|
Post by marauder on Feb 28, 2020 13:03:19 GMT -6
A very simple mod that adds 10 designs to the game, mainly capital ships from the first 2 decades covered by the game, but it's mainly supposed to generate some additional designs for specific countries legacy fleets in 1920 starts.
The designs were made in the 1920 start ship designer, and I haven't actually tested them in a 1900 game yet, so the AI might end up underarmouring, undergunning, or underturreting the ships when trying to build them earlier than 1920.
List of included designs: - B3B1 - Agincourt
- B3G0 - König
- B3J0 - Ise
- B3X10 - Canada/Almirante Latorre
- BC2G2 - Seydlitz
- BC3G0 - Ersatz Yorck
- DD3G0 - S113/Gr.Torpedoboot 1916
- BC3J0 - Kongo
- B3B3 - King George V (1911)
- MS1X2 - Iltis (colonial gunboat, but I went ahead and also added minesweeping equipment)
Credit for the superstructure drawings goes to the NWS Team, as I pulled most of them from Steam&Iron and only made a few small adjustments here and there. Only the Iltis is completely made from scratch (and it probably shows).
I also made an attempt at recreating the Bayern, Fuso, and Lexington classes, but the former two ended up terribly overweight for their displacement while the latter caused the game to freeze when generating legacy fleets.
I guess the game doesn't take kindly to the player trying to have a 44k ton ship built in a 40k ton shipyard.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on Feb 22, 2020 18:11:54 GMT -6
...you change 14x casemate gun into 14x single mount. What exactly is the difference? Assuming tertiaries work the same way secondaries do, it should reduce the effects that bad weather and rough seas have on combat performance, as well as protect the guns from being disabled by heavy flooding. Putting them in deck-mounted turrets also reduces deck space, limiting the amount of AA guns and directors you can fit on the ship.
Putting them into multi-gun mounts decreases the amount of deck space they use up, allowing you to put on more AA. Also, once again assuming tertiaries work the same way secondaries do, the mounts will be split between both sides of the ship in pairs of two. Any leftover mounts are assumed to be on the centerline, allowing them to fire to both sides.
So if you put your 14 guns into double mounts, you'd have 3x2 guns on starboard and port, as well as 1x2 sitting on the centerline for an effective broadside of 8 guns, as opposed to the 7 gun broadside you'd get with single mounts. I'd also imagine that multi-gun mounts lose barrels much faster when splinters and shells strike the deck/hull, due to multiple barrels sharing the same position.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on Jun 15, 2019 18:34:32 GMT -6
There's a pretty extensive list of Flower-class corvettes of the Royal Navy and other navies on uboat.net.Not "pure" text like the example you provided, but purer than the list on the Wikipedia article. I also went ahead and prepared both the British and Canadian vessel names for copy-pasting into a RTW shipnames.dat file, I hope you don't mind if I took away your work there.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 30, 2019 10:23:46 GMT -6
Machinery definitely seems to play a huge part in this, especially considering that Derfflinger was built(or refitted) for 31 knots, but is slowed down by the torpedo bulges. I've also noticed that the Hessen is still coal-fired, while the Derfflinger is oil-fired. In addition, you seem to have a lot of secondaries and tertiaries on your BC, while your BB only has a "standard" amount of them. I guess in the end it's mainly the machinery plus a ton of other things adding up that are driving up the maintenance. Do you have the Derfflinger stationed overseas, perhaps? Ships on colonial station eat up more maintenance than ships stationed in your home areas.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 26, 2019 8:28:26 GMT -6
This is directed at anyone who might think that "asymmetric funnels are only good for carriers". Behold, the battleship NotNavarin!
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 23, 2019 14:40:35 GMT -6
Since AI nations don't wage war between themselves they don't have any tension levels towards eachother. Although I believe that when you're allied with a nation you'll sometimes get an event that says something along the lines of "Tensions between X and our ally Y are rising!", but that's just flavour with no mechanics behind it.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 23, 2019 9:26:32 GMT -6
I was kind of wondering, deck armor being a massive weight addition. In the 1900 start, is it necessary to put deck armor on, for example CL's at all? I mean gun ranges are close and there's no chance of plunging fire. I'm just wondering if there is some function for deck armor then, like protecting from splinters, or could I just get away leaving early cruisers complete without it? Skimping on deck armour on your light cruiser designs is tempting, but can be dangerous, especially if the design in question relies on speed for survival.
You're correct in the assumption that deck armour will give protection from splinters. 2" and up is completely impenetrable for splinters, while 1.5" and 1" will sometimes let through splinters that can damage/destroy machinery among other things.
|
|
|
Deck park?
May 22, 2019 10:20:42 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by marauder on May 22, 2019 10:20:42 GMT -6
Probably like angled flightdeck. Nothing to check, but might increase Spots?
Atleast it is supposed to allow for more than 2 catapults (if i ever find flight deck catapults).
Mechanically in game what do catapults do for a carrier? Catapults allow a carrier to launch CAP fighters without needing to turn into the wind first.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 22, 2019 10:08:20 GMT -6
Speaking of speed - remember that BCs became almost extint when battleships could equal their speeds. For a good reason. Once your BBs can top 27-28 knots while still sporting a brutal punch and massive protection, to field ships that can't have more than a limited ammount of deck and belt armor is just asking for trouble. And you know how Murphy's Laws go, right?. Once the bar has been reached where in order to keep your ships labelled as BCs you have to give up innaceptable ammounts of protection ,just stop building them and build faster battleships instead. By that stage you will be able to build CAs with 8-9 or 10 inch guns for cruiser roles for FAR cheaper (roughly two of those for each one of the BCs). Finally...don't overgun. Yes, yes I know the hype of the 18'' guns. Yamato had them'n'stuff. Bigger is better right?... Turns out that no, not really. 16'' guns can (And will) trounce almost anything they find in this game without even blinking twice. Why go 18'' (god forbid 20'') and pay the huge expenses in displacement and money for guns that are just absurdly overkill?. Well, I guess that for the memes and because it's cool . But if what you're looking for is cost-effective design, just don't even bother with guns bigger than 16''. They demand too much compromise in displacement and money to make it worthwhile. Two questions on these two points. First, the BC. From my experience the reason you can't go an all BB route even when BBs get fast as a BC would be, is that the game treats BCs as being Cruisers. If I don't have a strong BC force, then when the enemy has BCs, I am facing down their BCs with my CAs which doesn't go well for my CAs. I have played Italy through 1953 where the game is finally showing a resurgence of CAs being built by the AI but since I have kept my BCs while the enemy has been building lots of CAs again, I am finding that in those medium engagements, very often it is my BCs being matched against their very modern, but still inferior CAs that can't compete against BCs with 10+ inches of armor belt and 14-16 inch guns. As far as the gun sizes, one thing I noticed was that even though 16 inch guns have nearly the same penetration values as 18 inch guns, I don't think they do as much damage per hit. This might be entirely subjective but I built 2 BBs and 2 BCs with 18 inch -1 quality guns, just because I could and they shredded the enemy with what seemed like very few hits. About 4 turns later I researched 16 inch +1 Quality guns which quite honestly matched or even out performed the 18 inch -1 quality guns at least as far as penetration was concern so I refitted all my 18 inch gun ships for the weight savings. Then when I engaged the same enemy ships with my now 16 inch armed BCs and BBs, it just seemed to take much longer to kill or do serious damage to the enemy. Again I have no way to know for sure but theoretically and likely in real life, an 18 inch shell would carry significantly more explosive filler than a 16 inch shell meaning given equal penetration each hit would be significantly more damaging. This subjective observation makes me wonder if this might not be modeled in game which would also mean that despite the weight of the larger guns, there really might be a advantage to using 18 or even 20 inch guns. Larger guns do inflict more damage, yeah. Also, gun quality has no influence on the damage a shell does. So an 18"Q-2 would still do more damage than a 17"Q+1. (At least that's how it was in RTW1, but I don't think anything changed.)
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 21, 2019 14:13:19 GMT -6
When did you start the game - 1900 or 1920?
1920.
What nation were you playing?
Germany.
Were there any start options that were not the default?
Treaty of Versailles on, Historical Washington Naval Treaty on.
Describe the issue in detail.
Pressed the Turn button and was offered a cruiser battle against the Soviet Union, just north of Swinemünde IIRC. I accepted the battle and the game gave me this error. After clicking "Ok", the game skipped the battle, didn't generate any more battles and resumed as normal. Attached is the save file. Due to the compressed file exceeding the forum upload limit I've removed all the ship designs from the folder, I hope that doesn't cause any issues with the bug hunting.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 21, 2019 9:18:33 GMT -6
That's normal, the game is limited to 6 AI opponents, and Russia is not one of those when playing as France. Don't worry, nothing's broken here.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 21, 2019 8:33:06 GMT -6
A real shame about the disappearing KEs. And here I was looking forward to creating some gun-heavy colonial gunboat KEs in a future playthrough without having to worry about them being scrapped when I'm not looking.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 21, 2019 8:28:57 GMT -6
What I can't tell is what subs do on the battle map. I occasionally have DDs spot subs, and I can see my own on the map, but what are they doing? Like aardvark said, subs have a chance to attack and sink ships after the battle is over. Note that even if there are no subs on the battle map or in the unit summary, one might move in and torpedo one of your ships.
They also have a chance to attack ships during battle. Recently I had two subs, one SS and one SSM, stationed off the coast of Saaremaa where they sunk two merchants while my cruisers steamed to the bombardement target. One of them even reported the torpedo hits with a contact update immediately after the impact, while the other one didn't bother at all (or was busy getting depth-charged by corvettes ).
|
|
|
Submarines
May 20, 2019 20:45:25 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by marauder on May 20, 2019 20:45:25 GMT -6
Subs don't need to be transfered around, they automatically go where they're needed. Coastal subs stay in your home regions, while medium range subs and minelaying subs operate in every sea zone. That's how it was in RTW1, or at least that's how I remember it.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 20, 2019 17:03:31 GMT -6
I saw that the Soviets fired two of their admirals in the span of 4 months, probably because of budget mismanagement. I don't think something like that can happen in RTW1.
Also, some of my pilots called my latest fighter design a "lemon". Anyone know what this means? I'm guessing this is flavour text for poor reliability being discovered in a new model of aircraft.
|
|