|
|
Post by tbr on May 16, 2019 15:52:34 GMT -6
The design rule "no centerline guns allowed on this type" for CV's and CVL's means true hybrid designs such as the historically planned but never built battleship/carrier hybrids or the cruiser/carrier hybrids, cannot be designed. My suggestion is to allow only A/X/Y/B and impose a "spot" number penalty when those slots are used to simulate the shorter flight deck (hangar length is already simulated with the tonnage needed for the air capacity and the turrets) with some graduation in the ruleset like less of a penalty for a design with only single forward or aft turrets and an increasing spot number penalty for every additional centerline turret. Make the spot penalty show in the check design remarks so player are aware that they are compromising air operations. Many of us had hoped to play with these "wacky hybrids" in RTW2 so I would like to see this or something else enabling them in a future update.
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 16, 2019 15:58:28 GMT -6
Yeah, that feels a bit too restrictive/streamlined.
I was really looking forward to my cruiser raider concept, with a forward flight deck for storing and launching armed seaplanes and two aft centerline turrets for self defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 16, 2019 16:39:02 GMT -6
Maybe this could be dealt with by allowing fore and aft wing turrets to fire directly forward and astern. Then you could have a full length flight deck between the guns but still retain the 360 degree gun arcs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 16, 2019 16:39:29 GMT -6
Not to mention that several carriers had single centerline HAA that don't seem possible under these rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 16, 2019 16:45:27 GMT -6
I was really looking forward to my cruiser raider concept, with a forward flight deck for storing and launching armed seaplanes and two aft centerline turrets for self defense. While it won't quite be what you're describing, you can put a seaplane hanger and a couple of aircraft onto a CA or CL design in the demo version without the game deciding that you're building a CVL or an AV rather than a CA/CL. Not sure how useful it would be without catapults, though.
Two examples: The upper one is a Treaty cruiser meant to get a start on replacing Britain's antiquated cruiser fleet and cover station requirements in a WNT game; the latter was designed with raiding in mind, though I'm inclined to try for a smaller version in the full release.
The chasers (1, 2, 3, and 4) are CVL-legal and cover the forward and after arcs if you use them. I don't particularly care for the aesthetics of their positioning, but you can have full 360-degree HAA coverage on a ship with a full-length flight deck in the demo version of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by desdinova on May 16, 2019 16:53:54 GMT -6
Yeah, a carrier without an enclosed bow could've had centerline guns fore and aft mounted under the flight deck. HMS Eagle had a centerline turret on the stern.
And don't forget Furious was constructed with an 18" gun turret aft.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 16, 2019 17:40:02 GMT -6
I’d really like to be able to have Hybrids and BB/BC turret ramps.
The inefficient designs as they started to figure out naval aviation are part of the charm.
|
|
|
|
Post by tordenskjold on May 17, 2019 8:25:21 GMT -6
Well, technically you can already design a decent BC/CA, fit two catapults, a seaplane hangar and enough space for dozens of aircraft. However, this restricts you to floatplanes only, and each of these has to be launched separately.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 17, 2019 8:51:37 GMT -6
All I'm saying is - this is the picture for Naval Aviation   |
|
|
|
Post by randomnessinc on May 17, 2019 9:16:21 GMT -6
This confuses me, in the dev blog they showed carriers with centerline turrets, will they be in the main game?
|
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on May 17, 2019 9:41:27 GMT -6
They seem to have changed their mind! Even though there was a dev blog about Hybrids |
|
|
|
Post by randomnessinc on May 17, 2019 9:43:21 GMT -6
Dang, i was really hoping to do that :C
Lets just hope its a caveat of the demo, or at least to where you could mod it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 17, 2019 9:57:32 GMT -6
Dang, i was really hoping to do that :C Lets just hope its a caveat of the demo, or at least to where you could mod it out. If one could get into the cv rules file, it should be easy to mod. However, base game logic is generally difficult to access so it might be more effort than it's worth. Best option is to beg Frederik. I personally would like a purpose-built Furious-type ship with half a flight deck but priorities, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 17, 2019 10:11:56 GMT -6
This confuses me, in the dev blog they showed carriers with centerline turrets, will they be in the main game? I don't recall that being changed, but I will check with Fredrik once things get a bit more...sane...around work here  |
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 17, 2019 10:38:33 GMT -6
This confuses me, in the dev blog they showed carriers with centerline turrets, will they be in the main game? I don't recall that being changed, but I will check with Fredrik once things get a bit more...sane...around work here In the medium term, it would be great if the class definitions and their usage could be externalized into a txt file, so that they can be easily modded/adjusted.
I saw on multiple occasions the desire to have subclasses for different purposes.
Eg on one of the recent tortugapower streams some DDs? were slow and not designed for fleet duty, yet the matchup put them on fleet duty escorting BCs... Or CLs for raiding vs CLs for fleet scouts, or heavy bombers for land bases and lighter ones for old CVLs with shorter flight decks.
An extra column would be nice in the ships list, right next to the class. Eg CL | Fleet Scout
CL | Raider CL | AA CL | ASW CL | GP (general purpose) CL | AA & ASW
With non-exclusive attributes based on their armament eg AA & ASW & Raider.
Would imho not be too complicated to write a dummy flagging mechanism based on the design characteristics for the AI while leaving the player the ability to overwrite the automatic flagging.
But totally worth it, since it would also help the AI to be less indiscriminate in their usage of ships of the same class but wildly different capabilities.
|
|
