|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 7, 2019 13:04:40 GMT -6
While it is tempting to answer, but... it is prudent if I do not, I fully agree. So, back on topic, or kind of on-topic. A-H (torpedo technology): Possibly a nod towards the Whitehead torpedo; A-H did dabble in torps fairly early on, though saying that "A-H did it" instead of Stabilimento Technico Fiumano is a bit of a stretch probably, but oh well. I don't have hard feelings about that, but true, triple turrets are a far better tech in the way it is justified well.
Russia (active mine warfare): I'd guess it's due to their fairly good results in the russo-japanese war. I'm currently re-reading my book about it ...but I'm not at the actual conflict just yet and my memory is horrible, still, if I recall correctly, Japan lost two pre-dreads to russian mines in short order. On the flip side, they did lose Makarov to their own(?) mines as well, so uuh... russian mines were doubly effective I guess. Still, a neat flavour and fits the era. Japan: Yes, in my mind, torpedo advantage could suit them in a later timeframe (so - RtW2 ), however, they might "need it" in gameplay-terms because it pairs up nicely with the surprise attack national trait. Still, probably not the best pick, maybe HE technology (looking at their experiments with and partial usage of Shimose in the r-j war; and as for RtW2, Type 3 shells could fit into this as well, not as an actual technology, "just" as a justification for the tech advantage)
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 7, 2019 13:22:03 GMT -6
imryn , I'm done with the cherry picking and shifting goal posts so I'm not repeating the mistakes we made in engaging you in the AoN/turtleback thread. You have the right idea about some things but others you are dead wrong (e.g. such as the RN being ahead in fighter direction or the fact that Implacable was a 1939 design whose construction was delayed by the needs of the Battle of the Atlantic and so design-wise was in no way contemporary with Midway. Malta would have been the better choice) and when confronted you either cherry pick sources that agree while ignoring information in the same source that doesn't (see your link regarding HMS Victorious' operation with 3rd Fleet in 1943) or you try to shift the goalpost by claiming that you were only taking about Pacific operations when the topic of the thread makes no such specification and neither did you until contradicted. So what should and could be an intelligent discussion about a topic ends up being a useless game of whack-a-mole. So this is my position on the thread's topic. There is no need and no justification for any nation to be given a specific advantage in initial aerial technology. The RTW research system is already well set up for the task and mentioned additions for RTW2 like requiring a commissioned fleet carrier in the fleet to place related research areas to High priority just makes it that more suited. Individual bonus techs for certain nations like dive bombing for the USN or torpedo bombing for Japan or the UK would be in keeping with the premise of RTW1 but needs to be used with caution because of the sandbox nature of the game and the fact there is no WW1 scripted for the overall game (1900-1950) to relieve Germany of it's Pacific possessions and the subsequent need for an empire spanning fleet including carriers. So care needs to be taken not to penalize players of non-historical carrier nations when the alternative history of the game would not justify it. I find it ironic that you are accusing me of shifting goal posts.
My first post in this thread was a response to the argument that Japan should get a national bonus to carrier operations. My response was that the US was better at it than Japan, based on performance in the only theatre where they engaged, the Pacific, and the only war they fought with carriers, WW2. I didn't think I would need to state I was talking about the Pacific theatre because there was no other place or time I could possibly be talking about, but apparently that kind of logic and reasoning doesn't apply.
dorn then replied to me and introduced the RN (first goal post shift). He also introduced ship types and availability at the start of the war (second goal post shift). He also introduced technologies unrelated to carriers (third goal post shift), and finally introduced post war technologies (fourth goal post shift)
I replied to dorn defending my original position and explained why I thought US carriers were better than RN carriers for service in the Pacific theatre.
You then responded to that post and introduced further discussion of the FAA and RAF, introduced Victorious stint with the USN and claimed that “the American rear admiral in charge of the group was so impressed with the fighter direction of the British carrier (no Chain Home required) that he had an American fighter squadron from USS Saratoga transferred to Victorious while Victorious' squadron of Avengers was transferred to Saratoga” (your words) and true, except absolutely NOT for the reasons you claimed. Later in the same post you mention the true reason for the swap “to be fair” as you put it – talk about cherry picking arguments!
akosjaccik the responded to my second post inviting more comment on RN carriers.
dorn then replied to me, not to any specific post I had made, to expand his point about RN armoured carriers and showing comparable hanger size between US and RN ships.
I then responded to you, attempting to disprove your point about HMS Victorious and expanding on my point about US pre war doctrine
dorn then responded to that post to bang on about RN armoured carriers again. He continued the discussion about Victorious. He also claimed that Midway was designed based on the performance of RN armoured carriers
I then replied to akosjaccik, expanding on my earlier points, and for the first time explicitly stating I had originally been talking about the context of the Pacific theatre.
I then replied to dorn’s general post addressed to me explaining why I considered RN armoured carriers unsuitable for the Pacific theatre and countering his argument of hanger size by comparing air group size. I erroneously compared Implacable to Midway, having only looked at the completion date, not the date it was laid down.
I then replied to dorn’s latest post, placed his cherry picked quote into the correct context and disproved it, and then further disproved his assertion that Midway was a departure from the Essex design and an adoption of RN designs.
In answer to your post, I think I have demonstrated that I am not the one guilty of moving any goal posts here. I am guilty of cherry picking arguments to make my points, everyone does that, however I have not resorted to intentionally misrepresenting facts as you did in your claim about Victorious. I take your point about comparing Implacable to Midway, but would point out that the RN had to horribly compromise hanger height to fit an air group smaller than an Essex class into a much heavier ship, and had to adopt the US practice of deck parking as well. You suggested comparing Midway to the Malta class, which is interesting because, as I am sure you know, the Malta class was designed to have the armoured deck under the hanger and an unarmoured flight deck – Malta was far closer in design to an Essex class than it was to any preceding RN carrier. I could argue that Malta represents the RN admitting that they were wrong and adopting US design practice.
Anyway, I think I have demonstrated who moved any goal posts here, and what I was and wasn’t talking about.
Funnily enough I more or less agree with your position on who should and should not get national bonuses for carrier warfare. If the existing Japanese bonus for torpedo warfare does relate to aerial torpedoes then I think the US should get a bonus to dive bombing and UK maybe a bonus to carrier technology. If the Japanese bonus does not refer to aerial torpedoes then nobody should get anything
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 7, 2019 13:49:39 GMT -6
I do not agree that there should be additional benefits for a superpower. All nations essentially started or do start, even in the game as it should be. Each nation will choose the technology it wants to pursue. The US Navy did not believe in the torpedo as a main weapon for aircraft but bombs and dive bombers. The Japanese due to their interceptive operational doctrine, chose the torpedo to enable them to attrite our forces as we moved across. We let the game action evolve in a natural way. In 1900, the world was entering the period of globalization which meant that technological advancements were available to all. For Radar, the vacuum tube was developed by Lee De Forest in America, as was the magnetron. The first RADAR was developed in Germany by Christian Hulsmeyer. The point is that RADAR is an assembly of many different inventions in many nations. This is the way history works, leave it alone.
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Mar 7, 2019 13:50:53 GMT -6
Can we stop this debate. It's pointless, and I'm really tired of reading all this passive aggressive drivel.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 7, 2019 13:55:38 GMT -6
Here is a question that I believe needs to be answered about Japanese War Plans. Is an operational plan the same as a war plan? I think a better direction for the thread would be more in line with the initial thread topic, what technology advantages should be given to nations regarding aircraft/carriers. I think the best place to start would be to look at what tech bonuses are given in RtW1 and why. Great Britain •Research advantage: Ship design Quite obvious here
France•Bonus tech: Quad turrets bunch of pre-wwI projects, so ugly, that it's better they stayed on paper •Bonus tech: Hardened AP penetrator
Germany •Research advantage: Armour development Krupp Armour/Ruhr industry in general
•Research advantage: Subdivision and damage control Very hard to sink designs in wwI
•Research advantage: AP Projectiles
•Bonus tech: Cross deck fire Von der Tann/Kaiser etc.
Russia •Bonus tech: Active mine warfare Russians were very active in mining coastal waters of Baltic already during Crimean War
Austria-Hungary •Research advantage: Torpedo technology Whitehead torpedoes aka first torpedoes as we understand them now were developed in AH •Bonus tech: Triple turrets Tegetthoff-class
Italy •Research advantage: Ship design After all, it was Italian who proposed all big gun BB •Bonus tech: Triple turrets Dante Alighieri and further classes •Bonus tech: Motor torpedo boats Italian MTBs were quite successful in wwI
Japan
•Research advantage: Torpedo technology Arguable - as it could be light forces - as DDs and torpedoes were important in doctrine even in Russo-Japanese war •Bonus tech: Double torpedo tube mount Japanese had some of the best early DDs (and also later)
USA •Bonus tech: Superimposed X turret South Carolina-class •Bonus tech: Superimposed B turret
CSA •Research advantage: Submarines Hunley •Bonus tech: Early coastal submarine
Spain •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 7, 2019 14:12:12 GMT -6
Going to original subject, I will take it in broader approach. However I think it is needed to know that game is probably in final stage just finetuning, so it is more about giving developers some thoughts.
I summarize what we know: - they will be 2 starting dates - we know approximately tech tree between 1900-25 and have some broad knowledge what could be a in 1925-50 as we know history
As the game can be 50 years of playthrough the more adaptable approach would be better. I will use maths as it describes it best. I do not lower indexes I hope it is still understandable. Main points is to do system which will take into play player decision about research and could give nation trait in certain research or even remove trait that the nation have.
TRd ... total research points accumulated by all nations in all fields TRnd ... total research points accumulated by certain nation
TRnfd ... total research points accumulated in certain field for certain nation at that date
n ... index of nation f ... index of field of research d ... at that date (d-1) ... at previous month
Rnfd ... research points only that month where "d" here is month of accumulation. The research points are amount before coefficient that decrease number of points due to research of ahead of time (so it shows research points willing to generate) - may be it could be even before random coefficient for reserach points but I do not think so
Pf ... probability of choosing field of research which would gain check
TRnfd = i * TRnf(d-1) + Rnfd i = inflation coeficient, could be tweaked but it increase importantce of present over past - first try could be 0.2. The other effect is that it make new research fields unlocked later some possibility to gaining trait too as 10 years old research is giving only 10.7 % of original value (1-0.2)^10 note: TRnd and TRd is calculated in similar way
TRd = SUM (TRnfd) through "f" and "n" - meaning total for all nations and all fields of research ATRd = TRd/nn nn ... number of nations
Pf = t *c * (TRnfd/TRnd)^2 ... in average of 15 fields that it is 1/15/15=0.44 %, if you invest in one field 2 times average it is 1.76 % Distribution is done by one fuction, so 1st field has 0-X, second field from x-y etc. Than random function choose number which is either in one of the field or outside as sum of all % would be lower than 100 %. It does mean that nation which focus more in one area has higher chance of getting any trait. k ... it is coeficient which help to adjust probability in way that needed, practically to adjust to have real needed % of gaining trait after eg. 10 years. It will be a little more math needed to calculate it.
t ... it is coeficient relatin how much traits the nation has and it is related to general research points generated
t ... 1/(nt+p)^2
nt .. number of traits p ... it is relative strength of research in world p = 1/(TRnd/ATRd) ... nations with more research get bellow 1 and nations with less research gets over 1 so it has right effect in "t"
It is just example, it could be a little more sofisticated if needed or more tweaked to increase probability of priorized research. It could be done in similar way to check if actual trait is lost.
Summary: Probability of getting trait is increase if there is one field of research which is heavily priorized with higher effect of now that past. Nations with overall higher budget for research has higher chance to get trait. If some trait nation have the probability is drastically decreased to get another trait. This model allow getting everytime different trait and it is affected by priorization of certain field.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Mar 7, 2019 14:32:35 GMT -6
You wrote something which is completely wrong, I try to give you some sources to read and learn, you take it something completely change meaning of it. If you are not willing to learn with open mind there is no reason of discussion.
I will again and last time recommend to read about British armoured carriers. The reading is quite large for weeks it is not only about carriers itselfs but about doctrine, operations, issue, cooperation with USN etc. Read it with open mind, this is only way you can learn.
If you are willing to learn we all here would be happy to discuss but not with your actual approach.
Some notes: Implacable designs even predated Essex class. Numbers of aicraft you mentioned are wrong. You need to take similar numbers, operational aicrafts and not to mix with aicraft storaged only in hangar which is number used often on internet. RN usually use numbers of aicraft in hangar, USN total aicrafts including deck parks and spares. RN numbers you can have from links I give you, USN is more difficult to split spares from total aicrafts. Spares could be used after battle to replenish operational numbers but during battle itself there is usually no time for it.
I am sorry you feel that way.
In my opinion I have attempted to remain on point from my first post in this thread. You are the one who introduced RN armoured carriers into a discussion where frankly I do not believe they belong. I was comparing Japan and the US not Japan and anyone else, or the US and anyone else.
I am interested in RN Armoured carriers and thank you for the link to armouredcarriers.com and would be happy to discuss their pros and cons in another thread, however I feel that they are irrelevant in any comparison between Japanese and US carrier forces.
As for the number of aircraft in the air groups I compared, I am pretty confident that the number 90 for an Essex carrier represents the number of active flyable aircraft and not any that are broken down and stored in the hold. I doubt if you can find a source that states a number of flyable aircraft that even approaches that number for any RN carrier - The closest I can get is 82 on Indefatigable in December 1944. The minimum number I have found for an Essex class is 90 and several claim 100. This is active aircraft - 36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, 18 Torpedo bombers. The Essex's were, I believe, able to suspend spare planes from the ceiling of the hanger but these would be additional to the 90 active aircraft I mentioned. Aircraft in a deck park are active aircraft not spares.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Mar 7, 2019 15:17:26 GMT -6
Going to original subject, I will take it in broader approach. However I think it is needed to know that game is probably in final stage just finetuning, so it is more about giving developers some thoughts.
I summarize what we know: - they will be 2 starting dates - we know approximately tech tree between 1900-25 and have some broad knowledge what could be a in 1925-50 as we know history
As the game can be 50 years of playthrough the more adaptable approach would be better. I will use maths as it describes it best. I do not lower indexes I hope it is still understandable. Main points is to do system which will take into play player decision about research and could give nation trait in certain research or even remove trait that the nation have.
TRd ... total research points accumulated by all nations in all fields TRnd ... total research points accumulated by certain nation
TRnfd ... total research points accumulated in certain field for certain nation at that date
n ... index of nation f ... index of field of research d ... at that date (d-1) ... at previous month
Rnfd ... research points only that month where "d" here is month of accumulation. The research points are amount before coefficient that decrease number of points due to research of ahead of time (so it shows research points willing to generate) - may be it could be even before random coefficient for reserach points but I do not think so
Pf ... probability of choosing field of research which would gain check
TRnfd = i * TRnf(d-1) + Rnfd i = inflation coeficient, could be tweaked but it increase importantce of present over past - first try could be 0.2. The other effect is that it make new research fields unlocked later some possibility to gaining trait too as 10 years old research is giving only 10.7 % of original value (1-0.2)^10 note: TRnd and TRd is calculated in similar way
TRd = SUM (TRnfd) through "f" and "n" - meaning total for all nations and all fields of research ATRd = TRd/nn nn ... number of nations
Pf = t *c * (TRnfd/TRnd)^2 ... in average of 15 fields that it is 1/15/15=0.44 %, if you invest in one field 2 times average it is 1.76 % Distribution is done by one fuction, so 1st field has 0-X, second field from x-y etc. Than random function choose number which is either in one of the field or outside as sum of all % would be lower than 100 %. It does mean that nation which focus more in one area has higher chance of getting any trait. k ... it is coeficient which help to adjust probability in way that needed, practically to adjust to have real needed % of gaining trait after eg. 10 years. It will be a little more math needed to calculate it.
t ... it is coeficient relatin how much traits the nation has and it is related to general research points generated
t ... 1/(nt+p)^2
nt .. number of traits p ... it is relative strength of research in world p = 1/(TRnd/ATRd) ... nations with more research get bellow 1 and nations with less research gets over 1 so it has right effect in "t"
It is just example, it could be a little more sofisticated if needed or more tweaked to increase probability of priorized research. It could be done in similar way to check if actual trait is lost.
Summary: Probability of getting trait is increase if there is one field of research which is heavily priorized with higher effect of now that past. Nations with overall higher budget for research has higher chance to get trait. If some trait nation have the probability is drastically decreased to get another trait. This model allow getting everytime different trait and it is affected by priorization of certain field.
I agree with this idea regarding traits, perhaps also including factors outside of research funding. E.G the corruption trait could occur if there if player went over budget for extended time, the focus trait for a specific type of weapon can happen if significant damage was done with that type of weapon.Operationaly, this can just be a set % to grant nation a specific trait if certain condition is met(e.g whenever player overbudget for >2 months) I think being an alternative history game, it’s inportant to start from history but leave room to change. Historically Italy preferred land based aviation due to their geographical location, but had they gained significant colonial poession in the Far East, it may be more justifiable for them to develop an interest in carriers for example. Although we might be too close to release to have this feature implemented, I think this dynamic approach to national traits best represent the type of history we may have in RTW. I think the starting point will be having representative trait for all nations at 1900/25 starts respectively, and from there allow rooms for these traits to change, sometime drastically to reflect similar change in doctrines historically.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Mar 8, 2019 2:29:51 GMT -6
Here are my thoughts on your suggestions. Anywhere that I don't say anything means that I agree. Great Britain •Research advantage: Ship design •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire - If we are giving the Germans credit for Von der Tann and the Spanish for España, the British should get credit for Indefatigable. Personally, I'd say don't give it to either one. •Bonus tech: Heavy Secondary Battery - The 9.2" turrets on the King Edward VII-class battleships laid down in 1902 France •Bonus tech: Quad turrets
•Bonus tech: Hardened AP penetrator - Not sure about this one. Were the French AP shells any better than the rest of the world for this? •Bonus tech: Medium Wing Turrets - The 10.8" turrets on the Jauréguiberry laid down in 1891. Germany •Research advantage: Armour development •Research advantage: Subdivision and damage control
•Research advantage: AP Projectiles - Not sure about this one. Were the German AP shells any better than the rest of the world for this? •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire - See British Russia •Bonus tech: Active mine warfare •Bonus tech: Triple turrets - If we are going to give the Italians and Austrians this one, the Russians should get credit for Gangut•Bonus tech: 3 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Gangut this is part of it •Bonus tech: 4 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Gangut this is also part of it Austria-Hungary •Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Triple turrets •Bonus tech: 3 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Tegetthoff this is part of it •Bonus tech: 4 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Tegetthoff this is also part of it Italy •Research advantage: Ship design •Bonus tech: Triple turrets •Bonus tech: Motor torpedo boats •Bonus tech: 3 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Dante Alighieri this is part of it •Bonus tech: 4 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for Dante Alighieri this is also part of it Japan•Research advantage: Torpedo technology •Bonus tech: Double torpedo tube mount •Bonus tech: Heavy Secondary Battery - The 10" turrets on the Katori-class battleships laid down in 1904 USA •Bonus tech: Superimposed X turret •Bonus tech: Superimposed B turret •Research advantage: Armour development - Harvey Armor (predecessor to Krupp armor) was developed in the US, and they were consistent in the development and production of armor (Bethlehem Thin Chill, etc.) •Bonus tech: Medium Wing Turrets - Many US designs featured 8" secondary battery turrets •Bonus tech: 3 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for South Carolina this is part of it •Bonus tech: 4 Centerline turrets - If we are giving credit for South Carolina this is also part of it •Starting tech: 13"/-2 Gun - Indiana and Kearsarge-class battleships were armed with the 13"/35 gun CSA •Research advantage: Submarines •Bonus tech: Early coastal submarine
Spain •Bonus tech: Cross deck fire - See comments on British
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 8, 2019 14:35:40 GMT -6
It's probably also a good idea to look at the new tech areas to try and speculate who will get advantages where.
New tech areas * Anti aircraft artillery It would seem logical that the American VT fuze would lend itself to the case for the US to get an advantage here.
* Radar and electronics
Perhaps the British or US?
* Naval aviation, lighter than air
I think Germany was the nation with the most experience with airships and the like, seems like a good choice. On the other hand, France had some of the firsts in this category, although in the 1700's.
* Naval aviation, heavier than air
This one is rather tricky. Obviously the US has a good case for having the advantage, but the Italians were some of the first to utilize HtA aircraft as warplanes. France has credit for the first air-to-air kill by some metrics, while Germany got the first air-to-air kill with a synced gun.
* Shipboard aircraft operation
The British have a case with Furious, Argus and Hermes.
* Missile technology The US and Germans both have a strong case on this one.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 8, 2019 15:25:39 GMT -6
It's probably also a good idea to look at the new tech areas to try and speculate who will get advantages where.
New tech areas * Anti aircraft artillery It would seem logical that the American VT fuze would lend itself to the case for the US to get an advantage here.
* Radar and electronics
Perhaps the British or US?
* Naval aviation, lighter than air
I think Germany was the nation with the most experience with airships and the like, seems like a good choice. On the other hand, France had some of the firsts in this category, although in the 1700's.
* Naval aviation, heavier than air
This one is rather tricky. Obviously the US has a good case for having the advantage, but the Italians were some of the first to utilize HtA aircraft as warplanes. France has credit for the first air-to-air kill by some metrics, while Germany got the first air-to-air kill with a synced gun.
* Shipboard aircraft operation
The British have a case with Furious, Argus and Hermes.
* Missile technology The US and Germans both have a strong case on this one.
AA artillery - it is not so easy as VT fuze was based on British research and British incapacity to transfer it to industrial production thus British transfer technology to USA to use their resources to make it happen ("simplified").
But it is overall most issue as if you look on fire control than USA was behind a lot till WW1 when British transfer the knowledge to USN. During WW2 USN get ahead of anybody else. So question is what time is important to make it as trait?
Maybe different traits from diffferent start date? As starting in 1900 there will be no WW1 in RTW2 and it should have effect that USA is not going ahead as quickly as in real history, opposite Russia is not getting so behind.
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Mar 8, 2019 16:08:55 GMT -6
I would like to remind the parties involved that RtW is that kind of game where turbo-Austria-Hungary can make a Japan-US causeway made out of sunken American and Japanese ships in the great Pacific hyperwar of 1923, so "muh history" argument goes out of the window.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Mar 8, 2019 16:13:12 GMT -6
In regarding to "Naval aviation, heavier than air" section, I would suggest some detailed specification: Great Britain
•Research advantage: liquid-cooled piston engine We all remember how awesome is the Rolls-Royce Griffon engine •Research advantage: jet engine Sir Frank Whittle invented the first turbojet United States
•Research advantage: Air-cooled piston engine You all know the legendary Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine •Research advantage: Laminar Flow Wing P-51 wheeeeeeeee! •Research advantage: Turbocharger This is how you defeat the Luftwaffe with a milk jug Italy•Research advantage: Aerodynamics They won several Schneider Trophy in the 1920s Japanese
•Research advantage: Aviation materials 7075 alloy is the secret of the swift Zeke fighter German
•Research advantage: liquid-cooled piston engine Jumo 213A is one of the best liquid-cooled piston engine in WW2 •Research advantage: jet engine Me 262, that's why •Research advantage: Aviation tactics They are the inventor of Immelmann turn and the finger four formation I would like to share to discuss with you about these ideas
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 8, 2019 22:48:37 GMT -6
Japanese
•Research advantage: Aviation materials 7075 alloy is the secret of the swift Zeke fighterl"] So a story I was told, possibly apocryphal. Early 1930s, supposedly a Japanese delegation toured an American aircraft plant. They'd been having trouble making aluminum alloys to match the US, and the delegation wore shoes with soft-cork soles. Walk around an aircraft manufacturing plant in those, you're going to pick up a bunch of metal shavings. Get the shoes home, a bit a metallurgical analysis, and bingo bango, you've got your world-class aluminum. As I said, possibly apocryphal. It was a "keep your eyes open, espionage can take a thousand forms" sort of briefing. Creative way of getting the alloys, if true.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 9, 2019 1:22:17 GMT -6
I've heard a similar story about the Soviets and British jet engine metallurgy. Either or both could be true but I don't know.
The wiki page for 7075 states that it was developed in 1943 so the Zero predates it.
Anyway, this is way too many things I think. Historically, anything developed after 1914 is probably going to have its history either directly or indirectly caused by WW1 and its aftermath and or the economic problems of the 20s and 30s and the subsequent run-up to WW2. None of that is scripted to happen in the full length scenario. Better I think to use the early advantages already in RTW1 and just let the tech tree play out from there. Just my subjective opinion, not trying to draw a hard line.
|
|