From a meta standpoint, Size 1 and Size 0 battles are not common. Size 2 battles are. Those call battlecruisers. The loss of a heavy battlecruiser is a serious blow, providing thousands of VPs to the killer. A single dead ship can manage to be a Major Victory.
As long as you can keep killing their battlecruisers every few months, feeding in VPs, you can ignore the blockade, forget about their raiders in your cavalcade of notable victories, and win the war. Battleship superiority can win wars, if it's allowed to. Battlecruisers will always get a chance to fight, and they will win wars. There's a reason why the newest version of the game shift the AI's emphasis off the battle line.
As for surface raiders, anything they could accomplish would be achieved better by the equivalent cost in Medium Range Submarines; being in the Med, they'll be counted as able to attack in Northern Europe if we end up in a Worst Case Scenario with the UK.
So yeah super BCs/fast battleships. They should be able to put the hurt on everything, even BBs with all the accuracy and range developments that have happened.
Maybe something like a smallish but zippy 8'' CA if you feel you will need to do more cruiser bullying than you will have BCs available.
Edit:
It seems like a pretty awkward position to be building a big battlefleet. You don't need that much to beat France or Italy again, you can't build enough to beat UK, and you don't have the basing to seek a decisive battle with Russia, Germany or the USA.
If the alliance with the UK had just been renewed it might be different, and you could hope to beat Russia or Germany while it lasts, and maybe grab a naval base in North Europe for future operations. But since there's no guarantee you'll get another alliance offer you can't really base your strategy around this idea.
The only design work for a successor to the Tegetthoff class was an enlarged version of the that ship. The proposed follow-on was tentatively named the "Erherzog Karl," after the dynasty's most successful commander. The favored design massed nearly 5000 tons more than its predecessor, with most of the extra weight going into an elaborate improved Torpedo Defense System and increasing the armament to twelve 35.5cm guns. Belt armor was increased slightly almost as an afterthought. The vessel would be more capable than the Tegetthoff class ships but still well-suited to operate in conjunction with the older vessels as part of a battle line. There was little call for alternative designs, since the 38cm gun offered by Skoda provided little advantage over the more established 35.5cm naval rifles. The possibility of mounting eight 16" guns was explored but rejected due to the unavailability of a domestic model and unwillingness of the Reichsrat to pay for foreign naval rifles.
Schlachtkreuzer Projekt IG
Admiral Njegovan's favored design for a new battlecruiser was the seventh iteration of the "Kaiser" class design study, which combined the 35.5cm rifles of the battle-line with a 30-knot top speed. The proposed ship had protection superior to the Habsburg class battleship with firepower needed to counter even the most modern ships. Even so, there was a strain of criticism in the navy that it sacrificed too much armored strength to truly take up a place in the battle-line, especially in light of findings from the Battle of Sirte. The more trenchant criticism was the sheer cost of the design; at 154 million kronen the "Kaiser" design derivative was more costly than even the Tegetthoff class successor and would place a strain on the Empire's naval budget. The difference between each version of the IG design and the cheaper (if slower) alternatives was equivalent to an entire light cruiser. On the other hand the IG undoubtedly would be a match for any battlecruiser afloat and quite a lot of battleships as well.
Schlachtkreuzer Projekt IID
A somewhat cheaper alternative design based on older drafts for the "Kaiser" class, the IID proposal drew more heavily from the Graz class battlecruisers already in service. It achieved a cost savings over the IG design draft by limiting design speed to 28 knots and choosing an armament of nine 33cm guns in place of Njegovan's desired 35.5cm guns. The design team argued that giving up firepower for speed rather than compromising deck protection was a more survivable tradeoff in the battle-line, and that the available 33cm gun provided superior ballistics and near-identical penetration values to the larger 35.5cm naval rifle. Njegovan and his supporters argued that while the ID would be suitable for operations with the Scouting Group it would be at a disadvantage against independent large battlecruisers boasting 14" or even 16" guns, and that a 30 knot design speed was necessary to be able to run down any competing or lighter cruiser design. Admiral Haus preferred the IID on cost grounds given the need to also build a large number of smaller cruisers which could perform counter-raider patrols anyway.
Schlachtkreuzer Projekt IIIC
Junior naval engineer Teodor Petrescu and his team presented their proposal for a battlecruiser as well, as a radical departure from contemporary naval architecture. The Young Turks in the naval development staff had taken the Empire's early use of the triple turret to its logical conclusion with a quadruple turret, and then had mounted all the armament forward. This allowed them to concentrate shell storage in a single smaller magazine space, which allowed for a compact armored citadel. The resulting weight savings could go into heavier armor than either conventional proposal while delivering the same firepower as the most ambitious "Kaiser" derivative. The radical design attracted a lot of attention and split the conference into those who thought they saw the future in concentrated forward firepower and those who thought it was a clever but impractical thought-experiment. More trenchant criticism came from Admiral Njegovan, who observed that most of the real cost savings came from accepting a 28 knot top speed, which he felt inadequate given the observed capabilities of British and French battlecruisers. Admiral Haus likewise pointed out that one shell hit could potentially disable half the ship's guns, and called into question the design's suitability for the line of battle.
Grosskreuzer Projekt IB
The use of a lighter, less capable, but cheaper cruiser platform for colonial presence and long-distance raiding found some support in the Naval Office, and especially with War Minister von Aarnau. In a sense this was building upon the comparative success of the Lissa class Large Cruiser, though the design was another step down from those ships. The proposed Grosskreuzer had no role at all in a line of battle, and would obviously be outmatched by heavier scouting elements common to enemy navies. However, the excellent 20cm naval gun was absolutely sufficient to destroy lighter cruisers with ease, while armored protection could provide effective immunity against the common 6" cruiser gun for medium-range engagements. A top speed of 30 knots would render the ship fast enough to escape from enemy battlecruisers for the foreseeable future, while ten 20cm guns and eighteen rapid-fire 12cm guns would expeditiously dispatch any vessel small enough to catch up to it. At least, such was the theory.
Grosskreuzer Projekt IBa
A relatively simple alternative to the main grosskreuzer proposal traded two 20cm guns for greatly extended range, with the proposal that the ships operate in the South Atlantic or Eastern Pacific to chase down enemy commerce that would otherwise remain safe from attack. The main attraction was the note that four of the grosskreuzers would cost only as much as two of the cheapest battlecruiser proposals.
Kreuzer Projekt IVD
There was a broad agreement in favor of building a large number of new light cruisers given the woeful state of that arm of the navy after retirement of the Szigetvar class and the disappointments of the Novara and Kobarid classes. And with the expansion of the Austro-Hungarian colonial presence to Asia, a cheaper vessel capable of independent operations was greatly desired. The main focus of the lighter cruiser groups was on this topic, and the fourth iteration of the colonial cruiser produced a design fit to specifications. An updated rapid-fire 12cm gun was chosen as an effective lighter armament and the ship was armed with nine turreted guns to provide more-than-adequate firepower to coerce natives or to fend off attack by equivalent foreign ships. Torpedoes and mines were included to allow for supplemental operations in support of the fleet and a 29 knot top speed made it a viable choice for screening a capital ship or for raiding in the sea lanes near Austrian ports.
Kreuzer Projekt IIG
The design team responsible for the Kobarid class cruiser had, of course, taken a number of attempts to correct the deficiencies of that ship. A redesigned power plant utilizing newer turbines from Ganz & Company was determined to provide enough spare horsepower to insure a top speed of 28 knots. Turret arrangement was adjusted to provide a superfiring 14.9cm gun in the B and X positions, providing better fore and aft arcs of fire while retaining the same weight of fire in the broadsides. The addition of above-water torpedo launchers also greatly increased the ship's torpedo throw-weight, although not without sacrificing the ability to reload in battle. The heavy armament of 14.9cm and 10cm rapid-fire guns placed the ship's intended role firmly in the screen to ward off attacks by enemy destroyers and lighter torpedo boats; though 3" of belt armor was expected to provide a modest advantage against other cruisers. The main complaint about the ship was the cost of its comparatively high performance; at 35 million kronen it cost 10 million more than the proposed colonial cruiser, which in many ways would be more than adequate in the role given to the Kobarid derivative.
Torpedokreuzer Projekt
The torpedokreuzer was an attempt by STT to make use of the basic Kobarid frame and propulsion layout for a more effective role. The reduction of the armament to nine 12cm guns and addition of two extra boilers boosted speed up to 30 knots. Further rearrangement of the superstructure produced enough space for three quadruple torpedo tubes, allowing a spread of twelve torpedoes to port or starboard. The heavy torpedo armament represented a major threat to capital ships, while the armament was adequate for a screening role; the provision for mine storage also made the proposed design useful for support warfare in the Mediterranean. Armored protection was above average, retaining the Kobarid class's protection scheme. This was a plus in some minds, though others pointed out the risk of loaded torpedo tubes exploding if hit limited the design's survivability in combat and that a lighter armor would be justified to lower weight and increase speed or to add yet more torpedoes. The eye-watering cost of the ships, at nearly 40 million kronen, was the biggest obstacle the torpedokreuzer faced to acceptance in the Kriegsmarine.
STT Zerstörer 1919
The need for a replacement or follow-on to the Turul class destroyer was on the discussion, though it was unclear whether or not the need could be considered pressing. The KuK Kriegsmarine still boasted 32 relatively modern fleet destroyers, larger than the total destroyer force of most of its rivals; as well as 24 older torpedo boats retained in service for coastal patrol and anti-submarine escorts. STT had an export design available that retained the torpedo armament of the Turul class, with six 12cm guns mounted three forward and three aft. Speed was increased to 34 knots, and export customers like the Republic of China Navy (which had purchased three over the preceding year and cancelled a fourth when funds dried up) treated them almost like small cruisers. Admiral Haus felt the Turul class was adequate for the time being and that the STT design offered no decisive advantage for the Kriegsmarine relative to its rivals. If anything he was more interested in gradually replacing the older torpedo boats with cheaper corvettes as a patrol and escort measure once their frames worse out. Admiral Njegovan insisted on a need for at least four destroyers for every capital ship and wanted faster escorts for his battlecruisers, however.
Why do the secondary guns have more barrels than the primary ones? And why do you have 2 guns in the forward position instead of one? This sets off my autism! [/nerd]
In all seriousness, most of these look like good designs, but I'm pretty sure that if you have 2 guns in a forward position like that, the one on the side of the targeted enemy will fire and the other one will sit around being dead weight. Forward/Aft wing turrets get a pass if you don't have super-imposed turrets for that bracket (or if you do, and combine both of them for Maximum Dakka, which in turn is only acceptable if the guns are pretty small anyway so you may as well have a shitload).
On the other hand, my disdain for the secondary guns is completely irrational. As far as gameplay goes. It does raise questions lore-wise about why smaller vessels don't have access to double/triple turrets of that caliber.
If I had to pick, I'd say go with the Schlachtkreuzer IID, the Grosskreuzer IBa, and the Kreuzer Projekt IVD over the proposed alternatives in each class.
Here's a question, basing off of this picture, you'll have a positive monthly balance of only 3'672'000 once the Tegetthoff and Zrinyi leave their slips. Is that even enough to cover the monthly build cost of any of the proposed BBs or BC? I feel like it's not, assuming they'll cost more per month than the Tegetthoffs. So you're probably going to be building the smaller ships until the Szent Istvan and Sirte vacate their slips, or you get some budget increases. And by then the designs are going to have to be revised for new technologies...
Am I missing something and you can free up more budget to make it worthwhile building a new capital ship class right now? I'm guesstimating that you'd need at least 10'000'000/month to build a pair and I know I dislike building one at a time, since it might result in a one ship class that feels like a waste of design money when some you get some new revolutionary tech.
Otherwise, if there are no budget increases (which I guess is pretty unlikely, but I don't know how unlikely, and I know you can also get bad budget events), you're looking at total budget of 82'571'405 over the next 25 months by my calculations.*
That could cover three IVD, or two IIG, with over 10'000'000 to spare in both cases; or two Torpedokreuzers, or one IIG and two IVD.
You could also build one of the CAs with around 20'000'000 to spend elsewhere, but again I'm vastly in favour of building at least two sister ships in parallel, and the CAs are probably a lower priority than both the CLs and the BB/BCs.
Personally, I'd probably lay down the two IIGs to fight CL battles and scout for the fleet, and save up any extra I could scrape up to refit some old CLs for colonial service. The silent service would cover raiding duties, and therefore also get some love if it needs it. At some point. But I am by no means an experienced player of this game and I've only had like two games that got this far into it, being something of a compulsive re-starter.
Don't worry too much about the specifics of what can be afforded and when. I can halt construction of a capital ship for a couple of months and cancel enhanced training and play games with Reserve units and so on, and of course will be taking tension-ratcheting, budget-increasing options down the line. There are some obvious trade-offs involved in that cheaper ships mean more ships, and that say building four of the Large Cruisers (roughly intended translated for grosskreuzer) can be traded against two Battlecruisers, or going with four of the cheaper Battlecruisers instead of the most expensive option will practically allow for four extra light cruisers and so on. We're trying to set an optimum force structure and balance between individual unit quality and necessary (or desirable) numbers of hulls.
Also specific designs are less finalized than they are indications to you of what is possible in the next few years; barring the eventual development of larger guns, and multi-gun turrets for CLs and DDs, there aren't many important advances in ship design left. There's still Advanced Directors and a lot of structural improvements available, but the latter just decrease weight. I will give the designs some final tweaks and optimization when it comes time to actually lay down a ship of the class, obviously; they just represent where Austro-Hungarian naval engineering is at currently. And provide opportunities to discuss more fundamental questions of what each class really needs. Is the torpedokreuzer a good idea? Does the grosskreuzer actually have a role to fill? Are quadruple turrets a worthwhile risk? Does the battlecruiser design need to hit 30 knots design speed or is it worth reducing to 28 knots for more armor and a cheaper pricetag? Do we need a 6" armed fleet scout CL or is the 5" gun sufficient to cover light cruiser functions? Etc and etc.
That said it does look like there's strong sentiment in favor of building more cruisers (and more medium submarines), but what kind of cruisers are best and how many are ideal?
Just giving my 2 cents here. Keep in mind I've never actually played the game, so if anyone says something that contradicts what I say, go with what they said.
Your battleships are still short-ranged things, yes? If so, these will make an excellent stop-gap. If shit really goes down, you could *probably* move a battleship to your new colonies, but the current designs look like they'd be enough to tell anything short of a battlecruiser to fuck right off.
I've been informed that 6 inch guns get a penalty to targeting DDs that 5 inchers do not. They're going to be torpedoing or running away from anything bigger than they are, correct?
That said it does look like there's strong sentiment in favor of building more cruisers (and more medium submarines), but what kind of cruisers are best and how many are ideal?
Don't worry too much about the specifics of what can be afforded and when. I can halt construction of a capital ship for a couple of months and cancel enhanced training and play games with Reserve units and so on, and of course will be taking tension-ratcheting, budget-increasing options down the line. There are some obvious trade-offs involved in that cheaper ships mean more ships, and that say building four of the Large Cruisers (roughly intended translated for grosskreuzer) can be traded against two Battlecruisers, or going with four of the cheaper Battlecruisers instead of the most expensive option will practically allow for four extra light cruisers and so on. We're trying to set an optimum force structure and balance between individual unit quality and necessary (or desirable) numbers of hulls.
Also specific designs are less finalized than they are indications to you of what is possible in the next few years; barring the eventual development of larger guns, and multi-gun turrets for CLs and DDs, there aren't many important advances in ship design left. There's still Advanced Directors and a lot of structural improvements available, but the latter just decrease weight. I will give the designs some final tweaks and optimization when it comes time to actually lay down a ship of the class, obviously; they just represent where Austro-Hungarian naval engineering is at currently. And provide opportunities to discuss more fundamental questions of what each class really needs. Is the torpedokreuzer a good idea? Does the grosskreuzer actually have a role to fill? Are quadruple turrets a worthwhile risk? Does the battlecruiser design need to hit 30 knots design speed or is it worth reducing to 28 knots for more armor and a cheaper pricetag? Do we need a 6" armed fleet scout CL or is the 5" gun sufficient to cover light cruiser functions? Etc and etc.
That said it does look like there's strong sentiment in favor of building more cruisers (and more medium submarines), but what kind of cruisers are best and how many are ideal?
Well, priority wise, I'd probably go something like:
1. Minimum amount of new CLs (I wanna say 4),
2. BCs for replacing the Lissas (probably accept a smaller class than Lissa if going for super BCs) ,
3. Comfortable amount of new CLs (another 4?),
4. BBs or BCs aiming to match neighbours and close peers (Italy/France and Germany, I guess?).
With as few regions as you have to cover, I feel that going quality over quantity would be better for the cruisers. Which would mean the Schlachtkreuzer IG over the Schlachtkreuzer IID and a 6" CL design. Though, I do like the IID's gun arangement about as much as the IG's, and it's extra deck armour. Only two quad turrets seem like putting too many eggs in one basket. The Dunkerque and Richelieu classes had internally subdivided turrets to compensate, but I don't think the game supports that. The BC speed is also heavily reliant on what the AI has/is building.
If you went with a 28 knot BC, then I feel that a 30 knot CA might have some role, but if you've got 30 knot BCs and aren't covering that many regions, they're probably not useful enough to be worth it. And since you seem to want to take the Lissa-class away from battleline duty, the CAs really become redundant.
I really like 6" guns on the CLs, since they so often end up fighting each other. I don't feel the dedicated torpedokreuzer, I like CLs to be all rounders. If the game let you influence "doctrine," in this case by seeking more night battles then it would have more use, IJN style. Even so, I feel like 8000t is too big for something that's expected to put itself in a lot of danger trying to torpedo things that can swat it in one hit. I am curious about why you like the two turrets forward design. Long chases?
6" gun cruisers are amazing. With proper directors they can devastate enemy CLs in just a few salvos, and even get significant damage on CAs. They may be less accurate against DDs, but the hits they do land do enough damage to cripple them with only 2-3 solid ones.
Is the torpedokreuzer a good idea? Does the grosskreuzer actually have a role to fill? Are quadruple turrets a worthwhile risk? Does the battlecruiser design need to hit 30 knots design speed or is it worth reducing to 28 knots for more armor and a cheaper pricetag? Do we need a 6" armed fleet scout CL or is the 5" gun sufficient to cover light cruiser functions? Etc and etc.
No idea. I've never attempted to build one to know how they perform. It would be excellent for night actions, but...then the rest of your fleet is only blah.
Quadruple turrets are always worth the risk. So are triples.
I rarely build battlecruisers faster than 28 knots, actually. It's my default speed for battlecruisers.
Personally I always build excessively powerful light cruisers with 6" main guns and 5" secondaries because I'm insane, but they're very expensive.
If we really want to pursue the grosskreuzer concept, then the obvious answer is to reduce the Lissa class, and build a 25.4cm cruiser class. But we already have the Lissas, so that seems less important.
I could be wrong, but I think I remember someone saying in the RTW thread that you get an accuracy penalty if your main and secondary guns are close in calibre. Something about the splashes being too similar.
Regarding the light cruisers, the turret arrangement and questions about the usefulness of 6" guns versus 5" guns comes from experience in the LP. Isolated cruiser battles, especially CL versus CL, seem to inevitably devolve into a stern chase. Speed is useful, but for much of the battles I've seen only the forward guns are engaging the enemy cruiser. Angling for broadsides is possible but it also lets the distance between the two ships grow, which is obviously bad for overtaking the enemy cruiser. I also noticed I had a lot more luck with the older Szigetvar class, with its 9 broadside and 4 forward 5" guns than with the Novara class, which had 6 broadside and 4 forward 6" guns. Now I still don't have a secondary director, but it looked like the 5" guns were able to hit more often due to firing faster and volume of fire did more damage to slow down enemy light cruisers; if the 6" guns hit harder it didn't seem to make up for the lower rate of hits.
Granted the older light cruisers were also Elite quality crews.
I'd favor 5" guns over 6" guns. They're not that different, and 5" ones are more useful against destroyers.
I'm a bit dissapointed myself to discover that its impossible to recreate some historical ship designs. Decided to start up a new game in an attempt to recreate the historical Austrian-Hugarian navy as of game start, but the designs can't be created in their historical displacements and instead have to be made much larger, and some of the ships just can't be built at all.
@Cavalier when it comes to battlecruisers, I'd take the 30kt speed over 28 every day. Battlecruisers hunt and run. If they didn't, they'd be battleships. That said, for designs I'm thinking IG for the BC, or maybe IIIC. Both are ok, except for the fact that they have torps underwater. For .CA I perffer the IBA design, although it would be better with tipple turrets in my opinion. CL has the IIG as a better ship, thanks to the good secondary battery. Likewise, I think the torpedo cruiser looks good. However, be prepared to pray for hits, and sit them on the outside of your formations.
A solid design, though one should menace the Skoda works until they finally produce adequate 410mm rounds
Personally, I'd rather strip down the secondary armament a bit (20 guns in 2-gun turrets) and get the speed up to 22 knots, but that's largely just personal preference.
I personally strongly dislike this turret arrangement. Move the V / After Cent Superimposed to Aft Superimposed, or move the Y turret to Aft Centerline.
Better yet, go with a 3*3 gun arrangement over 4*2.
Furthermore, strip the torpedo tubes. You can't fire them if you go too fast anyways and if you're in a BC you don't want to slow down unless they hit your engine room. Also, put in a third Fire Control position for your director. This is still a battlecruiser and even if it's not as beefy as a battleship, you *will* get hit and the accuracy penalty is frightful.
28 knot Battlecruiser? Just... no. Waste of money. Use your battlecruisers to fill out the cruiser slots in battle size 1 and 2 engagements, not as line ships. As such, give them 30kt speed or just don't build any.
An interesting design, but it suffers from a.) no armor in the world being able to turn aside 16" shells at medium to close range, putting you at risk of losing 50% of your firepower in one shell, and b.) only 28 knots
Not enough armor, too many guns: 4.5" belt will not stop small (5-6" guns) at late midgame/lategame technology, and the aft centerline turret is dead weight.
Change this to medium range and normal engine priority, strip off the submerged torpedo tubes and put the spare weight into belt armor and you've got a real winner. (I prefer to make my CAs with 10" guns,a dmittedly, but that's preference)
Good for colonial service, not so good for home fleet service.
Until you get dual gun turrets for CLs this is pretty much your best bet (after that, 4x2 centerline is, imo, the way to go)
Suggestion for home fleet CL: Take the Achilles, remove colonial service, change her to at least 30 knots (she needs to be able to keep up with your BCs and CAs!), make lots of them
Well, moving ahead a good bit there's probably good news and bad news;
1. I have 16" guns, finally.
2. It is not possible to build an adequately protected BC with 16" guns without dropping speed down to 28 knots from 30 knots.
So! What is more important here? Speed or firepower? I suppose a BC with 15" guns and 30 knots is a possible compromise, though it won't be quite as good at hanging off at long range and angling to shoot through deck armor.
German solution, every time. Specifically, full protection and speed, don't be afraid to drop caliber and gun number and maybe grab a quad turret or two.
Firepower. I tend to be satisfied with 27 knot Battlecruisers, the AI would be very lucky to create fast BBs in numbers enough to have their own division (instead of being slowed by obsolete ships), and have them deployed at the right time and place to fight your BCs.
As a player, I can manufacture the circumstances where fast BBs will get picked for battles against BCs.
Speed differences between BCs don't often matter to me. If the enemy runs, the AI usually chooses to do so far too late, after they've been slowed. If I have to run away from superior enemy BCs, I either sacrifice my Destroyers to force the enemy to break off, or I just fight it out anyways. Iowa-style ships with heavy forward guns have an advantage during maneuver fights against the typical AI broadside boat.
I prefer 16" gun BCs, because 16" is just so much better at smashing enemy ships before they can fight back effectively. I find that 28 knots is usually enough, because the only AI ships that I see going 30 are either lightly protected CAs or completely useless derp-ship BCs with like 8" belts. Those blow up really nice by the way, even against CAs.
Alternately, is a two triple 16" forward, 30 knots design possible? It would seem a little on the weak side but for the kind of work battlecruisers do it's enough in most cases. If you have to run, oblique. The AI rarely does a direct chase anyways.
Well, moving ahead a good bit there's probably good news and bad news;
1. I have 16" guns, finally.
2. It is not possible to build an adequately protected BC with 16" guns without dropping speed down to 28 knots from 30 knots.
So! What is more important here? Speed or firepower? I suppose a BC with 15" guns and 30 knots is a possible compromise, though it won't be quite as good at hanging off at long range and angling to shoot through deck armor.
Right, well. It looks like we're back to the atavistic argument of just what a battlecruiser should be. The Invincible class which originated the concept best expressed Jackie Fisher's idea, of a modestly armored ship bringing the greatest firepower to bear at the swiftest possible speed. The Kaiserliche Marine could not afford to build a capital ship that could not stand in the line of battle, and so sacrificed a little bit of speed and a whole step-down in main armament to insure their ships were as well-armored as possible. History has been kinder to the Germans on that score, but granted the tactical and strategic environment of RtW is not exactly real-life.
Still, the options remain more or less the same. There's the cruiser-killer role, the swift predator bringing overwhelming firepower on anything lighter while trading armor for the speed to run away from battleships. And then there's the faster fast battleship, which can fight older dreadnoughts on equal or superior terms and scout right up to the enemy's line of battle, and join your own to supplement its firepower and numbers.
This is the schlachtkreuzer. At 28 knots it can't outrun every single cruiser, though with 16" guns any CL or lesser BC that stays in its range is going to die. It has the armor to fight even the most modern of battleships at range and can easily wreck older dreadnoughts. Though 8 x 16" guns is a little underarmed considering the plethera of turret-farms the AI loves, this should be a design that will remain relevant all the way through 1950.
And here is a grosskreuzer. It can reach 30 knots. The all-forward battery of improved 13" guns should be more than adequate to destroy lesser vessels while its reliable engines make it almost certain to escape barring some catastrophic damage from a very lucky hit. And to insure that doesn't happen it has four inches of deck armor, even if we've sacrificed a lot in the belt and turret. But then it should never come close enough to allow for a flat trajectory shot from a battleship-caliber weapon, except perhaps to finish off a cripple. It should still be quite armored enough against guns below 12" in caliber and frankly probably adequately even against those. It is also somewhat less eye-wateringly expensive than a battlecruiser made for the line of battle, and can be made even cheaper if the belt is cut down to 8 inches, and average engines are used instead of reliable ones - it should be fast enough in any case barring some supremely expensive and equally poorly armored AI designs.
I hate to admit it, given how I love the big battleships, but the grosskreuzer seems to be more what the AH Navy needs: Something cheaper than the schlachtkreuzer that can run away from anything it can't outfight. We have to keep up the battle-line too, but this fits the role we need, particularly if it is used as a colonial patroller or raider during wartime.
