|
Post by rimbecano on Jul 4, 2021 0:44:12 GMT -6
I'm a bit surprised that bulging takes you straight from overweight to too much unused tonnage, but there are certainly reasons that bulging an old hull without adding enough extra weight could be problematic. The extra volume will cause the ship to float higher in the water, which could do things like causing the bottom edge of the belt to be above the waterline, or exacerbating issues with topweight. Neither of those is directly addressed in game, but I believe the unused tonnage limitation is meant to indirectly account for such issues.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 17, 2021 3:29:04 GMT -6
TBH, this probably has to do with adjustments made to deal with overeager "friendly ship in line of fire" inhibition on manual torpedo shots (as well as fairly frequent player complaints in the past about the friendly AI never firing torpedoes, ever).
From my experience, and the complaints people posted about blocked shots to the forum, about 90% of blocked torpedo shots were due to legitimate interference from friendly ships that was not immediately obvious to the player, and 10% were due to bizarre bugs (like a ship on a reciprocal bearing to what would actually block a shot causing a shot to be blocked). Relatively few, from what I can see, were due to overcautious safety margins causing a shot to be legitimately blocked that could have been safely fired. However, the devs seem to have reacted to the complaints that were made by reducing safety margins, which may well be the cause if the issue here. I think two features would help tremendously with balancing blocked shots vs. friendly fire and dealing with players unhappy with one or the other:
1) Make the safety margin against friendly fire a tunable option in the doctrine dialog, with a conservative default. That way, friendly fire should be rare on default settings, and players that want to cut things closer to get more firing opportunities can experiment to find a balance of missed opportunities vs. blue-on-blue that is acceptable to them.
2) This is where I get to sounding like a broken record: Please, please, please have the manual torpedo dialog show shot geometry information for blocked shots like it does for valid shots. That way, if a blocked shot looks questionable, it can be rigorously determined if it's a bug, or just a friendly ship fouling the range in a non-obvious way.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 14, 2021 8:11:51 GMT -6
I always put 3 for redundancy, so that if one is destroyed I still have fire control. I rarely put three on (except maybe to reserve weight for later upgrades and still get some benefit out of it, though I generally do that with more useful things), as I find that I rarely, if ever, have a ship lose two in one battle, but I almost always leave the default of two on. For destroyers and sometimes CLs, I'll drop redundant fire control in upgrades if there's just no way to get a critical upgrade on board within the weight limit (often director firing), as there I figure my redundancy is in number of ships: you're likely to outright lose a few destroyers in any major battle, so one or two more getting merely mission-killed isn't a huge problem, as long as your fleet has enough in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 12, 2021 22:03:45 GMT -6
The Lusitania did not bring the USA into WW1. It was not the proximal cause of the US joining the war, but it did significantly affect US opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 28, 2021 0:00:00 GMT -6
You can just up the squadron speed past the "squadron max", up to the speed of fastest vessel. The slow ship should auto-detach when it gets far behind, though ability to manually detach could be useful. I've found this to be hit and miss with ships at or near the head of the line. Sometimes the ships behind will pass them, often the whole line behind the damaged ship will slow down to stay behind it.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 21, 2021 3:52:52 GMT -6
Frankly, I think a lot could be gained with the current battle generator just by using more general mission types and having the player play the whole sortie, from dockside to dockside, instead of just the combat portion. A lot of my frustrations have to do with my ships being in a situation at the start of the battle that I would never allow to develop if I controlled the whole mission (such as cruisers on a coastal raid being deep inside enemy air cover when the mission begins at noon, without any accompanying carriers to provide fighter cover).
But what I'd really, really like is something like SAI operational campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 11, 2021 5:14:16 GMT -6
Neither were designed for fighter versus fighter combat unless tactics were changed to dive and climb. But the P-38 absolutely *excelled* at boom and zoom. It was the number one Zero killer of the war.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 8, 2021 3:01:22 GMT -6
that being said it would be cool to have the option of designing fighters (and perhaps torp bombers) to be twin engined, where choosing that option would increase the chance of having decreased manoeuvrability and speed, but increase the chance of having higher range, firepower, toughness, and bomb load Actually, I'd do reliability instead of speed as the disadvantage: twice as many engines means (roughly) twice as many mechanical failures, but will tend to increase the amount of engine per pound of plane, which will tend to make the plane faster. Also, the cost of a twin will be higher than that of a single. Actually, given the constraints that made the Zero what it was (the Japanese being behind on aircraft engines), I'm rather surprised they didn't do more with twin engined fighters. That said, the only really good twin engine day fighter of the war was the P-38, and even it was arguably inferior to the single-engine version of the same specification, the P-39/P-63. The P-39 was crippled by having the turbocharger removed, and got a bad reputation for a nasty flat spin that was difficult to recover from. From simulation flying I actually regard the venerated Mustang as having a more treacherous spin: the P-39 can easily be stopped within a quarter turn, whereas you have to be really on your toes to stop a Mustang in one rotation, otherwise you're committed to three, and then you've got a significant nose-down angle and can easily end up in another spin if you're not careful about pulling back into level flight. But where the P-39 got its reputation as a widowmaker is that if the spin is allowed to develop beyond that easy-to-stop incipient phase, recovery becomes almost impossible, whereas the Mustang will recover on its own after those three rotations unless you take deliberate action to hold it in the spin. But you have to be practically asleep to hit the point of no return in a P-39, and a quarter turn bleeds a lot less speed and altitude than the three violent rotations a Mustang gives you if you're not on your toes: I've spun a lot more Mustangs into the ground than 39s. In any case, the P-63 corrected the removal of the turbocharger, but by that point the poor reputation of the 39 had taken its toll, and the 63s ended up lend-leased to the Soviets rather than seeing use in US squadrons. Funnily enough, air combat on the eastern front was generally at low altitude, where the lack of a turbocharger was less of a problem, but the Eastern front was the only place that the 63 saw much action.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 21, 2021 16:03:35 GMT -6
And don't forget that sometime in the early 100's (post-F-111) the US reverted back to zero, hence the F-4 coming later than the F-104. And then you've got the fact that the Navy had an entirely different scheme before the numbers were restarted. (The F4H and F8U, as well as the AD and A4D, "coincidentally" ended up with Tri-service designations very close to their original Navy designations. Fun fact, and probably more of an actual coincidence, if the Navy scheme had been continued, the Tomcat would have been the F14F). The F-111 was the last fighter numbered "properly" under the old USAF numbering. Everything after that was either a Soviet aircraft being used for analysis and for dogfight training against the real thing, or a secret project misnumbered for secrecy (the F-117 designation apparently covered two separate types, both secret projects, though only one went into actual production).
|
|
|
Name Fix
Apr 21, 2021 7:03:32 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by rimbecano on Apr 21, 2021 7:03:32 GMT -6
Another example comes from aviation: Since the F-18, the only US fighters introduced (AFAIK) have been the F-22 and F-35.
|
|
|
Name Fix
Apr 21, 2021 6:50:00 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by rimbecano on Apr 21, 2021 6:50:00 GMT -6
Thanks for the clarification didn’t know that the prefix was the builder just thought it was part of the class name. Is their a historical reason why they weren’t named in order? Well, in Aeson's example with the Type 1911 class, they *were* named in order (except for the last two that we're replacements for boats that had been sold). It's just not an order you or I would consider logical. Note that there's a complete sequence from 1 to 24, just with different starting letters according to builder. It's somewhat, but not exactly, like the way that CV and CVN in the US navy use the same numbering sequence (though I don't think there's been a non-nuclear fleet carrier in quite a while).
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 10, 2021 2:08:33 GMT -6
I doubt the concept would have had much long term success. Pick up a copy of Ignition! (https://www.rutgersuniversitypress.org/ignition/9780813595832) and read the chapter on peroxide and how the Navy got to deciding they didn't want it aboard carriers (and then read the rest of the book, too, it's very entertaining).
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 10, 2021 1:50:26 GMT -6
I don't have too much to say about your analysis of Platte and Samar, but 2nd Guadalcanal and Surigao were both too short, and to close to gunnery practice conditions (firing from ambush against a target too surprised and/or damaged to maneuver aggressively, and taking no return fire), to be representative of the likely long term rate of fire capabilities of the ships involved. The Surigao report basically says as much:
"(a) (4) As in previous firings, ventilation of the lower handling rooms and magazines again proved entirely inadequate. The ship had been in Condition I Easy from 1940 the previous evening and ventilation was maintained up until the time for breaking out powder. With the men lying down and resting as much as possible they were exhausted due to the extreme heat and lack of air and would not have been able to continue the ammunition supply without reliefs many more minutes. When the ammunition train is filled and all ventilation is shut off the situation is greatly aggravated. A more adequate ventilation system is essential. An additional supply blower in the wing pockets, venting to the lower rooms seems feasible. This plan was suggested by the USS Maryland's letter to ComInch BB46/S38-1/S72 (of 90) (0147) of 18 July 1944. Also additional supply ducts to the magazines are required. "
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 6, 2021 10:34:49 GMT -6
Why would there be a 1970 start when the game is scheduled to end sometime between 1970 and 1980? A 1940 or 1950 start on the other hand wouldn't be too unreasonable. The British still having control of India, South Africa, Canada and Australia in the 1970s looks and seems so out of place and strange. Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa were already substantially independent by WWI. But at least the first four (and I think in many cases SA as well) would almost certainly join Britain in any war she might become involved in to this day, and all of them, plus India and even Pakistan, still have the Queen for their head of state (which isn't even true in *Ireland* anymore). So at least Canada+Newfoundland, Australia, and NZ, ought, as I see it, to be part of Britain in a 1970 start.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 6, 2021 9:59:57 GMT -6
This issue is a sad thing, I posted about this a couple of days after release. We are still getting the same answers years latter. I stopped playing this game because of the harsh screen. We shouldn't need to invest in a 3rd party software program to be able to play a game you have spent good money on, very disappointing, a good game spoiled in my view. I come back to the forum every few months hoping there has been an update. Still disappointed, and it is not likely NWS will get any more of my money. And they are thinking of a paid for add on. Give me a break. Quite frankly, this isn't something that the developers of a game like RTW should have to worry about in the first place. This isn't a game that's using some custom graphics toolkit to look flashy, by all appearances it's using the good old fashioned Win32 windowing API. And it used to be that Windows actually let you pick arbitrary colors that got used system-wide for everything that used the standard Windows toolkit. That got hobbled when using the default settings in XP, and then even when using the "classic" settings around Vista or 7 (I used Vista so little that I'm not sure what changes between XP and 7 happened in Vista vs 7). We got some themability back for new apps in 8 or 10 (once again, I hardly used 8 so I'm not sure exactly what it introduced), but unfortunately it doesn't work for stuff that uses the oldschool toolkit (which back in the day was the most themable windows has ever been). So don't complain to the RTW devs, complain to Microsoft for "fixing" what wasn't broken.[/rant] I'm not against the devs adding a dark theme to the game, I'm just really frustrated at how Microsoft (and other people in charge of GUI toolkits) have crippled themability in environments where it used to exist. I'm not a dark-theme guy, but users shouldn't have to ask application devs for dark themes (or any other theme), because the OS ought to already provide that service. That all said, you can't currently make the strategic window darker, by in preferences, you *can* change things like the sea color during battles. If you're the kind if person who goes for dark themes, a dark blue color as the default sea color might suit you better (as well as bearing a closer resemblance to the actual sea).
|
|