|
Post by christian on Jun 16, 2019 12:24:22 GMT -6
ship in question being hit it was not overweight it was made in 1930 and finished in 33 and because i got better firecontrol right after they were finished i decided to retrofit them in 35/36 with bulges added on was first used in a battle in 45 against the french reasons for low tp protection is it was simply not researched but due to a prior event of a cruiser getting one tapped by a torpedo i bumped damage control up and by 1945 had tp 4 i believe it went into battle in 45 and was hit once by a torpedo and i almost lost it
Did you change the design speed in the design menu you have open? A bulged ship with a 25kn plant ought to make 22 knots in service; it'd need a 28kn plant (or perhaps a 27kn plant if it exceeded design speed on trials) for a 25kn service speed. If not, are you sure you bulged the ship?
Also, your ship was probably built with 1910ish subdivision and damage control tech if you only had TP1 when you laid it down; it was probably hit by a 1945ish torpedo. That's not a healthy combination even with bulges adding to torpedo protection and great improvements to damage control tech since building the ship.
yeah sorry wasent the rebuilt blueprint i had i just showed the base ship what changed was bulging (which reduced speed quite a bit) and then the secondaries were changed to dual purpose because of air i also added more aa guns dumped one more knot of speed onto the 25 knots which meant 26 knots -3 so 23 knots in service new firecontrol and 4 aa directors were also installed if you start in 1900 torpedo protection 2 and 3 come rather late even having it on medium (which i did) also by the time the war started i had already retrofitted the ship so it should have gotten all the damage control upgrades even if at first it was vulnerable to flooding and by the time the retrofits were carried out (35/36) i had gotten torpedo protection 2 a bit ago point is still torpedo protect should be allowed to be increased in a refit as it was historically done with ships such as fuso nagato kongo and such
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 16, 2019 13:12:35 GMT -6
Did you change the design speed in the design menu you have open? A bulged ship with a 25kn plant ought to make 22 knots in service; it'd need a 28kn plant (or perhaps a 27kn plant if it exceeded design speed on trials) for a 25kn service speed. If not, are you sure you bulged the ship?
Also, your ship was probably built with 1910ish subdivision and damage control tech if you only had TP1 when you laid it down; it was probably hit by a 1945ish torpedo. That's not a healthy combination even with bulges adding to torpedo protection and great improvements to damage control tech since building the ship.
yeah sorry wasent the rebuilt blueprint i had i just showed the base ship what changed was bulging (which reduced speed quite a bit) and then the secondaries were changed to dual purpose because of air i also added more aa guns dumped one more knot of speed onto the 25 knots which meant 26 knots -3 so 23 knots in service new firecontrol and 4 aa directors were also installed if you start in 1900 torpedo protection 2 and 3 come rather late even having it on medium (which i did) also by the time the war started i had already retrofitted the ship so it should have gotten all the damage control upgrades even if at first it was vulnerable to flooding and by the time the retrofits were carried out (35/36) i had gotten torpedo protection 2 a bit ago point is still torpedo protect should be allowed to be increased in a refit as it was historically done with ships such as fuso nagato kongo and such What were costs for such a rebuild compare to new warship?
HMS Warspite rebuilt costs were about 1/3 of KGV class battleship and her refit was quite small related to refits you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 16, 2019 13:36:01 GMT -6
yeah sorry wasent the rebuilt blueprint i had i just showed the base ship what changed was bulging (which reduced speed quite a bit) and then the secondaries were changed to dual purpose because of air i also added more aa guns dumped one more knot of speed onto the 25 knots which meant 26 knots -3 so 23 knots in service new firecontrol and 4 aa directors were also installed if you start in 1900 torpedo protection 2 and 3 come rather late even having it on medium (which i did) also by the time the war started i had already retrofitted the ship so it should have gotten all the damage control upgrades even if at first it was vulnerable to flooding and by the time the retrofits were carried out (35/36) i had gotten torpedo protection 2 a bit ago point is still torpedo protect should be allowed to be increased in a refit as it was historically done with ships such as fuso nagato kongo and such What were costs for such a rebuild compare to new warship?
HMS Warspite rebuilt costs were about 1/3 of KGV class battleship and her refit was quite small related to refits you mentioned.
you mean the japanese ships or my own ship it wouldnt make much sense to compare in game money to real life money as the budgets are vastly diffrent and the cost of ships also vastly diffrent im unable to find prices for the japanese ships refits (in original yen from the year of their refits) either way i dont see how money has anything to do with this discussion
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 16, 2019 13:48:13 GMT -6
What were costs for such a rebuild compare to new warship?
HMS Warspite rebuilt costs were about 1/3 of KGV class battleship and her refit was quite small related to refits you mentioned.
you mean the japanese ships or my own ship it wouldnt make much sense to compare in game money to real life money as the budgets are vastly diffrent and the cost of ships also vastly diffrent im unable to find prices for the japanese ships refits (in original yen from the year of their refits) either way i dont see how money has anything to do with this discussion
Is it important? Have an option which does not give player interesting option has no reason to be included in game.
There is one large difference between RTW2 and history. In history WST with all changes remains valid more than 15 years. In RTW time is much shorter (usually less than 5 years) so usage is questionable.
But I think most important thing is how much it adds to game compare to how much difficult is to add it to game. There are a lot of "fields" that can be improved but is this the important one? I do not think so as if you have 5 years treaty you will not spend 2/3 of costs of new battleship (just gross estimation) to refit quite old battleship.
As you can continue. Take refit of your turrets after 15 years of service. You get completely new turrets with new armour which is not comparable to belt and deck armour and still in RTW even new turrets have same quality of armour as old turrets. Similar think is adding 1 deck of armour. Magazine box which is only halved for rest of protection but it was common to used better armour vertical and horizonal over magazines on battleships. I can continue for other and other things but main question remains, what is important.
I completely agree with you, it is good to have but I would rather see better UI, better adaptation of missions to carrier warfare (eg. not starting less than 100 miles from enemy when range is 400 miles), better invasion mechanics, better 1920 legacy fleet (player and AI), better blockade etc. You suggestion could be interesting but it is quite minor to the game itself and in this case it is only one part of whole - refits.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 16, 2019 14:09:48 GMT -6
you mean the japanese ships or my own ship it wouldnt make much sense to compare in game money to real life money as the budgets are vastly diffrent and the cost of ships also vastly diffrent im unable to find prices for the japanese ships refits (in original yen from the year of their refits) either way i dont see how money has anything to do with this discussion
Is it important? Have an option which does not give player interesting option has no reason to be included in game.
There is one large difference between RTW2 and history. In history WST with all changes remains valid more than 15 years. In RTW time is much shorter (usually less than 5 years) so usage is questionable.
But I think most important thing is how much it adds to game compare to how much difficult is to add it to game. There are a lot of "fields" that can be improved but is this the important one? I do not think so as if you have 5 years treaty you will not spend 2/3 of costs of new battleship (just gross estimation) to refit quite old battleship.
As you can continue. Take refit of your turrets after 15 years of service. You get completely new turrets with new armour which is not comparable to belt and deck armour and still in RTW even new turrets have same quality of armour as old turrets. Similar think is adding 1 deck of armour. Magazine box which is only halved for rest of protection but it was common to used better armour vertical and horizonal over magazines on battleships. I can continue for other and other things but main question remains, what is important.
I completely agree with you, it is good to have but I would rather see better UI, better adaptation of missions to carrier warfare (eg. not starting less than 100 miles from enemy when range is 400 miles), better invasion mechanics, better 1920 legacy fleet (player and AI), better blockade etc. You suggestion could be interesting but it is quite minor to the game itself and in this case it is only one part of whole - refits.
i never said it should be particulairly important of focused on it would just be nice to have i dont think it will particulairly hard to make available either in refits i think there should be a reason for people to refit battleships because currently its often worth it to just scrap the battleship and build a new one due to the INSANE price of refitting ships and how long it takes
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 16, 2019 16:49:37 GMT -6
Is it important? Have an option which does not give player interesting option has no reason to be included in game. There is one large difference between RTW2 and history. In history WST with all changes remains valid more than 15 years. In RTW time is much shorter (usually less than 5 years) so usage is questionable. But I think most important thing is how much it adds to game compare to how much difficult is to add it to game. There are a lot of "fields" that can be improved but is this the important one? I do not think so as if you have 5 years treaty you will not spend 2/3 of costs of new battleship (just gross estimation) to refit quite old battleship. As you can continue. Take refit of your turrets after 15 years of service. You get completely new turrets with new armour which is not comparable to belt and deck armour and still in RTW even new turrets have same quality of armour as old turrets. Similar think is adding 1 deck of armour. Magazine box which is only halved for rest of protection but it was common to used better armour vertical and horizonal over magazines on battleships. I can continue for other and other things but main question remains, what is important.
I completely agree with you, it is good to have but I would rather see better UI, better adaptation of missions to carrier warfare (eg. not starting less than 100 miles from enemy when range is 400 miles), better invasion mechanics, better 1920 legacy fleet (player and AI), better blockade etc. You suggestion could be interesting but it is quite minor to the game itself and in this case it is only one part of whole - refits.
i never said it should be particulairly important of focused on it would just be nice to have i dont think it will particulairly hard to make available either in refits i think there should be a reason for people to refit battleships because currently its often worth it to just scrap the battleship and build a new one due to the INSANE price of refitting ships and how long it takes Historically, it wasn't economical to refit battleships to any significant degree. It was done because the naval treaties forbade building new ones, so the existing ships had to be modernized instead of scrapped and replaced. The one significant exception is that I've found that my carrier fleet in RTW2 tends to be mostly made of converted CAs and capital ships, because doing that is cheaper than building purpose built carriers of equivalent capacity from the keel up. That happened some in real life, but not as much as it could have because the real life naval treaties limited carrier tonnage, not just capital ship tonnage as in RTW2.
|
|