|
Post by trenton59 on Aug 2, 2020 15:23:06 GMT -6
I like the idea of Admiral's Mode, but I find the moments of Artificial Idiocy to be too frustrating. Instead, I play on Captain's mode and keep most ships on AI control - then take manual control when the AI decides to do something dumb. Minimizes the amount of micro-managing, but also prevents those moments when you wanna yank your hair out. Same here.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jun 21, 2020 14:48:05 GMT -6
I've only ever seen TBs Level bomb and fighters glide bomb as well.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on May 17, 2020 15:20:47 GMT -6
Why stop at 5"? If the gun weighs less than the rest of the ship, you're undergunned. 29" is a minimum, and a full meter caliber is what you *really* want on a corvette. Sadly the game has a gun limit for Corvette making 5" the max. 4" is a common Corvette gun so if up gunning a dreadnought makes is a super dreadnought then the 5" "little friends" are super corvettes! I mean really, I think you could put an 8" gun on that tonnage. You'd want some catamaran out riggers to deal with how much the ship tilts on firing. If you want heavy guns on corvette sized ships, the British fit 9.2" guns to the M15 class monitors, which were only 540 tons, so too small to even build in peacetime. Admittedly I'm not sure how well such a ship would survive firing its weapons, but they built 14 and only lost 4 so presumably the recoil didn't tear them apart or cause them to capsize.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Apr 8, 2020 16:24:06 GMT -6
I've noticed the same, I think only in a save where I updated mid-game though, sadly don't have that one anymore to check.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Feb 2, 2020 10:56:35 GMT -6
One note as to historical calibers, the British used a 16.25"/30 gun in the 1880's, and the Italians used a 17"/26 gun in the same period, both were quite low velocity in comparison to later guns, but they did exist.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 17, 2020 7:15:55 GMT -6
Also, after one or two nations get a tech, it becomes easier for the others to get it, either through trade or spying, this can speed up the overall rate of development a fair bit.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 17, 2020 7:10:23 GMT -6
from what I've seen, you don't need to put cruisers on TP for anti raider work, but if you do they seem to be more effective at it.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 14, 2020 16:04:05 GMT -6
yup, OTOH there is something to be said about ramming and subs, looking at RMS Olympic and a number of RN destroyers (not included glowworm cuz it was mostly an accidental ramming) Don't forget HMS Dreadnought as well!
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 11, 2020 16:56:34 GMT -6
For "immunity" against shell fire, it is best to remember that there is really no such thing, even a 90,000 ton battleship with maxed out late game armor can be sunk with enough 2" shells. Even if they do not penetrate the ships armor, every shell in the game has at least some high explosive filler, and will do some damage to the ships superstructure and hull, and can start fires, which is a common way to sink battleships early on, just pelting them with enough HE to burn them to a cinder.
As for HMS Majestic, that is the maximum, but below decks the barbettes had only 7" of armor, while the actual gunhouses were at most 10", this is also a fairly early armor steel, so it is thicker than later ships would use for the same level of protection. It averages to ~12.6" thick.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 11, 2020 16:35:35 GMT -6
A start in ~1860 would be nice, but I imagine the furthest back you could push the start without reworking a large part of the engine would be ~1880-1890 so as to avoid needing to handle sailing ships too much.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 7, 2020 20:43:27 GMT -6
I think the important part is that the torpedoes cease to exist after the aircraft is stood down, not if it is historical or not for them to be taken off the planes, but rather that at present when you tell a torpedo squadron to stand down without leaving the carrier, they proceed to throw the torpedoes overboard.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Jan 7, 2020 20:36:37 GMT -6
For your main question, that is exactly how it works.
For nr 1: the only tech that is like that to my knowledge is oil firing, where more time and machinery tech improves the weight reduction compared to coal fired engines. As for nr 2: As far as I know, the benefits are only for new designs, but you can make a new design from the old one with no changes and get 90% savings on cost, if we are talking armor quality for example, or minor changes for weight saving techs for less of a cost/time reduction.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 7, 2019 8:17:46 GMT -6
One important factor that seems to be getting overlooked by a few is that UA:D is very much not complete at the moment, it is still in a fairly early Alpha state with a full release date 6-12 months away, so a lot is likely to change before the proper release.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 6, 2019 12:26:34 GMT -6
To build a game like UA:D probably required a 20 to 30 person team working over 18 to 24 months. RTW2 was programmed, and the vast majority of graphics were produced, by one man. One man that listens very closely to what you guys want and tries very hared to provide that. Unfortunately, 3D graphics are just not on the table. ^ The above is very true, for all that may be said about the lack of flashy graphics and similar, I have rarely seen a developer that listens to the players as much as in RTW, nor one as willing to explain when someone asks a question, or has a problem. That more than makes up for any differences or minor faults.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 5, 2019 8:45:55 GMT -6
People keep saying that, but how expensive? Can we put a number on it? (Even a rough one would do). If ultimate admiral is anything to go by, $25 US basic pre-order, $50 for immediate early access. Edit: So about the same as RTW itself, or less than a AAA title on average.
|
|