|
Post by Airy W on Apr 11, 2018 7:05:22 GMT -6
And of course, whose who kill with the sword also die by the sword... or a lot of them, if they happen to have a close encounter with destroyers. Of course, there is a relevant scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) that would serve as an excellent response. Deterrence in all things, including deterrence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 15:55:05 GMT -6
Curious whether you’ve also been replicating the American coastal defense building program of the period. Not possible within my game budget. In fact, I deliberately scrapped all costal batteries to save money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 15:57:10 GMT -6
I'm hoping to add more to this soon, but the Postal Service keeps me ever busy.
|
|
|
Post by splatterdemalion on Apr 16, 2018 17:01:04 GMT -6
Curious whether you’ve also been replicating the American coastal defense building program of the period. Not possible within my game budget. In fact, I deliberately scrapped all costal batteries to save money. Indeed. I added all the historical 1900-era batteries to the save file by hand, and adjusted their maintenance fees to reflect that they were primarily an Army responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 14:13:25 GMT -6
The time is now August, 1925. War with France is imminent. To that end, several new types of ships have come down the line, some of which will likely see service in the event of war. - Historical Description:
- The Caldwell class of destroyers served in the United States Navy near the end of World War I. Four served as convoy escorts in the Atlantic; the other two were completed too late for wartime service. Two were scrapped during the 1930s, but four survived to serve throughout World War II, three of these in service with the Royal Navy under the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. Built from 1916 to 1918, the six ships of the Caldwell class were the first of 279 ordered (6 of which were cancelled) to a flush-decked design to remove the forecastle break weakness of the preceding Sampson class and other "thousand tonners".
I departed from history in one crucial detail, the placement of the torpedo tubes here. The real Caldwell class destroyers had the two pairs of torpedo mounts on the sides of the ships, that were common on the mass produced Wickes and Clemson class, however, because of game limitations, I cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship of less than 1200 tons. So it is impossible to build this destroyer accurately. One thing I think I will enjoy about this particular design, is the torpedo spam that will result from it. In light of this development, I will skip the Wickes class, and go straight to the Clemson class, with a smaller version of the Farragut thrown in. - Historical Description:
- Maneuvers conducted in January 1915, made it clear that the US Atlantic Fleet lacked the fast cruisers necessary to provide information on the enemy's position and to deny the enemy information of the fleet's own position and to screen friendly forces. Built to scout for a fleet of battleships, the Omaha class featured high speed for cooperation with destroyers, and 6-inch guns to fend off any destroyers the enemy might send against them. Displacing 7,050 long tons (7,160 t), they were just over 555 ft (169 m) long.
My original design for the USS Omaha was lacking in one detail, above-water torpedo tubes. With that flaw being made evident in battle against the British, whereupon the Omaha was sunk off the island of Bermuda, (to enemy torpedoes no less) I decided to wait until I had the requisite technology to resurrect this light cruiser. With my 1925 modernization completed, these cruisers represent the final type of CL being deployed by my navy. I'm going to run them off in pairs until the class is complete, and they will serve in the scouting and escort role exclusively. The job of raiding has been supplanted by large numbers of reliable submarines. - Historical Description:
- The Portland class was the third class of heavy cruiser to be constructed by the United States Navy following the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. The first "treaty cruisers" were the two of the Pensacola class ordered in 1926, which emphasized armament and speed at the expense of protection. These ships were followed by the six vessels of the Northampton class ordered in 1927 with slightly better armor, and introduced the configuration of three triple turrets which would become standard on U.S. Navy heavy cruisers. The Portland class was a modification of both the Pensacola and Northampton designs.
For this class, I simply did as advertised, I took the Pensacola and Northampton, standardized them, simplified them, and came out with the Portland. She takes the main gun armament from Northampton, the secondary armament from Pensacola, ditches the torpedo tubes, and adds a bit of belt armor. Easy peasy! - Historical Description:
- The New Orleans class cruisers were a class of seven heavy cruisers built for the United States Navy in the 1930s. Originally called the Astoria class cruiser, the class was renamed after Astoria was sunk and the surviving ships of the class underwent substantial reconstruction. These ships participated in the heaviest surface battles of the Pacific War. Astoria, Quincy, and Vincennes were all sunk in the Battle of Savo Island, and three others were heavily damaged in subsequent battles in the Guadalcanal campaign. Only Tuscaloosa, which spent most of the war in the Atlantic, got through the war without being damaged. Collectively, ships of the class earned 64 battle stars. The four surviving ships were laid up immediately after the end of the war, and sold for scrap in 1959.
Take a look at my New Orleans class as shown here. Study it, then flip back a couple pages to see my Maine class battleships. Both of these types are serving in the same fleet. Granted, the Maine class has been relegated to the backwaters of Asia, and the New Orleans class is being launched soon onto the front line East Coast Fleet, but still, a comparison between these two types yields the clearest picture of the technological advance present in the game that I can show you. They both have the same displacement, their total weight of broadside is about the same (homogenous for the New Orleans, various for the Maine,) yet the one ship is an order of magnitude more capable than the other... - Historical Description:
- With these ships the U.S. Navy developed a template known as the Standard-type battleship that it would use until the Washington Naval Treaty brought an end to dreadnought construction in 1922. Its essentials were consistent size and speed, oil fuel instead of coal, and a reversion to the superfiring mounting of heavy guns in four turrets that was used in the South Carolina class to keep the citadel compact. The decision to mount triple gun turrets proved controversial. Naval officers and engineers warned of "putting too many eggs in one basket"; that a lucky hit could disable more of the main guns than if they were carried in twin turrets and leave a ship at a disadvantage in battle. Shipbuilders warned that triple turrets could affect a ship's stability adversely because of their greater weight, especially when raised in a superfiring mounting. However, the Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair (C&R), which designed the Nevadas, considered triple turrets necessary to save space and weight, keep the citadel at a reasonable size, and maximize the armor protection accordingly. It also eliminated the challenges of steam lines running through main gun magazines and ineffective placement of heavy guns, as occurred with midships turrets in previous classes. The Navy would use triple turrets in almost all of its subsequent battleship designs.
The U.S. Navy's love affair with the 14 inch gun will begin and end with these next three ship classes. Given the fact I have quite some time before 16 inch guns are available, the Nevada and her brethren in the shipyards will be the last dreadnaughts I will build. I have to say, of all the ships I have attempted to reproduce here, I think this one is my favorite. There is something to be said for a ship design so good it becomes "standard issue". The Nevada had just finished being built, but I had to order a rebuild immediately to fix the lack of superstructure on the ship. I spent almost an hour poring over photographs and reading the wikipedia entry, then to my shock I realized I hadn't drawn any superstructure before ordering construction. The ships appearing in this post represent the newest ships that are either in active service, or will be completed within the next six months. While I had some serious concerns about falling behind in the ship race, it seems I have caught up to most of the world in terms of capabilities. This is the newest Italian battlecruiser that has just been completed a month ago. It is fairly representative of the state of AI shipbuilding at the time. The British may have some slightly larger displacement ships, but most of the rest of the world is building ships of this type. To that end, I present a sneak preview of a ship that won't be finished for about 16 months: - Historical Description:
- None.
The Lexington class battlecruisers were never actually built. However, thanks to Rule the Waves, we can finally see how this ship might have performed. If I am at war with France 16 months from now, then I will endeavor to bring the Lexington into battle. (No, I am not kidding with that 6 inch belt. That IS how she was designed.) Work keeps me busy as always. Thanks for your patience. - SLIM
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 7, 2018 14:41:00 GMT -6
I departed from history in one crucial detail, the placement of the torpedo tubes here. The real Caldwell class destroyers had the two pairs of torpedo mounts on the sides of the ships, that were common on the mass produced Wickes and Clemson class, however, because of game limitations, I cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship of less than 1200 tons. So it is impossible to build this destroyer accurately. Do you mean the two tubes per broadside mount limitation? Just wondering, because I can put more than one pair of broadside mounts on destroyers, at least in v1.34b.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 15:46:07 GMT -6
I departed from history in one crucial detail, the placement of the torpedo tubes here. The real Caldwell class destroyers had the two pairs of torpedo mounts on the sides of the ships, that were common on the mass produced Wickes and Clemson class, however, because of game limitations, I cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship of less than 1200 tons. So it is impossible to build this destroyer accurately. Do you mean the two tubes per broadside mount limitation? Just wondering, because I can put more than one pair of broadside mounts on destroyers, at least in v1.34b. The ship designer throws an error stating: "Cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship less than 1200 tons." Also, just wondering, is there a save game hack one can make to undo my accidentally clicking on the "End the Game now" button in 1925?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 7, 2018 16:06:58 GMT -6
The ship designer throws an error stating: "Cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship less than 1200 tons." At least in the version I'm on (v1.34b1), more than two non-centerline mounts are legal: It's having more than two tubes in the broadside mounts that isn't legal: The error is "Maximum two tubes for non centreline torpedo mounts on ships below 1200 tons," which I'll agree could probably be better-worded to avoid confusion, but the limit as written is two tubes per non-centerline mount, not two tubes (in which case a design with a pair of broadside twin mounts would be illegal) or two mounts. If we're not playing on the same version of the game (I'm on v1.34b1) then that might be where the difference comes from. As to this, I believe that if you go to RTWGame#.bcs and find the line GOR=1 and change that to GOR=0, you should be able to resume playing the game. I am not certain that there isn't anything else that you'd need to do, but I think that that should work. # in the file name is the number of the save slot in which you were playing (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5); it'll match the number in the folder name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 16:18:07 GMT -6
The ship designer throws an error stating: "Cannot have more than two non-centerline torpedo mounts on a ship less than 1200 tons." At least in the version I'm on (v1.34b1), more than two non-centerline mounts are legal: It's having more than two tubes in the broadside mounts that isn't legal: The error is "Maximum two tubes for non centreline torpedo mounts on ships below 1200 tons," which I'll agree could probably be better-worded to avoid confusion, but the limit as written is two tubes per non-centerline mount, not two tubes (in which case a design with a pair of broadside twin mounts would be illegal) or two mounts. If we're not playing on the same version of the game (I'm on v1.34b1) then that might be where the difference comes from. As to this, I believe that if you go to RTWGame#.bcs and find the line GOR=1 and change that to GOR=0, you should be able to resume playing the game. I am not certain that there isn't anything else that you'd need to do, but I think that that should work. # in the file name is the number of the save slot in which you were playing (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5); it'll match the number in the folder name. All I know is, I tried to make the Wickes class, and I got an error. Flipped GOR=0 and it's game on. Just found it before I came back. Thanks though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2018 16:36:00 GMT -6
Okay, yeah. Sorry, I was in a rush.
I suppose I could build the Wickes to 1200 tons, and avoid this whole issue. Yeah, that's a much better solution.
Anyway, as usual, I won't be back for a while. Feel free to leave comments, I'll get to them when I can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 6:50:13 GMT -6
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA The post for the Arizona will be delayed slightly. My apologies for French submarine activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 18:15:38 GMT -6
There was a question as to how the 'Treaty Cruisers' would perform. The following will attempt to address that concern: Here we see one of my Northampton class cruisers engaging an enemy raider CL of some 5500 tons. 8 inch guns, triple mounted in superfiring forward turrets is a wall of firepower not easily matched by other cruisers. The enemy is engaged outside their own effective range of their 6 inch guns. Several shells slam into the enemy in rapid succession, slowing him down, and allowing the Northampton, with it's 30 knot top speed, to easily close the gap. As night closes in, and ranges decrease, her fire only becomes more effective. The enemy is destroyed, at no cost to myself. Proving, that enemy CL's at least, can not hope to stand against a fast, heavily armed cruiser.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 14:15:14 GMT -6
The war against France is over already. It was fought almost entirely by Submarines. - Historical Description:
- The Pennsylvania-class consisted of two super-dreadnought battleships built for the United States Navy just before the First World War. The ships were named Pennsylvania and Arizona, after the American states of the same names. They constituted the United States' second battleship design to adhere to the "all or nothing" armor scheme, and were the newest American capital ships when the United States entered the First World War.
Unlike the historical ships, I do not have the All or Nothing armor scheme unlocked yet, so my two ships were not quite as protected as the real ships. As seen in a previous post, Arizona was torpedoed and sunk after arriving in the fleet. Pennsylvania is on station in the East Coast Fleet, pending a major fleet reassignment. - Historical Description:
- The New Mexico-class battleships of the United States Navy, all three of whose construction began in 1915, were improvements on the design introduced three years earlier with the Nevada class. The twelve-gun main battery of the preceding Pennsylvania class was retained, but with longer 14-inch (356 mm)/50 caliber guns in improved triple turrets. Hull design was also upgraded with a 'clipper' bow for better seakeeping and a sleeker look. One ship, New Mexico, was fitted with turbo-electric propulsion. Though eight secondary battery guns were located in extremely wet bow and stern positions and were soon removed, the rest of the ships' 5-inch (127 mm)/51 caliber guns were mounted in the superstructure, a great improvement over earlier U.S. Navy battleships' arrangements.
It seems I've actually screwed up a bit on previous designs. I think I should have retained casemated guns up until now. The trouble is, when looking at pictures of the ships, it can get a bit confusing given several rebuilds they have undergone, and the game's inability to allow the player to make radical changes during rebuilds. For example, turning a casemated secondary battery into a double-turreted battery, in the case of Nevada. So far, my building of the historical U.S. Navy has gone quite smoothly, with the only situation out of my hands was the war with Britain. These designs have served well up until this time, and given the fact I am now heading into the Post-WW1 designs I have effectively caught up with the AI's shipbuilding programs. The campaign, if finished in 1925 with my game settings as specified in the original post, netted me 41 prestige points, with a very good war record.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 12, 2018 15:02:31 GMT -6
Replacing casemated guns with single, twin, triple, or quad turrets (or vice versa) is legal within the game as long as the secondary caliber post-refit is 5" or less, and you can have as many of them as the ship will carry. With 6" secondaries post-refit, you're limited to individually-mounted guns (single turrets or casemates), but you can still have as many individually-mounted 6" guns as the ship can carry. Anything heavier, though, and your options are 'do nothing,' 'remove,' or 'replace with 6" or lighter guns.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 12:27:30 GMT -6
Replacing casemated guns with single, twin, triple, or quad turrets (or vice versa) is legal within the game as long as the secondary caliber post-refit is 5" or less, and you can have as many of them as the ship will carry. With 6" secondaries post-refit, you're limited to individually-mounted guns (single turrets or casemates), but you can still have as many individually-mounted 6" guns as the ship can carry. Anything heavier, though, and your options are 'do nothing,' 'remove,' or 'replace with 6" or lighter guns.' Ahh, I see. Most of my secondaries were 6" guns. I guess I was operating with blinkers on. One thing that did get me was to "Lack of reliable elevating and training gear for secondary turrets". Most of the time I simply thought, why not just keep the casemates and not lose ROF. I guess if I end up doing this again I should pay a bit more attention.
|
|