|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 4, 2018 3:21:45 GMT -6
I don't think Noname is even suggesting that much. More like "thunderstorm 10 miles to the west of our position". At the battle off Samar, Johnston took shelter behind rain squalls to repair her guns and radar.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Feb 4, 2018 7:37:36 GMT -6
Ok, yeah, I agree with you here, but I feel like we’re on slightly different pages. Predicting the weather is helpful, and would be nearly impossible early game. But just knowing what the weather is in the nearby vicinity of your fleet is helpful.
Now, yeah, as you said, some (most) storms would be unavoidable. But the information of there being a storm coming in can alone influence your tactics. Say you know that a storm is approaching, and intend on making a maneuver to use the decreased sighting ranges to get away from an enemy as the storm hits.
Having just a few minutes warning on when the approaching storm would hit, which you could gather with just a lookout, could help you time the maneuver much better. In the current game, you’d have to wait until it hit, which you might be less certain of as your entire picture of the weather is basically a point.
Now yes, more accurate pictures and predictions of the weather would help this situation more. But just having a lookout give you a basic picture of the weather in the surrounding visible area from your ships would be both more realistic and better than the current system we have; of looking straight up from the capital ship and leaving it at that.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 10:06:22 GMT -6
Ok, yeah, I agree with you here, but I feel like we’re on slightly different pages. Predicting the weather is helpful, and would be nearly impossible early game. But just knowing what the weather is in the nearby vicinity of your fleet is helpful. Now, yeah, as you said, some (most) storms would be unavoidable. But the information of there being a storm coming in can alone influence your tactics. Say you know that a storm is approaching, and intend on making a maneuver to use the decreased sighting ranges to get away from an enemy as the storm hits. Having just a few minutes warning on when the approaching storm would hit, which you could gather with just a lookout, could help you time the maneuver much better. In the current game, you’d have to wait until it hit, which you might be less certain of as your entire picture of the weather is basically a point. Now yes, more accurate pictures and predictions of the weather would help this situation more. But just having a lookout give you a basic picture of the weather in the surrounding visible area from your ships would be both more realistic and better than the current system we have; of looking straight up from the capital ship and leaving it at that. You could include in the research bridge mounted binoculars like the 25 x 150 power and install them on all ships. This should give you plenty of range and warning for coming squalls. In RTW2, your spotting aircraft from cruisers, and battleships can provide similar and better range. These are all items that can be and will be researched. I don't know. Remember that the range to the horizon is based on height. To see 10 miles, you have to be a minimum of 60 feet above the waterline. At 80 feet above the waterline, you can see about 11 miles. Binoculars, even 7x50's, will help.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 10:33:31 GMT -6
Just to make it clear, you cannot plan complex combat operations at the operational level without timely weather prediction and that was why it was pursued and developed. This was even more important in the days of sailing. The Spanish Armada found out the hard way on that issue. While it is nice to be able to see in the distance a possible stormy condition, you can't plan your operation that way, you need weather data and prediction for success.
Weather data and prediction played a big roll in Operation Barbarossa, DDay, The Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway and many others.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 11:06:57 GMT -6
I don't think Noname is even suggesting that much. More like "thunderstorm 10 miles to the west of our position". At the battle off Samar, Johnston took shelter behind rain squalls to repair her guns and radar. I believe she retired behind a heavy smoke screen, but I could be wrong on this point.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 4, 2018 11:15:26 GMT -6
You guys should remember that RTW2 is being programmed by one person that also has a day job. I think expectations are getting a little out of control.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 11:28:43 GMT -6
You guys should remember that RTW2 is being programmed by one person that also has a day job. I think expectations are getting a little out of control. i quite agree, having done a little programming for test sets. It can be time consuming. My idea was just a simple suggest to add some realism, but it probably isn't that important.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Feb 4, 2018 20:19:20 GMT -6
I actually would agree with oldpop here that if carrier airplanes are going to present, warning of squalls can have significant impact on operational decision. I don't think it's necessary to have any pre-operational modification to the current system to account for weather warning, or a visible squall area that moves on the map(that will be nice but probably too much work).
I think just a simple pop up that tells you squall will hit within a rough 5-10min that might be lengthened by thech is good enough.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 21:30:51 GMT -6
I actually would agree with oldpop here that if carrier airplanes are going to present, warning of squalls can have significant impact on operational decision. I don't think it's necessary to have any pre-operational modification to the current system to account for weather warning, or a visible squall area that moves on the map(that will be nice but probably too much work). I think just a simple pop up that tells you squall will hit within a rough 5-10min that might be lengthened by thech is good enough. That is not a bad idea, I don't want the game to get more complex but in the Age of Carriers, meteorology becomes far more important. It's not only the problem it will cause with the combat operation, but the possible loss of crews with their aircraft due to poor weather.
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Feb 4, 2018 23:12:19 GMT -6
Flavit Jehovah et Dissipati Sunt
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 23:17:59 GMT -6
Flavit Jehovah et Dissipati Sunt Jehovah blew with his winds, and they were scattered. Poor Phillip II, he tried twice more, in 1596 and 1597 to use his armada and twice it was hammered by storms. " its not nice to fool Mother Nature."
|
|
|
Post by goodwood on Feb 4, 2018 23:42:17 GMT -6
Ok I'm new here, and I'm only a 1/3 of the way reading through this thread, is there a definitely in and definitely out list yet?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 4, 2018 23:45:48 GMT -6
Ok I'm new here, and I'm only a 1/3 of the way reading through this thread, is there a definitely in and definitely out list yet? Ahhhh, nope. But don't let us stop you.
|
|
|
Post by goodwood on Feb 5, 2018 19:18:33 GMT -6
I would like to see individual ship yards, and events that may see different incidents that may close them down or restrict work operations, such as air raid, strikes or manpower shortages. Real name shipyards and locations would add immersion and historic flavour. EG. Air raid on Rosyth Dock yard reduces capacity by 8%. etc etc. The thing I would like to see is introduction merchant ship building and cost added to the budget line.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Feb 8, 2018 12:29:14 GMT -6
After posting the a message in the " Submarines" thread about how boring submarines are, I realized that it might be useful to make a couple of suggestions that I think would make the submarine subsystem more interesting to use. First, allow players to assign specific numbers and types of submarines (this should apply as well to surface ASW assets) to operate in specific regions. This would allow the player to use his submarines to project power in support of his surface forces or to avoid an area that is heavily infested with enemy ASW assets. Some additional values for maximum range for submarines might be required for this to work correctly. Second, allow players to assign an overall "mission" for SS forces deployed in a region. Options might include: Set primary mission to target enemy combat ships - Merchant ship losses in this region would decrease but there would be an increased chance of attacking a combat vessel in the region. Set primary mission to target merchant shipping - Merchant shipping losses would increase but at the cost of seldom targeting combat vessels. Increased chance of attacking a neutral ship. Set primary mission to scouting - This would potentially provide advance information about the position and composition of the enemy's forces. Set primary mission to lay mines - Results in less chance of attacking enemy shipping or warships but allows player to target a specific region or perhaps even a specific enemy base. Set primary mission to support invasion - Results in submarines attempting to sink landing forces (which are currently non-existent in the game but could be abstracted) or to attack supporting supply missions (also abstracted) or alternately target surface combat vessels in the area.
|
|