|
Post by aeson on Oct 4, 2022 11:01:29 GMT -6
OOB tab, select the specific ship, left click on it, and you will see the option - it must be somewhat damaged for it to follow the order, but it will tell you if it isn't damaged enough You can order a retreat, but only for damaged ships? Sometimes the arbitrary things in this game drive me crazy. The 'detach and return to port' order isn't a general retreat order, it's a "get those damaged ships out of harm's way so I can continue the engagement without worrying too much about them" order. If you want your entire force to withdraw, you already have the ability to do that - just set course away from the enemy at your best speed - but on settings higher than Captain your ability to do that for something less than the entire fleet is rather limited.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 9, 2022 17:43:15 GMT -6
>The events you describe are inline with being head of navy No, they are not. They are events in which it can be expected that the head of the navy has input which would influence a final decision by the top of the political/monarchical apparatus. But in RTW2 the player has full control over those decisions. Maybe you're thinking of some other events than I am, but most or all of the events of this kind that I can think of are worded in such a way as to imply that you're being consulted - you aren't making the decision, you're giving the navy's recommendation.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 5, 2022 19:19:47 GMT -6
I will note that it is already possible ingame to allow a player to divert accumulated funds to economic development. You just need to edit your save game file. Subtract from the variable "Funds" and add to the variable "BaseResources" in the save game file. Save-file editing is in no way, shape, or form something that is "already possible in-game."
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Sept 3, 2022 18:48:43 GMT -6
I'm pretty impressed by the new turret 'era' - I wonder if it'll be possible to do the really big lower velocity pre-dreadnought guns (It'd be neat if we could have BL 16.25-inch Mk I 'minus 1 quality' guns in the 1890s)? Turret era is purely aesthetic; as in RTW2, gun performance is determined by the gun caliber, gun quality, and shell research levels.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 29, 2022 17:41:28 GMT -6
Hm, so my 6" main, 5" secondary setup is Supreme~ Depends on what you mean by "supreme." - 6"+4" is likely a better-rounded armament than 6"+5" for large parts of the game - 4" probably outperforms 5" against destroyers for the first decade or so of the game, and 4" guns both become DP-capable long before 5" guns and remain a competitive DP option all the way to the end of the game, especially for lighter warships. 4" guns are also lighter, gun-for-gun, than 5" guns (obviously), so you can fit more of them on the same hull or fit the same number on a smaller hull or do something else with the tonnage you save.
- A setup that includes a tertiary battery can engage up to five targets simultaneously (main + one for each half of the secondary battery + one for each half of the tertiary battery) while your dual-battery setup can only engage three. - A 6"+5"+4" setup could plausibly offer a higher weight-of-broadside than a 6"+5" setup, and if we're talking about relatively conventional protected cruiser-type CLs then at least some of the 8" CL configurations allowed in RTW2 could surpass both the 6"+5" and the 6"+5"+4" setups by the same metric. - A comparable CL design that lacks a secondary battery will likely be cheaper or better-protected and, at least in the period where relatively long-range engagements are practical but secondary fire control lags significantly behind main battery fire control, likely won't be that much worse-armed in practice outside of convoy attack scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 15, 2022 9:31:08 GMT -6
You do get popups every once and a while where one of the options is to suggest money be spent on making long term infrastructure improvements to grow the economy. i have seen people mention this event a few times over the years and i get the impression that some people think picking this option does a lot more than it may actually do
i could be 100% wrong about this, but i'm pretty sure that the event in question (which is the 2nd choice) does not increase your budget in the long term (or at all) nearly as much as taking the 3rd option which gives you an outright immediate raise in your naval budget
it could be the way it's worded, different people could have different interpretations of the wording, but having played a trillion hours of both RtWs and having seen and read the options many times i have always gotten the impression that picking the 3rd option of the immediate raise is the "right" answer for the biggest short term and long term benefit to your naval budget but i am interested to know if i am wrong on this or not
If I recall correctly, the railroads event gives you +200 base resources if you take the "build railroads" option, +2 budget modifier if you take the "give the money to the navy" option, and -1 or maybe -2 unrest from the "social programs" option.
Base resources start out between 4,000 (historical-resources Spain) and 20,000 (Britain) in 1900, can grow significantly over the course of the game (typically, a power gets +1% base resources every April and December, gets an additional +1% base resources every June if it has the Rapid Economic Growth trait, and may also see some other, typically flat, unannounced additions to base resources one or occasionally two times a year, especially if it has one of the hidden rapid growth traits), and are supplemented by resources from possessions, so +200 base resources does not in general represent a significant short-term benefit. It can, however, represent a relatively significant long-term benefit, and the magnitude of that benefit is fairly easy to evaluate because it's 200+growth base resources that you would not otherwise have had. This option is generally better earlier in the game or when playing particularly poor powers.
Budget modifier typically ranges from about 15 to 25, so +2 budget modifier usually represents a relatively significant immediate increase in your operating budget. Changes to budget modifier are however not permanent (the budget modifier is usually reset to a default peacetime value after a war) and the game has some mechanics to counter 'unnaturally' high values for the budget modifier from event choices (budget cuts at low tensions, peacetime unrest generation and associated events at 'high' budget modifier values, et cetera). As such, it is not clear that taking a +budget event option means that your budget modifier will be a point or two higher than it would otherwise have been until the next time it gets reset to default value (maybe there's a low-tensions budget cut or an anti-naval spending protest that wouldn't have occurred or a high-tensions budget increase that would have happened had you not taken a +budget event option earlier or something else like that), and it is therefore very difficult to evaluate the value of +budget events outside the fairly short term. This option is generally better later in the game or when playing particularly wealthy powers.
Unrest has no direct impact on your operating budget and is unlikely to be a significant issue in peacetime unless it becomes very high. If you do have high unrest when this event occurs, however, then this might be one of the better ways to deal with that unrest because if I recall correctly the only real cost of taking the -unrest option from this event is the opportunity cost of not taking the +budget or +resources options whereas many other -unrest event options come with -budget and possibly -resources riders. If you have low unrest, then this option is worthless; if you have high unrest, its economic value is very difficult to predict as it's highly dependent on whether or not your high unrest actually ends up hurting you and how much it does so - you might not see any damage at all from high unrest, but at the other extreme you might go into a war with high unrest and consequently lose most of your major fleet units to a governmental collapse and the resultant peace treaty.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 7, 2022 11:14:44 GMT -6
I think I had better ask: What does a * on a shell hit report mean? Armor penetration.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 6, 2022 15:30:51 GMT -6
Air group management question: I have two DB squadrons which acquired *s while deployed in a non-home area. So, as with a ship, I brought them to my home area. 6 years later--and one equipment replacement later--they still have the *s. I have tried putting them on CVs which were on AF, RF, and MB, plus putting the squadrons in Reserve--each for >= 3 months. Does anyone know how to get rid of a * on an air squadron? An * on a squadron of aircraft indicates that the squadron is considered elite based on past performance (kills, bomb hits, or torpedo hits scored in the current war, maybe also the preceding war if that was recent enough); if I recall correctly, you should have gotten a message along the lines of "the daring pilots of [torpedo squadron] have racked up the impressive total of # bomb hits," "with a total of # kills, the [fighter squadron] has gained a reputation as one of our most proficient air units," or "the [dive bomber squadron] is one of our best attack squadrons with # bomb hits on enemy ships" on the turn that the squadron gained the asterisk. This isn't something you want to be rid of.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 30, 2022 11:13:26 GMT -6
What editor are we talking about? The RTW2 package I downloaded does not seem to include one. Thanks. This one, I believe, which is technically for RTW1 and as far as I am aware no updated version has been released.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2022 16:05:27 GMT -6
You could take a Dunkerque up against a fast battleship and probably survive long enough to disengage. Try it with an Alaska and you will lose over and over. Alaska is both larger and faster than either Dunkerque or Strasbourg, it's better armored than Dunkerque, and it's better suited to taking pot-shots at pursuers than either of the French ships. If Dunkerque can "probably survive long enough to disengage" from a fast battleship, Alaska probably can, as well. If Andrea Doria and Conte di Cavour are capital ships in the Second World War, then by what reasonable, uniformly-applied standard are the Alaskas - which are larger, faster, and at least comparably-armed and -protected - not capital ships?
Alaska was not rated as a battleship or battlecruiser by the people who built and operated it - though the "not rated as a battlecruiser" part is more than a little open to debate as that is one of the classifications applied to the ship during the design process and it is one of the classifications applied to the ship during its service life by people both in and out of the navy even though "large cruiser" was by then the official designation.
"Capital ship," meanwhile, is a mostly-informal classification for any sufficiently-large or sufficiently-powerful warship, and as far as I am aware the only standard that a warship of this period would need to meet in order to qualify as a capital ship is the standard promulgated in the Treaties - i.e. it's big and it has big guns - or possibly that it's an aircraft carrier (though the Treaty standard specifically excludes carriers from the capital ship category). Alaska is a large warship with big guns; it is in fact larger than and at least comparably-armed and -protected to a number of other ships that you accept as capital ships and, had it been built under the Treaties, would have counted against the US Navy's capital ship tonnage allocation. What uniformly-applicable standard would you care to suggest by which Conte di Cavour is and Alaska is not a capital ship in the Second World War?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 28, 2022 12:07:30 GMT -6
Dunkerque is a full battleship, full stop, particularly Strasbourg French Wikipedia uses the term croisseur de bataille rather than curaissier for Dunkerque and Strasbourg, so I would imagine that there are a fair number of French people - and quite possibly period design documents - which disagree with you.
Also, regardless of whether you call Dunkerque and Strasbourg battleships or battlecruisers, calling them "full battleships" strikes me as facile; they're clearly inferior to any other modern battleship of the Second World War except perhaps Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, which are clearly a cut below Treatymax battleships like King George V, North Carolina, and Richelieu, so if battleships they are then it's battleships of the second - or, at least in Dunkerque's case, more likely third - class. I don't believe that there's any formal definition of 'capital ship' which cares about either armor or length-to-beam ratio; the Treaty definition certainly does not, and if you're not using that definition then a capital ship is just a "biggest" ship. If things like Dunkerque or the modernized Conte di Cavours and Andrea Dorias are capital ships, I really don't think you have a good case for Alaska not being a capital ship.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 27, 2022 16:27:47 GMT -6
Aside from the Alaskas, the following classes were significantly smaller than contemporary battleships: Invincible, Indefatigable, Kongō, Derfflinger, Courageous, and Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck. Were they? Invincible is 40' longer and just ~300 tons (~1.5%) smaller than Dreadnought by deep load displacement, at least according to Wikipedia's figures, and going by date laid down I'd argue that the Derfflingers and Mackensens are larger in both length and displacement than the corresponding most nearly contemporary German battleships (the Konigs for the Derfflingers and the Bayerns for the Mackensens)1; the Indefatigables and Kongos, meanwhile, are larger by length though not by displacement than the most nearly contemporary battleships of their respective navies, and it's at least debatable whether the ~2,000 tons difference between Kongo and Fuso is a particularly significant disparity in size when we're talking about ships displacing in the neighborhood of 28,000 tons. Courageous, meanwhile, is a battlecruiser more or less only insofar as there isn't a better non-unique period classification for it.
1Derfflinger was laid down in March 1912, ~6 months after Konig and ~21 months prior to Bayern. Mackensen was laid down in January 1915, ~13 months after Bayern; as far as I am aware, no later German battleship made it off the drawing board until Scharnhorst, but even if construction of a battleship to one of the L 20 designs did manage to get under way before the end of the First World War it seems unlikely that construction could have begun any sooner than very late 1917, 20+ months after Mackensen. Alaska is very definitely not a battleship. Whether or not it is a capital ship is rather more arguable, especially since pretty much every other big gun warship in its weight class is a capital ship.
Also, the only formal definition of 'capital ship' that I'm aware of is the one from the Treaties, i.e. a warship displacing more than 10,000 tons or armed with guns heavier than 8" which is not primarily designed for the operation of aircraft, and Alaska checks all those boxes. Even if you expand the Treaty definition to exclude large post-Treaty gun cruisers like Des Moines and the missile cruisers that started appearing in the 1950s, something like an Alaska is probably at worst a second- or third-class capital ship for the simple reason that even the big navies can't afford to replace their cruisers with things like the Alaskas while anyone outside the top two or three navies that has something like an Alaska probably doesn't have anything else above, in, or even approaching the same weight class.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 26, 2022 17:10:16 GMT -6
You can already do this in RTW2. Yes, you can but it will be classified as a BC, not a CA/CB You would have to ask Fredrik to be sure, but I rather suspect that you'd have more success arguing for the game's battlecruiser templates to be modified to show a dying-off of First World War-style battlecruisers in the 1920s and then an emergence of 'large cruiser'-style battlecruisers in the mid- to late-'30s or the '40s than you would arguing for the inclusion of an entire new ship category, especially since past arguments in this direction have mostly seemed to be something along the lines of "my big expensive battlecruiser-adjecent warship modeled on a historical battlecruiser-adjacent warship which was built in a period where there aren't any modern/near-contemporary 'conventional' battlecruisers and is far too expensive to be a realistic cruiser replacement isn't worth building unless the game protects it from 'conventional' battlecruisers."
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 26, 2022 9:08:51 GMT -6
even the ability to design a large cruise like the Alaska class, a ship with 12" gun but cruiser protection. You can already do this in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 17, 2022 21:35:33 GMT -6
Are there any 20th century examples of a navy capturing enemy warships intact during a war? I don't think it happen very often, if at all. I believe a number of Russian ships, including a fairly intact if relatively old and small battleship (Imperator Nikolai I / Iki), surrendered to the Japanese Navy in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Tsushima, some of which were taken into Japanese service shortly thereafter; there's also U-570 / HMS Graph and U-505, though I don't know if those are intact enough at time of capture for you. There might be other examples, though the other purpose-built warships I can think of off the top of my head that were impressed into service by the opposing side are ships sunk, scuttled, or wrecked in areas where the opposing side was able to recover them, for example USS Stewart DD-224 / Dai-102-Gō shōkaitei.
|
|