|
Post by legion0047 on Aug 8, 2021 5:26:34 GMT -6
So, someone has mentioned adding gun stockpiles to the game - i.e that you only produce so many 12 in guns per month and scrapping a ship will allow you to retain the guns unless they are of worse quality - and if that gets implemented, you should also be able to use the stockpile for costal defenses. This would make anything larger than 6 in much more worthwhile as they would hopefully cost less by a nice margin and this is after all what a lot of 12 in guns were used after the world moved on to 14 and 16 in.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 8, 2021 11:05:25 GMT -6
Yeah, before CLs were closer defined, the US built at least one class of heavy cruiser with a 4 inch belt that would get reclassified as a light cruiser once that treaty passed as well. Other way around, the US Light Cruisers of the 1920s, with their 4" or thinner belts would become Heavy cruisers in 1930 when London Naval Treaty defined Heavy cruisers as being 10,000 ton ships with 8" guns, Washington Naval Treaty only defined cruisers as 10,000 tons with 8" guns tops, LNT introduced the idea of 6" gun light cruisers, also 10,000 tons.
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Aug 9, 2021 15:02:07 GMT -6
So, two things that could be added to using foreign shipyards:
A: When you seize a ship, you should be able to offer compensation to lessen the blow. B: Minor, off-screen nations should occasionally build ships in your yards.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Aug 10, 2021 3:47:09 GMT -6
So, two things that could be added to using foreign shipyards: A: When you seize a ship, you should be able to offer compensation to lessen the blow. B: Minor, off-screen nations should occasionally build ships in your yards.
Probably as well: C: Player gets some influence in whether a ship is seized D: Player gets some influence in whether a ship can be built in the first place
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Aug 10, 2021 9:33:19 GMT -6
The thing with the minor nations building ships is because I only ever see it pop up once as GB when Japan is building its pre-dreads/early dreads in your shipyard - if at all. This way this mechanic is more than just a useless outgrowth that is never relevant is 99% of games.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 10, 2021 10:52:45 GMT -6
So, two things that could be added to using foreign shipyards: A: When you seize a ship, you should be able to offer compensation to lessen the blow. B: Minor, off-screen nations should occasionally build ships in your yards.
Probably as well: C: Player gets some influence in whether a ship is seized D: Player gets some influence in whether a ship can be built in the first place
Would second as GB would often build ships for export that were weaker / less advanced than their current designs... They built for and sold ships to the countries in the commonwealth - Australia, Canada, etc...
I've never had a foreign ship built in my dockyard, so this could already be implemented... I would like to see a small % of the monthly construction cost of a foreign order end up in my coffers or gain prestige from the contract signing or at order completion (hey your nation / naval shipyards won a high level contract and or completed it.) You get prestige and a budget increase when contracting out your leaders build demands so why not for a foreign powers order?
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Aug 10, 2021 11:28:36 GMT -6
The thing is that they generally would order in civilian yards and not the royal yards, so you wouldn't actually get any of the money, but it's something that happened multiple times in the real world, but is literally impossible to happen in the game because if at all, it's only Japan ordering its first slew of Battleships from GB and that's it. Never again.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Aug 10, 2021 12:04:23 GMT -6
The thing is that they generally would order in civilian yards and not the royal yards, so you wouldn't actually get any of the money, but it's something that happened multiple times in the real world, but is literally impossible to happen in the game because if at all, it's only Japan ordering its first slew of Battleships from GB and that's it. Never again. Good points and understood. That's why I also wrote "or prestige". I also highly support your suggestion of minor countries periodically contracting ships in foreign yards; your suggestion: "B: Minor, off-screen nations should occasionally build ships in your yards."
When a nation builds a foreign warship, the government of the building nation gets a cut / benefit. The cut might not be a direct financial contribution but it can happen that way... Let me put it this way, just about all countries have various laws that prohibit or impede armed civilian ships and the construction and sale there-of. So governments have to license or allow a contract to go through, be it a civilian yard or government yard, you can be assured that the licensing government get a notable benefit from it.
It can come indirectly through increased GDP (profits of the civilian companies that then pay taxes and or export taxes), reduced costs to build at those shipyards by keeping the equipment up-to-date and the workers employed / experienced / or experimenting on foreign ships and those technologies and techniques can then be seamlessly implemented (no hidden flaws) at the yard for your own ships. Additionally, it can be a prestige / political benefit like supporting an ally or supporting the enemy of your enemy. If the ships are built at a nationalized yard than the government does get direct control of the cash, with the DLC this could be readily seen with the Communist Russian ship yards supplying the Warsaw countries and Cuba, Iran, etc. with KEs, DDs, CLs and SSs.
|
|
|
Post by lordwells on Aug 11, 2021 3:15:40 GMT -6
Just seen in the most recent development update that they've "Introduced a type of 'autoresolve' for battles". This is probably the feature that I'll look forward too the most
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Aug 11, 2021 7:27:41 GMT -6
No Destroyers in 1890 (the same way that no BBs are available in 1900) The Royal Navy didn't get their first destroyer until 1893 and the US Navy fought the 1898 war without any destroyer at all. As per Wikipedia the French -usually at the forefront of technology- didn't get their first DD until 1899 and the USA until 1902 (by 1906 the US Navy only had 16 destroyers in total!)
AI has a tendency in RTW2 -and I guess everybody else too- to start building huge fleets of destroyers ASAP. But doing that in 1890 is like building BBs in 1900.
I guess that 400tm DDs could be available in the late 1890s. Before that, battleships and cruisers weren't unescorted. The very few numbers of not-that-succesful TGB didn't make any difference.
As an afterthought, I wonder if there's any way our friends at NWS can make TB attacks more deadly at this time, particularly when bombarding enemy shores. I mean, without DDs to protect the ships, and so close to the enemy coast I imagine that TBs had a chance. Although it is true that the growing use of QF guns and th eintroduction of DDs during the 90s would put an end to the TB as a danger to the fleet.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Aug 11, 2021 11:09:00 GMT -6
No Destroyers in 1890 (the same way that no BBs are available in 1900) The Royal Navy didn't get their first destroyer until 1893 and the US Navy fought the 1898 war without any destroyer at all. As per Wikipedia the French -usually at the forefront of technology- didn't get their first DD until 1899 and the USA until 1902 (by 1906 the US Navy only had 16 destroyers in total!) AI has a tendency in RTW2 -and I guess everybody else too- to start building huge fleets of destroyers ASAP. But doing that in 1890 is like building BBs in 1900. I guess that 400tm DDs could be available in the late 1890s. Before that, battleships and cruisers weren't unescorted. The very few numbers of not-that-succesful TGB didn't make any difference. As an afterthought, I wonder if there's any way our friends at NWS can make TB attacks more deadly at this time, particularly when bombarding enemy shores. I mean, without DDs to protect the ships, and so close to the enemy coast I imagine that TBs had a chance. Although it is true that the growing use of QF guns and th eintroduction of DDs during the 90s would put an end to the TB as a danger to the fleet. By the in-game definition, several IRL ~1890 torpedo boats would be considered "destroyers". The RN's Sharpshooter class is notable in that 1) at ~750 tons, it's larger than the "largest" destroyers the game thinks exist two decades later and 2) it's armed with both 5 torpedoes and a gun armament of 2 4.7" guns and intended for fleet actions, so it's very definitely what would be considered a destroyer for game purposes. The MN did trend more towards specialist torpedo boats, but they did also have a fair number of torpedo gunboats and torpedo cruisers in the range that the game would consider destroyers. The US was fairly behind at the naval game, so it's not surprising if they had less. While, yes, torpedo gunboats weren't yet specifically called "destroyers", they did exist, and the game currently doesn't support changing names, so either there should be a separate class of torpedo gunboats that are essentially destroyers, or the player should be allowed to build DDs from the start. That said, it's somewhat ironic that a lot of ships that the game would classify as dreadnought battleships were planned in the 1890s. They just weren't optimal compared to the standard predreadnought battleship because of the limitations of period technology IRL, and the game limits designs a lot in order to force players into a """realistic""" tech progression.
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Aug 11, 2021 12:21:13 GMT -6
Torpedo Gunboats were a thing at that point in time as well. Also, Torpedo boat tenders could allow torpedo boats to move along fleet actions.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Aug 11, 2021 13:03:50 GMT -6
No Destroyers in 1890 (the same way that no BBs are available in 1900) The Royal Navy didn't get their first destroyer until 1893 and the US Navy fought the 1898 war without any destroyer at all. As per Wikipedia the French -usually at the forefront of technology- didn't get their first DD until 1899 and the USA until 1902 (by 1906 the US Navy only had 16 destroyers in total!) AI has a tendency in RTW2 -and I guess everybody else too- to start building huge fleets of destroyers ASAP. But doing that in 1890 is like building BBs in 1900. I guess that 400tm DDs could be available in the late 1890s. Before that, battleships and cruisers weren't unescorted. The very few numbers of not-that-succesful TGB didn't make any difference. As an afterthought, I wonder if there's any way our friends at NWS can make TB attacks more deadly at this time, particularly when bombarding enemy shores. I mean, without DDs to protect the ships, and so close to the enemy coast I imagine that TBs had a chance. Although it is true that the growing use of QF guns and th eintroduction of DDs during the 90s would put an end to the TB as a danger to the fleet. By the in-game definition, several IRL ~1890 torpedo boats would be considered "destroyers". The RN's Sharpshooter class is notable in that 1) at ~750 tons, it's larger than the "largest" destroyers the game thinks exist two decades later and 2) it's armed with both 5 torpedoes and a gun armament of 2 4.7" guns and intended for fleet actions, so it's very definitely what would be considered a destroyer for game purposes. The MN did trend more towards specialist torpedo boats, but they did also have a fair number of torpedo gunboats and torpedo cruisers in the range that the game would consider destroyers. The US was fairly behind at the naval game, so it's not surprising if they had less. While, yes, torpedo gunboats weren't yet specifically called "destroyers", they did exist, and the game currently doesn't support changing names, so either there should be a separate class of torpedo gunboats that are essentially destroyers, or the player should be allowed to build DDs from the start. That said, it's somewhat ironic that a lot of ships that the game would classify as dreadnought battleships were planned in the 1890s. They just weren't optimal compared to the standard predreadnought battleship because of the limitations of period technology IRL, and the game limits designs a lot in order to force players into a """realistic""" tech progression. I guess torpedo gunboats would be something like 700-1100 ton DD:s but with a speed limit. You would have to research destroyers under 700t, and then go up again?
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Aug 11, 2021 13:12:05 GMT -6
By the in-game definition, several IRL ~1890 torpedo boats would be considered "destroyers". The RN's Sharpshooterclass is notable in that 1) at ~750 tons, it's larger than the "largest" destroyers the game thinks exist two decades later and 2) it's armed with both 5 torpedoes and a gun armament of 2 4.7" guns and intended for fleet actions, so it's very definitely what would be considered a destroyer for game purposes. The MN did trend more towards specialist torpedo boats, but they did also have a fair number of torpedo gunboats and torpedo cruisers in the range that the game would consider destroyers. The US was fairly behind at the naval game, so it's not surprising if they had less. While, yes, torpedo gunboats weren't yet specifically called "destroyers", they did exist, and the game currently doesn't support changing names, so either there should be a separate class of torpedo gunboats that are essentially destroyers, or the player should be allowed to build DDs from the start. That said, it's somewhat ironic that a lot of ships that the game would classify as dreadnought battleships were planned in the 1890s. They just weren't optimal compared to the standard predreadnought battleship because of the limitations of period technology IRL, and the game limits designs a lot in order to force players into a """realistic""" tech progression. At 19 knots, Torpedo Gunboats are better represented by CLs than DDs which are supposed to be much faster. Heck, the Dryad-class article over at wiki calls out the incredibly slow speed of the Torpedo Gunboats and their replacement by Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Aug 11, 2021 13:19:16 GMT -6
At 19 knots, Torpedo Gunboats are better represented by CLs than DDs which are supposed to be much faster. Heck, the Dryad-class article over at wiki calls out the incredibly slow speed of the Torpedo Gunboats and their replacement by Torpedo Boat Destroyers. They are not well represented by a minimum of 2100 tons displacement and required armor. (So far as we know, there are no unprotected cruisers in RTW.)
|
|