|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 13:02:55 GMT -6
first line on the shown picture "fire extinguished" yeah... Good catch, I missed it when I was reviewing the log. I never saw the fire on screen though and since I didn't see it when I was reviewing the logs it was probably a very short fire. I've moved a couple of turns past that month though so I can't go back and review the log again to be sure. I'll go back and fix the previous entry. One thing I do when I play is I don't put damage control techs on low priority and just keep it there. I think they are very underrated.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 11:33:26 GMT -6
being able to work near cannons, without overpressure killing you As I mentioned 😝 Yes you did. Sorry, I must have missed it or accidentally skipped over it without it registering.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 7:20:44 GMT -6
As I recall, Fredrik mentioned that being overweight, even by one ton, would increase the chance of being commissioned with a lower speed than designed. He also said that being underweight, even significantly underweight, has no impact on this random event. One bad thing about this event (other than losing a knot of speed when it occurs) is that you will have to wait for years after designing and putting your ship into production to find out if your spiffy overweight design is a slowpoke. And if you do trip that event then every other ship in that class is saddled with a slower speed. I like speed, so for me at least, I find that going overweight is not worth the risk. Agreed. For the record you can do a rebuild where you replace the propulsion machinery and get that knot back (probably with the same chance of getting the "slower than designed" bad event unless you've corrected the overweight condition) but it's an expensive, 10 months long rebuild with no guarantee of success. I'm with you that's it's not worth the risk.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 7:12:58 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum. It's definitely been mentioned but no worries there. it would certainly be a nice feature to have although almost all of the conversions were compromised designs in one way or the other, even the Independence class.
No idea if it's a feature under consideration for RTW2 since the developers haven't gotten to the stage where they are ready to provide those kinds of details.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 7:08:36 GMT -6
At the turn of the new year 1935, World War Japan was ended with the stroke of a pen after 70 months of unrestricted submarine warfare on a scale never before seen. What began as a simple war between the Empires of Japan and Russia over Japanese-owned Sakhalin soon drew in Germany and the United States when Japanese submarines repeatedly sank innocent passenger liners while destroying Russian merchant shipping. The Imperial Japanese Army was eager and capable of invading the Philippines, denying the US Navy's formidable battle-line a home port in Southeast Asia. Russia was forced into a compromise peace, and the submarine war against Germany and America intensified until England, France, and Italy joined the fight also in outrage over passenger liner sinkings. Reluctant to directly engage the battle-proven Imperial Japanese Navy and be punished the way the Russians were, all nations held their capital ships back, and engaged in a war of dueling minesweepers and submarines, with the occasional heavy raider cruiser. Even mighty Britain was forced to take a compromise peace before the rest of their co-belligerents, perhaps memories of their past loss to Japan made England's protesting peoples weary of another war. With 9 Unrest and mutinies in the fleet, I advised my government to accept the white peace that the world coalition offered. Yep but now absolutely no one is going to want to buy Toyota's from you.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 6:54:02 GMT -6
I wonder why that would help. Other than freeing up personnel to assist the damage control parties. That would be significant but I don't know that I'd want to lose my trained gun crews in the middle of a fight with no guarantee that they would be unharmed and able to return to their guns.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 11, 2017 6:23:02 GMT -6
at the start of the game, penetrating hits are very rare and its out-of-control fire rather than flooding that's usually the bigger killer In my experience over 20 finished games I had 0, zero ships sunk by fire neither on mine or enemies' side... Just to get back to the shipboard fires briefly, I wanted to show that it could still be done in the mid-game (Late 1913, 100% research rate). Two turns ago I finally got SAP ammo, it had been skipped and then gone back to by my researchers. I set all the heavy caliber guns ammo doctrines to either AP or SAP so I wasn't carrying any HE for my battlecruisers' main guns. I had my two first generation battlecruisers up against one French BC and one CL with destroyer screens on both sides. The French CL was essentially worthless, she got separated early, the mission started 2 hours before dawn, and was basically out of the fight for most of the scenario. After dawn when we made contact again, to Lille's credit, fighting one on two, she savaged my flagship USS Concord. Just over 30 hits by Lille's main battery. I was forced to detach her to get her to safety and to allow USS Lexington to maximize her speed to run down Lille who was escaping. It was the semi-armor piercing rounds from Lexington that started the fires. The good news for me was that if the fire didn't get her the flooding would have, she was suffering heavy flooding because of her speed and the flooding damage was quickly catching up to the fire damage. [Edit - Huh, all of that damage to Concord and she'll only be out for a month, so ready for the next turn. Damn fine English shipyard workers. Bloody efficient. (I'm allied with Britain so I'm using their bases to operate against the French.)]
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 10, 2017 17:30:14 GMT -6
While it's certainly frustrating to have a peace agreement signed above your head when you are winning handily I believe that it makes the game more interesting (and better) than before that update when you could pretty much guarantee that every war would end in the enemy's total collapse just by taking the aggressive position every time the question of peace came up.
That being said, in my latest game I'm about to go into my third war with France (and fourth overall including the short one with Germany) before the end of 1913.
If it isn't already in the mechanics of RTW, and it doesn't seem to be, and assuming that RTW 2 has a similar mechanic, I would like to see the chance of a negotiated peace decrease if you are fighting your second and third or later war with the same nation in one game. Perhaps it's not actually realistic for the time period and my perspective is colored by the Allies demands for unconditional surrender in WW2 (in part because of perceived failures in the peace process of WW1) but if the same nation picks a fight with me for a second time and most definitely for a third time in a short period then I am going to want to crush them utterly so I can remove the militaristic elements of their government and ensure myself of a lasting peace with that nation. It makes no sense unless you are an arms manufacturer to keep sending your people to war over and over again when you had a chance to crush them the last time and instead let the bad guys off the hook so they could rearm and come back a few years later.
I realize it's just a game. But from that perspective it would also be nice to be able to take on a fresh opponent that I haven't been culling ships from for the last ten years.
Of course this assumes that you are winning the current war decisively. If you are evenly matched or losing then a negotiated settlement or even your own collapse should have it's normal chances.
I fully acknowledge that programming that kind of complexity into the peace mechanic is probably harder than I realize and if so that's fine, it's just an idea I wanted to throw out there because it irks me that the French don't know when they are licked.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 10, 2017 7:50:50 GMT -6
at the start of the game, penetrating hits are very rare and its out-of-control fire rather than flooding that's usually the bigger killer In my experience over 20 finished games I had 0, zero ships sunk by fire neither on mine or enemies' side... Fredrik recommended once trying a strategy of using HE exclusively against battleships early in the game due to the poor penetrating ability of AP shells early on. Most beginning of the game B's worthy of the name have belts that you can't penetrate at zero yards because the AP tech sucks so much. I tried it and had quite a bit of success with it against enemy battleships. Enough that it's now my standard strategy early game and I'll slowly shift to AP, first at short range and then medium starting in the 1906-1908 time frame and finally at long range once I have Director firing control for plunging fire. You can tell the enemy ship was killed by fires because the message will be different in the log. Something about fires burning out of control and being forced to abandon ship if I recall correctly. The reason it's probably never happened to you and honestly, I can't remember losing a ship to fire either off the top of my head although I've had some close calls, is probably because the AI wasn't privy to Fredrik's posts and I don't think the AI is programmed to go exclusively HE against battleships in the early game. Not to get too far off topic but the HE doctrine is also why I don't build semi-dreadnoughts. I load my early B's with as many 6 inch secondary guns as I can after armoring up to get a higher volume of HE shells down range as opposed to fewer, slower-firing, larger caliber 8 and 10 inch secondaries.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 8, 2017 22:20:36 GMT -6
I haven't tried this so I can't confirm it but if you are okay with eliminating submarines entirely you can try setting the date for the first submarine tech to 1925 in the ResearchAreas.DAT file. Maybe even later but I would start with 1925 since that is when the game was originally designed to end. This should prevent research points from accumulating in submarines until 1922 or abouts so you never get to coastal subs. If you do that you might as well do the same to the first ASW tech. No sense wasting RP's in ASW when there are no subs.
No idea how to prevent sub spam without eliminating subs entirely. Honestly, I haven't really had a problem with sub spam which is why I haven't tried it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 7, 2017 18:35:12 GMT -6
cv10, I've really enjoyed reading this, well done. It's a shame that you keep losing dreadnoughts on their return because of excess speed. I don't recall this happening nearly as often in RTW as it seems to be happening to you in SAI. I wonder if the ship AI was one of the things they tweaked when they moved over to RTW.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 7, 2017 18:13:51 GMT -6
I'm having an issue with bombardment targets in the most recent version of the game, they are spawning too far inside a minefield area or too far inland to even see, much less shoot. When even a battleship armed with 18" cannons can't get into range of the target, there's a problem with placement. Also, some of my ships that got the "exceeding design speeds" event are actually going to lose speed if refit to oil firing, despite multiple engine tech advances after building. It's nice to have the speed, but I would much prefer having oil firing so they can maintain speed longer. That first problem is one of the more frustrating things that happen in game. It's fortunate that it is specific to only one type of mission and doesn't happen every time I get that mission. For the second, I don't think that's a bug. You should have the available tonnage to add that additional knot of speed back in when you replace the machinery. That additional knot came from some combination of boilers, engines and/or hull form being more efficient than was expected. When you replace the machinery, it is assumed that you are replacing the boilers and engines so you can't guarantee that the new combination will be as efficient as the old and outperform it's rating. So to get the same speed you need to put in new machinery that's rated for the older, more efficient speed. i.e. if you designed a ship at 29 knots and it made 30, when you replace the machinery to go to oil firing you need to install machinery rated for 30 knots to get that same speed. If you just put in oil fired machinery rated for 29 knots then you are saving weight but you shouldn't expect the same 30 knots as before unless you get lucky again. In real life it's possible that the reason the extra speed was there was because you ended up with a significantly more efficient hull form than was calculated but for that to carry over in game after replacing the machinery (without putting in the higher rated machinery or just getting the lucky bonus knot event again) the game would have to track why you ended up with the extra knot during speed trials. It would need to track bonus knots due to engines and bonus knots due to hull form. That's probably a lot of extra programming for such a specific detail.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 6, 2017 20:12:20 GMT -6
"Turret farm"? How many rounds do they carry per gun? Seems more like a powder bag plantation. Pretty sure those ships should come with a plaque stamped "Made by ACME Corporation."
Do the AI nations copy them after you build them?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 5, 2017 10:19:22 GMT -6
The first page looks like this to me right now.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 4, 2017 9:52:59 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum.
My short answer is I think you need both.
Battlecruisers are usually split into the scouting force (once you've researched the tech) so even in Admiral's mode you can keep your distance from battleships if you want.
Battlecruisers are also eligible for all cruiser and battleship missions so you will probably get more value from them than you will for battleships which are more restricted in which missions they will get used in. You may not see them used a lot if the enemy has battlecruisers in the same area because the game tends to keep your battlecruisers on standby if the enemy battlecruisers are not selected for the mission. Just like in real life if you know that the enemy battlecruisers are in the area, you are not going to send your own battlecruisers after a protected cruiser merchant raider and let the enemy battlecruiser go on a rampage unmolested.
Now I can't speak for others of course but I prefer the German style battlecruiser over the Anglo-American. I sacrifice firepower rather than armor to get the necessary speed and my battlecruisers tend to survive quite well. I am conscious to not get into straight slug fests against battleships though so you need to micromanage battlecruisers more than battleships.
|
|