|
Post by zardoz on Sept 1, 2019 11:38:51 GMT -6
I could not withstand ... holidays in the Caribbean. For a German a thrilling possibility.
In effect I am coming from behind and I am close to a draw measured in VP. Meanwhile, the USN has concentrated every heavy ship in the North sea with the exception of some CAs and blockades me whereas I invaded the rest of Hispaniola and took the whole isle.
If had a bit more cash I could also invade Puerto Rico. The USN has a budget of more than 1 million and I of about 600 K.
I thought the AI would transfer some ships from the North sea but the USN prefers to blockade me.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 1, 2019 15:24:21 GMT -6
I could not withstand ... holidays in the Caribbean. I suppose that makes sense. I mean... if you like getting waterboarded, or you've been exiled from Gran Columbia again. The AI sure is dumb. Trying to enforce a blockade in Europe with no naval base instead of kicking/keeping the Europeans out of the Americas. It clearly never heard of the Monroe Doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by bigwhale on Sept 1, 2019 15:38:49 GMT -6
RTW2 needs a complete ship selection overhowl for battles. The player must be able to select the ships he want to fight the battle on his own.
By this he must select the ships from that one which are currently present in this aera or just entering that aera. Also there must a (flexible) tonnage limit for the selection and a limit for the kind of battle the player have to fight. Outnumberd battles have to be possible.
Another one: AI control of airbases is a really f... thing... GIVE the Player full control of every land and sea based aircraft and full controll of CAP and add a long range CAP mission to set CAP over far away ships...
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 1, 2019 23:31:56 GMT -6
RTW2 needs a complete ship selection overhowl for battles. The player must be able to select the ships he want to fight the battle on his own. By this he must select the ships from that one which are currently present in this aera or just entering that aera. Also there must a (flexible) tonnage limit for the selection and a limit for the kind of battle the player have to fight. Outnumberd battles have to be possible. But this is not what was happening in history. There was quite common that wish ships were not available. It was usually partially possible when one side was winning by margin so they have enough ships for their operations. I understand this wish but on the other side there is a lot of complain that AI is doing not brightest way. Can you see how contradictoty it is. Any more possibility too choose your ships, ships in division etc. increase your possibility, your play will become easier. On opposite this is something which has farsighted implication for AI. It needs to specialize its design. This is not in game and it will be very difficult to implement to have reasonable AI. Even if it is done with huge spending of time AI will be in this area much weaker than player. At the end tha game will be much easier. Do you want easier game? How many wars do lost (and win) against AI? I do not want this change making game easier.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Sept 1, 2019 23:41:27 GMT -6
RTW2 needs a complete ship selection overhowl for battles. The player must be able to select the ships he want to fight the battle on his own. By this he must select the ships from that one which are currently present in this aera or just entering that aera. Also there must a (flexible) tonnage limit for the selection and a limit for the kind of battle the player have to fight. Outnumberd battles have to be possible. Another one: AI control of airbases is a really f... thing... GIVE the Player full control of every land and sea based aircraft and full controll of CAP and add a long range CAP mission to set CAP over far away ships... Please no full control over airbases, or at least an option to leave things the way they are, having to manage and target 300 carrier based aircraft myself because a CL or two wanted to look at my Harbour is already the opposite of fun. I do not want to deal with micromanaging double that number. Let alone balance cap VS intercept and recon. I know this is a spreadsheet game, but manual land airbase control would make me uinstall so hard. I also do not believe in letting the player choose their ships, it's unrealistic and extremely abusable. It's already way too common to always field the same two ships throughout a war. So yeah its frustrating when you always get the same unbalanced battle, but it swings both ways (had entire wars of enemy cl and ca against my one and only bc. Bet the enemy admiral was raging about being unable to meet any other ship đŸ˜‰) So yeah I'd definitely appreciate the devs taking a look at the preferences and weighing in the oob generation, but I would not change the fundamental system
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Sept 2, 2019 1:22:17 GMT -6
RTW2 needs a complete ship selection overhowl for battles. The player must be able to select the ships he want to fight the battle on his own. By this he must select the ships from that one which are currently present in this aera or just entering that aera. Also there must a (flexible) tonnage limit for the selection and a limit for the kind of battle the player have to fight. Outnumberd battles have to be possible. Another one: AI control of airbases is a really f... thing... GIVE the Player full control of every land and sea based aircraft and full controll of CAP and add a long range CAP mission to set CAP over far away ships... I will love that option, but I can understand others don't, so maybe let the player choose in their games?
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Sept 2, 2019 1:44:32 GMT -6
Again something weird but now in the other direction:
We are in 1946. Fleetbattle in the North Sea. Happy that not again in the Baltic ... . The USN concentrates near the German coast ... not very meaningfull but ok. My spotters more or less immediately identify a group of some BBs and many CVs, according to them 6 CVs and 2 BBs.
Massive own airstrike is started by my 3 CVs and 2 CVLs. Then, the situation becomes unclear. My planes have heavy losses but some hits are achieved and it is likely that also some carriers are hit.
My BBs find the US BBs and are very lucky, hit them very hart with the first salvos. Maybe, the enemy is alreay crippled by the airstrike. The battle is very one-sided. I make a naval "sicle cut" around the USN BBs to reach the carriers. I am not optimistic because my BBs are slow, not more than 26 kn, and the US carriers can sail 30 - 32 kn.
I am totally surprised to find them ca. 80 miles behind the BBs. Some of them are slow and they are totally dispersed. Some of them run away to the west,some of them sail to the BBs in the East. Finally I am able to sink 4 CVs and 2 US BBs by my BBs . All my BBs are severe damaged but they do not sink. Some carriers got hits but are not heaviliy damaged.
Later I saw that some of the US carriers were hit with fueld and armed planes on the deck. Is that the reason for the chaos in the US carrier division? The number of hits I achieved with my planes was rather low. One hit per carrier, never more.
|
|
|
Post by captainloggy on Sept 2, 2019 13:00:17 GMT -6
Later I saw that some of the US carriers were hit with fueled and armed planes on the deck. Is that the reason for the chaos in the US carrier division? The number of hits I achieved with my planes was rather low. One hit per carrier, never more. That sounds exactly like Midway. The US SBD's hit the Japanese carriers right as they were preparing a second strike, with a single bomb hit that set off payload and fuel of the ready planes causing Akagi to sink. Those fires are devastating, and you sure don't want to be near them, as a burning hulk of gasoline is visible quite a way off.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 2, 2019 14:38:09 GMT -6
Later I saw that some of the US carriers were hit with fueld and armed planes on the deck. Is that the reason for the chaos in the US carrier division? The number of hits I achieved with my planes was rather low. One hit per carrier, never more. Yes. Very yes. Gasoline is low-boiling compared to other petroleum based fuels, which makes for an extreme fire hazard. I don't have statistics in front of me, so I may be wrong, but I am fairly confident in the assertion that more carriers on either side of WWII were lost to fire than any other cause. EDIT: I just discussed this with my father and he asserted without hesitation that "virtually all" of the carriers lost during WWII were lost to fire.
|
|
|
Post by bigwhale on Sept 2, 2019 15:09:05 GMT -6
- HMS Ark Royal was torpedoed by german submarine - IJN Shinano was torpedoed by US submarine - USS Yorktown was finally torpedoed by Japanese submarine
Fire is a real problem for every ship - but not all sunk carriers during WWII was lost because of fire
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 2, 2019 16:21:35 GMT -6
- HMS Ark Royal was torpedoed by german submarine - IJN Shinano was torpedoed by US submarine - USS Yorktown was finally torpedoed by Japanese submarine Fire is a real problem for every ship - but not all sunk carriers during WWII was lost because of fire Even my dad didn't say "all", only "virtually all".
|
|
|
Post by gamermatt on Sept 2, 2019 20:37:14 GMT -6
RTW2 needs a complete ship selection overhowl for battles. The player must be able to select the ships he want to fight the battle on his own. By this he must select the ships from that one which are currently present in this aera or just entering that aera. Also there must a (flexible) tonnage limit for the selection and a limit for the kind of battle the player have to fight. Outnumberd battles have to be possible. But this is not what was happening in history. There was quite common that wish ships were not available. It was usually partially possible when one side was winning by margin so they have enough ships for their operations. I understand this wish but on the other side there is a lot of complain that AI is doing not brightest way. Can you see how contradictoty it is. Any more possibility too choose your ships, ships in division etc. increase your possibility, your play will become easier. On opposite this is something which has farsighted implication for AI. It needs to specialize its design. This is not in game and it will be very difficult to implement to have reasonable AI. Even if it is done with huge spending of time AI will be in this area much weaker than player. At the end tha game will be much easier. Do you want easier game? How many wars do lost (and win) against AI? I do not want this change making game easier. But having the difficulty created by having your AI Admirals make stupid decisions is just as bad. I just had the German High Seas fleet sortie into the bay of Biscay with all 20+ capital ships and 1 destroyer, since the other 49 appeared to need to go oil all at once. I get limited availability is historical. But so is having Admirals with enough sense not to sortie if you don't have a screen. There has to be a way for the player to either set fleets/squadrons and the AI determines what availablity you get out of that, or the ability to pick an aggressiveness level for your fleet to limit insanely risky deployments without good cause (Stopping Home territory bombardments/Invasions
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2019 21:44:45 GMT -6
Later I saw that some of the US carriers were hit with fueld and armed planes on the deck. Is that the reason for the chaos in the US carrier division? The number of hits I achieved with my planes was rather low. One hit per carrier, never more. Yes. Very yes. Gasoline is low-boiling compared to other petroleum based fuels, which makes for an extreme fire hazard. I don't have statistics in front of me, so I may be wrong, but I am fairly confident in the assertion that more carriers on either side of WWII were lost to fire than any other cause. EDIT: I just discussed this with my father and he asserted without hesitation that "virtually all" of the carriers lost during WWII were lost to fire. The IJN used 85 octane Avgas. The gas was very volatile and extremely flammable with a low flash point. For the Japanese, their air wings were in the hangar removing the bomb racks and installing the torpedoes. The bombs were not sent down the ammunition elevators because they were in a hurry. Ooops. The US dive bomber were carrying 1000 AP bombs, when they encountered the carriers. The decks were in the process of recovering and launching combat air patrols Zero fighters. The bombs penetrated the deck armor because they were dropped from about 1000 feet. My dad said 1500 feet was the general drop altitude but sometimes you would get a real aggressive pilot and he would drop at 1000 ft.. He said it would scare the hell out of him. The bombs ignited the fuel and the bombs along with the torpedoes. After Coral Sea, we removed all the fuel from the hoses and pumped Halon into the hoses. They ensured that all ordnance was loaded into the ammunition elevator to the ordnance lockers down stairs. Flash point of ethanol is 16.6 degrees Centigrade which is about 61 degrees Fahrenheit. Autoignition temperature is about 363 degrees centigrade which about 685.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Sept 3, 2019 2:11:15 GMT -6
I have to admit that RTW1 have better battle generator. I'd say it feels even too balanced sometimes (when you are much weaker than enemy).
In RTW2, on the other hand, I see multiple problems so far.
In my first game as France in war with Italy I had nothing but fleet battles (incl. invasion battles), turn after turn. In second, as Germany, in war with Russia I had no fleet battles (except one that they refused) which is preferable for me (I like those smaller battles) but still, seems to be a problem with battle generator.
I also had a coastal bombardment battle where I got 2 tiny CLs (historical German Gazelle, 2600t, 10x4in) and 5 DDs vs 2CA, 4CLs and 7-8DDs. Even without enemy interaction, those small ships would be incapable of destroying coastal target. The only thing I could do was to drag enemy forces with CLs and try to bombard (in vain) with DD 3in guns...
Then, in same game but in war with Italy I had string of battles in Red Sea, even though I had fleet in Med, with my colonial cruisers pitted against Italian CA and CLs. All in all, I had 2 battles in Med and at least 6 in Red Sea (later ones were won by a modern CA I sent there. Here I also got Gazelle-class picked for coastal bombardment (on Red Sea), and in Med, while having 2BCs and 2BBs there, I got a pair of CLs for bombardment mission (which they managed to do, but were damaged and interned in the process).
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Sept 3, 2019 8:40:24 GMT -6
Playing as the US I've had virtually the whole of the AI German navy turn up on the US east coast to bombard a few minor targets. This was in 1942 and they lost most of their fleet. My carrier and land based air sank their 2 CV and 2 CVL. My BBs and BC then sank their 4 BBs and 2 BCs. To have this sort of mission in 1942 against a home region of an enemy such as the US just seems like a suicide mission. Even the historical Japanese wouldn't have tried to pull something like this in WW II.
Once air power is dominant coastal bombardment missions against the home areas of enemy coastline should no longer be generated as a battle scenario.
|
|