole strike force down.

I think even engine 1 is about 30 knots. It's not bad at all.

 

[brainiac1530]

I think this is due to the bonus production cost for refitting armor. While it's possible to design and build armor-less cruisers, none of the "historical"/default designs are like that. Carrier hulls don't have an armor slot, so you always have to pay the dismantle cost of the armor, which is pretty substantial.

Make sure to not have a different engine in the design

I just looked at this in 00_ship_modules.txt; the refit costs for engines are indeed entirely disproportionate to their production costs. I didn't know about this before. I've rarely done refits for any reason.

 

[STABBY5]

I think this is due to the bonus production cost for refitting armor. While it's possible to design and build armor-less cruisers, none of the "historical"/default designs are like that. Carrier hulls don't have an armor slot, so you always have to pay the dismantle cost of the armor, which is pretty substantial.

I just looked at this in 00_ship_modules.txt; the refit costs for engines are indeed entirely disproportionate to their production costs. I didn't know about this before. I've rarely done refits for any reason.

I don't think removing the armor is counted. A hangar is about 2000, you add two and the total end up being around 5000 for a converted cruiser. Building one from scratch I think is about 8000.

And yes, you typically have to cut a large hole in the hull to replace the machinery. I just wish carrier armor was model correctly and that converted carriers would keep their armor.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

1922 battleships are a fairly-good conversion for navies with too many battleships and not enough carriers, since the engine is vastly-more effective on carriers than battleships (the main problem is treaty powers aren't allowed to, since the engine still costs too much to mount on carriers). Cruiser conversions are a lot worse, since they're both slow and small (and still cost a lot).

The problem is simply finding a time where you would rather make a 60-plane carrier rather than an 80-125 plane one, which tends to be with smaller navies (so they can skip CV research) rather than the big ones (which actually have excess battleships to convert). The US can get away with it on its oldest BBs (the New York class) after the war starts, though, since that way they get a few extra CVs to dump in ASW duty (since you can just dump them in a seazone as an airfield, rather than using them as a fleet carrier).

 

[Caeric]

1922 battleships are a fairly-good conversion for navies with too many battleships and not enough carriers, since the engine is vastly-more effective on carriers than battleships (the main problem is treaty powers aren't allowed to, since the engine still costs too much to mount on carriers). Cruiser conversions are a lot worse, since they're both slow and small (and still cost a lot).

The problem is simply finding a time where you would rather make a 60-plane carrier rather than an 80-125 plane one, which tends to be with smaller navies (so they can skip CV research) rather than the big ones (which actually have excess battleships to convert). The US can get away with it on its oldest BBs (the New York class) after the war starts, though, since that way they get a few extra CVs to dump in ASW duty (since you can just dump them in a seazone as an airfield, rather than using them as a fleet carrier).

I'd honestly argue that if you're going to fight at a significant numerical disadvantage but have a handful of old dreadnoughts lying around like Spain, Brazil etc. it's probably better to just convert them since all they will do realistically in their current form is slow down your task force enough that for example any of the Treaty Signatory navies' doomstacks of strike forces can easily catch you and sink them through overwhelming numbers. The Españas or Minas Geraises and other various obsolete ships will probably give you more bang for their buck that way since you likely wont have navy large enough to fight 1:1 realistically for some time. Better to have newer modern battleships/battlecruisers take their role without slowing down the fleet.

 

[Hemothep]

The US can get away with it on its oldest BBs (the New York class) after the war starts, though, since that way they get a few extra CVs to dump in ASW duty (since you can just dump them in a seazone as an airfield, rather than using them as a fleet carrier).

About that. Do they still need full screening if they are parked in a seazone?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

About that. Do they still need full screening if they are parked in a seazone?

It depends; technically with the AI, subs are only set to commerce raiding, so you can literally just park them alone. I'd always leave a few DDs with them, though. Multiplayer definitely justifies escorts, but depending on the seazone it might really not be that important to give more than a few DDs.