|
Post by aeson on Sept 25, 2023 12:51:01 GMT -6
The historical Imperial German Navy assigned prefix letters by constructing shipyard, not by class, and there are multiple examples where two or more prefix letters were used within a single class of destroyer / large torpedo boat. I would therefore suggest that it is very unlikely that this will be changed.
If you want to have a class-based naming convention, or use a single letter prefix for all of your destroyers, then I would suggest going into the ship names file, removing all of the destroyer names, and just using the prefix letter.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 6, 2023 15:47:57 GMT -6
I would need to check to be certain, but I don't think that this is actually a bug; the legacy fleet is given some leeway to include things that your nation cannot build at game start so as to allow for ship types that had largely fallen out of favor historically but may still have been in service at the time the game begins.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 8, 2023 14:33:54 GMT -6
My most salient question is probably what does the first number mean? If I recall correctly, it's the day of the month on which the report was generated.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2023 11:41:07 GMT -6
I'm not 100% sure, but this may be a case of the missile range being limited to the target/horizon-distance for the shooter? May be, but MSSM shouldn't, and missile boats are said to have radars in the game. And? A lot of radar systems aren't capable of seeing much over the horizon unless the target is tall enough / high enough to be above the horizon despite being far away. Additionally, especially with early missiles, you're usually not going to have more than terminal-phase seeking/homing, so the launch vehicle has to know at least roughly where the target is, and while your battleship clearly knows where the target is it isn't necessarily sharing that information with some MTB division 30 miles away that isn't part of its battle group in a sufficiently timely or detailed manner to allow the MTB division to engage safely; even if your battleship is sharing its targeting / telemetry information, it's probably not actually talking to that MTB division, so if the MTBs are receiving it it's either because they're eavesdropping or because someone on shore is relaying it to them.
Also, theoretical and practical maximum ranges aren't necessarily - and frequently aren't, historically - the same thing, especially when you're working with a small launch platform that simply cannot detect targets at anything like the weapon system's maximum range, and while we playing the game get to have near-perfect knowledge of where most of our ships are (in both an absolute and a relative sense) that often hasn't been the case historically, especially with ships that aren't talking to one another because they're in different commands.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 17, 2023 19:08:32 GMT -6
The more unused tonnage in the design, supposedly the less likely you are to get a randomly slow design and the more likely you are to get a randomly fast design As far as I am aware, this is incorrect; there is no benefit to designing your ships underweight beyond the free tonnage it leaves available for future refits. Designing your ships overweight, however, does increase the likelihood of getting a negative trials result.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 16, 2023 19:33:07 GMT -6
CIWS underperformed significantly. They contributed a meager 4.39% of missile intercepts despite every ship in the fleet having 4+ CIWS. For an investment of 20 points, that was an abysmal performance. Assessing CIWS performance or value solely on the basis of percentage of total missiles intercepted is badly flawed. CIWS is essentially your ship's last line of defense against an incoming missile; any missile that it intercepts is almost certainly a missile that would otherwise have hit your ship. This is not something that can necessarily be said of any other anti-missile system; just looking at hard-kill systems, a missile that penetrates your MSAMs might still be intercepted by your LSAMs while a missile that gets past your LSAMs could still be stopped by your CIWS, so ten missiles intercepted by your MSAMs don't necessarily represent the same number of hits prevented as 10 missiles intercepted by your LSAMs or 10 missiles intercepted by your CIWS, and if you want to assess the "value" of each system you have to account for this somehow.
Say, for the sake of argument, that LSAMs have a 50% chance of stopping any missile that isn't intercepted by MSAMs while CIWS has a 50% chance of stopping any missile that isn't intercepted by LSAMs; if your MSAMs intercept 50 missiles, how many missile hits did they actually prevent? Well, according to the numbers used for this example, 75% of missiles not intercepted by MSAMs should be intercepted by LSAMs or CIWS, so even though your MSAMs intercepted 50 missiles they're in some sense only preventing 12 or 13 hits (with some caveats regarding defense saturation that we're ignoring because it makes everything easier). If your MSAMs intercept 50 missiles, preventing 12 or 13 hits, while your CIWS intercept 5 missiles, preventing 5 hits, which system is more "worth" the cost of having it?
Additionally, shorter-range defense systems do not have the opportunity to engage as many missiles as longer-range defenses do. Say CIWS can intercept 95% of missiles that reach it while other anti-missile systems have a 35% chance of stopping an incoming missile, but an incoming missile has to penetrate five layers of other defenses before it can be engaged by CIWS; less than 9% of incoming missiles would be engaged (and thus less than 9% of the total number intercepted would be accounted for) by CIWS, yet removing CIWS from your ships would increase the number of missile hits your ships receive by a factor of about 20 whereas removing every other anti-missile system would only increase the number of missiles hitting your ship by a factor of about 10. Is CIWS underperforming, or is it a highly-effective anti-missile system whose performance is being concealed by the shear number of less-effective defenses that an incoming missile has to penetrate before it can be engaged by CIWS? You cannot simply look at the raw percentage of total intercepts and go "well that isn't useful."
Beyond that, how many missiles penetrating your defenses is "too many" missiles penetrating your defenses? If CIWS is intercepting missiles, it's clearly doing something, and every missile that it intercepts might represent a ship that wasn't seriously damaged or sunk; if you include ripple effects (which I'd usually rather not since counterfactuals can be very difficult to assess, especially once you start making them dependent on other counterfactuals), it might represent several ships that weren't badly damaged or sunk, because damage and losses have ways of compounding into even more damage and losses, and especially against a peer opponent securing an early advantage can often determine the outcome of a battle or even the war.
(Also, I will reiterate: the numbers I am using here are for the sake of argument; they are not necessarily reflective of any numbers the game actually uses.)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 15, 2023 18:17:23 GMT -6
What makes the Fletchers impossible is the need for 7 mounts. You might not be willing to accept the penalty that comes with it, but it certainly isn't impossible to make a Fletcher-style destroyer on a displacement of 2000 tons in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2023 11:08:27 GMT -6
Yeah, you can make a CA Olympia, if you really want the crappiest CA ever.
If you want to model historical ships in-game, there's a lot more "armored cruisers" than just the big nine or ten thousand plus ton ships with usually four or six 8-, 9-, or 10-inch guns, about a dozen 5- or 6-inch secondaries, and ~6-inch armor belts; a fair number of them are not particularly clearly superior to some of the larger protected cruisers, even if you ignore the big British first class cruisers between between the Orlando and Cressy classes. This is also a reason that I, personally, don't really care to use "armored cruiser" and "protected cruiser" as classifications - sure, it sort of works, at least for some navies, but when you're looking at all the armored cruisers and all the protected cruisers you'll find that there's a lot of overlap between the upper end of the "protected cruiser" spectrum and the lower end of the "armored cruiser" spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2023 9:44:08 GMT -6
I believe you want the DDNumber=N line in the [Nation0] block of RTWGame#.bcs, where N is the next hull number in the series (so if you have T-1 through T-125 and Z-126, N should currently be 127) and # is the number of the game slot you used.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2023 8:42:39 GMT -6
But there were actually CLs build with 4x8" guns, for example USS Olympia, laid down in 1891.
If a ship was built historically, it ought to be possible to do it in the game.
It's already possible to build Olympia in-game, you just have to build it as a CA - and allowing CLs to have 2x2x8" main batteries wouldn't change that, because Olympia's armor protection is too heavy for the game's CL classification regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 17:56:21 GMT -6
I clearly said Olympia styleBut I did not, and your previous post appears to have been in response to mine.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 16:17:11 GMT -6
I built Olympia style cruisers in RtW2 and the AI never seemed to have an issue. 1. Olympia had an armor deck up to 4.75" thick; CLs in RTW1/RTW2 could only have up to 3". Unless you're editing ship files, a historically-accurate in-game reproduction of Olympia would have to be built as a CA, regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3.
2. The AI may not have had issues using such cruisers, but it did have issues countering them.
- CLs (and, practically speaking, small CAs) can't really be armored against 8" guns - A 2x2x8" battery is approximately equivalent to nine or ten 6" guns by weight of broadside and can be combined with 6" secondary and 5" tertiary batteries of about a dozen guns each; if you're building this on a 6,000t or larger hull, you also probably won't need to make any serious compromises in armor protection or speed as compared with 6" CLs in order to fit this. This is significantly more firepower than most of the historically-based CL templates have - especially once you get into the 1910s and early 1920s, when 6" CLs still couldn't put more than 11 or 12 main guns on the broadside (and then only if built as turret farms with fifteen or sixteen separate gun positions used) and many of the ships the computer actually built have just four or five 6" main guns and maybe a couple 3" or 4" secondaries.
- 8" guns start to have a practical range advantage over 6" guns in the late-'00s and the '10s as fire control improves to the point where you can start to expect to score hits at long range while closing with the opponent. - Especially if you kept your 8" CLs relatively small (say, around 6000 tons), the game would often give you a pair of 8" CLs against a single 8,000- or 10,000-ton CA, which was probably slower than your CLs, likely didn't really have enough armor to resist 8" gunfire either very well or very long, and at most matched one of the 8" CLs for firepower.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 14:32:25 GMT -6
Reasons are that player have hindsight and would build best ships as player knows what works and what does not. However these ships were impossible to build as naval thinking was not so far. It takes time to get there. Dreadnoughts were certainly possible with some limits before HMS Dreadnought was launched but advances in shells, engines, fire control makes them viable solution at that time and not before. Oh really? I guess the existence of USS Olympia is a hoax then... A more or less historically-accurate Olympia could not be built as a CL in-game whether or not CLs using the protected cruiser armor scheme were allowed to mount a pair of twin 8" turrets.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 14:16:13 GMT -6
Nothing in the game can have seven centerline mounts without penalty.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 25, 2023 17:33:29 GMT -6
What advantage would there be to buying aircraft overseas instead of acquiring a license to produce a foreign aircraft domestically, as is already possible in the game?
I don't recall exactly what the rule is off the top of my head, but sufficiently weak/disadvantaged powers can acquire production licenses from anyone as long as they have reasonably good relations, not just from allies.
|
|