|
Post by hrcak47 on Mar 11, 2019 0:18:12 GMT -6
Jets can be hella big.
For example, a F-14A Tomcat is 19.something meters long, while a B-17G is 22 meters long. B-25H is even smaller, at around 16 m.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 11, 2019 2:07:03 GMT -6
Also I think for objective based missions, the objective themselves ought be more valuable. Sinking a convoy for 2000 points hardly means a thing compared to day, sinking a mid-sized cruiser. Naval warships are meant to achieve strategic objectives, destruction of opposing ships, while meaningful, should ultimately be because they allow you to achieve your strategic objectives. Therefore I think land support, convoy attack missions etc should contribute much greatly to victory points than they do now. Therefore there is actually an incentive to focus on say, destroying an large enemy convoy rather than trying to focus on escort ships to get more VP. The other way should also be true - protecting the convoy at the cost of some escort ships should counted as victory rather than defeat. BDW, shouldn't the merchants be a bit more resilent? Currently they need 2-4 6in hits to start sinking. Though they are also very small (5-2500t). Later on there should be way more bigger ships. How much bigger I'm not really sure, as I have no idea how to translate merchant marine weight to displacement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 3:27:13 GMT -6
Also I think for objective based missions, the objective themselves ought be more valuable. Sinking a convoy for 2000 points hardly means a thing compared to day, sinking a mid-sized cruiser. Naval warships are meant to achieve strategic objectives, destruction of opposing ships, while meaningful, should ultimately be because they allow you to achieve your strategic objectives. Therefore I think land support, convoy attack missions etc should contribute much greatly to victory points than they do now. Therefore there is actually an incentive to focus on say, destroying an large enemy convoy rather than trying to focus on escort ships to get more VP. The other way should also be true - protecting the convoy at the cost of some escort ships should counted as victory rather than defeat. BDW, shouldn't the merchants be a bit more resilent? Currently they need 2-4 6in hits to start sinking. Though they are also very small (5-2500t). Later on there should be way more bigger ships. How much bigger I'm not really sure, as I have no idea how to translate merchant marine weight to displacement. American T3 tankers had a displacement of about 25 000 tons, so they are about 5 times bigger than the biggest merchant ships you may see in RTW today. C3 and C4 cargo ships had displacement cca 12 000 tons, so still about 2.4 times bigger than the biggest merchant ships of RTW. Some big ocean liners had displacement about 40 000 tons or more. I think that its strange that in RTW you get sometimes larger docks for free, because manufacturers tend to build bigger and bigger ocean liners, often even bigger than your own biggest capital ships, but you will never meet such ships. IRL it should not be that big problem to hunt down such ship with a BC squadron, because ocean liners mostly dont exceed 30kts top speed even when they sail alone. When they are in convoy, they cant go faster than about 10 or 15 knots. In game, you sometimes loose prestige because of the sinking of ocean liners, often done by subs (IRL subs are much less likely to sink such ships than surface ships, because subs are too slow and ocean liner can outrun them anytime). I think that some nations (especially nazi Germany, Japan, fascist Italy etc...) should get a prestige boost for sinking such ship. IRL Hitler promised to give the highest awards for someone who would sink Queen Mary or some other fast liner. I think that Raeder or Dönitz would get something too, and it would not be a prestige nerf, but a boost. So in the end there are 2 important thing: Player should be able to meet bigger merchant ships, and player should be able to get additional prestige for sinking ocean liners when playing as some nation with dictatorship regime.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 11, 2019 22:38:22 GMT -6
...(IRL subs are much less likely to sink such ships than surface ships, because subs are too slow and ocean liner can outrun them anytime). Tell that to Lusitania, Wilhelm Gustloff, or Laconia. I agree with this thought. There was significant propaganda value to these sinkings, and correspondingly a hit to neutral opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Mar 12, 2019 1:13:14 GMT -6
...(IRL subs are much less likely to sink such ships than surface ships, because subs are too slow and ocean liner can outrun them anytime). Tell that to Lusitania, Wilhelm Gustloff, or Laconia. I agree with this thought. There was significant propaganda value to these sinkings, and correspondingly a hit to neutral opinion. Lusitania: 25 knots. Wilhelm Gustloff: 15 knots Laconia: 16 knots
Type VIIC U-boot (German): 17.7 knots surfaced, 7.6 knots submerged Marconi-class (Italian): 17.8 knots surfaced, 8.2 knots submerged Balao-class (American): 20.25 knots surfaced, 8.75 knots submerged U-Class (British): 11.25 knots surfaced, 10 knots submerged
Submarines weren't designed for speed, they were designed for stealth. In fact, their design was a compromise; the same properties that make a vessel a good sea boat also reduce underwater performance, and, by the same token, the properties that give a vessel good submerged performance also reduce seakeeping qualities. Since early submarines spent most of their time on the surface (because they used diesel engines which need oxygen (not to mention that the crew also need oxygen citation needed)), they were designed to have good seakeeping as well as good submerged performance. Since the requirements for those were in opposition, submarines weren't usually very good at either; submerged speed was very low, and the deck and even the conning tower would often be swamped even in relatively calm weather (there were exceptions; the British R-class of WWI were the first class of submarine designed specifically to fight other submarines, so they were specialised for underwater performance. This focus is noticeable in the difference in speed: 9.5 knots surfaced, but 14knots submerged. The R-class are actually considered to have been the forerunner of the modern attack submarine).
All of this means that a submarine was very slow both surfaced and submerged. Lusitania in particular was too fast for a submarine to catch her, even surfaced; Lusitania actually just happened to cross in front of U-20, coincidentally giving the U-boot a perfect firing solution. Wilhelm Gustloff was attacked as she was leaving port, and neither she nor her escorting boat had functioning submarine-sensing equipment (the torpedo boat did have sonar, but it was frozen in the arctic weather). Because of this, and the fact that the submarine (S-13) was submerged, they were unaware that a submarine was nearby; this, and the fact that they'd only just left port, means it's unlikely that they were travelling at full speed. Even so, the Soviet commander decided to surface to move into a better firing position (to be fair, the S-class submarine that attacked Wilhelm Gustloff was faster than a type VIIC; she could make 19kts surfaced and 9 submerged). As for Laconia, I couldn't find as much detail about the exact nature of her sinking. All I know is that she was zigzagging and steering evasively at night, and that, since she was armed, she fell outside of the protection from attack without warning. This suggests to me that she was ambushed, and unaware that there was a submarine in the area until she was hit. Thus, once again, she was unlikely to have been travelling at full speed.
Submarines weren't surface ships. A surface raider would rely on speed to chase down a merchant, or to run away from warships; submarine tactics are closer to those of the AMC; using a disguise (for an AMC) or stealth (for a submarine) to put themselves in a perfect position to attack, or to evade pursuers. The submarine is an ambush specialist; if a ship spots it and it has to chase them, something has already gone very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 12, 2019 2:20:06 GMT -6
All of this means that a submarine was very slow both surfaced and submerged. Lusitania in particular was too fast for a submarine to catch her, even surfaced; Lusitania actually just happened to cross in front of U-20, coincidentally giving the U-boot a perfect firing solution. Wilhelm Gustloff was attacked as she was leaving port, and neither she nor her escorting boat had functioning submarine-sensing equipment (the torpedo boat did have sonar, but it was frozen in the arctic weather). Because of this, and the fact that the submarine (S-13) was submerged, they were unaware that a submarine was nearby; this, and the fact that they'd only just left port, means it's unlikely that they were travelling at full speed. Even so, the Soviet commander decided to surface to move into a better firing position (to be fair, the S-class submarine that attacked Wilhelm Gustloff was faster than a type VIIC; she could make 19kts surfaced and 9 submerged). As for Laconia, I couldn't find as much detail about the exact nature of her sinking. All I know is that she was zigzagging and steering evasively at night, and that, since she was armed, she fell outside of the protection from attack without warning. This suggests to me that she was ambushed, and unaware that there was a submarine in the area until she was hit. Thus, once again, she was unlikely to have been travelling at full speed. zig-zaging wasn't the perfect solution. Many ships were saved by it, many were torped because they were not. On the other hand there were instances when ships zigged just into crosshairs of a sub stalking them but would be safe if just kept steady course due to their speed. US fleet boats are a different story altogether, as they used radar to locate targets and this allowed them to catch many ships that would never be in danger if they were located by eyeball mk1, in part negating speed advantage. In game, you sometimes loose prestige because of the sinking of ocean liners, often done by subs (IRL subs are much less likely to sink such ships than surface ships, because subs are too slow and ocean liner can outrun them anytime). I think that some nations (especially nazi Germany, Japan, fascist Italy etc...) should get a prestige boost for sinking such ship. IRL Hitler promised to give the highest awards for someone who would sink Queen Mary or some other fast liner. I think that Raeder or Dönitz would get something too, and it would not be a prestige nerf, but a boost. The liners that appear in "liner sunk by sub" event are neutal liners sunk by accident or by choice (if unlimited submarine ops are active) and they reduce prestige and may draw other countries into the war as it is a war crime and murder of innocent civilians. On the other hand, sinking large merchants of your enemy would be a success, no matter if those are liners or tankers and sinking of famous liner could increase prestige no matter if the country is totalitarian regime or democracy. That's because such ships are very often used in military purposes - either fast AMC (raider or blockader) or troop transport. There is no such event for surface ships, as those would rather stop and board the ship than sink it (unless it's troop transport of course) so chances to sink neutral ship or one carrying civilians is much lower. Especially as it takes time and multiple hits for surface ships to sink a big merchant. On the other hand, subs have single hit kill capability and for them surfacing is a major risk as they have no easy way to force large merchant to surrender and may be easily crippled or sunk by even small guns, often installed on merchants. What's more, British use of Q-ships and later almost all ships having radios effectively eliminated prize rules for subs as surfacing was no longer option.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Apr 18, 2019 1:14:56 GMT -6
Is Madagascar still in the Indian Ocean sea zone or is it in the new Southern Africa sea zone?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 18, 2019 22:03:39 GMT -6
Madagascar is still in the Indian. The other border area that is dubious at first glance is the Marshall Islands, which is technically in the Central Pacific. I think every knows the Marianas chain is all in SEA.
|
|
|
Post by triggerhappypilot on Apr 18, 2019 22:24:10 GMT -6
Those sea zones will certainly make for interesting engagements. I hope that long-range naval positioning becomes easier to manage later in the game, since all your ships would just get interned if so much as a shell hit them in RTW1. That'd preclude you from effectively blockading an enemy home area without a base in the area in zones with few conquerable territories like Northeast Asia and Northern Europe.
|
|
|
Post by admdavis on Apr 24, 2019 14:19:14 GMT -6
Hi!
In the thread, you said you were starting a game as the CSA. Does that imply that CSA will still be an option in RtW2?
|
|
fifey
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by fifey on Apr 29, 2019 6:36:49 GMT -6
The sea zones look intimidating. Are there any changes that mean replacing ships on their stations is less arduous?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 30, 2019 1:16:39 GMT -6
Hi! In the thread, you said you were starting a game as the CSA. Does that imply that CSA will still be an option in RtW2? I have every indication that the CSA & Spain optional states will be available, though I have not been able to test them yet.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 30, 2019 1:20:34 GMT -6
The sea zones look intimidating. Are there any changes that mean replacing ships on their stations is less arduous? There are more sea zones, yes, so England could be a challenging play. I think the most expedient solution to the "cruiser shuffle" is to build lots of cheap ones and just put them all on Foreign Stations, and then over time as they come to rest somewhere slowly bring them to Active Fleet status. Fortunately the way airpower is handled there is no chore to keeping your airbases and carriers stocked with aircraft, it is all automatic.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Apr 30, 2019 1:43:31 GMT -6
Hi! In the thread, you said you were starting a game as the CSA. Does that imply that CSA will still be an option in RtW2? I have every indication that the CSA & Spain optional states will be available, though I have not been able to test them yet. Back when you said you might start a CSA game it ended up getting interrupted by a game as Germany to test a new part of the game. At the time somebody guessed that it was missiles--did that guess hit the mark? I feel like we know very little about missiles in RtW2 other than that they'll be there.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 30, 2019 3:06:22 GMT -6
I have every indication that the CSA & Spain optional states will be available, though I have not been able to test them yet. Back when you said you might start a CSA game it ended up getting interrupted by a game as Germany to test a new part of the game. At the time somebody guessed that it was missiles--did that guess hit the mark? I feel like we know very little about missiles in RtW2 other than that they'll be there. I would imagine they are modelled as very fast catapult launched planes or, even simpler, as just a very powerful naval gun.
|
|