|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 27, 2023 8:59:21 GMT -6
Flying boats are fine, but not always they are available. I'd like to be able to set a series of waypoints for the carrier planes I send out on reconnaissance missions, in order to reinforce the reconnaissance done by my task force's AI (one plane per 20 degree sector). The simple round trip system to a target, as stated in the RTW2 manual, seems rather simplistic to me.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 27, 2023 0:52:50 GMT -6
It's 1950. My cruisers no longer embark floatplanes, preferring to be equipped with AA guns, also because in the fleet there is a good number of both heavy and light aircraft carriers. At the beginning of a scenario, invariably, both in the case that 100 TBs are available and when I only have 12, the AI lets 6 TBs take off, which should explore immense sea spaces. What could I do to improve my aerial reconnaissance? Thanks for any clarification or suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 19, 2023 13:17:01 GMT -6
Playing as Confederate States is a tough task. But making it even more difficult, in my current game, is the fact that in 1948 it is not possible for the brave Confederates to build air bases capable of more than 40 aircraft. And this happens despite of years of research at the 120% level. Is it a bug?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 17, 2023 1:47:11 GMT -6
I often prefer a BC with good protection and 2x4 13" or 14" quality 1 all forward, similar to the French Dunkerques. Deadly in the pursuit and fast enough to flee too.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 15, 2023 3:00:16 GMT -6
In the movements that preceded the night battle of Matapan, the Italian destroyers found themselves behind the cruisers, with fatal consequences for the latter. Among the reasons given for this violation of the navigation rules at night was the difficulty of reaching the head of the formation after a 180° change of direction.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 10, 2023 1:01:24 GMT -6
The names of the submarine aces are quite well known. Less known are the names of motor torpedo boat aces. To contribute to a classification, still to be done, I propose first of all Luigi Rizzo, who in WW1 sank the superdreadnought Szent Istvan with his MAS 15 on June 10th 1918. This is why today is also Italian Navy Day. Six months earlier, Rizzo had sunk the battleship Wien. For these two feats of arms he was called "Lo Affondatore" (i.e. The man who sank everything). Then I add Franco Mezzadra, who with his MS22 caused the sinking of the cruiser Manchester during WW2. I could also add Giorgio Manuti, who could have contributed with his MS16, companion of the MS22, because, according to some sources, a torpedo from his MTB also hit HMS Manchester. Joined here you will find the silhouettes, all in the same scale, of the ships sunk by those Italian MTB aces.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 6, 2023 9:55:45 GMT -6
In the screens on ships in service and under construction it could be useful - especially when playing with extra large fleets - to add a column in which the anti-aircraft value is reported, as is the case for the anti-submarine warfare value
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 4, 2023 13:31:39 GMT -6
In a recent AAR I noticed the incorrect name of Battle of Cape Tuelada instead of Teulada (also, in Italian: Capo Spartivento, which marks the eastern limit of the gulf of Teulada)
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 1, 2023 14:06:05 GMT -6
The assumption of wlbjork seems reasonable to me for one type of aircraft, but not for two different types of aircraft. Also, the range shouldn't decrease when going from medium to heavy load.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 1, 2023 5:17:45 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?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 28, 2023 6:33:16 GMT -6
I always try to have a request going, mainly for the same reason as above - it gives me more shots at planes with good stats plus good reliability. If a nation has a large aeronautical industry it should be able to develop several types of aircraft at the same time. The development of one type at a time by, say, the USA in the 1940s seemed to me one of RTW2's minor flaws.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 27, 2023 6:54:33 GMT -6
I state that I haven't purchased RTW3 yet and that I'm not very interested in the technicalities. What I would really like is more realism, compared to RTW2. Just to give some examples. The smoke screens and the presence of rain showers were important in various episodes of WW2 (2nd battle of Sirte, Leyte gulf, etc.), making it possible for the weaker party to get the better of a more powerful opponent. In RTW2 as soon as a ship enters the port it leaves the game, however it is not clear why it is not possible to go out to sea again to take advantage of any changes in the situation, for example to conduct a night raid against transport ships engaged in a landing. Ditto for theoretically available ships, some of which could be "activated", as in Steam and Iron game (SAI), in emergency conditions. In Italy, the decision not to let the new and not yet tested BBs Vittorio Veneto and Littorio into the sea during the first phase of the battle of Calabria was much criticized by some. In RTW2 we can find ourselves forced to carry out a coastal bombardment without having the slightest idea of what the weather will be or even the estimated time of arrival on the enemy coast. This contrasts with the careful planning of operations, depending on the weather, in which the Royal Navy excelled in the Mediterranean. In RTW2 I find the mostly inconclusive actions following raider interceptions very boring; however it is good not to leave these minor clashes completely entrusted to the AI and therefore one must be patient. I hope that in RTW3 this aspect is improved. I also wish that those suggestions about a greater variety of random events had been implemented, as well as the choice of more realistic images than those that appear in RTW2 (for example, that of a Polish general appears while on the contrary we are talking about the aggressive policies of, say, Japan).
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 26, 2023 3:16:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 15, 2023 5:28:27 GMT -6
In general I would prefer that such "national characteristics" not be fixed once and for all, but that they could vary from one game to another, or over the years, so that admirals of a nation who appear "cautious" in a certain occasion, may surprise us with their aggressiveness on a subsequent occasion and viceversa.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 20, 2023 2:07:51 GMT -6
I may have missed something from the previous discussions, but prior to the use of wireless aboard warships (around the time of the RJW), the main use of the smaller ships of the fleet (besides TB due to limited range) was to deliver messages from shore to ship and vice versa and between flagship and other vessels. I still don't quite understand how this aspect is covered in RTW3. Please note: together with the peculiarities of sailing, solving this problem in the game would pave the way towards simulating naval campaigns in the age of sail. Future Admiral Nelsons, step forward!
|
|