snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on Dec 20, 2018 17:44:28 GMT -6
Just some more stuff im curious about. Thought i would take advantage of this knowledgable community ^^ i made a similar thread a while back.
Does the angle of your ship in comparison to the enemy affect your chances of scoring a penetrating hit? Or in other words, is armor angling a thing?
Likewise, does presenting a broadside make it easier for an opponent to hit you? That one i should be able to check myself, but i figured i would ask.
Another question, while battlecruisers obviously are extremely useful, and eventually replace CA's in all computer navies, has anyone had success with late game CA's? I imagine having something like a souped up CL. Maybe 8-9" guns? Would be rather useful in a battle line, for destroying screens, but im not exactly experienced enough to know. I plan to try and test it out soon. I seem to remember a term, heavy cruiser, which i think only existed because of the washington naval treaty. I need to do some research into that as well, before i look ignorant.
Another thing, i think i read somewhere that building forts increases the proliferation of minefields, is that true?)
On a similar note, i read that unused victorybpoints go to war repirations, which are super useful to growing your economy and upping your budget, however, do you still get them if you dont choose any colonies at all?
Ok last one for now. Is there a RTW discord server? I feel like that would be pretty fun. Good for asking all these sorts of little questions or recounting battles in real time. Sharing ship ideas, discussing hustorical ships, etc etc.
Thanks in advance for answers, i really apreciate it!
|
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 20, 2018 18:22:30 GMT -6
Just some more stuff im curious about. Thought i would take advantage of this knowledgable community ^^ i made a similar thread a while back. Does the angle of your ship in comparison to the enemy affect your chances of scoring a penetrating hit? Or in other words, is armor angling a thing? I don't know the answer to that one. There is an accuracy penalty for shooting at a ship facing either head on or away. I've tried a prototype Baltimore-class with eight or nine 8 inch guns and done okay with them. I've noticed that the AI response is usually a 10 inch gun armed ship though. Since the game isn't limited by the Washington treaty you are probably better served designing a 10 inch gun heavy cruiser. Minefields in general will get larger and more dense around ports as the game year advances but yes, coastal fortifications cause additional minefields to be placed in the waters around them as well. In general, you get 25K resource points for every point of value of a possession you take. Any unused points give you 50K each plus they count as home area resources which becomes significant in the later stages of the game where the resources from overseas territories count less towards the total for figuring out your budget. Haha, no idea. I'm old (fifty next year), I can barely use facebook and reddit. No idea what the cool kids are into now days. |
|
|
|
Post by marauder on Dec 20, 2018 18:35:27 GMT -6
I believe the angle of the ship does play a role. There's a quote around here somewhere that states that every hit on a ship has a randomised hit angle in the formula that affects penetration, but I don't know if that angle refers to horizontal, vertical or both.
The angle of a ship relative to another does affect accuracy, yes. When an enemy ship you're firing on is heading straight for you (or away from you), your ship will get a pretty harsh penalty to hitting it. That will be listed as "Target Aspect" in the hit chance table IIRC.
Building forts does indeed increase minefields, but they only do that in a certain radius around the fort itself, not everywhere. The longer a war goes on, the denser those minefields will be. I have some fond memories of using light cruisers to lure enemy armoured cruisers into fort minefields. A bit cheesy, maybe, I should stop doing that.
Every point you don't spend on possessions should go towards your base resources, but I'm not sure.
Can't really say much about lategame CAs. I sometimes build a few fast, long-ranged CAs with 8" to 10" guns for anti-raider patrols and raiding in colonial zones. So far they've always pulled their weight, but they see action so rarely that I think this is more of a case of me being very lucky. Some CLs would probably better be suited for this job, but I'm a sucker for CAs and BCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 20, 2018 19:25:07 GMT -6
In general, you get 25K resource points for every point of value of a possession you take. Any unused points give you 50K each plus they count as home area resources which becomes significant in the later stages of the game where the resources from overseas territories count less towards the total for figuring out your budget. That the 50,000 resources you get for points not spent taking colonies goes to base resources is also significant because base resources - unlike resources from possessions - experience exponential growth (roughly 2% per in-game year, or 3% per year if you're playing a power with Rapid Economic Growth). Especially when playing as one of the less wealthy powers, taking significant reparations instead of taking colonies early in the game can make a fairly big difference in your end-game budget.
I personally have never had much luck with late-game large CAs similar to or more powerful than heavy cruisers as defined by the 1930 Treaty of London, though there are posts on the forums suggesting that others have had much more success with ships of the type than I have had. My feeling is that, at least within the game, it's better to build one battlecruiser or four light cruisers than the two heavy cruisers you can build for about the same cost. That said, I have had some success with relatively small 6" CAs (which would be CLs per the 1930 Treaty of London definitions), which the game seems to treat more like its CLs than like the more typical larger CAs.
As others have said, yes, coastal batteries generate minefields in proximity to the battery. The density of the minefield is dependent at least in part on the duration of the war, and heavier coastal batteries also deploy mines over larger areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 21, 2018 6:39:35 GMT -6
Another question, while battlecruisers obviously are extremely useful, and eventually replace CA's in all computer navies, has anyone had success with late game CA's? I imagine having something like a souped up CL. Maybe 8-9" guns? Would be rather useful in a battle line, for destroying screens, but im not exactly experienced enough to know. I plan to try and test it out soon. I seem to remember a term, heavy cruiser, which i think only existed because of the washington naval treaty. I need to do some research into that as well, before i look ignorant. as far as warship vs warship small/med battle encounters go there are 3 niches in RtW - DD battles, CL/CA/BC battles, and B/BB/BC battles
as you can see BCs can be used in 2 niches, while every other ship type is relegated to a single niche
in the CL/CA/BC niche the BC is king, so why bother building CAs when you can build BCs which can also be used very competitively in the B/BB/BC niche?
once BCs come online CAs are immediately outclassed, and outside of personal preference and experimentation i don't think they are worth building
CLs on the other hand i build until mid/late game but i make them fast and use them exclusively for scouting
heck, if you want the simplest most efficient fleet stick with DDs, CLs and BCs since you have chips in all 3 niches - this is a good tactic playing smaller countries
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 21, 2018 10:26:30 GMT -6
Just some more stuff im curious about. Thought i would take advantage of this knowledgable community ^^ i made a similar thread a while back. Does the angle of your ship in comparison to the enemy affect your chances of scoring a penetrating hit? Or in other words, is armor angling a thing? Your course relative to the enemy matters for armor penetration. When you have the enemy at about 45 degrees angle off your bow or stern, it is the most difficult for enemy shells to penetrate. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 21, 2018 11:01:04 GMT -6
Just some more stuff im curious about. Thought i would take advantage of this knowledgable community ^^ i made a similar thread a while back. Does the angle of your ship in comparison to the enemy affect your chances of scoring a penetrating hit? Or in other words, is armor angling a thing? Your course relative to the enemy matters for armor penetration. When you have the enemy at about 45 degrees angle off your bow or stern, it is the most difficult for enemy shells to penetrate. I agree with your statement but let me pose this question: In armor schemes, the weakest armor is at the ends. This would be the bow and stern. It varies with different designs. So now as I turn toward my opponent, I have put one of the weakest armored areas of the ship, right in line with his guns. My forward turrets have ammunition storage below them, but weak protect from the bow. Now, it is true that by turning bow on, I have reduced the target presented to the enemy, but how would all this play out. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 11:44:07 GMT -6
Your course relative to the enemy matters for armor penetration. When you have the enemy at about 45 degrees angle off your bow or stern, it is the most difficult for enemy shells to penetrate. I agree with your statement but let me pose this question: In armor schemes, the weakest armor is at the ends. This would be the bow and stern. It varies with different designs. So now as I turn toward my opponent, I have put one of the weakest armored areas of the ship, right in line with his guns. My forward turrets have ammunition storage below them, but weak protect from the bow. Now, it is true that by turning bow on, I have reduced the target presented to the enemy, but how would all this play out. It question. We can take as example KGV class. Their armor belt was protected by almost 15" of armor plate. Forward bulkhead was 12", aft was 10". Is forward and aft protection of citade similar protection to main belt? I do not have the knowledge but is unarmored part of ship worth 3" of armor? With RN strategy in mind I do think the designers thought that it is. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 21, 2018 11:54:43 GMT -6
Another question, while battlecruisers obviously are extremely useful, and eventually replace CA's in all computer navies, has anyone had success with late game CA's? I imagine having something like a souped up CL. Maybe 8-9" guns? Would be rather useful in a battle line, for destroying screens, but im not exactly experienced enough to know. I plan to try and test it out soon. I seem to remember a term, heavy cruiser, which i think only existed because of the washington naval treaty. I need to do some research into that as well, before i look ignorant. Answer depends what you think is success. You can design them to beat CL and outrun any heavy ships. But their issue is that they cannot beat capital ship (reasonale old) and they are quite more expensive than CL. If other nations do not build CA you have no use for them as there is nothing that cannot be handled by other ships, especially CLs. You can try to build some small CA. I have some success with small 9.000-10.000 tons CA with speed 29-30 knots, 6x8" guns and armor to protect against 6" guns even in 20s. This CA can handle 2 CL usually. However you can still build almost 2 CL for cost of 1 CA and in numbers are some quality. So you can try.
If other nations built large CAs than you can start race to build your own. But usually I use some olds BC to counter them. Modern CAs have one disadvantage and that it costs a lot of money, usually you can build 2 CA instead of 1 BC. But utility of BC is much higher than these CAs.
I sometimes build smaller CAs for fun if I play UK or USA I have enough money to counter enemy design. But I do not think they are cost effective.
And other point is that they are not used so much by battle generator as before times of BC. And in case they are, they are mostly part of fleet of capital ships (BB or BC) and in this case they are not much usefull than CLs.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 21, 2018 18:18:36 GMT -6
I agree with your statement but let me pose this question: In armor schemes, the weakest armor is at the ends. This would be the bow and stern. It varies with different designs. So now as I turn toward my opponent, I have put one of the weakest armored areas of the ship, right in line with his guns. My forward turrets have ammunition storage below them, but weak protect from the bow. Now, it is true that by turning bow on, I have reduced the target presented to the enemy, but how would all this play out. It question. We can take as example KGV class. Their armor belt was protected by almost 15" of armor plate. Forward bulkhead was 12", aft was 10". Is forward and aft protection of citade similar protection to main belt? I do not have the knowledge but is unarmored part of ship worth 3" of armor? With RN strategy in mind I do think the designers thought that it is. Here is what I could find for the KG V plans. As with most citadel's the armor ends in front of A turret. The rest of the bow is vulnerable. My information from Nathan Okun is that the forward bulkhead of the citadel, was only 9.8 inches.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 22, 2018 14:25:49 GMT -6
Your course relative to the enemy matters for armor penetration. When you have the enemy at about 45 degrees angle off your bow or stern, it is the most difficult for enemy shells to penetrate. I agree with your statement but let me pose this question: In armor schemes, the weakest armor is at the ends. This would be the bow and stern. It varies with different designs. So now as I turn toward my opponent, I have put one of the weakest armored areas of the ship, right in line with his guns. My forward turrets have ammunition storage below them, but weak protect from the bow. Now, it is true that by turning bow on, I have reduced the target presented to the enemy, but how would all this play out. The game assumes that end bulkheads plus whatever structure is in front of them equals protection with the same thickness as the belt. It is perhaps a simplification, but that's how it works in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 22, 2018 18:55:28 GMT -6
As someone who knew next to nothing about ship design prior to buying this game and reading the many enlightening threads on this forum I think it is a worthwhile simplification.
All the fields is what prevents me from using springsharp. Basically have to understand ship design in full to use that program, whereas you can bumble along in RTW with some reference to the manual until you grock enough of the ship design to play the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 22, 2018 19:14:11 GMT -6
As someone who knew next to nothing about ship design prior to buying this game and reading the many enlightening threads on this forum I think it is a worthwhile simplification. All the fields is what prevents me from using springsharp. Basically have to understand ship design in full to use that program, whereas you can bumble along in RTW with some reference to the manual until you grock enough of the ship design to play the game. Have you seen this blog? It is a little old but the information is still good. dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by boomboomf22 on Dec 23, 2018 8:45:42 GMT -6
I have and he has made many cool designs, the problem for me is that I actually don't know what many of the fields in the application mean, and a quick google search often turns up explanations that require more Google searches.
Not actually that critical for me. I enjoy seeing the springsharps made by others as it provides a cool look at things people can come up with but I just lack the will to do the internet trolling nessisary to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2018 9:03:15 GMT -6
I have and he has made many cool designs, the problem for me is that I actually don't know what many of the fields in the application mean, and a quick google search often turns up explanations that require more Google searches. Not actually that critical for me. I enjoy seeing the springsharps made by others as it provides a cool look at things people can come up with but I just lack the will to do the internet trolling nessisary to learn. I understand the problem, you could go to Google Books and look for books from the early part of the century on naval architecture and engineering. The copyright has expired and generally they are free. One book I have is "War-ships" by Lionel Attwood, dated 1917. There is another by William Hovgaard, titled Structural Design of Warships. Anyway, those are just two examples of naval engineering books that are free and available. It does take time. I have a thread on the General History Discussion forum titled "My Ship Designs using Springsharp." Good Luck |
|
