|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 5, 2019 7:59:07 GMT -6
shadepiece , if you are looking for more historical designs, I can recommend their previous game Steam and Iron. The battle scenario system was essentially ported over from SaI to Rule the Waves 1. SaI is now less than $20.00 ($19.99) including the WW1 campaign between Germany and Great Britain. It lacks the more open world sandbox strategic layer of RtW but it will give you an intro to the battle system (RtW made a few minor quality of life improvements in the interface but you wouldn't notice if you haven't played RtW) and you can fight a number of scenarios using historical ships or you can even custom design ships for custom scenarios without having to worry about the randomized tech tree progression of RtW.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 5, 2019 8:05:55 GMT -6
I have been reading a book by Norman Friedman called " Winning a Future War" that was kindly linked in another thread by oldpop2000. It is a fascinating read and will probably appeal to everyone here as its subject matter is really the origins of naval warfare simulation gaming. It discusses the use of war gaming at the US Navy War College (NWC) in the interwar years to train future naval commanders, to predict the effect of new technologies, to assess the effectiveness of proposed new ship types, and to guide war planners. It covers the development of carrier warfare tactics and discusses the difficulty in formulating accurate rules for a weapon system that has not been tested in combat, and touches peripherally on the disagreements between proponents of air warfare and surface warfare who viewed the rules in the games as either too generous or too restrictive (depending on which side they were on). It turns out they were too restrictive and carriers turned out to be far more effective that any of the inter war games envisioned. The book also discusses when the NWC was terminated as a think tank for the US Navy in the years leading up to WW2 and covers some of the bone-head thinking that then went on - exactly why the US decided to lobotomise itself at that crucial juncture is not explained but the book does mention some of the awful ship appropriation choices that resulted from this self-inflicted wound. Of particular interest to me was the discussion of how the games had a direct impact on US war plans. Immediately after WW1 the US identified Japan as its most likely future opponent and further identified that in the opening phase of a conflict Japan would attempt to conquer the main US base in Asia, the Philippines. Initial plans envisioned the US making a direct thrust to relieve the Philippines, however when the NWC tested these plans through war games they were found to be unworkable. New war plans were formulated that proposed an island hopping campaign rather than a direct thrust. This strategy of island hopping necessitated the development of extensive naval air power, both land and carrier based, and a capacity for amphibious warfare which was key to capturing the mandatory intermediate island bases against determined opposition. These strategies and capabilities were entirely new in naval warfare, and we don't have them in RTW1 or 2. The strategic map for RTW1 and 2 consists of a number of sea zones and if you want to conduct an invasion you simply move a large force of ships into a sea zone. In RTW1 you then wait for the RNG to trigger an invasion on a random enemy possession in the sea zone, in RTW2 you select the possession you want to invade then wait for RNG to trigger an invasion. In both games if you don't have sufficient basing capacity of your own in the sea zone your forces suffer from attrition while you are waiting. This works, but it is not a very satisfying representation of strategic play. I would like to propose a more granular approach. This probably can't be done in RTW2, even as a later upgrade, but can be done for RTW3. What I propose is the elimination of the sea zones entirely; each possession would be treated as an individual entity in the strategic game, and would have its own area of influence represented by circles on the strategic map. If you own a possession the area of influence would be established by how much development you have done and what is stationed there. Each possession should have a maximum base capacity to represent the upper limit of development based on geography, available resources, and land area. Simply developing base capacity would give a small area of influence however stationing units there would provide much more. If you build air bases and station aircraft there you would gain influence depending on the aircraft types - fighters would give one circle and bombers / patrol aircraft would give another. if you station ships there you would get further circles of influence based on ship types and ranges. Replenishment at sea (RAS) was developed during this time period so perhaps two circles could be generated to show these two ranges, with attrition occurring to ships operating on RAS. Thus each possession you own would be ringed with a number of circles, and you would receive intelligence reports on enemy activity within those circles and tactical scenarios against enemy forces that entered your area of influence. These circles would be large enough to encompass adjacent possessions, and if those possessions were owned by the enemy there would be an ongoing level of fighting; you would get bombardment and coastal raid scenarios and there would be a background of bombing raids that would be treated in the same way as submarine warfare. If you wanted to invade that possession you would assemble the necessary force ratio in your possession and trigger the invasion mechanism. Success in bombing and scenarios would shorten the time before the invasion was achieved. The way that base resources are implemented is fine for representing fixed permanent facilities such as Pearl Harbour, Gibralter, Malta etc, but not really good for a dynamic island hopping campaign. The current mechanism should remain as is (but with the addition of a maximum possible size) and a further "temporary" base capacity added. Temporary base capacity should be very quick to build up and very expensive to maintain. I propose allowing any number of upgrades to be applied to a possession simultaneously but the cost should be a monthly cost, not a one off cost, and they should take effect immediately not after 12 months. Thus if I need 10 temporary base upgrades I will pay 24 million per month for them. This is a very high cost, but would encourage and reward strategic thinking - build up large cash reserves before going to war or advance more slowly building up permanent bases as you go. I believe this would allow us to plan and implement the type of island hopping campaign that the US used in WW2. These changes would have some knock on effects as well. Ships would be assigned to specific possessions and not to sea zones, and this would mean that we would have to pay more attention to the types and numbers of specific ships we build. With sea zones we can assign a force of ships in the expectation that the whole force or some part of it will be available for any scenario, but under the new method only those ships assigned to a possession will be available for scenarios in that possessions area of influence. For example, under the current system I have 5 possessions in SEA and assign 4 BB, 4BC, 6 CL, 16 DD to the zone. This provides me a decent force for a fleet battle and a good mix for smaller battles. Under the new system I would have to make decisions about where to station my capital ships, and wherever I put them I would need to also put sufficient screening units with them, and then station additional units to any of my other possessions that were outside the area of influence of my main force. Let us assume that I have Hong Kong and Singapore as two of my 5 possessions and that if I station my main force at either the other possession is outside its area of influence. I have to decide if I want to concentrate my capital ships at one or the other, or split my force between the two. Splitting my force will guarantee that I can only fight with (at most) half my forces if attacked, concentrating my forces leaves one possession vulnerable to invasion. I believe these types of problems will add depth and interest to the strategic phase of the game. The way that raiders work would also be affected by this change. Raiders would be controlled by the AI and be moved away from their starting point. If enemy forces moved into the area the AI would move them away, and keep moving them to avoid areas that contain enemy forces. If there is no move that takes them away from enemy forces they would be intercepted (fight scenario) or enter internment in a neutral port. When raiders sink ships the reports should be marked on the strategic map, and it would be possible to move ships to trap raiders and force them into combat or internment. Of course, adding depth to the strategic game will be a source of frustration if the AI won't fight. Playing as Japan recently I have had several wars against Russia, France, and Germany where the AI side has only sent a fraction of their fleet to attack me and I have relied on subs and raiders. This normally drags on a bit until I get an invasion on one of their possessions in NEA or SEA and then I get hit with a "no border change" peace agreement. This might be representative of what happened historically during the early RTW time period, but not the later time (after 1925) and it should become much harder for countries to duck out of wars they are losing without paying large reparations. This is one area where historical accuracy has to take a back seat to enjoyable game play, and it is no fun to make the plan, build up the resources, and start to implement it only to have the rug pulled out from under you and have to start over. Thinking about it, it would be nice to have more control over when wars start and stop - possibly a "change regime" button for your own country when the politico's annoy you
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Mar 5, 2019 9:22:39 GMT -6
While you can base designs off of historical ones, in the end they are all 'custom' - because it is very unlikely that you will have exactly the same technology as historical at any one point (or the same tech as a previous game as that nation, for that matter). This means that while you can try to follow historical designs, the game might throw a wrench or two into things - say you're trying to follow real USN designs, and when you get to the historical date for Nevada you find out that you haven't got triple turrets yet, or you try to make a Colorado and realize your largest guns are 15in instead of 16in. While you can adjust the research priority, the randomish nature of it means every playthrough is going to come out a little different, and half the fun is adapting to what you do have on hand.
Has there ever been any thought to incorporating a "historical research" mode into RTW2 that would allow the user to step into the role of running that nation's navy but while facing that nation's actual historical research progression? That is, if one is running the U.S. for example, you'd get 'all or nothing' armour and triple turrets at the same time in-game as the U.S. did in real life. (The player would still be designing their own ships.)
I think such a "historical research" option might provide for some interesting challenges for the player, different from the ones where research output is wholly randomized based on the selected priorities.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 5, 2019 10:25:59 GMT -6
I have one questions for testers of RTW2.
Is it AI better in designing ships through time? It means that all next capital classes are improvement of the existing ones as in RTW where quite often AI builds inferior ships several years after another class. In real history it was only R class which was more economical than QE class but except this next classes was larger and better.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 5, 2019 11:04:25 GMT -6
Dorn, I don't believe your paradigm about the next generation always being larger and better holds up for carrier design. There was plenty of experimentation with early carriers and certainly not a steady upward climb to either bigger or better. Many thought that smaller and more numerous carriers would be a better solution and this route was emphasized by the naval treaties that imposed lower limits to what was considered a carrier, as well as by the fleet tonnage limitations for carriers. There were plenty of backward steps along the way by every involved nation, right into WW2 (take the Ranger as an American example).
As for battleship design - I haven't noticed any significant changes to the way the AI designs battleships, which doesn't mean the process hasn't been improved. Though the RTW1 design process is quite similar to the RTW2 process, there have been a number of additions to the ship design system itself, making it somewhat difficult to directly compare the two. I haven't really been focusing on that part of the game so improvements to how the AI designs battleships could have happened without my noticing.
|
|
|
Post by shadepiece on Mar 5, 2019 11:11:01 GMT -6
Corsair, I think that sounds very interesting indeed, and seems like a simple enough addition in an expansion considering you'd still be designing the ships, but you'd just have a set acquisition schedule for the technologies. I like the sound of that.
Imryn, that was a very interesting write up! I enjoyed reading it, and I think your ideas there are pretty solid. Can't particularly expand, but I do hope someone else could. I'll be watching to see what's said about those items.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2019 11:22:37 GMT -6
I have been reading a book by Norman Friedman called " Winning a Future War" that was kindly linked in another thread by oldpop2000 . It is a fascinating read and will probably appeal to everyone here as its subject matter is really the origins of naval warfare simulation gaming. It discusses the use of war gaming at the US Navy War College (NWC) in the interwar years to train future naval commanders, to predict the effect of new technologies, to assess the effectiveness of proposed new ship types, and to guide war planners. It covers the development of carrier warfare tactics and discusses the difficulty in formulating accurate rules for a weapon system that has not been tested in combat, and touches peripherally on the disagreements between proponents of air warfare and surface warfare who viewed the rules in the games as either too generous or too restrictive (depending on which side they were on). It turns out they were too restrictive and carriers turned out to be far more effective that any of the inter war games envisioned. The book also discusses when the NWC was terminated as a think tank for the US Navy in the years leading up to WW2 and covers some of the bone-head thinking that then went on - exactly why the US decided to lobotomise itself at that crucial juncture is not explained but the book does mention some of the awful ship appropriation choices that resulted from this self-inflicted wound. Of particular interest to me was the discussion of how the games had a direct impact on US war plans. Immediately after WW1 the US identified Japan as its most likely future opponent and further identified that in the opening phase of a conflict Japan would attempt to conquer the main US base in Asia, the Philippines. Initial plans envisioned the US making a direct thrust to relieve the Philippines, however when the NWC tested these plans through war games they were found to be unworkable. New war plans were formulated that proposed an island hopping campaign rather than a direct thrust. This strategy of island hopping necessitated the development of extensive naval air power, both land and carrier based, and a capacity for amphibious warfare which was key to capturing the mandatory intermediate island bases against determined opposition. These strategies and capabilities were entirely new in naval warfare, and we don't have them in RTW1 or 2. The strategic map for RTW1 and 2 consists of a number of sea zones and if you want to conduct an invasion you simply move a large force of ships into a sea zone. In RTW1 you then wait for the RNG to trigger an invasion on a random enemy possession in the sea zone, in RTW2 you select the possession you want to invade then wait for RNG to trigger an invasion. In both games if you don't have sufficient basing capacity of your own in the sea zone your forces suffer from attrition while you are waiting. This works, but it is not a very satisfying representation of strategic play. I would like to propose a more granular approach. This probably can't be done in RTW2, even as a later upgrade, but can be done for RTW3. What I propose is the elimination of the sea zones entirely; each possession would be treated as an individual entity in the strategic game, and would have its own area of influence represented by circles on the strategic map. If you own a possession the area of influence would be established by how much development you have done and what is stationed there. Each possession should have a maximum base capacity to represent the upper limit of development based on geography, available resources, and land area. Simply developing base capacity would give a small area of influence however stationing units there would provide much more. If you build air bases and station aircraft there you would gain influence depending on the aircraft types - fighters would give one circle and bombers / patrol aircraft would give another. if you station ships there you would get further circles of influence based on ship types and ranges. Replenishment at sea (RAS) was developed during this time period so perhaps two circles could be generated to show these two ranges, with attrition occurring to ships operating on RAS. Thus each possession you own would be ringed with a number of circles, and you would receive intelligence reports on enemy activity within those circles and tactical scenarios against enemy forces that entered your area of influence. These circles would be large enough to encompass adjacent possessions, and if those possessions were owned by the enemy there would be an ongoing level of fighting; you would get bombardment and coastal raid scenarios and there would be a background of bombing raids that would be treated in the same way as submarine warfare. If you wanted to invade that possession you would assemble the necessary force ratio in your possession and trigger the invasion mechanism. Success in bombing and scenarios would shorten the time before the invasion was achieved. The way that base resources are implemented is fine for representing fixed permanent facilities such as Pearl Harbour, Gibralter, Malta etc, but not really good for a dynamic island hopping campaign. The current mechanism should remain as is (but with the addition of a maximum possible size) and a further "temporary" base capacity added. Temporary base capacity should be very quick to build up and very expensive to maintain. I propose allowing any number of upgrades to be applied to a possession simultaneously but the cost should be a monthly cost, not a one off cost, and they should take effect immediately not after 12 months. Thus if I need 10 temporary base upgrades I will pay 24 million per month for them. This is a very high cost, but would encourage and reward strategic thinking - build up large cash reserves before going to war or advance more slowly building up permanent bases as you go. I believe this would allow us to plan and implement the type of island hopping campaign that the US used in WW2. These changes would have some knock on effects as well. Ships would be assigned to specific possessions and not to sea zones, and this would mean that we would have to pay more attention to the types and numbers of specific ships we build. With sea zones we can assign a force of ships in the expectation that the whole force or some part of it will be available for any scenario, but under the new method only those ships assigned to a possession will be available for scenarios in that possessions area of influence. For example, under the current system I have 5 possessions in SEA and assign 4 BB, 4BC, 6 CL, 16 DD to the zone. This provides me a decent force for a fleet battle and a good mix for smaller battles. Under the new system I would have to make decisions about where to station my capital ships, and wherever I put them I would need to also put sufficient screening units with them, and then station additional units to any of my other possessions that were outside the area of influence of my main force. Let us assume that I have Hong Kong and Singapore as two of my 5 possessions and that if I station my main force at either the other possession is outside its area of influence. I have to decide if I want to concentrate my capital ships at one or the other, or split my force between the two. Splitting my force will guarantee that I can only fight with (at most) half my forces if attacked, concentrating my forces leaves one possession vulnerable to invasion. I believe these types of problems will add depth and interest to the strategic phase of the game. The way that raiders work would also be affected by this change. Raiders would be controlled by the AI and be moved away from their starting point. If enemy forces moved into the area the AI would move them away, and keep moving them to avoid areas that contain enemy forces. If there is no move that takes them away from enemy forces they would be intercepted (fight scenario) or enter internment in a neutral port. When raiders sink ships the reports should be marked on the strategic map, and it would be possible to move ships to trap raiders and force them into combat or internment. Of course, adding depth to the strategic game will be a source of frustration if the AI won't fight. Playing as Japan recently I have had several wars against Russia, France, and Germany where the AI side has only sent a fraction of their fleet to attack me and I have relied on subs and raiders. This normally drags on a bit until I get an invasion on one of their possessions in NEA or SEA and then I get hit with a "no border change" peace agreement. This might be representative of what happened historically during the early RTW time period, but not the later time (after 1925) and it should become much harder for countries to duck out of wars they are losing without paying large reparations. This is one area where historical accuracy has to take a back seat to enjoyable game play, and it is no fun to make the plan, build up the resources, and start to implement it only to have the rug pulled out from under you and have to start over. Thinking about it, it would be nice to have more control over when wars start and stop - possibly a "change regime" button for your own country when the politico's annoy you I am very glad you like it. Here are some other sources about war gaming and fleet exercises. The two go together, the Naval War College floor games were translated to fleet exercises to test them in more detail. Books on wargaming Gaming the Interwar – US Government Playing War by John M. Lillard Fundamentals of War Gaming US Navy by Francis J. McHugh Testing American Sea Power by Craig C. Felker To Train the Fleet for War by Albert Nolfi Based upon your comments, another good book is War Plan Orange by Edward S. Miller - This is an excellent reference and source for the planning and execution of the Pacific War.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 5, 2019 12:23:22 GMT -6
Dorn, I don't believe your paradigm about the next generation always being larger and better holds up for carrier design. There was plenty of experimentation with early carriers and certainly not a steady upward climb to either bigger or better. Many thought that smaller and more numerous carriers would be a better solution and this route was emphasized by the naval treaties that imposed lower limits to what was considered a carrier, as well as by the fleet tonnage limitations for carriers. There were plenty of backward steps along the way by every involved nation, right into WW2 (take the Ranger as an American example). As for battleship design - I haven't noticed any significant changes to the way the AI designs battleships, which doesn't mean the process hasn't been improved. Though the RTW1 design process is quite similar to the RTW2 process, there have been a number of additions to the ship design system itself, making it somewhat difficult to directly compare the two. I haven't really been focusing on that part of the game so improvements to how the AI designs battleships could have happened without my noticing. You are right for carriers. I meant battleships and battlecruisers, this limits AI. It happened quite often tha AI build next generation of battleships/battlecruisers inferior to previous class. The main issue is with UK as it happens most often with UK.
See picture bellow.
UK commisioned quite good design around real QE class in 1913. But as you can see several other classes are smaller and even less armored. Same about guns. 8x15" => 12x15" on less displacement ==> 8x16" (good) ==> 12x14" (equivalent broadside but less penetration - none choose it except treaty limitation) ==> 8x15" (worse) ==> 10x16" guns (several times)
I do not point out armor which is certainly getting worse because of smaller displacement with much heavier main guns.
Second issue is turret configuration. Same ships:
ABYX ==> ALRY (without superfiring turrets - should not be) ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX (several times) In this case there is only one strange example of ALRY after ABYX. I have seen even going back to "moltke" design with wings turret later which has no sence at all. If AI design such a ship later in game it is absolote when commisioned. Second thing is that AI using excessive free tonnage for guns and I expect that in designing the armor is one of last to fullfil remaining tonnage.
Does AI design ship in RTW2 using immunity zones? If not AI ships would be in serious disadvantage against players ships using this idea. In RTW the most easist part of capital ships engagement is time around 1920 when it is still possible to armor ships against even 16" guns in some immunity zone but AI is unable to catch as AI design has unadequate armor.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 5, 2019 12:28:27 GMT -6
Quite interesting ideas. I think it could be done in some simplification manner as something to allow allocate budget for support ship and than have some number of support capability which can be used as enhance basing capability in some areas. But it happened only starting 40s as I am aware but may be someone more educated could know that topic more.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 5, 2019 13:18:38 GMT -6
Dorn, I don't believe your paradigm about the next generation always being larger and better holds up for carrier design. There was plenty of experimentation with early carriers and certainly not a steady upward climb to either bigger or better. Many thought that smaller and more numerous carriers would be a better solution and this route was emphasized by the naval treaties that imposed lower limits to what was considered a carrier, as well as by the fleet tonnage limitations for carriers. There were plenty of backward steps along the way by every involved nation, right into WW2 (take the Ranger as an American example). As for battleship design - I haven't noticed any significant changes to the way the AI designs battleships, which doesn't mean the process hasn't been improved. Though the RTW1 design process is quite similar to the RTW2 process, there have been a number of additions to the ship design system itself, making it somewhat difficult to directly compare the two. I haven't really been focusing on that part of the game so improvements to how the AI designs battleships could have happened without my noticing. You are right for carriers. I meant battleships and battlecruisers, this limits AI. It happened quite often tha AI build next generation of battleships/battlecruisers inferior to previous class. The main issue is with UK as it happens most often with UK.
See picture bellow.
UK commisioned quite good design around real QE class in 1913. But as you can see several other classes are smaller and even less armored. Same about guns. 8x15" => 12x15" on less displacement ==> 8x16" (good) ==> 12x14" (equivalent broadside but less penetration - none choose it except treaty limitation) ==> 8x15" (worse) ==> 10x16" guns (several times)
I do not point out armor which is certainly getting worse because of smaller displacement with much heavier main guns.
Second issue is turret configuration. Same ships:
ABYX ==> ALRY (without superfiring turrets - should not be) ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX (several times) In this case there is only one strange example of ALRY after ABYX. I have seen even going back to "moltke" design with wings turret later which has no sence at all. If AI design such a ship later in game it is absolote when commisioned. Second thing is that AI using excessive free tonnage for guns and I expect that in designing the armor is one of last to fullfil remaining tonnage.
Does AI design ship in RTW2 using immunity zones? If not AI ships would be in serious disadvantage against players ships using this idea. In RTW the most easist part of capital ships engagement is time around 1920 when it is still possible to armor ships against even 16" guns in some immunity zone but AI is unable to catch as AI design has unadequate armor.
Interesting. From what I've seen in RTW2 that would be a very unusual building pattern, but I've been primarily testing the 1920 start time. I'll discuss this with the other playtesters to see if they are seeing a similar pattern from the British in RTW2. In your games is this typical for the British or just a pattern that happens occasionally?
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 5, 2019 13:33:44 GMT -6
I've noticed similar occurrences, where the AI will often build ships of extremely similar designs but with tweaks. In this case, for example, the US seems incapable of coming up with a unified choice in design. The New Mexico and Rhode Island designs are particularly odd, because despite a nearly identical armament and belt armor configuration, the smaller design has a 4kt speed advantage. This makes me wonder if the AI is simply being wasteful with the New Mexico design, or if there's something like range or deck armor I'm not seeing.
Of course, this isn't necessarily "wrong", it just feels kind of strange.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 5, 2019 14:02:53 GMT -6
You are right for carriers. I meant battleships and battlecruisers, this limits AI. It happened quite often tha AI build next generation of battleships/battlecruisers inferior to previous class. The main issue is with UK as it happens most often with UK.
See picture bellow.
UK commisioned quite good design around real QE class in 1913. But as you can see several other classes are smaller and even less armored. Same about guns. 8x15" => 12x15" on less displacement ==> 8x16" (good) ==> 12x14" (equivalent broadside but less penetration - none choose it except treaty limitation) ==> 8x15" (worse) ==> 10x16" guns (several times)
I do not point out armor which is certainly getting worse because of smaller displacement with much heavier main guns.
Second issue is turret configuration. Same ships:
ABYX ==> ALRY (without superfiring turrets - should not be) ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX ==> ABYX ==> ABQYX (several times) In this case there is only one strange example of ALRY after ABYX. I have seen even going back to "moltke" design with wings turret later which has no sence at all. If AI design such a ship later in game it is absolote when commisioned. Second thing is that AI using excessive free tonnage for guns and I expect that in designing the armor is one of last to fullfil remaining tonnage.
Does AI design ship in RTW2 using immunity zones? If not AI ships would be in serious disadvantage against players ships using this idea. In RTW the most easist part of capital ships engagement is time around 1920 when it is still possible to armor ships against even 16" guns in some immunity zone but AI is unable to catch as AI design has unadequate armor.
Interesting. From what I've seen in RTW2 that would be a very unusual building pattern, but I've been primarily testing the 1920 start time. I'll discuss this with the other playtesters to see if they are seeing a similar pattern from the British in RTW2. In your games is this typical for the British or just a pattern that happens occasionally? I look at my last 4 saves at end of game at January 1926 without going to archive and some quick statistics: USA game (historical budget, very large fleet)
- UK as above - Germany - BB commisioned in 1920 is Kaiser design even if 3 previous classes was 4 and 5 centerline turrets, 1925 design of BB going down by 1700 tons even if main battery is going from 5x2x15" to 2x3,3x2x16" - France - BB commisioned in 1925 is going down by 2000 tons from class from 1920,1923 even if main guns going from 3x3x14" to 3x3,1x2x15" - Japan - BB commisioned in 1920 is going down by 2100 tons from class from 1916 even if main guns going from 10x12" (Kaiser style) to 10x14" (Nevada style) UK game (historical budget, very large fleet)
- Germany - BB commisioned in 1919 after class commisioned in 1918 - going down 600 tons (not significant but not in line with increase number of guns) however going from 10x13" guns (Nevada style) to 5x3x13" (Gangut style with Q turret without superfairing turrets) - France - 2 classes commisioned in 1921 with 3x3x14" (no superfairing) even if previous class 2 year earlier has superfiring forward turret - Russia - BC commisioned in 1918 with just only 2x2x13" (design basis seems something as Kongo - seems a little strange only 4 guns so late as ship was relatively slow 27-28 knots within 33100 tons) - USA - BB in 1921 without superfiring turrets and 3200 tons smaller than class commisioned in 1918 even if guns going from 12x14" (Nevada style with 1 more Q turret) to 14x15" (Gangut style with Q turret) loosing superfiring and armor - Japan - BB in 1923 going down by 3700 ton with same armament 10x12" guns (same style) - Italy - BC commisioned in 1923 had 10x13" (4 turrets without B turret) after class from 1918 with 10x13" (ABVY)
Italy game (historical budget, very large fleet) - UK - BB in 1918 with 12x15" (Gangut style) after 10x14" (Nevada style), BB in 1920 with 10x16" with R turret without B turret, BB in 1928 (forecast) going down by 8900! tons (I would expect it from dedicated BC but for 21 knots battleship is waste of ship)
- UK - BC in 1909 with 6x14" is even smaller by 1100 tons than BC from 1906 (2 classes between them) with 2x2x14" - USA - BB in 1920 with 8x16" (QE style) going down by 700 tons than BB from 1916 8x15" (QE style), than in 1920 there is 40000 tons battleship (8x16") and than in 1922 there are 2 classes with only 31600 (12x15") and 32700 tons (10x13" - why going down so much with caliber?), there are other classes after as there is several classes with 1 ship per classe range from 34700 tons to 42800 tons.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 5, 2019 15:11:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 5, 2019 16:22:00 GMT -6
Here's another example, this time with CLs. This game is only at 1907, but as you can see Russia has gone through 4 different designs, which seem identical with the exception of the Nadezhda-class having an extra inch of belt armor. The only oddity is the Svetlana having an extra knot of speed from somewhere, but perhaps that's an intelligence failing. Again, I don't think this is technically wrong and of course there might be hidden differences, but it seems rather odd to see the AI behave this way. Attachments:
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 6, 2019 3:23:09 GMT -6
Quite interesting ideas. I think it could be done in some simplification manner as something to allow allocate budget for support ship and than have some number of support capability which can be used as enhance basing capability in some areas. But it happened only starting 40s as I am aware but may be someone more educated could know that topic more.
I did think about suggesting more detailed implementation of "Fleet Train" units - logistics ships, tankers, depot ships, floating dry docks etc etc. The US Navy developed a capability to project power during the interwar years that nobody else had ever had, and they could capture a fly speck of land in the middle of nowhere and turn it into a fleet support base almost over night. It would be awesome to model that accurately in the game, but I think it might be a step too far. For that reason I proposed the "Temporary" Base capacity idea as a simpler way to represent the ability to rapidly develop new bases without having to introduce all of the specific details Historically only the US could do it. That is not to say that it should be limited to the US in the game, because it shouldn't, but it took a huge amount of thought and planning and testing spread over many years to develop it, and that should be represented by a new tech tree (possibly combined with amphibious warfare) that gave unlocks and bonuses for temporary basing and invasions.
|
|