|
Post by bcoopactual on May 23, 2019 7:21:39 GMT -6
In RtW1, I would use tertiaries on my pre-dreadnoughts. As griffin01 alluded to, heavier secondary guns (7 inch or greater) will usually prioritize larger targets. Depending on the circumstances the 5 and 6 inch gun secondaries could target the enemy's larger ships as well so to protect against DD it's good to have that tertiary battery. For dreadnoughts, I would lose the tertiary battery and spend that weight on something else. Intending to fight at longer ranges (the point of shipping more than four main caliber guns) I would reduce the secondary battery to 4 or 5 inch guns depending on the generation of dreadnought to protect against DD. So, owe166 , I don't think you are wrong about removing the tertiaries if you want. You just have to have a plan for DD that get past your cruisers. cogsandspigots pointed out that in RTW2, tertiaries make a comeback as anti-aircraft guns. At least until you have 4 or 5 inch DP guns and then again, they become superfluous. Until at the very end like he mentioned you can swap in 3 inch autoloaded AA for medium caliber guns as the USN did immediately post war.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 22, 2019 15:50:59 GMT -6
I would eliminate the tertiary battery all together. If he has 5 inch dual purpose technology than I would shift the 6 inch guns to 5 inch DP like you stated. If not I would go ahead and replace the 6 inch guns with the 4 inch DP guns anyway. Nothing cruiser sized or larger should be getting that close to him with advanced directors and 16 inch Q1 guns. You can maximize the 4 inch DP and increase light and medium AAA.
I'm amazed that ship survived 4 torpedoes if it doesn't have a torpedo protection system. (Edit - Were they air launched torpedoes? That might explain it.)
I've never seen a four funneled battlecruiser before. Nothing wrong with it, just the first time I've seen a player do it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 19, 2019 17:10:23 GMT -6
Which japanese ship had 6'' of belt armor the US 6'' needed to penetrate? . Heavy cruisers had 4 inch think belts (tops), the best armored of them topped 5.5'' covering the magazines (mogamis...but the mogamis had only 4'' covering the machinery areas). The next ships in line of protection were the Kirishimas who already had 8'' belts which the 8'' gun couldn't realistically do anything against unless at ranges where the 14'' japanese guns would've shredded them to bits. Yes, there's San Francisco's 8'' hit on the stern of Hiei that disabled it's rudder, but at that range a 6'' would've gone in just as fine as San Francisco's did. And...yeah...the Alaskas...no. They weren't created specifically as cruiser-killers. I really don't want to go there (that ship was a mess in almost every way and debates about it usually don't go very well XD), but it's origin and role was supposed to be a "RAIDER-Killer". As in a "Deutchland-destroyer", and ,for the time the US Navy thought the japanese B-65 project was a thing, as an anti B-65 too. For killing Takaos Alaska was absurdly overkill. You didn't need 12'' guns to pen those 5'' of magacine belt, much less to do work into the machinery areas, far less to rip open those turrets (25mm of face armor. Even destroyers could disable those without too much trouble), and 6'' guns would've done the job on them as fine as the 8'' . But the Americans had no way of knowing that the Japanese ships weren't armored that heavily. You normally have to assume that the enemy is going to armor their ships at least as well as you do your own unless you get intelligence or analysis that indicates otherwise. Plus you mentioned the Deutschland's. An 8 inch gun cruiser would be more effective against them than a 6 inch gun cruiser. The Baltimore's are more heavily armed and armored which means that against a Cleveland they are going to be able to do damage at battle ranges that the Cleveland won't be able to reciprocate. In my opinion rate of fire is heavily overrated unless you are fighting at "inside a phonebooth" range. The need to spot and correct fire and even having to wait on the ship's roll to fire all tend to bring the 6 inch gun's effective rate of fire down closer to that of the 8 inch gun. Having three more guns is an advantage but if you can't damage the vitals with them you're just wrecking berthing spaces and shops. With the notable exception of an increased chance for a lucky hit on something vital and unarmored like a director or radar. But they are small targets and not likely to be hit compared to the overall size of the ship. To each his own of course but unless I'm steaming into the Iron Bottom Sound I want a Baltimore 10 times out of 10 rather than a Cleveland or one of the other large 6 inch gunned light cruisers. I have to respectfully disagree about the Alaska's as well. They were excellent ships bordering on outstanding. Their only real flaws were the lack of underwater protection against torpedoes and the fact that they weren't effectively armored against a peer opponent. But to be fair, nothing that could steam at 32 knots on 30,000 tons was going to have armor that could stand up those 12 inch guns either so the enemy would be at at least equal disadvantage. It's not a fault of the design that their construction was delayed until after the ships they were designed to fight were already sunk or neutralized.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 16, 2019 17:50:25 GMT -6
So I start up a new game and Start as I do, scrapping the ships I find to be unnecessarily poor quality and for the first time, I get a new event I'm not entirely sure what it does, but it is somewhat neat and I wonder if there could be other's like it, such as scrapping a ship that has had a long service and been in a great number of battle could get the option of being donated as a museum for say a prestige point in place of scrap money. Welcome to the forum bry7x7x7 . It's an event that was present in RTW1 as well. There are several different outcomes if I remember. You could get additional RP (research points) in a related area, either AP shells like in your example, Explosive shells, Armor or possibly Damage Control. I want to say that another possible outcome was that the crew quality for a number of ships could go up similar to the navy-wide shooting competition event. The downside is you don't get the scrap value for the ship. It's never very much anyway so I always take advantage of these events. There is indeed a Museum event that is relatively rare but possible when you decommission a ship with a large number of battle stars.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 16, 2019 13:43:48 GMT -6
Is... is that seriously a submarine with a pagoda mast? "Bring us to periscope depth!" "Yes sir! Diving to 60 meters!"
Perhaps the first submarine that can snorkel at test depth since the Hunley.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 14, 2019 6:48:02 GMT -6
As a general comment, for how long do you keep a destroyer in service? I guess the torpedoes update automatically, so the main weapon does not become obsolete, which would allow them to operate for many years. Also, does the game compensate for it being more difficult to hit things from a small vessel if the weather isnt great? I.e. it should be very difficult to hit anything from a 2-300 ton vessel. As with dorn, I will keep my first couple of classes of DD (500-600 tons) around for most of the game to use as ASW/CP forces once they have been supplanted as front line forces. I don't know if this will work as well in RTW2 since ASW gear is actual equipment that must be shipped (like weapons, ammo and armor) and so needs to be refitted on if not part of the initial loadout. Depends on how much we will have to take off to make up the weight. I want to say that there is an accuracy penalty for smaller ships in rough weather, (I know they are under the threat of taking damage if the sea state is high enough) but I can't tell you for certain. I don't spend a lot of time looking at the accuracy modifiers so I don't remember them or have a comprehensive list.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 14, 2019 6:38:52 GMT -6
I suppose it's implemented in the same manner in which treaties were handled in RTW 1. You can't build ships over X tonnage or with bigger than X guns. Might be a bit of an incentive to construct CVs, now that I think of it. Article 198 of the Versaille Treaty forbade Germany from having any military or naval air forces. Article 181 specified that the Germans were allowed to have only 6 pre-dreadnoughts, 6 light cruisers, 12 destroyers and 12 torpedo boats. Submarines were specifically forbidden. I didn't see aircraft carriers mentioned by name but if you can't have naval air forces I can't see justifying building a naval vessel with a big flat deck and a hangar. Replacement armored ships were limited to 10,000 tons, light cruisers to 6,000 tons. While I doubt the in-game treaty limits are as specific as the historic treaty it would be interesting to start from that big of a handicap. Not sure I'd want to do it though.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2019 18:45:52 GMT -6
I was thinking of a anti-aircraft cruiser/carrier. No heavy guns just AA with an aircraft deck. If I recall, the Independence-class CVL didn't carry anything larger than a 40mm. Which I found to be strange because even the jeep carriers carried a single 5 inch/38.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2019 18:43:09 GMT -6
There is a ROF column in the Gun Data file in the Data folder. I don't know what the units are but it might be taken as a ratio, i.e. a certain number of rounds fired compared to so many rounds in the same time period for the other caliber.
I don't know if that file is even used by the game though so it may be irrelevant. Some of the base files were ported over from Steam and Iron but not used since Rule the Waves has a tech tree progression instead of assigning values based on nation and year in SaI.
Base ROF is a pretty meaningless stat though. A particular caliber gun's rate of fire is modified by the nation's Turret's and Gun Mountings tech level, then there are a myriad of situational modifiers including the ones listed in the OP but additional ones as well such as putting too large of a gun on too small of a hull (seen most often with DD and MS).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2019 7:38:26 GMT -6
An interesting conversation. I didn't see it mentioned but is it possible the gun/turret that took 20 minutes to fire mentioned in the OP was jammed or disabled? Sorry to ask the obvious question (and if it was addressed in the OP I apologize for missing it, I did make an effort to read the whole thing) but I just wanted to eliminate the possibility.
It's also my understanding that the game takes into account that sometimes a individual gun in a turret will miss a salvo due to a mechanical failure or a loading drill error that needs to be corrected. I don't think the log is updated for those individual problems just disabled/jammed messages for the mount as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 9, 2019 6:22:33 GMT -6
A couple of notes to expand on what dorn wrote. For raiders, they have a chance each turn to be scuttled or interned due to lack of fuel or mechanical breakdown. Immediately take them back to AF status and return them to a friendly port if you see an asterisk next to their status "*". It means they are in need of maintenance. You won't always get the asterisk before a breakdown event so keep in mind that there will be some non-combat attrition to your raiders. For medium range ships I usually don't leave them overseas (areas where you don't have bases) in raider status for more than two or three turns at a time. Then I will take them back to AF status and move them to an area with a base for a turn and then move them back if I am not rotating another ship in. Long range ships are better at raiding for a number of reasons including this. When I can though I try to rotate ships. I get fewer mechanical casualties and "ran out of fuel" events. The downside is you don't have as many raiders operating at one time which can reduce your results because it is easier for the enemy to interrupt your raiders using fewer ships. Try out a few different variants on those ideas to see which work out best for you or try another method if anyone else pipes in because I'm sure there are almost as many raider strategies as there are players. In your example, if your ship has been overseas for a few turns, I would take it back to a friendly port for a turn and then send it back to the Caribbean and set it's status to raider. For ASW, MS and DD are better choices than other types because they are more efficient at ASW than larger ships but primarily because they are cheaper per hull and for ASW it's mostly a numbers game. Keep your MS in repair though. If they get the (o) symbol, meaning they need a refit, for more than a couple of turns they could self-decommission on you. In general, ships need a refit every 10 years after first commissioning and every 8 years after the last refit. Legacy ships will need a refit somewhere in 1908 at the latest. Any ship with an (o) is less effective at its role and that includes ASW/CP. JagdFlanker recommended this once and I always do it now. For MS (which don't generally get fire control or other refits based on technological inventions), refit them soon after the previous war ends and then they will be good to go for the next eight years and you don't have to worry about forgetting to refit them. Eight years is usually more than enough time to get into and fight through the next war. That way they will always be available and and it limits the number of front-line DD that you have to assign to ASW/CP to cover while you are refitting your MS. I will also keep my older DD classes around to supplement my MS in ASW but I play the USA which has a larger budget. That may not work for a nation with a smaller budget. The size of the MS is not important for the most part. A 200 ton MS will do ASW just as well as a 700 ton MS. Smaller MS do seem to always lose spirited gun battles with surfaced submarines ( a periodic random event, more likely with medium range subs I believe) though so you will need to build a few to replace losses. My 700 ton MS don't do any better but I keep them realistically armed and don't put 5 inch guns on them so that may make a difference. Submarines do their thing automatically. As dorn pointed out, coastal submarines mainly only work in your home area (The Med for Austria-Hungary) which is fine against France which also has a home area there but would be significantly less effective against say the USA or Japan. Medium range subs are more effective over a number of sea zones so they are when you really see submarines start to take a bite out the enemy merchant fleet. All that happens behind the scenes though. Other than the event listing merchant ships sunk or submarines lost you don't see it or have much control other than choosing prize rules or unrestricted submarine warfare. (A choice found near the VP list under the tension graph on the right of the screen). Submarines and ships in ASW/CP are a global pool so it doesn't matter where the ship in ASW/CP mode is physically located in the game it still contributes to the ASW calculations. Since MS in ASW/CP mode do double duty as actual minesweepers I do still keep a number of them traveling with my battlefleet when I deploy it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 8, 2019 6:20:45 GMT -6
Hello, I'd still like some help on this, thanks Hello, Sorry, wasn't ignoring you, I just couldn't help you because I know nothing about hex editors. In fact there is only one person I know of who has modded the game using a hex editor and that is skwabie and his 18+ armor mod. You can try messaging him and see if he is willing and able to help you.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 6, 2019 18:34:25 GMT -6
Seems to me the safest bet would be Space Force. Then again, I think the Germans had an idea for a two-stage, manned rocket capable of hitting New York. Pilot was supposed to eject or bail out once he had the rocket lined up. You know what, I'm thinking that emigrating to Sweden or Switzerland might not be a bad idea. Allied bomber "navigational errors" might make that a bit less than ideal. Haha, maybe but I still like my odds better than joining maachlan 's naval air service.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 6, 2019 17:25:43 GMT -6
Seems to me the safest bet would be Space Force. Then again, I think the Germans had an idea for a two-stage, manned rocket capable of hitting New York. Pilot was supposed to eject or bail out once he had the rocket lined up.
You know what, I'm thinking that emigrating to Sweden or Switzerland might not be a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 4, 2019 19:07:49 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum.
In RTW1, blockades and submarine merchant warfare are two distinct systems. Both can drive up unrest and cause your government to collapse but they don't really interact with each other other than their end result. Blockades are entirely based on surface fleet strength (with a modifier that takes into account geographical advantage/disadvantage) in your or your enemy's home waters, e.g. the North American East Coast for the USA or Northern Europe for France, UK, Germany or Russia. There was a tendency in RTW1 for AI nations to switch to submarine construction at the expense of their surface fleet if you destroyed too much of it during a conflict. The logic eventually reached a point where it said I can't ever build a surface fleet to match the player nation again so I'll just build submarines instead with results sometimes exceeding 100 submarines. Essentially the non-historical choice for Germany pre-WW2 that you described.
Submarines can drive your unrest up pretty fast if you let them get out of control. From the mid-game on I preferred to have 3 or 4 times as many old DD and MS vessels to use as ASW/CP as was required* because at that number you tamp down on the submarine threat fairly quickly.
Of course building and maintaining enough small combatants to reach that ratio when the AI has 100+ submarines takes a lot of money away from BB/BC construction which is the most fun part of the game for many (including myself). Some players got fed enough about sub spam that the game became unplayable for them unless submarines were turned off. I never felt that way about the problem but I understood where they were coming from.
As a player, if you wanted you can indeed try the strategy yourself. I never have but I'm certain it would be deadly effective at causing major unrest because the AI is usually slow to build MS**. However, since submarines are abstracted for the most part it would also be pretty boring in my opinion.
*The game sets a minimum number of ships based on enemy submarine strength that you have to set as ASW/Coastal Patrol. If you go less than this number you start to lose prestige points and unrest goes up even quicker. Essentially you as the admiral are accused of not taking the submarine threat seriously enough and everybody is mad at you because they have to ration food now.
**MS is short for minesweeper but RTW1 also uses it for a generic term for any naval vessel that doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a destroyer or cruiser so it technically includes sub chasers, frigates, sloops and patrol gunboats. MS in RTW1 could do double duty as minesweepers and ASW craft. In RTW2 the is no longer necessarily the case as ASW and minesweeping gear are now equipment that must be added to the design similar to guns and armor.
|
|