|
Post by srndacful on Nov 25, 2022 13:58:25 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!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 24, 2022 23:57:09 GMT -6
captaindorjaSince there are several kinds of plane types you can assign to carriers and airfields, assigning squadrons into air groups on those carriers and airfields is meant for us to mix-and-match the aircraft complement however we want - i.e. if you're going to Europe, you'll need more fighters - and this is how you do it. But ordinary ships (and seaplane carriers) can only carry seaplanes - so the game kindly automates the process by filling up the vacant slots - no mixing-and-matching required. In action, as well, you'll find that the seaplanes are mostly automated: their one major use is recon, and the game automatically launches them at the start of battle.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 24, 2022 23:25:49 GMT -6
I'm sorry, folks - it looks like I have been flogging a dead horse by trying to resurrect this thread. I should've known that it would be debated and hashed out a while ago: effort-to-benefits ratio was too low, so the developer made his call and that's that - got it. This is a game about naval development and battles - I was just kind of hoping it would spread the development part to the aviation, as well. Especially since the two areas are so similar: how to put as much stuff into an object without going over the limits (drydock size in case of ships - lift & hangar size in case of planes) not to mention the cost of building them. Sure, I get that the price of a plane is miniscule compared to a ship's - but, hundreds of planes built over the course of a ship's life? Not cheap at all. Especially Jets - there is a reason why we had a new generation of planes every couple of years up to the jet age: each WW2 plane was costing the US government about a million dollars (in today's money) - while current price of a modern F-35 is about 100 million. Then again, with the game timeframe ending in 1970, there won't be many generations of those, either, so ... not much of an issue, right? In any case: RtW is still a great game - and I'm still a fan.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 23, 2022 0:09:05 GMT -6
I agree. Ports, as currently implemented, are a joke: get near a friendly one, say "Yes" when asked to enter - and watch as your ships magically disappear from the map into their own personal safe space where nothing can hurt them, and everything's fine.
OK - I get why the developer did it: it was a game about battleship battles on the high seas (and partially still is) and some simplification was to be expected - but now? Ten years later? With aircraft on the scene & completely bypassing the combination of minefields (used to keep the battleships at bay) and coastal batteries (used to keep the minesweepers at bay) that kept the enemy fleet far away from these hornet's nests? The only reason I can think of is computer performance issues - but that's only a problem if you're running RtW on a potato (like me) - and I'm perfectly willing to take the 5-second turn processing time.
We already have the basics in place: Coastal batteries that spawn mines during war & airfields capable of fielding fighters and bombers - now it's only a matter of removing the blue barricade & letting ships come to a stop near (i.e. within a mile?) it.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 22, 2022 22:24:57 GMT -6
OK, I will go into detail. In this case as new aicraft being operating, squadron size change so either there is not enough space on carrier or there is remaining space on carrier. This means that either player need to adjust manually, which is certainly wrong as it is micromanagement hell, or system needs to do it. But how? Which aicraft should be taken away or added? Player would always have some expectation but very probably different what system will do.
Which is why I suggested that the computer automatically increases/decreases the number of planes in a squadron by the new assigned plane size - all the while keeping the total squadron size (i.e. number of planes * size of currently assigned planes) more or less the same. I'm sorry if I failed to get that point across - that was the entire purpose of my post. As another way of looking at it, I guess you might say that I'm proposing that each Squadron has it's own, individual, 'plane capacity' (i.e. the size it takes up on the carrier) which is then 'filled' by the currently designated planes' size. So, a squadron might have, for example, 150 'space' assigned - which can be filled with 30 size 5 planes, or 25 size 6 planes. Yeah - I definitely failed to get that point across - I apologise.
Another step. Even if we took this as acceptable which is a lot of effort to make such a system, there is another point. Now, we can have 2 aicraft which one needs 20 % more space, but eg. the smaller one has firepower of 5, the large 6, and we have a question which one is better. Is it the one with higher firepower? It seems strange as the smaller aicraft can be 20 % more embarged on carrier. Now it was just one atribute, aicraft have several ones and now it is clear that the single number previously relatively clear is not clear anyway as now there are several important things as attributes in absolute value, atributes per space, attributes per maintenance cost. Now it is system which is excessively complex, difficult to orientate with just a little gain that you have a little more historical feeling that aicraft being bigger and bigger and less aicraft are embarged on carrier.
Everything grows - it's only natural. We are playing a game which simulates growth of battleships - from 4x12" to 9x16" guns, from 18 to 32 knots, from (effectively) 8" to 16" armor, from basic fire control to radar-guided directors - and all within - what? 40 years? That growth, however, came with a price: displacement went up from 15000 to 60000 tons. Why should it be different with aircraft? The only difference here is: you need to carry aircraft on a ship - and that ship has a limited space in which to carry them. This is what we're talking about: the fact that you cannot fit a 6-ton plane into the same space you can fit a 1.5-ton plane. (folding wings notwithstanding) So (to put it another way & as a comparison) which would you rather have: 60000 tons of super-dreadnought or 60000 tons of pre-dreadnoughts (from the example above)? I know my answer.
Now, question is if it is historically true? We look at Royal Navy, eg. Illustrous class, which embarged about 36 aicraft as commissioned. But we can look further that Illustrious class 2 years later operated around 50-55 aicraft. How it is possible with aicraft being bigger and bigger.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but the British didn't use Deck Park on the Illustrious class until they got to the Pacific - for the same reason they used armored decks: dive bomber scare. From Wikipedia: "In 1944/45 RN carriers began to carry a permanent deck park of similar size to their USN counterparts, and this increased their aircraft complement from 36 to an eventual 57 aircraft in the single-hangar carriers, and from 48 up to 81 in the double-hangar, 23,400-ton Implacable design"
So we need to do something with our system which is not historically accurate as there are other things which influence how many aicraft are embarged on carrier. So it being even more complicated, I would tell overcomplicated for a very dubious gain. OK, so we can look at system we tried to replace. Everything is OK except planes are bigger however it was not the only attribute about how many aicraft were on carriers so we can now see that our original system was not perfect but it was abstraction which is much more historical accurate than simulating aicraft size and only if aicraft size increase tremendously, there is something need to be done with the system. Voila.
I like the current system, too, but - unfortunately - the aircraft size did increase, and it did cause problems, and this system is not very good at handling it. Which is why we're looking into a possible replacement. Preferably one that's as easy and as painless as possible.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 22, 2022 0:13:56 GMT -6
... Anyway - that's the quick and dirty of it. The devil's in the details, of course, but ... Yes, the devil's in the detail. Now, you have different aircraft and you need to look at their stat but need to evaluate how such stats will compare to same space as space is the limit and taking consideration money etc. At the end you will get same as it is now but hidden in several attributes which are difficult to compared in your mind. Aye - therein lies the rub: We already know the stats - it's the "how do we transfer them to game mechanics in as simple as way as possible" part that's the problem. And, in order to solve that problem, we need to be as brutally simple as we can be: The only stat we need to look at here is space. As in: how much space does this plane take up on the ship? That's it's size. And I'm not just talking about stuff like folded wings, either - that tech will just increase the 'volume' of the hangar & deck (once it's 'unlocked') - I'm talking about take-offs and landings, as well - so, full on, wings extended, runway space needed, size. Now, the original issue I meant to tackle - since that appeared to be the biggest hurdle - was the replacement of the aircraft models. And I threw in my 2 cents. But, if you'd like my full idea - here it comes: So, carrier, basically, gains two stats here: (Planes have just one more stat: size) 1. Parking Capacity (hangar and deck park space available) (this is the 'capacity' I was talking about earlier) giving us the total size in 'plane spaces' a carrier can carry, and 2. Handling Capacity (representing lift, take-off & landing space + catapults and arrestor wires) (I have no idea how to call this one) giving us the maximum size of a plane that a carrier can operate Both of these will be improved by the various techs - and, especially, Handling Capacity will be increased by ship's speed (obviously) Both of these will also be limited by the carrier's displacement with square-cube law in full effect. And, finally, both of these will limit each other by competing for the (always limited) displacement. (Wanna improve handling? No prob - just reduce parking, bro) I could be more detailed if you'd like, but I'd say this gets my point across pretty well. Brutal simplicity is the order of the day (with a special emphasis on the 'brutal' part of it ... brutal as in: "Oh the brutality of it all!)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 21, 2022 14:35:02 GMT -6
I'm a bit sorry for bringing this horse back from the dead (I'm a good necromancer, I swear! :-P) but there is an obvious solution to the conundrum (namely: "how do we implement replacement of older aircraft models") we seem to have overlooked: it's called "let the computer do it".
My proposal (aka 0.02$) is basically this: (obviously, it's just for aircraft carriers: airfields have neither weight nor space limitations) Each carrier will (naturally) have a certain 'capacity' which will be filled up during squadron creation with planes' number * size of the newest model. Obviously, each carrier's 'capacity' will probably be only partly filled up - since it's not always possible to have nicely divisible numbers, and squadrons will have a 'total' size. So, when a squadron is replacing it's planes with a different model, computer can simply divide the (total squadron size + carrier capacity leftovers) with the size of the aircraft about to be added, and set the result as the new number of planes in the squadron.
So, for example, a carrier with 192 'capacity' could have 1 squadron with 18 size 8 TB's (for a total of size 144) and 1 squadron with 9 size 5 F's (for a total of size 45) - leaving (192 - 144 - 45) 3 capacity unfilled. Now let's say a brand new model of F's is coming to replace the older ones, and this one is a size 6. So, the F's squadron has a total size of 45 + 3 capacity unfilled / new size 6 = there are now 8 planes in the squadron. Naturally, if this new model's size was, say, 7 - we'd have only 6 planes in the squadron, and 6 capacity unfilled. And then the change is announced as a single line on the "list of the last turn messages" - not as a popup.
Anyway - that's the quick and dirty of it. The devil's in the details, of course, but ...
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Nov 21, 2022 3:57:49 GMT -6
I apologise in advance if this has already been proposed before, and I failed to spot it.
My proposal is, basically, as it says in the title: Abolish the current Torpedo and Dive bomber categories - and create a single Light (i.e. not Medium) bomber category. Light - in this case - denoting single-engine aircraft.
This would serve several purposes:
1. As it stands right now, mounting torpedoes on Dive Bombers - or having Torpedo Bombers do Dive Attacks - is impossible. And yet, the Royal Navy was attempting to do that right from the very introduction of Dive Bombing: Swordfish (the old 'stringbag') was conducting Dive bombing at Taranto (although at night and 250lb bombs are not very effective against battleships - even if there are 6 of them (bombs - not battleships)) and Libya - while his replacements (Albacore and Barracuda) were designed from the start as scout-spotter-dive-level-torpedo bombers. And let's not even mention USN, where (in the last years of WW2, at least) every plane (and their mothers - so to speak) was capable of carrying a torpedo. Yes, including SB2C Helldiver - originally a Dive Bomber. Finally, the legendary AD Skyraider (entering service just a couple of years after the war) was designed from the start as a Dive/Torpedo bomber.
2. In the very beginning, we start with only Fighters capable of being "fielded" (so to speak) on an aircraft carrier - which is somewhat unrealistic: since scouts and early light bombers basically had the same weight and size and were perfectly able to land/take-off on/off a carrier as well.
Naturally, the capability to carry the torpedo has not been developed yet, (and if, like me, you like to play with variable tech - it might not be for some time) but the capability to carry bombs (or at least a spotter) certainly is - so, having a carrier with absolutely no offensive capability is ... a bit questionable. And, yes, I am aware that I can use Fighters in scouting role - the catch is that having 2 (or 3) pairs of eyes out there (especially if the 1st pair has to pay attention to where they're going) offers enormous help with the spotting part of the role - which is why the Fighter is always the last choice for a Scout. (I don't know if the developer already has a malus for Fighter scouts in place - I certainly would have)
3. An opportunity to 'spread' the bonuses a bit further - since, when ordering a new aircraft, you'll now have to specify if you'd like it to be able to carry Torpedoes or execute Dive bombing attacks. (remember, no TB & DB separation) This might just give us the opportunity to explore more esoteric weapon combinations such as Fighter-Dive-Bombers (like Skua or Roc) or Medium Dive bombers (like JU88 or Pe-2) as well as more 'ordinary' stuff (like Torpedo-carrying Hellcats and Corsairs)
As for how this will translate into Wing Compositions ... I have my own ideas, but since they're tied into a bit of other stuff (namely, aircraft size) I leave it to the developer and community to hash out - if they like this idea in the first place, naturally.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Oct 28, 2022 22:57:46 GMT -6
I think I've seen it somewhere on the forum, but it was ages ago and I can't remember where - and I can't find it now - and the Manual isn't any help - so: In the 'Aircraft types' window, in the 'Torpedo' column you usually get 'M' or 'H' or '-' - denoting the max range at which you can execute torpedo attacks with this plane. But in the later era (for me, in the current game, from about 1945) - I sometimes get twin results - like: 'M/H' or '-/M' - and I forgot what this denotes. Two torpedoes? Guided Missiles? I just can't remember. Help please? PS: Since I'm already here: konstantinosmegas Austria is hardly a boogeyman - I should know: it's my favourite nation - 5 airfields widely spaced? Please. That 'one spot' you're dreading is a 50-mile patch of water off Sebenico where no action has ever happened. You get planes from 2 or 3 airfields tops - and the only way Pola and Fiume get to play is if they field Medium Bombers. If you want a 'great' place to fight in, try the French Azure coast, where 5 airfields are within easy reach with Heavy Loads - and even then I managed to get 2 BB's with 1 (one) CV escort out - although not quite unscathed. Just follow the SOP and you'll be fine: tons of HAA and MAA on your ships, and 'heavy' CAP at all times. If you're retreating, you might set it to 'extreme' just to be on the safe side. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of the aircraft on your CV's should be fighters - just so you can have half of your strike as escorts - you'll need it to punch through the enemy CAP.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Oct 21, 2022 22:59:55 GMT -6
Ah Shore Bombardment missions. The only reason I put guns on my destroyers... That and extra HAA later in the game. I've found that destroyers become dramatically more dangerous around 1930, when directors and twin mounts start appearing. Suddenly instead of having to practically ram the enemy because nobody can hit anything, you have to hang around standoff range because anything that closes is shredded by accurate 5" fire. I've had 9000t cruisers get mission-killed trying to fend off 3-4 destroyers in a night action. That's true - what's the point of building CL's after DD's get directors? I've always wondered that myself. Well, time to test it out: I usually stop building BB's after 1940 - let's try putting a stop on CL building after that, too.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Oct 20, 2022 22:30:57 GMT -6
I wonder if in RTW3 it'll be possible to make air strikes to land targets during wars, either to shore infrastructures (oil refinery, or whatever) and of course to the enemy fleet at port like in Taranto. I know in RTW2 the Japanese can have this surprise attack with subs but I’m not sure we are able to replicate something like Pearl Harbour with air strikes. Anyway, air strikes to port facilities/ships were not uncommon during WWII (Mers-el-Kebir, Taranto, Darwin, Dakar, Colombo etc.) The Americans in the 1930s had also been obsessed about an enemy air strike to the Panama Canal. We can imagine similar attacks to Gibraltar or Suez, or Singapore... Not to invade the territory, just to destroy the ships/facilities there. I think it could be fun, although potentially quite dangerous for the attacking force, depending on our naval forces and aircraft in the area. Maybe we would need to pay more attention to our land bases then, to make sure we have at least a few strike aircraft nearby our main naval bases. Yes - an aircraft version of the old Coastal Bombardment mission would definitely add some more spice to the game - especially in (say) preparation for the amphibious landing. Knocking out communications and supply depots - just for a start of the list - would go a long way to soften up the target. And if the developer decides to go wild and, for example, adds some permanency to the game - we could even have a chance (however small) to destroy a strategic asset (like Coastal Fortification) or reduce it (like Base Capacity) - giving us a clear sense of threat, and a reason to field some fighters on the land airfields beyond the basic 'airfield cover'. I mean, sure, we could rebuild it afterwards, but until it's rebuilt - it's not available. Or maybe just list it as damaged with 'time to repair' ticking down (like in ship's case)? Idk - just throwing ideas at the wall here, seeing if anything sticks. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 1, 2020 22:20:50 GMT -6
The fleet in being rule can have many exceptions in practice. For example, the Regia Marina chose to engage the two remaining BBs in the battle of Cape Spartivento, just two weeks after the RN attack in the harbor of Taranto, in order to demonstrate that it still existed. Yeah - this is why I didn't suggest it in the first place: too many rules any exceptions would take too much time to code, and I was thinking along the lines of making something simple (but still reasonably effective) that Fredrik might implement quickly. (IMHO, he already has some ideas to replace the 'RNG hell' that is our current battle generator - but is currently busy with missiles and stuff ...) Still - thanks, cabalamat , for pointing out that I forgot that ships also have the option to "Mind the bar", as well - I really should have clarified it better - my bad. Cheers! srndacful.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Mar 27, 2020 11:23:36 GMT -6
Hello, Antediluvian Monster. To be honest, I have been thinking about putting in a third kind of Mission: Reserve - where you keep ships available for sortie (as support?) in case your ships on other Missions need backup - but then how do we determine which Missions can get support, and which can't? I mean - sure, if the enemy, say, Raids Coastal shipping near, say, Toulon - you could easily make a case that (if you're, say, playing France) your Reserve BC's are stationed nearby, and can (relatively quickly) come to the rescue and/or help trap and sink the enemy (say, Italian) BC's. But if the Raid is near, say, Cyprus (which you, for example, own as France) - there's very little chance that your BC's are anywhere near, and that they can provide any kind of timely assistance. Unless, of course, we completely ignore the issue of where individual ships actually are - and assume they're able to be anywhere at any time - which, tbqh, stretches my suspension of disbelief to breaking point. So ... Since I've been failing to come up with any kind of solution to that problem (other than for game to keep track in which port which ship is anchored) I didn't want to put it out there, but since you've now mentioned it ... I'm all ears. I also have no problem with having a 'Blockade' or a 'Observation' Mission (how on earth could I've forgotten it in the first place, I've no idea) - which would be, basically, IMHO, like an Invasion Mission - but without Transports - i.e. keep a number of ships within 100nm of a certain position for certain amount of time - and/or get points for each hour of keeping them there? Successful Blockade of all Home Ports, naturally, being required for the actual "Blockaded!" status on the strategic map. Spying would integrate well in this as well, IMHO - giving advance notice of both the enemy Mission(s) and ships sailed on them - thus offering a chance to change the composition of ships on our own Mission(s) at risk from those enemy Missions. Cheers! srndacful.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Mar 26, 2020 22:04:20 GMT -6
I like the idea. but with the way things tend to go, the entire enemy fleet will have the uncanny ability to know exactly where your weakest force is. Well, if the entire enemy fleet is on the Offensive - then there's nothing left for Defense, now is it? Hope you sent some Raids out there - 'cause they're going to be a clean sweep milkrun.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Mar 26, 2020 8:18:12 GMT -6
An interesting idea. A distinction should be made between those navies, such as Regia Marina (RM) in WW2, who opt for that strategy which is called "Fleet in being", carrying out few missions with the big ships (in the case of RM also due to the lack of fuel), and other navies who opt to carry out more than one mission in each month. For example, the Mediterranean Fleet sailed from Alexandria in early July 1940 to escort two convoys from Malta, engaged the RM in the battle off Calabria and also flew off a strike force against shipping in Augusta harbour, sailed again a week later from Alexandria to Tobruk in search of the cruiser Bande Nere, and took the sea for a third time later this month in order to escort another convoy. Well, I did envision Navies engaging in up to as many Missions as they are able and/or willing - including none at all (i.e.leaving all their ships in port as a 'fleet in being') - so, players (and AI) should have the option NOT to send ships on Missions (although, in that case, they'd be better off putting them on RF status, IMHO) - although, IMHO, some Defensive ones should at least be considered. A player could also, for example, send a single cruiser on each Offensive Mission - just to mess with the enemy. Exactly how effective that might be, though, I leave to you to consider. As for the Mediterranean Fleet ... well, I suppose ships could be assigned on up to two (or even three) missions per month - but, again, you'd have to keep track of whether (and when) the ship is available - i.e. make sure that mission is not overlapping with another one (and just how do you do that?) - like, for example, what happens if this is one ship's 2nd Mission, and another ship's 1st? And if it takes damage (or is sunk) in the first and is unavailable in the second? Do you cancel the mission? How? Or is there backup? And just what's stopping you from assigning all the ships to all the missions? That's just too many variables for me - sorry. I suppose a turn could be set to one week (1/4 of a month) during a war - or even two - or 10 days - but that still leaves too many questions - and it's troublesome to implement. 'KISS' principle is the best, IMHO. Unless Fredrik has enough time on his hands - which I sincerely doubt. Cheers!
|
|