|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 14, 2018 17:39:36 GMT -6
I copied the posts about the Pride of the Fleet mechanic idea to its own thread. Sorry if I overstepped.
When we create (or refit) ships, could we perhaps specify our desired use for the ship in form of a checkbox with class relevant picks? Then when picking ships for battle they'd be picked (or not) and used according to that desired use, if you have enough ships to choose from in the area (If you don't, then you use whatever's available)
So for example for cruisers it'd be: - Solo action (might need a better name, what I had in mind was offensive purpose like convoy attack or shore bombardment - either solo or as a core of small flotilla of minor ships)
- Scouting
- Raiding
- Fleet screening
- Commerce protection (ships for convoy screening are picked primarily from this category, also intercepts raiders)
- Colonial duties
etc.. My preference, really, would be to have a checkbox system like that (with requirements as to a ship's stats for it to be eligible to use a given checkbox) entirely replace the ship type. The CA type, for example, has a very artificial feeling to it: is entirely an artifact of how ships got classified by the USN in the treaty era, and hodgepodges together early-game predreadnought battlecruisers with late game heavy CLs. The roles I would assign to a 1900 CA are quite a bit different than those I'd assign to a 1925 CA. It will be interesting to see what they decided to do with this because you are right, the two types aren't really related and I agree that it's only the Navy reusing the CA designation that screwed everything up. And since the game is designed to go through a 50 year time span you would see both. There are a lot of different roles to add just because of aircraft. I understand why the ship types are used the way they are in RTW1 but all the different technologies and types of warfare that developed and matured during that 50 year timeframe would make it difficult to shoehorn into the same system.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Jan 14, 2018 19:08:38 GMT -6
I copied the posts about the Pride of the Fleet mechanic idea to its own thread. Sorry if I overstepped. My preference, really, would be to have a checkbox system like that (with requirements as to a ship's stats for it to be eligible to use a given checkbox) entirely replace the ship type. The CA type, for example, has a very artificial feeling to it: is entirely an artifact of how ships got classified by the USN in the treaty era, and hodgepodges together early-game predreadnought battlecruisers with late game heavy CLs. The roles I would assign to a 1900 CA are quite a bit different than those I'd assign to a 1925 CA. It will be interesting to see what they decided to do with this because you are right, the two types aren't really related and I agree that it's only the Navy reusing the CA designation that screwed everything up. And since the game is designed to go through a 50 year time span you would see both. There are a lot of different roles to add just because of aircraft. I understand why the ship types are used the way they are in RTW1 but all the different technologies and types of warfare that developed and matured during that 50 year timeframe would make it difficult to shoehorn into the same system. I think the RTW2 system will have to go much broader since including the period of World War 2 would indicate the need for a lot more flexibility in terms of warship types and also fringe areas such as auxiliaries, patrol ships, and support craft. Fighting against aircraft and submarines gets much more specialized, the requirements for a mission such as convoy escort are quite a bit different than that for escorting an aircraft carrier or other task force comprised of warships. And the logistics and training support is also something that gets more complex and reflects the character of the various nations. This can (or will) be abstracted to a certain degree, but it also is one of the differences between being a regional or global naval power. And another potential decision regarding how you spend resources and fight wars as it can affect the quality and staying power of your forces. And this would especially apply to aircraft since attrition of pilot/crew resources was an important factor in World War 2.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Jan 14, 2018 20:43:34 GMT -6
A battle generator/editor would be nice: recreating historic naval battles, such a Matapan or or Cape Spartivento would be cool.
I'd really like to see star shells for later-game night actions, as well as some mechanic for determining how/when it would be fired.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 14, 2018 23:27:32 GMT -6
And the logistics and training support is also something that gets more complex and reflects the character of the various nations. This can (or will) be abstracted to a certain degree, but it also is one of the differences between being a regional or global naval power. And another potential decision regarding how you spend resources and fight wars as it can affect the quality and staying power of your forces. And this would especially apply to aircraft since attrition of pilot/crew resources was an important factor in World War 2. I would like to echo this point. In the beginning of WWII carrier fleets could raid, and be lucky to fly 3 meaningful attacks before their striking power became only a hazard to the pilots. In 1944, US Navy Task Forces could stand off your coast and just pummel you to kingdom come, seemingly indefinitely; supplies, replenishments, replacements, reinforcements, all would miraculously appear. Related to the above, players may wish to be able to invest more in their merchant marine or replenishment forces, even if it is only part of the tech tree, and all you see is a number, like; 300 merchantmen.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 15, 2018 3:12:40 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see what they decided to do with this because you are right, the two types aren't really related and I agree that it's only the Navy reusing the CA designation that screwed everything up. And since the game is designed to go through a 50 year time span you would see both. There are a lot of different roles to add just because of aircraft. I understand why the ship types are used the way they are in RTW1 but all the different technologies and types of warfare that developed and matured during that 50 year timeframe would make it difficult to shoehorn into the same system. I would argue that this error is not on the USN's post-1920 hull classification system. The ships of the USN's Armored Cruiser or ACR series would not have been used in a battlecruiser-type role (other, perhaps, than the cruiser hunter-killer and maybe heavy-ish fleet scout aspects) when they were assigned the CA hull symbol in mid-1920; rather, they would have been used in much the same way as a Treaty of Washington treatymax cruiser, Treaty of London 'heavy' cruiser, or Treaty of London treatymax 'light' cruiser (~10,000t 6" cruiser) would have, albeit within the limitations imposed by their age and especially their speed and armament, or as a(n obsolete) second class cruiser would have been in the predreadnought period. Instead, the error is in treating both the ship's assigned hull class and the role of that hull class as static. At least one of them has to be able to change over time - a 1900 battlecruiser analog which is still in service in 1921 is at best a 1921 heavy cruiser analog (and a rather obsolete one at that, especially if it hasn't had a refit to improve its speed) and is not comparable or equivalent to a 1921 battlecruiser except inasmuch as the 1900 battlecruiser analog was to 1900 battleships more or less what the 1921 battlecruiser is to 1921 battleships. If the developers don't want to implement the ability to change a ship's hull class (which is understandable), I would like to see the CA hull class broken up into two symbols in much the same way as the game breaks the battleship class into two symbols (B for predreadnought battleship, BB for dreadnought battleship), with one of the symbols representing the large type of first class cruiser which goes obsolete as it evolves into the dreadnought battlecruiser while the other symbol represents something more along the lines of the Treaty of London heavy cruiser (it could maybe also be used for the smaller first class and larger second class cruisers which together were the heavy cruiser analogs of the predreadnought period, especially if the CL hull class keeps its 8000t limit and so from the 1920s mostly represents the treaty period's third class, small second class, and scout cruiser analogs rather than the large second class/small first class cruiser analogs that were the ~10,000t 6" and 8" cruisers of the 1930s and the ~10,000t 8" cruisers of the 1920s).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 15, 2018 7:44:51 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see what they decided to do with this because you are right, the two types aren't really related and I agree that it's only the Navy reusing the CA designation that screwed everything up. And since the game is designed to go through a 50 year time span you would see both. There are a lot of different roles to add just because of aircraft. I understand why the ship types are used the way they are in RTW1 but all the different technologies and types of warfare that developed and matured during that 50 year timeframe would make it difficult to shoehorn into the same system. I would argue that this error is not on the USN's post-1920 hull classification system. The ships of the USN's Armored Cruiser or ACR series would not have been used in a battlecruiser-type role (other, perhaps, than the cruiser hunter-killer and maybe heavy-ish fleet scout aspects) when they were assigned the CA hull symbol in mid-1920; rather, they would have been used in much the same way as a Treaty of Washington treatymax cruiser, Treaty of London 'heavy' cruiser, or Treaty of London treatymax 'light' cruiser (~10,000t 6" cruiser) would have, albeit within the limitations imposed by their age and especially their speed and armament, or as a(n obsolete) second class cruiser would have been in the predreadnought period. Instead, the error is in treating both the ship's assigned hull class and the role of that hull class as static. At least one of them has to be able to change over time - a 1900 battlecruiser analog which is still in service in 1921 is at best a 1921 heavy cruiser analog (and a rather obsolete one at that, especially if it hasn't had a refit to improve its speed) and is not comparable or equivalent to a 1921 battlecruiser except inasmuch as the 1900 battlecruiser analog was to 1900 battleships more or less what the 1921 battlecruiser is to 1921 battleships. If the developers don't want to implement the ability to change a ship's hull class (which is understandable), I would like to see the CA hull class broken up into two symbols in much the same way as the game breaks the battleship class into two symbols (B for predreadnought battleship, BB for dreadnought battleship), with one of the symbols representing the large type of first class cruiser which goes obsolete as it evolves into the dreadnought battlecruiser while the other symbol represents something more along the lines of the Treaty of London heavy cruiser (it could maybe also be used for the smaller first class and larger second class cruisers which together were the heavy cruiser analogs of the predreadnought period, especially if the CL hull class keeps its 8000t limit and so from the 1920s mostly represents the treaty period's third class, small second class, and scout cruiser analogs rather than the large second class/small first class cruiser analogs that were the ~10,000t 6" and 8" cruisers of the 1930s and the ~10,000t 8" cruisers of the 1920s). Sounds like a great idea. I can't wait to see what they actually come up with to deal with the evolution of cruisers from 1900-1950.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Jan 15, 2018 19:48:55 GMT -6
It will be interesting to see what they decided to do with this because you are right, the two types aren't really related and I agree that it's only the Navy reusing the CA designation that screwed everything up. And since the game is designed to go through a 50 year time span you would see both. There are a lot of different roles to add just because of aircraft. I understand why the ship types are used the way they are in RTW1 but all the different technologies and types of warfare that developed and matured during that 50 year timeframe would make it difficult to shoehorn into the same system. I would argue that this error is not on the USN's post-1920 hull classification system. The ships of the USN's Armored Cruiser or ACR series would not have been used in a battlecruiser-type role (other, perhaps, than the cruiser hunter-killer and maybe heavy-ish fleet scout aspects) when they were assigned the CA hull symbol in mid-1920; rather, they would have been used in much the same way as a Treaty of Washington treatymax cruiser, Treaty of London 'heavy' cruiser, or Treaty of London treatymax 'light' cruiser (~10,000t 6" cruiser) would have, albeit within the limitations imposed by their age and especially their speed and armament, or as a(n obsolete) second class cruiser would have been in the predreadnought period. Instead, the error is in treating both the ship's assigned hull class and the role of that hull class as static. At least one of them has to be able to change over time - a 1900 battlecruiser analog which is still in service in 1921 is at best a 1921 heavy cruiser analog (and a rather obsolete one at that, especially if it hasn't had a refit to improve its speed) and is not comparable or equivalent to a 1921 battlecruiser except inasmuch as the 1900 battlecruiser analog was to 1900 battleships more or less what the 1921 battlecruiser is to 1921 battleships. If the developers don't want to implement the ability to change a ship's hull class (which is understandable), I would like to see the CA hull class broken up into two symbols in much the same way as the game breaks the battleship class into two symbols (B for predreadnought battleship, BB for dreadnought battleship), with one of the symbols representing the large type of first class cruiser which goes obsolete as it evolves into the dreadnought battlecruiser while the other symbol represents something more along the lines of the Treaty of London heavy cruiser (it could maybe also be used for the smaller first class and larger second class cruisers which together were the heavy cruiser analogs of the predreadnought period, especially if the CL hull class keeps its 8000t limit and so from the 1920s mostly represents the treaty period's third class, small second class, and scout cruiser analogs rather than the large second class/small first class cruiser analogs that were the ~10,000t 6" and 8" cruisers of the 1930s and the ~10,000t 8" cruisers of the 1920s). A lot will depend on how much the game AI needs the classifications in order to work out match ups for scenarios. If a more complex algorithm is being used then the classification strictures might be much looser in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 17, 2018 8:47:51 GMT -6
After so much pages and ideas I do not know if I am not repeating somebody but anyway this is the idea.
As there is information about laying down, comission, name of battles, even in list of sunk ships description of the event, I suggest for brief history of the ships.
In this history of ships there can be: - laid down - comission date - work up date - area of operations / transfer orders - information about transferring to reserve fleet or mothball - information about their participation in battle - information of refit - information of scrapping - repairs - battle start award
I think as the number of different possibilities of these events are not so high it could be too difficult and would se interesting information about the ships - their history.
Practically for battleships it would be quite short as: laid down, comission, working up finished, movement to are of operations, 1 or 2 refits, 1 or 2 battles but for the cruisers it could be interesting how much they were used, how they fight around whole globe changing from action to action, repairs, refits etc.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 17, 2018 10:05:02 GMT -6
That fits with some prior commentary and discussion, especially for aids which might assist with broad scale detail recording to facilitate AAR writing, but no solutions or mechanisms have been alluded to. It would be great though! Fighting a navy is great, being able to scan through a ship's history and re-live it would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Jan 31, 2018 7:47:47 GMT -6
Hoping this thread isn't considered too old, and apologies if this has been mentioned already..
Would it be possible to get an editable "notes" column in the main ship list? - I often have specific roles in mind for a class of ships when building them, and sometimes fond it hard to keep track of these, - or intend a ship for a certain station and forget - say if it is called back home for a refit or something. I sometimes also add prefixes to class names, for example R if the ship is intended as a raider, and this would replace that, and look much nicer. If it was sortable by this column that would also be great. - and potentially not too diffcult to implement?
This would actually suffice to cover aome other more in depth features many seem to want, - You could assign a ship to a ceertain "fleet" or "command" using a note - it wouldn' tneed to actually have any in game effect. - or remember a particularly heroic exploit.
It would help me anyway - and hopefully not be to difficult or programming effort intensive to do (I'm not a programmer!) - it could be hidden off to the right by default.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 3, 2018 9:12:43 GMT -6
I would like to suggest that research into meteorology be included to allow for improved meteorological data capture and processing on board the fleet ships and land to enhance the knowledge of the weather before, during and after an operational mission.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Feb 3, 2018 9:28:19 GMT -6
I would like to suggest that research into meteorology be included to allow for improved meteorological data capture and processing on board the fleet ships and land to enhance the knowledge of the weather before, during and after an operational mission. Along with greater weather visibility, rather than just in the spot of your lead ship.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 3, 2018 10:16:48 GMT -6
I would like to suggest that research into meteorology be included to allow for improved meteorological data capture and processing on board the fleet ships and land to enhance the knowledge of the weather before, during and after an operational mission. Along with greater weather visibility, rather than just in the spot of your lead ship. Possibly, but you would need high PRF, narrow PW radars to really gather that kind of information. Long range high altitude aircraft with photographic equipment works nice. I am speaking more about the development of the radiosonde with hydrogen balloons. Also the development of mathematical models for forecasting. You could include the discovery of the different layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere, and the discovery by the Japanese of the Jet Stream. You could develop weather services like the US Navy Weather Service and the like. The development of pulsed radar by the British in 1941 showed echoes from weather elements like rain and snow so radar development can go hand in hand with this research element. The great Atlantic hurricane of 1944 was detected by radar on the Atlantic coast. Rockets available in 1947 can be and were used to send up radiosonde equipment to higher altitudes.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Feb 3, 2018 23:10:46 GMT -6
Along with greater weather visibility, rather than just in the spot of your lead ship. Possibly, but you would need high PRF, narrow PW radars to really gather that kind of information. Long range high altitude aircraft with photographic equipment works nice. I am speaking more about the development of the radiosonde with hydrogen balloons. Also the development of mathematical models for forecasting. You could include the discovery of the different layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere, and the discovery by the Japanese of the Jet Stream. You could develop weather services like the US Navy Weather Service and the like. The development of pulsed radar by the British in 1941 showed echoes from weather elements like rain and snow so radar development can go hand in hand with this research element. The great Atlantic hurricane of 1944 was detected by radar on the Atlantic coast. Rockets available in 1947 can be and were used to send up radiosonde equipment to higher altitudes. Look, I’m pretty certain that having a trained dude stand outside and look around can give you the bearings to and the rough distance of storms within a certain distance. More information than currently present; best represented by a guy constantly looking straight up. I mean, yes, representing meteorological technological improvement would be a good thing for RTW2. I agree with you, it’s needed. But even in 1900 there should be greater visibility of the weather, even if it’s just the directions and rough distances of storms and clouds in a fairly short circle around the capital ship. Would still present some helpful information.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 3, 2018 23:27:20 GMT -6
Possibly, but you would need high PRF, narrow PW radars to really gather that kind of information. Long range high altitude aircraft with photographic equipment works nice. I am speaking more about the development of the radiosonde with hydrogen balloons. Also the development of mathematical models for forecasting. You could include the discovery of the different layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere, and the discovery by the Japanese of the Jet Stream. You could develop weather services like the US Navy Weather Service and the like. The development of pulsed radar by the British in 1941 showed echoes from weather elements like rain and snow so radar development can go hand in hand with this research element. The great Atlantic hurricane of 1944 was detected by radar on the Atlantic coast. Rockets available in 1947 can be and were used to send up radiosonde equipment to higher altitudes. Look, I’m pretty certain that having a trained dude stand outside and look around can give you the bearings to and the rough distance of storms within a certain distance. More information than currently present; best represented by a guy constantly looking straight up. I mean, yes, representing meteorological technological improvement would be a good thing for RTW2. I agree with you, it’s needed. But even in 1900 there should be greater visibility of the weather, even if it’s just the directions and rough distances of storms and clouds in a fairly short circle around the capital ship. Would still present some helpful information. Accurate meteorological predictions today, are not accurate beyond three days. In order to get greater visibility of the weather you need meteorological stations throughout the globe to give you sufficient Pressure both static and trend, temperature, wind direction, wind speed both maximum and average, relative humidity. You need accurate cloud heights and types. One ship with a pair of binoculars is not going to give you the sufficient quantity of data. You need weather ships stationed around the area. If the enemy detects those ships, they will be sunk. Submarines might be the only answer if they can surface and send up a radiosonde then transmit the information. However during wartime, that maybe a breach of radio security by giving away your location. With stations in Iceland and Ireland, the data you need could give you sufficient information to be able to create a synoptic meteorological map of pressures to provide a warning but only maybe. Now, it really depends on which country you are playing. If you are Japan, you could have stations in Korea which might give you some information relevant to the weather that is approaching Japan. For the Mediterranean, its a whole new ball game. You will have to have ships and land based stations with friendly nations to provide the necessary data. If you are on a ship, and you see cumulonimbus clouds and the winds increasing, its too darn late. Storms move at about 10-15 miles per hours over water, maybe 20 miles per hour. One of the problems for the Pacific Coast has been the lack of adequate stations out to sea to give us the data. Only the use of satellites and weather aircraft have changed that scenario. It was WW1 that used a meteorological staff a standard element of any military organization. WWII greatly enhanced the need and standardization was instituted. I will say that the recording of weather observations began with the Babylonians almost 3000 years ago, so this isn't really new. The Greeks kept records. But it wasn't until the 20th century that observations and the calculation of weather patterns during a second time period began.
|
|