|
Post by wlbjork on Jul 14, 2022 12:14:36 GMT -6
Thought of a couple nice to have although it would further complicate things the ability to built your auxileries such as coaliers, oilers to extend your reach into areas you don't have good basing and the ability to instruct your forces to focus on the enemy fleet's logistics. would have to be oilers, As the Russians learned with the 2nd Pacific squadron coaling at sea does not work vary well, now if you can find a bay on some unclaimed island some where, you could coal there quit easily Oilers aren't much use before you have access to oil though, so colliers would be essential at this point
|
|
|
Post by thomasmacmoragh on Jul 14, 2022 12:40:34 GMT -6
would have to be oilers, As the Russians learned with the 2nd Pacific squadron coaling at sea does not work vary well, now if you can find a bay on some unclaimed island some where, you could coal there quit easily Oilers aren't much use before you have access to oil though, so colliers would be essential at this point The problem remains that coaling at see, is well Technically posable proved to be all but impossible at sea, But colliers are useful , in supplying over seas basses, and now that I think about it didn't Germany have some secess usinging harbors in remote islands?
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Jul 15, 2022 13:22:19 GMT -6
Oilers aren't much use before you have access to oil though, so colliers would be essential at this point The problem remains that coaling at see, is well Technically posable proved to be all but impossible at sea, But colliers are useful , in supplying over seas basses, and now that I think about it didn't Germany have some secess usinging harbors in remote islands? From what I was seeing they were used in port to coal other ships, although what could be interesting is if they ever get added is some scouting mechanism to look for good coaling harbors and random events for attacks or accidents while coaling.
|
|
|
Post by Dew_It on Jul 16, 2022 20:15:39 GMT -6
Would it be possible to get an update on the expansion catalog, because I imagine a lot more has been added by this point. If not that is fine but I figured I'd ask.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jul 17, 2022 9:10:44 GMT -6
Would it be possible to get an update on the expansion catalog, because I imagine a lot more has been added by this point. If not that is fine but I figured I'd ask. We are planning for some major RTW3 info updates next month (August), so expect a good deal of additional info/details then.
|
|
|
Post by vulkanstomp on Jul 19, 2022 13:40:30 GMT -6
I was wondering if any changes is being made to how the AI builds ships in peacetime. The AI seems to build their fleets extremely top heavy unless they are restricted by treaty. I have had long periods of peace that saw some nations scrap ships until they are almost out of cruisers and their destroyer fleets were badly outdated.
|
|
|
Post by retsof on Jul 19, 2022 14:52:53 GMT -6
Were the pictures in the first post auto-generated or hand drawn? It would be nice to have the auto-drawn ships not be so ugly. Also any plans to automate the side-view picture?
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 19, 2022 15:52:46 GMT -6
vulkanstomp - Yes, but that is historically true. The great navies like the UK and US concentrated on capital ships and went to war with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries, and fleets like the Kriegsmarine were very short of everything from CLs on down. The rationale was that big ships are hard to get money for and take a long time to build, so they get peacetime priority, whereas small ships like escorts, and merchant-type auxiliaries, can be built relatively quickly as war nears or after it breaks out.
|
|
|
Post by vulkanstomp on Jul 19, 2022 19:48:35 GMT -6
vulkanstomp - Yes, but that is historically true. The great navies like the UK and US concentrated on capital ships and went to war with insufficient escorts and auxiliaries, and fleets like the Kriegsmarine were very short of everything from CLs on down. The rationale was that big ships are hard to get money for and take a long time to build, so they get peacetime priority, whereas small ships like escorts, and merchant-type auxiliaries, can be built relatively quickly as war nears or after it breaks out. I understand that. I was more talking a balance tweak to prevent weird situations like the British building one heavy cruiser between 1903 and 1912 and less then a dozen destroyers in the same time period, which I have had happen.
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Jul 20, 2022 18:45:12 GMT -6
Has asw value for light cruisers been thought of like adding depth charges. I know these where added on the Atlanta’s and some Japanese cruisers.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jul 21, 2022 0:58:41 GMT -6
Has asw value for light cruisers been thought of like adding depth charges. I know these where added on the Atlanta’s and some Japanese cruisers. I agree with that. Missile cruisers also normally have ASW capabilities, some ships classified as missile cruisers in the West were even built as ASW ships in the USSR.
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Jul 21, 2022 9:28:14 GMT -6
Would it be possible to add in a dedicated class for minesweepers/mine layers? Just to make it easier to sort through and autodesign new mine sweeps
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 21, 2022 14:48:58 GMT -6
It is possible that there was something more useless than depth charges on a WW2-era light cruiser, but if so I'm not aware of it. The ships are too big, not manueverable enough, usually don't have proper ASDIC/SONAR equipment and are optimized for different roles - surface attack and AA, mostly. The ships that had depth charges added got them as sort of a 'why not' rather than as an 'absolutely necessary'. To my knowledge there is no case of a CL successfully prosecuting an ASW contact unless maybe by ramming. Add to that the expensive possibility of losing a CL to a sub instead of a DD or KE and you can see why it just wasn't done. Missile cruisers might or might not be able to prosecute ASW targets. My knowledge of the subject is seriously out of date after, say, the 80s, but: Until the recent development of the vertical-launch silo, capable of launching different types of missile, each missile required a separate launcher, with heavy weight penalties as you added equipment. So most of the 'early' missile ships (1950-1990 maybe) were highly specialized for AA or ASW roles and could launch and control just a couple of missiles at a time. Many missile-armed ships did carry at least some ASW gear - fear of submarines being widespread and legitimate - usually the US SUBROC, a conventional torpedo (sometimes wire-guided), or something similar to one of those. For harassment (Cuban blockade) US ships used improvised explosives and maybe some depth charges. Unlike ASW work in WW2, a missile cruiser could and should develop the target by passive detection, including the use of helicopter or ASW plane equipment, and then fire a torpedo or a missile-delivered torpedo (SUBROC) at it from some distance away. Where a WW2 CL would not have the equipment, manueverability or training, a missile cruiser which might be 'tilted' toward AA or surface attack certainly could carry some useful ASW systems and almost certainly would.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 22, 2022 11:30:28 GMT -6
On reflection, those Japanese light cruisers armed with a 12" gun were more useless than a CL with depth charges. I'm sure we can all think of something... so I apologize for the hyperbole even though it was humorously meant.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 22, 2022 12:08:09 GMT -6
It is possible that there was something more useless than depth charges on a WW2-era light cruiser, but if so I'm not aware of it. The ships are too big, not manueverable enough, usually don't have proper ASDIC/SONAR equipment and are optimized for different roles - surface attack and AA, mostly. The ships that had depth charges added got them as sort of a 'why not' rather than as an 'absolutely necessary'. To my knowledge there is no case of a CL successfully prosecuting an ASW contact unless maybe by ramming. Add to that the expensive possibility of losing a CL to a sub instead of a DD or KE and you can see why it just wasn't done. Missile cruisers might or might not be able to prosecute ASW targets. My knowledge of the subject is seriously out of date after, say, the 80s, but: Until the recent development of the vertical-launch silo, capable of launching different types of missile, each missile required a separate launcher, with heavy weight penalties as you added equipment. So most of the 'early' missile ships (1950-1990 maybe) were highly specialized for AA or ASW roles and could launch and control just a couple of missiles at a time. Many missile-armed ships did carry at least some ASW gear - fear of submarines being widespread and legitimate - usually the US SUBROC, a conventional torpedo (sometimes wire-guided), or something similar to one of those. For harassment (Cuban blockade) US ships used improvised explosives and maybe some depth charges. Unlike ASW work in WW2, a missile cruiser could and should develop the target by passive detection, including the use of helicopter or ASW plane equipment, and then fire a torpedo or a missile-delivered torpedo (SUBROC) at it from some distance away. Where a WW2 CL would not have the equipment, manueverability or training, a missile cruiser which might be 'tilted' toward AA or surface attack certainly could carry some useful ASW systems and almost certainly would. Director, ASROC was standard on the "AAW" DDG's and CG's (DLG'S) of the USN since the 1960's. The FRAME'd Fletchers and Gearings couldn't be refitted with ASROC and got DASH instead. But for the PG's and smaller fray AFAIK all USN post WWWII designed combatants had both ASW sensors and effectors (most cases both SVTT ("Pyramid") and ASROC). Within/before WWII you are mostly correct, though even with those ships the USN tried to refit them with ASW capability when it kept them in service (e.g. the "Albany class" ex-CA CG's). ASROC could be fired both from its dedicated "box" launcher as wellas some models of the "standard" launcher.
|
|