|
Post by babylon218 on Dec 16, 2017 10:44:03 GMT -6
@fredrik W Will there be no transition from RTW 1 to 2 then, i.e., in RTW 2 you will not be able to start with the early pre-dreadnoughts? If this is a design decision for whatever reasons are apparent to the team, perhaps consider a function where you could export your 1920 RTW 1 fleet into a new start in 1920 for RTW2? I could see much request for this, if it were possible. The way the player faces change is part of the great fun, and the change from Pre-to-Dred is just as exciting as Dred-to-Air. I would love to tackle both in one game. From Fredrik's phrasing (' if starting in 1920') it sounds like there will be a 1900 start date and a 1920 start date.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 16, 2017 11:49:23 GMT -6
@fredrik W Will there be no transition from RTW 1 to 2 then, i.e., in RTW 2 you will not be able to start with the early pre-dreadnoughts? If this is a design decision for whatever reasons are apparent to the team, perhaps consider a function where you could export your 1920 RTW 1 fleet into a new start in 1920 for RTW2? I could see much request for this, if it were possible. The way the player faces change is part of the great fun, and the change from Pre-to-Dred is just as exciting as Dred-to-Air. I would love to tackle both in one game. From Fredrik's phrasing (' if starting in 1920') it sounds like there will be a 1900 start date and a 1920 start date. The idea in RTW2 is you will be able to start at either 1900 or 1920 (your choice at the start of a new game), so no need to import from RTW1.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 16, 2017 12:39:03 GMT -6
*big happy thumbs up* Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 16, 2017 16:57:01 GMT -6
Airbase building and upgrading will be in.
Sounding great Two start dates also sounds very interesting .
|
|
|
Post by hughesengles on Dec 17, 2017 13:35:58 GMT -6
I'm a bit muddle-headed to write this terrribly well, but I've started reading Friedman's 'Network-Centric Warfare', and was struck at the level of use of radio/rdf/intelligence in the first world war (and it reinforces the importance of this in the second), as well as the way intelligence lead to fleet coordination at the 'whole of fleet' level (so in WW2, signals intelligence playing a large role in BdU vectoring U-boats to convoys, the RN vectoring all sorts of things all over the place). Things like Japan having 'dummy' radio signals for its carriers prior to Pearl Harbor, so that US signals intelligence people wouldn't think they were up to something (Friedman argues that US confidence in signals intelligence meant they didn't do things like station subs outside of Japanese harbours to monitor traffic, one of the reasons they were caught out - I've only read this here, so don't know the veracity of the argument). I'm afraid I don't have a concrete suggestion, but something to help represent the importance of signals intelligence (perhaps 'intelligence' tracks on the operational map?) could help - and having missions generated with signals intelligence in mind would also be cool. In the background, perhaps have a signals intelligence 'mini-game' players are weighing the costs of changing their codes vs the benefits (for example, the Germans didn't change their codes even after they'd been cracked for some time, which caused them all sorts of trouble, the British as well, but code changes could lead to a substantial reduction in signals intelligence for months (if not years), as it had to fall back on RDF/HF-DF and other 'signal analysis' techniques (Friedman mentions range estimation, Serpentina and radio finger-printing). Suspect oldpop2000 would know a whole lot more. As always, ignore if not of interest or useful . I can't stop thinking about this. RTW abstracts SIGINT, in my humble opinion slightly too much. I think something as simple as a resource slider (with a fixed range from 0-X, X being determined by level of progression in SIGINT research or perhaps simply tonnage ) for "Naval Intelligence," in the Training tab or otherwise, would go a long way to solving this. Perhaps a separate research priority option as well, solely for ECM/SIGINT/Codebreaking. In my opinion, the results you get should largely depend on the differential in progression in research and resources applied. Countries with a negative differential should still get results, including the occasional coup (due to abstracted wildcards like HUMINT, Congressmen leaking strategic deployment information, sporadic interceptions, and radio direction finding in tactical scenarios), but countries with a positive differential would get outsized, hyperbolic results. Knowing where to send resources to intercept raiders (or vice versa where to send raiders to intercept convoys) for example would add a very interesting and historically accurate dynamic to the game.
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 19, 2017 10:20:17 GMT -6
I've noticed that the AI doesn't handle max displacement CLs very well, it will not respond and build it's own large light cruisers. This results in situations where the game tries to place 2-3 (occasionally more) small light cruisers (3000-5000 tons) in battle with a single 8000 tonner. This forces the AI to pull hulls that would otherwise be used for raiding, commerce protection or other rolls in secondary theaters severely depleting the AI's pool of CLs. The player built large light cruiser will easily kill 2 smaller CLs per engagement rapidly running the AI out of cruisers. Perhaps for RTW2 the AI should be encouraged to match CL displacement a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 20, 2017 7:05:27 GMT -6
I'd like to see the ability to reuse components ordered for canceled ships, or guns taken off in refits for future construction.
Say I have an B under construction and cancel it a few months in. Presumably, the ships machinery and guns have already been ordered from the 3rd parties that produce them. Leaving me with a pair of triple expansion of X horsepower, a number of boilers, 4 12" guns and a number of 6" from her secondary battery. I could then use the machinery and secondary battery ordered for that canceled battleship to produce a light cruiser at a cost/time savings
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Dec 20, 2017 8:40:40 GMT -6
I'd like to see the ability to reuse components ordered for canceled ships, or guns taken off in refits for future construction. Say I have an B under construction and cancel it a few months in. Presumably, the ships machinery and guns have already been ordered from the 3rd parties that produce them. Leaving me with a pair of triple expansion of X horsepower, a number of boilers, 4 12" guns and a number of 6" from her secondary battery. I could then use the machinery and secondary battery ordered for that canceled battleship to produce a light cruiser at a cost/time savings That would probably vary depending on the time period and type of ship. I would have doubts about recycling battleship machinery into a light cruiser for instance.* Guns would make more sense - or at least having the guns available for use for incorporating into coastal defenses since that was a much more common use for "extra" naval guns. * - I am reading Friedman's "British Cruisers" right now. The "cruiser" designation is a real amorphous mass of roles and thus open to different designs fulfilling the different roles or attempting to fit multiple ones. And one thing I have noticed is that machinery space in a cruiser, and especially a light one, is a very critical thing. Including debates of whether to try to use destroyer-type machinery in some of the smaller ones. And the main reason I think a battleship-designed engine/power plant won't work in a light cruiser is height -- since a tall boiler/engine plant in a cruiser would probably heavily affect or compromise the armor scheme. I also note that in the 20s and 30s a major issue with UK cruiser designs was finding the space and top weight to fit float planes, AAA, and eventually radar.
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 20, 2017 9:28:42 GMT -6
I'd like to see the ability to reuse components ordered for canceled ships, or guns taken off in refits for future construction. Say I have an B under construction and cancel it a few months in. Presumably, the ships machinery and guns have already been ordered from the 3rd parties that produce them. Leaving me with a pair of triple expansion of X horsepower, a number of boilers, 4 12" guns and a number of 6" from her secondary battery. I could then use the machinery and secondary battery ordered for that canceled battleship to produce a light cruiser at a cost/time savings That would probably vary depending on the time period and type of ship. I would have doubts about recycling battleship machinery into a light cruiser for instance.* Guns would make more sense - or at least having the guns available for use for incorporating into coastal defenses since that was a much more common use for "extra" naval guns. * - I am reading Friedman's "British Cruisers" right now. The "cruiser" designation is a real amorphous mass of roles and thus open to different designs fulfilling the different roles or attempting to fit multiple ones. And one thing I have noticed is that machinery space in a cruiser, and especially a light one, is a very critical thing. Including debates of whether to try to use destroyer-type machinery in some of the smaller ones. And the main reason I think a battleship-designed engine/power plant won't work in a light cruiser is height -- since a tall boiler/engine plant in a cruiser would probably heavily affect or compromise the armor scheme. I also note that in the 20s and 30s a major issue with UK cruiser designs was finding the space and top weight to fit float planes, AAA, and eventually radar. I remember reading about a couple real world examples of machinery being reused, I'll try to dig one up, but you're right it probably wasn't a light cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 20, 2017 15:09:25 GMT -6
If I recall, Fisher's large light cruisers' turrets were used for HMS Vanguard and the Iowa-class Kentucky's propulsion machinery was used in a couple of fast replenishment ships or command ships I forget which off of the top of my head.
It happened but it seems like a pretty rare event.
Coastal guns from scrapped or cancelled battleships on the other hand would be a nice addition. An event asking if you want to convert the guns to a coastal battery at a drastically reduced build cost would be pretty great. I currently never build big battleship caliber coastal batteries because of their expense.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Dec 20, 2017 16:28:30 GMT -6
If I recall, Fisher's large light cruisers' turrets were used for HMS Vanguard and the Iowa-class Kentucky's propulsion machinery was used in a couple of fast replenishment ships or command ships I forget which off of the top of my head. It happened but it seems like a pretty rare event. Coastal guns from scrapped or cancelled battleships on the other hand would be a nice addition. An event asking if you want to convert the guns to a coastal battery at a drastically reduced build cost would be pretty great. I currently never build big battleship caliber coastal batteries because of their expense. The Kentucky was used, for parts, most notably when its bow was used to repair USS Wisconsin after she collied with the destroyer USS Eaton in 1956.
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 20, 2017 19:19:42 GMT -6
In more recent times (1994), USS AMERICA (CV 66) suffered a boiler explosion (more technically, a stack explosion) which destroyed 2B Boiler (and wrecked a good bit of other machinery). No fatalities or serious injuries, despite numerous people present. Just by sheer luck (or the grace of God), no one happened to be standing on the side of 2B which blew out. Still gives me the shivers a bit when I think about it. The situation was bad enough as it was, but could very easily have been much more gruesome.
Anyway, the replacement boiler was disassembled in one of the then-recently-decommissioned FORRESTAL-class CV's, (I think it was FORRESTAL herself), and then reassembled in AMERICA's #2 MMR (these carriers did not have separated Fire & Engine Rooms like many other steam ships; each shaft's entire plant - boilers, turbines, reduction gear - was located in one big Main Machinery Room (MMR)).
How does this relate to topic? I dunno...just the Kentucky/Wisconsin mention reminded me of that episode, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 20, 2017 21:49:22 GMT -6
I think the term that you are all referring to is "cannibalizing" and I have to tell you that the US Navy has to be one of the best cannibalizing navies in the world.
There is even a DOD Guide book "DOD GUIDE FOR ACHIEVING RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, AND MAINTAINABILITY", 2005)which mentions this technique. Parts from the USS Independence have been used to maintain the USS Kitty Hawk in the past, although she is now gone herself. For the aircraft world, this is the reason for Davis-Monthan AFB... where aircraft go to die.
Had the IJN understood the concept of cannibalizing, the war in the Southwest Pacific would have been far harder.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 20, 2017 21:59:42 GMT -6
If I recall, Fisher's large light cruisers' turrets were used for HMS Vanguard and the Iowa-class Kentucky's propulsion machinery was used in a couple of fast replenishment ships or command ships I forget which off of the top of my head. It happened but it seems like a pretty rare event. Coastal guns from scrapped or cancelled battleships on the other hand would be a nice addition. An event asking if you want to convert the guns to a coastal battery at a drastically reduced build cost would be pretty great. I currently never build big battleship caliber coastal batteries because of their expense. The Kentucky was used, for parts, most notably when its bow was used to repair USS Wisconsin after she collied with the destroyer USS Eaton in 1956. You're right. However, I was right as well. I just wasn't at my computer at the time and I hate trying to google-fu using my phone so I was going off of memory and I apologize that I wasn't more specific. One pair of Kentucky's four, 600 psi boiler and turbine sets were used in each of the first two new fast support ships of the Sacramento-class (AOE-1), USS Sacramento and USS Camden. They were a new style of support ship designed to be fast enough to travel directly with the carrier groups rather than behind in a slower moving support train. They repurposed Kentucky's machinery to give them that speed.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Dec 20, 2017 22:30:40 GMT -6
The Kentucky was used, for parts, most notably when its bow was used to repair USS Wisconsin after she collied with the destroyer USS Eaton in 1956. You're right. However, I was right as well. I just wasn't at my computer at the time and I hate trying to google-fu using my phone so I was going off of memory and I apologize that I wasn't more specific. One pair of Kentucky's four, 600 psi boiler and turbine sets were used in each of the first two new fast support ships of the Sacramento-class (AOE-1), USS Sacramento and USS Camden. They were a new style of support ship designed to be fast enough to travel directly with the carrier groups rather than behind in a slower moving support train. They repurposed Kentucky's machinery to give them that speed. Sorry, did not mean to imply that you were wrong or criticize your post in any way! I was trying to back up what you were saying. I visited the Wisconsin a few years ago, and the tour guide had served aboard her and told us about the collision.
|
|