|
Post by randomizer on Jul 1, 2015 14:10:00 GMT -6
You can design AMC's in peacetime but cannot build them unless you're at war. That said, subsidized liners of Britain, Germany and the Russian Volunteer Fleet (at least) often had design features to facilitate their conversion to auxiliary warships. These might include mounting rings to receive pedestal-type guns, special hoists for ammunition and climate-controlled, reinforced magazines that doubled as storage compartments. Shipping lines accepted these sorts of accessories of little or no commercial use as part of the price to be paid for receiving taxpayer support for the ships in peacetime. AMC's cost money, take time to convert and absorb building resources but you have pretty wide latitude in picking the hull and speed characteristics, presumably since you would select existing designs that conformed to your requirements with the caveat that bigger and faster designs cost more.
Page-16 of the manual discusses armour schemes in very general terms but since every nation had their favoured arrangements and empirical testing results, determining which you prefer becomes a matter of trial and error. While it's probable that there are no absolutely correct answers you may discover that there are some definite bad ideas. That's also part of the fun...
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jul 1, 2015 14:31:46 GMT -6
There are basically three types or armour system used during the period of the game. There is the standard scheme of armour where the decks and sides of the ship are armoured, with more armour around the vitals but armour tapered for less vital areas. There is "All or Nothing" described here but used later in the timeframe of the game en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_%28armor%29And the Protected Cruiser arrangeable designed to protect engine spaces through an armoured deck described here and used in cruisers during the earlier part of the timeframe of the game en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_cruiserSAI has always allowed for these three systems.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Jul 2, 2015 4:24:09 GMT -6
Well, my point is more in know WHAT i need invest to have X type of ship... for example i want design a flotilla leader DD (because we cant use CLs and DD flotilla leaders... maybe you can add this in later game phases) and well the system you want use is ok to have non expected situations but is not like in a minor nation you have a lot of fun when you find a WTF situation... a big power can fail in designs a minor power not and is harder have a clear evolution in a minor because even mantein a situational navy is hard.
|
|
swl295
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by swl295 on Jul 2, 2015 16:36:57 GMT -6
Well, I think it's easy to try to over-think everything in our excitement regarding the game and pouring over the details in the manual. I am sure it will be challenging, but fun to try to design vessels to meet the strategic missions and functions of the navy whose country we're playing, juggling ships between the active and reserve navies and mothballed status, as well as worldwide deployments, all the while advising the government from the naval standpoint how to respond to various crises. I believe there will be inevitable missteps because situations arise that no reasonable person could have anticipated, but reacting and adapting to that is also part of the fun, and if there's a Tsushima or two thrown it (from the Russian or the Japanese perspective) where your navy proves utterly unsuited or overpowering in the war it has to fight, well then it's all good.
I have to be out of town when it releases next week--rats--but will devote my full attention to it when I return I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Sven on Jul 5, 2015 7:34:30 GMT -6
How large can you expect the legacy fleet to be if you are for example Great Britain and let the AI create your fleet by random ( on very large)? Just to get a feel with regard to the numbers we are up to.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 5, 2015 10:29:47 GMT -6
This is one of those "How long is a piece of rope?" questions where providing a definitive answer is not really practical. The numbers and force mix is randomized to a significant degree to facilitate replaying any nation. If I said that a British Very Large fleet started with 19-legacy battleships (as in my latest campaign) and you generated one where you received only 16, would that be an issue? For some it certainly would be a huge negative so pinning down exact numbers is an exercise in futility.
Your tenure as "Grand Admiral" begins on 1 January 1900 and you may be the beneficiary of your unknown predecessor's strategic acumen or in immediate damage control to fix force levels and undesirable design philosophies; you have no means of predicting this aspect of the game. Suffice to say that any legacy fleet will be relative to the potential opposition insofar as strength goes and very large fleets will likely have potentially at least several divisions of capital ships.
|
|
|
Post by Sven on Jul 5, 2015 12:57:13 GMT -6
So even more variation. Great. Game is getting better by the minute. Thanks for the answer.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 5, 2015 14:31:15 GMT -6
sven; Just to be clear, my rhetorical questions above was not aimed at you so if your Internet Forum snark-detector fired when you read my reply, please disregard and accept my apology. Thanks for your positive input and we hope that you will enjoy RTW.
|
|
swl295
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by swl295 on Jul 5, 2015 19:44:28 GMT -6
I would consider randomizer's reply to be a positive one. I had no idea, the legacy fleet strength and composition would have random elements in it, apart from the initial choice to accept an historical composition and ship design or that of your own making.
I, for one, am always a big fan of random elements in games, Enhances the replay value substantially.
Cannot wait for next weekend! Hopefully, we're still on track for a Thursday release!
|
|
|
Post by Sven on Jul 6, 2015 0:43:53 GMT -6
sven; Just to be clear, my rhetorical questions above was not aimed at you so if your Internet Forum snark-detector fired when you read my reply, please disregard and accept my apology. Thanks for your positive input and we hope that you will enjoy RTW. Not taken offensively in the first place. Certain I will enjoy the game. actually I am glad that there are people out there who can and actually do program games like these. I certainly cannot do that. looking forward to the release date.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Jul 6, 2015 14:31:51 GMT -6
A little clarification... is any kind of control over the tactical use of ships??? i refer if you can group them by divisions, i ask this because i want test some flotilla leaders (for DD divisions) and well, if the battle divisions are not set by player could be a waste of time design them.
And talking about flotilla leaders you can research in certain point the use of light CLs mixed with DDs??? if i dont remember bad Japan used CLs as leaders in the DDs divisions used in the Mediterranean...
Thanks.
PD: in the end is not going to be art for ships out of the top view no???
PD2: 3 days tic tac tic tac hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 6, 2015 16:35:31 GMT -6
No, once a battle scenario is generated, the AI creates the divisions and the Player has to fight the battle with the organization that is provided. This reflects the design philosophy that you fight with what you have rather than what you might want and represents the Player taking command of more junior commander's forces. Admiralty interference at the tactical level rarely ended well and this roughly models the existence of subordinate senior officers and station flag officers and technically, it would probably be more representative if the AI fought all actions without Player interference. But I suspect that would make for a much less enjoyable game.
Building at least some big torpedo craft once you have the technology to do so can be a significant tactical benefit in some situations even if the Player cannot micromanage the divisional structure. Or not; quantity can have a quality all its own and your "war-winning" design might prove to be a colossal white elephant.
I have not seen this, generally like is grouped by division with like but I have seen B's grouped with CA's on rare occasion. As I recall, the Japanese CL sent to the Med acted as a destroyer depot ship and stationary flagship rather than being employed as a destroyer leader but I'm willing to be shown in error if somebody has better data.
Top-down views only but profile pictures can be added to any of the designs since unlike SAI, virtually all the RTW ships are fictional.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 6, 2015 18:48:39 GMT -6
No, once a battle scenario is generated, the AI creates the divisions and the Player has to fight the battle with the organization that is provided. This reflects the design philosophy that you fight with what you have rather than what you might want and represents the Player taking command of more junior commander's forces. I see this as bad. If you have the idea of two "fleets" in one region (ala Grand fleet and battlecruiser fleet) you might get (for instance) grand fleet cruisers (IE older and slower) sortieing with the BCF. If you've got your shiny new Lion class BC's on a sortie, they are not gonna drag an old Drake class cruiser with them. How are we going to be able to tell the scenario generator that "these two ship don't operate together"? Divisions weren't ad-hoc formations by and large, and a sortie was (as far as the heavier boys were concerned) by (pre-organised) squadron. I can understand if some ships drop out of a squadron sortie, but to have every scenario made up of ad-hoc squadrons is not historical.
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Jul 6, 2015 20:40:18 GMT -6
Well, obsolete armored cruisers were with the Grand Fleet at Jutland and predreadoughts were with the High Seas Fleet, both of which is not anything one would do with the benefit of hindsight. So let the mythical politicians and hypothetical theatre commanders in the game world make poor deployments and bad judgments that undo everything you as grand poo-bah hoped and so carefully planned for before the war broke out. Sounds rather realistic for a grand strategy game, actually. And if it turns out the randomizer really turns out too many clunkers, I suspect NWS will take steps to fix it.
Personally, I can't wait for this game. It the kind of naval strategy simulation I've wanted since I booted up my first Apple II.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 6, 2015 20:55:34 GMT -6
RTW is not a historical game and the RTW world resembles but does not copy the era 1900-1925 that we're familiar with. It is a representative simulation/game not a deterministic one. That said you are reading too much into the thumbnail response posted above.
From the manual: Of course there will be some players for whom the game's core design philosophy is unacceptable but given the Player's role as professional head of their navy, his duties do not extend to micromanaging divisional compositions. Nowhere did I hint that divisions are just thrown together and generally like will sail with like. In the pre-dreadnought era you can find a number of instances where armoured cruisers grouped directly with battleships' divisional organization. Nowhere was it hinted that BC's and CA's will operate in the same divisions. Please give RTW a chance or await feedback from the community before trashing it.
Thanks.
|
|