|
Post by kasuga on Dec 9, 2014 3:49:25 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, i expect that select ships "design" has limitations but i really be capable of do things like avoid old concept of Armored Cruisers and use Heavy Cruisers... for example for germans this could be very interesting because you can create good raiders or have much better CLs in the first part of war.
RPG... ummm i dont know if is possible do this via ship captains, you know, apart ships some kind of training for navy using parameters and you receive trained captains and crews if you cant control battles and do it AI why not adapt ships to doctrine via captains??? i doubt this could be implement but some kind of play around the men inside the iron is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 17, 2014 14:16:18 GMT -6
To answer some of the previous questions. Anything can happen in RtW. Here is a shot from a Franco-Italian war in 1914. A battle off the Riviera in the Mediterranean where a French force with a dreadnought in the lead takes on an Italian force of predreadnoughts.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Dec 20, 2014 4:36:06 GMT -6
Thanks for the pic.
Ummm "Layers show all" what is this??? is a new option active in battle...
I have a little question, looks like you can fight the battle but is possible skip it??? see result (with the division movement lines) or only see the battle with no player orders???
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Dec 21, 2014 0:36:09 GMT -6
I'm very excited for this! I actually used to play a little game with the SpringSharp naval calculator where I built generations of improved designs for fictional nations (evolving from one design to the next year by year), and then used dice rolls to determine who "won". So for me, the idea of building up a navy in a game is hugely interesting. Can't wait for this one, you can already count on another buyer for this - and any other SAI product that has a strategic element (not that I don't like tactical battles! but no game will keep me interested for long if its tactical decisions don't have a strategic context).
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Dec 21, 2014 8:35:45 GMT -6
Well,today the number of naval games, serious naval wargames, is limited and for a "simple" game like this the amount of fun is incredible high, even i enjoy it more than my old Fighting steel hehehe.
Off-topic: i have a lot of faith in these guys... at the point that i dream they one day can jump to airwarfare and do a good strategic wargame based in WWI air combats (invest in research new planes, training pilots, create and deploy air units...) if they do a good job in the WWII title with carriers and planes i dont see bad they jump to airwarfare genesis.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Dec 21, 2014 9:05:12 GMT -6
This is getting pretty interesting, will this be a Stand-Alone or we will need both SAI and the campaign expansion? Regarding airplanes, I think WW1 is a good place to start, less types and less capable means less things to take in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 21, 2014 10:03:15 GMT -6
It will likely be a stand alone game, but familiarity with Steam and Iron will be an advantage, otherwise players will have to gain experience with the battle system the hard way.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Dec 21, 2014 15:34:47 GMT -6
Thanks for the info, looking forward to future development, specially If you add stuff from the 20's.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Dec 22, 2014 13:43:17 GMT -6
I'm thinking Japan's project 13 battleships (not that they could probably afford them)
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Jan 4, 2015 6:06:12 GMT -6
Just a bump, wondering If you guys have more ideas regarding aviation.
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jan 4, 2015 15:41:06 GMT -6
Don't go there is my idea. I won't want to play a game where the AI might develop effective torpedo bombers or dive bombers. If I wanted that I would be playing a WWII simulation instead. The campaign game models air reconnaissance and seaplane raids well. The only additions I would like to see are greater influence of air patrols on submarine effectiveness, and the development of effective seaplane reconnaissance from moving ships, but that will involve the ships being restricted by the need to find clear water and low speed for recovery. I guess having seaplanes mounted on warships would involve a fire risk, although I don't think this was tested during WWI.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 4, 2015 17:56:45 GMT -6
The problems of over-water aerial scouting were for all intents and purposes unsolvable in the Steam and Iron and RTW eras. Royal Navy capital ships frequently mounted flying off platforms mounted on gun turrets for single-seat "scouts" but their role was fleet air defence against zeppelins rather than over-the-horizon reconnaissance. The planes were not recoverable and the pilots were advised to ditch near a friendly warship to try to make a landfall if they were flown off during a sortie. This stopgap improvisation was actually used operationally on several occasions and some RNAS (later RAF) pilots were lost at sea. As near as I could determine, no zeppelins were shot down by shipborne aircraft although the airship crews were aware of the threat.
So it's unlikely that having planes on board warships was considered too hazardous considering the need for gasoline and the fire risk posed by the wooden flying off platforms sitting on the turrets and attached to the guns themselves.
Once out of sight of the fleet, aerial navigation became rough guesses that were hardly worthy of even being considered dead reckoning; a legitimate means of navigation when there is absolutely no alternative. The professional navigators on-board the warships, working as teams in reasonably comfortable conditions and maintaining a plot updated hourly as a minimum could expect to be 1-hours sailing time (16-18 nautical miles) from their actual position as often as not. Now place the same navigation problem into an aircraft moving six-times faster than the fleet with a single observer acting as navigator in a freezing open cockpit with no double checks possible, with only an unstabilized magnetic compass for direction, no bubble sextant even assuming sun or star shots were possible and no ability to accurately compute ground speed or wind vectors it's really easy to see why the admirals were reluctant to let the planes fly too far away or give them too much responsibility for fleet scouting. All of this without considering the problems passing information to the fleet using primitive wireless telegraphy from bulky radios trailing fragile long-wire antennas.
Both the American an Japanese naval air arms would spend much of the 1920's and 30's working on the navigation and communications problem and make great strides in equipment, training and doctrine that allowed reasonably safe and effective over the horizon operations by the start of WW2 but all of this lies outside of the intended RTW time frame.
There will be AV's in RTW and suggestions regarding aviation and submarine effectiveness is noted with thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Jan 5, 2015 7:54:36 GMT -6
I'm not requesting unhistorical aviation for WW1, BUT historical aviation for post the Great War, the 20's and the 30's, where aviation expanded and got a more prominent role. Maybe the devs can add a option to limit WW1 aviation or something like that.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jan 5, 2015 13:18:26 GMT -6
I'm not requesting unhistorical aviation for WW1, BUT historical aviation for post the Great War, the 20's and the 30's, where aviation expanded and got a more prominent role. Maybe the devs can add a option to limit WW1 aviation or something like that. Thanks. In RTW there may never be a "Great War" and although it is certainly possible this discussion is probably moot. That said, none of the naval aviation arms of the era started to move towards any practical aerial fleet or sea control doctrines until the big carrier conversions ( Lexington, Saratoga, Akagi, Kaga and to a lesser extent Courageous, Glorious and Furious) joined their respective fleets in the middle of the 1920's. The early flat-decked prototypes Argus, Hosho and Langley were vital proof of concept vessels and were essential for providing sound practical training experience and identifying future requirements but they were of little use as practical warships. All of the former vessels lie outside of the scope of RTW, which is aimed primarily at modelling the surface warfare problems as they existed for the first two decades of the 20th Century. Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Jan 6, 2015 7:41:04 GMT -6
Ok, let me ask a thing so I can clarify what you're aiming for. You will stop al development in 1920? Or will you allow further development into the 20's and 30's?
|
|