zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Oct 13, 2022 18:06:58 GMT -6
Would it be possible to have an option in RTW3 to turn off Carriers and related Airpower? I would like the possibility to experiment a what if scenario in which the world never ventured above the comfort and safety of land, with the side bonus of really focusing on big gun warships late into the century of course. It would be nice to have that possibility just to add variation to the games Frankly I doubt that is possible...so much of those aspects are so deeply integrated into the game that completely separating them would be a huge job and require a massive effort to accomplish/debug/test. Doesn't the existing RTW2 have a "slow aircraft development" feature? This achieves much the same outcome without unrealistic magical hand waving to change the laws of physics and human inventiveness. I always play with "slow aircraft" development and find that it pretty much makes aircraft and aircraft carriers basically irrelevant until the late 1940's or early 1950's...and at most an annoyance to battleships with powerful AA in tactical situations.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 14, 2022 5:46:51 GMT -6
Got a simple question about the new game. Will we be able to rename our officers? Not important for gameplay, but I would really like to be able to from a roleplaying perspective. i'm willing to bet at worse you can go into the save game file with a text editor and edit names - not convenient but likely possible
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Nov 29, 2022 21:26:06 GMT -6
Alaska's are an outgrowth of Heavy Cruisers much like the original Battlecruisers, they are themselves however not battlecruisers compared to then modern capital ships lacking both artillery, size, and torpedo defense systems. They were also built under cruiser budget rather than capital ship budget. Of all the battlecruisers ever completed, only Hood had anything approaching a battleship-sized broadside and an effective TPS. Aside from the Alaskas, the following classes were significantly smaller than contemporary battleships: Invincible, Indefatigable, KongÅ, Derfflinger, Courageous, and Mackensen/Ersatz Yorck. I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Certainly their budget was closer to that of a treaty battleship than that of a CA. Sorry, but all the battlecruisers you mentioned, with the possible exception of Courageous, displaced as much or more than battleships designed at the same time. They also carried the same caliber main guns (or very close) although often fewer of the Alaskas on the other hand displaced far less than USN battleships designed at the same time (the Iowas and Montanas) and were far less powerfully armedr (12' vs 16"). Theye were exactly what the USN called them: large cruisers
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 29, 2022 22:20:52 GMT -6
12" guns are capital ship grade weapons.
They may have been a return to first generation battlecruiser-type designs, but that doesn't make them not-battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 30, 2022 9:53:02 GMT -6
And the conversation has already been closed.
|
|