|
Post by microscop on Oct 11, 2021 13:33:20 GMT -6
Great news, looking forward to this espansion soooo much! I don't think this topic has come out yet, so May I suggest It... Since we Will go back in the 19th century... Why not include an option for Tumblehome Hull design? For example the choice can be: LOW FREEBOARD HIGH FREEBOARD TUMBLEHOME this option could have Better Sea handling and lower weight due to slim decks and superstructure... So basically more Speed? And Better gunnery accuracy? But be prone to capsizing so faster sinking and lower effectiveness of armour to long range Fire due to the angles being unfavorable! And of course a malus to the ship appearance... French armoured hotels are coming!!! You'd also have a smaller deck area free, meaning no wing turrets and limiting the area free for AA guns and the like (once they are unlocked). Possibly also limit you to double gun turrets. They wouldn't have a noticeable effect on speed - most of the limits of speed come from the hull that is underwater, though the reduced deck area would be beneficial in reducing weight. More vulnerable to flooding from damage. Not sure about accuracy either. The Russian battleships destroyed at Tsushima were equipped with obsolete fire control systems for all that they were new builds. The Japanese fleets had first generation central fire control direction systems, much newer range-finders and much better training which resulted in significantly more hits. Finally, selecting Tumblehome as the hull-form would require the system to access a different set of build parameters *and* damage parameters. I feel that as things stand this would probably be the sticking point. No wing turrets? have you ever seen a french pre drednought? One of the reasons for tumblehome was giving wing turret better firing arcs. Also i hate when people bring Tsushima up instead of 1904 Yellow sea where forces and their condition were much more equal and thus serves as a far better basis for analysis.
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Oct 11, 2021 13:41:03 GMT -6
As per developers journal, it seems we will be able to build the Brandenburg class and the Amiral Baudin in 1890. I think we should be careful about allowing 3 central turrets in battleships. Brandenburg central turret had a different caliber (lenght) so the ships didn't have really a uniform main battery. Neither had Amiral Baudin. That ship also had so many problems with its central turret that, during a refit they eventually deleted it and replaced it by smaller QF guns. In general, a central turret in those days meant a few problems that would not be resolved until dreadnoughts came along. Thats the reason why the RN and so many other navies didn't go for this kind of design and kept building battleships with only 2 turrets I think for RTW just to allow for these ships to be 50% more powerful than standard 2 twin turrets ships, that would be no historical and would unbalance the whole game: we all like to build the most powerful ships possible, so we would be building our fleets with 3 twin 12" central turrets, which I don't think it would add much value to the game. I would suggest that ships with 3 twin central turrets until 1903 or so have somehow encoded a negative modifier for the guns to reduce their effectiveness so they don't become just kind of 1890 dreadnoughts. This modifier would reflect the problems of such design at this time. Another way would be to allow only up to 11" twin guns (like Brandenburg) or higher calibers if they are single gun turrets (like A Baudin) Brandenburg class was designed with same leanght/caliber guns but the forward and aft guns were replaced with longer more modern guns during construction and those wouldn't fit amidship. So the original design overall had no reasons to be handicapped in some aritifical way. The way to realisticly balance it would be to make it hard to fit enough machinery to make the ship move fast enough and due to short leanght of the ship limit it to -2 and -1 quality guns (shorter guns) of limtied size. Also give it more narrow firing arc than usual. This way it can stay balanced, the ship wont be fast, it will be tight on displacement so no solid secondary battery and the amidship turret will have very limited firing arc. Overall the amidship turret won't be very cost efficent in terms of pros/cons. Also call it early 3 centerline turrets/early amidship turret tech and not use the standard 3 centerline turret tech.
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Oct 12, 2021 2:01:44 GMT -6
No wing turrets? have you ever seen a french pre drednought? One of the reasons for tumblehome was giving wing turret better firing arcs. To be honest, I was thinking more of main battery wing turrets for BBs and BCs, but you're right that there were wing turrets. Sort of. The ships with the most pronounced tumblehome had to build sponsons up in order to mount the wing turrets amidships (there was the occasional turret fore and aft but these were rare) - a rather awkward system to deal with the issue. Later pre-dreadnoughts had much reduced tumblehome in order to mount the wing-guns but these still required a partial sponson bulging out to mount the turret. All this adds up to making a dogs dinner of the displacement system. Mainly because Tsushima is more likely the battle which killed the tumblehome design when 75% of newly-built tumblehome battleships failed to survive. It wasn't really a fair match-up as the Japanese were much better equipped and trained than their Russian counterparts yet the fact remains
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Oct 12, 2021 4:07:46 GMT -6
No wing turrets? have you ever seen a french pre drednought? One of the reasons for tumblehome was giving wing turret better firing arcs. To be honest, I was thinking more of main battery wing turrets for BBs and BCs, but you're right that there were wing turrets. Sort of. The ships with the most pronounced tumblehome had to build sponsons up in order to mount the wing turrets amidships (there was the occasional turret fore and aft but these were rare) - a rather awkward system to deal with the issue. Later pre-dreadnoughts had much reduced tumblehome in order to mount the wing-guns but these still required a partial sponson bulging out to mount the turret. All this adds up to making a dogs dinner of the displacement system. Mainly because Tsushima is more likely the battle which killed the tumblehome design when 75% of newly-built tumblehome battleships failed to survive. It wasn't really a fair match-up as the Japanese were much better equipped and trained than their Russian counterparts yet the fact remains Marceau class had main battery wing turrets, and later ones had 274mm wing turrets and 305mm centerline but this was mixed main battery not secondary battery in wing turrets. I don't like Tsushima because of the poor state Russian ships and crews were in, it was a shooting gallery for the Japanese. At Yellow sea number were much more even and Tsesarevich (which was the basis for Borodinos) preformed well taking alot of hits without major issues. Russians were actually clearly winning and japanese were on the verge of breaking off the engagement untill russsian admiral got killed and battleline fell apart in cofusion. Alot of tumblehome hate stems from poor interpretation of the data and anglo propaganda which dominates the naval communities.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 12, 2021 4:36:57 GMT -6
For fans of technical oddities, I would like to point out the USS Vesuvius with its Zalinsky-type "pneumatic dynamite torpedo guns". Or the Russians' Popowka-type circular coastal battleships. Having said that, I hope that the RTW team does not waste time on similar amenities and thinks instead of the long awaited (from me, but not only) SAI2 game!
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Oct 13, 2021 2:09:27 GMT -6
Hey, what will be the rough limitations of the ironclad ship class be?
Turreted guns below a certain size?
No wing turrets?
Armored Box scheme limiting main gun numbers?
|
|
|
Post by mjm4444 on Oct 13, 2021 21:50:50 GMT -6
For fans of technical oddities, I would like to point out the USS Vesuvius with its Zalinsky-type "pneumatic dynamite torpedo guns". Or the Russians' Popowka-type circular coastal battleships. Having said that, I hope that the RTW team does not waste time on similar amenities and thinks instead of the long awaited (from me, but not only) SAI2 game! Ah yes the "pneumatic dynamite torpedo guns," famous for using a mixture of nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin for their round's explosive filler. Those are always good for a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Oct 14, 2021 1:02:50 GMT -6
Is the supplementary sails propulsion planned? It could work as lighter extreme range option at the cost of deck space and should block higher FC upgrades maybe? It should also work for cruisers and smaller ironclads (up to, say, 10000t?)
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Oct 14, 2021 7:02:17 GMT -6
Problem with them is that they would require an entire seperate system to get acceleration from the wind which is a huge amount of work for not much gain.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 14, 2021 10:53:18 GMT -6
I think there would be huge gains from adding sail power, but it would take a crap load of work. It would bring the entire age of naval combat into play though.
Adding it as a supplemental power wouldn't take near as much work. It wouldn't be necessary to add sail power to the tactical engine because the ships would be under engine power then. It would, of course, only be useful if there are changes to the endurance system.
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Oct 14, 2021 13:41:41 GMT -6
Is the supplementary sails propulsion planned? It could work as lighter extreme range option at the cost of deck space and should block higher FC upgrades maybe? It should also work for cruisers and smaller ironclads (up to, say, 10000t?) I think you're onto the easiest path for sails in the 1890 game.... Sails would provide the only Extreme Range option, but are a dead end in further ship design evolution. Sail usage would be as an addition to steam engines and purely for the range option, not as sole propulsion (this would mean no new coding for sail power). Sail usage would mean minimal upgrades, if any, to Guns (casemate only?), Fire Control and Engines, but is the only way to get Extreme Range and maybe makes Long Range less expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Emma de Normandie on Oct 14, 2021 18:52:01 GMT -6
I think there would be huge gains from adding sail power, but it would take a crap load of work. It would bring the entire age of naval combat into play though. Adding it as a supplemental power wouldn't take near as much work. It wouldn't be necessary to add sail power to the tactical engine because the ships would be under engine power then. It would, of course, only be useful if there are changes to the endurance system. If there is a RTW2-like game but based in the 1800s, the true age of sail, and incorporate the art of forming lines of battle, that would be quite interesting. But a game like that wouldn't really, or shouldn't really be under the franchise of Rule the Waves, but rather, perhaps, "Age of Sails", or "Rise the Sails", LOL
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 14, 2021 21:38:30 GMT -6
If there is a RTW2-like game but based in the 1800s, the true age of sail, and incorporate the art of forming lines of battle, that would be quite interesting. But a game like that wouldn't really, or shouldn't really be under the franchise of Rule the Waves, but rather, perhaps, "Age of Sails", or "Rise the Sails", LOL I think it could be stretched back at least to the 18th century without being out of bounds. After all, "Rule, Britannia! Rule the Waves" was first penned in 1740.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Oct 15, 2021 2:50:33 GMT -6
I think it could be stretched back at least to the 18th century without being out of bounds. After all, "Rule, Britannia! Rule the Waves" was first penned in 1740. Aaaand just like that the next expansion starts around the 1st Punic war
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Oct 15, 2021 13:04:25 GMT -6
I think it could be stretched back at least to the 18th century without being out of bounds. After all, "Rule, Britannia! Rule the Waves" was first penned in 1740. Aaaand just like that the next expansion starts around the 1st Punic war Now, now, I'm sure there were some important amino acid battles in that primordial soup that could need including...
|
|