|
Post by marauder on May 20, 2019 16:56:30 GMT -6
Hangar Sides, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 18, 2019 11:26:39 GMT -6
Some other cruiser weirdness, this time from France. Both with 1900 build dates. The "0 knots" in the almanac seems to be an issue with a typo in the ship design files in the Data/IDes/ folder. CL0F0.tdf and CL0F1.tdf both have their "OSpeed" value set to zero. I imagine it should be something between 20 and 22 instead.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 17, 2019 11:40:27 GMT -6
Although I haven't seen too much variation--of five treaties, I have seen max displacement from 10-12kt and max caliber from 8-10". I would be interested in seeing a Second London Treaty analogue kicking in in BB range, rather than just treaties that limit CAs and ban capitals. I rolled a treaty with rather generous limitations in the older version of the demo. 16.000 tons and 12" guns! Didn't play with that save since I don't want an amazing treaty like that to be "wasted" by a 6-year time limit, though.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 17, 2019 7:27:17 GMT -6
Could you show us the design? I've never had a problem converting AVs to CVLs. View AttachmentHere it is as an AV to AMX conversion and below is the AV to TR conversion: View AttachmentThe difference are apparently the guns. In the meantime, I have had a game, where there were two AVs already building. Both had 2in belt armor and both were simple to convert. Therefore my conclusion is, the key is the belt armor as ships without it are considered transports and it has been confirmed by the devs, you can not convert transports into CVLs. Hm, have you tried reducing the air complement? CVLs in this game can only carry 35 (or 34? Can't recall right now.) aircraft, maybe that's the issue?
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 16, 2019 12:49:48 GMT -6
Is... is that seriously a submarine with a pagoda mast? "Bring us to periscope depth!" "Yes sir! Diving to 60 meters!"
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 16, 2019 10:59:09 GMT -6
Not really a bug (again), but I noticed that battlecruisers built to the Lion-class template seem to be missing smokestacks in the top-down view. Wouldn't want to be a stoker on that thing, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 15, 2019 11:22:05 GMT -6
Not a bug, but I don't think us players are supposed to have access to this highlighted button here. Haha! Time to drown the AI in CVLs!
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 19:03:00 GMT -6
I believe the manual mentions at some point that the Medium Bomber plane type can eventually equip torpedoes after the required technology is researched. And while not mentioned in the manual, there seems to be a Heavy Bomber plane type in the game, it's one of the options when requesting a new design.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 13:08:24 GMT -6
Twelve months seems a bit excessive if all they do it add space to store 10 more rounds in total, considering my dockyards can rip out the entire machinery and replace it with a brand-new, oil-fired version in only 10 months time. Maybe for a destroyer. But imagine changing the size of the heavily armored magazines of a dreadnought battleship... That definitely makes sense, yeah. It just threw me off a bit when I saw for how long my little 600 tonners would be in the yards for removing 5 rounds, so I assumed it might be a bug.
I guess RTW1 has spoiled me in regards to refitting ammo loads on ships.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 13:01:03 GMT -6
I just went to refit an old 600t destroyer with some additional goodies, and when I reduced the ammunition load from 150 rounds per gun to 145, the rebuild time jumped from 3 to 12(!) months. The same thing happens when increasing ammo load. Putting the ammo load back at 150 rounds reduces the rebuild time back to 3 months. Might make sense for adding ammo... not sure about taking it away! Twelve months seems a bit excessive if all they do it add space to store 10 more rounds in total, considering my dockyards can rip out the entire machinery and replace it with a brand-new, oil-fired version in only 10 months time.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 12:55:09 GMT -6
I just went to refit an old 600t destroyer with some additional goodies, and when I reduced the ammunition load from 150 rounds per gun to 145, the rebuild time jumped from 3 to 12(!) months. The same thing happens when increasing ammo load. Putting the ammo load back at 150 rounds reduces the rebuild time back to 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 12:16:57 GMT -6
So how do you actually convert ships to cvls? Right-click on a ship in your fleet, let's say a pre-dreadnought, and select "Open design for rebuild". Remove all guns from the design, then go to the "Flight installations, Missiles" tab. There you need to check the "Flight Deck" option and add at least 5 air capacity (4 or lower gives me an unrecognised ship type popup). After you've done that, click on the "Check design" button and the game should ask you if you want to reclass the design as CVL.
That's how I just converted one of my starting pre-dreads to a CVL in the demo.
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 14, 2019 8:54:33 GMT -6
Easy on the F5 key, guys. Don't want to overload the server now, do we?
|
|
|
Post by marauder on May 6, 2019 4:41:23 GMT -6
While looking at the latest dev journal I noticed that one of the destroyers in the OOB, the Miyuki, is listed as "DD Miyuki DL". DL stands for Destroyer Leader I assume? Completely unrelated, but I've been meaning to ask for a while now; is the tool used for making aircraft graphics the same as the one for ship superstructures? If yes, I hope we'll be able to use the new asymmetry feature for planes as well. BV 141 anyone?
|
|
|
Post by marauder on Feb 17, 2019 6:46:53 GMT -6
Germany uses 'V' prefix for their DDs Yes, but they don't do it in numerical order, the numbering is randomly selected. Also, they use the "S" prefix too. The numbering isn't randomly selected, actually. German destroyers in RtW1 have a premade name list (which can be viewed in NWS\Rule the Waves\Data\GermanyShipNames.dat) instead of the progressing numbers like the submarine naming system. Possibly due to multiple prefixes being incompatible with RtW1s name generation system?
In real life, Germany numbered destroyers much like submarines, at least during World War 1. (No clue about the Reichsmarine or Kriegsmarine, but I think it was about the same but with a T prefix standing for Torpedoboot and Z for Zerstörer.) The prefix denoted the building yard, so they could be quite random depending on which yards secured how many orders. Prefixes included V and S, as already mentioned, but also G, B, H and possibly a couple others that I can't really recall right now.
So the team probably did it like they did because it would have been too much work to create a random prefix script for destroyers that only a single nation would use anyway.
But unless a member of the team chimes in that's just speculation on my part .
|
|