|
Post by tbr on Jan 23, 2024 14:56:56 GMT -6
I did some interesting "station" B's in some lategames with 6 or even 7 main guns. Superior to anything below contemporary BC/BB and far more economical than using "full size" but older BC/BB on "station" duty. Does not work at all in seas where a potential enemy has a home area though...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 1, 2023 17:10:30 GMT -6
You also need to differentiate a bit. The early Soviet "VLS" is an upright revolver, conceptually very much like a slim Tartar/Terrier launcher with a vertical only rail that is recessed into the deck. Nevertheless that meant for some designs that several (IIRC up to six) launchers could be positioned in/on/under a deck space only 1.5 times larger than the space for a Mark 26 twin arm system. But I doubt that effective rate of fire was anywhere close to three times that of a Mk 26 and would not be surprised if overall number of missiles was not significantly higher. Those revolvers waste a lot of below deck space compared to a modern Mk41, let alone a Mk54 VLS.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 6, 2023 15:09:57 GMT -6
Disabling aircraft altogether is easy, just delete the aircraft manufacturer names in the respective data files. Airships will be unaffected. Problem is the AI will still build aircraft carriers, airbases and ships with floatplane installations.
You could try deleting all aircraft carrier templates from the data folder as well and modify all CL/CA/BC/BB templates to remove floatplanes, helicopters, hangars and catapults. Limit max airbase size to the minimum in the game settings as well.
|
|
|
TSL?
Aug 11, 2023 2:01:40 GMT -6
Post by tbr on Aug 11, 2023 2:01:40 GMT -6
"Turns Since Last" (Invention)
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 28, 2023 11:51:58 GMT -6
To be absolutely fair you don't actually have to hit with underwater torpedoes for them to have an effect in battle, their presence forces the enemy to perhaps take less than totally favorable positions that would expose them to torpedo attack And this is one reason why historically hits by/with underwater torpedo tubes were so rare. The other is the gunfire threat. Historical naval combat ranges were influenced by the commander's knowledge (and respect for) contemporary weapon system capabilities. A lot of the desired effect was "tactical deterrrence", i.e. hedge in the enemy's alternatives of action. In RTW the player often acts extremely risky without being conscious of it. This results in at least an order of magnitude more "torpedo risk" and therefore hit expectancy.
Above water torpedo tubes were historically used as "salvo" weapons, i.e. individual torpedoes were not aimed at individual ships but entire flotillas coordinated their torpedo launch to "sweep" an enemy formation's course so that individual ship evasion was not as much a factor. In this case the effect on enemy alternatives of action (keep course and steady firing solutions on enemy BB disivions and accept probability of torpedo hits or evade) was often more important than hitting (and sinking) an enemy vessel. Torpedo hit rates in the low single digit percentages were acepted. This is one aspect of torpedo engagement I miss in RTW3 since such salvoes can only be approximated by using the captains setting and choosng targets and firing positions carefully. I would really like to see a "salvo planner" with a graphical UI. The underwater torpedo tube however, especially on capital ships, was a weapon for aiming at and hiting individual targets, so the probability to get to a situation in combat to actually use it was significantly lower than for above water tubes on non-capitals. Small unit engagement was also far more prevalent historically so there were lots (relatively speaking, see below) of opportunities to use above water torpedo tubes.
Another factor is the the effect of scale on statistics. Historically true maximum effort naval combat was very rare, even counting relatively risk averse engagements like Jutland/Skagerrak. Within the RTW3 timeframe we are barely into the triple digits. The typical RTW3 game will see more than an order of magnitude more engagements and probably two orders of magnitude more ships engaged in combat.
All in all an RTW3 game should see between 100 to 1000 times (or even more with superextralarge fleet settings) the incidences of various historically rare events, e.g. torpedo hits from underwater torpedo tubes, but also ships sunk in combat, magazine explosions etc.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 24, 2023 9:50:07 GMT -6
You can also edit the date of your savegame to extend play
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 21, 2023 10:15:14 GMT -6
Congrats for the first nation mod in RTW3! Wouldn't it have been better to replace Austria-Hungary instead of China? The Netherlands have possessions in sea areas where Spain and China also are present, A-H is stuck in the Adria...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 19, 2023 14:15:58 GMT -6
I get a design error about being unable to fit triple turrets on a 30kton BB with TPS 2 and 25 knots in 1916. This seems somewhat unreasonable considering Nevada, etc. historically.
Note that the AI does not seem to have this issue, having built the following, both of which have TPS 2 according to the files.
This is a mechanism to reflect the constraints which IRL led to the turret layout of the US Pensacola class cruisers (and others) until you get a certain tech. Your second AI design is too slow (IIRC there is a speed/displacement relationship behind this and anything below 23kn is unaffected anyways). Your first design only has two mid-line turrets which is why (I think) the rule does not apply. IIRC the tooltip does not state this but you are only restricted from tripple turrets in "A" and "Y" positions if there are more than two midline turrets. So this is WAD but the tooltip/design remark should be better worded.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 22, 2023 15:55:40 GMT -6
I’m not entirely sure why you’d want to build an 8000 ton pure ASW ship that’ll instantly get relegated to TP only. IMO the Kidd is a much better template to build fleet workhorses against. Those would need to be classed CL in RTW3 game terms however
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 23, 2023 16:55:30 GMT -6
UAD's designers do not understand abstraction. Thie leads them to "simulate" things on the one hand and try to generate "balance" on the other. The biggest issue is sighting ranges, but also ballistics (a weird mix of "simulated balisstics" and abstracted "to hit" probability calculations), economies, technology effects etc.
UAD's designer understood RTW on a surface level only. The biggest and best thing Fredrik did was to realize he needed to abstract in order to approximate reality, never forgetting he is abstracting. The gun quality system is a case in point, when I first played a SAI demo I was put off by the rendition of SMS von der Tann, coming off Distant Guns Jutland where von der Tann's increased elevation was very impactful. I also missed the difference between high MV and "mid" MV guns etc. But when RTW came out I understood. Detailed "simulation" of all the different gun aspects would have been a rabbit hole leading to complexity and imbalance. UAD went down about a dozen of such rabbit holes and is deeply flawed by it.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 14, 2023 9:05:28 GMT -6
Keep in mind though that Italy was not all that united then as well. There were anti-monarchists who were very sore with Cavour for trading Nice to France, Southern Italy was a wholly different kettle than the North, the Pope was still trying to regain temporal power (and was supported by the Roman nobility who chafed under Piedmontese-Savoyard domination). In RTW2/3 terms (and perhaps it was even historically) a collapse of Italy and A-H regaining Venetia-Lombardy, France gobbling up Piedmont-Savoy and Sardinia with Southern Italy and Sicily descending into "minor" status is as likely as Italy gaining the full Adriatic coastline. Or an emergence of "Poland-Lithuania" or Sweden/Scandinavia to equate Spain's RTW2/3 role in the Baltic after disastrous defeats of Germany and/or Russia.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 24, 2022 16:02:23 GMT -6
If you examine the tonnage and SHP of the USS Kitty Hawk, full load is about 80,000 ton with a Shaft Horsepower of 280,000. The game must take this into account. I always considererd RTW tonnage to be standard displacement. But Kitty Hawk is a good argument for allowing 64kton carriers in the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 16, 2022 3:23:45 GMT -6
Keep in mind RTW3 starts in 1890, so secondaries are arguably the main weapon for the first decade or so. As a general rule armoring secondaries makes sense early game, later on anything beyond splinter protection is superfluous.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 6, 2022 10:24:15 GMT -6
1. You can mod lethality (# of guns, ROF, Accruracy, ammunition) of coastal defenses and thier maintenance, I have my own mod for that Any chance you could share that?
Put in the data/IDes folder, remember to backup first!
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 6, 2022 8:31:50 GMT -6
I thought I’d toss my hat in with a few of my own and repeat some that were already said 1. Naval fortresses - land based guns are seemingly placed randomly along the coast, maybe preplan positions for them, increase their range, sighting, accuracy by far - land based guns were way more dangerous than ship based one due to accuracy and ability to reach out. Lower upkeep. It should be possible to create some very dangerous positions that are actually useful. 2. Ability to control land based aircraft and call in actions once Radio is discovered. Simple enough, historically accurate and crucial for some countries to be able to fight off a stronger force. 3. Adjust the budget so realistic and massive fleets are possible for those that want them. Very disappointing to never be able to recreate the battle of Jutland due to budget constraints. I want my 30 battleships fights. 4. Ability to at least somewhat choose what ships we want in a certain fight. Exceptions of course for surprises and ambushes but generally it feels like player has very little agency when it comes to fights he has to fight. We should also be able to choose our formations and what ships we want in them. 5. Simulated AI wars - to feel less lonely and give some dynamism to the map. 6. Ability to invade and occupy neutral countries or put some into your sphere of influence. 7. Ability to give ships over to AI but also have them follow certain plans - I should be able to give my carriers over to AI and tell them to keep their distance from enemy battle line rather than rush on in. 8. Less but bigger and more important wars. Player is rewarded for jumping from war to war right after another. Increasing his budget with each victory, wars should be a rare and world changing events from 1910s. Maybe even modeled world wars. 9. Sane country leader requests - president shouldn’t ask me to build 4 battleships when there’s a treaty in place limiting ships to 10/15k tons and getting outraged when I don’t. These requests should come when there’s a very large surplus in naval budget and country can handle it. 10. Fix Germany losing due to prestige loss because you share your home zone with Britain and have no real battleships to speak off while under Versailles limitations. Your country leaders shouldn’t demand the impossible. And lastly - peace treaties we can tailor ourselves. Limiting a nation to certain tonnages or making them scrap ships etc if they lose badly enough. 1. You can mod lethality (# of guns, ROF, Accruracy, ammunition) of coastal defenses and thier maintenance, I have my own mod for that
3. That is an easy savegame or B.nat mod, usually, in my very late games, I just add a lot of base resources to all AI countries to get another decade or so of play in that game
10. Never had this happen, but if it bugs you mod the savegame
|
|