|
Post by tbr on Jul 22, 2022 12:08:09 GMT -6
It is possible that there was something more useless than depth charges on a WW2-era light cruiser, but if so I'm not aware of it. The ships are too big, not manueverable enough, usually don't have proper ASDIC/SONAR equipment and are optimized for different roles - surface attack and AA, mostly. The ships that had depth charges added got them as sort of a 'why not' rather than as an 'absolutely necessary'. To my knowledge there is no case of a CL successfully prosecuting an ASW contact unless maybe by ramming. Add to that the expensive possibility of losing a CL to a sub instead of a DD or KE and you can see why it just wasn't done. Missile cruisers might or might not be able to prosecute ASW targets. My knowledge of the subject is seriously out of date after, say, the 80s, but: Until the recent development of the vertical-launch silo, capable of launching different types of missile, each missile required a separate launcher, with heavy weight penalties as you added equipment. So most of the 'early' missile ships (1950-1990 maybe) were highly specialized for AA or ASW roles and could launch and control just a couple of missiles at a time. Many missile-armed ships did carry at least some ASW gear - fear of submarines being widespread and legitimate - usually the US SUBROC, a conventional torpedo (sometimes wire-guided), or something similar to one of those. For harassment (Cuban blockade) US ships used improvised explosives and maybe some depth charges. Unlike ASW work in WW2, a missile cruiser could and should develop the target by passive detection, including the use of helicopter or ASW plane equipment, and then fire a torpedo or a missile-delivered torpedo (SUBROC) at it from some distance away. Where a WW2 CL would not have the equipment, manueverability or training, a missile cruiser which might be 'tilted' toward AA or surface attack certainly could carry some useful ASW systems and almost certainly would. Director, ASROC was standard on the "AAW" DDG's and CG's (DLG'S) of the USN since the 1960's. The FRAME'd Fletchers and Gearings couldn't be refitted with ASROC and got DASH instead. But for the PG's and smaller fray AFAIK all USN post WWWII designed combatants had both ASW sensors and effectors (most cases both SVTT ("Pyramid") and ASROC). Within/before WWII you are mostly correct, though even with those ships the USN tried to refit them with ASW capability when it kept them in service (e.g. the "Albany class" ex-CA CG's). ASROC could be fired both from its dedicated "box" launcher as wellas some models of the "standard" launcher.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 22, 2022 11:56:01 GMT -6
I have made (and uploaded in this forum) a mod which cheapens coastal battery upkeep and makes them more combat effective. Cannot do much about their range though, apart from always enabling increased elevation. I regularly see enemy (and my own ships) severely damaged or outright sunk by coastal batteries if they stray into range.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 18, 2022 6:24:11 GMT -6
One possible mistake is not upping the aircraft type number to reflect the additional aircraft types: ACTypesNo= needs to reflect the total # of AT types in the bcs file
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 26, 2022 10:47:00 GMT -6
even the ability to design a large cruise like the Alaska class, a ship with 12" gun but cruiser protection. You can already do this in RTW2. Yes, you can but it will be classified as a BC, not a CA/CB
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 25, 2022 2:38:57 GMT -6
Could anyone please tell me what this error message means? I see this when I open the game "Warning! SetPossessionOwners, possession: Error Could not find nation: Error". I was trying to mod the game maps but I checked the spelling of my nation names in the MapData files and they are all correct, I am pulling my hair out over this. If anyone could tell me where to look for this error and in what file, that would be amazing. Cheers. This should be a spelling error. I had this once too, use a "clean" save and copy-paste the nation names therefrom. Be careful though, somne nations have "almost" the same names as their home regions and this difference my hit you when you copy-paste...
In any case I recommend notepad++, its autocomplete suggestions will show you multiple suggestions if you have written names differently.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 16, 2022 16:45:28 GMT -6
I think the third doctrine choice could reflect jeune ecole in combination with a pre-Tirpitz German Navy doctrine: Combine commerce raiding with a focus on coastal defence. Loose less VP due to being blockaded, minimal VP loss for declining "big/high seas" battles (Fleet, battleship engagement, offensive coastal raids/bombardments), neutral effects on cruiser actions/engagements, some increased gain from merchant sinkings and increased VP loss from declining/loosing defensive coastal raid/bombardment missions.
This would be the most "defensive" of the three doctrines with the major difference to "fleet in being" that with the latter there is an actual fleet for which an expectation exisst to eventually USE that fleet under favourable conditions (or at least threaten to do so).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 16, 2022 16:36:13 GMT -6
My recommendation for a quick logic check: change the game year in the save file and check whether this worked.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 16, 2022 16:35:28 GMT -6
If the values are truly unchanged I am stumped. Only remaining possiblle faults AFAIK: 1. Line error (inadvertendly editing the aircraft model above/below, did this a few times) 2. Speed/Time mixup cancelling the change (the "range" figures in the save are actually minutes of flight, the "range" value in game is generated by multiplying this with cruise speed)
Checked for #1; not it (this time, anyway). #2 is good to know, but doesn't explain it either. as far as I can see. I get that endurance in minutes * cruising speed will not produce the numbers in the aircraft types screen. The former would be maximum distance travelable in the air with that load, while the game behaves as if the latter is a mission radius after allowing some amount for possible combat. But what I observed when I exited, changed endurance values in the .bcs file, saved it, and re-started RTW2 using the edited save file was that the values on the aircraft screen were the same as before. If I understand you right, that should be impossible. (As mentioned, I then exited again and checked to make sure the save file I had just loaded did have the altered endurance values.) Did you edit Autosave.bcs or RTWX.bcs (X= save number)?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 16, 2022 6:35:28 GMT -6
You most likely made an error in the ID# or some such. The individual ID# shall not be doubled...
Did you edit/copy the latest version of the aircraft in question? Sometimes I was frustrated and it turned out I had edited/copied an earlier obsolete version from the "modern" save file.
Fairly sure I did not copy--as opposed to edit--anything. I simply edited the range values for a certain AC model in the current save file. Don't see how I could have duplicated anything because when I went back in to debug: -the AC ID# had not changed; -there was still only one instance of the AC model name; -there was only one instance of the revised "light load" range value, and none of the old value; -checked the autosave.bcs, nothing different there. I get that this should be impossible, which is why I raise this. If the values are truly unchanged I am stumped. Only remaining possiblle faults AFAIK: 1. Line error (inadvertendly editing the aircraft model above/below, did this a few times) 2. Speed/Time mixup cancelling the change (the "range" figures in the save are actually minutes of flight, the "range" value in game is generated by multiplying this with cruise speed)
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 15, 2022 4:10:54 GMT -6
I used this method to edit the range values for an aircraft model, but when I re-started the game the values in "view aircraft types" screen had not changed. To be certain, I searched the .bcs file and every remotely plausible file in the save directory for instances of the old range values and did not find them. But there they are, so they must be stored somewhere. Anyone know where? You most likely made an error in the ID# or some such. The individual ID# shall not be doubled...
Did you edit/copy the latest version of the aircraft in question? Sometimes I was frustrated and it turned out I had edited/copied an earlier obsolete version from the "modern" save file.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 25, 2022 7:33:27 GMT -6
It really depends on the nuances of the classification. One example would be all American CGs being frigates before the reclassification. Another would be Proj 22350 and 11356 ships, which also have a host of roles besides screening. The Ticonderoga weren't FG's before they were reclassed, they were classed as DDG's until they were repurposed in planning to act as flagships, as I said they are essentially a Spruance class hull with a different superstructure. Yes modern FG are technically multirole ships, but for the time planned in the game that's not what frigate like ships were generally used for, modern frigates are best classed as cheap alternatives to DDG's (which are also multirole ships) and extremely cheaper alternatives to LSC that actually have a history of properly working. Maxnacemit is not referring to the Tico's...
He is correct, at some point in the USN the "frigate" was a larger combatant than the "destroyer". Only after the "cruiser gap" scare the US "frigates" were reclassified "cruisers" (and the "destroyer escorts" as "frigates", establishing the current pradigm frigate<destroyer).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 24, 2022 12:41:21 GMT -6
As the release date has now been pushed back till the end of this year and it's going to be a new game not just an upgrade to RTW2 I suppose developers are still open to suggestions? Is it possible to have the option of having calibre and armour measured in mm? Also please all weights and speed of aircraft in the IMS (ie km/h and kg). These is the standard convention in most countries in the world. Maybe this is something we could choose at the beginning of the game? It is now, but within the period (including RTW3) the "imperial" measures were the standard for gun calibres and weights. Speed of combat aircraft is still measured in kn and weights in pounds, at least by the dominant naval aircraft user/producer today (i.e. the US).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 20, 2022 9:16:14 GMT -6
"Naval Warfare Simulations?" Well, a space navy is still a navy, right? Let's add to the series; we've already got Rule the Waves and Rule the Depths, why not add Rule the Stars too? And if someone replaced the names and places with the ones from Wing Commander, it would be a shame, wouldn't it? :-D Remember McAuliffe!
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 20, 2022 8:16:09 GMT -6
Very excited. Will buy it on day one. Looking forward to better AI and ship officer and ship histories. It would be very cool to play as a poor nation and use a ship all the way from 1890 to 1950s. Just imagine the stories the ship has to tell. It would be the spirit of the nation! You mean the HrMs De Zeven Provincien? Being finally decommissioned 78 years after the keel was laid down. I remember a dinner with MGP officers, all of which sailed on her or her sister in an earlier time when they actually still fired their guns. While the guns and their ammo were initially a de facto global standard in the end they were orphans, with massive cost for the ammo. The joke was "another Volkswagen" whenever they fired a salvo. And that was in the 80/90's, when few Peruvians could afford said "Volkswagen"....
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 20, 2022 8:05:40 GMT -6
May not be the book you're thinking of, but that sounds like the water maze from Iain M Banks' Surface Detail. Got to love the Culture series.
Anyway, very much looking forward to RTW3 - bit of a shame it's moved away from expansion status as I was hoping for a relatively swift release, but October isn't that long away really.
Welcome to the Forums! Gosh, feels like a while since I've sounded the Boatswain's call.
We need that sound effect when we click certain links here williammiller ! You are looking for "Surface Action", re-released as "Seas of Venus":
|
|