|
Post by aeson on May 20, 2023 14:06:36 GMT -6
shouldn't it be booming times? No.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 6, 2023 15:02:08 GMT -6
Aeson, The path is C:/Program Files(x86)/Rule The Waves/Save. Folders for Game1 through Game5. Empty. Added Game9 and started Game 9 in the new game process. Still no data appearing in the Save games files. Updated to version 1.26 and everything the same. Thanks for the idea though. And what I'm telling you is that Windows probably created a \Users\(your user name)\Program Data\Rule the Waves directory and has the game writing save files there rather than in the Program Files\Rule the Waves directory, because 'recent' versions of Windows don't like letting programs write to Program Files.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 5, 2023 16:47:07 GMT -6
'Recent' versions of Windows don't like programs writing to Program Files, so it probably put your save directory somewhere like C:\Users\(your user name)\Program Data\Rule the Waves 2\Save instead of in the install directory. You might also try searching for a ship class file or an RTW-associated file extension (e.g. *.bcs) in the file explorer if you can't find it in \Users.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 21, 2023 15:20:57 GMT -6
IIRC the numbers for armor in RTW and RTW2 do not directly correspond to armor thickness, but instead are closer to effective armor in inches of a standard level. That's why armor techs make armor lighter, not more effective per inch. Using the same system might be confusing, but making early (wrought iron, etc.) armor types very, very, heavy would accomplish that by older ships having what appears to be very thin armor. That system has other flaws, like not being able to see how effective the armor of your older ships really is, so a change might be in order anyway. I am curious as to what your reasoning for this is, because it seems that you're saying that an equivalent-thickness system makes it difficult to compare armor across older and newer ships, yet it would appear to me that "Ship A's armor is equivalent to 10 inches of standardized test plate while Ship B's armor is equivalent to 12 inches of standardized test plate" is a significantly easier comparison than "Ship A has 18 inches of composite armor while Ship B has 9 inches of Class A."
Also, as adseria has already mentioned, RTW2 doesn't use the equivalent-thickness armor system seen in RTW1, it uses an 'actual' thickness with hidden resistance multiplier.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 13, 2023 10:45:05 GMT -6
Have you tried design speeds higher than 30 knots?
that's pretty late game, once i get a CV in service BBs are only around for battle generator purposes - i might build 1 new class of BBs after 1920 (when i get AON) and none after 1940-ish
by experimenting i mean i want to try a game where i build only B/BBs until 1920 because BCs don't seem to count towards your B/BB ship total, and if you build BCs early game instead of BBs the game won't let you retire old Bs no matter how old they are. a lot of my ship building choices are made to manipulate game limitations or the battle generator - i use BCs in the exact same role as Bs or BBs and consider them identical, but the game does not think so
Works earlier in the game, too.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 12, 2023 17:52:15 GMT -6
i havn't fully tested this yet, but it seems ships with 12.5" of belt armour or more will be classified a BB no matter the speed - i assume it's because 12" of belt armour is likely the max a BC can have Have you tried design speeds higher than 30 knots?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 1, 2023 14:19:49 GMT -6
Apparently, the British Navy when developing the specifications for the Renowns, eliminated the 6 inch casemate guns and installed 4 inch guns on the upper deck in deck mounts. There were 5 triple mounts and 2 single mounts. These guns provided a high rate of fire and were not close to the lower decks. They would have been the 4.5 inch/QF Marks 1, III and IV. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_45-45_mk1.phpThe Renowns did not carry the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-series guns until the late 1930s (Repulse in fact never carried them, insofar as I am aware); instead, they carried seventeen 4"/45 BL Mark IX guns in five triple and two single mounts as built, plus a pair of 12pdr (3") QF HA guns as an anti-aircraft armament. The 3" and single-mounted 4" guns would be replaced on both ships in the 1920s with four 4"/45 QF Mark V guns in single mounts, and Renown - but not Repulse - would have its entire 4" battery replaced by twenty 4.5"/45 QF Mark I and Mark III guns in ten twin mounts in the late 1930s; Repulse meanwhile retained three of its original five 4"/45 BL Mark IX triple mounts to its sinking and carried six 4"/45 QF Mark V guns in single mounts at the time of its loss (the four which had replaced the 4" singles and 12-pdr AA guns in the '20s, plus two more which, just before the outbreak of the Second World War, replaced four 4"/45 QF Mark XV guns in twin mounts that had been added just year or two earlier).
As far as I am aware, the 4.5"/45 QF Mark I-series guns were never placed in triple mounts.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 28, 2022 8:14:32 GMT -6
It’s fine if you enjoy playing the game that way, but especially in the case of the Dantons I really don’t think it’s accurate to say that you’re giving the computer a leg up by giving them to it; 1905-1907 is sort of the golden period for semidreadnoughts to be in service since you can expect to start seeing dreadnoughts in service from 1907-1908 and they will likely have rendered the predreadnought and semidreadnought battleships largely irrelevant by c.1910. At historical timings, Satsuma is late to the party but probably hasn’t entirely missed it - it’s around for the predreadnought’s twilight years when there’s not quite enough dreadnoughts in service to completely eclipse them - but Danton’s so far outside the window that I’m not sure it’s even hitting the building - a capital ship laid down in 1907 isn’t getting into service before mid-1909 at the earliest, so by the time Danton arrives dreadnoughts are well on their way to completely dominating the battle line and improving fire control systems are at least on the verge of pushing reasonable battle ranges out far enough to render a locally-controlled intermediate battery largely irrelevant, especially since the computer likely won’t want to fight at the fairly short ranges where the intermediate battery could be most useful.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 27, 2022 23:36:31 GMT -6
If I recall correctly, powers which have the Undeveloped Shipbuilding Industry modifier cannot build ships for other powers, though that shouldn’t explain your issue with France as I don’t think they have that modifier.
Also, this seems to me like a somewhat suspect way of ‘improving’ the position of the other powers, especially if you’re triggering ship seizure while the ships are still fairly incomplete - you’re essentially saddling the computer with the maintenance and possibly a significant part of the construction cost for ships it wouldn’t normally build right around the time that the dreadnought race kicks off, and at least in the case of the Dantons the historical timing is pretty awful since you really ought to be building dreadnoughts by 1907 in a normal-research game.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 20, 2022 8:23:44 GMT -6
You can reload your start-of-battle autosave as long as you haven't exited the battle. That's dependent on autosave settings.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 9, 2022 10:30:36 GMT -6
Ah, so the belt runs behind the casemates then? No, the casemates are above - i.e. further from the waterline than - the armor belt. Historical warships which mounted their secondary guns in casemates generally carried them either on the upper deck (the deck forming the top of the hull) or the deck immediately below it (for a ship with a broken upper deck, this would probably be the main deck; otherwise, it might be called the gun or gallery deck), with the top of the armor belt reaching the bottom of the casemate. Often, the part of the armor belt immediately beneath the casemate armor wasn't part of the main (maximum thickness) belt but rather a thinner upper strake.
If I am not mistaken, the game's armor model assumes that the (main and secondary) casemates are on the deck immediately beneath the upper deck, so the game's model for the side profile for a 'typical' predreadnought or First World War-era dreadnought/superdreadnought battleship should look something like this:
As an aside, you can actually see the top of the armor belt in many photographs of historical warships - it's that step in the hull that, if present, usually runs from just ahead of the forwardmost turret to just behind the aftermost turret roughly halfway between the waterline and the upper deck.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 7, 2022 12:01:46 GMT -6
Yes, we can send a strike to a land target when AI throws at us a fleet battle or convoy protection or whatever. But do we do it? Anyway, I was thinking of a specific land airstrike mission. Kind of an updating of the “shore bombardment” mission but now using aircraft carriers. Attacking harbour installations and whatever ship is at port or nearby Something like Darwin, Taranto, Dakar… I fairly often send air strikes against airfields at night, or right at the start of a battle if one is nearby; I'll also throw air strikes against coastal batteries while mopping up after the main fighting in a coastal raid or something like that ends.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 5, 2022 15:53:22 GMT -6
I sometimes think the effect of RAF control of aircraft development on the fleet air arm is overstated. Lets look at the aircraft in service in 1939 compared to their American and Japanese counterparts. Normally the British aircraft at the start of the war are compared to the American and Japanese aircraft of 1941 Fighters Fleet air arm Gladiators, Rocs and Fulamrs. The Fulmar is a very modern aircraft with a huge design flaw insisted upon by the Navy which is that it is a two seater without that weight and Size penalty it would be comparable with the Hurricane. The Roc is useless due to design concept but no worse than the RAF Defiant. The US navy is flying the F3F Biplane and the WIldcat and Buffalo will not be available for some time, the WIldcat will enter British service first. The Japanese are flying the A5M which is a nice fighter probably superior to the F3F and Gladiator but no better than the Fulmar (while being the opposite of design paradigm) Dive bombers Fleet Air Arm the Skua not a bad aircraft comparable to early stuka's , not a good idea to pretend it could be a fighter but the later dauntless had similar pretensions and both would serve vs unescorted bombers. The Japanese Val does not enter service until mid 1940 and has similar speed and bomb load but longer range, the Vindicator is slightly slower but has a slightly longer range and a better bombload. In 1939 the Japanese D1A biplane was distinctly inferior to the Skua Torpedo Bombers Swordfish while it had many virtues it was getting obsolescent , however at least its torpedo worked which beat the Devestator although the Swordfish did have a longer range. The Japanese Kate was flat out better than either of them and had a better torpedo So the fleet air arm was not as badly off at the start of the war as is sometimes portrayed and had it not shot itself in the foot with the Fulmar would have been much better off Arguing that the Fulmar shouldn't be compared against aircraft like A6M, F2A, and F4F strikes me as specious - especially when you propose instead to compare it against the standard of aircraft like the A5M and F3F, which had been introduced four years before Fulmar and were taken out of service and replaced by the likes of A6M, F2A, and F4F at around the same time that Fulmar was entering service. Ten F2A-1s were delivered to Saratoga's VF-3 in December 1939 while the remaining 44 aircraft (enough to fully equip two squadrons, or about 40% of the US Navy's carrier-borne fighter strength at the time) of the US Navy's initial order for Buffaloes were signed over to Finland that month and shipped off to Europe in January-February 1940, and both VF-2 (Lexington) and VF-3 (Saratoga) would be equipped with F2A-2s in Fall 1940; A6M and Fulmar both equipped their first squadrons in July and scored their first recorded kills in September 1940.
Fulmar's front-line service life overlaps most with aircraft like F2A, F4F, and A6M, not with aircraft like F3F or A5M, and it enters service far more nearly contemporaneously with the former set than the latter. If comparing Fulmar against aircraft in the former set is somehow unfair, it isn't because those aircraft are 'later' aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 5, 2022 0:28:56 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies. These are the first ships of their classes, no refits. So I think maybe it's not due to the trial events nor the torpedo bulges. I've made some small adjustment in speedHPtable to lessen the weight of engine for smaller ships, but I don't think this is the trigger because the other earlier ships seem not to have this trouble. The issue that I brought up with torpedo bulges applies to new designs - there's a bug in RTW1 that sometimes improperly sets 'bulged' status for new designs, which means ships built to those designs are bulged as-built. Your battlecruiser is almost certainly suffering from this - it's showing a service speed of 24 knots, which is exactly what you'd expect for a 27-knot ship that's been bulged - and since I can't think of anything else that would cause this I'm inclined to think that the same is true for your destroyer.
Adjustments to speedHPtable shouldn't have any effect on how the service speed shows up in-game; that only matters for determining tonnage costs.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 4, 2022 23:59:53 GMT -6
The battlecruiser's speed issue is almost certainly the result of the design having improperly inherited the 'bulged' status (I forget what causes this to occur, but probably using "open design" on a ship that's been bulged to create your new design), which improves effective torpedo protection but reduces the ship's service speed by ~10% of the design speed; the destroyer's speed issue probably results from the same cause, though I would have expected a bulged 33-knot destroyer to be reduced to 30 knots rather than 31. You should be able to correct this with a refit to remove the bulges once the ships complete. The 'c' indicates that the ship is fitted for colonial service (i.e. it counts for 25% more than its displacement for the purpose of foreign station tonnage requirement fulfillment).
This mechanic doesn't exist in RTW1.
As far as I am aware, "exceeds design speed" only increases service speed by 1 knot while "fails to achieve design speed" only decreases service speed by one knot relative to design speed; the only explanation that I know of for a two- or three-knot discrepancy is the bulging bug. Furthermore, the speed modifications from these events are only applied once the lead ship of the class has been completed, but these ships are under construction and I don't see any clear reason to believe that they're the second or later units of their class.
|
|