|
Post by axe99 on Jun 26, 2020 17:56:05 GMT -6
Should be the default view. I've added this as a suggestion in the beta team forum. Cheers, a +1 for this being the default view from me as well, or at the very least something that's a one-button toggle (ie, making it possible without having to do too much UI wrangling). Thank you very much for the excellent post jwsmith26
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 13, 2020 15:19:44 GMT -6
dorn axe99 This update also gave me a chance to make some much needed (and requested) changes to flattops Great work
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 3, 2020 16:23:29 GMT -6
Thanks for the mod! Wait an impostor I challenge you to a duel! ThErE CaN oNlY bE oNe WaRsPiTe! Not true en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_WarspiteAlso, and far more importantly, great work on the beta Seawolf, and thanks
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 2, 2020 15:07:54 GMT -6
seawolf I would be a little more cautions with Yorktown class as this number certainly is with spare aircrafts and comparison to HMS Ark Royal. HMS Ark Royal has about twice hangar space of Yorktown class and deck space was not so different, so having Yorktown class about 133 % aircraft capacity of HMS Ark Royal by design is something difficult to believe. See here Ark Royal never used deck parking Aye, I think this was Dorn's point Ie, there was nothing (beyond avgas storage) stopping a deck park supporting a larger air group, so it's important to keep in mind the difference in air group due to doctrine rather than ship design. That said, please don't let our ramblings bother you - make the mod you want to make . If it helps, I've sent you a PM with some info in it (but if it doesn't, please ignore).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 1, 2020 16:12:35 GMT -6
Germans should have 3 centreline turrets from the get go. Rather not, since it didn't stick and wasn't immediately repeated. The considerations WRT fire-control were also rather different in Brandenburg's time than during the Dreadnought revolution. By similar logic UK should start with cross-deck firing and all-or-nothing protection for having HMS Inflexible. Or four centreline turrets because of Royal Sovereign Good thread generalvikus, lots of good ideas in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 1, 2020 15:52:40 GMT -6
On carrier capacity, it's important to keep in mind it's impacted by doctrine (mostly deck parks, which understates Ark Royal's relative capacity to a US carrier) and aircraft size, as well as design, as well as things like aircraft industry (so, for example, the hangar size in Courageous and Furious is quite similar (if my sources haven't let me down), but they have different air wing sizes, and I think (but would need to look up to be sure) the relatively limited supply of Fleet Air Arm aircraft had an impact on the difference). The US went with a deck park from the get-go, which overstates the relative "comparative capacity" of the likes of Langley (which I suspect is also exaggerated relatively by using older, smaller aircraft, as is the case for the first Yorktown, which generally operated 70-76 aircraft during WW2) when comparing with a carrier that only ever stored aircraft in its hangar.
There's also the issue of the amount of avgas that can be stored - the British, for example, often had the space for more aircraft, but because of very strict fuel safety measures, had less fuel for them (but also had lots of bases to refuel from, and their carriers were the least likely of any nations' to explode in a ball of flame during the period - pros and cons and all that).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 26, 2020 16:10:04 GMT -6
Great work Seawolf, looking really good
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 25, 2020 15:40:10 GMT -6
I'm very happy with KEs representing sloops and frigates and what have you, but I do find their limitations with dual-purpose main armament (if memory serves me correctly - I could be off here, and if I am this point is silly - I generally repurpose DDs) and torpedoes means it's not possible to build things like the WW2 rivers, or even the Black Swans. Similarly, it's not possible to cheaply "remove a boiler" from DDs to give them greater range but less top speed (but still around 25kts), a la the WW2 V&W conversions undertaken by the RN, and there are also issues iirc in removing all the torpedoes from a destroyer that's now being used for trade protection. None of these are big issues for me though - I'm happy with what can be done in-game. Now what we really need is the ability to put masts on them - the last masted sloops were commissioned by the RN in the mid-1900s, and served on what would have been in RtW2 "Colonial Service" throughout the first world war . No, I'm not being serious .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 11, 2020 17:02:27 GMT -6
I think the 1900 start works well - if it goes back much earlier, then the ship design engine has to cope with the range of quite exotic designs that occurred between the 1860s and 1880s, while the various navies were finding their feet in terms of battleship design. It was only in the late 1880s/early 1990s that designs started to settle on the fore-and-aft turrets with large calibre guns, and the smaller calibre quick-firing guns in support - I've seen the Royal Sovereign class (first of which was completed in May 1892) mentioned as the first of the 'pre-dreadnoughts', and these ships had barbettes instead of turrets (and, as far as I know, the game doesn't have a damage model for the main fore-and-aft guns on a pre-dreadnought being barbettes rather than turrets). So a game starting in 1890 would need to cope with a legacy fleet of turret rams, the older 'turret ships' with their two turrets amidships instead of fore-and-aft, and of iron armour as well as the more modern stuff (which would create it's own UI issues, as the thickest armour by far in the game would be on the legacy ships, which had great wads of iron armour (up to at least 24in thick in the citadel) protection. If it were to be taken back, then from a 'gameplay curve' perspective, it might be even more interesting going back to 1860, where we see the birth of the ironclad warship, and give players the experience of working their way through all those interesting designs as they find their way to pre-dreadnought and then dreadnought designs. It'd be a heap of extra work though, but if the team wanted to give it a crack, I definitely wouldn't complain
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 16, 2019 15:01:57 GMT -6
Aye, I'm a huge fan of the way research works, it forces plenty of hard decisions where there's no "right answer" (but a few wrong ones!) It goes well
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 20, 2019 15:31:50 GMT -6
Looking at the AircraftBasicData.dat file it is the medium bomber (MB) which will now not any more receive torpedoes, the flying boats (PB) still can get them from 1934 onwards. This actually makes sense IMO, since, historically, flying boats and large floatplanes (e.g. the He115) were used as torpedo bombers earlier than any land based planes. Later on we can just read "flying boat" as "patrol bomber" and consider it covering types like the Nell or Betty as well as torpedo armed Ju88, Beauforts etc. Because game wise, if the "medium bomber" instead retained torpedo capability, all the nice diversity it can bring, like skip/glide bombing and guided munitions, would not make much of an appearance. We need one "large long range" plane to have skip/glide/guided bombing capability and the other can then have torpedcapability later in the game.
So, please keep things as is and clarify whether the "Reduced the hit chance for Medium bombers dropping torpedoes" applies to legacy design in old savegames and correct "PB" to read "MB"...
The update notes are correct. MB will continue to have torpedo capability for some (but not all) types. Their torpedo accuracy was found to be too good, so have been reduced somewhat. Flying boats do have torpedoes in the air chart, but since there were almost no cases of them attacking warships with torpedoes IRL, the intention was that they should not be able to use them in game. Due to a oversight they kept the capability, but that has now been changed.
While I know they weren't used much for the role (and quite sensibly too, a large, slow target flying at sea-level towards a ship doesn't sound like a particularly sensible thing to do), as best I understand it (ie, I'm only as good as my sources) the first ships (not warships) damaged during the Battle of Midway sequence of events was by a torpedo dropped from a PBY (at night, so much safer). I agree that in-game it makes a lot more sense to have them be bombers
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 12, 2019 15:38:20 GMT -6
I doubt it's illegal (and I'm not suggesting you were saying it was tbr), but it does strike me as potentially morally on the nose to me - but I don't think there's much to be done. I suspect most advertising is pretty cut-throat and doesn't mind blatantly trying to pinch other people's customers - if I had to pick a 'bottom ten industries for ethical behaviour', I have no doubt advertising would be in the mix. Either way, I'm sure RtW will keep going strong
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 30, 2019 20:55:19 GMT -6
Sensational post/thread jwsmith26 , many thanks I've drawn more than a few superstructures, and still learned a few tricks
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 22, 2019 16:17:01 GMT -6
A great addition, and more info definitely welcome in future, cheers
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 13, 2019 18:15:20 GMT -6
|
|