|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 2, 2022 3:25:39 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button>
Admiral to his captain-
"Yes I'm sure this is a good idea, why do you ask?"
What is that battleship?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 15, 2021 13:42:20 GMT -6
The implementation for the Kiel Canal should be easy, once the Canal opens North Sea and Baltic count as one sea zone for Germany for battle generator, ASW/TP mining and MCM and blockade calculation purposes if the ships in question have medium range or more. It also should allow transfering short range ships between North Sea and Baltic in wartime and would mean moves between Baltic and Noirth Sea are not affected by blockade. That probably isn't easy. Further you can already transfer short range ships between home zones in wartime (The US for example has three home zones, US East, US West, and Caribbean; before 1914 the US can transfer short range ships in wartime between US East and Caribbean, after 1914 they can also transfer short range ships in wartime to US West).
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 13, 2021 1:50:15 GMT -6
Further, a Tarter or Terrier (larger missiles have more obviously) missile has about as much explosive power as a 16" shell, will it be possible to turn surface to air missiles on surface targets?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 13, 2021 0:34:42 GMT -6
Could there be a clarification on Surface to Air missiles? DP guns can cover other ships from air attack and current M-SAMs can also cover other ships from air attack; will new M-SAMs (and L-SAMs for that matter) not have that ability?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 8, 2021 11:05:25 GMT -6
Yeah, before CLs were closer defined, the US built at least one class of heavy cruiser with a 4 inch belt that would get reclassified as a light cruiser once that treaty passed as well. Other way around, the US Light Cruisers of the 1920s, with their 4" or thinner belts would become Heavy cruisers in 1930 when London Naval Treaty defined Heavy cruisers as being 10,000 ton ships with 8" guns, Washington Naval Treaty only defined cruisers as 10,000 tons with 8" guns tops, LNT introduced the idea of 6" gun light cruisers, also 10,000 tons.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 23, 2021 13:33:07 GMT -6
You can ask AV to provide CAP and AV can be Helicopter Aircraft Carriers, does that mean you can have a squadron of helicopters providing combat air patrol?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 19, 2021 3:18:02 GMT -6
This should be stickied. This should also be posted in the main forum. This should be part of the main game. Tortuga, NEVER record another YouTube RTW2 game series without 1st getting v1.25 and using a darker eye theme. My eyes!!!! Thanks for this! Light mode is fine what are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 11, 2021 15:13:30 GMT -6
And the Courageous-class ships of WW1 were called "large light cruisers" despite mounting 18" guns (later changed to 15" guns). Such a designation was, quite clearly, ludicrous and they are now classed as Battle Cruisers, rather like the Deustchland-class being rated as "Armoured Ships" when they are much closer to the old Armoured Cruiser concept. The Alaska-class are therefore either very powerful Armoured Cruisers or very weak Battle Cruisers. Large Light Cruisers was political in nature, Fisher wasn't allowed to build new capital ships, large light cruisers were totally light cruisers; the given aim of the Courageous class was closer in role to a shallow draft monitor than any cruiser. Further you aren't quite right in terms of weaponry on those ships, two were built with 4x15" guns in two turrets, one was built with 1x18" gun and half a flight deck, all three were later converted to full CV. To be totally fair to the Alaska, their role was similar to the battlecruisers of old, however, again, they were built with cruiser funds rather than capital ship funds. In combat they were intended to hunt down and destroy Japanese heavy and large cruisers, by the time the Alaska class was deployed most IJN heavy cruisers were gone and the IJN large cruisers were never built. I do not see a real distinction between armored and battle cruisers, historically the role of armored cruisers was quite similar to that of battle cruisers later, meanwhile heavy cruisers are larger light cruisers and large cruisers are larger heavy cruisers. The Dlands don't neatly fit into any box either, but they also don't fit into the same box as the Alaska class.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 10, 2021 15:47:49 GMT -6
Armoured Cruisers, originally designated ArmCru were redesignated CA about 1920. As you say, they effectively evolved into the battle cruiser. The Heavy Cruiser was an artificial divide in what up to that point had been designated Light Cruisers, that is any cruiser sized ship that was not a Protected Cruiser, Armoured Cruiser or Battle Cruiser. They gained the CA designation by default as no-one was really building Armoured Cruisers any more, although Nazi Germany and the USA kind of resurrected the type with the Deutschland class and Alaska class respectively. US armored cruisers went ACR -> CA; US heavy cruisers went CL -> CA, that is the *only* thing armored and heavy cruisers have in common. The Dlands are probably armored cruisers in the classical sense, the Alaska's are Large Cruisers (CB's) and don't neatly fit in any other box. And hull codes are really only something the US really does in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 10, 2021 1:35:44 GMT -6
Twin fuselage is probably too fine of a detail compared to just having heavy fighters in general.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 10, 2021 1:18:53 GMT -6
Currently in game there are three types of cruisers. - Battlecruisers: These are fine, no issues here.
- Armored Cruisers: I specified Armored Cruisers for a reason, an Armored Cruiser is effectively a battlecruiser, this is fine and true and their matchmaking reflects that (or at least the perception of their matchmaking does).
- Light Cruisers: For what exactly these cover, small light cruisers, these are also fine.
The current system of cruisers is very obviously intended for the period from 1900-1915 ish, cracks appear with the Hawkins class and widen considerably with stuff like the Furutaka and Pensacola class, larger cruisers which fill the same role as older smaller light cruisers. There are a number of issues in my opinion, not with battlecruisers, those are fine.
- CA Armored Cruiser. These are called upon to also cover the more modern Heavy Cruiser and per the game devs also cover particularly heavily armored light cruisers (such as the Atlanta class). While you can quite possibly make a valid argument that particularly well armored 6" gun cruisers can match 8" gun cruisers, they cannot match 10" armed cruisers. Furthermore *none* of these ships are effectively battlecruisers in all but name (barring Alekan's very large cruisers which are a bit exploity imo) while still retaining the same matchmaking as an armored cruiser which has the perception of being the same as that of a battlecruiser.
- Light Cruisers have issues but I do not believe any of my proposed fixes would retain the issues. The primary is that the 3" armor limit is probably too low.
Going forwards some suggestions, but first some thoughts. The armored cruiser evolves into the battlecruiser, the heavy cruiser evolves from the light cruiser, however a heavy cruiser is closer to a light cruiser than an armored cruiser is to a battlecruiser. There is a distinction between larger cruisers and smaller cruisers, there is a distinction between 4"-6" armed cruisers, (large) 6"-8" armed cruisers, and a distinction with 10"/11"/12" cruisers; talking only of more modern heavy/large/light cruisers; 9" guns are going to be awkward wherever they are, either overpowered by 10" artillery or blowing away 6" artillery. The CA classification at the start of the game can imo be wholly replaced by BC's with smaller guns, as small as 6" yes.
So my suggestions for cruiser classifications would be to have one classification for small light cruisers, another for modern larger light cruisers and modern heavy cruisers, and lastly a classification for large cruisers with guns larger than 8" (ie 9"-12") possibly with a rolling max gun caliber based on year. Perhaps the last can retain the current CA matchmaking but the other types very much should not. Armor limits should be increased across the board, 3" of armor in 1900 does *not* equal 3" of armor in 1940 and an Atlanta with 5" artillery under the current system is a CA and the perception of CA is that they are effectively BC, an Atlanta is not a 60,000 ton 9x17" BC as their 3.75" belt makes them under the current system. Displacement should probably range 8000/18000/30000 tons respectively for each category mentionedComments requested. Particular for numbers Amusing notes - Can't call anything a large light cruiser, thanks Fisher
- Can't call anything a large cruiser, thanks King
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 9, 2021 18:38:26 GMT -6
This looks really interesting. I have a few questions though. 1. What type of feedback are you wanting? "This version is like a beta, I need feedback." 2. How does the mod interact with some of the AP techs? For example super heavy shells. 3. Any modifications to HE damage? 4. I'm not quite sure how to write this... So it might take a bit of back and forth to get the question across properly. What is the reasoning for a linear curve through all the calibers? Please understand, I like the look of the mod and I'm asking the question as a perfectly linear curve seems off to me. The reason it looks off to me is that, in ballistics there are "sweet spots" for a projectiles aerodynamic performance as well as terminal effect. In small arms, in the early 1900's most nations went with 6.5mm, 7mm or 7.7-8mm depending on how they measured the bore diameter. 6.5mm (.264) and 7mm (.284) are still used today for a lot of competitive shooting, while .257 and 6.8mm (.277) are not generally used competitively even though they are right next to competitive bullet diameters. On chassised systems like a tank, ship or plane their are significant field performance questions like weight, recoil and ability to stay on target along with responsiveness / trainability. Compromises are needed between a given cartridge / caliber and the chassis. I'll be very directed here, but a 10,000 ton cruiser using an 8" gun has a decent chance to have the necessary tonnage / stability to handle the extra recoil that an increase in velocity and or shell weight would entail; while a 10" on the same cruiser might need to lower its powder charges or shell weight to reduce recoil and thus not strain the ship so badly. The game with only 3 marks (-1, 0, +1) is rather limiting, especially as you can get the +1 guns early in the game and there is no advantage to using the lower mark guns. Historically as ship displacement increased so did the barrel length (also called caliber); the designed Montana and realized Midway class had 5" 51 caliber guns while shorter 25 and 38 caliber 5" guns were standardized from DD to CV and BB on USA ships in the 1920s-1945. One other example of this in land combat, Russian tanks use 125mm guns for the heavier HE fill (HE-AT); while US, German and UK tanks tend towards using 120mm guns with solid shot as they can get more penetration out of the smaller caliber. The 125mm gun on the Russian tanks has a lower velocity due to the larger shell diameter which results in a heavier shell with more HE fill, but the velocity also has to be less to not increase recoil to the point of breaking the transmission, turret ring, etc relative to the higher velocity 120mm guns... Yes there are other tings at play, but this is reasonable example showing a lot of different "sweat spots" for aerodynamics / penetration and terminal affects and suitability to the chassis. The tangent on tank guns is... not right. APFSDS is the primary anti tank round for a reason, that being extremely thick armor; however when the Soviet 125mm was made this wasn't true, the reasons the 125 soldiers on is mostly legacy; the big issue is that the autoloaders on Soviet armored vehicles cut into maximum dart length for APFSDS, the Challenger also suffers this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2021 19:23:34 GMT -6
I'll grant that I oversimplified a bit, other CV designs are occasionally viable, but my underlying point still stands: CVs don't really evolve in game. A late 1920s CV is basically as viable as a combat unit as one built in 1950, currently they handle aircraft just as well, are just as good at damage control and can launch and recover the same aircraft with no penalties. The major difference is that a 1920s CV comes into service with poor aircraft and the 1950s one doesn't. As for the RN's armoured carriers they were designed on the principle that it would be difficult to ensure protection against enemy air attack with just a CAP, especially without RADAR for early warning or directing interceptions. It was assumed that if operating in the Med or the confined waters between Singapore and Japan then they would always be in range of land based aircraft, which themselves were likley to be superior to any equivilent carrier borne aircraft. Armoured Carriers does a pretty good job of explaining it: www.armouredcarriers.com/projects. Trdl: the armoured carriers were built based on assumptions valid in the 1930s but by the 1940s were quickly becoming questionable. There is a lot more nuance than that and additional factors but thats the core of it. I'd say carriers irl didn't evolve a ton either. That might sound crazy but think about it. How many generations of carriers were there before the Essex? 3? 4? Various seaplane tenders turn into small converted, and fairly bad, carriers like Langely. Then there's Ranger and Lexington. Then the Yorktowns and then the Essex class. Now that's just America sure but American carriers after Langley weren't crazy different. They were different sizes, had different hanger arrangements, and that's kind of it? Different number of elevators maybe? Vastly oversimplifying it and there are probably tons of changes. But the biggest ones were folding wings for aircraft, number and placement of elevators, and hanger arrangements. I'd say the Lexington, a 1925 design, was not all that much different or worse than the Essex, a 1941 design. Perhaps we should have a say over hanger arrangement, which would make things more interesting maybe? Idk Carriers contemporary to Lexington and Saratoga, notably the British and Japanese carriers were much worse, possibly up to a generational gap in CV design. The Lexington's were just that good tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2021 2:42:07 GMT -6
I know it doesn't make the crew any deader that the ship is still floating but for some reason it seems very macabre to think of the ship surviving the loss of the crew. After a nuclear explosion, the ship will have to be sprayed extensively with water to be able to get aboard. The team will have to have geiger counters and then after the visit, will have to checked for radioactivity quite a bit. They will probably have special outfits to protect them. It was macabre even after Bikini. Most modern warships are pressurized internally and can be sealed to protect the crew if the nuclear weapon is detected as on its way. That still might not save the crew from a direct hit or near miss. They also have chemical warfare defense washdown systems, and without wood decking to absorb fallout, are unlikely to be as significantly irriadiated as the Crossroads Baker ships.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 2, 2021 21:17:30 GMT -6
Whats with the accuracy? Imperator Aleksandr fires 12 14inch guns ...and hit 7 times? Teach me Guns can fire more than once per turn.
|
|