|
Post by srndacful on Jan 26, 2023 23:32:59 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.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 26, 2023 9:11:18 GMT -6
I honestly couldn't think of another way to categorise this - so, excuse the vagueness, but you'll see why in a minute:
It took a while - and a memory of an old game - for me to put things in perspective: A navy's duty isn't to win wars, is it? No navy on this Earth can conquer the enemy's country (which is usually the object of any war) - after all, the country is on land: and navy can only act on water. The only thing that can win a war is Army (since it's the only thing capable of acting on land) and the game we're playing isn't, in any way, connected to the Army.
Ergo: we (as commanders of the navy) have no way in hell of winning a war. We are just a supporting actor in the main play - hoping our role will get recognised as a major boost in the story - elevating us to the role of the plucky underdog, who (despite all odds) punched above his weight to contribute to the overall narrative.
Basically, we're playing a game where we're not the main actors: yet we're treated as if we are. Sure, it's a bitter pill to swallow: everyone wants to feel like a hero in the story, and no one likes to win the battle just to lose the war (so to speak) but: that's what went down in history, anyway. I understand it's not a fun way to make a game - and no yelling of 'it's historical' will make it any better - but the stories of 'last stands' will (and do) live on in histories forever and ever precisely because they have been won against such odds.
We (as the commanders of the navy) have only one job: to allow the Army to it's.
All the top Air combat games, as well Naval ones (this one included) have been focused on one, most important part of war: establishing Air (or Naval) superiority by annihilating the enemy's planes (ships). Why? To enable all other Air (Naval) action, which serves a single purpose: enabling Army action, and thus helping to win a war. Reconnaissance, interdiction, bombardment, blockade - these are all simple, mundane tasks with no challenge whatsoever - that wouldn't be possible without Air and Naval superiority, yet which are vital to the Army's continued operations in taking the enemy's territory. But, all those boring tasks require Air (or Naval) superiority: and that's why we're here.
This game is all about battles on the high seas - and I'm all for it: But, please: recognise why those high seas battles had to happen. Not one of them happened "just because" - not Jutland, nor Savo Islands, nor Leyte, nor Matapan - all of them have (inevitably) their origins in ability (or inability) to carry freight (military or otherwise - but all in service of war) to it's ports - fuelling it's Army's efforts.
So, basically, what I'm saying is: (TL;DR) Make the Army (and it's supply) the basis for our (RtW's) VP's.
Disclaimer: I'm not exactly great at expressing thoughts, so - all comments/praises/criticisms/ecumenicalteachingsinvolvingsinsandhellfire are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 24, 2023 11:43:10 GMT -6
Why not change it up a little and give Italy or Russia the chance to beat their rivals on occasion? Things shouldn't always play out historically. *le sigh* Look, I'm not saying a chance isn't there - freak accidents do happen, after all ("s**t happens" is my mantra) - I'm just saying the odds are stacked against them, and any chances of success is going to be a long one. And, IMHO, I'd jut love it if it's up to the navy to tip the balance in their favour: boost morale via victories - interdict supplies via coastal raids or bombardment - pre-offensive preparation through bombardment... you name it.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 23, 2023 22:47:00 GMT -6
I'm sorry, but using specific historical circumstances to illustrate my point is not 'dictating game logic'. I'm talking basic combat (as well as mathematical) principles - like 'he who has the most battalions in battle wins' ... well, usually, at least. Fully assembled A-H army would have had superior numbers, which, along with the fact it would be defending excellent defensive positions, (and at that time defence heavily outweighed the offence) would make it's victory a certainty. So, yes, taking this, along with some other factors, into account, I am claiming that Russia cannot beat Germany. But, yeah - Army's (and it's Air Force's) representation is woefully inadequate as it stands. I really hope there will be some improvement on that part in RtW3. Of course it is. You're baking in assumptions that affect your "combat and mathematical principles." Obviously, the game isn't meant to be a historical simulator, given it's options to significantly delay aircraft entering the game. What fun is a game where land attacks are possible if you cannot ever win under any circumstances, and your gains via naval action are at the whim of AI-made decisions over which the player has no agency?
On one hand you are saying numbers usually win, but on the other you are claiming that Russia could not beat Germany. Russia has the superior numbers no? So if the game is just based on math, how can you have it both ways? IF A-H would "certainly" win against Italy, why would Russia certainly lose to Germany? Come now - no need to be obtuse or snippy. No, RtW isn't an actual historical simulator - but combat principles (and basic mathematics and physics) still apply. Look at the naval combat it's simulating, for example: all else being equal, a CA will beat a CL most of the time (freaky accidents notwithstanding) by the simple virtue of it's size giving it larger armour and armament. Field armies do have more factors to consider (not just training and logistics, but also morale and position) and size is simply the biggest, but the basics are the same: the side that has more factors in it's favour wins. Specifically, A-H army had it's size and terrain in it's favour (historically, better commanders, too - but IMHO, that wouldn't be applicable if the entire army was there) while the Italian had absolutely nothing in it's favour - as everything else was the same. So, yes, I'm betting Italians would fail to break into Dalmatia on land - leaving only sea invasions and reparations as the way to get it. Also, those factors are why I'm saying Russia would lose: it's size (although great) was it's only strength - all other factors were in Germany's favour - and some of them overwhelmingly. Making this a purely naval-based game would work if we were fighting over islands (like, say, in Pacific or Caribbean) where naval presence is vital. But, where a land front exists (like in Europe) it should be simulated and it should have a significant impact on the course of war. Naturally, the Navy should also have a way to create a significant impact on this land front - through blockade or coastal bombardments or such - but that's for another thread to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 13, 2023 0:13:44 GMT -6
If we're using the logic of specific historical circumstances to dictate game logic, why do we even have a choice lol? If Italy's army cannot take territory from A-H because of the Isonzo offensives, doesn't that mean that Russia cannot beat Germany? You see where this logic goes. The game is meant to be plausible and give everyone roughly a chance, hence it being a game... I'm sorry, but using specific historical circumstances to illustrate my point is not 'dictating game logic'. I'm talking basic combat (as well as mathematical) principles - like 'he who has the most battalions in battle wins' ... well, usually, at least. Fully assembled A-H army would have had superior numbers, which, along with the fact it would be defending excellent defensive positions, (and at that time defence heavily outweighed the offence) would make it's victory a certainty. So, yes, taking this, along with some other factors, into account, I am claiming that Russia cannot beat Germany. But, yeah - Army's (and it's Air Force's) representation is woefully inadequate as it stands. I really hope there will be some improvement on that part in RtW3.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 8, 2023 9:25:57 GMT -6
oldpop2000 well, I'd say take it - 'cause that's the best you're gonna get. Most people focus on the flashy stuff - and tend to ignore the less obvious, gritty, stuff. Take WW2 planes, for example: everyone here could name at least one fighter - most could name at least one bomber - but how many could name a single spotter/observation plane? Developer concentrated on the more flashy stuff (as he should've) - and ignored or neglected most of gritty stuff. This, for example, is why so much of ship types is swept under a single "Corvette" (aka KE) type. So, in the age of Dreadnoughts, a Monitor would be just another kind of pre-dreadnought - a slower, weaker kind of battleship - useful only as support.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 8, 2023 0:51:35 GMT -6
Call me crazy but could monitors be included in the ships that can be designed and built. The HMS Roberts might be a good example but there were many others for nations that did not have access to the open sea. You mean something like this? I don't know how effective it would be in combat, but the concept seems viable. Given adequate protection, I'd imagine it would be pretty useful in assisting in naval invasions by providing 'el cheapo' naval superiority. Oh, and yeah - the design is valid - although it gives me a 20% rate-of-fire penalty for having a too large gun on a too small hull.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 6, 2023 23:39:33 GMT -6
OK, yeah, I see your point.
Actually, as far as I recall, A-H was pretty unstable (politically) at this point in time - I figure one more revolution would've been enough to topple it entirely (what actually happened at the end of WW1) - and it's 'successor' (in game, anyway) Yugoslavia wouldn't have had enough money to keep up with the 'big boys' anyways, (their biggest ship was a light cruiser) so would have to be reduced to a minor state - which could then be easily exploited to get the rest of the territory (Free State of Fiume, anyone?)
It would probably be easy to do if every possession had an owner and all of them were in play, but, right now, RtW is at about the same stage as 'older' Total Wars (if anyone's familiar with them) - with just a handful of nations and provinces being in play, and the rest being 'bandits' and up for grabs (more or less). Newer versions (of Total War, that is) are much more Paradox-like, with every territory having it's owner, army and navy, leaving the player free to create a web of alliances so even a minor powers can have a chance - and major powers a more 'realistic' approach. Looks like the RtW3 is moving in that direction, but how far it will go is yet to be seen.
Still, historically and geographically speaking, (it's funny how often those two coincide) Pola was only the main transit port of Istria - but Fiume was the main transit port of both Austria (through Slovenia) and Hungary (through Croatia - sure, Spalato would've been better - but it would have to go through Bosnia - and Ottomans somehow failed to build any railroad infrastructure there) so, an un-collapsed A-H would've fought tooth and nail to keep it.
So, you could reasonably argue that Pola should be a part of Dalmatia - but losing it would still leave A-H as a minor power, so ... yeah, I'll let the developers decide.
Italy using it's army to defeat A-H is also laughable: how many battles of Isonzo were there in WW1, again? 12? And that's with 3/4ths of A-H army on the Russian and Balkan fronts - against the whole army? Yeah, no - my money's on a repeat of the Battle of Custoza. The only way Italy could take Dalmatia would be A-H's collapse OR seaborne invasion.
Also: Italy shares a land border with Dalmatia? Where?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jan 6, 2023 0:05:26 GMT -6
From a purely gamey point of view: Why would you even want to knock out Austria?
It's got no ships left? That makes it a prime target for bullying as far as I can tell. Put a couple of ships on Active duty to blockade it, all the rest in mothballs, and use the war-inflated budget to build up your fleet even more.
Nothing to take when it capitulates a couple of months later? No worries: Each point of territories you don't take nets you an (even bigger) boost to your basic income (reparations) so you're just as well off there.
The only problem is if it gets allies - they'll be able to back it up and prevent the blockade. Otherwise - it's a regular cash-grab for the wars that come after.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 13, 2022 23:25:31 GMT -6
Another issue, which probably would not be included in the game is the height of the passive radar antenna's. There is a calculation for radar range and height of antenna. It does make a difference. This might be something to add to the ship design when adding radar. horizon distance = 1.25 x square of the antenna height antenna height of 120 feet equals 13.69 miles A general average based on the ship type and displacement would probably be sufficient. Well, yeah - we already have one for visual observation, after all (which works on the same principle) - I shouldn't imagine an extension of it would be too difficult.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 12, 2022 22:19:03 GMT -6
Emma de Normandie I'm just curious: why do you even want to play past 1970? I've continued my recent game past 1955 cutoff point (am in 1965 currently) and with the amount of SAM's flying around - seriously: everyone (and their mothers) have them - even DD's, and no real ASM's to offset them, my airstrikes are next to useless. If I have 2 or more CV's in the field, I'm perfectly safe against any and all airstrikes - unless there are multiple forces in the fleet, and I need to set up some more CAP. I'm actually seriously thinking about increasing the ratio of fighters from 2:1 to 5:1, and decreasing the ratio of CV's in the fleet - letting my CA's (and/or BC's) be the primary workhorses. Unless that's your reason: a return to a happier time, when battleships ruled the waves?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Dec 11, 2022 23:44:08 GMT -6
Thought I would create a real design for the first picture. I was guessing at the date and nation. CL9x2, usa light cruiser laid down 1930 Armament: 6 - 10.00" / 254 mm 45.0 cal guns - 504.26lbs / 228.73kg shells, 150 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model 6 x Single mounts on sides, evenly spread 2 - 8.00" / 203 mm 45.0 cal guns - 258.18lbs / 117.11kg shells, 1quick 50 per gun Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1930 Model 2 x Single mounts on centreline, evenly spread Weight of broadside 3,542 lbs / 1,607 kg I'm sorry to have to break it to you, oldpop2000, but it looks like whoever made that clip also made a tiny mistake in description: If you look more closely, you can actually see two more pairs of secondary guns in fore & aft wing positions - unless, of course, I'm mistaken and those are actually tertiary battery guns. Also, I've never heard of secondary guns being heavier than primary. So, for me, it's not 6 - 10" guns - it's 10 - 6" guns. Still, we got some very nice visuals for the game, so - I wasn't inclined to complain. (Thanks, jwsmith26 - I might actually pay to ship's aesthetics this time around *thumbs up*) Also, quick question: does anyone really bother with this (i.e. 5-6000 tons) kind of CL's beyond 1920's or so? And, if so, why? For me, at about that time, BB's and DD's have already grown 3 sizes - so, it's only natural for CL's to also move on to bigger things - like CA's, for example. And, since they're already terrible at colonial duties, the job can be taken over by cheaper AV's.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 27, 2022 10:59:09 GMT -6
a simplified way of dealing with size might be to have a 'tech' that raises general aircraft size (and perhaps linked to aircraft range/payload) by 10%(?) that pops up every 5+ years or something. it could be size 1 up to size 10 (?) more rambling - i guess a better way of dividing up "size eras" might be
Biplane 1 or Biplane Gen1 Biplane Gen2
etc (Triplanes? less speed than biplanes but more manoeuvrability?)
Monoplane Gen1
Monoplane Gen2
etc
Jet Gen1 Jet Gen2
etc
also (generalization) - late biplanes would be slower but tougher and more manoeuvrable than early monoplanes.
perhaps late monoplane vs jet might be the same?
another possible thing to consider is reliability - when progressing through to a new generation, all newly designed previous generation aircraft reliability should perhaps increase by 1 to signify it is now proven tech and should (theoretically) be more reliable. this might give the player more to think about when designing new aircraft - do you want bleeding edge that might end up being a hangar queen, or do you want to stick with proven tech to keep availability up? OK - I'll bite - as respectfully as possible: And just where, in all this "size era division", does the simple fact that bombers usually have bigger size than fighters come in? The reliability part is an excellent idea, btw - and I fully support it - but the rest? Rambling about possibilities that won't be implemented is futile. Sure, we can do it - hell, I have my own ideas on the subject I could ramble about - but, ultimately, it doesn't matter because it's not going into the game. Besides, there are other things in the game that are currently abstracted or obsolete, but which could be a bit more 'detailed' for some added realism, which could be easily implemented right now - yet still aren't. So, I'm just going to add this to the list of 'things I'd like to have in RtW4' and move on.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 26, 2022 9:47:40 GMT -6
Apologies if this has already been suggested somewhere - or if the team already thought of it, but: As the subject says: can we get some form of passive radar detection, please? Historically, this has been a feature ... basically everywhere since the introduction of radar. It doesn't have to be complicated: a single line (even a short one) showing the direction (but not distance or type) to the ship using radar is usually enough. If there are several ships using it, there will be several lines (or perhaps the line gets thicker) - in any case it shouldn't give us anything but the fact there's something emitting over that way. In any case, it should be available pretty early on, and have greater range than radar - since it's not dependent on the echo for location. Cheers! Interesting idea but practically you have to have radar, developed, for it to be successful. So, in the timeline for radar, it would have to follow it. Now, if you have intel on an opponent that has radar, it could be useful. Of course - I assumed that was implied: you cannot have passive radar detection if the enemy has no radar (researched, let alone 'fielded' on ships) - the 'early on' part was mostly in relation to radar tech. Also - yeah, that's an excellent addon: you can only use it if you have 'discovered' (through spying or otherwise) the enemy's frequency. Nice one, oldpop2000!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 25, 2022 23:26:34 GMT -6
... if you wanted to stick with developing smaller sized aircraft to keep your aircraft capacity up you would be also be developing lower capability aircraft (less or stagnated range/payload, perhaps less or stagnated speed as well) compared to a larger sized aircraft ... this would be a good way to encourage players to build new CVs as the game progresses, because as it stand right now once i build a 100 capacity CV early on i don't feel any reason to build a newer CV class later on except perhaps 'for fun' ... I'm sorry, but these two parts are the only ones I can agree with you on - the rest is just another 'increase air capacity's weight-per-plane in the ship designer' variant - which, again, merely substitutes one problem for another. The team chose to put their 'hard' break at the jet age, and that's that - even though there was at least one more in the 30's as biplanes were being replaced by monoplanes. Ark Royal had it's air group reduced from 72 to 60 because of it, and Lexingtons went from 78 to 70 (I'm sure there are more examples, but I don't have the time to find them, right now) - sure, these aren't as radical alterations as Essexes getting their air group cut down by half to accommodate jets - and, personally, I find the Independence's air group going from 30 to 34 just by swapping TB's for F's much more fascinating. Basically, you could say that (IMHO, at least) 'designing' the air group could easily become a kind of mini-game all by itself. All in all, the developer had to make a lot of simplifications over the years - and this one's (comparatively, at least) not that major. Although - for me, like in real life, every development should have at least some drawbacks - increase in weight (and/or cost) being merely the most obvious one - if nothing else: to make things more interesting. And, again, I view planes about the same as ships: as living, evolving things - and, since an increase in ability invariably leads to increase in size, for me it's only natural that planes went from 1.5 to 30 tons in a space of 40 years - just like battleships went from 15000 to 60000 tons in the same time scale.
|
|