|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Sept 16, 2016 21:36:43 GMT -6
What happens when it comes to a fleet battle? Do you engage or run? No one engages in a fleet battle, because in the AI's eyes, your pathetic fleet is an unstoppable wall of battleships. |
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Sept 16, 2016 22:05:41 GMT -6
Well, monitors could always be included as an actual ship type in RtW2, but I'm not really sure if they'd serve any genuinely useful purpose in the scope of the game. Dedicated shore bombardment is a little too niche for the game. Monitors have armor and usually more than 1 knot of speed. Even Popov's circular ships were faster than that after their redundant engines were removed. But in any case, such heavily armed (NOT armored) dinghies shouldn't count as battleships for blockade purposes. As our furry friend has noticed, counting them as battleships rather breaks the game. Things that break the game are generally taken as the opposite of what the devs intended, even if such things are fun for players. |
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Sept 16, 2016 22:19:14 GMT -6
Oh I know historical Monitors are a bit more capable than these things. And yeah, Battleships (and other classes) should probably have some kind of minimum size and speed restrictions.
I was just using it as an opportunity to muse if more traditional/realistic monitors were something worth considering for the sequel. I don't think they are really.
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 17, 2016 16:40:59 GMT -6
I'd be curious if it changes AI behaviour as well (ie, if the AI responds based on numbers of Bs, BBs, etc;)). As BCoop says, it's not really a worry as it's a SP game, so any exploit is the player choosing how they want to play the game. This is my usual line in the forum for Kerbal Space Program. Space has always been cannonfodder for speculative fiction since at least Mark Twain (plus better-known later folks like Jules Verne and HG Wells). Thus, in the KSP forums, whenever the Space Realism Taliban get on the warpath, I tell them to get a life and quit worrying about whatever other people do in their own private single-player games. If folks want to play in sci-fi, let them. To some extent, this attitude applies to RTW, but RTW is closer to Crusader Kings 2 than KSP. In CK2, the outcome in present times is more dependent on who married whom back when more than anything else. Thus in RTW, even with varied tech, things should not depart too far from what we know. And we know that so-called Bs with no armor and 1 knot of speed do not make anything except sinkable shore batteries. To the extent that such ships count as battleships, so much is the game as a whole broken. I definitely agree it's a bit of a hole in game design, but it's one of those "the AI will never use it, and it should be really obvious to a player that they're exploiting things" holes that I think aren't necessarily a priority for development. I think it'd be nice if it was fixed, and for larks I might put together some pocket battleships myself (not 1 knot glass cannons though, actual warships, but taking a "small as usefully possible" approach to BBs, instead of my usual "bigger is better" angle). |
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Sept 17, 2016 16:47:40 GMT -6
Well, "Coastal Defense Battleships" were certainly a thing, and often surprisingly small in displacement. The sub-10k ton "mini Bs" built by Austria-Hungary, Spain, and other weak/poor nations in RtW could be considered such, though IIRC most coastal battleships were even smaller in displacement. |
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Sept 17, 2016 20:51:27 GMT -6
I definitely agree it's a bit of a hole in game design, but it's one of those "the AI will never use it, and it should be really obvious to a player that they're exploiting things" holes that I think aren't necessarily a priority for development. I think it'd be nice if it was fixed, and for larks I might put together some pocket battleships myself (not 1 knot glass cannons though, actual warships, but taking a "small as usefully possible" approach to BBs, instead of my usual "bigger is better" angle). I tried this myself just now. With 1899 tech, speed up to historical pre-dreadnought norms is quite cheap, relatively speaking, compared to guns and armor. For a B with 4x 12" and 9-10" armor, reducing speed from 18 knots to 6 knots only saves you about 15-25% of the total cost of the ship. The only way to make a cheap starter coast defense ship is to reduce the guns and armor to armored cruiser levels. Which is, basically, what the more long-lived coast defense "battleships" were: very slow armored cruisers, compared to contemporary (not to mention later) bluewater battleships. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Sept 18, 2016 15:41:47 GMT -6
I definitely agree it's a bit of a hole in game design, but it's one of those "the AI will never use it, and it should be really obvious to a player that they're exploiting things" holes that I think aren't necessarily a priority for development. I think it'd be nice if it was fixed, and for larks I might put together some pocket battleships myself (not 1 knot glass cannons though, actual warships, but taking a "small as usefully possible" approach to BBs, instead of my usual "bigger is better" angle). I tried this myself just now. With 1899 tech, speed up to historical pre-dreadnought norms is quite cheap, relatively speaking, compared to guns and armor. For a B with 4x 12" and 9-10" armor, reducing speed from 18 knots to 6 knots only saves you about 15-25% of the total cost of the ship. The only way to make a cheap starter coast defense ship is to reduce the guns and armor to armored cruiser levels. Which is, basically, what the more long-lived coast defense "battleships" were: very slow armored cruisers, compared to contemporary (not to mention later) bluewater battleships. Aye, they definitely were - I'm putting some data together for WW2, and the CBs still about (not counting the more Modern Swedish/Finnish models) tended to go at about 16 knots max speed, have a 6-8 inch belt, four 10-11 inch guns and 8-10 secondaries. Characterising them as very slow ACs is pretty appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Sept 18, 2016 22:03:28 GMT -6
Nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
They fixed the mini-battleship exploit! ;(
|
|
|
|
Post by galagagalaxian on Oct 2, 2016 16:35:21 GMT -6
So.. did anyone else realize you can cross-deck fire Destroyers? I only recently discovered that when I saw this picture:  And thought to try it!  |
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Oct 2, 2016 17:29:58 GMT -6
Oh wow. Cross deck on destroyers never even entered my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 2, 2016 20:43:58 GMT -6
I've tried it for early CLs with good results. Will have to look at that for DDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 5, 2016 7:04:12 GMT -6
So I'm not sure if this is going to prove to be a good design or not, but it is most certainly an interesting design.  I'll probably test it in a war against France later today during a livestream |
|
chz
Junior Member
Posts: 83 
|
Post by chz on Oct 5, 2016 7:55:40 GMT -6
Wow. Though I have seen the AI generate some disgusting 4x4x8" designs in late game.
At least yours is proof to CL fire. In my game, the US built the abovementioned with a 4" belt.
|
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Oct 5, 2016 8:03:29 GMT -6
So I'm not sure if this is going to prove to be a good design or not, but it is most certainly an interesting design. I'll probably test it in a war against France later today during a livestream It should be a strong cruiser/destroyer killer - just don't expect more than that out of it! As soon as it runs into the path of a battlecruiser of about the same speed, it will be knocked out very fast (which is definitely possible at the tech level you seem to be at). |
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Oct 5, 2016 10:48:06 GMT -6
So I'm not sure if this is going to prove to be a good design or not, but it is most certainly an interesting design. I'll probably test it in a war against France later today during a livestream It should be a strong cruiser/destroyer killer - just don't expect more than that out of it! As soon as it runs into the path of a battlecruiser of about the same speed, it will be knocked out very fast (which is definitely possible at the tech level you seem to be at). Pretty much designed it to be able to tackle other armored cruisers along with light cruisers and destroyers. I've thought about having the ships fire at battlecruisers, but only if they themselves are supporting my battlecruisers. And yes, they are designed to keep pace with my current classes of battlecruisers. The two cruisers currently being constructed which are similar to the New Orleans (Nashville and New York) have their armor increased quite a bit, along with forward and aft superfiring turrets. They'll be quite a bit better. Unfortunately the war with France never gave me an opportunity to use the New Orleans or Portland (their predecessor). Maybe the next war will give me a chance to test them, but battlecruisers are catching up to them speed-wise while armored cruisers are going out of style everywhere else. |
|
