|
Post by joebob73 on Aug 7, 2016 23:41:43 GMT -6
Yeah, likewise I'd like to control only ONE ship... Also, the AI lategame seem suicidal! Those 15-18 inch guns have ranges upwards of 30-40k yards, and yet they're closing in!? Tends to happen. Half of that is due to the maximum ingame vision range being around 28k yards, and the usual maximum spotting distance being closer to 20k. And then there's the annoying tendency for all fleet battles/battleship actions to start in a strong gale, with heavy rain, at night. Then the spot range is only 1k yards and EVERYTHING eats torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 27, 2016 13:14:49 GMT -6
Good discussion, thanks for the input! ROF in RTW is considerably toned down from the theoretical numbers given by gun manufacturers (or used by some other games) but it may be that ROF is still too high in practice. It is notable that (as far as I remember) no ship at Jutland used more than half of its ammo, not even Hipper's much battled squadron. At the end of the battle several ships had various kinds of technical problems or hot guns not running out properly that affected ROF. It may be that RTW takes these factors insufficiently into account. I will take another look at this when practicable. I also suspect that if almost everyone in RTW is loading up on extra ammo, the weight 'cost' of extra ammo may be too low. Or perhaps there should be an increased risk of magazine hits with extra ammo? If IRL ship constructors limited themselves to 80-90 rpg for heavy guns, they did so for good reasons, and these reasons may not be sufficiently taken into account in RTW. Oh, they are. I prefer to fight at long range, where deck armor is the most important thing, and accuracy is generally lower. I also tend to have far fewer ships than my opponents, due to playing as the USA and having to cover both coasts, while opposing countries can usually keep their entire battlefleet together. For that reason, each individual ship tends to need to carry much more ammunition so I don't run out after the fleet spends 20 minutes shelling an already sinking hulk. I try to load enough ammunition so one ship can sink 2-3 of their opposite number in the enemy fleet, so I don't have to disengage early. Edit: it does take a LOT of weight to put more ammo in, but using only 5" secondaries with light armor in double turrets saves enough to let me take 110-125 rounds instead of the usual 90-100.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 27, 2016 8:35:27 GMT -6
I've been noticing that by mid-late game, I need 150+ rounds per gun for heavy ships. The massive fleet battles that usually happen end up taking so long that anything lower is going to leave my battle-line running dry early.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 22, 2016 13:46:32 GMT -6
My shortest ever was a new class of battlecruisers, with 3 laid down in 1910. 1 month into construction, SURPRISE ARMS TREATY, and all of them were scrapped. They would have had 8 14" guns, 28 knot speed, and nearly as much armor as a proper battleship of the time.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 21, 2016 1:20:13 GMT -6
Can we have a redux of the 'range' of ships here?... I frankly find it ridiculous that a 'extreme long range' cruiser in the MEDITERRANEAN, will run out of fuel. And for that matter, can we include ranges of fuel in the battles? It's silly chasing a cruiser all over the place, with neither party ever running out of fuel... Fuel range is already included. Most ships don't burn enough fuel to run completely out in the time of a single battle. It can happen very rarely though.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 20, 2016 21:04:10 GMT -6
You kind of already can. I was able to get a few cruisers built with 13" main battery guns. Early game they can join the line of battle as a nasty force multiplier, and can easily chase down ships attempting to flee. Late-game they are brutal raiders/counter-raiders. They can still contribute in fleet actions as well, given a proper engine rebuild and re-gunning with improved 13" guns.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 20, 2016 15:00:40 GMT -6
I tend to have lots of CAs, because they are so useful for raiding and countering enemy raiders. 31 knot speed and 6" armor lets them handle basically anything lighter than a BC, and outrun any non-retarded BC design. The derpy as hell "cruiser-killer" BCs that tend to pop up lategame aren't much of a threat because the AI will throw them into fleet battles, just like the British at Jutland. There, their armor is insufficient and they are quickly sunk. They basically do most of a BC's job for me at about half the cost. You're a CA builder? Can you give me some more specific pointers (I.e tonnage and armament)? For me, I have trouble avoiding the "CA Paradox", which is a trap I always fall into. It goes like this: 1. I want a good counter-raider (that can also raid as a bonus), but BCs are too expensive to make in large numbers. 2. I build an initial CA design that outclasses a CL and can match/surpass current enemy CAs 3. A mini-arms race ensures where I keep building progressively larger and more expensive CAs, lest they be torn to shreds by enemy CA designs. 4. As tonnage soars into 30k tons, CAs start to approach costs comparable to a capital ship, thus incentivizing me to just build another BC instead. To solve the CA paradox, I have theorized that there is an "ideal CA size", where CAs are big and powerful enough to hold their own, but small enough to make them a viable alternative to BCs. I do not know where this size is, but I have kept to a general rule of thumb that no CA design should be more than 1/2 the cost of my latest BC design. is this a good idea? . Can you post some pics of typical cruiser designs? I find that I usually can stop at 18k tons and the AI has no counter for them, other than extremely thinly armored super-fast BCs. By endgame, typical armament is 4x3 10" guns, because using double turrets doesn't give enough firepower to quickly destroy enemy CA and quads are too unreliable and heavy. Secondaries are 5" guns in dual turrets, for shredding DDs.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 20, 2016 12:27:55 GMT -6
I never bother with DD's with guns... ;\ DD's are torpedo boats, carry as MANY as possible, as fast as possible. CL's are anti-DD and anti-CL. I don't make CA, because they become obselete stupidly quickly, and cannot carry mines. BC are made as slow and armoured as possible, basically a BB with slightly less stats, to DESTROY other BC and below. BB's are made as big and powerful as possible, spare no expense. I tend to have lots of CAs, because they are so useful for raiding and countering enemy raiders. 31 knot speed and 6" armor lets them handle basically anything lighter than a BC, and outrun any non-retarded BC design. The derpy as hell "cruiser-killer" BCs that tend to pop up lategame aren't much of a threat because the AI will throw them into fleet battles, just like the British at Jutland. There, their armor is insufficient and they are quickly sunk. They basically do most of a BC's job for me at about half the cost.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 19, 2016 23:22:30 GMT -6
Yes, magical turret mountings spawning more of themselves. It's also a Bad Surprise® when you are suddenly facing off an early BB with 16 12" guns. But incredibly fun when your BB suddenly has 24 12" guns. Had all of them land hits in a single salvo too. Enemy ship just evaporated.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 18, 2016 8:05:50 GMT -6
Could we get a comparison chart showing how different caliber guns compare on reload and damage after penetration? That would make deciding which caliber to use much easier, as a designer would have access to information on a shell's bursting charge and the typical reload speed of a gun.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 17, 2016 16:23:45 GMT -6
Now, I'm sure that is a bug. I won't ask how you came to be looking for exploits (LOL_, but you certainly found a big one. However, because truth is stranger than fiction - and because military bureaucracies are unfathomable and their funding amounts to arcane wizardry - Once upon a time there was a thing known as a 'great repair'. An old ship, not worth saving, would go into dock for 'repair' and emerge with different statistics entirely. This was done so that money budgeted for 'repair' could actually be used for new construction, and it was a polite fiction that was widely done and usually winked at. This is how the USS Constellation was transformed (and why the one in Baltimore harbor is an 1850's sloop and not the original Humphreys-designed 1797 frigate. It is how Civil War-era monitors were rebuilt as modern coast defense ships in the 1880s and 90s. And sometimes they even worked in a few pieces of the original materials, just for continuity - but there is no doubt that what came out of a 'great repair' was a new ship and not the old one. Well it happened accidentally, curiosity got the better of me, I expected an error message, instead it took 8 months for about 1,5 million per month to "rebuild". Muust be the cheapest high-end CA I ever built. It was still 8000 tons on the fleet register. How would I go about doing this? For science, of course.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 16, 2016 10:41:27 GMT -6
It was possible to build CA's with >10 in guns in 1.2x, but it's not in 1.3x. Neither 1.2x nor 1.3x exactly matches the rules in the manual. I was getting away with it in 1.32 beta.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 15, 2016 22:04:12 GMT -6
Fredrik, two bugs - both serious. The first is that research into Naval Guns does not seem to progress - I'm playing the US, have research at 10% and Naval Guns on High and in 16 years I've progressed from 12" -1 to 12" 0. The second is the doubling of weapons on ships. I saw it first on one of my destroyer classes, and saw it just now on an after-battle report of a Japanese battlecruiser that should have 10-11" guns but instead has 20. I have a pic that clearly shows one superimposed B turret dead and another on top of it just fine... Can confirm the gun doubling bug happens. And is utterly hilarious. Had a CA score 12 hits in a single tick with only 8 guns in a few battles now.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 15, 2016 14:45:53 GMT -6
Would it be possible to add an option to take multiple (2-5) ships as war reparations instead of territories? Especially mid-late game, ships are more useful, and sometimes you need a few to fill a hole in your fleet caused by the war.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Jul 10, 2016 16:09:46 GMT -6
Personally, I think you should be able to pick from either possessions or ships. Either you can take a few colonies where you don't have any, or you can pick some ships to fill a hole in your fleet.
|
|