|
Post by aeson on Jul 27, 2019 15:40:43 GMT -6
The 'Show History' button, which is visible in doddleson's screenshot, only appears once the game is over - reached end date (shouldn't be the case in 1904), lost to low prestige (shouldn't be the case with 22), or resigned. If you want to recover the save game, go to Rule the Waves 2\Save\Game#, where # is the Arabic numeral corresponding to the save slot, and find RTWGame#.bcs, open it with a text editor, and replace GOR=1 with GOR=0.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 27, 2019 8:44:16 GMT -6
Check what power's shipyards you're trying to refit your ships in - they'll default to the yard in which they were last refitted, or the yard in which they were built if they have not yet been refitted. Each power's shipyard can only refit your ships with that power's best available fire control system, so if France has Directors while Britain has Improved Directors a ship set to be refitted in France can only be given Directors while a ship set to be refitted in Britain can have Improved Directors.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 27, 2019 8:04:20 GMT -6
The manual states the following about trade protection: Nothing in that says that AMCs should behave like DDs and KEs when assigned to trade protection duties, and searching the manual for "AMC" and "Armed Merchant Cruiser" does not turn up any such statements.
Also, note the name - Armed Merchant Cruiser. AMCs are cruiser-type vessels, and were historically intended for and used in cruiser roles when better cruiser-type vessels were unavailable or unnecessary well into the period in which they acted as ASW escorts and honey traps. The reason that the game says that "cruisers may be necessary if raiders are about" after "the most cost effective ships for trade protection are destroyers, corvettes, and small armed merchant cruisers" is not that AMCs in general will be used like DDs and KEs but rather that the small AMCs mentioned as cost-effective trade protection units are usually not very combat-effective trade protection units.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 27, 2019 7:31:34 GMT -6
What do you mean by getting your carriers to have an angled flight deck? If it's visuals you want, I don't know if the game has a carrier template with an angled flight deck, but there's nothing stopping you from drawing one in; if it's the two additional catapults from the tech that you want, that seems to have been bugged and I don't know if it's yet been fixed.
As to getting carriers to launch aircraft without turning into the wind, I believe that only works for fighters on light load (CAP, reconnaissance, or escort missions) and bombers on reconnaissance missions within the game.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 27, 2019 7:17:24 GMT -6
I'm afraid I'm not so hot for the 7" guns as to build protected cruisers after 10's Then build a small CA instead: Costs about as much as a CL, is armored more or less like a CL, carries 7" guns, and mostly seems to be handled by the game more like a big CL than a big CA, at least in my experience with it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 26, 2019 22:48:06 GMT -6
I know that the V mount weighs slightly less than the X mount, making it an option I almost always pick. However, a good trade off would be for it to take away AA positions. This would happen because the deck space in front of the turret cannot be used, as the power of the gun firing would kill the gun crews. There is far more deck space in front of the V mount than the X mount. On the one hand, I'd be okay with V turret having some disadvantage over X turret beyond incompatibility with cross-deck fire. On the other hand, look at where some of the AA positions on, say, Iowa ended up: I can't honestly say that I think V turret would be a serious disadvantage for mounting AA guns when, historically, you have AA guns mounted more or less under the barrels of the main battery guns, though admittedly in history air attacks and surface actions tended to be more clearly separated than is often the case in the game.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 26, 2019 22:33:55 GMT -6
Just got CVL conversion, so I'm refitting my 16kton B --> CVL. In the past, I've always gotten the "new turret" error when I try to add non-centerline guns to a CVL conversion because I didn't know the "it's ok in casemate" trick. So this time I tried putting 6" guns in casemates. When I hit the check button (or save) I get an access violation. Using 1.06 (started at 1.05b). For future reference, the "new turret" error will not occur with individually-mounted 6" guns having 2" or less armor (shielded guns only; casemates do not count), or with 5" or lighter guns regardless of the armor protection provided or the type of mount used, regardless of ship class. Carriers additionally have a special rule allowing 7", 8", 9", and 10" guns to be added in casemates, single turrets, or twin turrets regardless of armor protection.
Personally, I think the exclusion of 6" guns from the special exemption that carriers have was an oversight probably arising from the rule for the initial CV originally being minimum 8x8" and an assumption that most players would only want to put DP/HAA guns rather than SP guns on their carriers.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 25, 2019 16:05:38 GMT -6
The game has you pay a part of the construction cost of the ship each month that it's under construction. A 10% reduction in total cost combined with a 10% reduction in construction time means that the discounted ship should have the same monthly construction cost and a shorter construction time. How long does a ship of that class normally take to build, and how long did the ship that you accepted at a discount take to build? If the latter is ~3 months less (10% off the nominal ~30 month build time for a capital ship) than the former, then you received your 10% discount on construction cost.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 25, 2019 15:15:28 GMT -6
There are no protected cruiser with turreted twin 8" AFAIK, but the Chinese Jiyuan class do have twin barbette mounted 8" guns USS Olympia would be an example of a protected cruiser with fore-and-aft 8" twin turrets, though these were replaced with more modern but lighter guns later in its service life.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 25, 2019 14:08:40 GMT -6
I wouldn't count on it for the next versions, though, as the manual says otherwise: "... main gun calibre cannot be larger than 6 inches, unless it is a protected cruiser in which case it can have guns in single mountings up to 8 inches."
Since 2x2x7" and 2x2x8" AY has been a legal configuration for protected cruiser CLs since Rule the Waves 1 and since the configuration was included to represent certain older cruisers that remained in service at the turn of the century, I'd be more inclined to call that an inaccuracy in the manual than an indication of intent to change the rules in future versions of the game. Also, if you limit yourself to individually-mounted guns, the maximum legal caliber on a protected cruiser CL is 13 inches, with one gun in either the A or the Y position.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 25, 2019 9:27:01 GMT -6
If I remember, 10" is the largest calibre that can be mounted in casemates. Only for the main battery; you can mount heavy (11"+) guns in casemates if they're in the secondary battery, but they'll take a rate-of-fire penalty.
Personally, I think that doing this would either make 6" guns undesirable - they're worse HAA per ton (and, without autoloaders, per gun) than 5", they're worse anti-cruiser than 7", and they're probably not better anti-DD than 5" except possibly against large late-game destroyers - or leave 7" guns in the same position that they're currently in. I do not see why a 10" gun would be desirable for a battlecruiser's main battery except maybe early on. 10" guns are really not heavy enough to be suited to engaging other capital ships, and battlecruisers are too frequently selected for engagements with other capital ships for an armament unsuited to engaging other capital ships to be acceptable for them.
Twin 7" or 8" guns are permissible in the A and Y positions on CLs using the protected cruiser armor configuration.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 23, 2019 20:43:38 GMT -6
Japan should also start with Korea, I would mod that in if I knew how. That would give a small boost to their budget. In the Rule the Waves 2\Data directory, find the appropriate MapData file, open it with a text editor like NotePad or NotePad++, find "Southern Korea" (or "Northern Korea" or both), and change the associated Owner from Neutral to Japan.
If you don't have a mod that's messed around with the sea zones and associated possessions (which is very likely; reordering the possessions is a bit of a pain so it's not likely to be done unless someone moved a possession from one sea zone to another), Southern Korea should be MapArea5Possession6, so Find and Replace "MapArea5Possession6Owner=Neutral" "MapArea5Possession6Owner=Japan" should assign Southern Korea as a Japanese possession (do not include quotation marks in the Find and Replace query). Northern Korea would be the same except that it's MapArea5Possession5 rather than MapArea5Possession6.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 22, 2019 20:42:49 GMT -6
As far as why you shouldn't be able to? Because it was never ever done. There are lots of little things in the game that aren't 100% historically accurate that I can forgive because there's a LOT of simplification. Being able to have Great Britain or the USA build Japan's (or Russia, Italy, Austria, etc) entire fleet up till the WW2 era is just wrong. And yet naval powers which were at the turn of the century roughly equal with or only slightly below the bottom tier of naval powers represented in the game did pretty much exactly that - Brazil and Argentina, for example. Then don't do it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 21, 2019 12:54:33 GMT -6
Currently Gun quality must be manually upgraded. You do this by switching the gun caliber up or down and then switch back to the original. I think sloanjh is talking about opening a design to create a derivative design rather than opening a design to create a rebuild template.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 21, 2019 11:03:18 GMT -6
How little effort are you putting into research that you're ~600 tons behind on an 8,000t cruiser?
|
|