|
Post by tbr on May 19, 2022 11:51:07 GMT -6
I'm really, really looking forward to 《RTW: Age of Sails》 coming out in the near future Yes! Playing out Sepping's cross bracing effects (not to mention iron knees) on a pre-steam ships-of-the-line race...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on May 17, 2022 10:26:59 GMT -6
Announcement will be out within a few hours actually. Now, that's cruel. I am still riding the east-to-west side of jetlag and am early up (and down) at the moment. This will likely make me stay up too long.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 23, 2022 14:17:08 GMT -6
I had an idea today: There are several historical ship designs that were, at least in hindsight, -erm- "off". They deviated from the "usual" to a greater or lesser degree, e.g. the Matsushima class, Victoria class, Panzerschiff A (aka Deutschland class), Kitakami (after torpedo cruiser modification). But, while the player is, within constraints, free to do such things the AI does not (perhaps with the Panzerschiffe and the slightly buggy "3rd class battleships" as an exception).
I would like to see the AI to use such "whacky" designs, for which we would of course need templates. To ensure the AI does not suddenly go "all whacko" there should be a "whacky design counter" for each decade. Depending on fleet size setting modified by RNG and national characteristics, every new built ship to a "whacky template" would be counted to ensure the AI can only build 1, 2 or 12 (say, the French on large fleet size with a "risky" RNG roll) ships to a "whacky" design per decade.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 30, 2022 16:32:46 GMT -6
The results obtained by torpedoes in the game are hugely influenced by how you, personally, handle destroyers in the game. Aggressive manual control of destroyers will result in a percentage of hits that is far above what was ever achieved historically. This advantage is so extreme that experienced players can probably win most battles using just their destroyer force under manual control. On the other hand, allowing the AI to handle destroyers probably results in fewer hits than were historically typical, though there is so much variation in battle situations it is quite hard to evaluate this. Why not just simulate a torpedo shot like you would a gun shot? Take into account all the variables and roll a die, maybe with a few ticks of delay depending on the distance, and a chance to hit other ships in the way (also die roll). That way there would be no difference between AI torpedoing and human micromanagement at the lowest level of simulation, thus allowing you to reach historical levels of performance without worrying about balance. It is, in my opinion, the most realistic way. The battlefield is chaotic and die rolls represent all those countless small variables not taken into calculation. The time to target for a torpedo is a multiple of the "turn time" (RTW is a WEGO turnbased game) in RTW's tactical layer. That means course changes of the target etc. over the turns since firing can outright eliminate a torpedo's chance to hit but another ship can be endagered etc. This cannot be abstracted within a single RTW tactical turn. However, for the "end game" of a homing torpedo I actually recommended exactly this, i.e. doing such a calculation when the torpedo enters a surface ship's range that represents torpedo homing sonar acquisition range and would be crossed within one or two more "minute turns":
I think resurrecting my post from two years ago on how to implement torpedo homing and countermeasures is timely here: On fusing it is important to take into account that there are two separate types of "magnetic" proximity fuses. The passive magnetic fuse relied on the disturbance caused by the target ship in the earths's magnetic field and therefore was very unreliable, e.g. the localized magnetic conditions around Norway practically rendered German passive magnetic fuses useless during Weserübung. However, there is also the active magnetic fuse which generates its own magnetic field for detection of the ship's keel above it. This one is far, far more reliable and still in use today. The German Navy introduced it in the later guided G7's like the Zaunkönig II. In guidance the IBIS wake homing torpedo, prototype fired in 1944 at the Torpedoversuchsanstalt (TVA), would have been the most dangerous to surface ships, especially in combination with the active magnetic fuse. Then there was passive and active/passive acoustic homing, also combined with wire guidance and/or swiveling "searchlight" sonar. All in trials in 1942-44 and some of it in early frontline use in WWII. Earliest electric wire guidance was in WWI coastal defence torpedoes, but that was with optical guidance where a flare was put on the torpedo. That concept was pursued a bit in the TVA ("Spinne") in the late 1920's to early 1930's. True wire guidance of homing torpedoes, i.e. two-way communication between torpedo and firing unit with at least a "lock on" signal from the torpedo and the command guidance option from the unit to the torpedo was trialled by the TVS in 1944 as well. I would need to look at some documentation to quote the project name though. Electric propulsion has only recently become fully superior to thermodynamic propulsion with the power/energy density jump on the 1990's. Within the RTW timeframe electric propulsion is markedly inferior to thermodynamic (within this timeframe wet heater/air, perhaps oxygenized, with piston or turbine engine) in regards to speed and tactical range, albeit with the advantages of "optic stealth" and cheap construction as well as suitability for homing torpedoes. The electric WWII torpedo had lead-acid batteries which were a hassle for the crew due to the need for on-board maintenance and charging but were far, far quicker and cheaper to produce than thermodynamic propulsion units, especially by "non-arsenal" wartime contractors. With electric propulsion it is also easier to operate homing torpedoes due to lower self-noise. And there is one exception to the range, the longest ranged torpedo used in WWII, the "Dackel", was electrically propelled, fired over-the-horizon by E-Boats at the Normandy invasion. But even with the pattern runnning mechanism it was a relatively ineffective weapon. And we even had the first two rounds of the countermeasure-countercountermeasure evolution cycle there during WWII as reflected by the steps from Falke (first passive homing torpedo that was susceptible to evasive throttling as it could home only on escorts when they were within a certain speed segment) to Zaunkönig I (which led to the Foxer decoy) and Zaunkönig II. Arguably, Ibis (wake homer), Geier (active-passive homer) and the wire guided Lerche also were part of this cycle, as even if they did not enter frontline use due to the 1944 war emergency program cut-off at the TVA, their technology was used and implemented in the Cold War.
In RTW2 terms it will be very difficult to implement the different homing torpedo mechanisms while respecting the countermeasure-countercountermeasure cycle. Kinematic and sensor simulation of torpedo performance is difficult, extensive and mostly done only in the classified realm. Nothing I have seen in games, that includes Dangerous Waters and Cold Waters, truly does it "right".
Perhaps it will be easiest if homing and countermeasure effectiveness get abstracted a bit. Early homing mechanisms and proximity fuses were unreliable even when not faced with countermeasures. Just have a tech step in torpedo homing provide two different values, one is initiation distance (in yards), i.e. the distance at which the torpedo detects and begins homing on a target. The second value would be initiation probability, i.e. the probability that a given torpedo's homing mechanism will work until hit. "Work" in this case, to simplify implementation, would therefore mean a hit against the closest surface ship (so that no complex kinematics need to be simulated, let alone target-loss and reattack manoeuvres, interference, self-noise vs. speed etc.). If the homing mechanism and proximity fuse does not "work" due to a failed probability roll (easiest to do this roll in the launch turn) the torpedo would act as a straight runner with an impact fuse. So an early homing mechanism could have a 250yds 30% capability, i.e. the torpedo would home (and hit) in 30% of the cases it enters within 250yds of a ship. Countermeasures would impose negatives on these stats, e.g. -50 and -20% with the first generation Foxer. At the beginning of the scenario the respective techs would be compared and the values for the scenario assigned, e.g. if both sides have 1st gen homing and countermeasures homing torpedoes would only home in 10% of the cases when they enter 200yds of a surface target. If one side does not have the countermeasure tech its enemy's torps would home at 250yds in 30% of cases. Oh, and do not forget a 1 or 2 minute/turn safety distance before turning "homing" live to avoid sui- or fratricide.
Another advantage of this approach is that the AI would not need to "learn" using homing torpedoes since it would continue to use them the same as straight runners. This also would mean that the final "home run" distance would in most cases be covered by the torpedo within two "minute turns" anyways, so there is really no huge point not to abstract this stretch as simulated torpedo himong behaviour would not cover more than those two tunrs anyways (the rare exception of the approach directly from aft at a high speed target should be ignored here as the AI will not willingly shoot for it anyways). Further generations in torpedo homing and torpedo countermeasures, in their abstraction, would incorporate general homing mechanism improvement, countermeasure and countercountermeasure development by raising both stat types (positive for homing tech, negative for countermeasure tech). To avoid "gamey" effectiveness of homing torpedoes implement a "hard" ceiling on initiation range and initiation probability (e.g. 750yds and 60%), even if the "consolidated tech level" of a scenario is higher due to one side having late gen homing and the other no countermeasure tech.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 30, 2022 2:45:10 GMT -6
If they do add more ramming, there should be an additional danger of your ships colliding with each other or civilian vessels. The loss of a ship, prestige, funds, and/or tension with a foreign power could be potential consequences. Everybody who read "The Rules of the Game" knows the biggest historical impact from "ramming" was through peacetime accidents...
Perhaps the best way to implement "ram bows" is to provide ships built/designed in this phase with a chance to cause accidents (to come out at 1-3 sinkings per decade at normal fleet size) to other ships until technology progresses and an upgrade is made.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 23, 2022 15:40:33 GMT -6
Hi William, I had updated my pc's OS and now I am finding my old activation keys seem non functional Looking at the mails my site code and MID seem to be different from what I had back then. So, I wanted to know how I'd be able to unlock the game (again) thanks in advance Just install and immediately update to the latest patch, DRM has been removed.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 7, 2022 12:58:06 GMT -6
do u know any war games that i can play using my version My recommendations are WinSPMBT and WinSPWW2:
Continuously updated bug-free (unless the latest update introduced some) versions of the "classic" Steel Panthers - and they are free!
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 1, 2022 13:00:40 GMT -6
store.steampowered.com/app/887570/NEBULOUS_Fleet_Command/Fred, I hope you can partner with this guy! The combat of this 3d Space game is amazing. There are numerous really awesome youtube vids on it as well. If you were to combine it with the research, campaign and strategy aspects of your rule the waves games, you'd rule the galaxy! On my wishlist. Haven't bought yet dur to the missing singleplayer "hook" that is a dynamic campaign.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Feb 18, 2022 1:40:43 GMT -6
Also do not forget to raise the ACTypesNo to the new total.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Feb 17, 2022 15:34:11 GMT -6
You copy the aircraft types from an old advanced savegame into your modded new game, giving them approbriate numbers (for a 1900 start begin with AT0). You will want an advanced F, TB, DB, PB, FS and MB, i.e. 6 types. For extra kicks you can give those aircraft even more speed and payload capacity... Insert in the .bcs file here: [AircraftTypes] ACTypesNo=6 AT0Name=
To get planes however you need to edit the [AircraftTypes] section and copy paste in late designs from another late game save. Be careful to adapt the ATX numbers to start from '0' (or from the end of your current savegame if you edit into a running game e.g. a 1920 start).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Feb 7, 2022 13:15:49 GMT -6
The button you want is "shoot" Bah! Loud, obnoxious, dangerous pressure shock, all smoke and no fireworks. I'll take the "Launch" one with the funky keys instead. With sensible design that is not just one but two buttons, to be pressed simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Feb 3, 2022 6:13:18 GMT -6
Is this a real problem? Well the armor sure is. You STILL cannot build a proper Yamato. And if you’re designing ships close to their tonnage limit, they will be overweight during their first refit which sucks. So that’s annoying. This is a real problem in navies today, but it began around 1980 or so. With ervery passing year there are higher requirements, both real (as in objectively necessary or beneficial) and bureaucratic (the usual happenings under Parkinson's Law), that result in higher "base" requirements on a warship (in RTW2 reflected in the "hull weight"). One example is that late 1970 warships still have enlisted berthing with 30+ sharing one compartment and 4 showers/WC's, in the 1990's the largest compartment you can find is 13 (with 2 of each), today's standard is 2-4 per compartment with en-suite WC/shower, and that's for the lowest ranks aboard. Some of this seems excessive to us old farts who firs went to sea in hammocks and later 84 crew-bunks compartment, but navies need to do this to get and keep their personnel.
Where the bureaucrats come in is e.g. in needlessly taking on standards from the civilian world that results in stairways ("ladders") getting ever less steep and cosuming ever more space.
So, this its real and there are real concerns today that certein classes of ship (such as fully hardened low signature MCM) vessels) cannot be built anymore if the "modern" standards were to be fully applied since the minimum crew numbers alone already result in excessive displacement.
|
|
|
MTBs
Jan 29, 2022 8:54:58 GMT -6
Post by tbr on Jan 29, 2022 8:54:58 GMT -6
Oh, I won defensive invasion battles just by the MTB sinking two BB's and several transports. They are highly situative though, and in many scenarios their patrol areas are positioned relative to the "usual" battle path in such a way that the two do not meet.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 26, 2022 16:02:56 GMT -6
Do not get me wrong, Mikasa is worth a visit if you are there and have the time. This website has some pictures belowdeck, in fact there is practically everything in there you can see. The "exhibition" of the ship models etc. occupies the center of the decored hull where the machinery used to reside. Apart from the wardroom and Togo's cabin there is nothing which can give you a feel for how the crew lived. What weapon installations can be seen fell disconnected because key elements of thier operation (ammunition handling, reserve ammunition boxes etc.) are missing. The whole installation gives of a vibe like visiting the Magic Castle vs. visiting Marksburg or Burg Eltz gives. Even the artificial retread castles like Saalburg and Neuschwanstein feel more "real".
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 26, 2022 15:52:38 GMT -6
archelaos - you are right to add the Averoff to the list - a most distinguished ship and a critical piece of naval history. tbr - yeah, that was a stupid mistake. No idea where that came from... I've never had the chance to see her remains, so I defer to your assessment. Still, she is the sole remaining example of her type, complete or not. Above decks she is rather enjoyable. But once you go below you miss all the elements that make a ship, not just a building that is a mock-up of one. What is there started with the ship, but IIRC between having served as some kind of assembly hall and the disarmament after WWII (the main guns are mockups) too much was lost.
|
|