|
Post by zederfflinger on Aug 30, 2022 12:22:36 GMT -6
I normally use 6in guns for my primary battery with a few 4in secondaries. I've tried using 5in, but it doesn't seem to be quite as effective against other CL's, although it might be better when fighting destroyers.
It will be interesting to see if the game balance shifts in RTW 3. I looked at the preview pics over on Matrix, and the new ship designer looks fantastic!
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 30, 2022 14:41:48 GMT -6
JagdFlanker The AI designs in RTW3...may...just...surprise...you. Might want to have your blueprints ready for some new designs...just in case... Will that be default AI designs or will AIs adapt to the player's construction like it was mentioned in the expansion catalog with BBs? Both...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2022 20:18:40 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Sept 1, 2022 3:55:11 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents. True, but history also shows that it's practically impossible to guarantee that a ship will only ever perform the mission it was designed for. That's even more true in RTW2, where we have no control over what ships are brought into battle or how they're assigned (hopefully RTW3 might have something to say about that).
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Sept 1, 2022 9:00:04 GMT -6
... the ai NEVER builds an equivalent CL so their dominance is pretty much total
...
JagdFlanker The AI designs in RTW3...may...just...surprise...you. Might want to have your blueprints ready for some new designs...just in case... I've taken much pleasure in filling my own games "IDes" file with a great selection of both semi-historical and personal designs both for variety and balance. The AI tweaks them to it's own taste of ourse but the results are usually interesting.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2022 8:55:06 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents. True, but history also shows that it's practically impossible to guarantee that a ship will only ever perform the mission it was designed for. That's even more true in RTW2, where we have no control over what ships are brought into battle or how they're assigned (hopefully RTW3 might have something to say about that). The enemy always has a say in your plans. It was true in the days of the triremes, and it is still true whether its real history or virtual. You develop the mission or missions for a ship, establish requirements based on those missions and specifications and build the ship. Then, hope and pray that it can perform it duties. Most of the time it is the command that causes the grief for a ship not the design.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Sept 3, 2022 9:10:06 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents.
But as the game doesn't allow you to control what mission a ship is getting sent on, you have to approach things differently.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Sept 3, 2022 9:43:14 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents.
But as the game doesn't allow you to control what mission a ship is getting sent on, you have to approach things differently.
Precisely my point. While, in the real world, it might be at least somewhat possible to ensure a ship is only sent on missions it's designed for, this is much less possible in RTW2 (with the slight exception of CLAAs, but even then, they'll often be used for surface engagements (a la Atlanta)). Even in the real world, it's usually better to have one thing that can do any job reasonably well, rather than lots of different things that can each do one job really well. For instance, by WW2, Battlecruisers were largely irrelevant; the development of fast battleships made them obsolete, because a fast battleship could do a battlecruiser's job, but it could also fight in the battle line. This was already happening in WW1, with ships like the Queen Elizabeth class.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 3, 2022 10:26:47 GMT -6
A ship's weapons are.... or should be based on its mission. Nothing else. That's how it was done in real history. Figure it out, gents.
But as the game doesn't allow you to control what mission a ship is getting sent on, you have to approach things differently.
No, it doesn't but you don't have to execute the mission, just turn the ships around and head back to base. In real history that was done all the time. Many times, in the game, the enemy follows me, and I can ambush him. I do it many times. You do not have to finish every mission. The points lost are not important as protecting the ships.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 4, 2022 2:32:44 GMT -6
But as the game doesn't allow you to control what mission a ship is getting sent on, you have to approach things differently.
Precisely my point. While, in the real world, it might be at least somewhat possible to ensure a ship is only sent on missions it's designed for, this is much less possible in RTW2 (with the slight exception of CLAAs, but even then, they'll often be used for surface engagements (a la Atlanta)). Even in the real world, it's usually better to have one thing that can do any job reasonably well, rather than lots of different things that can each do one job really well. For instance, by WW2, Battlecruisers were largely irrelevant; the development of fast battleships made them obsolete, because a fast battleship could do a battlecruiser's job, but it could also fight in the battle line. This was already happening in WW1, with ships like the Queen Elizabeth class. It was usually possible when one side has overhelming advantage in numbers but when you are just trying to screw everything from your ships, than you take what you just have. And in same cases you send unsuited ships on other tasks far from main combat area, eg. in WW2 older cruisers were usually dispatch to patrol trade routes around the world, USN dipatch unsuited carriers for Pacific to Europe theatre, Royal Navy used R class battleships mainly for trade protection, invasion support as soon as they do not need them for main duty (the Mediterranean).
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Sept 24, 2022 13:06:56 GMT -6
But as the game doesn't allow you to control what mission a ship is getting sent on, you have to approach things differently.
No, it doesn't but you don't have to execute the mission, just turn the ships around and head back to base. In real history that was done all the time. Many times, in the game, the enemy follows me, and I can ambush him. I do it many times. You do not have to finish every mission. The points lost are not important as protecting the ships. Depends on the mission and the ships. In the Battle of Leyte Gulf/Battle off Samar, the mission was to protect the vital landing and the ships were cheap destroyers and mass-produced light carriers. The forces used their expendable ships to win the battle by completing the mission. I ALWAYS take Convey Defense missions for this reason, since I know I can win with almost nothing. ...I also tend to avoid Convoy Attack missions for the same reason, as the loss in mission is usually worse than just declining battle.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 25, 2022 11:06:00 GMT -6
No, it doesn't but you don't have to execute the mission, just turn the ships around and head back to base. In real history that was done all the time. Many times, in the game, the enemy follows me, and I can ambush him. I do it many times. You do not have to finish every mission. The points lost are not important as protecting the ships. Depends on the mission and the ships. In the Battle of Leyte Gulf/Battle off Samar, the mission was to protect the vital landing and the ships were cheap destroyers and mass-produced light carriers. The forces used their expendable ships to win the battle by completing the mission. I ALWAYS take Convey Defense missions for this reason, since I know I can win with almost nothing. ...I also tend to avoid Convoy Attack missions for the same reason, as the loss in mission is usually worse than just declining battle. This game makes it difficult... at least for me, to do an assessment of the risk versus rewards of a combat operation. I do agree that protection of convoys and attacks on convoys is vital, but many of the other operations do not warrant big losses, as they don't really further your war objectives. That said, it again, is based on the geography of your country, size of your fleet, and economic situation, that govern your decisions. This is the way I view it.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Sept 27, 2022 11:43:43 GMT -6
Not going to lie, I generally accept everything at the start of a war because it's fun and only ones I know will be rejected towards the end because I'm bored.
The only exceptions are the battles where the generator ****s me over repeatedly. Cruiser battles while blockading, convoy battles when I have old DDs in the area, and ANY AND ALL shore bombardment.
If I'm forced to fight them, I often change the time of day manually or force end the battle (via gamefiles) to impose some form of logic. No, I'm not going to bombard a fort in broad daylight, 20 miles from an airbase. No, I'm not going to fight a convoy with one TP DD which got damaged and then repaired, especially when I've 12 cruisers and 24 brand new dedicated escort DDs in the area. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Sept 27, 2022 12:15:34 GMT -6
Not going to lie, I generally accept everything at the start of a war because it's fun and only ones I know will be rejected towards the end because I'm bored. The only exceptions are the battles where the generator ****s me over repeatedly. Cruiser battles while blockading, convoy battles when I have old DDs in the area, and ANY AND ALL shore bombardment. If I'm forced to fight them, I often change the time of day manually or force end the battle (via gamefiles) to impose some form of logic. No, I'm not going to bombard a fort in broad daylight, 20 miles from an airbase. No, I'm not going to fight a convoy with one TP DD which got damaged and then repaired, especially when I've 12 cruisers and 24 brand new dedicated escort DDs in the area. Etc. One simple thing I hope they fix in RTW3 is that ships should go on their previous mission after repairs, not AF.
That said, the game is really all about manipulating the battle generator, and that's the main thing you have to consider when choosing what you build. It's much more important to know what not to have than to simply build good ships. If you avoid having the wrong things all those battles are playable.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Oct 15, 2022 12:25:48 GMT -6
Ah Shore Bombardment missions. The only reason I put guns on my destroyers...
|
|