|
Post by bcoopactual on May 25, 2017 1:37:03 GMT -6
Fishing boats do dock at foreign ports. Those must be some Extreme range fishing vessels! Maybe they were sailing vessels. Still amusing when the event system creates these logical inconsistencies. Like how when you Army asks for funds for an offensive and you have no borders either nationally or in your colonies with the enemy. Like what are we going to do, send the Marines to Normandy from Maine? Unrelated to the wandering fishing boats and somewhat unfortunate for me, it looks like my taxpayers are not going to get their money's worth for USS Skipjack SS-47. Yes, lost her the same month she was commissioned.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 20, 2017 19:01:43 GMT -6
Version 1.34 b1. Not sure if this is a bug or just the AI's not programmed to take into account being at war but in my current game, France is scrapping their old battleships even while blockaded by the USA (player) and the UK. I realize that scrapping old battleships and armored cruisers during peacetime makes good sense and seems to be standard operating procedure for the AI starting around 1914 but I would think that if the AI is at war against a quantitatively superior opponent(s) and being blockaded then it would want to keep those old B's around to keep numbers up to try to break the blockade. Do ships with the (o) indicator not contribute to force points for blockade purposes? If so then it would make sense to go ahead and scrap them instead of paying to refit an obsolete ship but otherwise I think the AI should want to keep those force points. Freeing up funds for new ships won't help because the government will collapse before those ships are commissioned. I have moved past this point in the game but I have the Jan 1915 game and ship files saved if this is actually a bug and the developers want to take a look.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 19, 2017 4:10:58 GMT -6
I apologize if I'm asking a question that has already been explained but I'm late getting into this thread and I haven't gone back and reviewed anything yet.
Wouldn't short range and cramped quarters be appropriate for a navy concentrating in the Med? Similar to how the early German battleships were specialized for fighting in the North Sea where the British had to be able to use their ships globally.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 19, 2017 4:03:20 GMT -6
I'd like to have that loss map available in RTW or RTW 2 with the ability to click on the ship and review its log to see exactly what happened. You can do that now in RTW for ships listed as sinking in their status at the end of the scenario but as far as I can tell, the ones that sink earlier in the scenario are unavailable for review. That makes sense as an Admiral back at HQ but as a player who wants to write up AAR's and such it would be cool to have access to all of the ships' logs.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 18, 2017 3:51:41 GMT -6
What version are you on? Cause I can't even see the ability to add more turrets for 8" guns on early PCs other than a double fore and aft 1.33, is there a new one? Only errors I've encountered with it has been adding more than 2 turrets to a PC, no issue with the positions. It's the main reason why I stick with two singles in tandem at the bow and stern, since if I put them in A and Y I can't put anymore on centerline. The most current version is 1.34 beta 1. CL's with more than two 8 inch gun mounts is one of the bug fixes in the most recent update.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 16, 2017 7:16:00 GMT -6
beastro, what year tech-wise is that design?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 15, 2017 19:04:04 GMT -6
Acceptable losses man, they died to save their ship. Good luck with that as your recruiting slogan, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 15, 2017 18:54:43 GMT -6
Maybe blockades should require a couple of things.
First, you would need a number of ships (could be no more than AMC's, large 1,000 ton MS's as gunboats and small cruisers) to stop/capture merchants trying to move into and out of port based on the number of ports your enemy has and the Geography. For example, there are more large ports and few to no geographical choke points on the east coast of the United States compared to Germany in the North Sea and Baltic so just from a numbers standpoint you would need more vessels to blockade the US than you would Germany even if there was no navy to defend the coast.
So every nation could have a number assigned modified by fleet sizes (small - Very large) that the enemy must meet to be able to blockade. For very large fleet sizes for example, the US and UK numbers could be 40, Germany 20, Russia and A-H 12, etc. I'm just throwing numbers out there as examples not as what I think they should be if RTW2 were to implement it or whatever.
This would provide an additional incentive to build vessels like small cruisers and AMC's where the RTW format currently doesn't really favor them. For this idea, I think I would exclude destroyers from being eligible because If I understand their development correctly, in the game's timeframe (but maybe by the late 30's for RTW2) they historically didn't have the cruising endurance to spend weeks steaming around waiting for merchants to try to slip past them.
Second your fleet would need to be large enough to counter the defender's battlefleet which is essentially the same mechanic that exists now but those ships wouldn't be on the active patrols (blockades are much different in the age of coal and oil than they were in the age of sail because of the constant fuel usage of coal and oil fired ships) but rather staged at a base or anchorage ready to sortie if the defending fleet does. So perhaps those ships wouldn't count for the numbers needed above and you could add a "blockade" status to the Active, Reserve, Mothballs, CP/ASW, FS choices now for the AMC's and gunboats and small cruisers actively patrolling the enemy ports and shipping lanes.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 15, 2017 6:33:15 GMT -6
One problem I see with the design in the OP is that the turrets are too heavily armored. If the turrets have more then 2 inch of armor, they are full turrets. If they have 2 inches or less of armor they are deck guns in splinter protection. The latter is a major weight savings. For light cruisers, you need to consider it. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, you may have the same idea as me but the way I read the manual, 2 inches or less armor on 6 inch main gun mounts (or lesser caliber) are shielded mounts that I always pictured in my head as something like so: From the Navweaps website. There are examples that a google image search can find where the protection is more like 3/4's (everything but the rear of the mount and the loaders are protected so the picture is just one example. Per the manual they are more protected against splinters than unarmored mounts but they are still vulnerable to splinters. Here is the applicable section of the manual: So others can take a look and see if they interpret the manual differently. I will say that I always try to armor my turrets as much as I can but I also generally only build larger CL's (6,000 tons and above) so I acknowledge that that isn't necessarily an option for smaller protected/light cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 13, 2017 18:30:26 GMT -6
It starts out at 20% for twin turrets under 9 inches.
If I remember, when I don't ship twin turrets fore and aft and use single turrets fore and aft instead, I can add one single gun wing turret on each side. So broadside guns go down by one (5 vs. 6). If my math is right two guns at 80% ROF gives you the same as 1.6 guns at 100% ROF so I think the twin gun turrets are better in general. For my ships it works out to 5.2 guns vs. 5 guns per broadside if I went all single mounts. So not much difference but evey lit bit helps when your accuracy sucks. Until you lose the turret to being disabled or destroyed. That's always the tradeoff of putting more guns in one mount.
As a note, later in the game there are a couple of techs you research that reduce that ROF penalty to 10% and then 0 (reliable and then improved power training and elevation gear respectively in 1914 and 1920) but your legacy designs will probably be scrapped by then.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 13, 2017 18:02:00 GMT -6
Wasn't the Kongo that Vickers built for Japan the battlecruiser that started the trend? Otherwise I don't have much to add. archelaos's post seems to make sense to me although I'm no expert. Battlecruisers also had longer hulls than battleships so they had more space topside to put things. So I wouldn't think the need to find space for separation from the turret to protect from muzzle blast is as big of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 13, 2017 17:49:26 GMT -6
My starting designs are very similar. I don't put as much armor weight on the deck in my legacy designs because combat has to take place at such close range so I put that weight into turret armor but otherwise it's very similar. The game's format prioritizes quality over quantity but I believe that the legacy templates for the AI are more representative of historical designs which is why I believe the 6,000+ ton player cruiser always has the advantage in the early game until the AI reacts to it. Here are my legacy designs from the latest game.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 12, 2017 19:09:45 GMT -6
But if you set a blockade modifier to to 50 you are only affecting that one nation right? Each nation has their own even if it isn't listed because then it's assumed to be the average 10. The ones I remember having different values are GB, Japan, A-H and Russia at 12,11,9,and 8 respectively.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 12, 2017 12:35:16 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum. What year is it in your game? It's not unusual for me to see the AI start scrapping their old battleships (B's) and armored cruisers (CA's) around 1914 or so once they have a number of dreadnoughts (BB's) and battlecruisers (BC's) available to take their place assuming there isn't a war going on or they aren't reacting to the player building a significant number of new armored cruisers. You'll see notes in the message window at the start of a turn just like you do when they lay down a keel or commission a ship.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 12, 2017 12:17:38 GMT -6
I don't think it's hidden. Nations that have the Undeveloped Shipbuilding Industry trait, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the CSA, per the manual, have a slightly larger chance of the ship having unexpected flaws like not meeting design speed or being overweight.
Italy actually doesn't have that trait. They do have Poor Education but the description for that in the manual doesn't talk about increased chances for flaws.
In your case it's probably just bad luck with the RNG or someone forgot to make the appropriate sacrifices to Neptune before they laid the keels.
|
|