|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 30, 2019 6:48:47 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. No, I will tell you that is not the reason. But I am not allowed to disclose more. Sometimes the guest enjoys the meal more by not knowing what is going to come out of the kitchen! I think Gandalf says something like that, when speaking about the unknown-to-the-hobbits forthcoming marriage of Aragorn and Arwen...
|
|
fifey
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by fifey on Apr 30, 2019 22:32:38 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. Thanks for that and thanks for the idea. Britain is my favourite (best ship names).
|
|
|
Post by janxol on May 3, 2019 8:03:00 GMT -6
Can we expect any more goodies from you before release or is everything top secret?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 3, 2019 14:53:56 GMT -6
"Goodies"? I think we're tapped out on hors d'oeuvres at this point, but the main course is right around the corner. :]
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 4, 2019 8:22:33 GMT -6
"Goodies"? I think we're tapped out on hors d'oeuvres at this point, but the main course is right around the corner. :] Maybe so, but everyone knows dessert is the best part
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 20, 2019 11:58:04 GMT -6
The Beta Team is still storming away trying to replicate and discover errors, though I thought I would report this game as it has progressed quite enjoyably so far, a 1900 start. I just concluded a war with the English in which I was able to strike their fleet at Weihaiwei with a dawn air attack, though a front moved in and prevented a big result from those strikes. None-the-less I am now at an interesting point, as my BCs really need to be retired desperately and I have not a heavy cruiser to my name. I also have a very large air-force which now is soaking up maintenance funds in NEA where there is only 1 possible opponent, and one which I am no longer interested in antagonizing. I have run into a couple glitches but nothing significant or affecting the course of play, though they all go on my note-pad for reporting. We continue to work on cataloging every bug, issue and suggestion!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 27, 2019 21:10:00 GMT -6
I just completed my first 1.01 game, and I think I did rather well for Austria. I did have 4 medium sized carriers, but given the number of airbases I collected they probably weren't necessary. I lost only two BBs, one old one in a supporting force to a flash-fire, and then one of new ones (below) which blundered into an enemy force at night and ate 5 torpedoes and sank about 45 minutes later. I think 14.1" guns are adequate, especially as the frequency of >20,000 yard fire - especially in the med - is rather low. This ship I think was a fine effort of economy- and it happened to get an "exceeds design speed" on trial for the bonus. This ship essentially served my 'bc' role from the mid game to end. However I wanted to play with a larger design, one that could face 16" guns at 15,000 yards and have a better chance. This is what I came up with; This is the design philosophy I came in with for this design. I didn't need a 30 knot ship, I wanted something "fast enough" that had ample protection and AAA. So all forward was what I was committed to. Doing so that meant I was left with 3 turrets. I don't like the frequency with which Quads jam so I was only willing to carry 1 of those. Now the AI doesn't presently do a great job building heavily armored ships, so if I am essentially facing 45,000 ton BCs (as their typical armor reflects) then I don't need anything bigger than 16-inch guns. So if I have the modest propulsion and the main guns, and it doesn't consume barely half the ship, the other half can be protection. This is the result. Unfortunately it was never tested in action, but I think it would have served admirably. I only had a couple bugs show up, all of which were logged, but none of which prevented the ending of the game. Huzzah! Now next is a German 1920 start, just to take a deeper dive into that.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on May 28, 2019 2:37:02 GMT -6
This is the design philosophy I came in with for this design. I didn't need a 30 knot ship, I wanted something "fast enough" that had ample protection and AAA. So all forward was what I was committed to. Doing so that meant I was left with 3 turrets. I don't like the frequency with which Quads jam so I was only willing to carry 1 of those. Now the AI doesn't presently do a great job building heavily armored ships, so if I am essentially facing 45,000 ton BCs (as their typical armor reflects) then I don't need anything bigger than 16-inch guns. So if I have the modest propulsion and the main guns, and it doesn't consume barely half the ship, the other half can be protection. This is the result. Unfortunately it was never tested in action, but I think it would have served admirably. I only had a couple bugs show up, all of which were logged, but none of which prevented the ending of the game. Huzzah! Now next is a German 1920 start, just to take a deeper dive into that. I really do hope that my eyes are failing me when I look at that deck armour.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 28, 2019 3:27:58 GMT -6
I think 14.1" guns are adequate, especially as the frequency of >20,000 yard fire - especially in the med - is rather low. This ship I think was a fine effort of economy- and it happened to get an "exceeds design speed" on trial for the bonus. This ship essentially served my 'bc' role from the mid game to end. Nice ship! But why do you use a quad in Q(L?) position? When I built similar ships in RTW1 I usually placed twin in this position on account of it having less chance to fire than either A or B so cutting costs there both on barrels and ammo (and armour) should be enough to fe. increase calibre to 15in. Or just put quad on A position.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 28, 2019 4:12:48 GMT -6
May be the original thought was that in case on hit disable both forward turrets he can still have 4 guns firing.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 28, 2019 7:15:51 GMT -6
Also I distrust the quads a bit. And the deck of the 83k BB is with Box Protection of course, so to get 6 3/4 inch over the rest of the armored citadel I had to go up to 13 1/2 on the magazines. There is still an armor savings overall in weight over non-box and a 6.5 deck. & Yes, I think they are safe now.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 28, 2019 7:20:57 GMT -6
Plus the increased beam at about the mid-section helps with the bigger barbette diameter and the overall stability of the ship via the center of mass.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on May 28, 2019 9:06:43 GMT -6
Also I distrust the quads a bit. And the deck of the 83k BB is with Box Protection of course, so to get 6 3/4 inch over the rest of the armored citadel I had to go up to 13 1/2 on the magazines. There is still an armor savings overall in weight over non-box and a 6.5 deck. & Yes, I think they are safe now. And here was I, thinking that you managed to cram so much armour on it with full protection. Aren't they vulnerable to hull hits to machinery spaces, though?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 28, 2019 9:30:19 GMT -6
mmm, I've never heard it mentioned or read it, but I think machinery spaces get an extra bump of armor automatically, based on innumerable combat logs- that is just a private theory. At the least, similar results with box protected ships with 16" belts & ergo 8" theoretically over machinery have not acted in combat like ships with only 8" of belt there. So in this case I am allowing experience to rule the day.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 30, 2019 20:07:10 GMT -6
Here is an interesting early game situation which started in 1900. As Russia, I have had 2 wars with France. Before the first war and after the second there were 15,000/10" treaties in place. Between the two wars I actually laid down 3 dreadnoughts but they were killed by the second treaty with about 10-months to go. Since you can't build a BB/BC with only 10" guns, and a B cannot be too fast or have too many turrets, I decided to do what I can with armored cruisers. My first incarnations had only 9" guns, but the latest became quite capable with triple mounts and 3-centerline finally available. The rest of the world decided much the same, though the nation's which couldn't get dreadnoughts in the water between treaties is curious; My designs in order of creation- The unfortunate thing is these ships don't have much future as Heavy Cruisers, they would be terribly expensive to modernize, but we shall see. As we can see the current international situation is not ideal. I am sure Austria will be very helpful to the war effort, and the USA is so close to jumping in that whatever victories I can manage might be wiped out by an enlarged coalition. At the moment Japan has pushed the bulk of their fleet into SEA, no doubt preparing to seize Cochin China from me, so I managed to win the 2 small scraps I've had so far. On to July!
|
|