|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 15, 2018 17:45:48 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 I agree it wasn't entirely random, but my impression (from reading more than a little on naval weapons development) was that it was far closer to random than what you were initially advocating for. I do, however, find your approach of posting about this in an unstructured way in multiple threads very random  . There were some good thoughts in another thread about potentially giving players options like focussing on larger or smaller calibre, or similar. Another angle might be to have 'undirected' and 'directed' research, where undirected has a greater chance of success but is more random (scientists pick the problems they think they can solve) or directed, with a lower chance of success but targeted (scientists told to bang their head against a wall until they get response 'A'). Another approach could be to have the initial 'largest calibre' be random, but then once that's developed, have the focus be on guns larger or the same size (although this gets a little wobbly with historical plausibility, with things like the British 14" on the KGVs and the French 13" on the Dunkerques and the German 11" on the Deutschlands and Scharnhorsts). I also wouldn't be averse to having what would be, in-effect, an 'easy mode' where people could toggle on precise research control, for those that like things a bit less historically plausible (choice is good), but one of the things I really like about RtW is that it'd doesn't spoon-feed players with 'pick this research option and you'll have your shiny gun in X days', like most other games - so while I wouldn't mind if there were options to go for the 'modern deterministic' game design approach to research, I think RtW would lose something special if it didn't retain it's current approach as another option. |
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 16, 2018 1:32:00 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.
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 messed up on that one. D'Oh! |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 19, 2018 13:06:35 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 Germany did not develop snorkel. It was by british engineer, however RN dismiss. Later different countries start to test it. Most succesfull were Dutch. Germany use it after capture if the Netherlands. What you want is ability to cheat. To build something of which nobody thought ať that time so it is not possible to build it in game. Research in game is not only technology progress but thoughts progress too. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2018 13:15:49 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 Germany did not develop snorkel. It was by british engineer, however RN dismiss. Later different countries start to test it. Most succesfull were Dutch. Germany use it after capture if the Netherlands. What you want is ability to cheat. To build something of which nobody thought ať that time so it is not possible to build it in game. Research in game is not only technology progress but thoughts progress too. Well, actually the concept was devised by the Dutch and installed on their O class submarines. Now the Italians would argue that Major Pericle Ferretti carried out experiments and studies at the Navy Yard in Taranto. The prototype was developed and tested in November 1925 on an H class submarines. Take your pick, gents. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 19, 2018 13:40:29 GMT -6
Germany did not develop snorkel. It was by british engineer, however RN dismiss. Later different countries start to test it. Most succesfull were Dutch. Germany use it after capture if the Netherlands. What you want is ability to cheat. To build something of which nobody thought ať that time so it is not possible to build it in game. Research in game is not only technology progress but thoughts progress too. Well, actually the concept was devised by the Dutch and installed on their O class submarines. Now the Italians would argue that Major Pericle Ferretti carried out experiments and studies at the Navy Yard in Taranto. The prototype was developed and tested in November 1925 on an H class submarines. Take your pick, gents. As I am aware the first patent was during WW1 by british. However they do not use it. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2018 13:45:15 GMT -6
Well, actually the concept was devised by the Dutch and installed on their O class submarines. Now the Italians would argue that Major Pericle Ferretti carried out experiments and studies at the Navy Yard in Taranto. The prototype was developed and tested in November 1925 on an H class submarines. Take your pick, gents. As I am aware the first patent was during WW1 by british. However they do not use it. Yes, I am aware of Richardson's patent that he was granted. But as you said, the British Navy opted not to use it. The snorkel was most useful in commerce raiding, which the British did not have to use as an operation because they were using distant blockade. So I think we should give credit to the Italians, who devised it almost at the same time and they actually installed and tested it. You can patent almost anything, but you need to build it, install it and thoroughly test it before it can be used. Another factor that might have guided the British Navy attitude was that they did not want anyone to find out about the snorkel and try to get the patent or develop their own. worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=19170521&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=GB&NR=106330A&KC=A#- The patent information. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 19, 2018 15:14:18 GMT -6
The snorkel was most useful in commerce raiding, which the British did not have to use as an operation because they were using distant blockade. Trade between Germany and Sweden was as far as I am aware more or less completely unimpeded by the British distant blockade, and there was a British submarine flotilla operating out of Russian ports to disrupt it until Germany occuppied Talinn and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk took Russia out of the war, and then out of Finland until German intervention in the Finnish Civil War forced the remaining submarines to be scuttled. There were also British submarines engaged in anti-shipping operations in the Sea of Marmara. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2018 17:48:35 GMT -6
The snorkel was most useful in commerce raiding, which the British did not have to use as an operation because they were using distant blockade. Trade between Germany and Sweden was as far as I am aware more or less completely unimpeded by the British distant blockade, and there was a British submarine flotilla operating out of Russian ports to disrupt it until Germany occuppied Talinn and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk took Russia out of the war, and then out of Finland until German intervention in the Finnish Civil War forced the remaining submarines to be scuttled. There were also British submarines engaged in anti-shipping operations in the Sea of Marmara. In my years of being around the US Navy, I found that there are two reasons for not adopting a technological advancement. Actually, there is a third, funding. If you are the British Royal Navy, it might be very difficult to find a real need for this technology, especially in the middle of naval war in 1916. You will ask yourself, what do I gain versus what do I lose with this technology. Does it further my strategic and tactical advantages, at this time and in the future. If your mindset is on battle cruisers and battleships, submarines with snorkel's might be the last item you feel you will need. Can I retro fit my current submarine force, do I want to take boats out of service to do it and do I expend the funds and shipyard time to do it. The second reason could have been that the technology was just not fully tested and the British Royal Navy, in 1916, just could not afford to spend the time and money on full development. The bottom line is cost per performance. We are talking about a navy that is still in the Horacio Nelson mode, thinking dreadnoughts and decisive battles, not trade war. Something Mahan was against and they were Mahanians. We have to understand that while the drawing looks simple, the installation and use was not. A submarine using a snorkel is limited in its depth which makes it vulnerable to aircraft and ASW ships. It is also limited in its speed to about six knots. Submarines were new at this time and frankly, I believe the British Royal Navy was conservative. I see no better explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 19, 2018 18:15:59 GMT -6
Trade between Germany and Sweden was as far as I am aware more or less completely unimpeded by the British distant blockade, and there was a British submarine flotilla operating out of Russian ports to disrupt it until Germany occuppied Talinn and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk took Russia out of the war, and then out of Finland until German intervention in the Finnish Civil War forced the remaining submarines to be scuttled. There were also British submarines engaged in anti-shipping operations in the Sea of Marmara. In my years of being around the US Navy, I found that there are two reasons for not adopting a technological advancement. Actually, there is a third, funding. If you are the British Royal Navy, it might be very difficult to find a real need for this technology, especially in the middle of naval war in 1916. You will ask yourself, what do I gain versus what do I lose with this technology. Does it further my strategic and tactical advantages, at this time and in the future. If your mindset is on battle cruisers and battleships, submarines with snorkel's might be the last item you feel you will need. Can I retro fit my current submarine force, do I want to take boats out of service to do it and do I expend the funds and shipyard time to do it. The second reason could have been that the technology was just not fully tested and the British Royal Navy, in 1916, just could not afford to spend the time and money on full development. The bottom line is cost per performance. We are talking about a navy that is still in the Horacio Nelson mode, thinking dreadnoughts and decisive battles, not trade war. Something Mahan was against and they were Mahanians. We have to understand that while the drawing looks simple, the installation and use was not. A submarine using a snorkel is limited in its depth which makes it vulnerable to aircraft and ASW ships. It is also limited in its speed to about six knots. Submarines were new at this time and frankly, I believe the British Royal Navy was conservative. I see no better explanation. From what I understand, snorkels were in their infancy until after WW2 with pressure problems and leakages. Therefore, they were only really fitted to later subs that had to go long distances without detection (ie. Without surfacing). As Britain ruled the waves, a submarine traveling could travel on the surface relatively safely. There was therefore no need to try what was an extremely risky technology. Even the Germans, who suffered from air attacks massively, didn't use them until 1944, even though they had captured Dutch examples and designs as early as 1940. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 19, 2018 18:25:25 GMT -6
In my years of being around the US Navy, I found that there are two reasons for not adopting a technological advancement. Actually, there is a third, funding. If you are the British Royal Navy, it might be very difficult to find a real need for this technology, especially in the middle of naval war in 1916. You will ask yourself, what do I gain versus what do I lose with this technology. Does it further my strategic and tactical advantages, at this time and in the future. If your mindset is on battle cruisers and battleships, submarines with snorkel's might be the last item you feel you will need. Can I retro fit my current submarine force, do I want to take boats out of service to do it and do I expend the funds and shipyard time to do it. The second reason could have been that the technology was just not fully tested and the British Royal Navy, in 1916, just could not afford to spend the time and money on full development. The bottom line is cost per performance. We are talking about a navy that is still in the Horacio Nelson mode, thinking dreadnoughts and decisive battles, not trade war. Something Mahan was against and they were Mahanians. We have to understand that while the drawing looks simple, the installation and use was not. A submarine using a snorkel is limited in its depth which makes it vulnerable to aircraft and ASW ships. It is also limited in its speed to about six knots. Submarines were new at this time and frankly, I believe the British Royal Navy was conservative. I see no better explanation. Your argument was not that fitting snorkels to British submarines in the First World War was not cost-effective, it was that Britain didn't adopt snorkels because its policy of distant blockade made submarine commerce raiding unnecessary. While certainly not as well known for it as Germany, Britain was engaging in submarine commerce raiding in the Baltic and in the Sea of Marmara in the First World War, and again engaged in submarine commerce raiding in the Baltic, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific during the Second World War. Necessary or not, the fact that Britain was engaging in submarine commerce raiding at the time that snorkels were proposed for British submarines means that "we don't need to engage in submarine commerce raiding" is not likely to be a reason for the non-adoption of snorkels. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -6
In my years of being around the US Navy, I found that there are two reasons for not adopting a technological advancement. Actually, there is a third, funding. If you are the British Royal Navy, it might be very difficult to find a real need for this technology, especially in the middle of naval war in 1916. You will ask yourself, what do I gain versus what do I lose with this technology. Does it further my strategic and tactical advantages, at this time and in the future. If your mindset is on battle cruisers and battleships, submarines with snorkel's might be the last item you feel you will need. Can I retro fit my current submarine force, do I want to take boats out of service to do it and do I expend the funds and shipyard time to do it. The second reason could have been that the technology was just not fully tested and the British Royal Navy, in 1916, just could not afford to spend the time and money on full development. The bottom line is cost per performance. We are talking about a navy that is still in the Horacio Nelson mode, thinking dreadnoughts and decisive battles, not trade war. Something Mahan was against and they were Mahanians. We have to understand that while the drawing looks simple, the installation and use was not. A submarine using a snorkel is limited in its depth which makes it vulnerable to aircraft and ASW ships. It is also limited in its speed to about six knots. Submarines were new at this time and frankly, I believe the British Royal Navy was conservative. I see no better explanation. Your argument was not that fitting snorkels to British submarines in the First World War was not cost-effective, it was that Britain didn't adopt snorkels because its policy of distant blockade made submarine commerce raiding unnecessary. While certainly not as well known for it as Germany, Britain was engaging in submarine commerce raiding in the Baltic and in the Sea of Marmara in the First World War, and again engaged in submarine commerce raiding in the Baltic, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific during the Second World War. Necessary or not, the fact that Britain was engaging in submarine commerce raiding at the time that snorkels were proposed for British submarines means that "we don't need to engage in submarine commerce raiding" is not likely to be a reason for the non-adoption of snorkels. My argument, if I were the British is simply that we have no real need for such a technology, since it isn't fully developed and we are using the distant blockade. The naval war had been going on for over two years, the distant blockade is effective as far as can be judged, so why invest more time, money and resources to develop a technology that will not help us that much. Again, cost per performance and opportunity cost. If I don't spend this money to continue development, install and test this new device, what can I use this money for instead. This is how navies think, trust me. This is the argument that I feel the Royal Navy made, for not continuing this device. Ask the same question for the Hulsmeyer and his Telemobiloscope which was developed and tested as a device for detecting ships in 1904. It was patented and the British and rest of the world knew of it since Hulsmeyer took out patents in a number of countries including Britain. The British patent numbers were 13170 dated 10 June 1904 and 24508 dated 24 November 1904. No one gave Hulsmeyer orders for such a device, not even the German's. Anyway, those are my thoughts and I will leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 19, 2018 20:26:54 GMT -6
"We don't need this technology that improves our ability to do something that we are doing because we don't need to be doing what we're doing" is not a defensible argument for rejecting the adoption of the technology unless you are also advocating the abandonment of whatever it is that you're doing and don't need to be doing. "This technology is too immature/unreliable to deploy" is a defensible argument, as is "adopting this technology would cost too much for the benefit that it gives us." The argument that you initially presented:
is the first of these, not either of the latter. Britain was already engaging in submarine commerce raiding; whether or not it was necessary for Britain to do so is therefore irrelevant to the question of whether or not Britain should fit snorkels to its submarines to improve their ability to function as commerce raiders, unless the case being made against the adoption of snorkels for submarines is that Britain should abandon submarine commerce raiding.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 19, 2018 21:02:14 GMT -6
"We don't need this technology that improves our ability to do something that we are doing because we don't need to be doing what we're doing" is not a defensible argument for rejecting the adoption of the technology unless you are also advocating the abandonment of whatever it is that you're doing and don't need to be doing. "This technology is too immature/unreliable to deploy" is a defensible argument, as is "adopting this technology would cost too much for the benefit that it gives us." The argument that you initially presented:
is the first of these, not either of the latter. Britain was already engaging in submarine commerce raiding; whether or not it was necessary for Britain to do so is therefore irrelevant to the question of whether or not Britain should fit snorkels to its submarines to improve their ability to function as commerce raiders, unless the case being made against the adoption of snorkels for submarines is that Britain should abandon submarine commerce raiding.
Here is my final presentation on this subject. It is a quote from "Submarine Effectiveness in the 20th Century: Part One(1900-1939)- The remaining 65 were at home, organized in nine flotillas. 8th Flotilla, the ‘Overseas Flotilla’ under command of Commander Keyes, consisted of 8 “D” class and 9 “E” class submarines, based at Harwich. Their principal targets were major warships of the German High Seas Fleet. O'Connell, Captain John F.. Submarine Operational Effectiveness in the 20Th Century: Part One (1900 - 1939) . iUniverse. Kindle Edition. As I have stated, the British Royal Navy's strategic goal was to control German trade using distant blockade and attempt to bring the High Seas Fleet to a decisive battle, as I indicated. In that atmosphere at Naval Headquarters, there would be no reason, whether correct or not, to investigate, install and test a device that they would have felt was not required by their naval strategic goals. That is my last comment, interesting discussion as always. |
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6
As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.
The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.
As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.)
The AIs ships never run low on fuel. They never run low on ammo. Their stokers never tire.
(Before you tell me this is confirmation bias, I've read the details of the after action reports. If there's no record, it didn't happen.)
The AI picks the opponents.
It picks when there is a war.
It picks when and where there are battles.
It picks the Human's order of battle.
All the human can do is react to random events. It's like warhamster. All dice and almost no tactics or strategy. Oh, wait. There's no spots on the dice. So I make a roll and the AI tells me what it was.
Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics.
|
|
|
|
Post by enioch on Dec 29, 2018 4:18:59 GMT -6
As the game works now, I have no control over what happens. The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player. As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.) The AIs ships never run low on fuel. They never run low on ammo. Their stokers never tire. (Before you tell me this is confirmation bias, I've read the details of the after action reports. If there's no record, it didn't happen.) The AI picks the opponents. It picks when there is a war. It picks when and where there are battles. It picks the Human's order of battle. All the human can do is react to random events. It's like warhamster. All dice and almost no tactics or strategy. Oh, wait. There's no spots on the dice. So I make a roll and the AI tells me what it was. Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics. And, surprisingly, it's still what the rest of us are here for.
Please understand that your vision of the game is fundamentally at odds with that of the developers and most of the playerbase.
|
|
.
