|
Post by aeson on Jul 20, 2019 23:27:07 GMT -6
The main point of this thread is that its completely game-breaking that you can build an unlimited percentage of your fleet foreign at any time so long as tensions are low. How is building a significant portion of your fleet overseas "completely game-breaking?" Why not?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 19, 2019 21:49:06 GMT -6
One other question. all of my legacy ships are overweight. What effect does being overweight have on a ship? There's a flotation penalty dependent upon how overweight your ships are, and ships that are overweight are more likely to suffer negative commissioning events (e.g. failure to achieve design speed) than ships that aren't. Actual, I think.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 19, 2019 18:26:40 GMT -6
"Belt" on a vessel using the Protected Cruiser armor scheme represents the sloping outer portions of the protective armor deck while "Deck" represents the flatter central portion.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 15:06:29 GMT -6
I cannot recall ever seeing a ship on TP status show up for a battle in a player-controlled force except during raider interceptions, and if you keep the ships on RF/MB status in peacetime they shouldn't show up for a start-of-war engagement that isn't a surprise attack, either.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 13:54:46 GMT -6
1 inch turret face and top is extremely low for a triple 6 inch gun(and asking for a flash fire to happen, hell even splinters will disable those guns), and you have to consider that adding turrets instead of using autoloading increases the potential for an enemy hit on magazines/turrets so using auto loafers also help you reduce the chance of flash fires indirectly Firepower over protection is a valid choice - or at the very least an entirely historically plausible one - for a small cruiser, especially considering that the computer seems somewhat fond of heavy cruisers armed with 8", 9", or 10" guns and armoring a small cruiser against such weapons probably isn't practical anyways.
Also, if you want to bring up the likelihood of a flashfire or magazine explosion occuring, remember that the likelihood of such events occurring to one of your ships is influenced by the number of hits you expect your ship to sustain in the engagement. All else being equal, increasing firepower reduces expected engagement duration, which in turn reduces the number of hits you expect your ship to receive during the engagement. Increasing number of guns per salvo probably increases the expected number of hits scored on the enemy per salvo, which in turn should increase the likelihood of scoring debilitating hits (disable/destroy a turret, knock out radar/fire control, wipe out the bridge crew, etc), thereby reducing the expected number of hits your ship will sustain in an engagement of a given duration. Therefore, adding more guns in more turrets can reduce the likelihood of a flashfire or magazine explosion despite the increased probability of a hit finding a magazine or turret when the magazines are larger and the turrets and magazines more numerous.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 12:52:54 GMT -6
What would you all think about having an escort carrier class added to the game? Probably a war-time only short build cycle like AMCs. The battle generator could add them to convoy and coastal defense missions and they would have decent ASW value. I'm not aware of any particular reason why a CVE should perform better in an ASW role than a CVL with a similar air group would, so if by a 'decent ASW value' you mean something better than what a similar CVL would have then I'm against that. CVEs are good for ASW work because they're just about big enough and fast enough (at least with catapults) to operate an adequate air group for the task while being much cheaper and more expendable than 'proper' CVLs or CVs, not because they're somehow inherently better at it than the more expensive carriers.
As to the suggestion of adding a specific class for it, I'm not against that, but I also don't see much point to doing so; you can already build small, slow, unarmored CVLs if you want a cheap disposable carrier to put on TP during a war.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 12:11:56 GMT -6
Do you find them useful?
I have just invented them and looking to add them to my new 4800 tons small cruiser but it seems to me that they are too heavy to be useful.
I consider the primary use cases for autoloaders to be on DP guns and on ships where adding more guns becomes undesirable or impossible before paying the costs for autoloaders does. If your 4,800t cruiser is primarily an escort for larger vessels and its main battery is a DP battery, then I'd consider using autoloaders on it - one of the main things that it's there to defend against is air attack, autoloaders seem to increase HAA factor by about 50% for 4" or 5" guns and by about 75% for 6" guns, and unless you have a very small main battery you'll probably see a larger increase in HAA factor from autoloaders than from a similar tonnage invested into more guns. If, on the other hand, your 4,800t cruiser is primarily for covering a colonial station or for trade protection, then I'd be more inclined to instead just add more guns or reduce the size of the ship.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 10:46:27 GMT -6
does it mean that each time you approved installation of advanced directors to next ship AI creates another "class" even if the modification was same? That is what the game did, yes - the ship commissioned in 1927 was of the (R 1927), the ship commissioned in 1928 was of the (R 1928), the ship commissioned in 1929 was of the (R 1929), and the ship commissioned in 1931 was of the (R 1931) refit classes. It's dependent upon when the modification is approved, not when the ship is completed - it is theoretically possible to have every ship in a class reach the point where the game asks to fit the best available fire control in, approve it, and then have to delay completion for a very long time, and in such a case you'd have the ships of the class commissioning at very different times but all being of the same refit class.
Also, in Rule the Waves v1.34b1 the game would normally use the same refit class even if the later ships of the class only reached the point where the game would give you the option to fit a newer fire control system on a year or two after the earlier ships of the class.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 10:00:19 GMT -6
How this can happen? I understand that after developing Advanced directors game offers upgrade during construction making another "class". But how you get the 2 others being each new classes as only change of FC can offer change during construction. The four ships commissioned in 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1931, and the game gave each one its own refit class. As I said, three of the ships were delayed by post-war budget cuts and economic troubles.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 18, 2019 9:40:16 GMT -6
Am I correct, that these events impact all the ships in the class (build to the same design without any alterations)? Yes. I had a class of four fast battleships laid down in one game which commissioned as four separate refit classes because I developed Advanced Directors while they were building and a combination of post-war budget cuts and economic troubles meant I had to drag the construction times on the last three ships out for quite a bit of time. The lead ship exceeded its design speed and so made 28 knots in service, the second ship of the class failed to make its design speed and so made 26 knots in service, and the other two ships of the class performed as designed and so made 27 knots in service.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 17, 2019 16:35:53 GMT -6
What is your experience? I have now playthrough that I get this report. I have not checked the class and after 5 years in battle I find that ship max. speed is 31 knots - the same as designed speed. She has no refit till battle. The ships that I recall having had exceed their design speeds on trials have all gotten an extra knot over their design speeds in service.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 17, 2019 15:01:26 GMT -6
According to the v1.03 patch notes, CLs should be able to displace up to 12,000 tons starting in 1940.
Most probably they are incorrectly reported to you, they are still in the construction phase and in any case the game mechanics allow for incorrect reports about enemy ships regarding speed, tonnage etc I've never seen the Almanac incorrectly report a ship's displacement.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 17, 2019 10:48:59 GMT -6
Nope,and now you mention it there's no resign button either, or a save button. I suspect that the resign / save / end turn buttons are just off the bottom of the screen. Perhaps try changing your screen resolution?
If your computer selects buttons in the same order that mine does, you can also try clicking on the 'Messages' button, closing the pop-up message, and hitting tab one/two/three times to select Resign/Save/End Turn, then hitting Enter/Return.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 17, 2019 10:13:53 GMT -6
Historically 15in weren't the norm for ships allowed to be retained under the WNT either. Not across all powers, true. On the other hand, for Britain specifically they were - 13 of the 22 ships Britain was allowed to retain until the completion of Nelson and Rodney were armed with 15" guns while the other nine were armed with 13.5" guns; once Nelson and Rodney completed, four of the ships armed with 13.5" guns were to be scrapped.
As to the other powers: - Japan: Of ten ships, eight were armed with 356mm (14") and two with 410mm (16.1") guns. - Italy: Of ten ships, ten were armed with 305mm (12") guns. - France: Of ten ships, seven were armed with 305mm (12") and three with 340mm (13.4") guns.
- USA: Of eighteen ships, six were armed with 12", eleven with 14", and one with 16" guns; upon completion of two additional ships armed with 16" guns, the two smallest (and oldest) ships armed with 12" guns were to be scrapped, for four ships armed with 12", eleven with 14", and three with 16" guns.
Across all the powers, that'd be 23 (21) ships armed with 12", 12 (8) with 13.5", 19 with 14", 13 with 15", and 3 (7) with 16" guns. (Numbers in parenthesis are numbers after ships under construction are completed and older ships scrapped accordingly.) It should also be mentioned that of the 23 (21) ships armed with 12" guns, seven (three French and four Italian) were semidreadnought battleships, so if you're only counting dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers it'd only be 16 (14) ships armed with 12" guns, of which only 6 (4) belonged to any of the top three powers (more specifically, to the USA).
I personally don't mind a bit of variation from historical numbers, but it's certainly a bit weird to see as great a preponderance of ships armed with 12" guns as is somewhat frequently the case in the 1920 start's legacy fleets even for the top three.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jul 16, 2019 22:05:33 GMT -6
Large probably works out best if you want approximately the WNT-mandated numbers and aggregate tonnage at game start; Very Large probably works out best if you assume that the ships scrapped in the early 1920s - whether in compliance with the WNT or before - are still in service at game start and the various powers have the rest of the 1920s to cut the fleet down to the treaty limits. Note that the computer fairly consistently scraps ships at ~20 years in service, so most of the old predreadnought and semidreadnought battleships in the 1920 legacy fleet will probably be gone by 1925 and the older dreadnoughts will likely follow c.1930.
As to the prevalence of ships armed with 12" guns, my feeling is that the fleet generator typically leans a bit too heavily towards the lighter calibers, but the legacy fleet generation can give fairly decent distributions of calibers in service. For example: Other than the nine American and eight British pre-/semi-dreadnought battleships, which I consider irrelevant, these are the battle fleets of the various powers at the start of a 1920 France game that I recently began. If I haven't overlooked anything or miscounted, that's two 15", nine 14", six 13", two 12", and six 11" dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers for the US (plus two 16" battlecruisers under construction); ten 15", four 14", seventeen 12", and four 11" dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers for Britain (plus a 15" battleship and a 16" battlecruiser under construction); four 15", two 14", two 13", four 12", and seven 11" dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers for Japan (plus a 12" battlecruiser under construction); thirteen 12" dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers for Italy (plus a 16" battlecruiser under construction); and nine 13", ten 12", and four 11" dreadnought/superdreadnought battleships and battlecruisers for France (plus two 16" battleships under construction). Overall, a fairly reasonable distribution of calibers across the fleets of each power, though the dates in service are a bit odd and the choice of a 12" battlecruiser for Japan's new construction is a bit suspect.
|
|