|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 2, 2018 23:05:35 GMT -6
Good eve all. Given some astute observations (which left me feeling a bit obtuse) to my latest droll Humor-thread post, I thought I would do a side-by-side from the superstructure designer perspective. I am a bit shocked I had not noticed that some turret positions have been modified, or perhaps by the time I started experimenting with "new" looks I had forgotten how RTW1 looked. Regardless. Below in both images we have a 23000 ton BC mounting 11 inch batteries in the same hull positions. The purpose of this illustration is simply to show how the turret positions have been modified from RTW1 to 2. Mind, I am not suggesting this design is good. It is simply something I tried, and I am using it to illustrate. RTW1RTW2As we can see, the main difference is in the FG turrets. JK & ST are actually positioned evenly behind the mid-ships HI turrets, but FG have been advanced forward. I am sure DE & FG were not foreseen to be used with this large a battery, but by advancing FG forward along the hull it provides a slightly more aggressive plan. Additionally, the additional controls are visible for the draw points that will be available. I am omitting tonnages from the RTW2 shot because nothing there has been finalized yet, and there is no sense starting a debate on the weight of a 3" secondary. You might also note the boxes which will allow asymmetric design, useful for carrier islands obviously. I don't think there is a lot more to say about this aspect, but as the design screen becomes more and more fleshed out we will add suitable screen-shots here, and as well some of the detail that is now possible with superstructures.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 2, 2018 23:45:42 GMT -6
Actually, it looks to me like D and E moved aft and S and T moved forwards relative to their positions while F and G remained in more or less the same positions as in Rule the Waves: Not a perfect composite since your ships weren't at quite the same scale and adjusting things to fit was a bit of a mess, but you can see that D, E, S, and T are closer to midships on the Rule the Waves 2 deck plan than on the Rule the Waves deck plan while F and G are in roughly the same position.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 3, 2018 0:25:39 GMT -6
Zounds, that's clever. Bravo zulu Aeson. You're quite right, its the opposite of what I thought.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 4, 2018 12:34:28 GMT -6
Hooray, an RTW 2 screenshot bone to pick at I like what I'm hearing/seeing here - I can see how this is mechanically doing what RTW has always done, just adding more options and flexibility. Aesthetically, I also like those new/revised turret placements! Also! Very pleased to see the way more lines for drawing superstructure - something I've always wanted in RTW. And the armament tabs up in the corner there also intuitively make a lot of sense. So do the DP and Autoloader checkboxes - pretty much how I was expecting it to work in RTW 2!
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Nov 4, 2018 18:35:06 GMT -6
So are F and G superfiring? I am imagining some epic end-on fire.
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Nov 5, 2018 3:27:05 GMT -6
I am omitting tonnages from the RTW2 shot because nothing there has been finalized yet, and there is no sense starting a debate on the weight of a 3" secondary.
You may have been trying to avoid this as well (Sorry slightly off topic) - but what struck me when looking at this is the absence of Antiaircraft guns - which I was either expecting to see after tertiaries - or to see a checkbox for making the terts AA guns or something..
Thinking on this, I don't think I have seen that in any of the info that has been released about this game, it is obviously something that I've just assumed without really questoining, which is interesting.
So if you want, say, a couple of 3" AA guns on a 1918ish BB, is the thinking that these would automatically be considered DP, since you could point 'em at a ship, even if it might not do much.. or is there an AA gun box somewhere else, or.. I don't know; I realise I was just expecting AA guns to be handled a certain way, based on no evidence, and now I realise they might not be, which is fine.
There's a coherent question in there somewhere, sorry - I think something like; are there going to be non DP AA guns for ships?
EDIT: AH Just spotted the additional armamant tab.. I think that the answer to my questions might lie there....
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Nov 5, 2018 3:38:47 GMT -6
I am omitting tonnages from the RTW2 shot because nothing there has been finalized yet, and there is no sense starting a debate on the weight of a 3" secondary.
You may have been trying to avoid this as well (Sorry slightly off topic) - but what struck me when looking at this is the absence of Antiaircraft guns - which I was either expecting to see after tertiaries - or to see a checkbox for making the terts AA guns or something..
Thinking on this, I don't think I have seen that in any of the info that has been released about this game, it is obviously something that I've just assumed without really questoining, which is interesting.
So if you want, say, a couple of 3" AA guns on a 1918ish BB, is the thinking that these would automatically be considered DP, since you could point 'em at a ship, even if it might not do much.. or is there an AA gun box somewhere else, or.. I don't know; I realise I was just expecting AA guns to be handled a certain way, based on no evidence, and now I realise they might not be, which is fine.
There's a coherent question in there somewhere, sorry - I think something like; are there going to be non DP AA guns for ships?
The RTW2 design garrisonchisolm provided above has little select/check boxes for the main/secondary/and tertiary batteries which seem to be related to the ability of those batteries to "develop" AA traits as the game progresses. If true, 5" Mains on a DD could have DP and Autoloader Techs develop and be applied when available. Also, since tertiaries aren't shown on the ship design currently it would appear they won't show up in RTW2 either. Again, thats just a guesstimation on my part.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 8:13:18 GMT -6
Actually that is incorrect, in this case I was just generating a test image and not creating a complete ship so it had no AAA, though if your question is are tertiaries "visible", as in RTW1 no they are not. Actually (x2), I've been advised that with due caveats it would be permissible to display the entire design screen, so in the next day or two I will be building the same ship in 134b & 2a14 (the latest) to illustrate the similarities and differences. I could pick an historical design, so-as to have something for everyone to measure, though I am sure I would have to be ready to accept the egg on my face for my artistry.
I will think about it. Regardless of whether it is historical of not, it will show a full AA suite, and also carry float-planes.
|
|
|
Post by itrefel on Nov 5, 2018 9:11:27 GMT -6
Thanks both - I understand that tertiaries aren't visible on the ship, thats fine, I was really wondering about the mechanics of adding AAA to ships that wasn't DP, i.e. dedicated AAA, Pom-poms and the like, because the primary-tertiary guns appeared only to be able to be surface or DP based on the checkboxes.
What has happened is I had missed the tabs at the top for "additional armaments". I suspect that AAA are probably going to be covered there.. (?) which also makes everything else make sense.
All good.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 5, 2018 10:59:22 GMT -6
Actually here's a counter-question: what IS a "non-DP AAA gun"? Logically speaking, any AA gun becomes dual-purpose the moment it's fired at something below horizon (and indeed there's a long history of using anti-air weapons against land and sea targets) So perhaps it's purely a terminology issue! (although I suppose for game purposes - in RTW we only have guns of 2in and up at the moment, while most AA guns we're talking about would indeed be below that caliber and of little value in surface combat, so I figure the smaller weaponry would now have to be added somewhere)
|
|
|
Post by elouda on Nov 5, 2018 12:23:02 GMT -6
Since its not visible there, is there (or is there going to be) any option for directors on tertiaries? I understand if we can't have dedicated anti-surface directors for them, but hopefully AA directors are separate somehow - otherwise historical designs like Bismarck or Yamato are out of luck for their tertiary batteries.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Nov 5, 2018 12:59:42 GMT -6
There will be AA directors, though I can only presume at this point that they will apply to DP mounts (as opposed to lt & md mgs). Those blanks will be filled in shortly.
And speaking of blanks, I need to leave my ship comparison plan on standby. After further conversation they'd like to wait until the RTW2 ship design code is finalized. While the air component is being massaged into place things can still be in flux, and rather than debate the minutia lets wait until it is finalized..
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 5, 2018 14:21:25 GMT -6
Ok, I am stupid old man but I've got ask this question. Based on my readings of Naval Architecture, how can you put 11 inch in turrets on barbettes, that close together. I mean the blast effect has to be unimaginable for turret crews and possibly the bridge area. Each turret has to have its own ammunition room and I don't see how you can do that. Instruct me, gents.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 5, 2018 15:04:24 GMT -6
There will be AA directors, though I can only presume at this point that they will apply to DP mounts (as opposed to lt & md mgs). Those blanks will be filled in shortly. And speaking of blanks, I need to leave my ship comparison plan on standby. After further conversation they'd like to wait until the RTW2 ship design code is finalized. While the air component is being massaged into place things can still be in flux, and rather than debate the minutia lets wait until it is finalized.. Directors for lt & md MGs were a thing too, and often quite important (the Mk 51 director for the 40mm Bofors sprouted on US decks like it was going out of fashion), and for distributed or close-in 5" fire, iirc, some ships were able to have the Mk 51 control 5in/38 guns. Not saying they're needed for the game, just a quick word speaking up for them .
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Nov 5, 2018 15:20:18 GMT -6
After further conversation they'd like to wait until the RTW2 ship design code is finalized. While the air component is being massaged into place things can still be in flux, and rather than debate the minutia lets wait until it is finalized.. Well it certainly seems you've been put in the middle. Sorry about that. I visualize the Development Team sorta like this... Fredrik behind the curtains, pulling levers, stomping pedals, twisting knobs and thundering mightily... William occasionaly sticking his head out of the door and shouting "No one can see the Wizard!!"... and poor Chisholm is the Contented Citizen, happily polishing this, trimming that, cleaning up whatever... I'm kinda envious actually.
|
|