"Ship cannot be identified as any legal type" error

[Jades]

Consider the Courageous class as well - Fisher called them 'Large Light Cruisers'.

He was attempting to con the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had banned the construction of anything bigger than Light Cruiser in 1915.

[EvanJones]

It's that 8.5" belt that is doing you in. Go to 7.5 and it will classify as a CA.

However, what you say is also true: 8.5"armor DOES work for 17kt CAs. So it's not as simple as it seems.

[Jades]

We need to remember that the designation CA covers both Armoured Cruiser and Heavy Cruiser, the limitations on which change over time. I had a nasty shock on my Austria-Hungary save when a pair of my 8,600t Light Cruisers managed to intercept the Italian Heavy Cruiser Trento in 1962. My poor ships didn't last long, if I'd realised what it was earlier I would have had them run away at maximum revolutions!

CA_Trento_R1964.png (17.78 KiB) Viewed 490 times

Picture shows it after they rebuilt it in 1964. They laid it down in 1950, and commissioned it in 1957. 16 ten inch guns. 7" Belt Armour. Luckily they only have one of them.

My save's up to August 1973, the British have introduced their answer to that ship. Laid down January 1971, commissioned August 1973. They're building another two. Again, it has a 7" belt.

CA_Suffolk_1973.png (14.43 KiB) Viewed 490 times

I eventually managed to get the Auto Designer to generate a version of it and could bump the Belt up to 7.5" but for 8" and above it wanted to change it to a Battle Cruiser.

No such limitations for the Germans, however, who did somehow manage to build this with an 8" Belt. Laid down October 1961, Commissioned August 1964. Rebuilt April 1965.

CA_Hansa_R1965.png (18.16 KiB) Viewed 490 times

I suppose it's possible that the game is lying to me about that one, I think not everything our agents report about ships is correct?

I would love to build one of my own but I'm Austria-Hungary and I really need to build some more Carriers and Light Cruisers, when I'm not being ordered to build yet more Destroyers.

[WLRoo]

You are correct that there is a degree of inaccuracy in spies reports.

AFAIK, the only time you see reliable data on the enemy is when you check the ships involved in a combat.

P.S DDGs are your friend here.

[Jades]

P.S DDGs are your friend here.

Ah, so you've met my Comrade the Naval Secretary then? He likes them too!

AH_Navy_Feb75.png (36.05 KiB) Viewed 472 times

[Jades]

"What Destroyers doing?"

Last_CA.png (138.14 KiB) Viewed 465 times

I now have no Heavy Cruisers.

On the bright side, while checking what Italy is up to, I noticed that Trento was actually one of a class of three. My fleet had sunk the first one, San Giusto, and the Germans got the other one.

ITA_CA_San_Giusto.png (18.34 KiB) Viewed 465 times

Not indestructible then. It can't sink 40 Destroyers in one battle.

[Jades]

November 1977. Problem solved!

Trento_Scrapped.png (5.24 KiB) Viewed 461 times

I'll have a look through my other saves to see if there were any other large CAs built that were different from the ones I've posted already.

[Jades]

I encountered a pair of these Italian Armoured Cruisers in 1907 on my new Germany 1890 save started on v1.00.56. Leonardo Da Vinci Class, of 1900. Four 11" guns, more powerful than quite a few of the Pre-Dreadnoughts I've seen. Three built, they're essentially an earlier Battle Cruiser. Screenshot taken during the battle so the stats are presumably correct. I did think the design may have been an anomaly but, looking back in this thread, I can't see anything that breaks the rules.

ITA_Leonardo_Da_Vinci_(1900).png (15.21 KiB) Viewed 349 times

It's an interesting design, sort of an early Deutschland-Class although there weren't any limitation treaties in place when they were built. Nobody else in the save has built any Armoured Cruisers with guns bigger than 9" and the switch to building Battle Cruisers is now very much in effect.

[Jades]

Saw this on an intelligence report recently. Same German save as previously mentioned. Another AI Italian design. I assume that centre turret is either superimposed or there are some exceptionally fine tolerances at play.

ITA_CA_Vettor_Pisani_1917.png (15.15 KiB) Viewed 313 times

[WLRoo]

Ooh, if it's an AI design that will be a midships turret location, and thereby those secondaries will be affected by the blast effects.

[mrchuck]

I am in the same 1890 campaign as in the AAR I'm posting at the moment.

It's now 1901 and if I wanted to, this design for a CA would be accepted. I must admit I haven't spent any time trying to push the envelope on design, but this CA would be perhaps be formidable in cruiser actions, and not negligible in fleet actions.

22 kts, 6" belt, 12" guns. If I try to increase the belt, this is where it becomes a B and I can still build it. If I push the speed to 23, it becomes a BC and I can't because of tech levels.

Secondaries is 8x 8" which is a CA armament as well and tertiaries is 16x 4", a flotilla of DDs worth. All on 16300 tons.

It all seems reasonable to me, given that they are 12" -2 which is the best I have atm. I might even build one or two of these beasties and see what happens.

Screenshot from 2024-12-18 14-30-21.png (242.72 KiB) Viewed 204 times

[Jades]

Build it. For science! And The Kaiser!

[Jades]

Out of curiosity, I decided to see if my Chinese designers would come up with something similar to the 12" gun Armoured Cruiser shown by mrchuck and they did, albeit with 11" guns. Those were the biggest I could fit on a domestically built design. The design checker didn't complain. It looked like it could be useful as I've mainly been building CAs. I didn't lay one down though as my yards were already busy building five of these.

Chinese CA Fu Sheng

CHI_CA_Fu_Sheng_1901.png (17.62 KiB) Viewed 173 times

I've always loved that design of cruiser, I'll pretty much always build at least one class of them. On this save I have some French-built 9,500t ones with 8" main guns and a smaller 8,000t design with 9" guns that was my first Chinese-built cruiser design.

Any further progress on big gun ships was brought to an end by a remarkably timed Arms Limitation Treaty, that came into effect in September 1905. As usual I'd had to negotiate a bit to try to preserve my build programme and the limitations are set at a maximum displacement of 20,000 tons and maximum calibre of 9". The Treaty is for 20 years and its immediate effect was to outlaw the BB and BC before anyone had managed to complete one! Britain had to cut up four or five.

Annoyingly, the treaty also affected me. I have been set a build limitation of 32,000 tons so had to break up three of the five Fu Sheng Class on the slipway immediately. A fourth was scrapped in December 1907 to make room for the construction of a B after the Chinese People donated a large amount of money for the construction of a battleship. Due to the Treaty this will have 9" guns. The remaining member of the class, Fu Sheng, is sitting at 1 month to go waiting for me to decide what to scrap to make room for it in the fleet tonnage limit, which is a somewhat disappointing 150,000 tons.

The state of the art Armoured Cruisers in the game, currently at November 1908, are interesting. The largest designs are essentially what you'd normally expect to be Battlecruisers, but the 9" calibre cap means they're still classed as CA. These were all laid down after the Treaty came into effect.

This is the British Invincible-Class CA, launched in 1908.

GB_CA_Invincible_1908.png (13.19 KiB) Viewed 173 times

US Independence Class, also launched in 1908.

US_CA_Independence_1908.png (14.05 KiB) Viewed 173 times

I've shown some Italian designs from other saves before, and in this save they don't disappoint. This is the Lepanto Class and will be the biggest cruiser in the world when it's completed. Triple turrets. In this game world it's potentially a major threat.

ITA_CA_Lepanto_1908.png (15.49 KiB) Viewed 173 times

I'm going to have to have a think about what to build. Despite Dreadnoughts not existing the Blockade Points of B's have still dropped down to 8 compared with 6 for a CA. This, together with the calibre limit in force, could make only building cruisers and destroyers a viable approach.

[Jades]

The French managed to build a Battlecruiser, Aquitaine, in July 1911. Laid down in March 1909. 9" guns as per the Treaty. Doesn't seem that much different to Invincible, presumably being slightly heavier and/or faster has pushed it over the category boundary.

FRA_BC_Aquitaine_1911.png (11.52 KiB) Viewed 167 times

The Russians have now laid down a 19,900 ton design of BC and the British a 19,100 ton one. I don't have any details of these.

Meanwhile Blockade Points for B have dropped to 6 and for CA the new value is 5.

[Jades]

My spies managed to get the details of the Russian BC, Izmail, that's currently under construction and should be the biggest BC in the world when it's launched.

RUS_BC_Izmail_1910.png (15.38 KiB) Viewed 160 times

I've had a play about with the with the Auto Designer and it's fair to say that it's not having a fun time with coming up with a legal BC design under the current Treaty Restrictions. It's regularly throwing up the "Ship configuration cannot be identified as any legal ship type" error. It then pops up this error

Illegal.png (4.13 KiB) Viewed 160 times

Warning! Trying to save illegal ship type: XX.
File name: C:\Program Files (x86)\Matrix Games\Rule the Waves\\Data\tmpShip.ttp

After clicking OK the game will then sometimes show me a design that looks like it should be fine but the Design Checker doesn't like it.

Illegal_BC.png (85.16 KiB) Viewed 160 times

With one of these attempts I tried just flipping the type to CA but the checker still didn't like it, adding a second line to the error saying "If you are autodesigning a ship, this could be caused by dock size or treaty limitations" which is more helpful but still doesn't tell me what the problem is.

Sometimes it will automatically reclassify its design as a CA, which is probably fair when you consider the other AI designs that were classified as CA. It will eventually come up with an actual BC design that the checker is happy with, but it's very hit and miss and takes a lot of re-rolls.

I have attached my save so that people can have a look. I've played with Treaty Restrictions on other saves and have sometimes had similar issues. The calibre limitation of 9" is the smallest I remember seeing on a finalised treaty.

[WLRoo]

I think in this case, it's the total tonnage. The Ai has fudged it's designs through but humans need a 20,000+t hull for a small-calibre BC - though I used to find it possible if I didn't have V, X or B turrets for CAs and used those.

Try setting the tonnage to 20,000 to start with, then play around with other characteristics after that.

[Jades]

Looking again at that illegal design for Tuo Chiang I've noticed that it has an 11" Belt whereas the AI designs I have intelligence on have armour below 10". Russia have completed one Rymnik Class BC that's reported as 10" armour but the detailed report on Izmail, the second in the class, still says 9" Belt.

I was going to do some more re-rolls today but literally the first attempt came up with a BC design that was not only legal but looks pretty good. The only comment from the design checker was that it's bigger than the biggest battlecruiser in the world so may be a challenge for my shipbuilding industry.

CHI_BC_Chen_Nan_1914.png (82.21 KiB) Viewed 125 times

I just so happen to have a lot of that Battleship Fund money left so I've authorised the Design Study. I'll scrap the two ancient 3 x 13" Repulse-Class B's I bought second-hand off the British to make room.

Speaking of my honourable British friends, here's their entry into the Battlecruiser contest, the Princess Royal Class. Reported belt armour of 9" as with the other AI designs.

GB_BC_Princess_Royal_1913.png (14.18 KiB) Viewed 125 times

From a user experience standpoint it would be good if the tendency of the auto-designer to come up with illegal designs could be reduced somewhat. Error messages are fine when pushing the limits myself but continually re-rolling until it came up with something legal was becoming a bit time-consuming. More helpful messages about what the issue was would be handy as well.

I think that a possible factor in my save is the very low calibre limit of 9" in force under the Treaty, as mentioned previously it's the lowest one that I've seen while playing the game. The initial proposed limitation was actually 8" but I had a class of five cruisers building with 9" guns that I didn't want to sacrifice. I had also developed a 9" Quality 0 gun pretty early, then stupidly said yes to the South American Arms Sales event - which promptly leaked the gun design to the Russians.

I really like the Limitation Treaties, they add another level of interest to the game and also give a great insight into the challenges faced by the historical ship designers - particularly following the Washington Naval Treaty.

[Jades]

Just to add, another possible factor is that I'm playing as China so available technology could be an issue.

[Jades]

I authorised construction of Chen Nan. It's currently March 1915 and it will be complete in 34 months.

I opened the design for Chen Nan to do some more experimentation with the design boundaries. The first thing I noticed was that the Weight Remaining figure had gone up from 89t to 360t without me changing anything. First modification I checked was Belt Armour, and I found that the Design Checker was happy with 9.5" armour on the otherwise unchanged design. Setting it at 10" triggered the "Ship configuration cannot be identified as any legal ship type" error.

Leaving the armour at the original thickness of 8.5" and reducing the number of secondary guns from 16 to 14 meant that I was then able to increase their calibre to 6", which is the calibre the other nations are using for their secondary batteries.

Tensions are now very high with Germany and Japan, which may soon result in an end to the 9"-Armed Capital Ship Era.

[WLRoo]

Yes, when you open an existing design the game treats it as a 'clean sheet' and applies any new technologies researched that aren't adjusted manually by the player.

There also appears to be further weight savings per year even if you don't carry out any research - this can be tested by starting a new game in 1890, giving yourself all the technologies and then opening ship designs every year.