|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2023 9:35:48 GMT -6
If you rebuild a ship with triple turrets 6" or larger, you can replace them with double turrets of a different size, but you aren't allowed to replace them with double turrets of the same size. So if I have a ship with triple 6" turrets, I can change them to double 4", 5", 7", or 8", but not to double 6" (unless I rebuilt it to double 8" first, I guess). The error message is something about not being able to change guns per turret, but it doesn't really make sense when the game does let me change the guns per turret from 3x6" to 2x8". It seems like you should be free to reduce the number of guns in a turret, the restriction on adding new 6" or larger guns in double turrets should only come into play if there wasn't a larger turret in the same position already. This is correct, you can change turrets to another ones but only with same barbette. So the double 6" turrets will weight almost same to fit same barbette. ;-) And you cannot use your standard double turrets which will complicate things further. For that reason game allows only replacing turrets with similar needs for barbette so either more guns with lower caliber or less guns with larger caliber.
It is always much better remove one of your turrets completely.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2023 9:26:14 GMT -6
I posted this over on Matrix not sure how many of the same people are here. "I'm 100% guessing, but it's possible that what's driving people nuts may be that both the "Destroyers launch torpedo" logic and the "oh dang that destroyer might launch" logic are making the exact same calculations. That leads to the AI knowing it only needs to evade when there's a high probability a torpedo is in the water, otherwise it can roll along fat dumb and happy. As soon as a destroyer enters launch parameters, that by default means the AI target knows it's in the same launch parameters... thus a perception that it's got some special knowledge and is avoiding the *actual* torpedoes." Basically, if both AI actions (launch and evasion) use the same algorithm, there's no conservatism (extra unneeded evasion) or risk taking and poor judgement (failure to evade) built into the AI's digital helmsmen. They will always evade only when they need to. Frederick and WilliamMiller have long stated (since RTW1 release or so... ) that there's nothing in the code giving the AI an inherent advantage, and given how open and engaged they are regarding just about everything I see no reason to believe otherwise. No one says they programmed the AI to cheat on purpose. But the fact is that the amount of BS hitscans is just mindblowing. I mean, my DD flotilla can perform an attack from an advantageous firing position against enemy dreadnoughts, only to leave with 0 torpedo hits, and 2 of my DDs getting torped by freakin dreadnoughts. If that happened once per save file, or once per war, or once per year, I would not really care. But it happens in at least HALF of all battles. My BC gets closer than 10 000 yards to enemy BB? Torpedo hit. No matter how fast I go or how much I maneuver. My CL gets 6000yds away from an enemy CL? Torpedo hit. My DD flotilla swarms an enemy DD flotilla resulting in a very close range combat? 5 torpedo hits for the enemy, 0 for me. My flotilla sends a wave of 20 torpedoes at 5000yds at night into enemy battle line? 0 hits, at least on the enemy side, because one of my DDs got hit by a freakin underwater launcher on an early dreadnought. Right now I just don´t play the game, as it is generally just infuriating cycle of try, get bullshitted, restart the game, try again, get bullshitted again in a slightly different way... If your DDs are hit from CLs, you are clearly not advategous position as the difference in speed between DD and torpedo is not high. It have never happened to me to have DDs in advantegous position and get torpedoed.
If you really see same cases, please provide save ....
I get quite regular torpedo hits during night without any problem but bear in mind that 3 % hit probability and even less is nothing wrong. AI can have higher hit rates than you if you play more offensively/agreesively than cautions AI, which most players including me do.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 6, 2023 10:36:34 GMT -6
Inventions in shells (AP projectiles, Explosives shells) have effect immediately, not when ship is designed. So older ships have not older shells but up to date shells. This is not case of armour, as ships has armour quality at time of design.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 5, 2023 3:39:52 GMT -6
RTW3 seems overall to be more strict than RTW2 about what designs it will accept. E.g. I recently tried to build a CL whose main armament was 4x8" in twin turrets. The system wouldn't allow this, so I had to drop the calibre to 7". In RTW2 4x8" would've been fine. I wish there was an "override" button to some of the limits. I know the AI may get confused as to how HMS Wtaf should be deployed and behave in action but the player making odd choices is not really an issue in a determinedly single player game. 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.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2023 8:50:20 GMT -6
I have tried battlecruisers out of balance of triangle firepower / protection / speed and the best service I get from ships which sacrifice some firepower eg. 31 knots, high protection of level of battleship and than just 3x2xcaliber of battleship or 3x3x11". The first one has just smaller firepower, perfect for finishing damaged ships or slowing down enemy ships, the second one is good for slowing down enemy to be catch your main forces.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2023 6:47:29 GMT -6
Thank you for the interesting links (I did not know the first), but I would like to know what type of armour my RTW3 ship has. For example, if I gain a research progress to Harvey or Krupp armour and I laid down a new ship of the same class of another ship that I am building, I suppose that the two “equal” ships will have different armour, so different protection value (as in the historical case, for example Japanese AC Asama/Tokiwa and near sister Idzumo). I would like to ask that, if feasible, the game system could label these differences. To spoke freely, the labels could be even useful in later decades, when there were a number of progress in krupp armour. Armour quality of the whole class is at time you design a ship. After design is completed you can make changes and if better armour is developed and you do changes to your original design, than your updated design has best armour available. After that all your ships of that class have same components including quality of armour.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 3, 2023 6:43:31 GMT -6
So 10-inches of armor for an 1890 start before development of Harvey steel is equivalent to approx 7-inches of Krupp (then presumably approx 8.5 inches after you gain Harvey, but obviously only on newly built ships), but the gun penetration tables are always given in Krupp equivalents regardless of your current armor development level? I.e. you can only really trust your immune zone information once you have Krupp armor developed? Penetration table gives you penetration of your actual AP shells vs. your actual armour technology.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 2, 2023 11:09:29 GMT -6
In a recent game, during the selection of a new type of torpedo bomber, I was offered two types both of which had a heavy load equal to the medium one (see attached image). Is this a bug? View AttachmentI would suggest to update to the last 1.26 patch.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 31, 2023 2:14:42 GMT -6
During the hunt of Bismarck, Swordfishes attacked shadowing cruisers instead of Bismarck. In the Mediterranean, British were amused by friendly attacks by Italian bombers and if I remember well it was not only once. So it is quite realistic.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 30, 2023 4:02:09 GMT -6
AoN is certaily lighter than sloped deck with same thickness. Look into the manual, you can clerly sea that the slope is longer than flat horizontal armour.
In RTW3 you can have BE and DE with AoN.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 29, 2023 10:47:37 GMT -6
Currently Germany can automatically block the passage between the Baltic and North Sea during war. This greatly damage the playing experience of Russia since they have no way to counter such blockade——all of their new build ship were created in Baltic, but blockade area is North Europe. Why the control over Denish strait was not a something that you can fight for? Two of four important water body being automatically block is very unfair for Russia, and since they can't build any ships in Barents/Black Sea/Far East, having Baltic automatically blockade by Germany is more problematic than it would be in real life. It is geographical reality of Russia. But you can in advance station fleet in Northern Sea but you are still limiting to the fact that your industrial base to build new ships is in Baltic.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 28, 2023 16:39:34 GMT -6
The reasons for lacking torpedo boats at 1890 start is that torpedo boats at that time was for coast defense only. As operational part is more abstracted in RTW3 as there are not dedicated ships for coastal protection, lacking torpedo boats is best solution.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 28, 2023 12:58:31 GMT -6
What can happen though is you skip a tech or two, get stuck on a tech that's like 8 years ahead of time that you can't build points for and end up throwing money down the drain, then you end up a way behind when you finally do get it. It is true but not only for player but AI too. And it is realistic, some inventions took time, some thought took time before being adapted. Think about Germany and Bismarck without dedicated dual-purpose heavy AA battery, Germany having all centerline main turrets after Kaiser class, similar with Royal Navy building several classes of dreadnoughts before all centerline ones. Similar to fire control, all nations were quite behind compared to what has Royal Navy. Before WW2 Germany was leading in area of radar development but several key personnel were shortsighted loosing this advantage and through the war combination of UK and USA research and industry might put them far ahead of others.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 28, 2023 10:12:30 GMT -6
It is delayed and will be available later. However it can be delayed a little more, which is normal as some nations really needs more time to get some invention which was not easy to copy.
It is not working exactly how you describe. I have looked at that some time ago, but if I remember well, there is always chance that next item will be the first from skipped inventions.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 28, 2023 10:00:10 GMT -6
Ok rant time. There is no way the AI does not know when a torpedo is actually launched and where it is going, not just when it might be. In my last two wars, using oxygen fueled torpedoes, I got fewer than 5 torpedo hits over dozens of battles on non-dead ships, because torpedoes after 1920 are almost useless other than a "please turn away from me" sign. 1) I don't know how many times the AI brazenly maintained course when spreads aimed at them managed to bracket them perfectly but not hit, either launched abeam of them at close range or straight down their line crossing the T. 2) Meanwhile I have seen dozens of times 20kt dreadnoughts elegantly weaving back and forth when a torpedo would have actually hit them. 3) AI will maintain a steady course parallel to you for many minutes while you have a good firing solution, and immediately turn away as soon as you order torpedoes fired. 4) The AI maintain a steady course when a torpedo is on track for a direct hit if the one torpedo in the spread that would have hit runs out of steam just before reaching the target. 5) All of the above are so reliable that I have gotten used to launching torpedoes to direct enemy movement, because it will almost always make them immediately turn away when they otherwise wouldn't. Manual fired torpedoes are deadly 1905-1915 because often the AI has no time to react (often less than 1 minute). Once torpedo ranges increase and speeds increase they are almost useless because there is no roll, no chance the AI does not react to incoming torpedoes immediately and make the perfect maneuvers. The AI knows when a torpedo could be launched, and always assumes one is, they're extreme cautious with taking torpedo hits. It is but completely in line with thinking at that time, Admirals were quite worry torpedo attacks. You can see it even in Jutland as Jellicoe turned away.
|
|