spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Feb 24, 2021 13:46:04 GMT -6
Anyone else hyped for helicopter carriers and gas turbine propulsion? A thing I think would be interesting would be nuclear propulsion- maybe with almost no long or extreme range penalties- and perhaps a free revision of the weight system to make it more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 25, 2021 3:33:29 GMT -6
Helo carriers, eh - I like them as an ASW asset and possibly from a recon aspect if that's considered. If we have the option of converting old CVs/CVLs into 'Commando Carriers' (such as was done historically with HMS Hermes) that'll definitely be an option I use to keep some CVLs relevant late-game.
Gas turbines are interesting - I imagine they'd represent a sizeable weight saving and reliability boost in game.
For me, I'm excited to play around with Missile frigates/destroyers/cruisers and indulging my fantasy of a fleet of CVA-01s. :rofl:
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Feb 25, 2021 5:26:27 GMT -6
Anyone else hyped for helicopter carriers and gas turbine propulsion? A thing I think would be interesting would be nuclear propulsion- maybe with almost no long or extreme range penalties- and perhaps a free revision of the weight system to make it more realistic. I think I saw in another thread they are going to stay away from nuclear propulsion because that would open the door for nuclear weapons as well.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Feb 25, 2021 12:32:13 GMT -6
I don't see a problem with adding nuclear propulsion without including nuclear weapons. The release of nuclear weapons would be above our pay grade, so would never impact gameplay. Could add a very small chance of a game ending nuclear exchange event if you repeatedly refuse to negotiate an end to hostilities against a nuclear armed opponent.
|
|
|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Feb 25, 2021 13:15:58 GMT -6
I dont mind then adding nuclear powered vessels, Even if the do not offer those weapons in the game, As the decision To used them is made by the head of state in most cases. It is not a decision the unformed head of the navy would ever be able to make. I think only the Royal Navy is the only one that does not require a positive order to launch Nukes with there dooms day notes that every English boomer sails with in the captains safe
|
|
|
Post by dia on Feb 25, 2021 18:02:00 GMT -6
I don't see a problem with adding nuclear propulsion without including nuclear weapons. The release of nuclear weapons would be above our pay grade, so would never impact gameplay. Could add a very small chance of a game ending nuclear exchange event if you repeatedly refuse to negotiate an end to hostilities against a nuclear armed opponent. Yeah I don't get that reasoning either. Is there some kind of law forcing the devs to consider nuclear weapons if nuclear propulsion is added? Just don't add nukes. Seems pretty simple, it's not like there aren't other items they absolutely refuse to budge on *cough* double torpedoes
Also if they want to go down the "if we add X, it opens the door for y" path let's get rid of the event that leads to increased fleet maintenance in the 1950's due to rising prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Feb 26, 2021 1:47:32 GMT -6
I don't see a problem with adding nuclear propulsion without including nuclear weapons. The release of nuclear weapons would be above our pay grade, so would never impact gameplay. Could add a very small chance of a game ending nuclear exchange event if you repeatedly refuse to negotiate an end to hostilities against a nuclear armed opponent. Yeah I don't get that reasoning either. Is there some kind of law forcing the devs to consider nuclear weapons if nuclear propulsion is added? Just don't add nukes. Seems pretty simple, it's not like there aren't other items they absolutely refuse to budge on *cough* double torpedoes
Also if they want to go down the "if we add X, it opens the door for y" path let's get rid of the event that leads to increased fleet maintenance in the 1950's due to rising prosperity. I'm not disagreeing with this analysis, just passing along what I know. I do think nuclear weapons would probably break the game, but that shouldn't stop nuclear propulsion being a thing. Easy enough just to say that it wouldn't be an Admiral's call to employ nukes as it would be a political decision.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 26, 2021 2:31:44 GMT -6
Expanding the discussion about the title of this thread, I would prefer new features in the way air warfare is handled, in particular the use of embarked aviation. I would suggest introducing two or three preferences: admiral / rear admiral mode, in which the management of your strikes is managed by the AI once the target against which to launch them is chosen and air wing/group commander, with all the necessary micromanagement.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Feb 26, 2021 2:46:02 GMT -6
I can see nuclear power not being included, mainly due to there not having been any major combats including such vessels, and as such no indication of what such damage could do. For example, what would happen if a 20" AP shell tore into a Nimitz-class supercarrier and hit one of the reactors?
Furthermore, a ship with nuclear propulsion needs to have the fuel rods replaced in a safe environment. Whilst this wouldn't be as common as needing to refuel, it's still a major operation that could possibly require a "no change" rebuild.
All in all, whilst I agree that it would be nice to have the option, there are a lot of considerations that need to be made and a lot of work would be needed to simulate all the possible issues that would arise from combats involving such vessels - work that I personally would rather see employed working on other aspects of the game.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 26, 2021 4:19:03 GMT -6
Another thing (or perhaps "in more general terms" instead of "another", more precisely) I'd point out is that I believe I see very little discussion concerning the context of RtW - at least as is currently - when it comes to some particular items on the wishlist. Let's take nuclear propulsion for example - what would be the gameplay benefit? The difference between Medium and Long range settings concern mostly only raiders, and the merits of Extreme range is theoretical at best. If the cost and benefit ratios to weight are over-siplified, the new propulsion may become a quasi-mindless auto-pick such as long-range turbocharged diesels currently. So, apart from the sake of "sure, let's put it in the game", what would be the point? Since I am not a native speaker, I should clear it up that I'm not strictly _against_ such new features, I'd just like to see _meaningful_ choices, not stuff that half the community doesn't use, and the other half isn't even aware what it actually does. Similarly, sub-design. It sounds great, I admit, and yet I don't find the perspective particularly interesting given the currently implemented sub-system (which I find actually to be on a very good level of abstract presence and there are good arguments to be made for why it is in the game as it is in the game), because I can hardly imagine it being rather engaging. Pay more for two more aft tubes for a slightly better chance at sub events? Or take helicopters for example, which - welcome addition they are - sound esentially like PB for ships. They could scout, and they will like have ASW value (which could make them an "auto-pick" over seaplanes if all else is equal) - that's... kind of it, really. Some interesting ideas could surface still, like writing some event prompts around them, or tieing them somehow into the search-and-rescue tech, but once again, this is kinda-sorta exactly my point; we are raising once again a lot of features without really asking much about "how would they fit into the game?" beyond implementing them just for the sake of "coolness".
I was, and am still on the same page with wlbjork's opinion, "I personally would rather see employed working on other aspects of the game". Breaking down the "meta", God forbid actually "complicating" a bit some already present features, natively dealing with the speed curve or deck armor weight, fleshing out logistics, fleet trains, invasions, diplomacy, OOB, BG, that sort of thing. It would help a great deal more than more missiles. Depth instead of width. I'd be extremely content with better 1900-~1945 instead of more 1890-1970. Of course, all of this is just personal taste.
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 26, 2021 4:39:09 GMT -6
For example, what would happen if a 20" AP shell tore into a Nimitz-class supercarrier and hit one of the reactors? In theory, nothing. The nuclear fuel used in reactors isn't the same as that used in nuclear weapons. Even basic A-bombs require specially-enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear explosion. Furthermore, nuclear weapons work on one of two principles: gun-fission, or implosion. Gun-fission involves firing a small piece of fissile material into a much larger piece at high speed in order to cause fission (this is an oversimplification - I'm not Oppenheimer). Implosion involves surrounding the nuclear fuel with high explosive which, when detonated, compress the fuel until fission occurs. A shell-hit to a nuclear reactor would generate neither type of fission explosion. There would be a massive blast from the steam and feed water pressure, same as with any steam plant, but that would be the extent of it unless the shell managed to cause a high-energy impact between the fuel rods. Even then, the event wouldn't last long enough for a full-scale nuclear reaction, but it might cause a low-level atomic explosion. Ultimately, the biggest threat isn't an explosion - it's the radioactive material the explosion would scatter over the surrounding area (think Chernobyl on a smaller scale). Honestly though? I'm okay with nuclear propulsion being omitted from the game. Supply is already an almost non-issue late game for long-extreme range ships. On the nuclear weapon front, there is something I feel is worth pointing out to everyone: regardless of who is responsible for the employment of nukes, the fact is that any major war between nuclear-armed powers (practically speaking, all nations in the game had the technical capability) would have a strong likelihood of generating a nuclear exchange. Meaning, to be perfectly blunt, this Naval Warfare Simulation would become a Naval Warfare Avoidance Simulation.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Feb 26, 2021 5:51:49 GMT -6
I was, and am still on the same page with wlbjork's opinion, "I personally would rather see employed working on other aspects of the game". Breaking down the "meta", God forbid actually "complicating" a bit some already present features, natively dealing with the speed curve or deck armor weight, fleshing out logistics, fleet trains, invasions, diplomacy, OOB, BG, that sort of thing. It would help a great deal more than more missiles. Depth instead of width. I'd be extremely content with better 1900-~1945 instead of more 1890-1970. Of course, all of this is just personal taste. I almost completely agree. To this wish list I would add: improve the management of air warfare. Perhaps it is no coincidence that almost all the AARs that can be read here concern the period in which aviation is absent or of little significance.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 26, 2021 9:11:26 GMT -6
Another thing (or perhaps "in more general terms" instead of "another", more precisely) I'd point out is that I believe I see very little discussion concerning the context of RtW - at least as is currently - when it comes to some particular items on the wishlist. Let's take nuclear propulsion for example - what would be the gameplay benefit? The difference between Medium and Long range settings concern mostly only raiders, and the merits of Extreme range is theoretical at best. If the cost and benefit ratios to weight are over-siplified, the new propulsion may become a quasi-mindless auto-pick such as long-range turbocharged diesels currently. So, apart from the sake of "sure, let's put it in the game", what would be the point? Since I am not a native speaker, I should clear it up that I'm not strictly _against_ such new features, I'd just like to see _meaningful_ choices, not stuff that half the community doesn't use, and the other half isn't even aware what it actually does. Similarly, sub-design. It sounds great, I admit, and yet I don't find the perspective particularly interesting given the currently implemented sub-system (which I find actually to be on a very good level of abstract presence and there are good arguments to be made for why it is in the game as it is in the game), because I can hardly imagine it being rather engaging. Pay more for two more aft tubes for a slightly better chance at sub events? Or take helicopters for example, which - welcome addition they are - sound esentially like PB for ships. They could scout, and they will like have ASW value (which could make them an "auto-pick" over seaplanes if all else is equal) - that's... kind of it, really. Some interesting ideas could surface still, like writing some event prompts around them, or tieing them somehow into the search-and-rescue tech, but once again, this is kinda-sorta exactly my point; we are raising once again a lot of features without really asking much about "how would they fit into the game?" beyond implementing them just for the sake of "coolness". I was, and am still on the same page with wlbjork's opinion, "I personally would rather see employed working on other aspects of the game". Breaking down the "meta", God forbid actually "complicating" a bit some already present features, natively dealing with the speed curve or deck armor weight, fleshing out logistics, fleet trains, invasions, diplomacy, OOB, BG, that sort of thing. It would help a great deal more than more missiles. Depth instead of width. I'd be extremely content with better 1900-~1945 instead of more 1890-1970. Of course, all of this is just personal taste. Yeah better depth with missiles is nice but there are so many aspects of the game I'd like improved before subs and helicopters. I said it in the announcement thread, Helos seem fairly useless and unnecessary given the sub abstraction. From what they've said in that thread subs aren't getting a massive overhaul either so yeah helicopters aren't great. They can do some limited anti-shipping stuff but apparently not a lot. Better battle generator, better diplomacy and alliances, better logistics, more resources maybe. Better invasions and the ability to invade minor nations at will. Better air management although I really don't think it's all that bad
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 26, 2021 10:30:37 GMT -6
Anyone else hyped for helicopter carriers and gas turbine propulsion? A thing I think would be interesting would be nuclear propulsion- maybe with almost no long or extreme range penalties- and perhaps a free revision of the weight system to make it more realistic. I think I saw in another thread they are going to stay away from nuclear propulsion because that would open the door for nuclear weapons as well. You are correct about the decision to not include nuclear weapons, but nuclear propulsion is something that could be considered. However, modeling damage to ships with nuclear reactors is the issue, since no such ships have taken significant battle damage to draw upon.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Feb 26, 2021 13:38:19 GMT -6
It is good to hear that it is not out of the question. As for the battle damage, I believe it is possible, based on the knowledge of how nuclear reactors work and are built, deduce with a degree of certainty that can be called realistic enough for the purpose of the game the effects of such damage.
In any case, if it's ever considered I'd be happy to contribute some of my knowledge on the subject.
|
|