|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 18:21:49 GMT -6
If I were authorized to, I would discuss this! In fact I am not sure it hasn't been released before, but I am trying to mind my NDA while being as helpful/interesting as possible, and my bottom line point was the humor behind how disparate my results were against my success at sea.
However there is a line from House of Cards which comes to mind; "You might say so, but I couldn't possibly comment."
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 18:11:28 GMT -6
Find me a diplomat, and find me a plank. Hmmm, the war must have gone somewhat badly on land. On a tangent, garrisonchisholm , I've substituted the Soviet flags for the Russian flags in RTW1 when I've caused the Russian Government to collapse and I made a small version of the Soviet flag for the map. (I think I included it with the list of Soviet ship names I uploaded to the custom ship name thread). One thing I noticed on the map is that the version of the Soviet flag used in RTW1, and you are using in your game testing RTW2, tends to blend in with the Japanese flag and make it relatively easy to mistake one for the other at a glance. This is I think because at the scale used for the map the two flags are basically negative images of each other. This is perhaps the most trivial suggestion anyone has ever made for either of these games but I would recommend that they use a version of either the later 1935-1950 Ensign: Or perhaps the 1924-1932 Jack and Naval Fortress Flag: Neither would have been appropriate really for RTW because of the time frame of the game but since RTW2 goes till 1950 by design, they would be okay for RTW2 and both would stand out more from the Japanese flag. Granted, I haven't tested the white Soviet Ensign against the White Ensign of the Royal Navy used in both games but if they have a similar issue as the Soviet/Japanese flags do at the map scale then the Fortress Flag should work with its blue saltire. That is an excellent suggestion Bcoop, and I will be sure to forward this to William and Fredrik! (if William hasn't already seen it!)
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 18:07:18 GMT -6
Ahh, simple. They were on centerline and were superfiring but they still had the problem of blast effects so there were restrictions on how close to the bow those guns could fire. The ship presented in this thread has the guns very close on the sides which puts any ammunition storage right on the side armor. Anyway, it is of no consequence, just some thoughts. I'd image that each pair of wing turrets would share a centerline magazine and shell room, or, if each turret has a dedicated magazine and shell room, that the magazine and shell room for each wing turret would be inboard of the center of the barbette supporting the associated turret.
Might make the internal arrangements a bit complicated (especially if each wing turret has a dedicated magazine) and the two close pairs of wing turrets forward might require long-and-narrow magazines if each has a dedicated magazine, but it should be doable, and it'd give you about as much distance between the edge of the hull and the magazines and shell rooms as on centerline turrets.
Also, I'm not particularly inclined to think that blast effect for four 11" guns in wing turrets would be particularly worse for the ship than blast effect for the same guns in centerline turrets; the muzzles should be quite a bit further out over the water - and thus farther from the hull - when the guns are mounted in wing turrets than when mounted in centerline turrets, assuming that the wing and centerline turrets would be trained to the same bearing. Oldpop seems to be implying that the guns in the DEFG wing turrets might set off their own magazines, or at least flood them, if fired together. I find that doubtful, myself.
Well I think your insightful side-by-side has pointed out that perhaps the coordinates for FG need to be at least considered before release, but I think we can safely say that the 'experimental' placement served a purpose, irregardless of whether or not anyone would actually design a ship with that kind of magazine density on the forward deck. :]
I'll have to check my books, but I think there is an Austrian 'B' that set a record for closest wing turrets, or at least so it hangs in my mind...
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 17:59:35 GMT -6
sittingduck "I visualize the Development Team sorta like this... Fredrik behind the curtains, pulling levers, stomping pedals, twisting knobs and thundering mightily... William occasionaly sticking his head out of the door and shouting "No one can see the Wizard!!"... and poor Chisholm is the Contented Citizen, happily polishing this, trimming that, cleaning up whatever... I'm kinda envious actually."
I think you have painted my role a bit more grandiosely than one might wont. :]
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 13:02:10 GMT -6
I have screen-shots, so once I get authorization I may be able to share.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 12:59:42 GMT -6
There will be AA directors, though I can only presume at this point that they will apply to DP mounts (as opposed to lt & md mgs). Those blanks will be filled in shortly.
And speaking of blanks, I need to leave my ship comparison plan on standby. After further conversation they'd like to wait until the RTW2 ship design code is finalized. While the air component is being massaged into place things can still be in flux, and rather than debate the minutia lets wait until it is finalized..
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 11:06:47 GMT -6
Find me a diplomat, and find me a plank.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 8:13:18 GMT -6
Actually that is incorrect, in this case I was just generating a test image and not creating a complete ship so it had no AAA, though if your question is are tertiaries "visible", as in RTW1 no they are not. Actually (x2), I've been advised that with due caveats it would be permissible to display the entire design screen, so in the next day or two I will be building the same ship in 134b & 2a14 (the latest) to illustrate the similarities and differences. I could pick an historical design, so-as to have something for everyone to measure, though I am sure I would have to be ready to accept the egg on my face for my artistry.
I will think about it. Regardless of whether it is historical of not, it will show a full AA suite, and also carry float-planes.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 3, 2018 0:25:39 GMT -6
Zounds, that's clever. Bravo zulu Aeson. You're quite right, its the opposite of what I thought.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 23:09:14 GMT -6
I bet the FG would really have to be trained aside almost always, which could cause a problem when nestling into a congested port. They could be trained aft, if there's nothing in the way.
Interesting that they're so tightly packed that the F and G turrets' guns are overlaid on D and E turrets; I don't think I've ever seen FG overlap DE like that in Rule the Waves v1.34b1, though it's not a combination I use all that often on anything other than CLs, and then almost always only with single guns rather than twin turrets.
It also occurs to me that the turret positions seem a bit off compared to what I'm used to in Rule the Waves v1.34b1; the forward pair of wing turrets on your Von der Tann look to be about in the usual position of F and G relative to A, but the after pair are too far forward for H and I, unless Rule the Waves 2 has more turret positions.
And the answer to this query can be found here. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1614/bit-turret-positions-marching-all
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 23:05:35 GMT -6
Good eve all. Given some astute observations (which left me feeling a bit obtuse) to my latest droll Humor-thread post, I thought I would do a side-by-side from the superstructure designer perspective. I am a bit shocked I had not noticed that some turret positions have been modified, or perhaps by the time I started experimenting with "new" looks I had forgotten how RTW1 looked. Regardless. Below in both images we have a 23000 ton BC mounting 11 inch batteries in the same hull positions. The purpose of this illustration is simply to show how the turret positions have been modified from RTW1 to 2. Mind, I am not suggesting this design is good. It is simply something I tried, and I am using it to illustrate. RTW1RTW2As we can see, the main difference is in the FG turrets. JK & ST are actually positioned evenly behind the mid-ships HI turrets, but FG have been advanced forward. I am sure DE & FG were not foreseen to be used with this large a battery, but by advancing FG forward along the hull it provides a slightly more aggressive plan. Additionally, the additional controls are visible for the draw points that will be available. I am omitting tonnages from the RTW2 shot because nothing there has been finalized yet, and there is no sense starting a debate on the weight of a 3" secondary. You might also note the boxes which will allow asymmetric design, useful for carrier islands obviously. I don't think there is a lot more to say about this aspect, but as the design screen becomes more and more fleshed out we will add suitable screen-shots here, and as well some of the detail that is now possible with superstructures.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 15:15:07 GMT -6
LOL My friend, the "post-credit scene" for RTW2 will have Lots of amusing content!
|
|
|
March
Nov 2, 2018 15:13:38 GMT -6
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 15:13:38 GMT -6
But you forget, March has "ides". There's a premium on Emperor-killing ides. I think we'll definitely have to consider that a premium down-load, maybe using in-game currency.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 11:35:53 GMT -6
Maybe I just haven't noticed because I've been in play-it-til-it-breaks mode. I'll do a side-by-side comparison of main deck turret locations on a 23,000 ton hull tonight using both 134b1 & the latest 2alpha, and if they don't match up I will post the images.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 3:25:48 GMT -6
Ow. That's why I like heavy turret armor, though depending on when that was build 10" might've been pretty heavy for the time already. France getting 14" guns in time for a 1911 battle - even a late 1911 battle - must've been something of an unpleasant surprise, too.
Also, are those superfiring wing turrets that I see, or is that just the way that Rule the Waves 2 displays ADEFGY? Do they have a better arc forward than in Rule the Waves?
No, the FG are on the same level as the DE, that's just a graphical matter. I didn't have 3 centerline or cross-deck yet, and a hexagonal layout just didn't appeal to me, so I thought I'd try this. The firing arcs are identical to ... oh, what would it be, ADEJKY. I'm not sure that would be possible IRL, with two turrets that close, & 4 turrets concentrated on such a small patch. I bet the FG would really have to be trained aside almost always, which could cause a problem when nestling into a congested port. LOL bcoopactual, I like that. Yes, these were my first DNs (my abridging of BBs & BCs, not the games) and they were primarily designed to slaughter Bs. It would have been better armored if it were a ADEY, or AFKY (also upgrade possible, bonus) but only having 6 guns to a side felt unsatisfactory. I am not even sure a 14" shell wouldn't have defeated a 13" armored turret at 10k yards, so I am not sure how much it mattered. It would all depend on France's AP development I think.
|
|