|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 1, 2019 13:21:54 GMT -6
I look at it. It is very nice mod, something I have planned to do. I have just look to HMS Hood, inclined belt seems to be missing.
It is there, I'm not sure why the box is not checking for refits. In battle the belt will be inclined regardless |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 1, 2019 13:32:10 GMT -6
All of the older ships have less armor anyways and by the time you use them almost none of the ships are protected against their peers- so I didn’t think it was necessary to additionally make them weaker. It would be very easy to change it but extremely time intensive to do for every ship What value has to be changed? ArmorMod=# Where # is the tech level of the armor |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 1, 2019 13:35:40 GMT -6
Just got my first look at the saves - excellent work! A few things to note: - Just checked the Soviet start, and the dock size is 1,000. - The Royal Navy is missing the four Iron Duke class battleships, which as far as I can tell served in the active fleet until 1929 and were then scrapped in accordance with the London Treaty; HMS Tiger, which served in and out of the reserve fleet until the London Treaty; and the four King George Vs, which were scrapped upon the completion of the Nelsons to keep within the tonnage allowance. It could be easily argued that since the King George Vs were in and out of the reserves from 1922 - 1926, and since the game cannot accommodate the tonnage limit, they should be denied to the player at the outset. However, I do think that the player ought to be given the choice of whether to scrap Tiger instead of one of the KGVs; so I think it's best that all the ships be included in the start, and the player be left to either set his own 'house rule' to stick to the tonnage limit, or do away with it entirely. And as for the Iron Dukes; I don't think there's any argument for excluding them. - The USA is missing the two Florida Class battleships, which were retained until they were scrapped and demilitarized respectively in accordance with the London Naval Treaty. The soviets had essentially no domestic shipbuilding after the civil war and struggled to build even destroyers, so it will take some time to rebuild their industry I might make another version with the Iron Dukes, KGV, and Florida that would be optional, but as there was no way to represent their increasing de-arming and eventual scrapping I decided to leave them out |
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Aug 2, 2019 8:19:54 GMT -6
Just got my first look at the saves - excellent work! A few things to note: - Just checked the Soviet start, and the dock size is 1,000. - The Royal Navy is missing the four Iron Duke class battleships, which as far as I can tell served in the active fleet until 1929 and were then scrapped in accordance with the London Treaty; HMS Tiger, which served in and out of the reserve fleet until the London Treaty; and the four King George Vs, which were scrapped upon the completion of the Nelsons to keep within the tonnage allowance. It could be easily argued that since the King George Vs were in and out of the reserves from 1922 - 1926, and since the game cannot accommodate the tonnage limit, they should be denied to the player at the outset. However, I do think that the player ought to be given the choice of whether to scrap Tiger instead of one of the KGVs; so I think it's best that all the ships be included in the start, and the player be left to either set his own 'house rule' to stick to the tonnage limit, or do away with it entirely. And as for the Iron Dukes; I don't think there's any argument for excluding them. - The USA is missing the two Florida Class battleships, which were retained until they were scrapped and demilitarized respectively in accordance with the London Naval Treaty. The soviets had essentially no domestic shipbuilding after the civil war and struggled to build even destroyers, so it will take some time to rebuild their industry I might make another version with the Iron Dukes, KGV, and Florida that would be optional, but as there was no way to represent their increasing de-arming and eventual scrapping I decided to leave them out As I understand it, there is nothing particularly unusual about the careers of those ships; they were in and out of the reserves, and eventually disarmed and converted to perform roles like training and depot ship. The game mechanics do not include those roles, but I think that everyone can agree that they do not need to. As far as I can see, if a player started with these ships, switched them from reserve to active and back again at the appropriate times, and then finally scrapped them, that would be a more or less perfect approximation of their historical careers. What is it about the careers of those ships that the game can't represent, which would need to be represented in your eyes, to make them viable? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 2, 2019 16:07:34 GMT -6
The mentioned capital ship classes have been added to their respective starts
|
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Aug 2, 2019 23:46:01 GMT -6
The mentioned capital ship classes have been added to their respective starts I think this is the right way to go, because there is no way to guarantee that there will be a London Naval Treaty in any case, or even that the WNT will last its full ten year span. The problem, I expect, will be that since all these capital ships are '1922' ships, the game will want to scrap all starting capital ships at the same time. Is there a way to change the date of a ship's completion? |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 3, 2019 0:05:42 GMT -6
The mentioned capital ship classes have been added to their respective starts I think this is the right way to go, because there is no way to guarantee that there will be a London Naval Treaty in any case, or even that the WNT will last its full ten year span. The problem, I expect, will be that since all these capital ships are '1922' ships, the game will want to scrap all starting capital ships at the same time. Is there a way to change the date of a ship's completion? Yes I’ll be updating those |
|
|
|
Post by stairmaster on Aug 5, 2019 17:42:33 GMT -6
Thank you. You're doing the lords work.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 5, 2019 22:56:48 GMT -6
How much interest would there be in a 1932 version?
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 6, 2019 15:20:49 GMT -6
Why Not? though personally I would like to see a 1922 sans WNT
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 6, 2019 17:19:21 GMT -6
Why Not? though personally I would like to see a 1922 sans WNT Should be fairly simple to add those classes I'll work on that after we finish the 1900 start |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 7, 2019 21:42:59 GMT -6
Added a start for Germany without the Versailles Treaty (Second Post)
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 8, 2019 7:43:31 GMT -6
A lot of ships are overweight when you open a design file but ok when you "open to rebuild" is that because files are edited outside the game?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Aug 8, 2019 8:05:11 GMT -6
A lot of ships are overweight when you open a design file but ok when you "open to rebuild" is that because files are edited outside the game? Which ones specifically? Some designs will be overweight but the rebuilds being overweight is something I've been fixing. |
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Aug 8, 2019 8:48:48 GMT -6
Checked pretty much all British BBs and found this problem in all. For example: Revenge-class BBs.
First is "open for rebuild" option, second "open". First keeps weights as set in file, second updates them for technology. It seems that you edited in text file, and set weights do not fit current tech. That's why I prefer to create designs in game designer and then slightly tweak in file if needed. Less efficient, but more reliable IMHO.
Besides, Caledon, Ceres and Carliste classes (CLs) have 16TT (8x2) while they had 8TT (4x2). And Centaur class is 500t smaller than other C-class cruisers, and has wing turrets (should have all centreline). Also all UK ships have improved director - I'd give all except newest (like Hood) only baseline director as AFAIK those were only replaced in refits.
Besides, I can make top-down views, if you like to include them:
|
|
