|
Post by janxol on May 22, 2019 15:33:30 GMT -6
About gun-caliber and refitting guns: Compare all calibers 16" to 20"- when I remind that correctly all of them have the same 6,5" maximum deck-penetration at ranges 25k and further. Here is the question, do you want to have the one hit potential with alow rate of fire (here I have to say, that such things don´t happen as oftenas you wish it) or do you want to have a stable amount of damage with a higher rate of fire that often means that your enemy don´t return fire, because of the shock effect (there is something similar ingame- the enemy rate of fire drops significantly after serious hits). Personally I prefer the smaller caliber- I would say 4x3 15"Qu1 is better than 3x3 16"Qu1 is better than 3x3 18"Qu-1. And a potential quality-refit depends on the caliber. Normally I refit 15" and smaller with the next FC-refit, because they need that bit of higher range and better penetration. Smaller midgame units (DDs and CL) get their 4" to 6" refitted out of the same reason, especially my lategame DDs in RtW1 have 3x2 or 4x2 4"Qu1 with High AP-tech, so they can feast on CL and light up capital ships easily. A new thing will be, that I won´t build 10" CA anymore, because they are too expensive (before I built 3x3 or 4x3 10" CAs I build some Large Cruiser/BCs with 3x3 12" and imunity against 8" and high speed- go all or nothing!). 8" CA are way enough for their tasks (dealing with CL, raiding, escorting, show off in your posessions) and here even 8"Qu-1 are way better than 6"Qu1, so I am not sure if I refit to better 8" guns once I have them. 16" and bigger calibers don´t get this increase of punch you hope for. I do not refit them. But to be honest- in one of my games I will build one BB with 24 knots, imunity against 16" and 20" boomsticks- I want that biiiiiiiiiig boy in only one game to see what happens Of course 16 inch+ caliber get an increase to punch. In fact the higher the caliber, the higher the difference in damage, as the mass of the shell increases. Also looking at penetration on my ships, the deck penetration does increase beyond 6.5, while at the ranges of 24 000 yards the difference is quite substantial. The thing that the penetration chart doesnt tell you is the damage, as far as I recall you can estimate that 18 in shell will deal about 40% more damage than a 16 in shell. Also the shell damage doesnt depend on gun quality, so 18 in Q-1 will deal the same damage as 18in Q+1.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 23, 2019 2:33:23 GMT -6
About gun-caliber and refitting guns: Compare all calibers 16" to 20"- when I remind that correctly all of them have the same 6,5" maximum deck-penetration at ranges 25k and further. Here is the question, do you want to have the one hit potential with alow rate of fire (here I have to say, that such things don´t happen as oftenas you wish it) or do you want to have a stable amount of damage with a higher rate of fire that often means that your enemy don´t return fire, because of the shock effect (there is something similar ingame- the enemy rate of fire drops significantly after serious hits). Personally I prefer the smaller caliber- I would say 4x3 15"Qu1 is better than 3x3 16"Qu1 is better than 3x3 18"Qu-1. And a potential quality-refit depends on the caliber. Normally I refit 15" and smaller with the next FC-refit, because they need that bit of higher range and better penetration. Smaller midgame units (DDs and CL) get their 4" to 6" refitted out of the same reason, especially my lategame DDs in RtW1 have 3x2 or 4x2 4"Qu1 with High AP-tech, so they can feast on CL and light up capital ships easily. A new thing will be, that I won´t build 10" CA anymore, because they are too expensive (before I built 3x3 or 4x3 10" CAs I build some Large Cruiser/BCs with 3x3 12" and imunity against 8" and high speed- go all or nothing!). 8" CA are way enough for their tasks (dealing with CL, raiding, escorting, show off in your posessions) and here even 8"Qu-1 are way better than 6"Qu1, so I am not sure if I refit to better 8" guns once I have them. 16" and bigger calibers don´t get this increase of punch you hope for. I do not refit them. But to be honest- in one of my games I will build one BB with 24 knots, imunity against 16" and 20" boomsticks- I want that biiiiiiiiiig boy in only one game to see what happens Of course 16 inch+ caliber get an increase to punch. In fact the higher the caliber, the higher the difference in damage, as the mass of the shell increases. Also looking at penetration on my ships, the deck penetration does increase beyond 6.5, while at the ranges of 24 000 yards the difference is quite substantial. The thing that the penetration chart doesnt tell you is the damage, as far as I recall you can estimate that 18 in shell will deal about 40% more damage than a 16 in shell. Also the shell damage doesnt depend on gun quality, so 18 in Q-1 will deal the same damage as 18in Q+1.
The damage is equal (it depends on your tech level), but penetration and range are different. And when I remind that correctly there is a small increase in RoF. And I guess nearly everyone confirms, that a higher RoF with good pen and OKish "burst damage" is better, because you hit more often. And every hit slows down the enemy RoF, because of the shock effect. Compare that in your battles when an enemy ship is straddled and your battleline starts to punish it- there is nearly no return fire, although all turrets are in working condition.
And 16" is a caliber that is big enough and has the best balanced values.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on May 23, 2019 22:33:04 GMT -6
I have to agree that 16"Q1 guns are in fact "good enough" through the vast majority of the game. I have a "slow aircraft development" game going on right now, and I'm only feeling a need to move up to 18" guns now that it's 1955 and everyone else has 16"Q1 guns in service. And I'm still dubious because most engagements are at a close enough range that penetration (especially deck penetration) is nearly irrelevant. In a night battle at 10k yards rate of fire matters more than anything because armor might as well not exist against 14" and larger guns. The only real advantage I see is an increase in deck penetration at extreme range, which is where I would prefer to fight.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 23, 2019 22:37:14 GMT -6
I'm only feeling a need to move up to 18" guns now that it's 1955 and everyone else has 16"Q1 guns in service.I'd say that's the wrong way to approach it. If the enemy has gotten better guns, improve the armor. If the enemy has gotten better armor, improve the guns. The whole equation is as simple as having weapons powerful ENOUGH to beat the enemy armor standards from a set of given distances, and armor thick ENOUGH to beat the enemy incoming shells at those given distances . The result of the equation is a beaten enemy and your fleet victorious. Upgunning for the sake of upgunning is worthless if you already have guns big and powerful enough to beat the enemy armor .
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 24, 2019 3:33:47 GMT -6
I'm only feeling a need to move up to 18" guns now that it's 1955 and everyone else has 16"Q1 guns in service.I'd say that's the wrong way to approach it. If the enemy has gotten better guns, improve the armor. If the enemy has gotten better armor, improve the guns. The whole equation is as simple as having weapons powerful ENOUGH to beat the enemy armor standards from a set of given distances, and armor thick ENOUGH to beat the enemy incoming shells at those given distances . The result of the equation is a beaten enemy and your fleet victorious. Upgunning for the sake of upgunning is worthless if you already have guns big and powerful enough to beat the enemy armor .
Well I guess janxol has his gunrange in mind to outgun the enemy ships. And belt armour becomes more and more outdated, until you reach the mid 30s. Deck becomes more and more important and you have to set an imunity zone where your gunbehavior gives you the ultimative advantage.
In RTW1 I had experiments in the lategame still with turtlebacks for my BCs (10" belt, 5-6" deck) and undergo enemy fire to get in knife fight range- that was deadly! Your superstructure suffers of course, but your vitals seem to be immune.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 24, 2019 3:39:43 GMT -6
I have not played this game more than a couple of days but one thing that I found very important and that mimics real life is to try an counter the type of ships your potential enemy have. It does not matter what ships an opponent nation builds if there is a very low chance to end up in a war against them (anytime soon).
This is why I don't tend to build or design ships from a specific setup or template.
This also goes for research focusing to some degree.
If this makes any sense... it is less hard science and more of a soft but important consideration you can gain allot leverage on.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 24, 2019 3:53:40 GMT -6
I have not played this game more than a couple of days but one thing that I found very important and that mimics real life is to try an counter the type of ships your potential enemy have. It does not matter what ships an opponent nation builds if there is a very low chance to end up in a war against them (anytime soon). This is why I don't tend to build or design ships from a specific setup or template. This also goes for research focusing to some degree. If this makes any sense... it is less hard science and more of a soft but important consideration you can gain allot leverage on.
A class contering an enemy class in 99% the cases doesn´t fit.
A general shiptype contering another enemy shiptype is a valid choice. For example- now you have the possibility to set some ships to trade protection. Now you have the possibility to conter cheap CL-raiders with relatively cheap CA-raidprotectors armed with 8". In the opposite way you can send CAs to raiding missions and force the enemy fleet to set BC/BBs to trade protection, instead to give them the chance to set some old CL to TP. If they do it, collect some easy VP.
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on May 24, 2019 8:17:39 GMT -6
I was not really meaning just what class of ship to make but really study the ships that any potential enemy has and try your best to design ships that take advantage of their weaknesses while minimising any of your own weaknesses against their strengths.
How many ships do they have of each class and how are they designed, what can I get to have the highest chance of success against them. This is basically how it work in real life.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on May 24, 2019 9:01:57 GMT -6
I'd say that's the wrong way to approach it. If the enemy has gotten better guns, improve the armor. If the enemy has gotten better armor, improve the guns. The whole equation is as simple as having weapons powerful ENOUGH to beat the enemy armor standards from a set of given distances, and armor thick ENOUGH to beat the enemy incoming shells at those given distances . The result of the equation is a beaten enemy and your fleet victorious. Upgunning for the sake of upgunning is worthless if you already have guns big and powerful enough to beat the enemy armor . I would like to have a range advantage. In other words, be able to take apart an enemy from long range where my ships are immune. At close range belt armor is worthless in the late game because penetration for even 14” guns is very high. So my ships with adequate belt armor and excellent deck armor are very effective. But now that the AI will actually put good deck armor on ships, they’re often immune to deck penetrations by the 16”Q1 gun, which invalidates my range advantage. And because enemy guns are just as good as mine, I don’t have a range advantage when it comes to belt penetration either. Thus, the 18” gun becomes an attractive option. It gives just enough extra deck penetration to deal with enemy ships at range, and the increase in belt penetration is nothing to complain about. Yes, they’re more expensive. But the late game US can afford it.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 24, 2019 14:12:58 GMT -6
16'' upwards seem to have same top range. At least the immunity zone calculator points that way, it's top limit is 32.000 yards for 15'' and 35.000 yards for 16 and avobe. Besides trusting on long range only usually isn't very safe. Mostly because you need to see what you're shooting at and at 35000 yards,you can do so only in the most perfect of the days with perfect visibility. Something that won't always happen. And no, not even with radar, radar performance of sets of the time varied with weather, you'd never get the same efficiency from a set in a sunny day than what you'd get from a rainy one (still far more effective than eyesight tho). But as I said the most important stuff is: top range for all guns over 16'' seems to be 35000 yards. So if you're putting bigger ones for the "Range advantage" you're getting nothing out of it. As for wanting to "tear apart things up from a range", I'm yet to see an AI ship with more than 6.5'' deck armor in-game...16'' qual 1 guns pens that from 26000 yards. If you set a ship with a large immunity zone against 16'' guns, you're going to have a ship with a quite big immunity zone too against guns of bigger caliber. 16'' guns only pen 0.6'' less of armor at 35000 yards than what 20'' guns do (6.6'' vs 7.2''). which I think goes a long way in representing how little actual pen you win out of bigger guns specially if you compare it to the extraordinary cost those bigger guns entail. but your dimes, your decisions, is your game so play it as you like .
|
|
|
Post by roeben on Aug 7, 2019 9:30:36 GMT -6
Hi Guys,
I was wondering how to passively increase my budget.
How can I get reparations from a country? I tried to not demand any colonies from russia after winning a war, but I didn't get any reparations out of it.
What is the relation between Colony Value and budget?
|
|
|
Post by cv10 on Aug 7, 2019 9:43:19 GMT -6
How can I get reparations from a country? I tried to not demand any colonies from russia after winning a war, but I didn't get any reparations out of it. Each possession is worth a certain number of "points" in the peace settlement, and you are allocated a number of points depending on what type of victory you get (collapsing the other government usually awards more). Once the peace deal is signed, unused points boost your nation's base resources. This increases the size of the budget you can get as the nation has more base resources to call on.
You don't get any direct cash payments from the nation in question, as the reparations are going to the government, which may chose to use some of the windfall for the Navy.
|
|
|
Post by roeben on Aug 7, 2019 9:58:31 GMT -6
Thanks for the swift response! One more then: Can I see how many resources I have?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Aug 7, 2019 10:23:09 GMT -6
Thanks for the swift response! One more then: Can I see how many resources I have? Open the Almanac, go to the tab for your particular nation, look for "Base Resources" and "From Possessions" (colonial resources) under the Nation Data tab: If I recall correctly, you get about 25 colonial resources per point of possession value and 50 base resources per point of reparations claimed. Note that colonial resources are more or less static whereas base resources are subject to exponential growth (~2% per year for most powers, ~3% for powers with Rapid Economic Growth, possibly an additional linear term if your nation has one of the two hidden growth modifiers in the nation files).
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Aug 7, 2019 10:59:54 GMT -6
Thanks for the swift response! One more then: Can I see how many resources I have? Open the Almanac, go to the tab for your particular nation, look for "Base Resources" and "From Possessions" (colonial resources) under the Nation Data tab: If I recall correctly, you get about 25 colonial resources per point of possession value and 50 base resources per point of reparations claimed. Note that colonial resources are more or less static whereas base resources are subject to exponential growth (~2% per year for most powers, ~3% for powers with Rapid Economic Growth, possibly an additional linear term if your nation has one of the two hidden growth modifiers in the nation files).
So basically outside of strategic concerns (ie cleaning enemy bases out of your homezone) colonies are objectively bad?
|
|