|
Post by rufusshinra on Dec 11, 2021 11:29:21 GMT -6
Meh, a CVN can go much faster than 50 knots. As long as you drop it from high enough, that is.
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Dec 11, 2021 23:10:07 GMT -6
About the 50kn rumour. We have a saying in the Royal Navy, 'don't let the truth get in the way of a good dit'. I'd assume the US navy would be the same. Never believe what a matelot tells you lol what is a dit? sorry, gunmonkey tincan sailor here. Never heard that, and I have unfortunately had little interaction with other navies outside of Australia and New Zealand
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 12, 2021 14:52:06 GMT -6
About the 50kn rumour. We have a saying in the Royal Navy, 'don't let the truth get in the way of a good dit'. I'd assume the US navy would be the same. Never believe what a matelot tells you lol what is a dit? sorry, gunmonkey tincan sailor here. Never heard that, and I have unfortunately had little interaction with other navies outside of Australia and New Zealand It's a story - it's got a history in the RAN as well - see Nesdale's "Spin me a Dit", for example The story can be (but isn't always) embellished. It is an older term, and may not be in general use in RAN parts?
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on Dec 12, 2021 23:01:13 GMT -6
Looks great.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 12, 2021 23:01:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Dec 12, 2021 23:41:57 GMT -6
Can you post examples of how treaties will be negotiated in the expansion? I'm very interested in how that'll work given the headache of the current treaty system (in the most egregious case for me, I spent 30 months building six brand-new superbattleships, then one month before the first one launched - and five before the last - a treaty went through that scrapped all of them).
Likewise, can you elaborate on how the jet CVL restrictions work? It might finally start pushing me to build large carriers and should have a big impact on the meta in the lategame.
Generally speaking, while the lack of nuclear power is disappointing, I wonder if it can be modded in? The differences between, say, VTEs and gas turbines makes me wonder if a creative modder could change the defines to add a new type or if it's hard-coded. Also, with the increasing role of submarines and ASW, it feels like the most natural avenue for future expansions is a submarine editor. Sure, they don't show up in tactical battles (yet), but it'd suit the increased depth of the defensive side of the ASW game.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 13, 2021 0:34:42 GMT -6
Could there be a clarification on Surface to Air missiles? DP guns can cover other ships from air attack and current M-SAMs can also cover other ships from air attack; will new M-SAMs (and L-SAMs for that matter) not have that ability?
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Dec 13, 2021 1:18:39 GMT -6
I understand that as new M-SAMs being unable to cover other ships from air attack when attacked by standoff weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Dec 13, 2021 1:50:15 GMT -6
Further, a Tarter or Terrier (larger missiles have more obviously) missile has about as much explosive power as a 16" shell, will it be possible to turn surface to air missiles on surface targets?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 13, 2021 2:42:50 GMT -6
What historic "Medium SSM" serve as the model for you? I cannot recall "large magazine fed" SSM at all. There is the mixed use rotary magazine for the Tartar/Terrier launcher which could (later) load SM-1 and Harpoon, but that usually meant the same (8, or even less, i.e. 4) Harpoon load as in the "box" launchers on other ships. More likely from the description is that this replicates SAM use in surface to surface mode, which even today is quite important for ASuW tactics. But for that you would need to provide heavy and medium SAM with a SS mode, leaving only "heavy" (Styx/Exocet/Harpoon/Tomahawk/Gabriel MkIV) and "light" (SS-11, SS-12, Gabriel MkI-III, the various Asheville PGM class missile fits, Penguin etc.). Even "heavy" and "light" SSM division is not easy because additional weight of the missile often only confers additional range and not additional warhead size. The wikipedia list of Anti-Ship-Missiles may be very confusing in this regard as it often collapses a lot of very different ASM (esp. the Exocet and Gabriel families) into just one entry, quotes technical aspects of different versions in one line (warhead size of a land attack variant, range of the air launched variant vice the surface launched variant) and does not include additional information that would be very important for the game (like the SAP nature of the Kormoran warhead).
IMO SSM need to follow a modified aircraft procurement model, with "light", "medium" and "heavy" variants only distinguished by their installation impact aboard ship and the player being able to request different design foci such as range, warhead size, warhead type (HE, SAP, AP), seeker quality (dependent on tech progress mostly, but requirement spec focus might improve it to some extent). A ship would receive the latest "mark" of the SSM in question automatically but would need to refit for a truly new SSM fit.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Dec 13, 2021 3:44:21 GMT -6
Could someone hit me to make sure I'm not dreaming On a more serious note, this looks absolutely great! AI wars. The Baltic as it's own area More interaction with subs Influencing treaties Not only divisions, but divisions will develop their own "personality" based on training and battle experience, roles set by the player and be part of an overall organization-tree. Ship and division commanders with their own history and "skills" Fleet morale Carriers no longer steaming into the guns of the enemy to launch/recover planes A/C development into the 60s with all the accompanying weapons systems Ships age better and keep a record of their history Minimum Carrier size to carry jet planes Breech loaders AI building more DDs Improved ASW for surface vessels And those are just my personal highlights - HOLY MOLY!!!!
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 13, 2021 3:46:59 GMT -6
What historic "Medium SSM" serve as the model for you? I cannot recall "large magazine fed" SSM at all. There is the mixed use rotary magazine for the Tartar/Terrier launcher which could (later) load SM-1 and Harpoon, but that usually meant the same (8, or even less, i.e. 4) Harpoon load as in the "box" launchers on other ships. More likely from the description is that this replicates SAM use in surface to surface mode, which even today is quite important for ASuW tactics. But for that you would need to provide heavy and medium SAM with a SS mode, leaving only "heavy" (Styx/Exocet/Harpoon/Tomahawk/Gabriel MkIV) and "light" (SS-11, SS-12, Gabriel MkI-III, the various Asheville PGM class missile fits, Penguin etc.). Even "heavy" and "light" SSM division is not easy because additional weight of the missile often only confers additional range and not additional warhead size. The wikipedia list of Anti-Ship-Missiles may be very confusing in this regard as it often collapses a lot of very different ASM (esp. the Exocet and Gabriel families) into just one entry, quotes technical aspects of different versions in one line (warhead size of a land attack variant, range of the air launched variant vice the surface launched variant) and does not include additional information that would be very important for the game (like the SAP nature of the Kormoran warhead). IMO SSM need to follow a modified aircraft procurement model, with "light", "medium" and "heavy" variants only distinguished by their installation impact aboard ship and the player being able to request different design foci such as range, warhead size, warhead type (HE, SAP, AP), seeker quality (dependent on tech progress mostly, but requirement spec focus might improve it to some extent). A ship would receive the latest "mark" of the SSM in question automatically but would need to refit for a truly new SSM fit. Talos fits "large magazine fed" SSM but its a MIXED purpose missile being AA and SSM at the same time
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 13, 2021 3:49:45 GMT -6
Further, a Tarter or Terrier (larger missiles have more obviously) missile has about as much explosive power as a 16" shell, will it be possible to turn surface to air missiles on surface targets? This i would very much want to know whether SAMS can be turned on ships because in real life this was very much the practise and norm for some navies For example the US navy did not have a dedicated anti ship missile until then harpoon in the mid 70s until then they used SAM missiles as SSM Terrier Tartar and Talos all had guidance which enabled accurate shooting at surface targets and the SM-1 which replaced Terrier missiles was also able to be used against surface targets These missiles are worse warhead wise and range wise than dedicated anti ship missiles but i think its a viable weight tradeoff as you can effectively have twice as many launchers for AA/SSM than if you had one AA and one SSM launcher
|
|
|
Post by christian on Dec 13, 2021 3:56:46 GMT -6
Any plans outlined for how detection will work and generally how long it will be post 1950 in terms of radar and SSM missile ranges ?
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on Dec 13, 2021 8:08:50 GMT -6
Will 1950s and later jets use more advanced attack profiles when using dumb bombs? Stuff like sea skimming attack profiles or pop up attack profiles to minimize exposure to SAMs?
|
|