|
Post by srndacful on Jun 7, 2023 6:42:19 GMT -6
No wonder: You're probably taking standard displacement as the basis of your ships - but RtW ships' displacement is actually fully-loaded displacement (i.e. with crew, fuel, stores and weapons aboard) So, a Fletcher has a 2500 tons at full load - that one might fit better.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 22, 2023 22:11:38 GMT -6
No "strategy" thread yet? I´m the first one? I feel honored ;-)
In RTW2 my main strategy is a combined fleet of some fast CAs/BCs and a big number of DD flotillas - they chew up every battle line with ease (captains mode). CLs I only use for Foreign Stations, mainly to get them out of the way - so my CAs/BCs show up in every single cruiser battle.
Now in the 1890 start DDs are not yet available. What to do? I found a surprisingly well working substitute in small torpedo CLs (2500 ts, 22 knts, 6TTs, some 4" guns, armor 1" only). During the first years they can be handled like a DD flotilla, with the bonus of reloading torpedos during battle. It is real fun to drive them through a battle line, firing torps in all directions.
From 1900 on 500 ts DDs get available, then these CLs should be scrapped. Otherwise they tend to explode in battle, as soon as the enemy guns get a little better...
What you are describing is (literally) a diluted version of a 1890's Torpedo Boat attack and it's devastating effectiveness that (historically) led to the development of the cruiser screen and (Torpedo Boat) Destroyer ship type - both of which currently (in game) appear as if from nowhere, since there isn't a single TB in sight. Historically, you could build 50 TB's (with a 100 torpedoes) for the price of a single Battleship (France basically stopped building Battleships to get over 300 of them) - naturally, their short range means that they'll have to be spread out in order to make sure they participate in any battle (so you'll get only about half a dozen of those 50 - one of the reasons Destroyers are more popular) but hey - even a single torpedo hit will sink a battleship, meaning they'll pay for themselves pretty soon. You could think of them as 1890's version of 1930's Bombers (i.e. before AA Cruisers and radar-guided CAP were developed (sounds kinda like cruiser sceeen and Destroyers, doesn't it)) - with no effective defence, you can only watch as they come in - and pray to God they don't blow up anything important. Edit: also, unlike planes, these guys could (and did) attack at night - which only made them infinitely more scary.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 21, 2023 10:13:02 GMT -6
... I've got SSM Boats and Shore Missile Batteries instead of Motor Torpedo Boats and Gun Batteries now too so good luck running in against my shoreline at night guys. Can you provide an account as to how they're working out for you thus far?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 21:55:21 GMT -6
... Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare. I think this is all fair enough over the relatively short timeframe of the the original RTW, but now we're dealing with 80 years in which entire nations underwent massive transformations, and none of their fortunes were preordained. Obviously it shouldn't be possible to transform a semi-peripheral country into a superpower overnight, but there should be room for significant evolution over the course of a full-length game from 1890 to 1970. Also, as far as I'm concerned, in RTW we inhabit a world where the fortunes of nations are decided at sea, much more so than in our historical experience. If the player is winning battles, controlling the sea lanes, seizing new bases and colonial outposts, all of that should have some influence on the wealth and fortunes of his nation. It should at least nudge the trends of development in a certain direction, in my opinion. To be fair: fortunes of nations were always decided at sea - and still are, really. Most of the cargo transport goes by sea (as it's the cheapest option per ton of cargo carried) - and cargo generates revenue - which is, at the end of the day, the reason we fight. So ... not really all that different from our historical experience. Yeah, national modifiers should be able to change - we could nudge them along, naturally, but the process should still be slow, difficult and random. If you ask me, we should also include all the aspects of the actual trade into the game: List of all the goods available (and their effects on gameplay) - the amounts of supply and demand - merchant ships to carry the stuff - price of each item determined by the demand-to-supply ratio. All of it should, naturally, be automated - but at least we'd have stuff like: "Due to abundance/lack of iron ore, ship construction will be cheaper/costlier by x%" or: "Coal/oil is abundant/lacking: the costs of running the ships has gone down/up by x%" Then, of course, come in the taxes, government expenditure on army, air force and basic schools and stuff like that. All of it, naturally, automated, so the player has minimal interaction with the whole thing - except keeping sea lanes open, that is. Naturally, this will be a bitch to implement, so I'm not expecting fredrik and the team to implement any of it all that soon (if at all) but still - it's nice to dream.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 7:52:41 GMT -6
To me, the entire meaning of those modifiers is that they are national - i.e. they're applied on the whole nation: not just officers (and crew) but on engineers, scientists, farmers and workers as well. So 'fixing' a flaw requires fixing it on a national level - and that's not a level we're playing at here.
I'd say fredrik and the team are already lax enough in their application: For me, a flaw (or bonus) should be applied over all of the possible things it may effect: so, for example, having some corruption means not only a chance that some money might disappear from your bank account - but also paying more for the ship (those spare parts just keep going missing) but also for food, ammo and fuel ("10% goes straight into your private bank account if you choose my company to supply them")
Poor education, to me, means not only less research, but lower quality officers and crew (and, perhaps, shipbuilders and engineers) - along with (possibly) higher cost on just about everything.
Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 12, 2023 8:27:48 GMT -6
Also, does anybody know what's the status of the various Missile Boats? Can they be built in RtW3?
For reference: I'm talking about 200 to 300 ton ship with top speed of about 35 to 40 knots, no armour, perhaps a 2 or 3 inch gun and 4 to 8 SSMs.
Edit: so, that one's obviously a no.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 11, 2023 22:22:09 GMT -6
cormallen : Since KE's can now have an active role in naval battles, I'd say we'll see a lot less of those 'gamey' designs. Actually, we might even see a rise in 'small war' actions - which would give us more battles to fight - and that's always nice. TheOtherPoster : I was disappointed about Torpedo Boats, too - especially since they still persist with the screen formation in 1890, which, in the absence of anything to be screened against, is about as useful as udders on a snake. What is puzzling to me, however, is that this problem has a really simple solution: Just add the ability to mount fixed, forward-facing, above-water torpedo tubes to KE's and DD's. Naturally, I don't know how much of a programming challenge that is going to be - but, whether single-shot or reloadable (or both), they will still let us build the torpedo gunboats and early DD's. Speaking of which: now that we have divisions (and, therefore, simplified management of the large amounts of ships) this solution would also be the perfect time to introduce the Torpedo Boats as real ships: Call 'em proto-DD's and introduce them right at the start (with a 200 ton limit, perhaps?) Sure, there'll be a ton of them, and the players might not be all that inclined to all the micromanagement - but now that we have divisions, that part is out of the picture anyways. Hell, it certainly beats that awkward fiddling with "MTB flotillas as Coastal Fortifications" - and making it work as an exception to the rule. FFS, I've lost count of how many times I had DD's miss the battle because they didn't have the necessary range - TB's would be even worse: you'd literally have to be right next to a port - which is, again, how they were used historically. And at least now we'd have people understand why the screens and DD's needed to be built - once they sh!t their pants seeing 10s of TB's (with 40s of torpedoes) approaching their precious battleships - knowing full well what'll happen if just one of those torps hits. Who knows? We might even convert a few to the pleasures of Jeune Ecole. *insert evil chuckle here*
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 11, 2023 8:17:02 GMT -6
If player can build their fleet in 1890, player will smash AI as AI is forced to generate sub par ships as most ships in 1890 were from ironclad era, inefficient armour schemes, obsolete guns etc. Well, of course: 1890 is ironclad era. (I presumed the player will be forced to construct ironclads as well) Pre-dreadnoughts began to be built in 1892 (Royal Sovereigns) [or '95 (Majestics) - depending on who you ask] - which is well into the 1890 start - and they had, basically, the same effect on ironclads as the Dreadnoughts had on them 13 years later: rendered them absolutely obsolete. Besides, we already have player-designed navies in 1900 start: and I don't see any problems there ... unless I'm missing something? cormallen: "Also, one of the intended uses for an 1890 start was to allow players to better setup their 1900-era fleets using in-game play."... well, damn - I haven't even thought about that! Okay, then - I might just give it a go. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 10, 2023 22:22:54 GMT -6
Well, cormallen , blarglol and TheOtherPoster- you know what they say: when you're at the bottom - there's no way to go but up. I've been watching as many YouTube videos as I can, and as far as I can tell: 1. Officers and their assignment minigame is going to be a ton of fun 2. Divisions and their assignments are, basically, godsent 3. I did not expect to like the new ship graphics as much as I did 4. Not having seen any missiles yet, I'm not sure how I'll like them - but I'm certainly up for trying - especially after reading wlbjork 's post 5. 1935 start lets me play with aircraft right off the bat On the other hand, 1890 start is such a disappointment that I don't think I'll even try it. To me, it's so obviously a 1900 start with a new coat of paint slapped on, that I'll just go ahead and play from 1900 instead. I mean, sure - I'll be watching like a hawk for any improvements to it - but, as it stands right now, it's got more holes than the designer jeans the kids are wearing nowadays. All in all: I'm in - see you May 18th!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 21:52:04 GMT -6
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time. What difference does it make? What's in a name? It is a minelaying vessel. The larger it is, the more mines it can carry and maybe the faster it can move. It can also perform other functions like move troops. I like verssatility in my vessels. Oh yeah - I see where you're confused now: (and thanks, beagle - that is what I'm talking about) I'm not saying that you shouldn't have minelaying vessels - because you definitely should - I'm saying that you do not need to build specialised minelayers when you can use your front-line DD's and CL's for the job - which I regularly do. Unless there is a feature in the game which I don't know about? More minefields placed or something? Do those mines on the DD's and CL's get placed at all? Now I'm confused ... help? Please? williammiller ?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 10:56:41 GMT -6
...././ 3. Dedicated minelayers are nearly useless: We already have AMC's, DD's and CL's capable of laying mines - adding KE's to the mix is overkill. I would disagree with this statemenmt. Here is a link to a valuable dedicated minelayer. They are useful for many other purposes and are very valuable for the Mediterranean, North Sea and the Baltic. Basically, any enclosed sea like the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Caspian Sea and the Adriatic. There are more.
If you'd care to take a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mine_warfare_vessels_of_World_War_II you'll see that Abdiels are listed as minelaying cruisers - as well as that the vast majority of the ships on that list are either minelaying cruisers or destroyers - so, CL's or DD's - not KE's. I, personally, always stock all my 'regular' AMC's, DD's and CL's mines to full capacity - so, designing an auxiliary class (KE's) for the purpose I already have ships for is, to me, a complete waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 19, 2023 0:59:44 GMT -6
1. Fast Attack Craft: (gun, torpedo and missile boats) There is not much to design when it comes to these guys: stick a pair or two of torpedoes (or missiles) on a speedboat hull and send them off. Current system of building whole squadrons of them (from a single, simple, template - perhaps updated every 10 years to represent technological development) based in a port of choice is more than enough. But yeah - they should be included from 1890 on - especially in 1890 where they will have a disproportionate affect due to B's lack of DD cover.
2. Torpedo (and later Missile) Gunboats should also make an appearance: These are, basically, patrol boats (whether in colonies or nearby) and natural successors to sloops and avisos (which are already included into KE category) so, there is no reason not to include them. Especially since most of them got converted into minesweepers in WW1. Just add the ability to carry torpedoes (and Missiles) to the KE's, and we're good to go.
2a. Please, please, please add the ability to mount fixed forward-firing above-water torpedo tubes (MTB-style) to DD's (and KE's - should you choose to accept the above proposal) While not as useful as swivel mounts, they are much lighter and do not take up valuable gun positions, while still providing torpedo armament.
3. Dedicated minelayers are nearly useless: We already have AMC's, DD's and CL's capable of laying mines - adding KE's to the mix is overkill.
But the most important part is: Please Expand on the Light Forces' actions. Currently, we only have occasional Destroyer Raids to game - and, while that's fun all by itself, it doesn't even scratch the surface of all the shenanigans various FAC (MAS, PT-boats, E-boats and MTB's - as the more famous members) got up to on a daily basis while patrolling the ports and their approaches. The near-constant skirmishing netted quite a few coastal freighters (maybe not on the level of a U-boat campaign, but still) as well as disrupting minesweeping and ASW patrols, and laying quite a few mines by themselves. I'm not saying each individual raid should be simulated - but a simple background resolution and a quick one-panel information (like with submarines) would go a long way to provide some representation (and an incentive to build small forces - or at least put some more ships on TP)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 17, 2023 22:28:43 GMT -6
Just as an additional point to that, 20mm Hispanos didn't have the throw weight of the .50 cal Brownings in terms of rate of fire and number of guns - but hit for hit they did an estimated 3 times the damage. Tests carried out by the RAF pre-war revealed that for all the extra weight of the .50cal bullet, it would put a .50" hole in the fuselage of it's target whereas the .303 would put a .303" hole in the target, the judgement being that the smaller round allowed for more ammunition and guns to be carried for the same weight without any real trade-off in effectiveness. This. This is the main reason I don't advocate more complex aircraft design: way too many options and variables to consider. I mean, here we are squabbling over a basic stuff like (metaphorically) "should the CL mount 3" or 5" or 8" guns and where do we put them?" And let's not even start on the rest: - Basic construction and material - how much armour and where to put it - number, size and shape of the wings - size and shape of the tail - radial or inline engine - cooling system for said engine - number, size and shape of the propellers - positions and roles of the crew - number and position of pylons, hardpoints or bomb-bays And these are just off the top of my head - I'm sure oldpop2000 can provide a lot more. Basically, we're talking about a game of it's own, here - and the team has enough work already providing us with this one. So, yeah - I'm all in favour of abstract forms of aircraft quality's representation - so team can focus on what's important. Let's let the sleeping dogs lie, folks.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Mar 22, 2023 23:22:27 GMT -6
I do feel your pain but it's not really a practicable proposition in this period as coastal mines etc make old-school "Copenhagen" style assaults way too risky! It's why the RN adopted the "Distant Blockade" strategy rather than the close inshore idea that the Germans seem to have assumed was their only option? The HSF tried coastal raiding to provoke more vulnerable RN patrolling that they hoped to jump with elements of their fleet but if they'd just stayed at home there wouldn't have been terribly much Jellicoe could have done to get at them tbh... I'd say it depends pretty heavily fortification and time period: In WWII a good number of fleets got hit in port, even excluding Pearl and the sub attacks: Mers El Kebir was more of a surprise attack, but that, Dakar, and Casablanca all caught French fleets in port. Warspite and her gang, of course, caught the german destroyer squadrons in harbour at Narvik At Truk and a couple other islands in the pacific the US battleships got in gun range of the harbors and wiped out the remaining fleets inside And that's without considering the massive number of aircraft(carrier or land based) attacks that hit fleets in port-Taranto and Kure of course sank capital ships, but it was a pretty common occurrence in the war to lose escorts, destroyers, and even cruisers to air attack in harbor, if you didn't have sufficient air cover. And of course, even the German fleets in their old HSF anchorages ended up getting thwacked by the RAF in WWII once they lost the ability to control German skies. This. I was thinking about proposing a rework of the whole 'ports as magical portals to safety' clusterfuck we have right now, but never got very far due to real-life pressures. It ran something like this: - we already have coastal batteries and their associated mines (which were the main port's defences prior to aviation) as a mechanic in the game - so have each port auto-generate it's defences according to it's size - create 'anchorages' - aka places where ships will come to rest within a certain distance from the port (distance according to size?) to get the 'in port' bonuses - no magical disappearances into the void: ships will always be right there - some of the ships not included in the battle or in reserve or mothballs could also have a chance to appear - with those on active duty (and maybe in reserve?) being able to lend some fire support to the port's defences - after airfields become available, possibly create an 'Army Air Force' airfield (according to size) attached to it and chock-full of fighters (and maybe some bombers?) for air defence of the city where the port is stationed This would help create a somewhat more realistic environment where getting to port doesn't automatically ensure safety, and an attack by sufficiently determined (or just sufficiently powerful) enemy could completely wreck your day - just like in real life. That was just a quick outline, sadly - now I'm off to work on my ever-increasing list of chores. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 27, 2023 10:58:32 GMT -6
OK, I see TheOtherPoster is the only one that managed to actually catch the gist of my drift (so to speak) - so, looks like I did do a terrible job at explaining - again. I'm not arguing that the Navy isn't important within the game (or at all) - far from it: I'm only arguing that (from the game's point of view) the Army is unimportant. oldpop2000 and vonfriedman : yes, the Japanese navy in 1904-05 was vital (and I'm not here to argue differently) - precisely because it kept the Russian fleet bottled up and unable to prevent Japanese troops and supplies from reaching Manchuria. What I'm saying is: where in the game (as it stands right now) is that represented? Where is the Japanese conquest of Korea? or Manchuria? Why is the Japanese Army acting like a lazy SoB - sitting on the couch with beer in hand, watching news on TV and cheering the Navy on? Am I (as Navy) supposed to do the Army's work, too? Historically, the Navy kept the Russians bottled up right up until the Army came up and stormed Port Arthur - capturing the Russian Fleet in the process. Where is that represented in the game? Where are the Japanese troop and supply convoys I should be defending? (Preferably on the edge of my seat) Yes, to some countries Navies are vital - because they are the first line of defence - and the first opportunity for offence. But, defence against what? Answer: any possible invasion. And invasions are done by Armies. Offence against what? Any enemy nation - and while simply Blockading it might work, it won't work against any land-based nation with sufficient rail network and a nearby friend willing to trade. So, what then? Invasion? You need an Army - and not just the Marines (awesome as they might be) OK - I hope that made my point a bit more clear - if I came out as aggressive, I apologise - that was not my intent. First of all, if the Japanese Army was sitting on the couch, it would be with Saki or Rice Wine.... which is actually beer. Just having fun. Second, I, for one, understood and agree with your ideas and thoughts. I just don't want the game to be more complex than it is. I agree that land-based operations could be added, with the AI controlling it; that would be good but not if is going to make the game larger and more complex. Those land-based operations have to be simple with some coordination with the Navy and eventually the air forces. Correction accepted - Sake it is. It would also, IMHO, be sitting behind a tatami - but that's just my western bias: any and all Japanese readers, I humbly beg for forgiveness. But, seriously: yes - I totally agree. Land campaign should not be over-complicated nor make too much more of a burden on the Naval part than it already does: A couple of values working behind the scenes is more than enough - hell, it could even be a coin-flip (although I'd take it as a kindness if it weren't) - which we (as Navy) can further nudge in the right direction to help the war effort along ... And that's not even taking into account the Army Air Force - which is a whole 'nother ball of twine all by itself. In any case - that's my pitch: any thoughts?
|
|