|
|
Post by andrzej597 on Mar 5, 2021 15:43:18 GMT -6
After a today play I realised even more, how overpowered SAMs are in late game (after 1960). Example: I attacked russian fleet as Japan with 600+ aircraft, and, even though russians were without air cover, lost 240 aircraft to the AA fire and SAMS, which is nowhere near real SAM effectiveness. However, I think this is not due to SAMs being OP - late-game aircraft management isn't adequate to real cold war-era aircraft tactics. Torpedo bombing and dive bombing were (and they are in-game) antiquated and suicidal tactics against SAM-armed ships. In my opinion, after 1950-1955 era dive and torpedo bombers should be replaced in-game by a new class of, for example, "strike aircraft" (like Skyraider, A-4 skyhawk, A-7, etc) optimised for glide-bombing and rocket runs on enemy ships using anti-missile maneuvers like low-altitude approach to target.
Also, a new class of attack can be introduced - attacking enemy ships with unguided rockets. Weapons like HVARs and Tiny Tims proved themselves very effective against ships - so they can be added as weapons which can not cause flotation damage, but can knock out secondary and tertiary turrets, ruin superstructure and cause fires to target ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjm4444 on Mar 5, 2021 16:26:44 GMT -6
Will we be able to assign ships to squadrons? While having two squadrons of mixed Dreadnoughts and Predreadnoughts in a major fleet battle is amusing the first few times, by now its more annoying and immersion-breaking than anything else.
Either way, the new changes seem very interesting, and I look forward to further announcements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2021 19:23:34 GMT -6
I'll grant that I oversimplified a bit, other CV designs are occasionally viable, but my underlying point still stands: CVs don't really evolve in game. A late 1920s CV is basically as viable as a combat unit as one built in 1950, currently they handle aircraft just as well, are just as good at damage control and can launch and recover the same aircraft with no penalties. The major difference is that a 1920s CV comes into service with poor aircraft and the 1950s one doesn't. As for the RN's armoured carriers they were designed on the principle that it would be difficult to ensure protection against enemy air attack with just a CAP, especially without RADAR for early warning or directing interceptions. It was assumed that if operating in the Med or the confined waters between Singapore and Japan then they would always be in range of land based aircraft, which themselves were likley to be superior to any equivilent carrier borne aircraft. Armoured Carriers does a pretty good job of explaining it: www.armouredcarriers.com/projects. Trdl: the armoured carriers were built based on assumptions valid in the 1930s but by the 1940s were quickly becoming questionable. There is a lot more nuance than that and additional factors but thats the core of it. I'd say carriers irl didn't evolve a ton either. That might sound crazy but think about it. How many generations of carriers were there before the Essex? 3? 4? Various seaplane tenders turn into small converted, and fairly bad, carriers like Langely. Then there's Ranger and Lexington. Then the Yorktowns and then the Essex class. Now that's just America sure but American carriers after Langley weren't crazy different. They were different sizes, had different hanger arrangements, and that's kind of it? Different number of elevators maybe? Vastly oversimplifying it and there are probably tons of changes. But the biggest ones were folding wings for aircraft, number and placement of elevators, and hanger arrangements. I'd say the Lexington, a 1925 design, was not all that much different or worse than the Essex, a 1941 design. Perhaps we should have a say over hanger arrangement, which would make things more interesting maybe? Idk Carriers contemporary to Lexington and Saratoga, notably the British and Japanese carriers were much worse, possibly up to a generational gap in CV design. The Lexington's were just that good tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 5, 2021 20:32:41 GMT -6
Here is a link with PDF's about US carrier evolution. You might be surprised about the evolution. www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/evolution-aircraft-carriers.htmlThe Sara and Lex were not carriers from the keel up, but conversions. The Yorktown's design was based on war games using the Langley and Newport News War College table-top games. These along with the converted battlecruisers lex and Sara and comparisons to the small Ranger are what guided the designs of the Yorktown's. The follow-up Essex were just that, follow-up designs as was the Midway. |
|
|
|
Post by sagaren on Mar 5, 2021 21:11:20 GMT -6
One thing I'd like to see is a minimum range on torpedoes before they're able to arm and actually explode.
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Mar 5, 2021 22:08:52 GMT -6
I'll grant that I oversimplified a bit, other CV designs are occasionally viable, but my underlying point still stands: CVs don't really evolve in game. A late 1920s CV is basically as viable as a combat unit as one built in 1950, currently they handle aircraft just as well, are just as good at damage control and can launch and recover the same aircraft with no penalties. The major difference is that a 1920s CV comes into service with poor aircraft and the 1950s one doesn't. As for the RN's armoured carriers they were designed on the principle that it would be difficult to ensure protection against enemy air attack with just a CAP, especially without RADAR for early warning or directing interceptions. It was assumed that if operating in the Med or the confined waters between Singapore and Japan then they would always be in range of land based aircraft, which themselves were likley to be superior to any equivilent carrier borne aircraft. Armoured Carriers does a pretty good job of explaining it: www.armouredcarriers.com/projects. Trdl: the armoured carriers were built based on assumptions valid in the 1930s but by the 1940s were quickly becoming questionable. There is a lot more nuance than that and additional factors but thats the core of it. I'd say carriers irl didn't evolve a ton either. That might sound crazy but think about it. How many generations of carriers were there before the Essex? 3? 4? Various seaplane tenders turn into small converted, and fairly bad, carriers like Langely. Then there's Ranger and Lexington. Then the Yorktowns and then the Essex class. Now that's just America sure but American carriers after Langley weren't crazy different. They were different sizes, had different hanger arrangements, and that's kind of it? Different number of elevators maybe? Vastly oversimplifying it and there are probably tons of changes. But the biggest ones were folding wings for aircraft, number and placement of elevators, and hanger arrangements. I'd say the Lexington, a 1925 design, was not all that much different or worse than the Essex, a 1941 design. Perhaps we should have a say over hanger arrangement, which would make things more interesting maybe? Idk They evolved quite a bit in reality but the game's simplification of or lack of certain carrier aspects/features kind of ruins that evolution. It makes no difference how many classes there were before the Essex because each class went through changes themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 6, 2021 10:35:10 GMT -6
Carriers are getting more attention in the Expansion, more details as they evolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 6, 2021 12:19:27 GMT -6
I *finally* picked up RTW2, and its great. I'm up to 1917, playing as USA... the AVs Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright are on active duty, CVL Glenn Curtiss (10 a/c) is working up, and CVL Samuel Langley (28 a/c) is in the shipyards for conversion. So much fun!!!!
If this isn't the right place for a wish list, let me know. A couple thoughts:
- Adding fire control to the ship info screen would make fleet management and planning easier
- Adding some of the basic ship info to the Build screen
- Being able to take main batteries from retiring capital ships and turn them into coastal batteries cheaper/quicker than building a same-size coastal Btty from scratch.
The first two would take something I do on a spreadsheet and make it organic to the game. The last would reflect historical reality.
Thanks for another great iteration of the game!
|
|
|
|
Post by microscop on Mar 6, 2021 12:38:00 GMT -6
Carriers are getting more attention in the Expansion, more details as they evolve. Could i ask you take a look at my post on the previous page? Seems like everyone is excited about high tech but imho 1890s are much more interesting and relevant to the game. I have some questions about implementation of some in my opinion important things for 1890 start. |
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Mar 6, 2021 14:11:57 GMT -6
- Adding fire control to the ship info screen would make fleet management and planning easier - Adding some of the basic ship info to the Build screen
Pretty sure its already in the game. Fire control is in bottom left of ship data (double click the ship to see the card) You can see info on the build screen by right clicking the ship on the list and pressing "details".
|
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Mar 6, 2021 14:15:42 GMT -6
- Adding fire control to the ship info screen would make fleet management and planning easier - Adding some of the basic ship info to the Build screen
Pretty sure its already in the game. Fire control is in bottom left of ship data (double click the ship to see the card) You can see info on the build screen by right clicking the ship on the list and pressing "details".
Right, it's in Ship Data but not on the overall view of your fleet. Edit: I didn't know (or had forgotten) about the build screen part. Thanks!! |
|
|
|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Mar 6, 2021 16:50:29 GMT -6
I *finally* picked up RTW2, and its great. I'm up to 1917, playing as USA... the AVs Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright are on active duty, CVL Glenn Curtiss (10 a/c) is working up, and CVL Samuel Langley (28 a/c) is in the shipyards for conversion. So much fun!!!! If this isn't the right place for a wish list, let me know. A couple thoughts: - Adding fire control to the ship info screen would make fleet management and planning easier - Adding some of the basic ship info to the Build screen - Being able to take main batteries from retiring capital ships and turn them into coastal batteries cheaper/quicker than building a same-size coastal Btty from scratch. The first two would take something I do on a spreadsheet and make it organic to the game. The last would reflect historical reality. Thanks for another great iteration of the game! or use them or there spares for new battleships. like the king Gorge V |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2021 16:53:20 GMT -6
A few points.
#1 Improvement to night battles. Implementation of star shells, ships revealing positions when firing, etc.
#2 Increasing components which can be edited. For example, maximum night time view distance. Maximum day time view distance.
#3 The option to turn certain events (ex, 75,000t SBB TDS4+bulge strikes mine and sinks, or is torpedoed by a submarine and sunk) off.
#4 Add high velocity and or higher quality guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 7, 2021 5:17:12 GMT -6
I would massively appreciate a map rework and new more detail in the ship designs. Otherwise this is my favorite game. A custom nation maker would be fantastic. Custom nation maker is available for RTW1 and I think it still works for RTW2. Look at mod list. |
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 7, 2021 6:05:28 GMT -6
I would add:
- more variety of missions and also events
- add a preference for those players who wish to avoid micromanagement (e.g. CV air strikes)
|
|
