|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 21, 2019 5:03:21 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. Hmm...that's certainly a possibility, although I will argue that the US was practically their equal. While Germany was deploying the Fritz-X and Hs-293, the US had the Bat radar-guided glide bomb and the Interstate TDR, a criminally under-appreciated TV-guided drone 'suicide' bomber that operated briefly in 1944. Sadly, the brass was more interested in large scale bombing craft instead of precision strikes, so the TDR only had a short period of activity. Here's a very interesting video that actually shows the operator's point of view during several test strikes.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 21, 2019 7:33:59 GMT -6
That was very interesting, but what's interesting to me is the 1st and 4th drone's cams don't line up with their strikes. I think they switched them in editing the video. Thanks for including that! (cold, very cold... )
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Feb 21, 2019 9:16:40 GMT -6
I'm sure it's Oktoberfest! -4 to unrest, -10 to accuracy (crew state), +10% to build time.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 21, 2019 9:32:35 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing that noshurviverse . I had never even heard of the TDR. I'm sure it was probably because it was a video of a film of a television picture but it seemed like it was much easier to make out the ship because it was contrasted against the beach. I wonder if the system was ever tested against a ship at sea with no background to provide a silhouette?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 21, 2019 10:23:49 GMT -6
There's also a similar project with converted B-17s and B-24/PB4Ys, probably best known for killing Joseph Kennedy, Jr.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Feb 21, 2019 12:43:24 GMT -6
Did you get a chance to try out the Kantai Kessen strategy of the IJN?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 21, 2019 18:33:33 GMT -6
I would have liked to, but alas no. I had no fleet actions of any meaningful size, as no power obliged to send a large fleet into the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. I was able to atrit enemy surface units by air before bringing them to action, but honestly the AI needs to be tweaked to make this only a move of last resort for the AI. Likewise, the player should only succeed in forcing a surface action (after 1940-ish) by great luck (weather or night) or by accepting exorbitant losses.
The surface action in which I lost my first 70,000 ton ship was I think my largest action between 1940 and when I closed the game about 1965.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Feb 21, 2019 19:38:46 GMT -6
I would have liked to, but alas no. I had no fleet actions of any meaningful size, as no power obliged to send a large fleet into the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. I was able to atrit enemy surface units by air before bringing them to action, but honestly the AI needs to be tweaked to make this only a move of last resort for the AI. Likewise, the player should only succeed in forcing a surface action (after 1940-ish) by great luck (weather or night) or by accepting exorbitant losses. The surface action in which I lost my first 70,000 ton ship was I think my largest action between 1940 and when I closed the game about 1965. By 'surface actions' do you mean 'actions by capital ships' or surface actions in general? On a related note, I'm interested to know how how useful you found your successive generations of capital ships to be over the years: The Kongo class Kirishima was completed in 1927, Mishima's first action was in 1949, Shikishima was completed in 1956 and finally Hizen in 1962. You said that Hizen was just a showcase of what could be done with end-game tech rather than a genuine attempt at practicality, but what about the others?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 21, 2019 20:54:44 GMT -6
The Kongos were the most practical and won the most for the Empire, even though 2 were lost. The Mishimas had I think only 1 chance in action (and yes I mean capital ship actions) other than the one where Mishima was lost, and acquitted themselves well- their AA suite was particularly sharp and I don't recall them taking more than 1 or two hits per action (though the air power directed against them was limited). The Shikishimas never saw action, as every battleship or fleet action was denied by my foes. If I could have had a world without the 2nd and 3rd disarmament agreements, I would have built a reserve Kongo (meaning a 4th) and then probably a battleship version of the same design, probably affording 8. By 1940 I could have likely also had 4 fleet carriers and been in a better position to test everything I needed to. 3 disarmament treaties really... disarms.
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on Feb 22, 2019 0:18:38 GMT -6
I have forgotten but when war is declared, does that nullify arms treaties so that you can go back to building anything you want? If not, it probably should.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Feb 22, 2019 0:39:37 GMT -6
I have forgotten but when war is declared, does that nullify arms treaties so that you can go back to building anything you want? If not, it probably should. In RtW, at least, war immediately nullifies treaties.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 22, 2019 11:18:24 GMT -6
The same state exists for RTW2. Outbreak of war nixes all treaties.
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on Feb 22, 2019 17:54:13 GMT -6
I would have liked to, but alas no. I had no fleet actions of any meaningful size, as no power obliged to send a large fleet into the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. I was able to atrit enemy surface units by air before bringing them to action, but honestly the AI needs to be tweaked to make this only a move of last resort for the AI. Likewise, the player should only succeed in forcing a surface action (after 1940-ish) by great luck (weather or night) or by accepting exorbitant losses. The surface action in which I lost my first 70,000 ton ship was I think my largest action between 1940 and when I closed the game about 1965. So does the player get popups like "Enemy ship DD whatever sunk by air attack!" between turns if the enemy has ships stationed in a region where the player has air forces?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 22, 2019 18:30:44 GMT -6
You mean, akin to the random submarine event sinking a ship? That is an interesting thought, but at the moment no. Aircraft are only represented in battle.
Now, some regions will have opposing airbases that should be in episodic and persistent contact. This action is simulated by "randomizing" the available strengths of the involved airbases for the start of a battle. Some aircraft will start listed as disabled and under repair, others as destroyed and awaiting replacement. Otherwise however, all actions involving aircraft will occur during the selected battle.
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on Feb 22, 2019 20:27:39 GMT -6
It would be a good inclusion. Otherwise there's no way to represent real life incidents such as the sinking of HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales, or the American skip-bombing campaign against the IJN.
Does the player have the ability to launch pearl harbor-style air raids? One of the more frustrating things in RTW is when the AI repeatedly refuses battle unless they have a clear majority, but have enough of a fleet-in-being to keep land invasions from progressing. If the enemy refuses to leave port and I have a carrier/air power advantage, I wanna be able to bomb them in port.
|
|