|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Oct 17, 2018 13:12:03 GMT -6
I've just noticed something: are those costs in the screenshot just for testing, or the budgets will have an overhaul in regards to the number of zeroes?
Just asking because the change might 'startle' some RtW1 players in the first games.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 17, 2018 17:32:42 GMT -6
IIRC the costs listed in the aforementioned screenshot represents 'thousands' per unit...that format may or may not change before release.
|
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Oct 18, 2018 0:04:01 GMT -6
Will aircraft carrying submarines (Surcouf, I-400, etc) be considered? Those are enough of an 'edge case' that they would have low priority for consideration I am afraid. Darn! Maybe for a late-patch near the end of it's life? XD |
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Oct 20, 2018 17:19:21 GMT -6
Okay, since Seaplane Tenders as a new category are confirmed, I have a few other ship classes to probe about.
1. Destroyer Flotilla Leaders (DL). Usually an upscaled DD around 2000-2500 tons. This is the kind of the ship that you can expect to break the 35 kn "barrier". Advantage of this class would be the ability to "lead" lesser DDs in formation, and therefore they could be prioritized to get radars first. Other niches would be automatically giving them "Long" autonomy or "Colonial Service" improved amenities for the crew as perks of the design class. Additional perk would be the allowed usage of 6 inch guns. As the march of the technology advances, this ship tree can become DDR (DLR?) - Destroyer, Radar Picket.
2. Destroyer Escort (DE). These would be extremely "budget" DD designs with low displacement, relatively slow speeds, buildable only at wartime and autoscrappable later. Their role would mainly be to "buff up" the Convoy Attack/Convoy Defense scenarios. Early war convoy attacks would be "happy times", but in late, protracted war, a player should be somewhat wary of running their BC train through the convoy. In addition, these ships would attrition the enemy submarines faster, much like AMCs.
3. Coast defense ships/Monitors (M/BM). Very limited use, but this is an interesting option to see a huge gun (18 incher) on a budget tiny boat. No secondary guns, real men don't need those. What these would do is provide fire support for land conquest missions. As such, their "value" for the fabled "4:1" ratio for conquering territories would be much larger than, say, a DD or a CL in the area of operations. Siege towers of RtW. Absolutely horrid behavior at rough seas, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 20, 2018 18:50:07 GMT -6
Okay, since Seaplane Tenders as a new category are confirmed, I have a few other ship classes to probe about. 1. Destroyer Flotilla Leaders (DL). Usually an upscaled DD around 2000-2500 tons. This is the kind of the ship that you can expect to break the 35 kn "barrier". Advantage of this class would be the ability to "lead" lesser DDs in formation, and therefore they could be prioritized to get radars first. Other niches would be automatically giving them "Long" autonomy or "Colonial Service" improved amenities for the crew as perks of the design class. Additional perk would be the allowed usage of 6 inch guns. As the march of the technology advances, this ship tree can become DDR (DLR?) - Destroyer, Radar Picket. 2. Destroyer Escort (DE). These would be extremely "budget" DD designs with low displacement, relatively slow speeds, buildable only at wartime and autoscrappable later. Their role would mainly be to "buff up" the Convoy Attack/Convoy Defense scenarios. Early war convoy attacks would be "happy times", but in late, protracted war, a player should be somewhat wary of running their BC train through the convoy. In addition, these ships would attrition the enemy submarines faster, much like AMCs. 3. Coast defense ships/Monitors (M/BM). Very limited use, but this is an interesting option to see a huge gun (18 incher) on a budget tiny boat. No secondary guns, real men don't need those. What these would do is provide fire support for land conquest missions. As such, their "value" for the fabled "4:1" ratio for conquering territories would be much larger than, say, a DD or a CL in the area of operations. Siege towers of RtW. Absolutely horrid behavior at rough seas, though. I'm not entirely sure if DEs should have restrictions such as "only buildable in wartime" and "autoscrappable." It seems like real life contradicts those 2 traits somewhat (The US built some DEs in the 1950s, and a few DEs served past WWII as well. Minor nations could keep a DE in service for many years of peacetime as well). |
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Oct 21, 2018 0:58:25 GMT -6
DE was the USN designation for what the RN called frigates. Eventually the USN would adopt the FF designation in 1975 and all DEs then in service were redesignated FFs. These ships, if included, should not be treated like AMCs as they are proper escort warships that continue to serve and be constructed by navies world wide.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 21, 2018 2:13:24 GMT -6
Developers said there will be corvettes (see page one).
As I understand for game purposes they will be all type of ships for ASW duty except classic destroyers. So it includes even destroyer escorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Oct 21, 2018 3:58:56 GMT -6
Additional idea that just popped out for a new "event" that might happen post battle - perhaps a capital ship sunk in such a way that reflotation is feasible? Raising will take a good amount of time and money, and ship raised in such manner will require a massive refit/rebuild. Player would probably break slightly less than even if he decides to rebuild it up to spec, but if he opts to do a conversion to a CV, it might become more financially solid.
Alternative is selling the refloated ship for scrap, which can net a decent profit + a chance of reusing the turrets as coastal batteries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 7:14:04 GMT -6
Additional idea that just popped out for a new "event" that might happen post battle - perhaps a capital ship sunk in such a way that reflotation is feasible? Raising will take a good amount of time and money, and ship raised in such manner will require a massive refit/rebuild. Player would probably break slightly less than even if he decides to rebuild it up to spec, but if he opts to do a conversion to a CV, it might become more financially solid. Alternative is selling the refloated ship for scrap, which can net a decent profit + a chance of reusing the turrets as coastal batteries. Good idea, thumbs up! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2018 8:23:39 GMT -6
I have not yet read the entire thread, but I have a request to make.
When designing a ship with a feature not allowed to a particular class, attempting to save or check the design simply gives a box labeled, "Illegal Ship Configuration."
Is it possible to change this to a text box capable of listing exactly what is illegal, or at least showing a big red 'X' over the part causing the error?
It would make attempts to build unconventional designs a little more tolerable.
Also, when saving designs, could the ship type be appended to the class name (for the file name only) so one can easily sort designs when loading them in the designer?
|
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on Oct 21, 2018 13:31:05 GMT -6
Additional idea that just popped out for a new "event" that might happen post battle - perhaps a capital ship sunk in such a way that reflotation is feasible? Raising will take a good amount of time and money, and ship raised in such manner will require a massive refit/rebuild. Player would probably break slightly less than even if he decides to rebuild it up to spec, but if he opts to do a conversion to a CV, it might become more financially solid. Alternative is selling the refloated ship for scrap, which can net a decent profit + a chance of reusing the turrets as coastal batteries. Good idea, thumbs up! This would be a great addition. For all the times you get a "bulkead gives way, flooding increases" event after a battle - if you're adjacent to friendly territory but can't make it to port, rather than letting the ship founder, a captain might deliberately run the ship aground in hopes of refloating her afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on Oct 21, 2018 13:34:27 GMT -6
Okay, since Seaplane Tenders as a new category are confirmed, I have a few other ship classes to probe about. 1. Destroyer Flotilla Leaders (DL). Usually an upscaled DD around 2000-2500 tons. This is the kind of the ship that you can expect to break the 35 kn "barrier". Advantage of this class would be the ability to "lead" lesser DDs in formation, and therefore they could be prioritized to get radars first. Other niches would be automatically giving them "Long" autonomy or "Colonial Service" improved amenities for the crew as perks of the design class. Additional perk would be the allowed usage of 6 inch guns. As the march of the technology advances, this ship tree can become DDR (DLR?) - Destroyer, Radar Picket. 2. Destroyer Escort (DE). These would be extremely "budget" DD designs with low displacement, relatively slow speeds, buildable only at wartime and autoscrappable later. Their role would mainly be to "buff up" the Convoy Attack/Convoy Defense scenarios. Early war convoy attacks would be "happy times", but in late, protracted war, a player should be somewhat wary of running their BC train through the convoy. In addition, these ships would attrition the enemy submarines faster, much like AMCs. 3. Coast defense ships/Monitors (M/BM). Very limited use, but this is an interesting option to see a huge gun (18 incher) on a budget tiny boat. No secondary guns, real men don't need those. What these would do is provide fire support for land conquest missions. As such, their "value" for the fabled "4:1" ratio for conquering territories would be much larger than, say, a DD or a CL in the area of operations. Siege towers of RtW. Absolutely horrid behavior at rough seas, though. I'm not entirely sure if DEs should have restrictions such as "only buildable in wartime" and "autoscrappable." It seems like real life contradicts those 2 traits somewhat (The US built some DEs in the 1950s, and a few DEs served past WWII as well. Minor nations could keep a DE in service for many years of peacetime as well). The Thai navy still has a Cannon-class destroyer escort in service; the Phillipines retired their last WWII destroyer escort in March of this year. |
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Oct 21, 2018 17:51:08 GMT -6
Will planes be capable of ASW?
Additionally, will ASW be expanded upon at all? Huge advanced happened in WW2, such as Hedgehog, or ASW shells for Japan.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 21, 2018 20:08:33 GMT -6
Will planes be capable of ASW? Additionally, will ASW be expanded upon at all? Huge advanced happened in WW2, such as Hedgehog, or ASW shells for Japan. Aircraft will be capable of ASW, yes. ASW will advance given proper research and time (&/or a bit of luck), just like other technologies. |
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Oct 22, 2018 7:36:12 GMT -6
Will planes be capable of ASW? Additionally, will ASW be expanded upon at all? Huge advanced happened in WW2, such as Hedgehog, or ASW shells for Japan. Aircraft will be capable of ASW, yes. ASW will advance given proper research and time (&/or a bit of luck), just like other technologies. So are we talking developing weapons like hedgehog/squid/mousetrap? - and further - actually adding these to ships (at the expense of tonnage that could go on guns, for example)? or even refitting older ships and removing guns for hedgehog launchers... OK, I know this will probably be abstracted (as say, K guns are in RTW1), which I understand, but it would be highly exciting if it wasn't.
The need to give up other things on your boat in order to fit better ASW equipment becomes much more pressing in the 1925-1950 timescalee than the RTW1 one, with the way things went, and it would be cool to see that reflected in some way.
Apologies if I've missed earlier discussion on these lines.
|
|
