|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 1, 2018 22:17:50 GMT -6
October, 1911. Sometimes you just never get to test that revolutionary ship design.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 1, 2018 10:49:27 GMT -6
When we reach that point (we are not there yet), I am sure williammiller will gleefully announce such activities. :] Be warned though, we are Not There Yet. At the moment, treat it like Bozo Show tickets from back in the day. (the 8 people who grew up in Chicago will know what I mean!)
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 1, 2018 10:20:11 GMT -6
Rest assured, we are all over these, and our 'hashing-it-out' thread is reams deep with such points and suggestions. In addition to Fredrik and William, we have a very insightful tester who is a true historian of the period, and he has been extremely, voluminously helpful. We are covering everything in our discussions; all that remains is how the cruel knife of time is applied to Fredrik's labors!
|
|
|
March
Nov 1, 2018 10:13:47 GMT -6
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 1, 2018 10:13:47 GMT -6
The NWS Team can, at this point, neither confirm nor deny the inclusion of March in RTW2.
Obviously, March was very important to the WWII time-frame, and so its absence would be seen as a distinct disappointment. However, please do understand that Fredrik is working diligently trying to prioritize his time, and should he conclude the coding investment would pay dividends, we can all hope that March will be a feature.
Thank you for your continued patience and enthusiasm. :]
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 30, 2018 6:45:25 GMT -6
I mistyped- my apologies. I meant Super-Super-firing secondaries, in an answer to the question about secondaries superfiring over the mains.Ok, I am more than half asleep, ignore anything I type for the next hour.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 29, 2018 12:06:15 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point! Is there any provision for superfiring secondaries(or super-superfiring secondaries, even) over superfiring mains? There's a number more ships that did that(Yamato, USN WWII CA/CL, Soviet 24/66/82 series). Currently secondaries are not considered to be restricted at all by placement of mains, so they are always presumed to fire "over" mains in their arcs. There is currently no provision to have secondary turrets placed direct forward (the C or L position essentially) or aft (X or V) on the centerline however, so it is correct to say that you would not be able to model (for example) the Yamato correctly in your top-down view. I did notice this when I started playing, but I will bring it up to see if Fredrik thinks it would be worth the coding time to implement.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 28, 2018 17:08:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 28, 2018 8:01:13 GMT -6
It is only a weight savings option, and my thick deck-magazine numbers were just my solution to a particular problem. Belt and Deck can still be treated in the old fashioned way, or you could also use Magazine Box with (for example) a 4" deck and just accept that the remainder of your non-magazine deck is 2". If you're building an early battle-cruiser and hate the idea of paper-mache [why doesn't spellcheck know that term? Needs to spend more time in 3rd grade... (or my spelling is so far off it is unrecognizable)] armor it is a great way to represent better protection for the magazines. The only draw-back is at first glance on a ship's data card one does not know the non-magazine belt & deck, or if magazine box was employed.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 27, 2018 9:53:01 GMT -6
As RTW1, currently there is no provision for Super-Super-firing main turrets. Given the small number of real-world designs that would be so influenced, I don't imagine we'll see it, but we'll just have to wait and see at this point!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 27, 2018 8:36:22 GMT -6
In the North Sea action too frequently devolves to visibility distances of 10-15,000 yards, and at that range turrets too frequently get put out of action, temporarily or permanently. Even with Radar? <Takes Notes> To self... Only send submarines and aircraft into the North Sea. Maybe research nuclear bombardment from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Early radar isn't as reliable, and I wanted to design the ship for more than a small window or opportunity. Plus, as WM reminded me, radar isn't done yet, so my experiences may not be 'teaching opportunities' yet. I could also just have bad luck with North Sea surface actions. That's always a possibility! Posted by JagdFlanker about an hour ago : i'm trying sooooo hard to hold off playing RtW until RtW2 is out this post just made that both easier because i want to wait and play with the new features, but also so much HARDER because i want RtW2 NOW!! lol Keep that enthusiasm! I trust your patience will be rewarded. Posted by marauder 52 minutes ago : I'm more confused about the 2" tertiary battery, to be honest. Small-caliber DP guns to have as many AA guns as possible, or did the French start breaking out the 200t torpedo boats again in accordance with the Jeune Ecole? That is exactly it, AA. At this point I am still exploring relative effectiveness, and I wanted a large DP battery for design comparisons.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 27, 2018 8:12:09 GMT -6
Isoroku Yamamoto said of battleships, “They are like elaborate religious scrolls which old people hang in their homes as a matter of faith, not reality…. In modern warfare, battleships will be as useful to Japan as a samurai sword.” Said the guy who chose the biggest religious scroll of all time to be his Flagship for the remainder of his time in the war. Early running for Post of the Year.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 27, 2018 0:55:22 GMT -6
Alrighty, this is my top-tier battleship from this game, the Bismarck class laid down in 1939. The armor will require some explaining, as on first glance your reaction would be "wahaaaa...-!?" The deck armor likely seems extremely wasteful, but there is a rationale. RTW2 has a new armor feature, called Magazine Box. If you click the Magazine Box button, armor is as listed for the magazines, and *half* that amount for the remainder of the deck and belt, providing a very large weight savings. So if I want my ship to have 5" of deck armor for the bulk of the armored citadel, I need to raise it to the unnecessary level of 10" over the magazines (but at least it gives me a shot against the Death Star Superlaser). This severe weight savings attempt would not have been necessary with a 4x4x4 ABL all-forward layout, but action conditions in the North Sea influenced my design priorities. In the North Sea action too frequently devolves to visibility distances of 10-15,000 yards, and at that range turrets too frequently get put out of action, temporarily or permanently. Growing tired of being reduced to 2 or 4 gun salvos, the Bismarck class was ordered to be designed with its main battery spread out. Only 1 was ever lost in action, the flagship on That Day when it served as a battering ram to break through the French fleet at night-time ranges in the seed post for the Radar thread. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1025/moments-unintended-humor-game?page=58
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 26, 2018 11:44:07 GMT -6
After I get home I will post the ship's 'card'.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 25, 2018 16:42:00 GMT -6
Aeson is right. There are a number of issues which can just be clicked through, due to the engine starting out from Steam and Iron. Its pretty remarkable if you ask me how many errors are not fatal in this game, though I don't know a lot about coding (past a c64 anyway) and perhaps it is not as remarkable as it seems.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 25, 2018 5:58:57 GMT -6
Thanks for the post garrisonchisholm . We need to talk about that turret farm design though... Love the detail you can get with the new superstructure rules and the fact that the secondary guns are concentrated around the superstructure instead of spaced evenly. The added draw-space and options (6 superstructure lines instead of 4) is really nice, and if 2nd-ary turret numbers equal 5 to a side you get an arrangement like SD/Iowa like that. But the coolest thing- if you see my ship there, and I were to add H/I torpedo tubes, instead of over-lapping now the code is smart enough to just bump the offending turrets inward. Very nice. And as far as Turret Farms; the Reichsmarine through Extensive simulation has determined that in the late game turrets get penetrated regardless of what you do, so there should be enough turrets that a ship could lose 1 destroyed and 1 jammed/disabled and still maintain proper ladder shooting. At least, that is what they had determined This time... :]
|
|