jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Mar 2, 2021 21:25:19 GMT -6
wlbjork - I don't complain so much about not getting to choose exactly which ships go on a mission; my suggestion has more to do with letting me organize my ships into functional units, assign them to an area and then assign missions to them. That's not the same as the current system of cycling through mission after mission that I do not want, or which happen in an area I don't care about, or which I cannot sanely accept (like deploying my fleet just offshore from AI airbases, or deploying a French, English, Italian or American fleet in the Baltic). I'd be OK with having some ships not available, such as by last-minute grounding or mechanical casualty. I'd be happy to see 'such-and-such is needed for last-minute merchant escort - detach her Y/N?' with various penalties or results depending on what I pick. But constantly having my ships shuffled into unmatched sets and scattered over the ocean in a 'forced' mission I didn't choose... well, that just seems to be designed to give the AI a detached portion it can fall upon. I should at the very least be able to put fast ships in one group and slow ships in another. That matters more to me than the force levels on each side. We are considering some kind of fixed organisation and/or more player control over which ships will be selected for engagements in the expansion, as many players have had this request. I cannot say exactly how this will work now, or what the exact solution will be. I'd refer you to the "battlegenerator is ***** me off" thread if you want ideas. Lots of good stuff there imo about possible ways to improve it. I'm sure there are tons of threads actually about how to improve, that's just the most recent one. Also yeah the US is super easy mode, I thought everyone knew the real difficulty settings for the game lay in which nation you play. Spain I think is the hardest to play as. Lots of colonies and no real budget. Italy and Japan and the Confederacy are kinda hard but fairly easy cuz they're in one sea zone, or two for Japan but you can easily concentrate forces. Austria is harder cuz it's so poor. Russia and France are right above Italy and Japan, and Germany/UK are above them. US is the easiest. Although I find it quite hard to get large fleet battles as the US honestly. I much prefer playing as Italy, Austria, or France because they get to fight in the Med which is always fun. Oooo, an Idea Fredrick. I'd love to play as the US against the confederacy. Right now you can play as the Confederacy but you can never face the confederacy or a divided US. Id really love to see that, it weakens them quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 3, 2021 1:46:57 GMT -6
We are considering some kind of fixed organisation and/or more player control over which ships will be selected for engagements in the expansion, as many players have had this request. I cannot say exactly how this will work now, or what the exact solution will be. Oooo, an Idea Fredrick. I'd love to play as the US against the confederacy. Right now you can play as the Confederacy but you can never face the confederacy or a divided US. Id really love to see that, it weakens them quite a bit. Just FYI this is a mod nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4721/alternate-united-states-start
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Mar 3, 2021 3:14:22 GMT -6
4. Don't understand how sub warfare works. My main ASW corvette 900t 24knts two DP 4" guns, top notch FC and ASW rating 10. I have about 20 of them above TP requirements. Often getting defeated in "gun duels" or torpedoed. I guess after sinking all old subs, new ones are better than 10 ASW rating? Try up-gunning to 5" weapons to see if that helps in gunnery duels. Other than that, a KE eating a torpedo is usually more favourable and cheaper than a CL eating the same torpedo. We don't know everything about the ASW rating, but 10 is the max. Number of hulls very likely plays some part. Do you use any DDs in ASW work, or is it mostly on the shoulders of your KEs?
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 3, 2021 3:42:27 GMT -6
@fredrik W - thank you for the reply. I quite understand that no firm promises can be made with regard to content or time - I am however very happy to hear that you are looking at it. Frankly, I'd pay for it as I'd consider an expansion of the middle (operational) mechanics to be a serious expansion of the game and would not expect you to do that for free. blackvoid - 1) Supporting DDs should be behind or on the unengaged side of the battle line; that was standard doctrine since the big ships couldn't shoot through them. Screening DDs should be out in front - but weather, or radical manuevers, can cause them to fall behind. I have had an 'occasional' self-inflicted torpedo and it is... well, it makes me see red and say nasty things, but I'm not sure it is easily preventable. I think what is going on is that the firing DD looks at the enemy, sees a gap and fires - and then the friendly walks into the path. One solution would be to widen the 'block' that friendlies can't shoot through or impose a minimum range inside which the torpedo cannot arm, but I'm not sure how involved the coding would be. It is after all a historical fact that some ships did shoot up friendlies and many more had concerns about doing so... so I dunno what the best solution is here. Mostly I'm glad my radar-equipped ships aren't shelling and torpedoing my friendly merchantmen. 2) There are economic effects as the war goes on, usually from unrest and merchant losses. But overall your naval budget should rise... and the number of ships you have to support tends to go up too. Enemy nations may be building a lot and placing those ships in reserve or in mothballs, which saves them a lot of operational money. It also makes their crew quality fair or poor and helps you sink them if and when they come out. If the AI suffers heavy losses it will still build some warships but will place them in reserve and fight you with submarines. In general, I think it is a balancing mechanism to keep the AI 'in the game'. Air forces do absorb a lot of money. 3) Yeah... I feel your frustration, and I have an explanation but it may not make you feel better. There is a set of missions for each nation (the WarInfo file), but only 10 or 11. Those missions get used over and over as long as you are at war with that power - and there's only 10, so what 'works' in 1905 may not work so well once airpower is developed. The game was intended to simulate budgets and ship designing, and then let you test your fleet in combat. The operational part - the mission generator - is really just a way to set up a reasonably balanced battle so that you can play with your ships LOL. Unfortunately the rest of the game is so good it shows up the flaws in the operational part, and airpower just puts a spotlight on them. 4) Subs and ASW are handled very abstractly - basically you and the AI are going to lose a certain percentage of your sub force every turn, modified by ASW strength and by random chance (and by stance - unlimited sub warfare causes you to lose more subs than prize rules, for example). Your KE design looks good (I usually keep to 3" guns and use more of themm but that's just me). In RtW1 it was necessary to have 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 superiority to suppress the enemy sub fleet, and to have a lot of fleet DDs with your big ships. I'm not sure what the current 'sweet spot' is, or what power your opponent submarines have, but 20 KEs may not be enough. Try assigning old DDs to TP work as well. Flying boats and medium bombers could help... but sub warfare is fundamentally attritional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 10:13:56 GMT -6
Oh I never get tired of these "open letters". I'm not going to play 'Devil's Advocate' I'm just going to explain why you're wrong. Given the fact you signed up for the forum, posted three times, then disappeared the very next day leads me to believe you won't see this reply, but here goes.
I have hundreds of hours in this game but this is my first post because I have never been more incredibly upset. I also have hundreds of hours in this game, maybe I can address some of your concerns.
1. Your algorithms send my cruisers into shore bombardment missions where the radius of port protection surrounding the target is greater than the range of my guns so that I can't attack it. This is ridiculous and a waste of players' time. Also, how are you determining what ships that are available in the region to send in for the shore bombardment? Often, I have BCs and BBSs available in that, but you send in my 6" armed cruisers to attack 9-11" coastal guns. Again, RIDICULOUS! There are no algorithms, per se, each battle is built according to a template and populated according to what is available in the region at the time, with certain randomness factor thrown in to simulate the fact that not all of your ships are just sitting around waiting to bombard a shore target. Your line-of-battle ships are NOT EVER going to be tasked with something so trivial as blasting an enemy supply dump, because you don't send a finely tuned Ferrari to participate in a demolition derby. Armored Cruisers are the ship for the job, and if you don't have any guns in the 8-10 inch range as main battery for your armored cruisers, then I don't know what to tell you.
It sounds more like you've had one bad mission than this being a persistent flaw, because I've only ever had to deal with a shore battery once or twice. I understand it's frustrating, but you need to get the idea out of your head that every mission the game gives you is winnable. That is why you have the option to decline every single battle offered except for surprise encounters. Don't want to bombard that shore target? Don't do it. If previous experience and reconnaissance shows a port is heavily defended, avoid it. You are given the OPTION because you are in command, and expected to make COMMAND DECISIONS.
Don't be afraid to click the 'Decline Attack' button a few times, it won't kill you.2. I can send greater numbers of ships into a theater of operations than the enemy. Despite this, fleet engagements, especially when trying to stop an invasion of your territory, FOR SOME REASON, always seem to end with the AI being able to marshall his entire force in the sector while I am left with fractions of my available force, typically around half. WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THIS? Why does the enemy always get to choose the battle size on their terms to their advantage while I am left holding the bag. This happened EVERY TIME during my campaign as UK while defending Canada from the US. Yes, you've sent a larger force into the theater than your opponent. No, that entire force is not sitting around waiting to attack the enemy fleet. If your fleet is sufficiently larger than the enemy force, you will BLOCKADE him, which prevents his normal activity, but occasionally triggers a full fleet battle in which he musters his entire force and attempts to break your blockade. Because your own fleet is busy on blockade duty, they have to split into smaller forces to plug up his harbors and shipping routes. This results in the enemy being capable of establishing a local superiority in a single battle. Not to mention you are busy maintaining a force from smaller bases right on the doorstep of your enemy's main supply and deployment zone. That will automatically result in a reduction in your deployment ability. In my current war I'm busy fighting Italy from an occupied Tunisia as the USA and I've been outnumbered in every single battle at least two-to-one. Unlike you, I UNDERSTAND WHY: A remote base in Tunisia (no matter how well developed) is not going to allow anything close to the capacity and capability of the ENTIRE ITALIAN NAVAL BASE STRUCTURE BEING IN THE MEDITERANNEAN. Britain is on the other side of the Atlantic. Deal with it. Remember, you have the option to decline battle. The only result this will have is the enemy gaining a few victory points, and the blockade being lifted. You can then focus on destroying what parts of his fleet become exposed, and bottling him back up again. Once again, you are required to make COMMAND DECISIONS, not fight and win every single encounter.
Also, go into the settings screen and deselect the check box labeled "Supporting Forces". Don't worry about what it does, just do it.3. The "hidden flaws" in UK warships, which are somewhat derived from historical narrative, have decidedly taken on ridiculous size. Repeatedly losing multiple capitol ships in setpiece battles from HIDDEN FLAWS is absolutely unacceptable. The suspected historical problem was training to leave magazine doors open and creating an environment conducive to massive magazine explosions. TRAINING, NOT STRUCTURAL FLAWS. Why is this then continually a problem? Are we to believe Brits don't ever learn from their mistakes? The Brits are the most hubristic people on the planet, and require the ability to ADMIT THEY'VE MADE MISTAKES in order to correct them. 4. In general, I as a player get the very strong impression that the AI knows next to everything about my lineup in the bigger battles and gets to choose in what manner he will engage me. In comparison, I get shafted repeatedly because your game takes away my agency, the agency that the opponent AI seems to very well enjoy. What is your rationale for this? No admiral would choose to send his ships piecemeal against massively larger forces. Yet you keep forcing me into those confrontations. It is absolutely distressing to the point that I often regret purchasing this game and put it down for several months at a time. Give me the option to take every ship available if I so choose, even if it affects battles in other areas of the same region. This is not how you get someone to be a repeat buyer. You need to push your reconnaissance efforts harder, drive enemy scouts away from your force, and discover the location of the enemy main fleet sooner. This will allow you to prepare your plan accordingly, or if you find yourself at a disadvantage you have time to withdraw. I'm at the point now where all I need to do is spot the enemy scout force, note the direction they're travelling, and I can already assume where the enemy fleet is and decide what direction to approach them from. You are given a LONG TIME in each battle to do things like this, and battles DO NOT END until both sides lose contact with each other. Sometimes it might be advisable to sail AROUND the enemy force to hit them from an unexpected direction. Not all battles have to devolve into two parallel lines blasting away at each other, and not all battles are decisive victories.
Try to carve out a piece of the enemy fleet and destroy it. Bait the enemy with your scout force and then attack him in the flank. Sail around them and hit them in the rear. Trap them against the coast and pound them. Lead them into your own shore batteries. Or, sit just out of range until night fall then order your destroyers into a massive flotilla attack.
Just remember, you are not being FORCED to do anything. This game is all about choice.5. Why do you not model in conflicts between other nations to an extent beyond simply increasing my tension points? It is always the player nation that seems to be the focus of world aggression and attention. Adopt a more peaceful strategy, or be so much stronger than your opponents they would never dare attack you. Force a war upon a weaker adversary and defeat them quickly, that will re-set world tension and buy you more time to prepare to fight stronger opponents. Don't just pick whatever option gets you the most prestige.6. I have repeatedly had situations where I was forced to build ships for the admiralty or lose. However, after choosing the half option, I have been saddled with the full ship amount. Post pics, a save game, and report it as a bug. Why are you here complaining about it instead of working to get it fixed?7. You provide the opportunity on occasion to blow up ships at anchor, yet when this succeeds, the enemy sustained no actual loss of the kind of destroyed ship (BB) to their inventory. Post pics, a save game, and report it as a bug. Why are you here complaining about it instead of working to get it fixed?8. When trying to negotiate the ends of wars, I get the feeling like it doesnt even matter what option I choose. Often I will receive a message that the enemy wants to surrender and is willing to negotiate some loss of territory or without border changes. When I select that we should accept their offer on lenient terms, more often than not the game will tell me that the negotiations failed. IS THIS ACTUALLY WORKING AS INTENDED? The enemy wants to surrender, I want to be lenient, and yet the gameplay algorithms say NO. WHY??? You are the Admiral, not the President. He's asking for your recommendation, you're not telling him what to do. Don't assume the Government has competent people in diplomatic posts. All types of negotiations have a chance of failure. The enemy also has a vote. You know how long it took to get the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table? We first had to get them to agree on the size and shape of the table!9. Where are your guides explaining the intricacies of combat management of single squadrons and targeting individual ships for each squadron? You cannot target individual ships. It's not in the manual because it doesn't exist. You can assign targets to divisions by targeting specific enemy divisions. There's a little 'set target' button on the division orders screen. You do know you can right click on a division flag to bring up a big orders panel that has everything you can do all laid out with handy tooltips, yes?
10. Do US battleships have a hidden survivability modifier beyond the hidden flaws disadvantage of the British? Nope. They're just better. Cope. 11. WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SLOW DOWN SHIPS AFTER I HAVE DETACHED THEM? Several times a game, I lose ships to flooding because they want to go 16-20 knots after being detached from a battle for damage. Idiot AI are too stupid to slow down and I cant seem to stop them. I honestly can't think of anything more frustrating in this game than watching my ships sink on their way back to port because they don't know how to slow down to stop flooding. When you detach a ship, it proceeds at best speed to the nearest port. Stop detaching flooding ships. In fact, stop detaching ANY ships. The only time I have ever detached a ship was when I didn't want them to participate in a battle. If a ship is flooding while part of a division, they will automatically slow down, turn away, and address their problems.US games are absolute easy mode every single time. Then you've never gone to war with Britain in 1905. That's the fastest and easiest way to lose a USA campaign.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 3, 2021 22:01:49 GMT -6
I appreciate the spirited discussion, but I remind everyone to remember to be polite and professional in this and all threads, please.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 6, 2021 3:12:01 GMT -6
Update original with it, not expansion. I have tons of changes I'd like to see regarding battle generation and force selection, but much of what I'd like to see (and much of what others have advocated for), would involve a significant overhaul of the game, such that it would necessarily have to be part of an expansion or sequel. That said, these things have been on my wishlist since RTW1. I was disappointed that RTW2 did not include them, and would rather have had the original 1900-1925 game overhauled rather than having aviation and another quarter century added to the game. And I'll be disappointed if he expansion, or at least a future RTW3, does not include them. A few more comments for the NWS team: 1) While I myself am not especially eager to get ahold of the features involved, I do sympathize with the people who have expressed concern about features that were announced for RTW2 before the expansion was announced that now seem like they'll end up being pushed back to the expansion, especially the features that have been in the UI, but unimplemented, since 1.0. 2) I myself have concerns that RTW2 is not to the point, in terms of outstanding bugs, that RTW1 was when RTW2 was announced. 3) I'm a bit concerned about the feasibility of a game engine that handles everything from 1890 to 1970, particularly given that an 1890 legacy fleet will contain a lot of oddball designs from the steam to sail transition. I know that players have been asking for an 1890 start, but I don't know how well it can be implemented in a game that also includes missile cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 6, 2021 4:54:33 GMT -6
director I'm in total agreement. The game lacks longevity and I think it's starting to show. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like more and more players are getting fed up too. You and OP hit most of the reasons why. RtW2 is a great game, but it has its flaws and I think the biggest is what you said. The game system is stuck between 1900-1925 but now with aircraft and carriers. I mean up to the 1940's isn't too bad, but after that the game just falls apart. I won't ever play Italy again because of how ridiculous the Adriatic Sea situation is in the late game. I still have ships deploying in the English Channel in broad daylight post 1955. There's also sub spam and ridiculously broken trade warfare and ineffective ASW which exasperates late game issues because more nations are likely to be in sub spam mode by then. Going back to the longevity point, there's only so many missions and situations. The variety is just not there and I do understand how time consuming creating missions are. But there's also a lack of mod support. I know some games that haven't been touched by devs in almost two decades that are still fresh because of modding, but modding this game is such a pain in the ass. And good luck trying to ask about a mechanic or feature because if the playerbase hasn't figured it out you won't get an answer. That's why I'm probably not going to bother with my role playing surprise attack "mod". I don't want to mess with or give other players advice on a system I don't fully understand and no one on the dev team seemed to want to help. And now like you said instead of fixing the base game, they're extending the timeline even more. When they came out with the official announcement with zero mention of fleet organization or taskforces - despite bringing up the dlc/expansion teaser whenever users were asking about that kind of stuff - I was taken aback. I was excited for the Persistent ship histories point more than anything else. That was also what was keeping me onboard but now I'm not so sure once I thought about how messed up it would be if the mission generator gave me missions meant for WW1 armored cruisers to missile ships. I just asked about this in the Expansion thread and the answer will likely be the deciding factor if I buy it. Barring of course a surprise announcement of some kind of fleet organizer and/or changes to the mission generator. The sub and sub/escort changes may convince me too, but I'd have to wait until the expansion is out to see if it's really a fix. I'm not holding my breath. The worst crime of all is that there's features in the base game (edge lifts, deck park) that don't even work yet. Will they work in the expansion? Will you have to pay to get features that you already paid for? Keep in mind I don't have an issue paying for an expansion, if it actually fixed issues with the core game and added mechanics to increase the longevity of the existing timeline. Like a DLC with a taskforce/fleet organizer, expanded diplomacy, AI wars, greater variety of missions. Of course there could be more announcements of features coming to the expansion so I'm not going to completely count it out yet. On a final note, I do feel the dev team doesn't actually listen to us and so far this Expansion and certain other items seem to suggest that. I've written some stupidly long suggestions before and I don't think I've ever received a meaningful reply. Do I think I'm entitled to one? Not really, but it's a little salty when you think you put effort into something and it gets nothing but the thread with like three lines does. I was working on a suggestion for National Experience/Efficiency Modifiers and ASW improvements. I also started a thread for more strategic aircraft involvement, but I didn't finish it. Don't have the motivation to complete either. Hard agree I think the biggest problem is the fact the devs have the game so closed which means almost no proper modding support. On top of that if you want to know how part of the game works the devs usually dont answer. The only way we get info is when the devs suddenly and for an unexplained reason decide to reveal facts in a random thread about how the game works and how penalties work. Reminds me of when i posted a picture of my yamto and one of the devs replied (not exact quote but i cant remember it right now) out of absolutely nowhere. If that dev had not said anything at all we would have absolutely no idea about said penalty. There was made a document for RTW 1 where random developer comments on mechanics to explain how some of the game worked. (link here these should still mostly apply to RTW 2) nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1221/fredricks-tidbits-clarifications-extra-infoIm working on making a similair thing for RTW 2 but its alot of work to go through all the dev replies to find these small tidbits.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Mar 6, 2021 4:58:18 GMT -6
Adding to discussion. X axis shows gun caliber, Y axis shows armor penetration I plotted the armor penetration of quality 1 guns with full technologies (1950), at 5kyards distance and noticed it had an odd shape. The 14" and 8" guns are (most noticeably) above the trend, while 9", 10", 18", 19", 20" guns are below the trend. I was wondering why, so I computed the sectional density of 10" and 8" shells. 10" shells had significant advantage in sectional density, as it should, being a higher caliber projectile. Plugged values into deMarre calculator assuming same velocity, using characteristics of 8" gun, estimated penetration of 10" gun at 5kyards; 11 inches. Plotted weight of gun, 10" appears to fit trend. This suggests to me 10" gun offers similar velocity to 8" gun. In cost 10" is a little better on trend line. Calculating armor penetration of 10" gun by interpolating its armor pen with 11" and 8" guns gives result ~11.56", significantly higher than rated penetration of belt at 5kyards in game. I did not calculate for the other underperforming guns. Then I compared 16"Q1 gun from RTW2 to real life 16"/45 Mk2/3/4 (British) Naval Gun designed in 1938. Performance of 16"Q1 cannon at 15k yards only matches 16" Mark1 Gun of Nelson, and 15"/42 Mk1 of 1912. Compared to 16"/45 at 17.7", it is not even a contest. 16" gun projectile is also significantly underweight compared. At 5kyards the 16" Mk2/3/4's defeats ~26". Assuming Q of gun reflects this; -2 --> L/30, -1 --> L/35, 0 --> L/40 1 --> L/45, and 16", penetration of projectiles (Q1 guns) in 1938 should be around 26 inches. You can also notice the horizontal (x axis) displacement that contributes to these problems. I think, RTW severely underestimates belt armor penetration of kinetic penetrators. Even if these values are for something like base through, 100% chance of 80% projectile mass penetrating armor at X distance, I suspect its not using it correctly, given difficulty players have had defeating armor protection of contemporary battleships with armor piercing projectiles. Do you have a document with the chart you showed ? with data for each caliber and their penetration I was working on a penetration mod a while ago to make penetration more realistic because RTW 2 has its penetration values all over the place especially for larger guns
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 11:06:35 GMT -6
Another issue is the torpedoes. Only a couple torpedoes are needed to sink a 73,000 ton superbattleship with ultimate TDS.
Meanwhile Yamato with her air TDS took like 8 and kept going at 15 knots before being hit by a couple more. "How many before flooding was out of control!" You can say, but in RTW that's like, 4.
The aircraft are ridiculously accurate, regularly scoring like 20% hits even when the target is maneuvering, without even the need to box them in. If real aircraft get that close, a 10 round burst from a 25mm Type 96 takes them out fast.
Unless you have SAM the aircraft are unrealistically powerful.
And if you have SAM, you have ASMs, which are also, really strong.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Mar 11, 2021 15:02:42 GMT -6
@fredrik W - thank you for the reply. I quite understand that no firm promises can be made with regard to content or time - I am however very happy to hear that you are looking at it. Frankly, I'd pay for it as I'd consider an expansion of the middle (operational) mechanics to be a serious expansion of the game and would not expect you to do that for free. blackvoid - 1) Supporting DDs should be behind or on the unengaged side of the battle line; that was standard doctrine since the big ships couldn't shoot through them. Screening DDs should be out in front - but weather, or radical manuevers, can cause them to fall behind. I have had an 'occasional' self-inflicted torpedo and it is... well, it makes me see red and say nasty things, but I'm not sure it is easily preventable. I think what is going on is that the firing DD looks at the enemy, sees a gap and fires - and then the friendly walks into the path. One solution would be to widen the 'block' that friendlies can't shoot through or impose a minimum range inside which the torpedo cannot arm, but I'm not sure how involved the coding would be. It is after all a historical fact that some ships did shoot up friendlies and many more had concerns about doing so... so I dunno what the best solution is here. Mostly I'm glad my radar-equipped ships aren't shelling and torpedoing my friendly merchantmen. 2) There are economic effects as the war goes on, usually from unrest and merchant losses. But overall your naval budget should rise... and the number of ships you have to support tends to go up too. Enemy nations may be building a lot and placing those ships in reserve or in mothballs, which saves them a lot of operational money. It also makes their crew quality fair or poor and helps you sink them if and when they come out. If the AI suffers heavy losses it will still build some warships but will place them in reserve and fight you with submarines. In general, I think it is a balancing mechanism to keep the AI 'in the game'. Air forces do absorb a lot of money. 3) Yeah... I feel your frustration, and I have an explanation but it may not make you feel better. There is a set of missions for each nation (the WarInfo file), but only 10 or 11. Those missions get used over and over as long as you are at war with that power - and there's only 10, so what 'works' in 1905 may not work so well once airpower is developed. The game was intended to simulate budgets and ship designing, and then let you test your fleet in combat. The operational part - the mission generator - is really just a way to set up a reasonably balanced battle so that you can play with your ships LOL. Unfortunately the rest of the game is so good it shows up the flaws in the operational part, and airpower just puts a spotlight on them. 4) Subs and ASW are handled very abstractly - basically you and the AI are going to lose a certain percentage of your sub force every turn, modified by ASW strength and by random chance (and by stance - unlimited sub warfare causes you to lose more subs than prize rules, for example). Your KE design looks good (I usually keep to 3" guns and use more of themm but that's just me). In RtW1 it was necessary to have 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 superiority to suppress the enemy sub fleet, and to have a lot of fleet DDs with your big ships. I'm not sure what the current 'sweet spot' is, or what power your opponent submarines have, but 20 KEs may not be enough. Try assigning old DDs to TP work as well. Flying boats and medium bombers could help... but sub warfare is fundamentally attritional. Regarding 1) I honestly thinking screening formations were broken or changed sometime between RTW1 and 2. Lately I've gone back to RTW1, and if I set my cruisers or DDs in a screening position, they happily position themselves between my BBs and the enemy's forces. It works exactly as you'd expect (occasional breakage because of maneuvers or torpedo dodging, but works probably 70% of the time). In RTW2, in my experience, setting a force to "screen" will cause them to take the "support" position. It really feels like something got switched, cause I'm always asking myself, "Why are they behind my BBs?" I play in Admiral mode, and I've sometimes had to switch to more direct control because the screening role just doesn't work. Which is annoying cause I don't want to micro that much.
|
|
cteb
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by cteb on Mar 14, 2021 0:29:26 GMT -6
Regarding 3: If I recall correctly the effect of this condition actually does decrease with every successive detonation. I don't recall the exact number but after perhaps 3-4 occourances your rate of flash fires becomes the same as other nations without the effect. You are right that this condition has taken a situational truth applying to a very specific period of time out of context and applied it to the whole first half of the 20th century, to my understanding it is a contrivance to allow non-UK players to put some kind of dent in the UK's often monolithic mid game fleet. So there really were three problems that contributed to the British flash fire problem: 1) Poor flash safety procedures. This was recognized and corrected. On some ships it was not a great problem (e.g, Lion, whose gunnery officer, some time prior to Jutland, ordered the magazines swept and the sweepings dumped in a pile on deck. He then dropped a match into the pile with the turret crews looking on, after which everyone wore their magazine shoes). 2) Poor armor on BCs. This was recognized and corrected on new construction, but not much could be done for existing ships. 3) Touchy powder. Seydlitz survived a dual turret fire that actually reached both magazines involved, whereas I'm not aware of any British vessel that survived flash reaching the magazines. This was never corrected. IIRC, the British lost a BB (Royal Oak?) to a spontaneous flash fire in port in WWII, and the USN did a test on the flash susceptibility of US vs British powder in WWII in which the British powder did very poorly. Depending on where exactly the shell that destroyed Hood went off, this might have made the difference (e.g, if the shell went off in the engine room and sent splinters into the 4" magazines, then less volatile powder might have prevented the loss of the ship. If the shell went off in the middle of a magazine, the ship was probably doomed with any powder). 1) Is correct, but this issue was doctrinally specific to the Battlecruiser force and, as you note, not universal, the staff on some ships ignoring the order or with some ships joining the force later (like HMS Tiger) never following them in the first place. 2) Is correct(ish) but applies mostly to the Invincible and Indefatigable classes which were designed to combat Armoured Cruisers rather than other battlecruisers (which in the former case did not yet exist). Beyond this pair British BCs were armored reasonably for the type. 3) Is also correct in the first part, British cordite of the Jutland period was particularly sensitive. As to spontaneous flash fire though you are probably thinking of HMS Vanguard which was lost to a magazine explosion in port in 1917. Royal Oak was sunk by a submarine while at port. Notable in that in that incident is that one torpedo struck a magazine space without causing an explosion, this is visible in the 3d scan of her wreck as propellant cases litter the surrounding seabed. As to the part of your statement that references Hood, I would refer you to the article 'The Loss of HMS Hood A Re-Examination' by William J. Jurens if you have not read it already (I suspect you have), it is available for free online, and points to a similar conclusion, though if this problem was as severe as the cordite issues of Jutland I am not certain. It is noteworthy however that the article in question also mentions that during WW2 several British ships suffered explosive damage to their magazine, and Hood was the only one to explode, I would suspect then that the issues were not quite as severe.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 14, 2021 15:35:31 GMT -6
On British Powder, steps were already underway prior to the loss of Vanguard to improve its safety (but iirc - noting it's been a while - Vanguard didn't have the new stuff when she exploded). It's been a while since I read it, but there's an interesting article in Warship Volume 2 (1978) that covers it off.
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 20:36:22 GMT -6
Oh I never get tired of these "open letters". I'm not going to play 'Devil's Advocate' I'm just going to explain why you're wrong. Given the fact you signed up for the forum, posted three times, then disappeared the very next day leads me to believe you won't see this reply, but here goes.
I don't respond to such manner of communication due to the nature of your attitude. It doesn't warrant a thoughtful response. Especially with the administration already having made their thoughts known immediately after your inflammatory and derogatory post which had several glaringly false statements made about what I said.
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 20:47:48 GMT -6
Nothing personal, but when you are playing against the US, that argument doesn't hold water. It is VERY hard to outproduce the US Navy. If you want any hope of winning, you need decisive battles where you can throw everything at the wall and make something stick while you have the chance. They have created a dynamic that artificially helps the AI to the point that you are very unlikely to win against an opponent that can outproduce you if they limit battles to when they aren't disadvantaged. I don't have that ability as the player, but the strongest AI nation who can outproduce anyone else gets this? It's ridiculous. Why bother playing UK then if your main competitor is always able to neuter your fleet campaigns by choosing how many ships they want to fight against. I've fought and won against larger opponents. I've won against the US while playing as the confederates and Japan and the UK. I've won as Italy fighting against the UK and France at the same time (hardest war I've ever fought actually but super fun) and as the UK by itself at it's prime. Just because it limits the battles so they aren't outrageously one sided doesn't mean you can't win. Numbers comes in very handy during successive battles btw. That hardest war I fought as Italy was hard because there was a year of constant invasion battles and fleet/carrier battles. Every battle ships would get damaged or sunk leaving me with less ships for the next battle which made it harder to avoid more ships getting damaged and sunk. It was a death spiral that I thankfully avoided by eventually doing the same thing to the AI, damaging enough ships that they couldn't launch another invasion or fleet battle. Numbers would have helped a lot there. I'm confused on what you're arguing though. You want AI nations that outnumber you to bring their full power to bear against you? Cuz you'd lose, everyone would lose and that's not fun. Losing is fun yes but not like that. Playing against the US as a confederate means you have a different scenario completely. You have the ability to sortie an immense amount of short range forces against the home ports of the US. Submarine attrition is much easier and there are few possessions to defend. This is an important ability unavailable to the UK. Yes, that comes with other disadvantages, but let's take the whole dynamic into consideration. I have turned the tides of war as many European nations before thanks to pursuing similar strategies against much stronger opponents. The UK, with so many possessions to protect, doesn't have the luxury of letting the US invade whatever it wants in Atlantic and in the Caribbean while still maintaining sufficient commander points to not lose. I want to be able to form a coherent battle group, sortie into an opponents theater of operations, and not allow units to wander off en masse to do tiny operations when the strategy I'm pursuing is diametrically opposed to that.
|
|