|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 3, 2016 14:34:16 GMT -6
V1.34 B1 if that helps. I think that's the most recent beta In regards to the light cruisers, the ships armed with 8x7" guns I believe are post-1899. Might've been laid down in 1899 but there sure were a couple light cruiser classes built between them and the 1899 classes.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 2, 2016 21:17:49 GMT -6
Ooh, looks like the finale of this series is coming up. Let's see what you can pull off in this next, and I'm presuming last, war, Director.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 2, 2016 20:18:26 GMT -6
Ok, another report. It appears that France cheated with thier Sfax and Cosmao class cruisers in that same save. The Sfax has 4x7" guns while the Cosmaos are equipped with 8x7" guns.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 2, 2016 17:38:53 GMT -6
Here is the link for the save. It is a few months later from when that battle would've taken place if I hadn't save scummed, but the war with France is still in its early days. Should give you ample opportunity to figure out the problem. www.dropbox.com/s/3iv9gixcfazyhy2/Game2.zip?dl=0
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Dec 2, 2016 7:42:56 GMT -6
So I'm playing a game as Spain and got myself into a war with France. I moved the majority of my fleet to Northern Europe where the majority of the French fleet was also located. A couple of turns into the war I accepted an enemy coastal bombardment in the med. It is at this point where I will attach an image showing what has to be a bug. The first thing which was quite fishy was that the ships which I had in Northern Europe appeared in the Med. This does include ships which were stationed in Northern Europe when the war broke out, The second thing which is highly important to note here is where the ports are located. Yes, neither me nor France has our ports in the Mediterranean which we should have, and instead we have our ports in Northern Europe. It seems to me the game spawned our fleets in the wrong location. After this happened I did use the task manager to shut down the program, thus going back a turn. But the battles I played after reloading were all situated in the Med despite the ships being based in Northern Europe, with the bases still showing up there and not showing in the Med. Should I provide a save file?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 30, 2016 5:20:48 GMT -6
I'm in the current beta (1.34 b1) playing as Spain. Got into a war against Italy with Germany and Austria as my allies.
The war started with Italy slightly leading but the lead slowly shifted to me. Towards the end of the war the victory points was slightly under a 2:1 ratio, though by the end it might've been slightly higher.
The VP, when I checked several turns before the end, was about 7100-3500. Italy was blockaded though.
It ended in Italy's government collapsing. So a full 10 ccps.
Just telling you guys in case this information is important. I will report on future wars I get into.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 29, 2016 18:21:22 GMT -6
A tiny, likely not significant bug, but in my current game, a submarine (one of mine) popped up on the map in Malta (and not where Valetta harbour should be, and I didn't own Malta in any event). It wasn't far inland, but was definitely one of those new-fangled land-submarines. I don't think the submarine marker marks exactly where the submarine is, just roughly where it is. It was probably operating just off the coast. In one game of mine I did chase an enemy fleet straight into one of my submarines which did torpedo an armored cruiser. And that sub was a bit off of its marker.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 29, 2016 17:49:05 GMT -6
I will say I have been enjoying reading this series quite a bit. (This being the third comment gets the next part, right?)
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 25, 2016 10:08:53 GMT -6
Honestly I kind of want to build a Badnought in From The Depths at some point
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 20, 2016 15:45:57 GMT -6
For those who enjoy a high degree of realism, it should be made almost mandatory to build ships which constitute improvements of previous designs. Look for example at the Orion - King George V - Iron Duke classes of British BBs. This could be achieved by making the realization of radically different classes of ships (e.g. Queen Elizabeth class BBs) particularly expensive. Pratically, if you want to build new BBs, or BCs, or CA-CLs you should start from the design of the most recent class of units of that type already in service. Each major change compared to that should be penalized in terms of money and/or in terms of time to completion. This penalty should be somewhat mitigated in the case that there is a considerable time interval between the construction of old and new units. But isn't this kind of already in the game with the initial cost to develop a new class of ship being significantly less if it is very similar to an old design? (usually if it is directly developed from an old design).
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Nov 17, 2016 12:05:53 GMT -6
I don't think 18" guns are ever nessisary due to prohibitive weight and the various caps (ie 18" max armor, 52,000 ton max size). Only reason to mount them would be rp reasons, ie I must make a ship with the biggest guns possible. Also historically I think the Yamato and that's it mounted 18"ers? Not sure. The Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi mounted 18" guns, as well as the British battlecruiser Furious and once she was converted to an aircraft carrier 2 monitors received her 18" guns (The end of the war brought to an end of fitting a third monitor with another 18" gun).
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 28, 2016 15:09:31 GMT -6
Do remember how many different kinds of guns of the same caliber existed in real life. The Royal Navy had 6 different types of 12" guns which would apply to the time period of the game. The US had 8 marks of 12" guns which all would apply in the game. Germany had 3 (though only used 1). Russia had 6 types through the years. Italy had 3. And I would assure you that all of these different gun types behaved at least slightly different from each other. Now I could understand rejecting the idea I had, but I think making all nations having to use the same set of guns is not a good idea for a game trying to be realistic. Though I guess maybe you could go deeper than just specifying role. Maybe being allowed to specify preferences towards accuracy, range, damage, and RoF and then see what the engineers come up with? If I recall from my reading, a lot of those Marks and mods were just variations in manufacturing techniques or other things that don't really affect in-game performance like chrome lining barrels to extend life or changing the number of parts that made up the barrel to simplify production or save weight. If the barrel caliber was unchanged and fired the same shell using the same powder charge then in-game effects wouldn't be any different. I realize that's a simplification and that other changes such as rifling twist might effect accuracy which could be an in-game effect but, in my opinion, for the most part, the -1, 0, and +1 qualities due a good job of covering the range of guns made for the game's original time period (1900-1925) You might need to change or expand the system in RTW 2, i.e. +2 and +3 quality guns since the time frame is going to go to 1950. Doesn't mean I'm against change but I wouldn't want to see a super complicated system where guns are treated like ships are now where you have to specify ten different things to build them. That's a heck of a lot of programming work for questionable benefit. Again, just my initial thoughts on the matter, my opinion isn't made up by any means. I mean, I guess the -1, 0, and +1 guns do an OK job at modelling the range of guns of the time period, but it is kind of immersion-losing when you realize that a Britain and a Germany each using 12" guns of quality 0 are using the exact same guns rather than having there be slight differences. I am now agreeing that the development of the guns themselves should be left up to the engineers, but at the same time there should be subtle differences in the performance of roughly equal weapons between nations. And the player should occasionally have to deal with situations of new guns underperforming, like the British when they developed the 12"/50 mk XI and XII. This is part of the reason why I think that having a system where the player chooses when to have their engineers design a new gun of a certain caliber and where the player sets preferences of what qualities the engineers should try to develop into the gun would be a very good idea. And I do still like the idea of having a "gun warehouse," because many ships and coastal fortifications were either built or refitted with guns from other ships for various reasons. HMS Vanguard was built because the British had enough 15" guns in storage to build the ship. The Abercrombie class of monitors was built because the 14" guns built in the United States could not reach Germany to be fitted to the Greek battleship building there. The Lord Clive class monitors had 12" guns taken from the decommissioned Majestic class pre-dreadnoughts, and 2 (almost 3) of them were fitted with an additional 18" gun from Furious as well. The Marshall Neys were built because the redesign of Repulse and Renown had left 2 15" gun turrets available. The Erubus class and second Abercrombie class monitors were also fitted with 15" guns from various sources (Erubus got her guns from one of the Marshall Neys, Terror got her guns from a spare turret intended for Furious, the second Abercrombie got her guns from another spare turret for Furious, and Roberts got her turret from the other Marshall Ney class). The secondary 155mm guns on Yamato and Musashi came from the Mogamis when they were refit with 8" guns. Nagato and Mutsu had their turrets replaced (not sure about guns here) with those intended for the Tosa class. The rear turrets from Arizona were used to arm coastal batteries during WWII, and the guns from one of her forward turrets were actually fit to Nevada. And gun turrets from Provence were used for coastal emplacements. There are a significant number of instances where guns were taken from older ships which couldn't fight anymore or from ships which were never completed, which makes not including it in the game a glaring omission. And to add on to that while I was doing this research it occurred to me that other parts of scrapped ships (say the machinery of Washington or the turrets from the Tosa class) were later used in refits to other ships (Arizona, and Nagato and Mutsu respectively in the previous 2 examples). This is definitely something which should be considered in some sort of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 27, 2016 20:11:09 GMT -6
Do remember how many different kinds of guns of the same caliber existed in real life.
The Royal Navy had 6 different types of 12" guns which would apply to the time period of the game. The US had 8 marks of 12" guns which all would apply in the game. Germany had 3 (though only used 1). Russia had 6 types through the years. Italy had 3.
And I would assure you that all of these different gun types behaved at least slightly different from each other.
Now I could understand rejecting the idea I had, but I think making all nations having to use the same set of guns is not a good idea for a game trying to be realistic.
Though I guess maybe you could go deeper than just specifying role. Maybe being allowed to specify preferences towards accuracy, range, damage, and RoF and then see what the engineers come up with?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 27, 2016 19:56:34 GMT -6
But at the same time there is a greater diversity of guns in real life than in game. Maybe because of your role you just specify what caliber of gun you want and see what your engineers develop?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 27, 2016 19:06:46 GMT -6
I feel like developing your own guns would make more of a difference between nations as they are forced to adapt to the guns they have. Right now all guns of 12 inch quality 1 have the same stats, and all guns of 12 inch quality 0 share the same stats as well. But under the system I suggested 2 nations could each develop equivalent 12 inch guns which have slightly different stats. Maybe one fires a bit further while the other fires a bit faster. It will make ships of different nations built in a certain tech level a little bit more different. And from the user's perspective at least it shouldn't make the game too much more complicated.
You'd need a menu to develop a gun which would probably look similar to the ship design menu.
You'd need a tab allowing you to see guns being researched. Would likely be similar to the ship construction menu.
Then you'd need a tab for the guns you have in storage (either as spares or from scrapped ships). Would probably look similar to the submarine menu.
The only other thing would be events which pop up, especially when the gun is very hard to research.
The way I see this working is where you define barrel length, barrel caliber, a maximum weight to the weapon, and several other statistics. You would then click on a button to research said weapon, with the initial time to research it based on the gun's complexity and the time period. If the gun is trying to be particularly advanced for its time then negative events like "research delayed" would occur, and maybe the possible event saying that they've partially researched the weapon and that it is impossible to build it with the statistics specified. Say you tried making a 12"/60 gun in the early dreadnought era. The event would pop up, saying that several of the mechanisms to make the gun are researched, but the gun is nearly impossible to build with the current technology in the current specifications. A serious development penalty would be placed on the research of the gun unless the player either reduced the barrel length of the gun to more reasonable levels (45 to 50 calibers), accepted a massive weight penalty for the elevation mechanisms, or allowed the gun to have massive defects. In this sense the game kind of herds the player towards developing weapons normal for their time (in which 12"/60s were never normal).
On the flipside, developing a gun which more suits a previous era would bring about positive events. Say, you're building an 8"/35 gun in 1930 with tech dating back from the protected cruiser era (I don't know why you would), and you already have better guns (maybe even better 8 inch guns). In this case you'd get research benefits quite frequently, and the gun might only take half to a third of the time to develop as projected.
So those are a couple fringe cases as to how gun research events would work. The normal player would probably learn to build guns of the tech era they are in, maybe slightly ahead it they're feeling risky and slightly behind if they're feeling cautious. Unrealistic guns (if even possible to develop through the tech tree) would get weeded out by the events, while obsolete guns, despite being easy to develop, would, well, simply be obsolete.
Anyways, I do think a system like this could add some depth to the game and make the ships of nations a little bit more different in gun performance in the game.
|
|