|
Post by akosjaccik on Sept 11, 2020 1:01:15 GMT -6
(...) For Italy - why the triple turret bonus tech? The others are well known, but I don't know of any Italian ship which introduced these early. (...) I presume it's because Dante Alighieri was laid down earlier, although completed later than the Viribus Unitis. Still, the same ballpark, it's fair enough I think.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Sept 11, 2020 3:21:23 GMT -6
So we're agreed on triples for both Italy and AH?
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Sept 11, 2020 3:24:12 GMT -6
Shall we give oil firing as a free tech to Britain and the USA, as they're the nations with both the technical advancement and the access to consistently be expected to introduce it first?
Another thought on USA - is there any reason for it to have large carrier conversions as a bonus tech? I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Sept 11, 2020 5:36:19 GMT -6
I wish there was not a cap for bonus techs. For my modifications I gave: Germany - German fire control has stood out to me as being at least slightly better than other nations from reading various accounts of battles. Germans also used better bursting charges in shells when compared to british. + Fire Control + Submarines + Explosive shells + Bonus techs for diesel engines, cross deck fire, bombentorpedo Austria - Austria apparently had the best krupp type armor in the world circa ww1. I'm sure they would have continued this had it continued to exist. + Armor + Bonus tech for triple turrets UK - Not much to say here, UK led the world in a variety of techs. Since they already have massive research advantage I kept them few here. + ASW + Electronics + Bonus techs for above water tubes on other ships, all forward guns, SAP shells France - French invested in designing quad turrets from ww1 period on, and I recall finding that they also tested shell diving performance as well. + Fleet Tactics + Bonus techs for quad turrets, diving shells Italy - Italians had the best capital ship armor in the world during ww2. There are huge variables in armor performance in real life that we don't see in game so I felt this was the best option. + Armor + Bonus techs for triple turrets, MTB's, and motobomba fff Russia - I debated giving russia a AP projectile advantage, but in my modifications I did not. + Bonus techs for active mine warfare, early coastal subs Japan - Might be considered railroading, but I wanted to give the japanese faster, torpedo equipped ships as they did in history. + Machinery + Torpedoes + Fleet Tactics + Amphibious Ops + Bonus techs for diving shells, oxygen torps, double torp mounts, above water tubes on other ships US - Giving US ship design advantage results in a large number of capital ships with wing turrets, which the US never had, so I chose to just give bonus techs in that area. + AP Projectiles + AA Artillery + Electronics + Bonus techs for superimposed x, superimposed b, 4 centerline turrets It's interesting what you say about German fire control - I thought I had read that it was significantly inferior to the British at Jutland, and by the time of World War II, the Americans and British, as far as I understand it, had the superior fire control radar, and I also thought that the Americans were noted for having particularly advanced analogue computers. I'm also puzzled as to why they got a bonus for cross deck firing in vanilla, as Invincible introduced that system two years earlier. For France - you didn't say why you gave them fleet tactics, did you have a reason for that? For Italy - why the triple turret bonus tech? The others are well known, but I don't know of any Italian ship which introduced these early. For Japan - As far as I know their speed was the result of design choices rather than superior technology at any point; since we're looking at implementing these changes from the perspective of a historical design mod, this shouldn't be an issue. For the US - Same as above; the USA will only have its historical designs, (real and paper) to work with, so lots of wing turrets shouldn't be an issue. I hadn't read that their AP projectiles were particularly good - when was this the case?
German ladder shoting at Jutland had the overhand, without any question. And the German hit percentage, although shoting at bad visable targets, was about 3,x%, while the British had about 2,x%- something about 50% better in total (to be fair- Admiral Beatty made it very difficult for his squad to land the initial hits and his ships lowered the count). So I would suggest "Ladder Shoting" should be a German bonus tech.
And than we have 2 well documented WW2 encounters pro and con German fire controls- Battle of River Plate and Battle of Denmark Strait- Admiral Graf Spee´s performance was really bad during that encounter (if I am correct, her hit percentage was about less than 3%). But Bismarck´s 2nd salvo straddled HMS Hood! In general German optical fire controls were superior of foreign ones, but stopping the German radar development somewhere near the end 30s doomed their progress in that area.
In general I would say, from this point of view, Germany should have some optical based fire controls als bonus tech, but this would be a major balancing issue ingame! So my suggestion is, as mentioned before, just give them "ladder shoting" as bonus tech. That´s enough to overwhelm other nations ingame for a few years.
In addition I would suggest "damage controls and subdivision" in general- there are enough examples how well designed German capital ships were. Than, of course, submarines, diesel engines and maybe, to take the formidable 30,5cm L/50 SK (12"/50 BL gun) into count, maybe some kind of bonus tech like 12" Quality 0 or maybe 1 (if that´s possible, idk).
Regarding "Exlosive shells" I would rather suggest to give them "AP shells" as bonus tech, because the German bursting mechinsm with AP were better than the British. And boosting "HE" in the early stages of the game, could kill the balance.
About German radars, maybe many of you do not know, that the "Telemobiloskop" (patent of some kind of radar device, with accoustic signal) was developed long before WW1 in Germany, as warning device in bad weather! I would not give Germany the bonus tech "electronics" but maybe nobody should get this bonus tech?
About AH:
I would suggest to give them "guns" and "turret mountings" as bonus tech, because Skoda had some leadership in that area back in that days, although their triple turrets on the Tegetthoffs were a nightmare to operate. I don´t get the joice why they had triple turrets and AB/XY in RTW1. If you know the AH navy and their preliminary designs for the Radetzky-Class and the Tegetthoff-Class, you see that this is too much.
What could be a better historical way- give them "light forces" as bonus tech. Although they had only few destroyers and light torpedo boats, they were one of the first navies to develop large destroyers armed with up to 6" guns, but WW1 came to early for that. And, beside the RN Hawkins-Class, they designed an armoured cruiser with 3x2 19cm guns- maybe we should give them some "ship design" bonus tech- maybe 3 centerline turrets?
About France:
They should get some additional later "high pressure, high temperature" propulsion powerplants like in reality. Without them, they could not develop the Richelieu-Class within treaty limitations. And compared with the German version, they were in relative good practical running conditions, without requiring too much specialized personal.
And than there is a question- is it possible to temporarily deny techs ingame? That could be better for some things like "underwater protection", "fuzes", "capped projectiles" and so on.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Sept 11, 2020 7:25:24 GMT -6
We don't want to go too far overboard with the research advantages and bonus techs. There's a fine line to be straddled between flavour and railroading here. As a general rule, I think it's sensible to consider two main criteria.
Firstly, did the nation's lead in a given area arise from intrinsic factors, or from emphasis? To put it another way, might the innovation have been lost if a different admiral happened to be in charge of naval construction at the time, or were deeper factors at play? For example, advanced metallurgy may have given Germany the advantage in AP or armour tech; the advanced German optical industry may have played a role in advanced fire control. Conversely, there was probably nothing intrinsic which led to the invention of the early proto - radar you mentioned, other than the very general fact that Germany was a relatively technologically advanced country. Perhaps there was something intrinsic to the Royal Navy which made it especially good at anti - submarine warfare; but I think it is more likely that they led in this field because they emphasised it out of necessity. The advantage may have less to do with technology than with tradition and culture; Britain's advantage in ship design may be a good example here, as Britain had a long established history of experimentation and innovation, owing to the well-established state of its shipbuilding, and a consistently large enough budget to gamble on some innovations.
Secondly - on a related note - was the lead consistent, or fleeting, in the period in question? If it was fleeting, then only a bonus tech is justified, at most; but those should be used sparingly and for flavour, and should not dictate the pace of development. If it was consistent, then a research advantage may be justified. The USA in ship design is one place where I think a research advantage might reasonably be substituted for bonus techs, as most of the USA's bonus techs are in that area. However, the period in which these innovations took place (4 centerline turrets, superimposed B and X, and AoN) was very brief, so perhaps the bonus techs are the best way to go about it after all.
I think the strongest case can be made for a research advantage if a new field of technology which arose during the time period of the game was immediately dominated by one or two nations. For example, from the early days of radar and electronic warfare, Britain and the USA led the field; and they maintained this advantage - which later spread to the rest of the Western Alliance - throughout the entire Cold War.
A third consideration which I will add to these two main ones is the easiest to state, but the hardest to define: flavour! Regardless of the reasons why it came about, did a particular innovation become strongly associated with one navy, so as to become iconic? In this category we might place German Zeppelins, the Japanese long lance, Italian MTBs, and so on. This consideration should not be ignored, but nor must it be allowed to smother the main considerations - it should be used sparingly, or we will greatly diminish the variability which makes the game fun and replayable.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Sept 11, 2020 10:36:55 GMT -6
I think the strongest case can be made for a research advantage if a new field of technology which arose during the time period of the game was immediately dominated by one or two nations. For example, from the early days of radar and electronic warfare, Britain and the USA led the field; and they maintained this advantage - which later spread to the rest of the Western Alliance - throughout the entire Cold War.
And this is quiet wrong. Great Britain and Germany were on par during the early stages of radar development- lets say to the mid 30s. And than the British saw the potential of radar guided gun fire, where the Germans tried to improve their devices but went into a few dead ends, especially for naval use. As air detection radars or fire support radars for AA batteries, the Germans had formidable devices- search for "Würzburg" and "Freya". And than they had the smaller devices for the night fighting interceptors. And than we can say, the Germans had very good passive radar sets, like the FuMB "Timor", "Bali", "Sumatra" and "Palau".
The major problem was the lack of a German built magnetron. They didn´t know anything about that, untill they captured a few British radars during the war. And even with that problem, they built something like the FuMO 26, with 20-25Km range, 70m bearing, 0,25° accuracy. For practicable gun ranges, this device was "good enough" in the war.
Another major issue was the German tendency not to use their helping devices called "DeTe" or "FuMO", because commanders didn´t trust these new things- like Lütjens for example.
|
|