|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 13, 2018 11:11:21 GMT -6
Armor design and layout is a severe weakness in RTW.
A: All-or-Nothing armor is a doctrine, not an engineering limit. It should be available anytime.
B: Sloped armor over internal spaces, i.e. armored cruiser pattern, does not limit turret placement or turret number.
C: Sloped armor over internal spaces can be added to a belt (or vice versa)
D: While armor does not weigh less as technology advances, if anything it gets denser and weighs more, it becomes much more effective.
E: The doctrine and engineering of multiple armored decks is not addressed. Additionally, armored bulkheads are not taken into account.
Players should get more choices. Designing a ship should be solving a puzzle. It is not a guessing game to find the arbitrary optimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 13, 2018 17:13:24 GMT -6
Armor design and layout is a severe weakness in RTW. A: All-or-Nothing armor is a doctrine, not an engineering limit. It should be available anytime. B: Sloped armor over internal spaces, i.e. armored cruiser pattern, does not limit turret placement or turret number. C: Sloped armor over internal spaces can be added to a belt (or vice versa) D: While armor does not weigh less as technology advances, if anything it gets denser and weighs more, it becomes much more effective. E: The doctrine and engineering of multiple armored decks is not addressed. Additionally, armored bulkheads are not taken into account. Players should get more choices. Designing a ship should be solving a puzzle. It is not a guessing game to find the arbitrary optimum. A: Although it was possible and was a doctrine, someone had to think of it in the first place. Also, experiments had to be carried out to find the optimum scheme. That's why it's a research level. B: You're theoretically right but, when this scheme was used, ships historically were limited to two or three centreline turrets as the machinery in the middle was bulkier. It also took up a larger space, limiting the number of turrets possible. C: Yes, but as I understand it, this is already abstractly modelled in existing design schemes. D: Welding certainly made it lighter and layered protection did. Which is, again, abstractly modelled. E: Abstractly modelled. I do not wish to be rude but would respectfully suggest that the armouring system is good enough and it would be better for the team to deal with the game at large rather than little details |
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 13, 2018 17:22:36 GMT -6
The developers have already stated that they are changing the way armor will be handled in RTW2.
From the first developer journal:
"Armour is now increased in effectiveness with technology progress instead of becoming lighter."
"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."
It should make it easier to approximate historical designs because the armor thickness numbers will now look more like historical numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 13, 2018 18:21:53 GMT -6
A: All-or-Nothing armor is a doctrine, not an engineering limit. It should be available anytime. The problem with doing that is that it can be used well ahead of when it appeared historically. You'd have players using all-or-nothing armour on their first dreadnoughts, for example, if it's available right away.
That's the issue with certain 'technologies', we players here in the early 21st century have the benefit of hindsight, we know what techs worked and didn't work, we know what ideas will be developed, information which designers of the time did not have. By making things like all-or-nothing armour something to be researched, it approximates the limited knowledge of the time with which the ship designers worked. (Though I think there could be some improvements made to the research system RTW used._
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 13, 2018 19:29:37 GMT -6
Again, because we want the wrong things, we are wrong.
I don't want to build 4 turret 8 gun dreadnaughts and pray to Loki that I don't have my research budget wasted on guns I can't use etc.
Players should get choices.
Humans tell computers what to do.
Commanders get to command.
|
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Dec 13, 2018 21:32:10 GMT -6
Again, because we want the wrong things, we are wrong. I don't want to build 4 turret 8 gun dreadnaughts and pray to Loki that I don't have my research budget wasted on guns I can't use etc. Players should get choices. Humans tell computers what to do. Commanders get to command. I guess you can continue to argue that in as many threads as you want, but you’re pretty unlikely to make fundamental changes to the game. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 13, 2018 21:47:15 GMT -6
Again, because we want the wrong things, we are wrong. I don't want to build 4 turret 8 gun dreadnaughts and pray to Loki that I don't have my research budget wasted on guns I can't use etc. Players should get choices. Humans tell computers what to do. Commanders get to command. I guess you can continue to argue that in as many threads as you want, but you’re pretty unlikely to make fundamental changes to the game. If you can show solid evidence of all-or-nothing armour being proposed for capital ships in advance of the design of the Nevada, feel free to do. Otherwise, the issue of hindsight remains. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 13, 2018 21:59:39 GMT -6
I guess you can continue to argue that in as many threads as you want, but you’re pretty unlikely to make fundamental changes to the game. If you can show solid evidence of all-or-nothing armour being proposed for capital ships in advance of the design of the Nevada, feel free to do. Otherwise, the issue of hindsight remains. Hi All: Actually, the HMS Inflexible of 1876 was the first All or Nothing armored ship. The design concept was a raft or citadel which would float if the ends, unarmored, were destroyed or flooded. Her citadel was protected at the waterline by a strake of 12in plate, 4ft deep backed by the 11 in teak vertical frames. It gets more complex so here is the source. BTW, no dreadnought was ever really AON.
Source: Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 Chapter four. by David K. Brown. 
Additionally, the first patented radar set was in 1903 by Christian Hulsmeyer. It was called the Telemobiloscope and it did detect ships in inclimate weather and was tested.
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 14, 2018 2:14:27 GMT -6
If you can show solid evidence of all-or-nothing armour being proposed for capital ships in advance of the design of the Nevada, feel free to do. Otherwise, the issue of hindsight remains. Hi All: Actually, the HMS Inflexible of 1876 was the first All or Nothing armored ship. The design concept was a raft or citadel which would float if the ends, unarmored, were destroyed or flooded. Her citadel was protected at the waterline by a strake of 12in plate, 4ft deep backed by the 11 in teak vertical frames. It gets more complex so here is the source. BTW, no dreadnought was ever really AON.
Source: Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 Chapter four. by David K. Brown.
Additionally, the first patented radar set was in 1903 by Christian Hulsmeyer. It was called the Telemobiloscope and it did detect ships in inclimate weather and was tested.
You are too knowledgeable. Stop it! |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 14, 2018 9:51:48 GMT -6
Hi All: Actually, the HMS Inflexible of 1876 was the first All or Nothing armored ship. The design concept was a raft or citadel which would float if the ends, unarmored, were destroyed or flooded. Her citadel was protected at the waterline by a strake of 12in plate, 4ft deep backed by the 11 in teak vertical frames. It gets more complex so here is the source. BTW, no dreadnought was ever really AON.
Source: Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 Chapter four. by David K. Brown.
Additionally, the first patented radar set was in 1903 by Christian Hulsmeyer. It was called the Telemobiloscope and it did detect ships in inclimate weather and was tested.
You are too knowledgeable. Stop it! Ooops! Sorry. You know the first flame thrower was used by the Greeks, specifically the Boeotians in the 1st Century AD and that Archimedes developed the steam cannon and that design was duplicated by Leonardo Da Vinci who had three of Archimedes books and it actually worked. I will restrain myself now. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 14, 2018 16:04:47 GMT -6
Great work Oldpop  (I read an article on Inflexible a few weeks ago, so as I was reading down and saw the mention of the first AoN, I wondered if it would come up  ). Of course, I'm not suggesting that we should have AoN from the get-go, and think the way it's currently handled in game works fine. On the gun technology issue, it's worth noting (at least from the impression I've got reading Naval Weapons of World War Two, stuff on Navweaps, snippets of Naval Weapons of World War One and bits and pieces elsewhere) that just because a nation focussed on getting a particular weapon, that didn't always work out for them as well as they'd have liked (while other weapons did turn out better than expected). It might not have been quite as random as it is in-game, but I think the current research system is definitely close enough to how it was, and far closer if research became deterministic (which would be, in my view, wildly historically implausible). This is just my impression of course, so could be off . |
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 15, 2018 10:41:01 GMT -6
While the ontology of the scatological is incontrovertible,* research wasn't random.
I want a game to play out alternative history options. Instead I find a game where the computer has control.
It should be possible to allow players more choices. Maybe giving players the choice to set their level of control.
Being able to micromanage is likely too complex. On the other hand, there were no 7 inch, 9 inch, 11 inch or 15 inch guns in the US naval inventory because the US Navy, not fate, decided not to waste resources developing such weapons. Japan chose to develop the best torpedoes. Briton chose to develop the best ASDIC. Germany developed the scnorkel. In all cases, leaders issued orders. Fate had little to do with it.
*"Stuff" happens
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 15, 2018 11:39:04 GMT -6
I'm sure the Americans thought _they_ were developing the best torpedoes. Japan didn't develop the best torpedoes because they alone had a leader that demanded that they develop the best torpedoes, rather every nation chose to develop the best torpedoes. Most did not. While fate had nothing to do with it, human failure, ignorance, obstinance, penny-pinching, and political stubbornness did. As a leader, you have little control over those elements.
Stuff does indeed happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Dec 15, 2018 13:16:46 GMT -6
Some of this lack of control can be seen with the Iowa class battleships. The Bureau of Ordinance assumed the existing 16"/50 Mark 2 guns developed and built for the 1st Sodaks and Lexingtons would be used. The Bureau of Construction & Repair assumed a new, lighter gun would be used so made the barbettes too small to accommodate a triple mount of the heavier already built guns. BuORD had to quickly develop and build a new gun which resulted in the 16"/50 Mark 7 on the Iowas today. Leadership only issued the requirements. "We want a ship this big carrying these sized guns that can go this fast and is armored appropriately against its own guns" is basically all leadership did. After that designs are drawn up and submitted for approval. Leadership approves the design and submits the request to get funding while the engineers work out some details and finalize the design. In some ways we actually get more control of ship design than the actual Secretary of the Navy or Naval Minister or First Sea Lord or whatever title you give them actually has.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 15, 2018 17:09:55 GMT -6
If you can show solid evidence of all-or-nothing armour being proposed for capital ships in advance of the design of the Nevada, feel free to do. Otherwise, the issue of hindsight remains. Hi All: Actually, the HMS Inflexible of 1876 was the first All or Nothing armored ship. The design concept was a raft or citadel which would float if the ends, unarmored, were destroyed or flooded. Her citadel was protected at the waterline by a strake of 12in plate, 4ft deep backed by the 11 in teak vertical frames. It gets more complex so here is the source. BTW, no dreadnought was ever really AON.
Source: Warrior to Dreadnought: Warship Design and Development 1860-1905 Chapter four. by David K. Brown.
Additionally, the first patented radar set was in 1903 by Christian Hulsmeyer. It was called the Telemobiloscope and it did detect ships in inclimate weather and was tested.
Actually, all of the ships at Trafalgar were AON ships. They had copper on the bottom and nothing over the guns! Reductio ad absurdum, I know but I couldn't resist! |
|
(I read an article on Inflexible a few weeks ago, so as I was reading down and saw the mention of the first AoN, I wondered if it would come up 
). Of course, I'm not suggesting that we should have AoN from the get-go, and think the way it's currently handled in game works fine.
