|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 26, 2019 13:14:58 GMT -6
The (amidships) disclaimer has been there since RtW1(...)
I have to say though, I was extremely unprepared for the picture.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 26, 2019 14:34:47 GMT -6
Monstrocity is a turret farm though which should have a higher percentage chance of going boom in RTW2. Course you have to get through that armor first. Hey, garrisonchisholm , sorry if you have explained this before but what is the significance of the (amidships) tag next to the 20inch belt? Is that related to the new box protection feature? Oh, and what are you doing in-game in 1956? Is that just for play testing purposes or have they already decided to move back the end date? The end date is at present 1970, but I think I've cooked this game long enough. There were 3 new alphas through the course of play, and it took a 6 year war to finally recover my economy. The part of the game that needs the most play exposure (in my mind) is about '28-'38, when carriers shouldn't look "modern" and doctrine shouldn't be 1944-USN smooth. I think I'll offer my apologies to General Sherman and actually try my first CSA game ever. I've been told the ship-name database has been added to, though I wouldn't notice that of course. :] As far as the turret farm, yes, 6 holes to the magazines, but I'd become bothered with the frequency I see trips and quads get jammed, so I've been trying this plan-form for a while. With one turret destroyed and another jammed it is still firing 8 guns. I built a 23 knot BB version of the Mishima with max armor, and I would find much more value in that 71,500 ton ship than the 89,500 tonner I designed. Honestly it will be hard to justify a 90,000 tonner, most 65-70 ktn designs would equal their firepower for nearly half the price (generality). Late Edit; the end date is still 1950, but the Must End date is 1970.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 26, 2019 17:58:32 GMT -6
How to sink this monster? It will be difficult to sink her by bombs only and her torpedo protection could be quite extensive. I'd imagine that a ~90,000t battleship could be sunk in much the same way as Yamato was. Realistically speaking, no matter how impressive an AA battery it has and no matter how thick its armor and how good its torpedo protection are, if you can launch wave after wave of massed air assaults against it, it won't survive. It probably also wouldn't stand up very well against a larger number of smaller battleships, especially if they're armed with weapons that can penetrate its armor at reasonable engagement ranges.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 26, 2019 18:01:57 GMT -6
Hey, garrisonchisholm , sorry if you have explained this before but what is the significance of the (amidships) tag next to the 20inch belt? Is that related to the new box protection feature? The (amidships) disclaimer has been there since RtW1. Pretty sure it's just to signify that the BE may be thinner and IIRC belt armor is implied to thin out the further from the center you go, which can explain how a round with less pen than a belt can occasionally punch through.
Hahaha, wow. What a brain fart. As many hours as I've put into RTW1 and I looked at that picture and didn't realize that it was normal. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 26, 2019 18:19:15 GMT -6
How to sink this monster? It will be difficult to sink her by bombs only and her torpedo protection could be quite extensive. I'd imagine that a ~90,000t battleship could be sunk in much the same way as Yamato was. Realistically speaking, no matter how impressive an AA battery it has and no matter how thick its armor and how good its torpedo protection are, if you can launch wave after wave of massed air assaults against it, it won't survive. It probably also wouldn't stand up very well against a larger number of smaller battleships, especially if they're armed with weapons that can penetrate its armor at reasonable engagement ranges. I agree with you, but it means "undefended".
I expect that ship of this size would have torpedo protection such extensive that air torpedoes could not go through the TDS system. So they need complete overwhelming numbers. The same comes to armor. You need pretty close to penetrate such armor but with this heavy armament you need similar ship to fight this giant.
The most common example is force Z however it was one lucky hit with unlucky decision of one officer to restart damaged shaft. To sink proper designed modern battleship is not so easy even by air attacks if you have not overwhelming numbers. I think @oldpop one time mentions that end of battleships was not becuase of their defense capabilities but because of power projection which is limited by range of its guns.
I am really interested how end of battleship will come in RTW2. When the time comes. What we know that real battleships were limited by treaty and Yamato has some flaws, Iowa has defected TDS system and other ships were small with a lot of compromises. On other had we know that carrier could operate effectivelly about 100 aicrafts no matter how large she is. So when it happens that the costs of CV outweight costs BB compare to their ratio of power projection, especially knowing that there is wheather and operating carriers at night was something that only one navy was able to do it at 1940.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 27, 2019 14:49:25 GMT -6
dorn , we are looking forward to the same questions being answered. I imagine it will be settled by shifting the percentages in random battle selection based upon Air Tech level, but that is just my guess- we'll see soon no doubt. In other news, I have officially started a new game as Germany, specifically to test an exciting new feature that I can't discuss yet, but - I'm just plum giddy. - or is that plumb giddy? Very giddy! When we have an example of this new feature, I imagine JS or I will post a Dev Note to lay it out all nice and proper. However, before I closed the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for the last time, I built my absolute best guess at a top end, end game, fast battleship. There are compromises here; 3" of Belt, it only has TPS 3, and my 17.1" weapon would have been better than the 20 -1" I had access to, but I wanted to show it off with the big barrels. Still, the fact this can make 29 knots is I think impressive. I am fairly confident, though of course I cannot say for certain, that this vessel could be included in 'cruiser' engagement scenarios in the release version.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 27, 2019 19:09:27 GMT -6
dorn , we are looking forward to the same questions being answered. I imagine it will be settled by shifting the percentages in random battle selection based upon Air Tech level, but that is just my guess- we'll see soon no doubt. In other news, I have officially started a new game as Germany, specifically to test an exciting new feature that I can't discuss yet, but - I'm just plum giddy. - or is that plumb giddy? Very giddy! When we have an example of this new feature, I imagine JS or I will post a Dev Note to lay it out all nice and proper. However, before I closed the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere for the last time, I built my absolute best guess at a top end, end game, fast battleship. There are compromises here; 3" of Belt, it only has TPS 3, and my 17.1" weapon would have been better than the 20 -1" I had access to, but I wanted to show it off with the big barrels. Still, the fact this can make 29 knots is I think impressive. I am fairly confident, though of course I cannot say for certain, that this vessel could be included in 'cruiser' engagement scenarios in the release version. How does TDS work? In reality (history) it was great issue as every navy has their system. Some were better, some worse. They were designed against explosive power of torpedo warhead however a lot of them did worse than was designed for.
Practically it combination of system (issue for Italians, Southa Dakota, Iowa classes), depth and quality (Yamato, probably KGV). However if TDS was extensive, it could withstand a lot of damage. RTW1 ended with TDS level 4 however TDS till 1925 was weak compare to new era of battleships in end of 30s. How it is immplemented in RTW2?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 28, 2019 10:42:10 GMT -6
So far there are no "advancements" to TDS, the RTW1 L4 is still the best. I have seen large ships (no 70k + ships yet though) take 4 torpedoes on one flank and still make it home at 10-15 knots. If larger ships have larger flotation, conceivably it should take "many" torps to cripple such a ship, but I can't put a number on it yet.
If a large, modern ship does not show greater-than Yamato resilience in our testing, then we'll likely make an argument that at least a L5 should be implemented.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 28, 2019 18:59:40 GMT -6
For anybody who hasn't seen it before, here is an interesting article from a frequent contributor to the Navweaps site regarding torpedo protection systems. From reading it there doesn't seem to have been much positive innovation after the WW1 time frame. Most of the features added after the war seemed to have had flaws in design or implementation that undermined any major advantage over the conventional multi-layer void/liquid loaded system. Also, the most important factor, the depth of the system from the side of the hull to the final holding bulkhead, is a conflicting requirement with fast battleship designs that need a relatively finer hull than their slower, Standard and pre- Queen Elizabeth cousins. You can see that with North Carolina whose TPS was (or nearly was) defeated near the forward main magazine by a submarine launched torpedo. So I would conclude from that there doesn't need to be a higher level of TPS than the 4 levels in RTW1. There are certainly things that could be tweaked though. Bonuses for extreme tonnage ships like Yamato or for ships that use turbo-electric drive if the game ever tracks what types of engines are installed. Battlecruisers and eventual fast battleships below a certain tonnage threshold might be assumed (if they don't already) to have a bit of a penalty because their finer lines and large propulsion spaces reduce the max possible depth of the system. Inclined armor belts might incur a small penalty to torpedo protection as well. You could have an event where an engineer approaches the navy with an innovative design for a new TPS. You then have the option of investing in it like the mad scientist event. If you choose to invest then when the next TPS level is "researched" that TPS level will have the new system. The twist is you don't know for sure if the design is better or worse than a conventional TPS. So if you just researched TPS 3 then you may have a system that works as well as TPS 3.75 or one that is actually only as effective as TPS level 1.5. That would simulate historical cases like the Pugliese system.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 28, 2019 20:10:39 GMT -6
To be fair, the Italian system would have worked if hit by the size torpedoes it was designed to take. The designers, however, failed to anticipate that torpedoes would get bigger and their explosives better - which meant the Pugliese system actually magnified the explosion and increased the damage.
Sheer mass and number of compartments would be serious factors in determining a ship's resistance to underwater damage, but the quality of construction (no open pipes, bad welds, loose fittings etc) and crew damage control ability and training would, I think, be as or more important. This would be an important way to show the value of crew quality -
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 29, 2019 2:31:18 GMT -6
For anybody who hasn't seen it before, here is an interesting article from a frequent contributor to the Navweaps site regarding torpedo protection systems. From reading it there doesn't seem to have been much positive innovation after the WW1 time frame. Most of the features added after the war seemed to have had flaws in design or implementation that undermined any major advantage over the conventional multi-layer void/liquid loaded system. Also, the most important factor, the depth of the system from the side of the hull to the final holding bulkhead, is a conflicting requirement with fast battleship designs that need a relatively finer hull than their slower, Standard and pre- Queen Elizabeth cousins. You can see that with North Carolina whose TPS was (or nearly was) defeated near the forward main magazine by a submarine launched torpedo. So I would conclude from that there doesn't need to be a higher level of TPS than the 4 levels in RTW1. There are certainly things that could be tweaked though. Bonuses for extreme tonnage ships like Yamato or for ships that use turbo-electric drive if the game ever tracks what types of engines are installed. Battlecruisers and eventual fast battleships below a certain tonnage threshold might be assumed (if they don't already) to have a bit of a penalty because their finer lines and large propulsion spaces reduce the max possible depth of the system. Inclined armor belts might incur a small penalty to torpedo protection as well. You could have an event where an engineer approaches the navy with an innovative design for a new TPS. You then have the option of investing in it like the mad scientist event. If you choose to invest then when the next TPS level is "researched" that TPS level will have the new system. The twist is you don't know for sure if the design is better or worse than a conventional TPS. So if you just researched TPS 3 then you may have a system that works as well as TPS 3.75 or one that is actually only as effective as TPS level 1.5. That would simulate historical cases like the Pugliese system. Yes, but the depth is important.
Different system allow different level of flooding even if TDS is not breached. I think this is no so important. But than everything is about breaching TDS. And width of TDS is quite important. Small ship could not have the needed width, large ship could have, however large and fast ships have an issue again as the width in most important areas around forward and aft magazines are less width as the hull is no wider adminship. I do not know how TDS works in RTW however 25000 tons battelship with TDS 4 should have much lesser protection than 45000 tons battleship with TDS 4 if they have same max. speed.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Feb 21, 2019 1:41:46 GMT -6
The part of the game that needs the most play exposure (in my mind) is about '28-'38, when carriers shouldn't look "modern" and doctrine shouldn't be 1944-USN smooth. I think I'll offer my apologies to General Sherman and actually try my first CSA game ever. I've been told the ship-name database has been added to, though I wouldn't notice that of course. :] How's that CSA game going, by the way? Has the South risen again, into the skies of the Caribbean?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 21, 2019 3:36:57 GMT -6
Actually I never started it, as a 'special' feature upcoming caused me to re-focus on Germany for testing. :]
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 21, 2019 3:43:06 GMT -6
a 'special' feature upcoming caused me to re-focus on Germany for testing. :] SPECULATION TIME You went back to Germany, which makes me think of several things. One is political, perhaps the inclusion of different government forms. Seeing how the game plays differently under a fascistic government? Alternatively, geography might be the reason, since Germany has to contend with the (relatively) close quarters of the Northern Europe zone. That might mean something to do with air bases or airships, giving yourself a smaller area to work with. While rather hopeful, I've wondered and hoped that wars might evolve with the passage of time in game. That would lead me to speculate it might have to do with how the game abstracts ground combat, with nations that border one another.
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Feb 21, 2019 4:32:25 GMT -6
It's probably missiles. williammiller mentioned back in January that guided weapons are one of the last things getting implemented, and Germany is the obvious choice for a bonus to guidance tech.
|
|