|
Post by griffin01 on Apr 17, 2019 4:32:47 GMT -6
I would like to ask someone from the dev team to clarify on the features mentioned in the subject, or, more specifically:
1) Are seaplanes going to be for recon only, or will they be able to perform other roles? I do recall someone from the dev team mentioning unwillingness to let them in one of the threads. Did that stance change in any way, allowing seaplane fighters or/and bombers? IIRC, Mitsubishi F1M had a reputation for being a nimble fighter, for example.
2) Regarding aviation decks, is there any way to choose the extent of the ship used up for the deck? The 1/3 conversion of Ise allowed only seaplanes (which could range from situationally useful to of questionable value depending on the answer to 1)) to be launched, but perhaps a 2/3 conversion would allow the ship to launch smaller carrier aircraft, especially with the help of a catapult?
Please keep in mind that I do not want to argue for such solutions to be particularly useful (although they could well be), and certainly not without drawbacks, merely supported by the game.
Finally, 3) Are heavy AA guns exclusively dual-purpose secondary/tertiary guns, or is there a possibility of having specialized heavy AA guns added to the ship? I believe that for those who would like to build ships with secondary batteries a bit on the heavier side (including me, but I hope I am not alone in this ), having their tertiary battery free to engage lighter craft while retaining ability to provide heavy AA cover would be very desirable. Perhaps there would be some merit in adding a fourth battery to the ships, filling the same role as tertiary battery currently, while allowing the tertiary battery to be armoured? This would also solve the issue.
I apologise if any of these questions have already been asked and answered, but after reading most of the threads on the RTW2 subforum I was unable to find anything that addressed those questions at all or with regard to the specific points I wanted to make.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 17, 2019 4:59:52 GMT -6
1) Are seaplanes going to be for recon only, or will they be able to perform other roles? I do recall someone from the dev team mentioning unwillingness to let them in one of the threads. Did that stance change in any way, allowing seaplane fighters or/and bombers? IIRC, Mitsubishi F1M had a reputation for being a nimble fighter, for example.
Considering that there's nothing to suggest that you couldn't, say, order a Seaplane with a Firepower/Bombload focus, I would think that they could perform attacks on ships, albeit likely quite ineffective ones. In addition, in one of the devlogs it was said: "While late versions are sometimes capable of carrying bombs, most early floatplanes have a non-existent or tiny bomb carrying capability. Their air to air ability is limited as well, leaving reconnaissance as their primary function."
The devblog of hybrid carriers brought this up, the two larger hybrids could launch wheeled aircraft, the smallest only seaplanes. Not certain that answers your question or not, though.
While there's certainly some historical basis to this, I personally don't think of it as much of an issue. The odds of being attacked in force by both a primary, secondary and tertiary gun target as well as aircraft I think would be rather low. That being said, I don't see any specific reason to oppose such an idea.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Apr 17, 2019 6:35:09 GMT -6
If I read correctly, in the latest dev blog after action report there was an effective attack on a crippled carrier by shore based naval patrol bombers that happened to be seaplanes. Looking at some of the dev blog posts about aircraft procurement with lists of aircraft types there was floatplanes included that had the ability to carry fairly sizable bomb loads and torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 17, 2019 7:32:36 GMT -6
If I read correctly, in the latest dev blog after action report there was an effective attack on a crippled carrier by shore based naval patrol bombers that happened to be seaplanes. Looking at some of the dev blog posts about aircraft procurement with lists of aircraft types there was floatplanes included that had the ability to carry fairly sizable bomb loads and torpedoes. I believe those were flying boats. But yes, I don't see any reason why seaplanes wouldn't be able to carry out attacks.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 17, 2019 8:02:13 GMT -6
I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their potential AA suite, but I am also sure that the proposed layout will not differ from what has been disclosed in previous postings.
In addition to a ship's primary mounts, and it will be possible - for instance - for a destroyer's main guns to be dual purpose, secondary and tertiary batteries may also be dual purpose. Dual Purpose 2-6 inch guns are what create a ship's Heavy AA factor. Then a ship may also have Medium AA guns and Light AA guns, the former of which may down an aircraft before their release and all of which contributes to disrupting accuracy.
Yes, I suppose it could be possible if a ship had only one battery of small caliber guns for a battery to have to choose between repelling that DD attack and firing at those dive bombers, but this would be an excruciatingly unlikely probability. Carrier attacks should be happening at > 100 miles mostly, and the two events seem unlikely to coincide.
|
|
|
Post by halseyincarnate on Apr 17, 2019 9:23:24 GMT -6
choose between repelling that DD attack and firing at those dive bombers, but this would be an excruciatingly unlikely probability. The Battle off Samar is the only historical case that I can think of where this situation came up.
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Apr 17, 2019 9:47:43 GMT -6
I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their potential AA suite, but I am also sure that the proposed layout will not differ from what has been disclosed in previous postings. However, does it mean that nearby airbases or carriers in supporting role for the battleships won't launch airstrikes after the start of a battleship engagement?
Oh no, carriers will desperately maneuver to launch strikes and keep CAP up as well, constantly turning into the wind on their own to do so. If you can bring about a line engagement and want to send in an airstrike at the same time you certainly can do so, I would just expect such opportunities to be rather uncommon.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Apr 17, 2019 10:13:34 GMT -6
Dual Purpose 2-6 inch guns I know this is a bit greedy but is 6 inch the maximum calibre for DP guns? There are examples of 8" rapid fire guns having the elevation and fire control to engage aircraft. The RN had several models. Unfortunately, I've only found a 1955 US training film for an 8" gun showing it but it does back up my point. youtu.be/AXJIE50jxdwCirca 11:30 in
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 17, 2019 10:19:53 GMT -6
I think the best thing I can say is that "the full extent of Heavy AA will be revealed in the fullness of time."
Everyone will know soon I trust!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 17, 2019 10:37:15 GMT -6
choose between repelling that DD attack and firing at those dive bombers, but this would be an excruciatingly unlikely probability. The Battle off Samar is the only historical case that I can think of where this situation came up. I think it was relatively common in the Mediterranean to have gun fight and been under air attack.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 17, 2019 11:46:35 GMT -6
I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their potential AA suite, but I am also sure that the proposed layout will not differ from what has been disclosed in previous postings. However, does it mean that nearby airbases or carriers in supporting role for the battleships won't launch airstrikes after the start of a battleship engagement?
Oh no, carriers will desperately maneuver to launch strikes and keep CAP up as well, constantly turning into the wind on their own to do so. If you can bring about a line engagement and want to send in an airstrike at the same time you certainly can do so, I would just expect such opportunities to be rather uncommon.
griffin01 has brought it to my attention that in the process of replying to his post I errantly and irresponsibly destroyed his message with my indiscriminately exercised editorial powers. My apologies!! bcoopactual can sympathize. (an Edit button appears where Quote used to be you see)
& Welcome to the Forums!
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Apr 17, 2019 12:07:06 GMT -6
griffin01 has brought it to my attention that in the process of replying to his post I errantly and irresponsibly destroyed his message with my indiscriminately exercised editorial powers. My apologies!! bcoopactual can sympathize. (an Edit button appears where Quote used to be you see) & Welcome to the Forums! There is nothing to worry about - nothing of particular importance was lost. Indeed, I dare say that the most significant part of it was fortuitously preserved
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 2, 2019 1:30:21 GMT -6
I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their potential AA suite, but I am also sure that the proposed layout will not differ from what has been disclosed in previous postings. In addition to a ship's primary mounts, and it will be possible - for instance - for a destroyer's main guns to be dual purpose, secondary and tertiary batteries may also be dual purpose. Dual Purpose 2-6 inch guns are what create a ship's Heavy AA factor. Then a ship may also have Medium AA guns and Light AA guns, the former of which may down an aircraft before their release and all of which contributes to disrupting accuracy. Yes, I suppose it could be possible if a ship had only one battery of small caliber guns for a battery to have to choose between repelling that DD attack and firing at those dive bombers, but this would be an excruciatingly unlikely probability. Carrier attacks should be happening at > 100 miles mostly, and the two events seem unlikely to coincide. will we have extremely large anti aircraft guns such as the japanese 203mm 356mm 410mm and 460mm dual purpose guns although ineffective it would still be nice to see for extra long range aa cover (10km+ airial bursts to make aircraft turn or maneuver)
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on May 2, 2019 2:31:29 GMT -6
I don't think anyone will be disappointed with their potential AA suite, but I am also sure that the proposed layout will not differ from what has been disclosed in previous postings. In addition to a ship's primary mounts, and it will be possible - for instance - for a destroyer's main guns to be dual purpose, secondary and tertiary batteries may also be dual purpose. Dual Purpose 2-6 inch guns are what create a ship's Heavy AA factor. Then a ship may also have Medium AA guns and Light AA guns, the former of which may down an aircraft before their release and all of which contributes to disrupting accuracy. Yes, I suppose it could be possible if a ship had only one battery of small caliber guns for a battery to have to choose between repelling that DD attack and firing at those dive bombers, but this would be an excruciatingly unlikely probability. Carrier attacks should be happening at > 100 miles mostly, and the two events seem unlikely to coincide. will we have extremely large anti aircraft guns such as the japanese 203mm 356mm 410mm and 460mm dual purpose guns although ineffective it would still be nice to see for extra long range aa cover (10km+ airial bursts to make aircraft turn or maneuver) I've suggested this in the past, the answer was that large caliber AA is not going to be a thing. ;( Despite germany, America, and Japan all using 8 inch and up AA guns.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 2, 2019 12:28:44 GMT -6
I agree that a number of powers used large-caliber guns for AA; I'm just not aware of any effective use. Do you know of occasions when they were effectively used? Please share if so.
|
|