|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 19, 2015 9:24:36 GMT -6
At the moment there is almost no variability between different ship sizes and the amount they are slowed down by heavy weather. In reality size and "architecture" make a huge difference in the amount a ship has to slow down in heavy weather.
In even moderate seas most DD's in the game would have to slow down quite significantly and in heavier seas they would have to slow down even more and take much care in the course they steer. But a 20kton+ BC/BB would be barely affected by moderate seas in the speed it could go.
The design of a ship also has a lot of influence, ships with a "wet" forecastle have to slow down far earlier and more than ships carefully designed for heavy seas.
What I would like to be implemented in the game is a maximum speed in weather mathematical function where displacement is the variable determining the maximum speed attainable at a given sea state. This would probably not be a linear funtion but we would see something like a 500 ton DD imited to 16kn in sea state 5 and a 30kton BC still going at 26kn. We would need about three different functions for displacement vs speed at weather curves, one for "low freeboard" or "wet" designs, one for "normal" designs and one for "dry"/"good seaboat" designs.
Which type of curve applies should be determined when the design is generated (but for low freeboard designs), just like now there is a chance to get an extra knot of speed (or loose one) a message could say "BB Lothringen has shown itself to be a very good seaboat in comissioning trials. She is capable of maintaining a higher speed in heavy weather." or "BC Moltke took in water over the bow during a storm on comissioning trials. Considered a wet boat she will be strongly afffected by heavy weather." National characteristics could "weigh" the probability for these outcomes.
Ideally there would be another variable in the maximum speed and that would be course vs. wave direction. But even though the game already tracks wind direction this would probably be too much...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 19, 2015 15:35:50 GMT -6
Yes, you are correct in that the speed loss from weather is a little simplified and could have been more detailed.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 19, 2015 19:28:05 GMT -6
Yes, you are correct in that the speed loss from weather is a little simplified and could have been more detailed. While it need not be overly complicated what is absolutely needed is the inversion of the "conventional wisdom speed paradigm", i.e. that smaller ships are significantly slower than larger ones in heavy weather. This is a theme which had major influence on battles in naval history, from the age of sail onwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 20, 2015 1:03:37 GMT -6
Yes, that is true. However, I didn't want larger ships to regularly run down smaller ones in heavy weather in the game. While theoretically possible, that didn't happen in practice, with a few exceptions like the battle of the Bay of Biscay.
So, that is why at present in RTW small fast ships will lose more speed proportionally than larger ships, but they will not be slower.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 20, 2015 9:07:28 GMT -6
This did not happen in practice all too often because small ships usually avoid heavy weather. They either seek shelter in port or de facto "lie to", that is go on the weather-safest course. They would definitely not be actively "tactical" even if found at sea by such weather, they would be fighting for survival. Perhaps make a weather check for a scenario and if Sea States in excess of 4 are expected in the "weather forecast" all ships smaller than 900 tons, at SS >5 smaller than 1100 tons etc. (but for merchants/AMC's with their high freeboard) are removed from the scenario? Add a "heavy weather forecast forces small ships into port" pop-up note at the beginning. Yes, that is true. However, I didn't want larger ships to regularly run down smaller ones in heavy weather in the game. While theoretically possible, that didn't happen in practice, with a few exceptions like the battle of the Bay of Biscay. So, that is why at present in RTW small fast ships will lose more speed proportionally than larger ships, but they will not be slower. |
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Dec 27, 2015 6:24:53 GMT -6
TBR, I think you are arguing in vain.While the dev seems to communicate with the community, I have noticed that any argument that conflicts with his preconceived ideas get met with smart-assed answers or just flat out ignored. Some things have been suggested by the community since before the game was released, and the answer has been a 1/2 cocked reason why it's not gonna happen. Find posts on fleet organisation as an example. Contrary to the statement it would never happen, I HAVE seen 24kt cruisers scouting for 28kt battlecruisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2015 9:05:27 GMT -6
My question is "how do I get the sea state information". Does it magically appear? In this period of history, we don't have buoy's or satellites? No radar, just individual ships sailing in the waters, doing weather readings every hour and recording them in the ships log. Now, if it is peacetime, they will transmit them to ships in the area, if necessary. However, this is war. If I transmit, and the opponent is monitoring, I am setting myself up for destruction. So, I ask the question again, "how do I get the sea state information". You want the sea state information before sailing but how do you get it and how reliable is it? I've see a synoptic chart created for 28 December 1917 for England, the North Sea and France. Data for the most of the North Sea is missing, there were no balloon or aircraft meteorological flights into that area. The Met Office was not created until 1915, weather was not considered by most combatants at the start of the war or prior to it. For the Navy, you send out a ship and take readings, then wirelessly send them back to the coastal relay stations. BTW, the Zeppelins did give the German's an advantage, however they were restricted by weather themselves, so it was hard to get that vital information before sailing.
I am not supporting one or the other ideas, I am simply relating the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 27, 2015 11:43:17 GMT -6
TBR, I think you are arguing in vain.While the dev seems to communicate with the community, I have noticed that any argument that conflicts with his preconceived ideas get met with smart-assed answers or just flat out ignored. Some things have been suggested by the community since before the game was released, and the answer has been a 1/2 cocked reason why it's not gonna happen. Find posts on fleet organisation as an example. Contrary to the statement it would never happen, I HAVE seen 24kt cruisers scouting for 28kt battlecruisers. I believe the fact that numerous additions and changes suggested by players have made it into the RTW game undermines the above statement - look at the posted change logs for rather clear evidence of this. Yes, certainly not *every* suggestion (or even the majority) of the huge number we receive gets implemented, but if that is the measure you use to judge a game then you are going to be disappointed by virtually every game designer or company that exists.
That's all I have to say on this, brucesim2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 14:01:32 GMT -6
My my, what a controversy. The dev explained that in this instance he deliberately went against realism and historical accuracy because he considered it beneficial for game balance. While I do not agree I understand his reasoning and appreciate the game he created. Others of my requests, bug reports and observations he took on either already implemented in the game or accepted as general input.
brucesim2003, you need to take a step back. This game is very niche but in that niche the best and least flawed thing to come along since Distant Guns: Jutland before it was ruined by the final "update" and neglect by its creators paired with their hybris about their webstore.
This dev does anything but neglect his creation and I appreciate his work for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Dec 27, 2015 15:37:43 GMT -6
RTW and SAI and real sailors of the period use the Beaufort scale of winds and sea states. This system relied on simple, visual observations of everyday items like flags, funnel smoke and waves and had been developed as far back as 1805. This coupled with the barometer, at least one of which was a likely feature of every warship's bridge along with masses of empirical knowledge accumulated by generations of naval officers, meant that usable weather data need not have waited for the development of sophisticated forecasting or messaging techniques. The trained Mk-I eyeball, a barometer, an anemometer and weather vain were entirely sufficient for the period. There was no real requirement or utility for anything more sophisticated during the RTW era.
In the event, transmitting weather data posed no major problems in the North Sea since most weather approaches from the West and British land stations in Ireland or the Orkney's could freely transmit weather data on HF and no response from the receiving ship was required if radio silence was desirable. Submarines could and did transmit weather reports from their stations even at risk of being DF'd.
But all this is drifting way off topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 27, 2015 15:51:19 GMT -6
RTW and SAI and real sailors of the period use the Beaufort scale of winds and sea states. This system relied on simple, visual observations of everyday items like flags, funnel smoke and waves and had been developed as far back as 1805. This coupled with the barometer, at least one of which was a likely feature of every warship's bridge along with masses of empirical knowledge accumulated by generations of naval officers, meant that usable weather data need not have waited for the development of sophisticated forecasting or messaging techniques. The trained Mk-I eyeball, a barometer, an anemometer and weather vain were entirely sufficient for the period. There was no real requirement or utility for anything more sophisticated during the RTW era. In the event, transmitting weather data posed no major problems in the North Sea since most weather approaches from the West and British land stations in Ireland or the Orkney's could freely transmit weather data on HF and no response from the receiving ship was required if radio silence was desirable. Submarines could and did transmit weather reports from their stations even at risk of being DF'd. But all this is drifting way off topic. Randomizer: My apologies for misleading you. I minored in meteorology. Weather patterns do move from West to East. As you explained, the land stations in Ireland, in Iceland, Faroes Islands, Orkney's etc. all provided data. Spitzbergen also had a weather station that the German's used. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. Again, my apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Dec 28, 2015 15:54:14 GMT -6
TBR, I think you are arguing in vain.While the dev seems to communicate with the community, I have noticed that any argument that conflicts with his preconceived ideas get met with smart-assed answers or just flat out ignored. Some things have been suggested by the community since before the game was released, and the answer has been a 1/2 cocked reason why it's not gonna happen. Find posts on fleet organisation as an example. Contrary to the statement it would never happen, I HAVE seen 24kt cruisers scouting for 28kt battlecruisers. I believe the fact that numerous additions and changes suggested by players have made it into the RTW game undermines the above statement - look at the posted change logs for rather clear evidence of this. Yes, certainly not *every* suggestion (or even the majority) of the huge number we receive gets implemented, but if that is the measure you use to judge a game then you are going to be disappointed by virtually every game designer or company that exists.
That's all I have to say on this, brucesim2003.
Just popping in to lend my support here, I've never seen a developer more likely to take on community suggestions than Fredrik. It makes it feel like, although it's already a "complete" game, it's still in-development post-release because of the hard work being done. Now, the developers will definitely reap benefits from this: people (like me!) will begin recommending it to anyone who likes this genre. |
|
