|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 25, 2018 11:45:03 GMT -6
tbr - KE? Was that supposed to be DE or something else? Iagree with your point, I just don't recognize the ship type. K = Corvette, so I assume the 'E' is just an addition to 'K' to keep in line with the 2 character symbols. Someone feel free to correct me here.
adding 'E' on the end of a ship designation usually designates it as an 'Escort', which means the primary design of the ship is to escort merchant ships
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 25, 2018 11:51:17 GMT -6
K = Corvette, so I assume the 'E' is just an addition to 'K' to keep in line with the 2 character symbols. Someone feel free to correct me here.
adding 'E' on the end of a ship designation usually designates it as an 'Escort', which means the primary design of the ship is to escort merchant ships
We had a long discussion during early alpha testing about what designation would be best for 'corvette' types, especially since they can be build as different sub-types in the game. The "KE" designation was in our opinion the best overall choice since it is a 2-letter designation and also fits the broad designation for the types that can be build.
|
|
|
Post by iridium on May 25, 2018 12:37:40 GMT -6
adding 'E' on the end of a ship designation usually designates it as an 'Escort', which means the primary design of the ship is to escort merchant ships
We had a long discussion during early alpha testing about what designation would be best for 'corvette' types, especially since they can be build as different sub-types in the game. The "KE" designation was in our opinion the best overall choice since it is a 2-letter designation and also fits the broad designation for the types that can be build.
Yeah, the 'E' for escort seemed a bit odd considering modern WWII corvettes were typically small slow things that couldn't escort fleet units, but eh.
|
|
kaiww
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kaiww on May 25, 2018 13:37:42 GMT -6
We had a long discussion during early alpha testing about what designation would be best for 'corvette' types, especially since they can be build as different sub-types in the game. The "KE" designation was in our opinion the best overall choice since it is a 2-letter designation and also fits the broad designation for the types that can be build.
Yeah, the 'E' for escort seemed a bit odd considering modern WWII corvettes were typically small slow things that couldn't escort fleet units, but eh. If I remember correctly KE's were primarily used to escort Convoys were there speed wasn't a Problem at all. So it would make sense because since KE's in RTW 2 will be primarily used for Trade Protection if I have read it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 25, 2018 14:07:11 GMT -6
With invasions, picking targets is a nice step but I I would like if an invasion would force a battle rather then require a 4:1 requirement. That would seem to be a decent way of depicting the events of 1942 in the pacific for instance, one side or the other would start an invasion and the other side would try to contest it. After the battle, they would see if the invasion could proceed. Yeah, the 'E' for escort seemed a bit odd considering modern WWII corvettes were typically small slow things that couldn't escort fleet units, but eh. Well the destroyer escorts in WWII were considerably slower then destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 25, 2018 15:10:21 GMT -6
Yeah, the 'E' for escort seemed a bit odd considering modern WWII corvettes were typically small slow things that couldn't escort fleet units, but eh. DEs and CVEs were primarily meant for convoy escort, not fleet escort, so KE for corvettes primarily meant for convoy escort doesn't seem like it'd be too out of place even though it's nonstandard. DDEs were meant for fleet escort, but I think that classification was introduced after the end of WWII. Britain had around 12 seaplane tenders/carriers in WWI and used them to support the naval bombardment of the Dardanelles defenses, to launch air strikes against zeppelin yards, to launch the first aerial torpedo attack in history, for naval reconnaissance (including with the Grand Fleet), and to support the Middle East campaign.
The obsolete battleship USS Mississippi (BB-23) served as a floating base for seaplanes supporting the US occupation of Veracruz in 1914, but was sold to Greece before the US entered WWI and I don't know if the USN operated any seaplane tenders during that war. In WWII, the USN operated around 16 seaplane tenders (AV) and 40 small seaplane tenders (AVP). To my understanding, these mostly supported seaplane reconnaissance and patrol squadrons operating out of harbors or anchorages, or were used as transports for aircraft, personnel, fuel, and other materiel.
According to Wikipedia's list here, France and Germany each operated a number of seaplane tenders in both World Wars, and Russia operated a number in World War One. I don't know how these were used, though I would presume that the German and Russian ones primarily supported aerial reconnaissance near the front in coastal areas or conducted maritime patrol/reconnaissance missions in the Black and Baltic Seas.
|
|
kaiww
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by kaiww on May 25, 2018 17:11:40 GMT -6
Britain had around 12 seaplane tenders/carriers in WWI and used them to support the naval bombardment of the Dardanelles defenses, to launch air strikes against zeppelin yards, to launch the first aerial torpedo attack in history, for naval reconnaissance (including with the Grand Fleet), and to support the Middle East campaign.
The obsolete battleship USS Mississippi (BB-23) served as a floating base for seaplanes supporting the US occupation of Veracruz in 1914, but was sold to Greece before the US entered WWI and I don't know if the USN operated any seaplane tenders during that war. In WWII, the USN operated around 16 seaplane tenders (AV) and 40 small seaplane tenders (AVP). To my understanding, these mostly supported seaplane reconnaissance and patrol squadrons operating out of harbors or anchorages, or were used as transports for aircraft, personnel, fuel, and other materiel.
According to Wikipedia's list here, France and Germany each operated a number of seaplane tenders in both World Wars, and Russia operated a number in World War One. I don't know how these were used, though I would presume that the German and Russian ones primarily supported aerial reconnaissance near the front in coastal areas or conducted maritime patrol/reconnaissance missions in the Black and Baltic Seas. Recently I did read about the Siege of Tsingtao and the Japanese did use there seaplanes as scout and light bomber there and according to what I read, with good results. I had now idea that GB did have so many. Thx for the info I like this forum, it feeds my Nerd-Side. I was already researching for the first Ariel torpedo attack in light of my history rush since I startet with RTW . Honestly I would like also to be able to convert ships into Seaplane Tenders in RTW 2, finely a use for those pre-dreadnaught junk piles. (And again I apologise for butchering the English language. )
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 25, 2018 18:15:38 GMT -6
adding 'E' on the end of a ship designation usually designates it as an 'Escort', which means the primary design of the ship is to escort merchant ships
We had a long discussion during early alpha testing about what designation would be best for 'corvette' types, especially since they can be build as different sub-types in the game. The "KE" designation was in our opinion the best overall choice since it is a 2-letter designation and also fits the broad designation for the types that can be build.
This is one that has vexed me in the past as well, and I've seen a few different codes used in different places. KE sounds as good as any from my angle, might adopt this m'self from now on .
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 25, 2018 19:35:22 GMT -6
KE - it's like you mash (K)orvette and Destroyer (E)scort together, very self explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on May 25, 2018 23:22:01 GMT -6
Hello people! Long time no see!
Lovely to see the game is progressing, great work developers, you never cease to impress. ^_^
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 26, 2018 3:51:40 GMT -6
One thing I would really like to see is some sort of mechanic for the player to drive their nation's doctrine in a direction of their choosing. While we don't want people building WWII-style 3x3 dreadnoughts in their legacy fleets, at the same time, since the game is, in effect, about pretending to be Jackie Fisher, it would be nice to have at least some ability to browbeat one's admiralty into implementing ones revolutionary ideas about naval warfare, as opposed to setting general research areas and hoping the right doctrinal techs turn up.
I think an interesting way of doing this would be to allow doctrinal techs to be purchased at any time with prestige. Purchase too many, and you risk being sacked for low prestige. It might work something like this:
Before the introductory year for a given doctrinal tech, you can pay a certain amount of prestige to make that tech available for research, and twice that amount of prestige to buy the tech outright. If other nations have a tech, the purchase cost is reduced. If your nation has that tech as a bonus tech, the purchase cost is halved. If the introductory year has been reached, the tech is already available for research, and the outright purchase cost is halved. Also, certain game events might reduce prestige costs for acquiring techs. For example, the first predreadnought engagement of the game might give everybody a reduction in costs to purchase techs like main battery wing turrets and multiple centerline turrets. (To reflect how the lessons of Tsushima inspired the dreadnought concept). If ships incorporating techs you advocated for win battles, you gain extra prestige.
|
|
|
Post by cuirasspolisher on May 26, 2018 7:49:24 GMT -6
On the topic of fleet organization, I think a system like the Steam and Iron campaign's would be ideal. In that game, ships are organized into squadrons and subfleets, with each ship having a unique position. HMS Indomitable, for example, might be the rearmost ship in the First Battlecruiser Squadron of the Battlecruiser Force. It's easy to move ships within squadrons (useful if you want the most experienced ship to lead the formation) or among them (needed to sort the dreadnoughts of the Battle Fleet into homogeneous squadrons so faster ships don't waste their speed). You could also assign squadrons to follow others and choose their sailing formations. I think the best approach for RTW2 would be establishing fleets in oceans if enough of the player's ships were in the area and generating squadrons based on the fleet composition. Then the player could edit the fleet's organization as desired. This would aid battle planning and make it easier to use each ship to its fullest potential.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 26, 2018 12:46:53 GMT -6
One thing I would really like to see is some sort of mechanic for the player to drive their nation's doctrine in a direction of their choosing. While we don't want people building WWII-style 3x3 dreadnoughts in their legacy fleets, at the same time, since the game is, in effect, about pretending to be Jackie Fisher, it would be nice to have at least some ability to browbeat one's admiralty into implementing ones revolutionary ideas about naval warfare, as opposed to setting general research areas and hoping the right doctrinal techs turn up. I think an interesting way of doing this would be to allow doctrinal techs to be purchased at any time with prestige. Purchase too many, and you risk being sacked for low prestige. It might work something like this: Before the introductory year for a given doctrinal tech, you can pay a certain amount of prestige to make that tech available for research, and twice that amount of prestige to buy the tech outright. If other nations have a tech, the purchase cost is reduced. If your nation has that tech as a bonus tech, the purchase cost is halved. If the introductory year has been reached, the tech is already available for research, and the outright purchase cost is halved. Also, certain game events might reduce prestige costs for acquiring techs. For example, the first predreadnought engagement of the game might give everybody a reduction in costs to purchase techs like main battery wing turrets and multiple centerline turrets. (To reflect how the lessons of Tsushima inspired the dreadnought concept). If ships incorporating techs you advocated for win battles, you gain extra prestige. This is a very interesting suggestion, and not wanting to simply "hope the right doctrinal tech turns up" resonates with me, though I am not sure the Prestige mechanic could be used this way. Something to consider, pro & con.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 26, 2018 13:22:53 GMT -6
The reason I think prestige would work well for this is because ability to implement radical changes is predicated on how much a leader has proven himself. If a new First Sea Lord starts a program to replace all existing capital ships with some completely unproven concept, he is likely to be out on his ear in short order. If an experienced First Sea Lord that has previously introduced successful new concepts proposes a radical new concept, he is more likely to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 26, 2018 18:40:26 GMT -6
The reason I think prestige would work well for this is because ability to implement radical changes is predicated on how much a leader has proven himself. If a new First Sea Lord starts a program to replace all existing capital ships with some completely unproven concept, he is likely to be out on his ear in short order. If an experienced First Sea Lord that has previously introduced successful new concepts proposes a radical new concept, he is more likely to succeed. But Prestige is basically your long-term score, right? I'm always really reluctant to take a prestige hit so I can't see myself trading prestige for techs unless it's something critically important (Steam turbines, main battery wing turrets, 3 centerline, superimposed B turret) which doesn't really jive with most techs being incremental improvements. Maybe if instead of using Prestige, there was a proxy for it like "Influence". Conceptually, Prestige is your long-term score like how you're written down in the history books, while Influence is how much you can leverage that in the short-term. Influence starts at 0, every time you gain 1 prestige, you gain 1 influence. Influence is then spent to buy a tech, get a budget increase or a raw injection of cash, maybe negate a bit of tension, maybe shorten some construction time, maybe provide a better outcome for random events. So Prestige keeps being your 'score' while also being directly linked to a resource that you gain and spend.
|
|