|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 9, 2018 5:59:58 GMT -6
I just thought I would pass along something for all to think about. We are all awaiting the ability to develop, deploy and use radar whether surface search, air search or whatever. Be advised, turning on a radar is like turning on a flashlight in dark crowded room. Everyone in that room will now know where you are. You might want to consider this before use. This is why chirp radar was developed. This just reminded me that search light in naval combat tends to have the same effects. Japan lost quite a few light ships when they turned on their search light to illuminate American ships during various night actions around guandal canal. Since we now have a radar mechanism and presumably counter detection as well, will it be possible to do some thing similar with regard to seartch light during night time? ( or maybe an option/or your light ship do it automatically, such that they have both increased detection at night and massively increased detectitibilty). If time permits may also be possible to incorporate other night fighting technology like star shells. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 9, 2018 7:14:12 GMT -6
one feature request i'd really like is the option to halve the amount of timer you have in battles, or an option to end the battle once i'm X distance away from the main enemy force/objective. i find a VAST majority of my battles are decided within 300 ticks, yet afterwards there's an excruciating wait of 200/500/700 more ticks for the battle to end. for me it would add a lot of speed to the whole game - admittedly i'm stuck with a slow crappy laptop for the time being so the extra ticks stick out a lot more to me right now lol
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 9, 2018 9:15:53 GMT -6
one feature request i'd really like is the option to halve the amount of timer you have in battles, or an option to end the battle once i'm X distance away from the main enemy force/objective. i find a VAST majority of my battles are decided within 300 ticks, yet afterwards there's an excruciating wait of 200/500/700 more ticks for the battle to end. for me it would add a lot of speed to the whole game - admittedly i'm stuck with a slow crappy laptop for the time being so the extra ticks stick out a lot more to me right now lol This is very true, any EM radiation whether it is light, radio emissions or radar emissions can be detected. It does not mean that the detector can pinpoint your approach direction and range, just simply sound a tone to alert you that you are being detected. ELINT periods are important. With the addition of frequency agility, you now have to be careful not to change frequency, or the opponent will now know your capability. We had ELINT periods when Russian "Fishing trawlers" were off the coast. This ELINT period can be difficult for air wings attempting return to the ship since the ship may not be able to engage the homing devices, like Zed Baker. Now, realistically I don't think the game will go this far, although it is possible. I haven't tested RTW on my Surface, I just use it on my desktop. It does work fine on my notebook. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 9, 2018 10:16:59 GMT -6
I have several questions related these topics:
1. Box protection to magazines
If this option is selected, belt and deck thickness will be halved for hits to areas other than magazines. Belt and deck weight is reduced by 1/3.
Is it possible instead add % of belt or deck armor as for capital ships it is quite strange to have double thickness for magazines however magazines (and sometimes machinery) still have better protection that rest of armored citadel.
2. Armour thickness up to 20 in allowed, but increase in armour over 12 inches will not give the same proportional protection due to difficulties in manufacturing thicker armor plates. Does it depend or technology or will be hardcoded as different nations have different level of knowledge to make armor plates. Eg. USA has best up to 8", UK best for higher thickness and opposite Japanese had inferior quality.
3. Cruisers What will be limits for light cruisers? In RTW there is limit on tonnage (up to 8,000 tons), guns (up to 6" for light cruisers) and armor (3" belt armor max.). But in reality cruisers were steadily upgunned, better armored and large, just the treaties prevented it completely. So it is possible that without treaty cruisers will involve up to Alaska class (e.g. Myoko, Mogami, Admiral Hipper, Italian cruisers etc.)
4. AI
AI in RTW is quite good however there is still areas where AI could not stand to player. One issue is that players usually build their vessels with much better and heavy armor (especially for battlecruisers but battleships too). This makes AI capital ships especially battlecruisers easy to kill as their armor is easily penetrated by heavy guns of capital ships but AI ships are not able to penetrate players ship.
Is it possible for AI when not using historical budget for games to have more tendence to armor their ships as players do?
5. construction in foreign countries There is possibility to build ships in foreign countries with their technology, shipyard quality and only risking seizing ships in case of worsening relations. This mean for the player of weaker nations it is almost always advantage to built ships in foreign shipyard and with that country maintain best relations. Thus even weak country has best ships as UK/USA are used for that purpose (I cannot see this on AI countries). On top of it after ship is build there is some technology revealed which add addtional advantage. Is it possible to add some modification for using local shipyards that it is not best to build in foreign shipyards? Later after ww2 all powers build their ships in home shipyards with their technology. May be there could be some limit for local shipyards that if shipyards are not used so much they go bancrupt decreasing speed of construction (some negative percentage) or much higher chance that there is shortage of steel, labor problems etc. Or stop this possibility at some time at all. For example UK naval rearment has quite a problem as because naval construction holidays for almost 2 decades decrease their possibility to quick rearm and they have steel shortage (armor plates) and their buy some of armor plates from Czechoslovakia before Czechoslovakia was takeover by Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Jun 9, 2018 10:59:27 GMT -6
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 The drydocks and operating facilities to host ships at this scale were available in the USA, Germany, France, and Russia. Drydock #8 in Norfolk and No. 4 in Pearl harbor were both capable of hosting ships at this scale(today they serve the CVN's). Elbe 17 in Germany, the Vauban drydocks at Toulon, and No. 0 at Mykolaiv were all similarly large and available before 1950. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 9, 2018 11:17:28 GMT -6
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 The drydocks and operating facilities to host ships at this scale were available in the USA, Germany, France, and Russia. Drydock #8 in Norfolk and No. 4 in Pearl harbor were both capable of hosting ships at this scale(today they serve the CVN's). Elbe 17 in Germany, the Vauban drydocks at Toulon, and No. 0 at Mykolaiv were all similarly large and available before 1950. |
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jun 9, 2018 20:21:05 GMT -6
Few questions that have come to mind lately
-Will "Missile Technology" be limited to aircraft-borne anti ship weapons such as the Fritz-X and Hs-293 (yes I am aware those weren't 'true' missiles), or will it also include S2A systems such as the Rheintochter and A2A ones like the Ruhrstahl? -If it does, will those exist within the tactical interface or just as a strategic abstraction of increased national air defense? -If available in the tactical interface, can they be ship mounted?
-Airships, tactical units or strategic like submarines?
-Submarines, will there be any stricter definition of submarine types, perhaps with more visible differences?
-Might there be any ability to designate certain types of subclasses in regards to ship types? I tend to run both extremely fast DDs armed with a single gun and multiple torpedo tube, as well as slower DDs loaded down with as many guns as is practical, and it's frustrating when they get grouped together, as I can't utilize either ship's strengths.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlanticghost on Jun 10, 2018 3:35:21 GMT -6
As I recall from various posts, it's been mentioned that RtW2 will have both 1900 and 1925 starting options, and the 1925 start date will not only change the available technologies, but also other aspects of the world such as Austria-Hungary no longer existing. I'm curious just how much the 1925 world will resemble our 1925. For example, will Germany have the Weimar Republic's starting fleet? Will France have a relatively weakened fleet from halting construction of major units during WW1? Will a Washington Treaty be in effect? Would it be desirable to assume the First World War and its associated events never happened in RtW-world? Or to offer it as a 1925 option?
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 10, 2018 10:20:05 GMT -6
As I recall from various posts, it's been mentioned that RtW2 will have both 1900 and 1925 starting options, and the 1925 start date will not only change the available technologies, but also other aspects of the world such as Austria-Hungary no longer existing. I'm curious just how much the 1925 world will resemble our 1925. For example, will Germany have the Weimar Republic's starting fleet? Will France have a relatively weakened fleet from halting construction of major units during WW1? Will a Washington Treaty be in effect? Would it be desirable to assume the First World War and its associated events never happened in RtW-world? Or to offer it as a 1925 option? While this is not 100% set in stone, most likely for a 1925 start you will get to choose if the Washington Treaty is in effect or not as an option. The rest I cannot get into at this point, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Jun 10, 2018 13:08:49 GMT -6
Any plans for magazine hits that don't wipe out the entire ship but knock out one or more turrets instead? For example the USS Boise got hit under the waterline (hit no.6) into the 6 inch magazines, causing the two front turrets to burst into flames (powder ignited), though the ship as a whole wasn't destroyed by it. ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportCL47/PlateI.JPG |
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jun 10, 2018 14:09:27 GMT -6
Some questions from me.
Will "Northern Europe" mega-region be cut in some smaller? In my opinion, Baltic, Northern Atlantic and Barents Sea are mostly separate regions in game terms, navy from one of them should face operational problems in another during RTW time. Cutting Med in two may be nice too.
Are there any plans to implement Northeast Passage? While in RTW-1 timeline it was mostly undeveloped, since late 1930 it may be used for moving ships from Northern Europe to Northeast Asia without risk of battle/internment (If Russia is friendly to owner).
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jun 10, 2018 14:58:35 GMT -6
3. CruisersWhat will be limits for light cruisers? In RTW there is limit on tonnage (up to 8,000 tons), guns (up to 6" for light cruisers) and armor (3" belt armor max.). But in reality cruisers were steadily upgunned, better armored and large, just the treaties prevented it completely. So it is possible that without treaty cruisers will involve up to Alaska class (e.g. Myoko, Mogami, Admiral Hipper, Italian cruisers etc.)
I do not understand calling USS Alaska cruiser. She was a battlecruiser, pure and simple. Navy named her cruiser as Congress would not give money for a BC. If we call Alaska a cruiser, then Scharnhorst is a cruiser (she is slightly larger and carries weaker weaponry) as well as Dunkerque (she was smaller than Alaska)
I'd like to see cut off at 20k tons with everything above being classified as BC, unless a special cruiser killer class*(CB?) is added (20-30k tons, guns up to 13in, over 26kts) that appears around 1920-30 (tech triggered). The class would have lower chances to be placed in BC squadrons in battles and higher as fleet scout, leading cruiser squadron or convoy escort/attack. Possibly old BCs could get option for a downgrade to this class if they fit in (though I guess those will most likely be CVed  ). |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 10, 2018 15:54:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Jun 10, 2018 16:36:23 GMT -6
The discussion regarding ship displacement/dimension brings up a question... what is max size for transiting the Panama and Suez Canals and will that be considered in RTW2?
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 10, 2018 17:48:46 GMT -6
The discussion regarding ship displacement/dimension brings up a question... what is max size for transiting the Panama and Suez Canals and will that be considered in RTW2?
For the Panama Canal the old Panamax limit (1914-2009) was ~ 107' beam, 950' length, and 39.5' draft (slightly larger ships could pass through with specific approval, like the Iowas with their 108' beam). Cant discuss the RTW2 aspects yet since I'm not sure those are complete.
|
|
).