maxnacemit
Full Member
Posts: 166
Member is Online
|
Post by maxnacemit on Oct 22, 2021 16:11:10 GMT -6
What about Q2 guns? How will guns develop in the post-WW2 era?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 22, 2021 19:47:33 GMT -6
vonpanzerhosen 'Will it be possible to 'upgrade' by refitting to smaller caliber 'modern' guns? I.e. refitting -2Q 13"ers to -1Q 11"?' No, the guns represented by -2 are simply to obsolescent to support upgrading. As the rules currently stand such ships would have to abide by the existing rules, where-in single un-armored 6" or less mounts could be substituted, but such a ship would not only hardly be useful, but would have a very hard time falling into an extant category class (presuming such a large-gunned ship had battleship-thickness armor) to be a game-legal ship. I suppose you *could* mothball an 1890 B for 10-15 years and then convert it to a carrier, but at a certain point it is just easier on all concerned to write off the hull. maxnacemit 'What about Q2 guns? How will guns develop in the post-WW2 era?' At present all gun improvements in large ordinance are covered by the escalation of Gunnery and AP/HE techs, which have been expanded upon for the extra scope of the DLC.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Oct 22, 2021 20:59:18 GMT -6
More variation with aircraft. I know night fighters are going to be a thing. I think, I hope. I would also like floatplane fighters and even floatplane bombers? Light bombers lol. But it would be really nice, especially the floatplane fighters, they could fly CAP around fleets. A small CAP that would be very nice when you have no carrier support and you're near land.
I'd also love more work with Zeppelins. I think carrier zeppelins would have some serious benefits in the pacific ocean for like Japan or the US or anyone operating there. Actual carriers beyond the limited self defense parasites. Please.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 23, 2021 8:40:21 GMT -6
What catches my attention isn't even part of the main points: "Beta #25 for the Expansion, which mainly deals with SAM and ASM issues, electronic warfare technology, and also a change for post-WW2 destroyers Electronic warfare is certainly intriguing. As well as destroyer changes, which in combination with the missile cruisers mentioned in the title make me wodner if the end-date will also get extended. And Beta #25 which makes me curious about planned release date. I can understand it too early to give one, but would you care to elaborate in a loose and compeltely non-binding manner whether we should expect a time period of several months, half a year, a year? Less than a year for certain, "several months" would be a fair unofficial estimate
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Oct 23, 2021 9:39:25 GMT -6
I suppose you *could* mothball an 1890 B for 10-15 years and then convert it to a carrier, but at a certain point it is just easier on all concerned to write off the hull. And then mothball it for 15 years in 1935 to turn it into an arsenal ship later.
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Oct 23, 2021 13:46:52 GMT -6
vonpanzerhosen 'Will it be possible to 'upgrade' by refitting to smaller caliber 'modern' guns? I.e. refitting -2Q 13"ers to -1Q 11"?' No, the guns represented by -2 are simply to obsolescent to support upgrading. As the rules currently stand such ships would have to abide by the existing rules, where-in single un-armored 6" or less mounts could be substituted, but such a ship would not only hardly be useful, but would have a very hard time falling into an extant category class (presuming such a large-gunned ship had battleship-thickness armor) to be a game-legal ship. I suppose you *could* mothball an 1890 B for 10-15 years and then convert it to a carrier, but at a certain point it is just easier on all concerned to write off the hull. maxnacemit 'What about Q2 guns? How will guns develop in the post-WW2 era?' At present all gun improvements in large ordinance are covered by the escalation of Gunnery and AP/HE techs, which have been expanded upon for the extra scope of the DLC. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_ironclad_Enrico_Dandolo17 inch guns were replaced with 10 inch
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on Oct 23, 2021 15:42:19 GMT -6
I hope that, and other similar limitations, are made very clear in game during the ship design phase. As a primarily Royal Navy player, I already feel like they have been handicapped enough with the crazy colonial requirements and other issues, so a hidden 'lol, you can't upgrade that' feature would be quite the kick to the nads.
vonpanzerhosen 'Will it be possible to 'upgrade' by refitting to smaller caliber 'modern' guns? I.e. refitting -2Q 13"ers to -1Q 11"?' No, the guns represented by -2 are simply to obsolescent to support upgrading. As the rules currently stand such ships would have to abide by the existing rules, where-in single un-armored 6" or less mounts could be substituted, but such a ship would not only hardly be useful, but would have a very hard time falling into an extant category class (presuming such a large-gunned ship had battleship-thickness armor) to be a game-legal ship. I suppose you *could* mothball an 1890 B for 10-15 years and then convert it to a carrier, but at a certain point it is just easier on all concerned to write off the hull. maxnacemit 'What about Q2 guns? How will guns develop in the post-WW2 era?' At present all gun improvements in large ordinance are covered by the escalation of Gunnery and AP/HE techs, which have been expanded upon for the extra scope of the DLC. This leaves me with two major questions regarding the Expansion and its handling of naval gunnery: 1. The idea of restricting -2s seems to make -2s too unattractive an option in naval gun design to bother with. As of now going with -2 gun quality in-game is tentative, only yielding a damage increase in exchange for reduced range and penetration compared to a -1 of the previous calibre. There are very few times I've considered using a 13inch -2Q gun because the 12in -1Q seems to be very competitive against it. Very often, the times I've gone with it are when I expect a quality improvement down the line that will make refitting an option. If -2s became not upgradeable I don't see really myself using them at all! A solution I'd suggest, though in the depths of my inexperience, is that the -2 should remain upgradeable and the cost of overhauling guns between generations increased, or that it should be upgradeable after a certain tech level. 2. If gun and AP/HE tech handles most of the advancement of gun technology, that might be fine, but we still have a serious jump between the +1Q of gun from the 1920s and the end of the period of the game in 1970. I'm new to this area of history, but as an illustrative example, as the United States, by 1925 I have often had +1 Q5 guns adopted. The equivalent of these perhaps would be the 5"/51 guns (1911), perhaps, or MAYBE one could stretch logic a bit and say they are the 5"/38 (1932) from the future. But the time frame we're ending on, in the 60s/70s implies the ability to field something like the 5"/42 Mark 42 (Knox class). There were more intermediary guns than these for certain, and I just can't see how effectively 3 quality levels, or generations, of guns (-1, 0, and 1) can cover this period! The relevance of gun qualities, and the user's ability to implement them into their designs, seem to be neglected if something doesn't allow the player more control or input over the process as the game continues to cover more history.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 23, 2021 17:56:20 GMT -6
The relevance of gun qualities, and the user's ability to implement them into their designs, seem to be neglected if something doesn't allow the player more control or input over the process as the game continues to cover more history.
The game seems to be heading in a direction of limiting players to 'what was', rather than 'what could have been'. The gun system is already limited and basic, not allowing weapons such as the 13.5" widely used by the RN, or having options for calibre etc. Maybe guns should have been the focus of the first expansion rather than opening up a wider time frame.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Oct 23, 2021 18:02:57 GMT -6
You've made a solid point, and have sparked a dialogue. All I can say is that it will be up to Fredrik to evaluate whether the expansion of existing rules mechanics adequately covers the gunnery issue or whether the addition of new mechanics and the time involved there-in is warranted.
I will say that in my testing my first response to the "non-upgradeable Q -2" rule was the same as yours, to build an entire class of 8" armed battleships. While they were cheaper and I could build more, and did not stop me from winning wars, ultimately they are in most cases probably a poor investment. Plus, being a Brandenburg fan, the new rule (2x3 -2 turrets possible, A/Q/Y or A/R/Y) for -2 guns makes such ships appealing, even if in a meta sense I know the ship only has an effective lifespan of 10-15 years. Take note though that it is only that 'meta' awareness that creates the shadow of disappointment.
Regardless, we shall see how things look when Fredrik is content with his work.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 23, 2021 19:10:53 GMT -6
More variation with aircraft. I know night fighters are going to be a thing. I think, I hope. I would also like floatplane fighters and even floatplane bombers? Light bombers lol. But it would be really nice, especially the floatplane fighters, they could fly CAP around fleets. A small CAP that would be very nice when you have no carrier support and you're near land. I'd also love more work with Zeppelins. I think carrier zeppelins would have some serious benefits in the pacific ocean for like Japan or the US or anyone operating there. Actual carriers beyond the limited self defense parasites. Please. You can already fly CAP using seaplanes. If you have an AV, open the division screen and use the "Provide CAP to" drop down list to select the division that you want to cover with CAP. Assuming there are floatplanes available the AV will launch them as CAP and they will fly cover over the supported division.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Oct 24, 2021 15:54:17 GMT -6
More variation with aircraft. I know night fighters are going to be a thing. I think, I hope. I would also like floatplane fighters and even floatplane bombers? Light bombers lol. But it would be really nice, especially the floatplane fighters, they could fly CAP around fleets. A small CAP that would be very nice when you have no carrier support and you're near land. I'd also love more work with Zeppelins. I think carrier zeppelins would have some serious benefits in the pacific ocean for like Japan or the US or anyone operating there. Actual carriers beyond the limited self defense parasites. Please. You can already fly CAP using seaplanes. If you have an AV, open the division screen and use the "Provide CAP to" drop down list to select the division that you want to cover with CAP. Assuming there are floatplanes available the AV will launch them as CAP and they will fly cover over the supported division. Not what I'm talking about though. AV's almost never show up in battles past the first few years when you get them so that's almost useless. I'm talking about floatplane fighters on battleships and cruisers. Currently we can set scouts on warships to bomb targets or fly escort, presumably for nothing since there wouldn't be anything on naval strike there. If you have fighters fly escort from one ship will they escort bombers from another ship? And if I set scouts to fly escort from an AV or battleship will they escort bombers from a carrier? That's just a question. But yeah, fighters on battleships, floatplane ones that are less capable. Or just give us the ability to set floatplane scouts as CAP even if it's just like 1 or 2 planes. And like I said airship carriers! It would be so cool and would spice up the game, mix things up for the alt history crowd. There were talks about them before the Hindenburg blew up
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Oct 26, 2021 1:29:24 GMT -6
Airship carriers would be really cool... I can imagine an airship tech that allows flying at higher elevations than airplanes could go, dropping parasite fighters down on unsuspecting ships and wreaking havoc. It may seem a little steampunk, but with the right tech, it’d be an interesting addition to the ‘what-if’ sandbox of this game and could come early enough to compliment carriers, perhaps even replace them!
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 26, 2021 3:35:08 GMT -6
We already have airship carriers, they are just not controllable and their planes are just acting as fighter escorts. It would be nice to have zeppelins act more like ships and less like planes though. Controllable zeppelins could achieve that, with forced AI RTB when fuel reaches a cut-off point.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Oct 26, 2021 13:18:44 GMT -6
You've made a solid point, and have sparked a dialogue. All I can say is that it will be up to Fredrik to evaluate whether the expansion of existing rules mechanics adequately covers the gunnery issue or whether the addition of new mechanics and the time involved there-in is warranted. I will say that in my testing my first response to the "non-upgradeable Q -2" rule was the same as yours, to build an entire class of 8" armed battleships. While they were cheaper and I could build more, and did not stop me from winning wars, ultimately they are in most cases probably a poor investment. Plus, being a Brandenburg fan, the new rule (2x3 -2 turrets possible, A/Q/Y or A/R/Y) for -2 guns makes such ships appealing, even if in a meta sense I know the ship only has an effective lifespan of 10-15 years. Take note though that it is only that 'meta' awareness that creates the shadow of disappointment. Regardless, we shall see how things look when Fredrik is content with his work. I think guns of Q-2 should be upgradable only to smaller caliber (say single 13in to single 10in or twin 8in) as very short barrel length made older guns much lighter than later guns. One problem I expect is the handling of the ships that were still very common in 1890 - actual ironclads with guns that had barrel length of 15-25 calibers. Brandenburgs had respectable 32-37 calibers on their main guns. So if Q-2 is about 30-39cal, Q-1 40-45cal, Q0 45cal+ while Q1 and Q2 represent various upgrades over those then you could consider adding guns with Q-3 to represent those earlier generation ships. But then, those guns were MUCH lighter than "proper" artillery pieces used on more modern ships, so a ship that could fit 4x1 203, 10x1 150 wtih 20cal barrels would have no more than half of the proper, 40cal guns...
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Oct 26, 2021 14:33:04 GMT -6
You've made a solid point, and have sparked a dialogue. All I can say is that it will be up to Fredrik to evaluate whether the expansion of existing rules mechanics adequately covers the gunnery issue or whether the addition of new mechanics and the time involved there-in is warranted. I will say that in my testing my first response to the "non-upgradeable Q -2" rule was the same as yours, to build an entire class of 8" armed battleships. While they were cheaper and I could build more, and did not stop me from winning wars, ultimately they are in most cases probably a poor investment. Plus, being a Brandenburg fan, the new rule (2x3 -2 turrets possible, A/Q/Y or A/R/Y) for -2 guns makes such ships appealing, even if in a meta sense I know the ship only has an effective lifespan of 10-15 years. Take note though that it is only that 'meta' awareness that creates the shadow of disappointment. Regardless, we shall see how things look when Fredrik is content with his work. I think guns of Q-2 should be upgradable only to smaller caliber (say single 13in to single 10in or twin 8in) as very short barrel length made older guns much lighter than later guns. One problem I expect is the handling of the ships that were still very common in 1890 - actual ironclads with guns that had barrel length of 15-25 calibers. Brandenburgs had respectable 32-37 calibers on their main guns. So if Q-2 is about 30-39cal, Q-1 40-45cal, Q0 45cal+ while Q1 and Q2 represent various upgrades over those then you could consider adding guns with Q-3 to represent those earlier generation ships. But then, those guns were MUCH lighter than "proper" artillery pieces used on more modern ships, so a ship that could fit 4x1 203, 10x1 150 wtih 20cal barrels would have no more than half of the proper, 40cal guns... Italians replaced 17 inch guns with 10 inch
|
|