|
Post by seawolf on May 7, 2020 13:37:40 GMT -6
Currently Torpedo Tech stops developing in 1942. I'd like to start a discussion of how it might continue.
I did some research on when historical technologies popped up
These techs would be in the current timeline
Electric Torpedoes Historical Start Date-(1936-1943) Possible Implementation: 1. Increased Torpedo hit chance(No wake) 2. Immediate reduction of torpedo range and speed + One of the following 3. Gradually increasing torpedo range and speed(as batteries improve) 4. Additional battery technologies that improve range and speed
Acoustic Homing Torpedoes Historical Start Date-1943(G7e-T4) Possible Implementation: New Type of torpedo(Like oxygen torpedoes) 1. Increased hit chance from surface ship and submarine torpedoes 2. Slightly reduced range, speed, and torpedo damage
Acoustic Homing Mines Historical Start Date-1943(Mark 24) Possible Implementation: Increased effectiveness of flying boats versus submarines
Torpedo Decoy Historical Start Date-1943(Foxer) Possible Implementation: Ships with depth charge racks can will drop noisemakers which distract homing torpedoes
PBX Warheads(Polymer-bonded explosive) Historical Start Date-1952 Possible Implementation: Torpedoes do more damage
These techs would currently be out of the timeline/scope of the game
Wire Guided Torpedoes Historical Start Date- Designed 1946 entered service 1956 (Mark 37) Possible implementation: 1. Allows surface ships and other submarines to engage submerged submarines with torpedoes 2. Increases submarine hit chance versus surface ships
Light ASW Torpedo Tubes Historical Start Date- 1960 Possible Implementation Allows all ships to have specialized wing mounted ASW torpedo tubes (About 1/2 the weight of normal tubes, and up to three per launcher)
Wake Homing Torpedoes Historical Start Date- 1965 (53-65) Possible Implementation: 1. Increased submarine hit chance versus surface ships 2. Prevents use of decoys(if implemented) by surface ships
ASW Missiles Historical Start Date- 1960s Possible Implementation: 1. Allows engagement of submarines with SSMs
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 7, 2020 14:28:22 GMT -6
Wire Guided Torpedoes Historical Start Date- Designed 1946 entered service 1956 (Mark 37) The first wire-guided torpedoes that I'm aware of were actually developed in the late 1860s and the 1870s; two examples are the Lay and the Brennan torpedoes. I believe some developments of the Lay torpedo were actually carried on some ships of the Russian and Peruvian navies and perhaps some others. These also go further back than you might think - there's a number of electric torpedoes dating to the 1870s and 1880s, such as the Sims-Edison and the Nordenfelt torpedoes. Often, the early electric torpedoes were powered by whatever launched them instead of by on-board batteries.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 7, 2020 14:47:34 GMT -6
I was going more for the modern iterations of wire guidance and battery torpedoes The G7e and Mark 37 were huge innovations that changed the nature of warfare, even if they were improvements of existing technology
The links you provided do bring up a very interesting point though- should coastal batteries be able to carry torpedoes?
They were very effective in the 1800s, and as late as WW2 the Norwegians sunk Blücher with shore launched torpedoes
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 28, 2021 3:38:22 GMT -6
Bump because some of the technologies I mentioned could be relevant to the new expansion
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Feb 28, 2021 15:57:32 GMT -6
There is one other thing that I would like to see changed with regards to current torpedo setup: Allow to use or not use oxygen torpedoes on a class-basis. Either: 1. Move the checkbox from doctrine window to ship design window, so a player can choose which ships are supposed to carry them. Or 2. Split the checkbox in doctrine window into separate chekboxes for "DD", "CL", "CA and larger" As it stands now it's "all in" and while I would be fine with DDs getting nuked by their own torpedo detonation, I may not always be with doing that con cruisers. The Japanese, when adopting the oxygen-fueled torpedo also didn't rearm all of their ships and switch all of their torpedoes to oxygen fueled.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Mar 1, 2021 11:18:03 GMT -6
Bump because some of the technologies I mentioned could be relevant to the new expansion Good suggestions, thanks! They will indeed be useful in the expansion!
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Mar 1, 2021 11:18:52 GMT -6
There is one other thing that I would like to see changed with regards to current torpedo setup: Allow to use or not use oxygen torpedoes on a class-basis. Either: 1. Move the checkbox from doctrine window to ship design window, so a player can choose which ships are supposed to carry them. Or 2. Split the checkbox in doctrine window into separate chekboxes for "DD", "CL", "CA and larger" As it stands now it's "all in" and while I would be fine with DDs getting nuked by their own torpedo detonation, I may not always be with doing that con cruisers. The Japanese, when adopting the oxygen-fueled torpedo also didn't rearm all of their ships and switch all of their torpedoes to oxygen fueled. This is an interesting suggestion, that could well be included in the expansion. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by fleet5 on Mar 1, 2021 12:31:40 GMT -6
Beginning with wake homing torpedoes, they should be a massive threat to surface fleets, but how to implement this in the surface focused battles?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 1, 2021 12:57:32 GMT -6
I think resurrecting my post from two years ago on hor to implement torpedo homing and countermeasures is timely here: On fusing it is important to take into account that there are two separate types of "magnetic" proximity fuses. The passive magnetic fuse relied on the disturbance caused by the target ship in the earths's magnetic field and therefore was very unreliable, e.g. the localized magnetic conditions around Norway practically rendered German passive magnetic fuses useless during Weserübung. However, there is also the active magnetic fuse which generates its own magnetic field for detection of the ship's keel above it. This one is far, far more reliable and still in use today. The German Navy introduced it in the later guided G7's like the Zaunkönig II. In guidance the IBIS wake homing torpedo, prototype fired in 1944 at the Torpedoversuchsanstalt (TVA), would have been the most dangerous to surface ships, especially in combination with the active magnetic fuse. Then there was passive and active/passive acoustic homing, also combined with wire guidance and/or swiveling "searchlight" sonar. All in trials in 1942-44 and some of it in early frontline use in WWII. Earliest electric wire guidance was in WWI coastal defence torpedoes, but that was with optical guidance where a flare was put on the torpedo. That concept was pursued a bit in the TVA ("Spinne") in the late 1920's to early 1930's. True wire guidance of homing torpedoes, i.e. two-way communication between torpedo and firing unit with at least a "lock on" signal from the torpedo and the command guidance option from the unit to the torpedo was trialled by the TVS in 1944 as well. I would need to look at some documentation to quote the project name though. Electric propulsion has only recently become fully superior to thermodynamic propulsion with the power/energy density jump on the 1990's. Within the RTW timeframe electric propulsion is markedly inferior to thermodynamic (within this timeframe wet heater/air, perhaps oxygenized, with piston or turbine engine) in regards to speed and tactical range, albeit with the advantages of "optic stealth" and cheap construction as well as suitability for homing torpedoes. The electric WWII torpedo had lead-acid batteries which were a hassle for the crew due to the need for on-board maintenance and charging but were far, far quicker and cheaper to produce than thermodynamic propulsion units, especially by "non-arsenal" wartime contractors. Wit electric propulsion it is also easier to operate homing torpedoes due to lower self-noise. And there is one exception to the range, the longest ranged torpedo used in WWII, the "Dackel", was electrically propelled, fired over-the-horizon by E-Boats at the Normandy invasion. But even with the pattern runnning mechanism it was a relatively ineffective weapon. In regards to the above, I would point out that countermeasures to homing torpedoes were also developed in response. So those perhaps ought to be included as well.
And we even had the first two rounds of the countermeasure-countercountermeasure evolution cycle there during WWII as reflected by the steps from Falke (first passive homing torpedo that was susceptible to evasive throttling as it could home only on escorts when they were within a certian speed segment) to Zaunkönig I (which led to the Foxer decoy) and Zaunkönig II. Arguably, Ibis (wake homer), Geier (active-passive homer) and the wire guided Lerche also were part of this cycle, as even if they did not enter frontline use due to the 1944 war emergency program cut-off at the TVA their technology was used and implemented in the Cold War.
In RTW2 terms it will be very difficult to implement the different homing torpedo mechanisms while respecting the countermeasure-countercountermeasure cycle. Kinematic and sensor simulation of torpedo performance is difficult, extensive and mostly done only in the classified realm. Nothing I have seen in games, that includes Dangerous Waters and Cold Waters, truly does it "right".
Perhaps it will be easiest if homing and countermeasure effectiveness get abstracted a bit. Early homing mechanisms and proximity fuses were unreliable even when not faced with countermeasures. Just have a tech step in torpedo homing provide two different values, one is initiation distance (in yards), i.e. the distance at which the torpedo detects and begins homing on a target. The second value would be initiation probability, i.e. the probability that a given torpedo's homing mechanism will work until hit. "Work" in this case, to simplify implementation, would therefore mean a hit against the closest surface ship (so that no complex kinematics need to be simulated, let alone target-loss and reattack maneouvres, interference, self-noise vs. speed etc.). If the homing mechanism and proximity fuse does not "work" due to a failed probability roll (easiest to do this roll in the launch turn) the torpedo would act as a straight runner with an impact fuse. So an early homing mechanism could have a 250yds 30% capability, i.e. the torpedo would home (and hit) in 30% of the cases it enters within 250yds of a ship. Countermeasures would impose negatives on these stats, e.g. -50 and -20% with the first generation Foxer. At the beginning of the scenario the respective techs would be compared and the values for the scenario assigned, e.g. if both sides have 1st gen homing and countermeasures homing torpedoes would only home in 10% of the cases when they enter 200yds of a surface target. If one side does not have the countermeasure tech its enemy's torps would home at 250yds in 30% of cases. Oh, and do not forget a 1 or 2 minute/turn safety distance before turning "homing" live to avoid sui- or fratricide.
Another advantage of this approach is that the AI would not need to "learn" using homing torpedoes since it would continue to use them the same as straight runners. This also would mean that the final "home run" distance would in most cases be covered by the torpedo within two "minute turns" anyways, so there is really no huge point not to abstract this stretch as simulated torpedo himong behaviour would not cover more than those two tunrs anyways (the rare exception of the approach directly from aft at a high speed target should be ignored here as the AI will not willingly shoot for it anyways). Further generations in torpedo homing and torpedo couintermeasures, in their abstraction, would incorporate general homing mechanism improvement, countermeasure and countercountermeasure development by raising both stat types (positive tor homing tech, negative for countermeasure tech). To avoid "gamey" effectiveness of homing torpedoes implelent a "hard" ceiling on initiation range and initiation probability (e.g. 750yds and 60%), even if the "consolidated tech level" of a scenario is higher due to one side having late gen homing and the other no countermeasure tech.
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on Mar 1, 2021 18:39:11 GMT -6
TBR raises very important points regarding torpedoes, which, if the game is to extend into the 1940s and beyond, would have to be addressed somehow. Torpedo advancement during and after WWII is no less important than calibre and shell types of WWI, and (for example) Pattern Running "increasing hit chance" just wouldn't do the new period justice.
Giving new tactics and doctrine to the attacker would be tricky but would give exponential returns to immersion and realism, feeling the actual advance of torpedo technology and the options and flexibility afforded to the attacker. Additionally, I'd go a step to the side, in the form of giving countermeasure use options to the defender. The defender would spot a torpedo and would have to have the right countermeasure, giving them more control over their defence than just a flat percent modifier. The CM's deployment and effectiveness would depend on the threat and proximity to the launching ship, as well as the CM tech.
This is all a lot but its essential if we're going to also go to the Cold War in any respectable form. We can't do WWII and the Cold War operating with submarines and torpedo doctrine from WWI.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 2, 2021 20:34:03 GMT -6
While I don't expect such a significant and history-changing tech to be included, I'd like to bring up the wire-guided torpedo gliders that Germany experimented with in World War 1:
|
|
|
Post by eaterofsuns on Mar 3, 2021 14:01:54 GMT -6
Although it has been said before, it feels worth repeating in this discussion that torpedo tech would benefit enormously in realism from the same type of procurement system that aircraft in game enjoy. Initially very few options would be available, but even with early primitive torpedoes being able to choose one or two aspects to prioritize would make for a more immersive experience. Eventually one might be able to choose from a number of types as we do with planes, with some like oxygen torpedoes being selectively available in the same way that dive bombers are. In addition, this might allow the expansion to feature cutting edge tech (for the 1960-70s) like supercavitating torpedoes that were being experimented with during that time-frame.
Being able to customize torpedoes would also help nations feel less samey, as Italy or AH might prioritize faster torpedoes for the night engagements that the med generates frequently, while nations like the US or GB might prioritize more jack of all trades models, and a nation like Japan might try to emulate the long lance tactics they developed in our timeline.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Mar 3, 2021 15:05:55 GMT -6
Although it has been said before, it feels worth repeating in this discussion that torpedo tech would benefit enormously in realism from the same type of procurement system that aircraft in game enjoy. Initially very few options would be available, but even with early primitive torpedoes being able to choose one or two aspects to prioritize would make for a more immersive experience. Eventually one might be able to choose from a number of types as we do with planes, with some like oxygen torpedoes being selectively available in the same way that dive bombers are. In addition, this might allow the expansion to feature cutting edge tech (for the 1960-70s) like supercavitating torpedoes that were being experimented with during that time-frame. Being able to customize torpedoes would also help nations feel less samey, as Italy or AH might prioritize faster torpedoes for the night engagements that the med generates frequently, while nations like the US or GB might prioritize more jack of all trades models, and a nation like Japan might try to emulate the long lance tactics they developed in our timeline. +1
I really like the idea of having random torpedo specs as found in AC development.
Going a little bit of a different direction. Being able to specify a few torp diameters with different base weights / damage / range / speeds during construction and refit would hugely increase my immersion (and might be easier to implement and tie into the torpedo protection / bulge mechanic). My light (500-700 ton) DDs might carry very light and low range and damage 13/14" torps while my heavier DDs I might want to specify a heavier long range, low warhead weight 17.7/18" torps while the CLs and CAs might carry heavier / harder hitting 21" torps for anti-capital use. I would probably do a few CLs classes with a lot of light weight torpedo's for anti-DD or raiding purposes (especially as Japan / sneak attack ability).
Honestly, just having three or four diameters (13/14", 17.7/18", 21" maybe super heavy 24" / oxygen that I could specify on different classes) with different starting base specs would be huge for me. The random development / specs and ability to choose what to use on a ship would be about perfect
To give a real world example of EaterofSuns suggestions. Looking at the USA; they maintained the Mark 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in inventory through 1945 and all were 21" diameter. They weighed from a low of 2015 lbs to 3411lbs. Lengths varied from 195" to 271" and ranges at different speeds varied from 3500 yards to about 16000 yards.
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on Mar 5, 2021 6:52:19 GMT -6
Although it has been said before, it feels worth repeating in this discussion that torpedo tech would benefit enormously in realism from the same type of procurement system that aircraft in game enjoy. Initially very few options would be available, but even with early primitive torpedoes being able to choose one or two aspects to prioritize would make for a more immersive experience. Eventually one might be able to choose from a number of types as we do with planes, with some like oxygen torpedoes being selectively available in the same way that dive bombers are. In addition, this might allow the expansion to feature cutting edge tech (for the 1960-70s) like supercavitating torpedoes that were being experimented with during that time-frame. Being able to customize torpedoes would also help nations feel less samey, as Italy or AH might prioritize faster torpedoes for the night engagements that the med generates frequently, while nations like the US or GB might prioritize more jack of all trades models, and a nation like Japan might try to emulate the long lance tactics they developed in our timeline. +1
I really like the idea of having random torpedo specs as found in AC development.
Going a little bit of a different direction. Being able to specify a few torp diameters with different base weights / damage / range / speeds during construction and refit would hugely increase my immersion (and might be easier to implement and tie into the torpedo protection / bulge mechanic). My light (500-700 ton) DDs might carry very light and low range and damage 13/14" torps while my heavier DDs I might want to specify a heavier long range, low warhead weight 17.7/18" torps while the CLs and CAs might carry heavier / harder hitting 21" torps for anti-capital use. I would probably do a few CLs classes with a lot of light weight torpedo's for anti-DD or raiding purposes (especially as Japan / sneak attack ability).
Honestly, just having three or four diameters (13/14", 17.7/18", 21" maybe super heavy 24" / oxygen that I could specify on different classes) with different starting base specs would be huge for me. The random development / specs and ability to choose what to use on a ship would be about perfect
To give a real world example of EaterofSuns suggestions. Looking at the USA; they maintained the Mark 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in inventory through 1945 and all were 21" diameter. They weighed from a low of 2015 lbs to 3411lbs. Lengths varied from 195" to 271" and ranges at different speeds varied from 3500 yards to about 16000 yards.
That sounds interesting. I think the idea should be extended to missiles as well. Though torpedowise I am worried how damaging they can be. I mean, torpedo defenses are useless for modern designs, and I assume formation sailing should limit the damage to a CVBG (by having escorts as an additional defense against torpedoes both between active, passive and, worse come worse, to serve as ablative armor for the capital ships Regarding Oxi Torp and class restriction, that should also add some logistical issues, chance of logistical misshaps, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Mar 5, 2021 12:56:41 GMT -6
Chaosblade,
If logistics came into being, than I would sure think that the more types of what ever which are in service your maintenance costs should go up with decreasing "efficiency" (what ever that looks like in game) due to logistical mishaps.
Depends on the ship and the torps - last ship sunk in combat by a torpedo that I know of was the Argentinian General Belgrano. The British sub used 1920's style torps with heavier warheads as they didn't think the modern Tigerfish torps packed enough punch or were reliable enough for use.
Guns have two sets of randomization applied to their base values - armor type and ammo. Ammo has two technology branches (AP and HE) and the ability to select which to use in the doctrine page. I think this sort of tech / load-out layout (a couple of branches in tech and customization in the doctrine page) would work for torps / missiles / airships / etc. However the customization and randomization found with guided AC development allows for a much greater replay value and country customization in my opinion. I would love to see guided gun development as well; allow me to focus on range, shell weight / penetration and HE effect, gun weight, reliability, reload rate, traverse / gun laying speed, etc. I don't see the programmers changing the guns from a functioning system - lot of calculations in the programing that would need to take care of a much larger number of variables. Missiles, torps and airships are pretty un-developed though; and any fleshing out might be done on a relatively empty plate... Who knows they might have already fleshed them out in manner that guns are; and I would be happy with that!
|
|