|
Post by dorn on Jun 26, 2019 11:50:25 GMT -6
Just has a side note I dont think I have ever had to use light or even medium bomb load outside of my very early dive bombers, battles ranges are so short that I no longer even care about aircraft range. This is a valid point as well. Early on it was discussed how extended air-strike ranges would naturally bring about the end of the age of the surface ship, but as anyone can see that isn't yet a part of the game. Maintaining large battle-lines is a viable strategy currently for as late as one wishes to play.
Once battle selection becomes preferentially a 300 mile+ engagement, likely lasting into 2 days, then players would naturally begin to feel an investment into large battleships as a liability, or at least as an asset which tactics would be hard pressed to properly utilize.
It is linked with mission. Even missions for 20s and later has too closed starting positions usually about 100 miles max.
Starting position should be max. range +- random relating to time and weather (after night or bad weather it could be less distance between forces) + some additional random. But as I understand that start position for missions is fixed and there is some random only.
If missions cannot be more adapted to time by system itself the solution could be that as it is now missions are up to 1920 and after 1920, to split it even more: 1900-1920 - no aicraft period 1920-1930 - early aicraft period - range is slightly increased but overall no change 1930-1940 - middle aicraft period - range is much higher, missions starting near costs or in range of large of land airforce become less frequent. Missions to attack land installation starts at edge of range of land aicrafts just some time before dark.
1940-1950 (may be till end of game) - late aicraft period - range is maxed out and can be easily more than 500 miles at starting position. Missions to attack land installation starts at edge of range of land aicrafts just before dark.
But this solution means updating all misions which are dozens. Another thing is mission releated to possession. I did not look at them but there are probably not even divaded by time as national missions.
As range increased the time of mission need to be adjusted too, it needs to be longer.
This I consider as one of the weakest part of RTW2 as it denied true carrier battles and I expect it would be extremely time consuming to fix it. It is pity as air is very well implemented and all the issues we are facing are more minor or just better feel from game to this issue. It is decribed with all similarity issues linked to missions here.
I am myself thinking of mod to improve this behaivour but I do not know how to do it without possibility to increase time frame of missions and to split time period 1920-1955 to at least 2. Having mission in 1923 when starting fleets are apart 400 miles will not work.
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Jun 27, 2019 2:06:41 GMT -6
Yeah, there was only one time that I had to postpone launching attack aircraft from carriers during battle because I needed to close range (to under 200 nm). In every other mission having 120-150 nm range for best louadouts was sufficient. Meaning I'd never have to prioritize range on carrier a/c later in the game, which is not the way it should be.
Long range medium bombers are pretty cool for area coverage, especially in places like Pacific. Medium or Long range torpedo capability makes them super effective. Their survivability is questionable, though. USN wasn't very fond of using medium bombers for torpedo attacks, probably because it was suicidal for big planes. Minus night time (Catalina) torpedo attacks.
|
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jma286 on Jun 27, 2019 11:46:18 GMT -6
This is a valid point as well. Early on it was discussed how extended air-strike ranges would naturally bring about the end of the age of the surface ship, but as anyone can see that isn't yet a part of the game. Maintaining large battle-lines is a viable strategy currently for as late as one wishes to play.
Once battle selection becomes preferentially a 300 mile+ engagement, likely lasting into 2 days, then players would naturally begin to feel an investment into large battleships as a liability, or at least as an asset which tactics would be hard pressed to properly utilize.
It is linked with mission. Even missions for 20s and later has too closed starting positions usually about 100 miles max.
Starting position should be max. range +- random relating to time and weather (after night or bad weather it could be less distance between forces) + some additional random. But as I understand that start position for missions is fixed and there is some random only.
If missions cannot be more adapted to time by system itself the solution could be that as it is now missions are up to 1920 and after 1920, to split it even more: 1900-1920 - no aicraft period 1920-1930 - early aicraft period - range is slightly increased but overall no change 1930-1940 - middle aicraft period - range is much higher, missions starting near costs or in range of large of land airforce become less frequent. Missions to attack land installation starts at edge of range of land aicrafts just some time before dark.
1940-1950 (may be till end of game) - late aicraft period - range is maxed out and can be easily more than 500 miles at starting position. Missions to attack land installation starts at edge of range of land aicrafts just before dark.
But this solution means updating all misions which are dozens. Another thing is mission releated to possession. I did not look at them but there are probably not even divaded by time as national missions.
As range increased the time of mission need to be adjusted too, it needs to be longer.
This I consider as one of the weakest part of RTW2 as it denied true carrier battles and I expect it would be extremely time consuming to fix it. It is pity as air is very well implemented and all the issues we are facing are more minor or just better feel from game to this issue. It is decribed with all similarity issues linked to missions here.
I am myself thinking of mod to improve this behaivour but I do not know how to do it without possibility to increase time frame of missions and to split time period 1920-1955 to at least 2. Having mission in 1923 when starting fleets are apart 400 miles will not work.
Another solution instead of changing all the missions is creating a new mission like "Carrier Engagement" or something where the fleets are carrier-heavy and start out 200-250 miles apart. Obviously it would only fire in situations where the two nations have actual carrier capabilities beyond tiny 20-plane CVLs. I think 1935 would be a good start date for missions like this, although I'm not sure if it's possible to condition missions based on dates. If long range carrier engagements like this only occur in a specific type of mission then there will be far less pressure on players to see BBs as a liability.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jul 1, 2019 2:26:53 GMT -6
Yesterday I did it!!!
It was an enemy raid on coastal ships north east of Swinemünde in the Baltic Sea against the USSR in 1945. My force consisted of 3 fast BBs (28 knots), 3 BC (33 knots), a huge load of DDs and some screaning CL-AA. My CV-force consisted of all my CV I had- Otto Lilienthal (60 planes) and the 3 sisters of Graf Zeppelin-Class (80 planes each)- that´s 110 TB and 110 DB. My land bases surpress enemy bases.
All starts in the early morning hours. After first sitings reported from float plane scouts and the Zeppelines, my TBs start with the sunrise, followed by the dive bombers a few minutes later. They reach the (estimated) target area about half an hour later. Graf Zeppelin (flag ship) via radio reports not less than 11 torpedohits and several bomb hits on several undefined target ships and one CA.
In the meantime my battleship force comes into radar range (only search radar 2, without FC-radar) and accelerates to come into sight range. The contacts are identified as BB Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya (USSR fleet flagship- 3x3 14" guns in Nelson-style, 13" belt, 5" deck, 28 knots), BC Vladivostok (3x3 13" guns in British G/N-style, 12" belt, 5" deck, 30 knots), 2 CL and 2 flotillas of DDs.
Deutschland and Preußen (4x3 16"Qu1) and Großer Kurfürst (3x3 15"Qu1) open fire, Moltke, Goeben and Seydlitz (3x3 13") use their 33 knots and flank the enemy force. After 10 minutes Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya quickly lays dead in the water (she seams to be hit by the earlier aristrike) and the first heavy shells hit Vladivostok. She retreats and under a torpedo cover attack from their DDs, she manages to break contact to my BBs (Deutschland 2 hits, Großer Kurfürst 1 hit- all my capital ships have TDS 4, so nor problem, but speed drops to 24 knots).
The 2nd wave is ready to start. This time the DBs start first and the TBs stay ready for a reaction strike. DBs are send to the last known position of Vladivostok. 4 bomb hits on undefined ships are reported. After a short time my battleships get a new radar contact- it seems stopped or very slow in the water. It is an enemy CVL (Novorossisk). After a few volleys she sinks. An escorting DD-flotilla suffers 2 additional losses. But there is still one contact leaving in the direction of Libau (my forces stand north of Danzig). My BCs accelrate and spot en enemy CV only doing 15 knots. It is caught up easily and foundered after 15 minutes of punishment by 13", 15" and 16" guns. An escorting CL is hit a few times, but escapes in the north.
In the meantime my land based airforce strikes the airfiled of Riga and Stavanger (Norway is occupied by the USSR) and desintegrates Riga after about 40-50 bomb hits. There was only one moment my CV-force was attacked by medium bombers, but were repelled by heavy AA fire and CAP.
My TBs were send in the sea area west of Libau to find the last enemy ships, but without success.
With the sunset my forces turn towards Danzig and the battle ends. There was no new contact with BC Vladivostok.
Post battle screen was brutal!
My first airstrike managed to sink 2 enemy CV, damaged Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya so heavily she was significantly slowed down (3 torpedo hits) and set one other CV to fire (2 medium bomb hits- was my mistake while readiing my DBs, normally I use heavy bombload). The 2nd DB strike crippled the enemy CVL and nearly stopped that CV from the later engagement (in fact it was that one set on fire earlier). The one unspotted, escaping CV even was hit by 2 heavy bombs too and had severe flooding (about 75%). Lucky for it, I could not find it anywhere.
In the end I lost 2 DDs. USSR lost 1 BB, 3 CV, 1 CVL, 1 CA and 7 DDs. 1 BC, 1 CV, 1 CL and a load of DDs heavy damaged. Riga was nuked and Stavanger heavy damaged.
I would say it was the Baltic Midway^^
After that battle I took Norway as landing target. After 18 months delay (bad weather, not enough domination- of course dudes! after another battle there was only 1 CV left for the Russians and a few CA, half of them raiding) my troops managed to land and now fighting continues for 4 months now. In the meantime there is a new class of Russian BCs ready to fight (similar to my Moltke-Class, but lighter armoured and only 31 knots fast).
And now the game starts to give me strange encounters instead of giving me battles responding to the landing operation. My last battle was a convoy defence at Island (I occupied from Russia in an earlier war) with 9 DDs against 4 enemy DDs. Of course, although wind advantage and double the amount of guns, I had 3 heavy damaged DDs and the enemy DDs escaped after 2 small encounters. The convoys was unharmed, but I could not sink any enemy DD.
All I am waiting for is a message "BB Deutschland was sunk by enemy submarine"- than I rage!!!
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 1, 2019 5:37:30 GMT -6
Just has a side note I dont think I have ever had to use light or even medium bomb load outside of my very early dive bombers, battles ranges are so short that I no longer even care about aircraft range. This is a valid point as well. Early on it was discussed how extended air-strike ranges would naturally bring about the end of the age of the surface ship, but as anyone can see that isn't yet a part of the game. Maintaining large battle-lines is a viable strategy currently for as late as one wishes to play. Once battle selection becomes preferentially a 300 mile+ engagement, likely lasting into 2 days, then players would naturally begin to feel an investment into large battleships as a liability, or at least as an asset which tactics would be hard pressed to properly utilize.
Oh, I don't think they'll ever be a complete liability before 1950. I just fought my first blindfire engagement tonight. The scenario started off in the late afternoon, and each side had time for one airstrike before dusk. My intention was to hit the enemy force with an airstrike, then retire to port overnight, but my strike didn't make contact, and the enemy either didn't find my carriers and hit one of my airfields, or else also failed to make contact (I'm uncertain if the strike that hit my airfield was land-based or carrier-based). After dark, my "battle line" (actually a squadron of light 11" BCs designed for a very heavy cruiser role with a squadron of 10" CAs built to the same general principles in tow) picked up a large enemy formation on radar. I sent the carriers attached to my cruiser line north out to get them out of harm's way and meet up with my main carrier force, and brought the 20" battleships that had been assigned to screen the carrier force south to reinforce the cruiser line, as I only knew the number, and not the type of ships I was facing. I learned two things about blindfire engagements: 1) They're awesome. 2) They're nerve-wracking. In a blindfire engagement, you know where the enemy is, but not what he is, so you have to assume that every radar contact is both a battleship and a destroyer, and you're thus never sure if you're going to eat a 16" shell or a torpedo. In any case, the night concluded with the cruiser line having bagged a CV (though all I knew for certain before scenario end was that several enemy ships were limping when I last saw them and that two torpedoes had struck home), and with my 20" fast BBs in contact with an enemy BB at sunrise, which they sank shortly after dawn. The point is, carriers are still helpless at night even in the late game, and blindfire pushes nighttime engagement ranges out to where BBs can be committed without excessive risk of eating torpedoes from enemy destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jul 1, 2019 6:30:01 GMT -6
This is a valid point as well. Early on it was discussed how extended air-strike ranges would naturally bring about the end of the age of the surface ship, but as anyone can see that isn't yet a part of the game. Maintaining large battle-lines is a viable strategy currently for as late as one wishes to play. Once battle selection becomes preferentially a 300 mile+ engagement, likely lasting into 2 days, then players would naturally begin to feel an investment into large battleships as a liability, or at least as an asset which tactics would be hard pressed to properly utilize.
Oh, I don't think they'll ever be a complete liability before 1950. I just fought my first blindfire engagement tonight. The scenario started off in the late afternoon, and each side had time for one airstrike before dusk. My intention was to hit the enemy force with an airstrike, then retire to port overnight, but my strike didn't make contact, and the enemy either didn't find my carriers and hit one of my airfields, or else also failed to make contact (I'm uncertain if the strike that hit my airfield was land-based or carrier-based). After dark, my "battle line" (actually a squadron of light 11" BCs designed for a very heavy cruiser role with a squadron of 10" CAs built to the same general principles in tow) picked up a large enemy formation on radar. I sent the carriers attached to my cruiser line north out to get them out of harm's way and meet up with my main carrier force, and brought the 20" battleships that had been assigned to screen the carrier force south to reinforce the cruiser line, as I only knew the number, and not the type of ships I was facing. I learned two things about blindfire engagements: 1) They're awesome. 2) They're nerve-wracking. In a blindfire engagement, you know where the enemy is, but not what he is, so you have to assume that every radar contact is both a battleship and a destroyer, and you're thus never sure if you're going to eat a 16" shell or a torpedo. In any case, the night concluded with the cruiser line having bagged a CV (though all I knew for certain before scenario end was that several enemy ships were limping when I last saw them and that two torpedoes had struck home), and with my 20" fast BBs in contact with an enemy BB at sunrise, which they sank shortly after dawn. The point is, carriers are still helpless at night even in the late game, and blindfire pushes nighttime engagement ranges out to where BBs can be committed without excessive risk of eating torpedoes from enemy destroyers. As I understand it, though, on this occasion there was nothing stopping you from carrying out your original plan to return to port after sundown. Night-fighting is not a mandatory capability, and if all you want your battleships for is night - time engagements, then you have to ask at what point they are just functioning as extremely expensive and risky destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 1, 2019 8:00:43 GMT -6
Well also consider that if every post-'40 carrier scenario started beyond search range and all the money you put into BBs had not been put into CVs, you would be left very anxiously maneuvering to force a BB engagement when- if the AI were sensible- it would not be possible.
I am not saying every post-'40 engagement should start like this mind you, just suggesting that if they were at least common then a BB investment might not prove a prudent move fiscally.
|
|
|
Post by terranranger on Jul 1, 2019 9:16:07 GMT -6
I had one huge carrier heavy engagement between the US and Great Britain in the mid 1930’s! I was playing as the US attempting to kick the Brits out of Eastern North America. The battle started as a fleet engagement, but I only had two CAs (with CL and DD screen) and my two 75 plane fleet carriers. The Brits had a squadron of BBs, a Squadron of BCs, at least two fleet carriers and a couple CLs! Despite being outnumbered my fleet put up a good fight. The entirety of my surface force was sunk, but exacted a terrible toll for their sacrifice.
The intel at the start only indicated British surface elements, so I launched an attack on them as soon as they were identified. They torpedoed every British capital ship at least once, but I got the bad news that they were engaging enemy CAP. Night was getting ready to fall, but my next round of air strikes was already out bound. They somehow missed the enemy surface fleet, but ran into a CL and a 60 plane CV. The CL was sunk by air dropped torpedoes, and the CV took a couple hits, which slowed it significantly.
My carriers were wedged between the Maine coastline and the approaching British surface fleet, so I ordered my cruisers to attack the BBs and BCs at night, allowing the CVs to evade detection and escape. My plan was to avoid a decisive surface engagement, draw the damaged enemy capital ships away from my CVs, then charge full speed at the remaining British fleet carrier to give me air supremacy when the sun came up.
Unfortunately I got hit by the bug that causes the space bar to stick instead of just advancing action minute by minute. Before I could recover my entire Force was too far engaged and largely too damaged to retreat. I changed plans and launched my surface fleet against the British capital vessels at point blank range, in the dark. Fortunately, my fleet’s obsession with torpedoes paid off. My DDs each mounted 10 tubes, and my CLs 12... launching at a tight grouping of enemy ships from a couple thousand yards off resulted in too many hits to count. Their ships either blew up instantly or cane to a stop and started foundering.
Unfortunately, my focus on speed and firepower left my armor extremely thin. The CLs were rapidly picked apart by main guns, and secondaries slaughtered my DDs. Only one shop survived the engagement from both sides... my flagship CA which emerged unscathed.
This line cruiser took off after the remaining fleet carrier at 31 knots. She caught the Brit carrier in the morning twilight and brought her under fire, but the shapes of two more vessels became visible in the rising light. Another light carrier of the similar type sunk the previous day was a few thousand meters from my cruiser, but about 20000 yards from my line ship sat a 90 aircraft CV. It was fast and well armed. Fast enough to maintain distance from my cruiser and launch its planes.
In the end, my brave cruiser was sunk, but the only survivor from the British fleet was the large carrier. Our carriers launched several strikes against each other over the course of the morning, but his cap was too strong for my depleted air wing to break through and my CA took forever to sink, and kept distracting the British strikes before they could get to my carriers.
The battle was sad for me because the heavy cruisers had been with me around 30 years at that point. They had originally been dreadnoughts, possibly the first ones in the world, mounting three 12” twin turrets. In the mid 20’s I swapped their turrets for triple 8”, absolutely covered them in AA. They served well, and their sacrifice was worth it, contributing greatly to my victory against 4 other major powers, but my hopes of preserving them as museum ships cane to naught on that fateful night.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 2, 2019 16:24:31 GMT -6
As I understand it, though, on this occasion there was nothing stopping you from carrying out your original plan to return to port after sundown. Night-fighting is not a mandatory capability, and if all you want your battleships for is night - time engagements, then you have to ask at what point they are just functioning as extremely expensive and risky destroyers. With late-40s blindfire radar, it's perfectly possible to engage with capital ships after dark without excessive torpedo risk. It's just that, as you aren't sure which ships are destroyers, you have to treat every radar contact as a potential destroyer, which means you're zigzagging for the entire fight when within torpedo range. As long as you don't close to extremely close range, though, zigzagging is enough to make sure that torpedoes aren't a threat. Another use I've discovered for capital ships in the late game is for daytime engagements where enemy capital ships are present, and you suspect, but have not yet received scouting reports on, an enemy carrier. In this case, having a stronger battle line than your opponent allows you to reserve your aircraft for anti-carrier strikes when/if the enemy carrier is discovered.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jul 2, 2019 16:56:30 GMT -6
As I understand it, though, on this occasion there was nothing stopping you from carrying out your original plan to return to port after sundown. Night-fighting is not a mandatory capability, and if all you want your battleships for is night - time engagements, then you have to ask at what point they are just functioning as extremely expensive and risky destroyers. With late-40s blindfire radar, it's perfectly possible to engage with capital ships after dark without excessive torpedo risk. It's just that, as you aren't sure which ships are destroyers, you have to treat every radar contact as a potential destroyer, which means you're zigzagging for the entire fight when within torpedo range. As long as you don't close to extremely close range, though, zigzagging is enough to make sure that torpedoes aren't a threat. Another use I've discovered for capital ships in the late game is for daytime engagements where enemy capital ships are present, and you suspect, but have not yet received scouting reports on, an enemy carrier. In this case, having a stronger battle line than your opponent allows you to reserve your aircraft for anti-carrier strikes when/if the enemy carrier is discovered. Fair point regarding the night engagements. As for your second point though - you could equally just build more carriers instead of capital ships and keep some of the extra aircraft in reserve as needed.
|
|
|
Post by klavohunter on Jul 8, 2019 9:20:17 GMT -6
A late 1940s war as Spain against the UK had some pretty significant battles where big fleets of carriers on both sides exchanged attacks. (Perhaps the AI would have been more successful if they tried sending airstrikes to attack my ships instead of an airbase on land!)
However, there were still gun-ships engaging each other in these battles.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jul 9, 2019 13:40:30 GMT -6
All of this stems from RtWs force setup problem (IMHO); we should be permitted to set up squadrons and designate our flagship, with an option to let the AI do so as it does now. Yes, and in particular the player should get to decide what ships to use, in what squadrons, when conducting offensive actions (raids etc).
Has anyone ever played Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic (an old DOS game)? When playing the campaign game as the Germans, the user got to decide what ships to put in their fleet during missions. RTW could do with taking some ideas from GNBNA.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 9, 2019 15:45:03 GMT -6
Well also consider that if every post-'40 carrier scenario started beyond search range and all the money you put into BBs had not been put into CVs, you would be left very anxiously maneuvering to force a BB engagement when- if the AI were sensible- it would not be possible. I am not saying every post-'40 engagement should start like this mind you, just suggesting that if they were at least common then a BB investment might not prove a prudent move fiscally. Given my construction doctrine (CVs are conversions only, BBs only get converted, never scrapped), a BB investment is an investment in being able to build carriers at 1/3 cost 20 years down the line, and I tend to have plenty of both.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jul 9, 2019 16:36:36 GMT -6
Well also consider that if every post-'40 carrier scenario started beyond search range and all the money you put into BBs had not been put into CVs, you would be left very anxiously maneuvering to force a BB engagement when- if the AI were sensible- it would not be possible. I am not saying every post-'40 engagement should start like this mind you, just suggesting that if they were at least common then a BB investment might not prove a prudent move fiscally. Given my construction doctrine (CVs are conversions only, BBs only get converted, never scrapped), a BB investment is an investment in being able to build carriers at 1/3 cost 20 years down the line, and I tend to have plenty of both. Huh. ...that's a very interesting policy, akin to my "never scrap DDs" philosophy. So that would mean all of your converted carriers would have BB belts. Do you find the aircraft capacity is adequate with a fleet of numerous numbers of these?
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jul 11, 2019 6:15:06 GMT -6
I've just fought the first major engagement of my first ever serious war of the carrier era; the battle was a Battleship Engagement in April 1942. An Allied force consisting of four American fleet carriers, two American and one British battlecruisers, and a large number of assorted cruisers and destroyers engaged a German force consisting of one fleet carrier, one heavy cruiser, and one 'battlecruiser,' escorted by a small number of destroyers. The opposing forces began the battle about 100 miles apart in the middle of the North Sea.
The surface forces of both sides were used for close escort of the carriers. No contact was made between the opposing ships. While the Germans failed to conduct any strikes against the Allied fleet, the American carriers conducted several strikes against the enemy fleet against minimal opposition from enemy CAP, scoring two 1,000 IB SAP bomb hits and one torpedo hit on the carrier Graf Zeppelin but inflicting only moderate damage. A further two 1,000 IB bomb hits and one torpedo hit were scored against the heavy cruiser Roon, which just barely survived. A single 500 ib bomb hit the enemy 'battlecruiser' but failed to explode. Ultimately, two German destroyers were the only losses on either side.
While the results were ultimately disappointing, with the Allies having squandered their first opportunity to inflict serious damage on the German fleet after 12 months of war, the American pilots are at least to be commended for the fact that all of the strikes found their targets despite typically poor North Sea visibility conditions. The battle was also the first time that the American carriers had successfully conducted multi-carrier strikes; a tactic which had up until that point been discontinued as it had proved impractical in the most recent pre-war exercises.
The last major war was fought from 1926 - 1930, and saw the Allies facing off against the 'Unholy Alliance' of France, Russia and Germany. Of four major fleet battles during that war, one was a purely over - the - horizon engagement, with German land and carrier based aircraft launching a series of successful torpedo strikes which sunk two Allied capital ships and damaged several others, while the Allied carrier strikes failed to find the enemy.
|
|