|
Post by bcoopactual on May 28, 2019 6:47:28 GMT -6
"Most of the russian BBs sunk at Tsushima were built by France" - just out of curiosity: which one? I believe he's referring to the Borodinos. Three were sunk and one was captured. They weren't built by the French, they were built by the Russians but they were based off of the design of the French built Tsesarevich. According their wikipedia page they were intended to be copies of Tsesarevich but because they would use Russian engines and guns (which were heavier and bulkier) they had to be modified and enlarged somewhat to fit. He might be technically wrong on that detail (assuming that was what he was referring to) but his overall point is correct in that the French had a lot of influence on and built a number of vessels for the Russian Imperial navy due to their close relationship and common rival (Great Britain).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 26, 2019 17:49:59 GMT -6
Thanks for all the replies. Some of this I knew, some I didn't. One thing though, is that I look and Never see the "Flottilla Attack" button. Is this Captains Mode only? I usually use the method rimbecano described by right clicking the Main Force flag and then clicking "status". You will know Flotilla Attack is active because there will be a small black flag towards the upper left corner of the map window. You can click on that flag to cancel the order as well as the method you used to order it in the first place. The second photo illustrates the method abclark described to initiate Flotilla Attack.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 26, 2019 7:38:11 GMT -6
Ahhh.... I am having a horrible time getting my ships to fire torpedoes. It doesn't even allow me to manually. Wish I had a good answer for you. Early game torpedoes are slow(ish) and short ranged. That means to be effective they need to be launched at short range and preferably from ahead of the target so the target is running towards the torpedo and not away from where it's easier to out range the torpedo and it runs out of fuel. Also torpedoes are more unreliable early on. I'm sure you probably realize all of that already. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I bring it up because it means in the early game there is a small window (for a well moving target basically off of the port or starboard bow at relatively close range) that ships can fire in and have a hope of hitting. Getting DD into that position is difficult and under fire it's possible that the destroyers will turn away because the volume of fire directed at them is too great. I don't believe the destroyer AI is programmed for suicide runs so it doesn't matter how OK the admiral (the player) is about ordering it or how cheap they are relatively to replace. So that means it is difficult for the early game destroyers to get to a place where they can fire their fish so they don't do it as often as most players like. Believe me we've been having this discussion on the RTW1 forum for awhile. The good news is as technology improves your destroyers will get better and around the mid-late game, especially when they start carrying double and triple mounts, the destroyers can be a force to reckon with especially in bad visibility. In my opinion, the best bet early game is to wait until you've crippled a ship or two with gunfire and then order flotilla attack. In my experience my early game destroyers are much more likely to get a launch off against a crippled ship than they are one still capable of good speed. The other opportunity early game might be if you are at a disadvantage and trying to run away. In that case since the enemy is chasing you (usually I think in most situations the player tends to be the aggressor), ordering a flotilla attack puts the destroyers ahead of the enemy and in a better position to get a shot off instead of you chasing them and being behind them.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 26, 2019 0:18:20 GMT -6
I think for the sake of the virtual submariners, this event needs to be in the game Well let's get bcoopactual's take on it then. :] we should talk Fredrik into slipping it into a test patch. I'll go on record requesting a transfer to the infantry. It's funny as long as you don't consider that that is essentially what Germany did in WW2, losing 793 u-boats and 28,000 men (about a 75% casualty rate). Not that that was unique. Unfortunately when you start losing a total war that kind of thinking becomes the norm.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 24, 2019 5:30:36 GMT -6
Hmmm, I think I remember reading somewhere that long range on a ship makes them more likely to intercept a raider though, I wish I could remember where I saw that. Can anyone confirm that? Its should be similar to how floatplanes help with intercept chance as well (both for raiders, and intercepting them) I'll try and see if I can't find where I saw that. also, I'll mention about reliability. back in rtw1, I used speed tuned engines almost exclusively. But in rtw2, the penalty feels much steeper to me. iirc I had speed cut by something like six knots due to engine troubles once. If that happened on say, a CA during a cruiser battle, that could be absolutely crippling. But as the game has progressed, I've had less problems (which isn't to say no problems). Its probably a good idea to consider how badly the design needs its speed. That being said, if I can't fit every thing I want into say, a CL, I'm not afraid to speed tune its engines, as long as its worth it. In the end its you who gets to decide whats worth it, which is whats great about this game :3 (I also tend to use speed engines on refits, because if you're to the point of refitting an engine in a ship, you really need all the space you can get to make it worth it) This is the quote Fredrik made on the subject in the RTW1 forum. I don't think there is any reason for this to have changed. This is from the Fredrik's Tidbits thread on the RTW1 forum. "To clear this up: Ships with long range will: * Have better chances to escape interception as raiders. * Better chances of sinking merchants if raiders. * Better chance of intercepting raiders. * Less risk of being interned or scuttled from lack of fuel. * More fuel when a scenario starts (rarely of importance). Ships with reliable engines will have: * Less chance of engine problems in scenarios. * Less chance of needing to return to base area when at sea (getting a *). * Less risk of being interned or scuttled from engine problems. ----------------- Thre is a small chance that raiders will take part in regular battles, especially in the colonies. This is to simulate that they have been recalled to take part in an important operation. However, when interned, they should not be present of course. "
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 14:26:40 GMT -6
Yes it probably should but I dont get it, yet. About the your explenation how to apply conning tower and stuff, I been tinkering with it but nothing stick. Still a naked gun platform. But I will tinker somemore . Thanx for the reply thou. The little picture next to the box with the three dots is the currently selected object. To place one on the ship, click the mouse on desired part and then move the mouse up to the picture. When the mouse scrolls over the picture you should see the part move with the cursor. Then you place it where you want and click to leave the object there. Most of the masts, decks, superstructure and accessories overwrite each other so the last one you put down will be in the "front" closest to your viewpoint. There is another question regarding to the shippictures- there is the possibility to upload own pictures. Does it mean I could paint some ship bucket style picture, change the requiered size and use this? If yes, I see a lot work to come As far as I know, as long as it is the right size and .bmp format, you should be able to use it. The pictures created in-game end up in the applicable gamesave# folder but if you click on "select picture" instead of "generate picture" it brings up the standard Windows interface and you can go find the picture anywhere on your computer.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 13:26:35 GMT -6
Imho the blockade requirements should be set by an external config file. UK can more easily blockade Germany than Germany can blockade the UK or France, simply because of geography. Also blockading France or the US at one of their coastlines should only result in a partial blockade. Russia would need to have some time based blockade entries, before and after their railway reaches Murmansk, Vladivostok etc. I always like to see settings in external files (more mod-friendly), but this is somewhat built-in to the game, isn't it? Nations have a modifier which dictates how effective a blockade is against them. Yes there is a modifier included in the BNat file in the Data Folder. Most nations are set at 10. Which is the baseline and their fleet strength is multiplied by one. If I recall, UK is 12 (x1.2), Japan is 11, Russia is 8 (x0.8), A-H is 9 and everyone else is 10. Good suggestion, will think about that.
Blockade is admittedly somewhat simplified in the game, but there has to be some definition.
What about air power? is there involvement there? both from CVs and airbases? that should have some degree of weight on the matter, right? I can imagine that it would allow a blockading nation that had airbases in range to perform the blockade with fewer ships since the aircraft greatly expand the visible search radius. But for game purposes I don't think it would matter much. The blockade mechanic doesn't count the number of small auxiliary ships actually performing the stops, searches and seizures it counts the major naval combatants that are backing up and defending those auxiliary ships versus the blockaded nation's forces that would seek to break the blockade.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 11:41:58 GMT -6
Not sure about RTW, but back in Steam And Iron double turret explosions were definitively a thing. Ahh, SMS Seydlitz at Dogger Bank. I've never seen that in any of the games I played in RTW1. I noticed that the turrets didn't actually explode either, they just were permanently knocked out by the fire.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 11:26:40 GMT -6
Blockades happen when the blockading side has 110% or more of the naval strength of the defending side in the Ocean Area where the Defender's main home area is. Is this really still the case? 10% seems to be much too low of a number.
Great Britain authorized their increased spending in 1909 when they predicted Germany would have 13 dreadnoughts, and they would have only 16, and that to them was basically parity. Needing only 15 to blockade seems a bit absurd.
Shouldn't this number be increased?
Manual still says 110%. I'm not sure what the best answer would be. I know that the system has to be simplified to work in the game. Historically, the Grand Fleet didn't conduct the actual blockade, but the High Seas Fleet wouldn't sortie to clear away the auxiliary cruisers that were actually stopping ships because they knew the Grand Fleet was waiting to meet them if they did. As far as the British being concerned that they didn't have enough of an advantage, they assumed from a numbers standpoint that since the Germans would pick the moment to sortie, their numbers would be maximized (i.e. all ships out of refit and repair) whereas the British would have to assume that some of their ships would be in refit so they had to count only on having their average strength available. The Grand Fleet had more than 110% of the strength of the HSH (Using the in-game numbers, the Grand Fleet had a 161% strength ratio, without the 1.2 multiplier, at Jutland using the ship count from the Jutland order of battle wikipedia page) but maybe testing in the game worked out best with 110%. Not something I could answer. Maybe in a future update they will provide an option for players to adjust the ratio for a blockade to be put into effect. Or perhaps they could provide an event anytime a blockade is in effect asking the blockaded admiral if they want to engage the enemy fleet to break the blockade. That would force a fleet scale battle in that ocean area instead of a randomly generated one.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 11:02:37 GMT -6
One of the items in the miscellaneous changes planned for RTW2 was extra ammo was going to have a higher weight penalty than in RTW1 but I haven't gone back and compared equivalent ships in the two games to see if that actually made it into the game or not.
The first time I saw this topic brought up in the RTW1 forum it was because somebody was asking why AI designs captured as prizes carried so few main gun rounds. Fredrik chimed in pointing out that they were equivalent to standard historical loads for the day and he asked us what we normally loaded. The answers were similar to this thread if not a little higher on average. I'm pretty sure he was sitting at his computer with the "surprised Pikachu" meme look on his face.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 10:43:13 GMT -6
If I recall it's the pretty much the same minus the BLOCKADED on the main screen. There should be a red B in the home Ocean Area for the affected nation and there will be a note in the messages log indicating VP being awarded for blockading the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 9:40:25 GMT -6
Blockades happen when the blockading side has 110% or more of the naval strength of the defending side in the Ocean Area where the Defender's main home area is. The strength is calculated by number of ships weighted by type (I forget the exact numbers from RTW1 but it was something like each BB/BC=10, B=8, ACR=5, CL=3 and DD=1). The size and capabilities of the individual ships doesn't matter so a small BB counts the same for blockade purposes as a large BB.
That number is then modified by a multiplier from .8 to 1.2 depending on the country to account for geographic advantage/disadvantage. It's easier to blockade Russia (Gulf of Finland) and Austria-Hungary (Strait of Otranto) than the entire British Isles for example. Since the British had the biggest modifier (1.2) they always have the advantage when it comes to enforcing or resisting blockades.
In your case since you are fighting two nations the combined value of their fleet in your home waters will count against you.
I haven't seen it in RTW2 yet but usually there is the word BLOCKADED next to your flag and the game date on the main screen. There will be a red B in the map tab for the affected ocean area and you will see a note in the events window at the end of the turn stating that the blockading nation received X number of points for the blockade.
No idea about the planes as I haven't played a game that far yet. I'm mostly just screwing around checking out the new features waiting for the first update to be posted.
You can't move ships out of the area (except for raiders) but you can move ships into the area so you may have to condense your fleet from other areas to break the blockade. Or take the peace option when the next time the negotiations event fires. If you can't break the blockade it will eventually cause your Government to collapse with catastrophic results.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 9:08:13 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum. Are you familiar with the picture generation in RTW1? If so it's the same procedure as in RTW1, except for there being just one picture set for the moment. (Almost all of the ship picture artwork in RTW1 was added by players on the forum.) If not, then once you have the hull generated, click on the circled tab to bring up masts, superstructure and accessories. For foreign ships if you generate a picture for a ship and click "Use and Exit", the picture file's name (e.g. Wyoming0.bmp) is updated in the Ship's Class-design file (e.g. Wyoming.10d -the extension varies depending on save game folder and nation ID number) in the Game Save folder so it should be applied to every ship of that class. It works the same as it does for your own ships.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 7:45:10 GMT -6
I think I lean a little closer to alexbrunius on this point. I don't know that you need a new ship classification or definition. I would think it would be easier just to have the game logic prioritize cruisers with DP main guns as screens for the main body or CV/CVL divisions. When we talk about CLAA that's essentially what we are looking at right? Cruisers with DP main guns like Atlanta, Dido and Worsteshire?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 7:38:04 GMT -6
I am feeling the same way about "Super Cruisers" or "Big Gun Cruisers" like the Alaska, Japanese Super Cruiser Type A, the Stalingrad and a few other designs that really didn't make it in before the end of the war. Some classify these ships as BC today but they were woefully under-armored for that role with armor schemes designed only to repel up to the standard 8 inch guns used on most traditional Heavy Cruisers of the time. The game for some reason lets me build CA's with 12 inch guns in 1900 but in 1950, I can't build a CA with anything larger than a 10 inch gun which is kind of frustrating. Assuming it carried over from RTW1, you have to be a little leery of what you can do with the legacy fleet compared to later years. For the legacy and early fleet designed before you get too far up the tech tree, some exceptions for the design rules were implemented to allow unusual historical designs. So something that might be legal in a 1900 ship design would get flagged by changing definitions of ship classes in the later game. For game purposes Alaska should be included in the battlecruiser class. They followed a similar philosophy to the original "dreadnought armored cruisers" of the Invincible and Indefatigable-classes. It was the Lion-class that significantly upgraded size and armor looking to directly support the battle line and changed the Anglo definition of what a battlecruiser was.
|
|