RULE THE WAVES 2 PRE-RELEASE DISCUSSION THREAD

[wolfpack]

and now to open a new discussion, I'm not sure if it's been said or not, but will we get to do class changing refits (Mogami CAV, Iowa 1985 assault ship conversion,ise class bbv, and every converted carrier other than the Lexington class)?

[williammiller]

Jun 5, 2018 18:02:38 GMT -6 wolfpack said:

and now to open a new discussion, I'm not sure if it's been said or not, but will we get to do class changing refits (Mogami CAV, Iowa 1985 assault ship conversion,ise class bbv, and every converted carrier other than the Lexington class)?

Some conversions will be possible, yes. Details will be released when we have them

[wolfpack]

thank you for the response time (its faster than mine and i actually wanted to know ha ) you have me waiting at the edge of my seat for more the hype is real

[axe99]

Jun 5, 2018 17:59:54 GMT -6 williammiller said:

A brief thought on allowed maximum ship displacement (specifically battleship tonnage):

Part of the issue is solid *realistic/reliable* data on ships that were larger than the Yamato class (i.e. the largest class actually constructed). All we have for classes larger than that are design plans of varying (and in some cases IMHO rather dubious) reliability / test-ability and/or quality. Lacking actual tested performance figures for these larger ships means less confidence in formulas that mimic the factors that generate such vessels game specifications.

This is certainly not to say that including such larger vessels is 'undo-able', but I am suggesting that one has to consider the trade offs in a number of possible areas (not only ship design but other factors as well) when one considers the maximum tonnage that (we) the designers feel comfortable/confident in including.

Thanks.

This is a very good point.  I'd be guessing (and am fairly confident in this guess) that the physics of large container ships/tankers (as far as I know, the only vessels of the kind of displacement under discussion) wouldn't quite match those of a warship!

[rimbecano]

Well, for things like power needed for a given speed, postwar carriers and large civilian vessels should provide a conservative idea of what's possible for battleships of such tonnage (as those types tend to have fuller, draggier hull forms than surface combatants). For things like 'how much does a 20" narrow belt weigh on a ship of 90 kton?' it would pretty much be extrapolation. And even for the Yamatos, there isn't a lot of hard data available, as a lot of records related to them were destroyed, and the Japanese were quite tight-lipped about them prewar (the US didn't know their weaponry was any heavier than 16" while they were still afloat).

That said, while the Yamatos were about on the extended trend line of pre-treaty ships, and thus ships contemporary with them wouldn't likely have been much bigger without the treaties, they were also built by a power with a relatively small economy in the mid-30s, so a power like the US or Britain could conceivably have built much heavier BBs by 1950, so a 70,000 ton limit would feel a bit artificial by the end of the game.

[Noname117]

So it seems like the problem we have here boils down to us lacking real life examples of ships heavier than 70,000 tons in that period because of both economic reasons and a treaty or two, both conditions which might not appear in a game of RTW.

So either the game has to have significant restrictions to what was possible in its timeframe or some inaccurately modeled ships and mechanics based around them.

[williammiller]

I have spoken with Fredrik about limits today, and he believes that we can increase the max tonnage limit (along of course with the max speed limit as mentioned before). I think it likely we can go up to ~ 80-90K tons for the limit, that would allow for some larger potential designs.

Thanks!

[alexbrunius]

Jun 6, 2018 9:03:46 GMT -6 williammiller said:

I have spoken with Fredrik about limits today, and he believes that we can increase the max tonnage limit (along of course with the max speed limit as mentioned before). I think it likely we can go up to ~ 80-90K tons for the limit, that would allow for some larger potential designs.

Thanks!

Sounds great! 


I mean as long as it's so hard, time consuming and expensive to reach those speeds / tonnages that your not likely to see it until ~1940, and even then it is probably not the optimal way to go and you'll only afford a small number of huge ships I'm not worried that it will cause issues with balance. The historical counter to those massive Battleships seems to be aircraft, so perhaps making really big ships really easy to hit with aircrafts and torpedoes could work to balance it out.


It would also be really cool if you had to expand port facilities in other areas to be able to sustain bigger ships there, not just total tonnage of ships but a max as well ( especially repair them ), and if the canals have some reasonable size limits.

[oldpop2000]

Jun 6, 2018 8:01:28 GMT -6 Noname117 said:

So it seems like the problem we have here boils down to us lacking real life examples of ships heavier than 70,000 tons in that period because of both economic reasons and a treaty or two, both conditions which might not appear in a game of RTW.

So either the game has to have significant restrictions to what was possible in its timeframe or some inaccurately modeled ships and mechanics based around them.

I want to point out that to increase the speed from 27 knots to 29 knots on a Yamato class warship, you have to increase the horsepower from 137,000 hp.(approx.) to 181,000 hp. That is no small leap. If you go to 30 knots, you have to have 207,719 horsepower, another large leap. So to go from 27 knots to 30 requires over 70,000 extra horsepower. This is what you are up against. 

Now if I increase the length which increases the Length to Beam, for 30 knots of speed I need 211,665 horsepower. If I go to 1050 feet in length for Length to beam of about 8.24 to 1, I need 220,377 horsepower to get 30 knots. This last specification brings the weight of the ship under normal loading to 87,130 tons. The problem is do you have a dockyard big enough to build it and a repair facility to perform regular maintenance. 

I've now had to increase the draught to 40 feet to provide stability and now the ship weighs 96,543 tons. To get 30 knots, we now need 233,033 horsepower.

Naval architecture does not give you something for nothing, believe me. 

[marauder]

Private shipbuilding expansions will be rarer when using reduced research speed.

Since reduced research rates have been indirectly confirmed in the developer journal, can we also expect varied technology and its fun little modifiers like heavier engines or ineffective torpedoes to make a return?

Ever since that feature was first introduced in RtW1, I don't think I've run a single playthrough without varied tech enabled.

[Fredrik W]

Jun 6, 2018 11:39:34 GMT -6 marauder said:

Private shipbuilding expansions will be rarer when using reduced research speed.

Since reduced research rates have been indirectly confirmed in the developer journal, can we also expect varied technology and its fun little modifiers like heavier engines or ineffective torpedoes to make a return?

Ever since that feature was first introduced in RtW1, I don't think I've run a single playthrough without varied tech enabled.

Varied tech will be in RTW2 as well. And it may include things like for example lighter than air aviation being more effective compared to heavier than air than OTL. Or naval aviation in general being less effective (the dream of the battleship aficionado).

[marauder]

Jun 6, 2018 12:22:02 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Varied tech will be in RTW2 as well. And it may include things like for example lighter than air aviation being more effective compared to heavier than air than OTL. Or naval aviation in general being less effective (the dream of the battleship aficionado).

That's great news (at least for me), thank you!

[rimbecano]

The developers' journal contains the following:

2) Low freeboard can be selected for all ships, but the benefit is larger for ships with top speed below 21 knots. Ships with low freeboard will have their speed ang gunnery affected more in heavy weather than ships with normal freeboard. The ship is simply less 'weatherly'.

Would it work to get rid of the freeboard dropdown entirely, and just have freeboard be a function of how overweight the ship is, with limits on speed depending on how much you've overloaded the ship? I'm just thinking in terms of reserve bouyancy, where the same hull could be a high freeboard, low tonnage hull or a low freeboard, high tonnage hull depending on the bouyancy reserve you want. Or are there other considerations of naval architecture that come into play here?

[oldpop2000]

Jun 6, 2018 9:03:46 GMT -6 williammiller said:

I have spoken with Fredrik about limits today, and he believes that we can increase the max tonnage limit (along of course with the max speed limit as mentioned before). I think it likely we can go up to ~ 80-90K tons for the limit, that would allow for some larger potential designs.

Thanks!

My only comment is this; are we seeking reality in the game? I have always enjoyed the games that this team has produced because they were based on actual historical data. It is unrealistic to build 90,000 ton ships in this time period. The ship will have to be about 1000 feet long and 120 feet wide in the beam and have SHP of over 200000 to be able to reach 27 KTS. The Yamato class required 153,000 SHP for the same speed with a gross tonnage of 72,000 tons.  The cost of design and building along with operations and maintenance for this ship will be enormous. Besides the US, is there any nation, that would spend that kind of money? That is the question that has to be answered. Most Japanese Admirals thought the Yamato class was a waste of money, time, and human effort. They wanted more fleet carriers and support ships. The Yamato was nicknamed the "Hashirajima Hotel" for good reason. There are plenty of "Roads Not Taken" to explore even with realistic building standards and economics. You can't change geography. Yes, the Japanese Navy did have were planning the Super Yamato but the Sino-Japanese War and the deteriorating talks between the US and Japan forced them to change their plans for more carriers. 

Maybe the team could setup the game with two paths to follow: Alternate history or Actual history. With the former, you can build essentially any size ship you want and geopolitics will be more variable. In the latter, you are in the real world, limitations will be placed on building and fleet size, and geopolitics will follow traditional paths.

I just wanted to be heard. Thanks 

[oldpop2000]

Jun 6, 2018 13:44:01 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

The developers' journal contains the following:

2) Low freeboard can be selected for all ships, but the benefit is larger for ships with top speed below 21 knots. Ships with low freeboard will have their speed ang gunnery affected more in heavy weather than ships with normal freeboard. The ship is simply less 'weatherly'.

Would it work to get rid of the freeboard dropdown entirely, and just have freeboard be a function of how overweight the ship is, with limits on speed depending on how much you've overloaded the ship? I'm just thinking in terms of reserve bouyancy, where the same hull could be a high freeboard, low tonnage hull or a low freeboard, high tonnage hull depending on the bouyancy reserve you want. Or are there other considerations of naval architecture that come into play here?

Freeboard for warships provides more space and this is generally critical for a warship. It also provides a margin of safety in high seas. Now, can you use a low freeboard on a warship? Sure, how about minesweepers or coastal defense ships? The problem is where are they going to operate. Certainly you would not want a low freeboard ship in the North Sea, believe me. Maybe the Baltic, certainly  the Mediterranean could handle them nicely. But in the blue ocean areas, low freeboard is dangerous for a heavily loaded warship even without combat.