|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 28, 2022 9:41:49 GMT -6
Battlecruisers were not invented to fight battlecruisers. They were intended to hunt down and destroy armored cruisers and, once Germany began to build some, were tasked with blowing open the enemy screen so that effective scouting could be done. They did end up fighting other battlecruisers - and battleships - and armored cruisers - and light cruisers - and destroyers... well, you get the drift. Fighting other battlecruisers was not exclusively what they were built for but rather something they did. Twice... The Alaskas were not comprehensively armored as a capital ship would be and were narrow in the beam, which limits armor protection and torpedo protection because there is a lack of width in the hull. There are resource materials you can access and form your own opinion, but generally the Alaskas are not considered battlecruisers. They were intended to fight Japanese heavy cruisers and possibly a mythical 12"-armed supercruiser that the Japanese never actually considered building until after the US authorized the Alaskas. Um, no. The job of the very first BCs - the Invincibles - was to hunt down cruisers. Later BCs were supposed to serve the same role as armored cruisers, opening the enemy screen for reconnaissance. None of them were supposed to fight battleships - they were expected to use their superior speed to get the Heck out of the way if they ran into battleships. What we see at Dogger Bank is a clash of fast scouting assets, and at Jutland we see the chaos of bad weather, bad commanders and bad intelligence. My whole point was to show that the last battlecruisers were (maybe) Renown and Repulse. Every capital ship built after that is a battleship or a fast battleship. The Deustschlands and Alaskas are not capital ships, they are armored and large cruisers respectively and neither had any business taking on a capital ship. Yes. The US called them large cruisers and did not permit them the code CC for battlecruiser that the Lexingtons were awarded. The Alaskas were intermediate between a heavy cruiser - there were no more armored cruisers after WW1 since all post-WW1 cruisers were armored - and a capital ship. Arguing over the definition of a battlecruiser is mostly pointless - it was a niche description brought about by special circumstances in WW1 and not really relevant at any other time. Even Fisher himself expected battlecruisers to fight enemy battleships as one of their missions, not as an "oops we've been engaged by an enemy battleship" but intentionally going out to hunt down battleships.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 21:00:37 GMT -6
asdfzxc922 - no, all of the Dreadnought and WW1-era battlecruisers had armament comparable to capital ships of the time. Typically they had one less turret or guns of a slightly smaller caliber but the armament was all capital-ship-sized for their time. Because a large part of their mission was to engage other battlecruisers or pseudo-BCs. For the Alaskas, that meant they'd probably fight Dunkerque, Deutschland and/or the mythical Japanese 6x12" cruiser. Also, Courageous. Dreadnought displaced 18k+ long tons, Invincible 17k+ long tons, which is no great difference. All of the Lion class were as big or bigger than contemporary BBs, and the Kongos were certainly larger (Iron Duke, 25k long tons and Kongo 27k long tons, Lion 26.2k long tons). Seydlitz displaced 24.5k long tons and Konig 25.3 long tons... no real difference. Renown displaced 27.5k long tons, the R class battleships 29k long tons... again, no large difference. My bad on the Invincibles, I remembered them being closer to 15k for some reason. Kongō was a good 3000 tons smaller than the contemorary Fusō class. Trying to compare foreign ships like this is rarely a good idea. Please don't make me talk about Dunkerque. I didn't bring up all those other classes because they're irrelevant to the point. I never claimed that all battlecruisers are smaller than battleships, I'm saying that simply being small isn't enough to disqualify a class from being a battlecruiser. The Alaskas were built with heavy-cruiser armor and armor schemes Firstly, 9" belt and 4" deck is a hell of a lot more than any CA I've ever heard of. Secondly, the Alaskas had more armor than the Lexingtons, Kongōs, Amagis, or any British BCs up to Hood, so I really don't get why people keep bringing up their "lack" of armor as if it somehow disqualifies them. And what does "cruiser armor scheme" even mean? and were intended to be operated as cruisers and not as capital ships. Their primary job was to hunt down and kill other cruisers, same as any other BC. Only the Germans actually expected their battlecruisers to fight battleships on a regular basis (Hood and the G3s could, but that was more of a happy accident). Also, Courageous. I believe he means the Alaskas were built with funds appropriated for cruisers and not with funds appropriated for capital ships, which would be entirely reasonable. The USN didn't have a general cruiser budget, funding was authorized class-by-class. Dunkerque is a full battleship, full stop, particularly Strasbourg; in any event a totally different weight class to the Deutschland class cruisers. The funny thing about German Battlecruisers was that they were called Großer Kreuzers, or Large Cruisers, abusing that definition that makes Alaska a battlecruiser and Hood a Large Cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 18:39:36 GMT -6
Wow...this is a debate subject that is older than I am... It was probably a debate in 1944...
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 27, 2022 0:22:34 GMT -6
Alaska's are an outgrowth of Heavy Cruisers much like the original Battlecruisers, they are themselves however not battlecruisers compared to then modern capital ships lacking both artillery, size, and torpedo defense systems. They were also built under cruiser budget rather than capital ship budget.
More egregious is the CA classification which works well... until heavy cruisers are invented.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 22, 2022 0:05:45 GMT -6
Will the max tonnage be increased at all from 90k? I would like to make a 100k or 110k superheavy capital ship like US supercarriers. Will we be able to alter the full HUD color so that the controls aren't eye searing? Will Aircraft be given different sizes based on class so we can have more fighters than bombers on a ship or will the 100 plane cap remain. Will we be able to have long range bombers on CV like the ones that were first used to bomb Japan early in the war? 1) Q: Will the max tonnage be increased at all from 90k? A: I believe the overall limit is the same, although some type category limits may change. 2) Q: Will we be able to alter the full HUD color so that the controls aren't eye searing? A: Something we can look at but not sure if it would make it in (technical issue...). 3) Q: Will Aircraft be given different sizes based on class so we can have more fighters than bombers on a ship or will the 100 plane cap remain. A:Light and heavy aircraft will be a thing. 4)Q: Will we be able to have long range bombers on CV like the ones that were first used to bomb Japan early in the war? A: I assume you mean flying land-based medium bombers off CVs like the B-25s used in the Doolittle Raid? Not likely, it was a one-off special that was never repeated... RE: Q4: The timeframe the game covers (1950s) includes carrier based medium bomber types, principally the AJ Savage and A3D Skywarrior bombers of the USN, much larger than a light/heavy mix based on say A4D/ F4H types. While never operationally deployed as strike aircraft (thankfully, given their role was exclusively the nuclear one) it's not unreasonable to ask for carrier based medium bombers for (relatively) early anti shipping missile attacks or whatever else you need a medium bomber for, like bombing airstrips because those can eat a very large number of bombs.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Apr 14, 2022 23:10:15 GMT -6
I saw a comment about their not being a Ukraine mod in RTW2 so I decided to change that. People who've been around awhile may notice that this is sort of similar to the reason why I made an alternate USA mod (so you could fight the CSA as the USA). The .bmp file goes into the Flags folder, the rest into Data. Probably not balanced at all but that's trivial to change. Attachments:Ukraine Mod.zip (15.26 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 9, 2022 19:13:13 GMT -6
Specifically this thread. Every link in this thread except the following no longer works Every other link in the thread needs to be updated.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 31, 2022 21:21:12 GMT -6
There is no limit to the number of floatplanes on heavy cruisers so long as the secondary gun caliber is 7" or greater, there need not be a single secondary gun of this caliber present on the ship, indeed the main battery can even be 6" but the secondary battery must notationally be 7" or greater. You could add a pair of secondary 7" guns if you wanted a tertiary battery for say DP guns but this is a worse idea than a 6" DP main battery for two reasons: one, 7" secondary guns can flash fire; 2, tertiary gun ammunition equals the number of secondary guns times 150 so hypothetically 2x 7" guns plus a 20 gun 5" DP battery means the 5" battery has merely 300 rounds total, or 15 rounds per gun. (20 guns chosen specifically so 300/N equals a nice round number) Interesting to know, but that's still bootleging the thing around the bug. Oh it's hardly bootleg compared to some of the things people on discord get up to, the game doesn't throw any errors and doesn't ask you to reclassify the ship. Meanwhile you can get literally anything as a CL or CVL by building them outside the parameters of a CL or CVL and selecting "no" when the game states that the ship is outside the parameters for a CL or CVL and continuing anyway; this also works for destroyers of less than 5000? 4000 or 5000 tons (and greater than 2500 tons) there is an actually nasty error at 5000 or 4000 or something.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 31, 2022 1:47:33 GMT -6
While I'd love the inclusion of nuclear propulsion, I have to agree with seawolf. Probably best idea is to leave it alone and "head-cannon" nuclear propulsion as high tech version of in game gas turbines. On another note, I hope the limit for seaplanes (and helicopters if treated similarly) will be fixed/unrestricted for CA and larger warships finally, so we can properly build aviation cruisers (or Ise-style conversions using seaplanes) with seaplanes or helicopters without bootleging them as quirky AVs/CVLs. There is no limit to the number of floatplanes on heavy cruisers so long as the secondary gun caliber is 7" or greater, there need not be a single secondary gun of this caliber present on the ship, indeed the main battery can even be 6" but the secondary battery must notationally be 7" or greater. You could add a pair of secondary 7" guns if you wanted a tertiary battery for say DP guns but this is a worse idea than a 6" DP main battery for two reasons: one, 7" secondary guns can flash fire; 2, tertiary gun ammunition equals the number of secondary guns times 150 so hypothetically 2x 7" guns plus a 20 gun 5" DP battery means the 5" battery has merely 300 rounds total, or 15 rounds per gun. (20 guns chosen specifically so 300/N equals a nice round number) Anecdotally secondary and tertiary gun ammunition levels is probably a hold over from S&I or even older, 150 rounds per gun is fine for dreadnought and pre dreadnought era secondary guns, not enough for modern rapid fire 6" guns or DP guns. And 90 rounds per secondary gun over 6" (7" and greater) is fine for ye olde semi dreadnought battleships of various sorts, less good for modern autoloading 8" gun batteries (Why would you want to do this? no idea but that shouldn't have to stop someone who wants to do it for some reason). The 250 RPG limit for main batteries could also be adjusted given WW2 era destroyers often packing more than 300 rounds per gun, although even 250 should last at least 62 minutes at maximum ROF (4 RPM [The game works in 1 minute long ticks]) in game. Even nuclear submarines do not have unlimited range, they're rarely going out for more than a couple of months since they need food like every other unit. At best, it'd just be a cosmetic upgrade to existing submarines in the game like going to medium-range submarines, but little else. Also, democratic regimes definitely used unlimited submarine warfare against civilians as well, mind you. Nuclear submarines significantly change the tactical environment of a submarine, they can cruise at flank speed submerged for years, no longer can ASW forces wait for submarines to eventually surface to recharge batteries, and underwater speed can be optimized for and sustained for more than an hour or two at most. The issues of how damage interacts with a nuclear reactor are also neatly avoided by submarines being outright killed by almost any damage they take. Nuclear boats still shouldn't be introduced though, primarily because of the endless parade of "if nuke sub why not nuke ship"
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 31, 2022 1:29:29 GMT -6
If you have zero secondary guns and can tick the secondary gun director box, ticking the box adds a secondary gun director system to the ship despite there being no secondary guns to direct.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 31, 2022 1:14:28 GMT -6
There are a maximum of 16? (between 14 and 16) mounts possible on a ship, mounts after that will not be saved. In context mounts means main guns, missile launchers, torpedo launchers, and aircraft catapults.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 17, 2022 11:50:13 GMT -6
The problem with the Black Sea is that you can't get ships into/out of it without the control of Istanbul; a Core territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey which is to say every Russian ship in the Black Sea stays in the Black Sea forever. In case of war with Ottoman Empire.
That actually can cause depth for gameplay - since when tensions are high with them - you have to put ships to Black Sea Theatre and have them locked there until the end of war.
Also, You can make Istanbul not a core, but something like a 12 point territory, very hard to take in a Peace Deal, but invadeable in case of your total superiority.
If tensions are high the Ottoman's wouldn't let Russian ships into the Black in the first place; 12 points is not invadable, nor can it be taken in a peace deal under standard game settings. Essentially anything the Russians put into the Black only matters if they end up at war with the Ottoman's and they can't really do anything else with those ships ever.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 16, 2022 11:24:41 GMT -6
The problem with the Black Sea is that you can't get ships into/out of it without the control of Istanbul; a Core territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey which is to say every Russian ship in the Black Sea stays in the Black Sea forever.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 14, 2022 1:25:13 GMT -6
We are drifting away from RTW2 expansion discussion here - for specifically discussing pros/cons/capabilities of certain missile systems I would suggest a new thread. Thanks! I do have a question about the implementation of SAM's particularly dual purpose SAM's as discussed above; will we be able to have our ships train the radar guided missiles with about as much explosive power as a 16" HC shell on surface targets?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 12, 2022 18:21:47 GMT -6
We won't be able to make that in the game because we won't have VLS cells, but Slava-class cruisers, on the other hand... Arsenal ships wont be possible but ships like the Kynda class cruisers or Slava esque/Kirov esque designs could be a possibility Do keep in mind we are limited to 1970s tech so we probably wont get supersonic anti ship missiles and CIWS/Missile interception might stay relatively limited An option for a "arsenal ship" could be putting as many twin arm SSM launchers on a ship as possible but it will have to reload over time Its important to note that during the 1945-1970s the west and the east MASSIVELY differed doctrinally The east massively focused on large anti ship missiles intending to sink massive fleets at range with sheer overwhelming missile firepower and as a result rarely (if ever) carried backup armament or reloads they also largely ignored carriers (both due to budgetary reasons and due to doctrine) Their twin arm launchers (or single) were also almost always Purely for anti aircraft (Kynda class having a pair of S-125s unable to hit surface targets effectively) These ships were extremely heavily armed for their time having high amounts of AA and SAMs and boasting a huge battery of massive single launch anti ship missiles Comparatively the West (US Britain France) Focused on ships with reloadable "dual purpose" missile batteries usable both against aircrafts and naval targets Usually the ships used a mixture of short range and long range missile systems (US used Terrier, Tartar and Talos arranged in order of size) these missiles comparatively had TERRIBLE range to the large single launch russian missiles having up to 90km range for the Talos and the terrier and tartar not exceeding 20 and 50 km respectively these missiles being reloadable from an internal magazine were also smaller and had weaker warheads Compared to the soviet P-5 anti ship missile with up to 750 km range in 1959 In game depending on countermeasure effectiveness im imagining it going two ways I really do hope they model "dual purpose" launchers like the US talos missiles instead of making you need to have two twin arm launchers one for SAMs and one for SSMs I hate all of this. If the target can reflect radar you can point a radar guided missile at it; this includes essentially all surface to air missiles. Terrier is bigger than Tarter. All three T's are surface to air missiles first and foremost; and cannot engage targets that are beyond the radar horizon of the launching ship (two exceptions, anti radiation talos missiles do not need the launching ship to do anything; nuclear missiles can also be ordered to detonate at a specific point beyond the horizon). Talos had a relatively long range of 80nmi which was great (at the time, for surface to air missiles), Long Beach shot down a couple MiG's with just one missile.
|
|