|
Post by dimovski on Sept 4, 2016 12:49:08 GMT -6
Can confirm, but in the patch before. Didn't play with the current one yet.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Sept 3, 2016 3:01:21 GMT -6
At the risk of putting words in his mouth I believe what he is saying is "why are my scientists researching +1 2in guns when none of my ships use them. Why didn't they work on improved 5 or 6in guns that all of my ships carry." It's not an unreasonable question. I find it unreasonable. ALL navies looked into weird concepts, including making better, smaller, guns. Look at say, IJN, ALL their DP mounts were 5 inch, but go figures they tried making a good 3.9 inch mount. But then it would make sense to split gun research into small (2-6), medium and big (11+?)... It doesn't take the same effort to make a better QF 76mm gun and an 18-inch gun.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Sept 3, 2016 2:54:58 GMT -6
I just wanted to get all of your feelings on the game putting a world wide depression into play randomly. We know that one did occur and did have an effect on naval procurements. But this doesn't have to occur in 1929 because they happened during other historical periods. I know the game presents lower budgets due to a down turn in the economy of a nation but I am talking about a depression and that is very different. We don't want the game to duplicate actual history, we want to explore possibilities. We want to explore the stated time period without a depression to see how fleets would have developed, but why not add a world wide depression, randomly with a random start time. But IMHO major depressions don't just happen out of the blue, they have causes. IMHO, the Great Depression happened as the inevitable result of the utter collapse of civilization in 1914-1918. You can't just wipe out 4 of the 6 long-standing Great Powers (the German, Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires), and mortally wound the other 2 (Britain and France), and not expect the global economy to tank. I know the German Empire of WW1 only dated from 1870, but "Germany" under various other names had been a major player going back centuries. Anyway, IMHO, without some equally drastic smashing of civilization, I don't see a Great Depression just happening out of the blue. But of course, we alive today have known nothing all our lives except the Dark Ages ensuing after the Great Disaster, so have no actual idea of how the world is really supposed to work. We're just barbarians squabbling over the wreckage. So I could be wrong. But I think I'm closer to being right than most economists Which brings me to another suggestion - no "hard" limit on the number of enemy nations (even if it's utterly useless, I'd still like to see an active Japan when playing with A-H) and the ability for the AI to conclude alliances with non-player nations - either at random, or through crisis events (if the Panthersprung nach Agadir was enough to bring GB and France much closer to an alliance, imagine what would've happened if it were the SMS Posen or even the Helgoland (granted, she was 2 months short of completion at the time, but you get the point) making the "jump".
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Sept 2, 2016 2:24:37 GMT -6
IMO carriers should have a "flight deck length" parameter which would limit them to the use of specific plane types at different tech levels. For example, if a carrier built in 1927 was designed with a 350m flight deck, you shouldn't be able to refit it with more modern twin-engined bombers which would require 375m to take off/land. Also, top speed, machinery damage and course should affect the number of planes the carrier can launch at one time [if you're doing 10 knots and moving directly into the wind, you won't be able to to fill 50% of the flight deck with planes, as the planes in front will be incapable of taking off].
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 21, 2016 11:44:17 GMT -6
Maybe they should first check if they're going to get closer to the enemy by trying to make it to the closest port... For example, I was fighting a convoy battle against UK (as Spain) and after an hour or two of combat I decided to head south for Ferrol, due to the bulk of the British destroyers being somewhere between me and Cork (which I took from Austria-Hungary... err, yeah, weird stuff happened in that campaign)... And as the weather got worse one of my nearly sunk battlecruisers breaks off, turns around and starts heading for Cork! Obviously it got shot to bits on its way as it headed straight into the british battle-line... [BTW, this was in rear-admirals mode]
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 21, 2016 11:34:47 GMT -6
Gmax is fine, I just forgot to answer... Thanks a bunch!
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 21, 2016 4:05:47 GMT -6
This is incredible, thanks a lot!
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 20, 2016 3:19:12 GMT -6
Oh she's a beauty! Love the transom stern!
Say, would it be possible to upload the model file? I'd like to 3D-print myself one for the bathtub ^^
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 19, 2016 2:03:43 GMT -6
Eh, I tried building a better armored ship... In fact, I built 2 classes of better armored ships, one with 2x4x18'', 13'' belt, 6'' deck and 16'' turrets, the other with 2x4x17'', a 16'' belt and 7'' deck... Both look like cheese after a battle, just like the 2 BCs above, but can score far less hits. Only when the battle range is 20k+ yards does heavy armor make any sense in late-game. And you don't always get to fight on a perfectly calm sea at noon Which is why I went full-Agincourt on most of my ships. So far (and I'm 59 years in) I haven't lost a single capital ship, and all I'm missing for world domination are 3 french, and all british and american colonies.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 18, 2016 13:29:54 GMT -6
Terribly sorry for the long wait! I hope that these are acceptable (please don't laugh).
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 17, 2016 14:43:49 GMT -6
I think that some sort of "stance setting" for the AI and the player might be useful. Say "aggressive" - always searching for a battle even if the balance of power isn't exactly advantageous, "neutral" for sortieing mostly for Convoy Defense and the occasional trade interdiction, and "defensive" for a fleet that isn't even being risked to support convoys - (they don't run at all). Obviously the number and type of engagements would be modified by this setting, but the interesting part is the following:
The "aggressive" stance would make battles more... shall we say "volatile". Much higher chance of an unfavourable trade in sunk ships, much more ships sunk on both sides in general, and a small (but still far larger than in other stances) chance to deliver a crushing blow to the enemy. "Defensive" would represent trying to break off from battle under any circumstances (if the fleet isn't far, FAR better equipped and much more numerous than the enemy one) - you'd have CAs or a couple of CLs and DDs sacrifice themselves for the safe escape of the rest of the fleet, with a small chance of damaging the enemy aswell.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 17, 2016 13:31:03 GMT -6
I... I can't figure out for the life of me how to draw in RTW.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 17, 2016 1:08:52 GMT -6
If you still feel like taking requests... how about modelling one of these bad boys?
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 16, 2016 12:38:58 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but if you have a battleship with, say, A and Y triple turrets, and you have "only" twin wing turrets, when rebuilding the main armament to a higher calibre you only need to reduce the number of guns in the A and Y turrets, but you get to keep the twin wing turrets (with increased gun size).
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Aug 13, 2016 2:12:33 GMT -6
But you don't need a drydock to build a new ship, a slipway will do. And these are fairly cheap and simple to construct. However, you do need drydocks to repair damaged ships, which might be the actual bottleneck in operating a large fleet.
|
|