|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 23, 2021 6:58:17 GMT -6
Sorry to hear of his passing. The few times I interacted with him regarding the store he always responded kindly and fixed the problem without delay even when the problem was one of my own making.
My condolences to his family and friends.
|
|
|
Speed
Jun 22, 2020 0:07:54 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 22, 2020 0:07:54 GMT -6
In-game there are several drastic effects for a penetrating hit to the Conn. Lowered crew quality, momentarily losing ship control, lowered fired control quality, etc. The full list is in Fredrik's tidbits thread which if you can't find here will also be in the RTW1 forum.
In real life the command crew tended not to use the conning tower in battle because it limited visibility too much. The Americans were moving towards the British perspective of replacing a heavily armored CT with one that only had splinter protection. That mod may have been done on one or more of the Pearl Harbor veteran rebuilds but my memory may be off. Anyway, after South Dakota's experience at 2nd Guadalcanal the pendulum of opinion in the US Navy swung the other way and was only beginning to come back to the British perspective towards the end of the war. It was something that was debated when the recommendations for any follow on battleships were made at the end of 1945.
In-game though the only penalty I'm aware of is weight and CT armor doesn't cost that much. The downsides in-game are pretty bad. I personally wouldn't go the British route in-game although I understand their thinking and don't criticize their historical choice.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 10, 2020 0:02:16 GMT -6
One of the first things designers do once they have the basic stats desired is to figure out the topside arrangement, finding room for everything, and critically, keeping them away from the blast effect radius of the guns. The desire to put guns on the centerline to not waste the weight and space for redundant wing turrets makes the centerline real estate especially valuable. Superfiring turrets condenses the space required for those two turrets and frees up more space topside clear of the blast effects.
Honestly though, I'm surprised to hear increasing end-on fire without the need for wing turrets wasn't a priority.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jun 8, 2020 9:04:52 GMT -6
Metacentric height and stability are probably the reasons that aft superfiring turrets were adopted first for nations that didn't move to using both fore and aft turrets simultaneously. Most designs of that era had raised forecastles or cut down quarterdecks depending on how you look at it. So the aft turrets were usually physically one deck lower. In addition to blast effect concerns on the bridge director mentioned, the bridge and therefore most of the forward superstructure spaces also have to be built one deck higher if you have a foreward superfiring arrangement which adds even more top weight. Not something that's probably a big deal when the ships just tooling around in peace time but the designers had to make sure the ship would remain stable after battle damage and taking on water and top weight effects quickly become more serious.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 24, 2020 0:59:01 GMT -6
X-turrets are a bonus tech for the USA. It tends to appear freely sometime after 3 centerline turrets are researched. You definitely seemed to have moved a bit faster than is usual for a 10 percent research game. If I had to guess the randomization of the RP accumulated each turn and things like breakthroughs aren't impacted by the research rate so you may have just gotten lucky. 3 centerlines is also a Y tech which means once one nation gets it the others tend to see that and pick it up as well.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 6, 2020 8:41:07 GMT -6
Black and brown powder guns of the 1880s and early 1890s aren't really relevant to the development of smokeless powder guns from the mid-1890s on into the 20th century. They are significantly different beasts.
I agree with the OP that caliber increases are a little fast in the early game.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 6, 2020 18:29:13 GMT -6
It still isn't clear. If I want my crews to be trained ALWAYS, what do I do? Steps 1, 2, 3 . . . n. Do I have to pay to train them when it says they are now proficient? Or do I just train them once and they stay trained forever? Or, do they only stay trained if the proficiency is gained after a war has started and for the duration of the war? Some sort of indicator of what Crews proficiency level is and when/if their proficiency is going to "decay" would be neat. 1. Select the trainings you want and click apply, you start paying the costs immediately that turn. No effects are applied to your crews yet. 2. You pay for the costs for a year and then you will get the event that your crews are proficient in their new training focuses. The bonuses are applied to your crew. 3. From that point on, for the rest of the game, every turn you will continue to pay the training costs and the bonuses will be applied to your crew. Nothing will change until you either stop training or change training focuses. If you want to stop training and stop spending money immediately. 1. Click stop training. It takes one turn to process, the costs will end that turn and your crews will immediately lose all training bonuses. If you want to change training focuses (e.g. change from Night Fighting Training to Torpedo Warfare) 1. Click the training you want and unclick the one you no longer want and hit apply. You will pay the costs for both training focuses (the new one you clicked and the old one you unclicked) for the next year. The old training focus bonuses will still apply for that year, the new ones will not.
2. Once the year has passed, the costs and bonuses of the old training focus will stop and you will continue from that point with just the costs and bonuses of the new training focus applied to your crews for the rest of the game until you again make changes or stop training as above. If you want to immediately end one training focus and start working for a new one you need to use the stop training button. 1. Press the stop training button. It will take one turn to process as normal. All costs and bonuses will stop. 2. Next turn select the training focuses you want and click apply as you would if you were starting any training and it will go through the normal process listed at the top of this post.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 4, 2019 19:53:41 GMT -6
Hi gang: Has anyone had a chance to see the new movie on Midway? I am curious to see if the story is up to date with the most current research on the battle. I have to admit, the planes and ships look spot on thanks to CGI and Woody Harrelson sure as hell looks like Nimitz. I've seen it. Overall I would give it at least 3.5, maybe almost 4 stars out of 5. I enjoyed it. It really should be called Enterprise though instead of Midway. The movie shows the perspective of Enterprise and its crew through the first six months of the war. That is why you see the scenes for Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid ( Enterprise escorted Hornet) in the trailers. Midway is just the climatic third of the movie. Yorktown veterans or fans might be miffed. The ship has only brief appearances, mostly centered around the story of it being patched up in drydock and returned to battle in only 3 days. VAdm Fletcher isn't shown at all. There aren't a lot of glaring inaccuracies. One thing that is noticable is how compressed everything is. The ships are much closer together, the planes are bunched up and drop their weapons lower than in reality but that is just the nature of putting large scale events on a single screen. Same principle for why starship battles in science fiction TV/movies always seem to occur at point blank range with the ships almost touching. Also Torpedo 6 is shown making it's attack prior to Torpedo 8 and I think in real life that was reversed. So problems with historical accuracy are more about what was left out of the film entirely instead of things that were shown that didn't really happen that way. Overall, this is definitely Not Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor and I recommend going to see it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 4, 2019 19:36:37 GMT -6
True but there is only so far into the details of an event you can simulate in a game. Fredrik doesn't mention it specifically so I don't know if the damage control tech level or crew quality effects the event but I'm not sure it needs to. It would be great if they did but overall, the submarine torpedoing event is a pretty minor feature in the game and it might become a question of just how much time the primary programmer has to tweak and add details to that feature. Of course, that is up to Fredrik's judgement.
I'll defer to you on the Mediterranean. It's not really in my wheelhouse.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 4, 2019 18:30:02 GMT -6
Historically (disregarding scuttling actions, just the prime cause that started the reason for being sunk)in WW2 Japan lost 9 CV to subs, 11 to A/C and 1 to surface fleets. UK lost 5 CV to subs, 1 to A/C and 1 to surface fleets. The US lost 4 CV to subs, 8 to A/C and 1 to surface fleets. ..... While the numbers are certainly accurate, we should look at what kind of carriers were lost and where. Of the Japanese carriers sunk, nine were either light or escort carriers. These were carriers built on ocean liner and other civilian hulls, not as warships with bulges. They were very vulnerable to torpedoes. For the British, Courageous was lost when two of her escorts went to help a merchant ship leaving without an adequate number of guards, the other were sunk in the Mediterranean Sea a shallow enclosed sea and this makes a difference. To adequately assess why the capital ships were lost in the game, we need to understand the construction and circumstances of the losses. That's fair. Shinano wasn't finished fitting out and so didn't have it's full capacity to survive underwater hits, Wasp was built with less subdivision and torpedo protection depth so that it could be squeezed into the last bit of available tonnage within the naval limitation treaties. Yorktown I wouldn't count at all for a between turn event because the ship had been crippled by aircraft during battle (i.e. an in-game scenario) and would be more of an example of an end-of-scenario event which occasionally happens. I doubt you could realistically program for the sinking of Shinano. How many ships traveled open, hostile waters to another port to finish fitting out? Wasp is already accounted for since Fredrik stated that TPS is a factor in the event; Wasp would simply be a fleet carrier with a 0 or 1 for a TPS. I wouldn't think that the sinkings in the Med (e.g. Ark Royal) would be disqualified for any reason. Yes, the Med isn't the Pacific but it isn't Lake Michigan either. For the depths that WW2 subs operated at it's plenty open enough. Of course, Taiho and Shokaku are the prime examples of the event. Full sized fleet carriers in the middle of a battlefleet steaming into a fight. One thing to maybe consider for the frequency of the event is the size of in-game fleets compared to historical fleets. If the player fleets are smaller than historical fleets then every loss hurts more and has a magnified severity. So it's possible the chance of occurrence might have to be reduced but I don't have enough data to form an opinion on that. I definitely think it should be part of the game though.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 25, 2019 10:54:59 GMT -6
Some technologies are skipped - at random - as you progress through a playthrough (see the wikia for the chance). It's not impossible to skip 2 or 3 technologies at a time either, so without a tech sale or espionage event triggering, you lose access to that tech. It seems that you would prefer an "all techs available" mode? This can be done if the OP is interested. Take the Research Areas 2 file in the Data folder and each tech has an entry like this: Supercharged diesels;1943;N;70;10;25;Reduces weight of diesel engines by 10% 1943 is the nominal date of discovery. if you are researching the tech before you get to that game year your RP rate in that one area is throttled until the year is reached or the tech is completed anyway. N means that the tech is not more likely to spread once it is researched by the first nation that completes it. If it had a Y then the chance for other nations to research it goes up once one nation "discovers" it. 70 is the percent chance you will research that tech when it is checked. 100 means that tech is always researched when the previous tech is completed. It will never be skipped. It's not a go/no-go check. Usually if there is time left in the game you will go back and research a previous tech that was skipped the first time so the game does usually re-perform the check multiple times a game. 10 is the multiple of "X" for the number of research points needed to complete the research. It was "X" = 20,000 RP in RTW1 but I haven't verified it's the same multiple in RTW2. 25 in this case is the Tech ID number used to assign bonus techs to various nations in the BNat file. So if the OP or someone else wanted to remove the chance for a specific tech to be skipped (or all of them for that matter) then they could make a copy of the Research Area file and modify the percent chance to 100 for the applicable techs. Save the original file somewhere else of course.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 21, 2019 18:41:53 GMT -6
I'm just going to piggyback on this thread since it's related but with [v. 1.12] when I click on new game for Great Britain, for both 1900 and 1920 starts, the first bonus tech is blank. This is how it appears on screen:
Research advantage: Ship design Research advantage: Radar and electronics Bonus tech: Bonus tech: Flight deck Bonus tech: All forward main armament
Looking in the BNat1900 and 1920 files for Great Britain the first bonus tech is listed as BTL1=1320. As far as I can tell, there is no tech in the ResearchAreas2 file that has 1320 as an ID number. 1320 got skipped in the Fleet Tactics area. (I also double checked that none of the 1300 ID numbers were duplicated and they aren't) Integrated CIC at 1319 would seem to be an appropriate choice for Great Britain but of course you may have had another tech in mind altogether.
I checked the other nations for both start dates and that was the only one where I saw a blank Bonus Tech listed.
[Edit - Do you want me to make a new thread with the [v. 1.12] tag to make it easier to track if it is a typo/bug?]
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 13, 2019 18:42:31 GMT -6
Understanding how protected cruiser armour is implement is of interest to me considering that I'm planning on limiting my cruisers to protected cruisers and my battleships to predreadnaughts in the next game I play...! I'm looking forward to those 1944 predreadnaugts actually... Should be an interesting, if probably doomed, experiment. Not that that is a bad thing since it's just a game and you never know for sure until you try. Are you planning on sticking with coal powered ships throughout the game then since coal bunkers provided a significant part of the protection scheme for protected cruisers?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 13, 2019 18:29:46 GMT -6
While it's been said already, each increase in gun quality comes with an improvement in range and penetration. While I'm not certain, I think this range increase also effectively improves accuracy at a given distance. So if a Q-1 gun's max range is 10k and the Q0 is 11k, then the Q0 will hit at 10k more reliably. Assuming that gun range mechanics haven't changed from RTW1, you're right it makes a difference in the narrow band of ranges that separate short, medium and long range for guns of different quality. The range categories are just the current maximum effective range divided into thirds. So if you have a gun of 0 quality with a current maximum range of 15,000 yards then 11,000 yards would be considered well into long range (10,001 - 15,000 yds) and your ship would have the accuracy penalty for shooting at long range. If the same caliber Q1 gun has a maximum effective range of 16,500 yards then 11,000 yards falls right into the boundary between medium and long range (5,501 - 11,000 and 11,001 - 16,500 yds) so at 11,000 yards or just inside it the ship would have the accuracy penalty for medium range instead of long range. So in that example from 10,001 - 11,000 yards the Q1 gun would be more accurate than the Q0 gun.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 25, 2019 20:48:05 GMT -6
Is there a host of anime characters converting it into the Space Battlecarrier Kaga? There aren't that many battleships or battlecruisers (or former ones) that sank more or less intact so I guess if we ever need one that would be a candidate. Too bad they had an equipment failure and had to call off the search early. No film of Akagi until they can go back out probably next year. Hopefully they can find Soryu and Hiryu as well.
|
|