|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Oct 1, 2021 2:49:51 GMT -6
Suez and Panama canals
The British historian DK Brown gives the following as maximum permitted draught for ships crossing the Suez canal
1890: 7.72m (25ft 4in) 1902: 8.03m (26ft 4in) 1906: 8.23m (27ft)
Centurion and Renown had a normal draught of 7.72 and 7.77m and Canopus 7.98m To give them a bit of safe margin, all of them had to be lightened before entering the canal: reducing coal, food and other stores and putting them back into the ship at the other side. I think it would enhance our game experience if we limit the maximum tonnage to cross the Suez canal during the first 10 or 15 years of the game. We could, for example, limit the crossing of the Suez canal to ships under 12000 or 13000tm up to 1902, and 14000 or 15000 up to 1906. After that we could assume that further deepening of the canal has increased enough to make ships displacement not a problem anymore. So no more tonnage limits after 1906
I think displacement limits to transit the Suez canal would enrich our game experience because it would make more interesting for us to build 2nd class battleships and long range CAs as they would be the only ones able to transit the Suez canal and would arrive much faster to face an enemy invasion or fleet in a far away territory. Even more if we make extreme range ships capable to move 2 areas per turn. We could design them under the ton limits so they can transit through Suez.
About Panama, the Iowa class are at the limit of what can transit through the Panama canal. In fact, their design was made as narrow as possible to fit in the canal. And they remain the biggest ships ever to cross it. So I would suggest an upper tonnage limit to ships able to cross the canal of 50,000tm. That limit should remain until the end.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Oct 1, 2021 10:19:22 GMT -6
Suez and Panama canals The British historian DK Brown gives the following as maximum permitted draught for ships crossing the Suez canal 1890: 7.72m (25ft 4in) 1902: 8.03m (26ft 4in) 1906: 8.23m (27ft) Centurion and Renown had a normal draught of 7.72 and 7.77m and Canopus 7.98m To give them a bit of safe margin, all of them had to be lightened before entering the canal: reducing coal, food and other stores and putting them back into the ship at the other side. I think it would enhance our game experience if we limit the maximum tonnage to cross the Suez canal during the first 10 or 15 years of the game. We could, for example, limit the crossing of the Suez canal to ships under 12000 or 13000tm up to 1902, and 14000 or 15000 up to 1906. After that we could assume that further deepening of the canal has increased enough to make ships displacement not a problem anymore. So no more tonnage limits after 1906 I think displacement limits to transit the Suez canal would enrich our game experience because it would make more interesting for us to build 2nd class battleships and long range CAs as they would be the only ones able to transit the Suez canal and would arrive much faster to face an enemy invasion or fleet in a far away territory. Even more if we make extreme range ships capable to move 2 areas per turn. We could design them under the ton limits so they can transit through Suez. About Panama, the Iowa class are at the limit of what can transit through the Panama canal. In fact, their design was made as narrow as possible to fit in the canal. And they remain the biggest ships ever to cross it. So I would suggest an upper tonnage limit to ships able to cross the canal of 50,000tm. That limit should remain until the end. Great suggestions imo. Don't really have anything to add to it lol. Just think it's good
|
|
|
Post by azazel on Oct 1, 2021 11:31:57 GMT -6
is it possible to have the possibility to choose when to go to combat ?
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Oct 1, 2021 12:57:33 GMT -6
is it possible to have the possibility to choose when to go to combat ? How do you mean? You can decline most battles except for the occasional "surprise battle" (which I agree shouldn't be a thing) and raider interceptions. P.S. If I had one ask for battle selection, please include time of day in the accept/decline dialog information.
|
|
|
Post by azazel on Oct 1, 2021 13:03:25 GMT -6
i think the admiral of the fleet should decide when to go to combat and not wait that the game give you the opportunity
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Oct 1, 2021 13:14:25 GMT -6
i think the admiral of the fleet should decide when to go to combat and not wait that the game give you the opportunity The other side doesn't always cooperate, though. See for instance how Germany and Britain played cat-and-mouse in the months and even years prior to the battle of Jutland. Historically, "fleet battles" in general would consistently happen at an unexpected time and place, and most of the time one of the sides didn't show up because the time and place of battle wasn't exactly pre-agreed. The only commonality is that both sides knew the risk of a major engagement was there. The fact that the battle of Midway took place was a pure accident from the Japanese perspective, and the battle of the Coral sea was such a confused mess that neither side could claim premeditation with a straight face. Same with the series of "Tokyo express" battles. The battle mechanics in RTW2 are an attempt to simulate this uncertainty; they could probably be improved, but the intent behind them is generally sound in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 1, 2021 14:45:06 GMT -6
i think the admiral of the fleet should decide when to go to combat and not wait that the game give you the opportunity The other side doesn't always cooperate, though. See for instance how Germany and Britain played cat-and-mouse in the months and even years prior to the battle of Jutland. Historically, "fleet battles" in general would consistently happen at an unexpected time and place, and most of the time one of the sides didn't show up because the time and place of battle wasn't exactly pre-agreed. The only commonality is that both sides knew the risk of a major engagement was there. The fact that the battle of Midway took place was a pure accident from the Japanese perspective, and the battle of the Coral sea was such a confused mess that neither side could claim premeditation with a straight face. Same with the series of "Tokyo express" battles. The battle mechanics in RTW2 are an attempt to simulate this uncertainty; they could probably be improved, but the intent behind them is generally sound in my opinion. Hmm, I am not certain I would agree with you. The Japanese after The Battle of the Coral Sea and the fact that they had missed our carriers at Pearl Harbor, decided they had to attack a target we had to defend. So they chose Midway Island. They decided to get our carriers to leave Pearl Harbor after their attack on the Aleutian Islands( Operation AL) and as we passed north, their submarines arranged in a line, would attack our ships. Then the Kido Butai would be waiting for our ships near Midway. This was the plan, to attack and occupy Midway to force our fleet to leave Pearl Harbor and get our carriers into a fleet battle; I.E. decisive battle and destroy the carriers. They had an operation that was designed to determine if our carriers were in Pearl Harbor. A flying boat was to fly to French Frigate Shoal, land and be refueled by a submarine then fly over Pearl to determine if the carriers were there. Unfortunately after the last time they did that, we sent a seaplane tender and occupied the island. The Japanese submarine went and determined that the operation would not work so it was cancelled. The Japanese just assumed the carriers were there and they were not. They were already at Point Luck, NE of Midway awaiting the Japanese strike force. The fleet engagement, even for the IJN was no accident, they had planned to have a decisive engagement with our carrier force and destroy it. Unfortunately, the enemy always has a say in your plan and it failed. It is an absolute fact that the side that finds the enemy first will win the battle strategically if not tactically. We had the advantage on our carriers of a dedicated scout bomber squadron and we always found the Japanese first and launched first and faster. My father told me that at Eastern Solomon's, they found the Japanese carriers headed towards Guadalcanal when one of the scout bombers flew over it. He said then they launched the air wings immediately. This was the advantage.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Oct 1, 2021 16:26:30 GMT -6
I guess you could say in RTW2 terms that at Midway the Japanese said Yes to an Invasion Battle (or a coastal raid depending on your definition), but suddenly a large US carrier force appeared and it turned into a carrier battle. I'm pretty sure I've had situations like this in the game, too.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 1, 2021 16:37:26 GMT -6
About Panama, the Iowa class are at the limit of what can transit through the Panama canal. In fact, their design was made as narrow as possible to fit in the canal. And they remain the biggest ships ever to cross it. So I would suggest an upper tonnage limit to ships able to cross the canal of 50,000tm. That limit should remain until the end. In terms of both canals, but particular Panama, I have a vague recollection there was a plan to enlarge it prior to WW2 with larger warships in mind. Perhaps instead of a fixed limit, enable spending on increasing the size of the canal by the owner? That way there'd be an option to build up Panama (or not build up Suez) depending on the player's preference, with the AI perhaps scripted to follow historical patterns? That said, nothing wrong with just following your suggestion either, and it would be simpler, if less dynamic
|
|
lakel
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by lakel on Oct 1, 2021 19:04:01 GMT -6
I could see a case for some form of decisive battle doctrine, or a fleet in being concept. "Yes, seek fleet battle, No, avoid major battles" basically.
Obviously as said the enemy doesn't always cooperate, but sometimes you want to try and force those battles.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 1, 2021 23:12:02 GMT -6
I could see a case for some form of decisive battle doctrine, or a fleet in being concept. "Yes, seek fleet battle, No, avoid major battles" basically.
Obviously as said the enemy doesn't always cooperate, but sometimes you want to try and force those battles.
This makes sense to me. Naturally, some randomisation would be necessary (don't want it all going the way of the player, after all ), but having the opportunity to tip the odds in favour of your preferred outcome would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Oct 2, 2021 14:17:14 GMT -6
This makes sense to me. Naturally, some randomisation would be necessary (don't want it all going the way of the player, after all ), but having the opportunity to tip the odds in favour of your preferred outcome would be nice. The game already assumes you are seeking a decisive battle if you have any capital ships at all. To this end, fleet battle prompts appear from time to time. Your act of refusing these battles would indicate a different doctrine and the price you pay for it politically.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Oct 2, 2021 18:04:26 GMT -6
About Panama, the Iowa class are at the limit of what can transit through the Panama canal. In fact, their design was made as narrow as possible to fit in the canal. And they remain the biggest ships ever to cross it. So I would suggest an upper tonnage limit to ships able to cross the canal of 50,000tm. That limit should remain until the end. In terms of both canals, but particular Panama, I have a vague recollection there was a plan to enlarge it prior to WW2 with larger warships in mind. Perhaps instead of a fixed limit, enable spending on increasing the size of the canal by the owner? That way there'd be an option to build up Panama (or not build up Suez) depending on the player's preference, with the AI perhaps scripted to follow historical patterns? That said, nothing wrong with just following your suggestion either, and it would be simpler, if less dynamic This is an even better idea. Though, I would add, perhaps when the canals are no longer controlled by you or an AI nation, the canals would still be able to "enlarge themselves". For example, the Suez was of such an importance economically to Egypt after Nasser took power and in the following years they expanded the Suez canal significantly. For Panama, historically they lacked the funding and ability to do it with the same level of autonomy like Egypt. The Suez is now so wide that even Nimitz class carriers can pass through with ease. But the panama canal shouldn't be able to allow 90,000 ton battleships and carriers to pass through (we all know the US with their unlimited funding sometimes spam these monsters of a ship).
|
|
|
Post by afghanicus on Oct 3, 2021 18:59:18 GMT -6
I don't see any more updates posted to the Expansion thread since about mar or may, is there something going on? Is it possible to get into the beta to test the new features?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 3, 2021 19:53:33 GMT -6
There was a Panama Expansion project for new locks in 1939 but the advent of WW2 prevent it from being instituted. If my memory serves me. In 1945, it was continued.
|
|