Post by Noname117 on Jul 3, 2021 20:46:07 GMT -6
I've had a few thoughts about some ship design decisions made in real life which just aren't made either at all, as-often, or for the same reasons in Rule the Waves 2 and thought I'd just post them here.
1: Tumblehome checkbox
There exists a checkbox you can check for "tumblehome hull," giving your ship a hullform more similar to French pre-dreads or cruisers from the pre-dreadnought era. This hull design increases stability when undamaged whilst decreasing stability when damaged; so the effects should be an increased accuracy and maybe fire rate but the ship takes a heavy penalty to accuracy and fire rate with significant flotation loss, as well as having less overall flotation points in general.
2: Wing mount encouragement without steam turbines.
The reason hexagonal layouts got used so often early in dreadnoughts was due to the massive amounts of machinery needed for triple expansion engines. It might be good to offer weight savings for wing turrets vs centerline turrets for ships with high percentages of tonnage spent on machinery, especially pre-steam-turbine. Cross-deck-firing may limit this effect.
3: Pensacola-type layouts
Right now turret layouts are encouraged to have larger turrets on deck level and smaller turrets superfiring above them. This makes sense for a slow or standard speed battleship, but with faster ships going with the reverse approach, with the larger turret above the smaller turret, can allow for thinner lines, and as such with higher weight percentages of machinery it may make sense to give weight penalties for giving A and Y turrets (and 1, 2, 3, and 4) more guns (and B and X if they have 2 or more guns than A and Y turrets), especially at larger calibers. Maybe at a small cost to flotation. There could be a tech to reduce these penalties in the late-game on with bow-shapes like the Iowa.
1: Tumblehome checkbox
There exists a checkbox you can check for "tumblehome hull," giving your ship a hullform more similar to French pre-dreads or cruisers from the pre-dreadnought era. This hull design increases stability when undamaged whilst decreasing stability when damaged; so the effects should be an increased accuracy and maybe fire rate but the ship takes a heavy penalty to accuracy and fire rate with significant flotation loss, as well as having less overall flotation points in general.
2: Wing mount encouragement without steam turbines.
The reason hexagonal layouts got used so often early in dreadnoughts was due to the massive amounts of machinery needed for triple expansion engines. It might be good to offer weight savings for wing turrets vs centerline turrets for ships with high percentages of tonnage spent on machinery, especially pre-steam-turbine. Cross-deck-firing may limit this effect.
3: Pensacola-type layouts
Right now turret layouts are encouraged to have larger turrets on deck level and smaller turrets superfiring above them. This makes sense for a slow or standard speed battleship, but with faster ships going with the reverse approach, with the larger turret above the smaller turret, can allow for thinner lines, and as such with higher weight percentages of machinery it may make sense to give weight penalties for giving A and Y turrets (and 1, 2, 3, and 4) more guns (and B and X if they have 2 or more guns than A and Y turrets), especially at larger calibers. Maybe at a small cost to flotation. There could be a tech to reduce these penalties in the late-game on with bow-shapes like the Iowa.