|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 23, 2023 9:04:11 GMT -6
What about limiting the type of armor plate to the following:
Simple carbon steel plates
Case-hardened Harvey
Krupp and chromium
ducol Steel
Wouldn't this not simplify the game a little but still make it more historical.
|
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 23, 2023 13:10:46 GMT -6
What about limiting the type of armor plate to the following: Simple carbon steel plates Case-hardened Harvey Krupp and chromium ducol Steel Wouldn't this not simplify the game a little but still make it more historical. Isn't this more or less what is already in the game, or are you suggesting that the small percentage changes be done away with? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 23, 2023 14:09:34 GMT -6
What about limiting the type of armor plate to the following: Simple carbon steel plates Case-hardened Harvey Krupp and chromium ducol Steel Wouldn't this not simplify the game a little but still make it more historical. Isn't this more or less what is already in the game, or are you suggesting that the small percentage changes be done away with? I don't think so. Just saying that if you want to be able to designate the type of armour then just have a check box with those types. KISS as we say in my world. |
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 23, 2023 19:49:10 GMT -6
Isn't this more or less what is already in the game, or are you suggesting that the small percentage changes be done away with? I don't think so. Just saying that if you want to be able to designate the type of armour then just have a check box with those types. KISS as we say in my world. I suggested something that I believe to be similar to what you suggested, but it seems that RTW 3 might be too far along to be making those kind of changes. |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 23, 2023 20:22:40 GMT -6
I don't think so. Just saying that if you want to be able to designate the type of armour then just have a check box with those types. KISS as we say in my world. I suggested something that I believe to be similar to what you suggested, but it seems that RTW 3 might be too far along to be making those kind of changes. Now I go, and the deed is as good as done. |
|
|
|
Post by xrayzed on Jan 24, 2023 20:38:10 GMT -6
I think our friend William may be sworn to secrecy until the big release announcement in the next few weeks or months?  But I hope they've found a way to make clear to us the equivalent strength of the ship's armour. Of course it's far too late now to do any further changes but this issue of armour type/strength/weight has been risen several times in the past. I guess a way to show the armour's equivalent strength would be to have, next to where we write the armour values, a little box that would automatically show the equivalent standard strength. For example if early KC is standard throughout the game and we are building a ship in 1890 and give it a 13.5in belt, it would automatically show in the little box next to it 6.75in. Or if building in late 1890s and give her 8in (Harvey) then the little box would show 6in and so on. That way we wouldn't have to calculate ourselves anything out of the particular armour modifier to every ship. But anyway, all this may not be too relevant anymore as RTW3 seems to be all set and done and ready to go. Well, maybe they've found a better way to do this, I'm sure the new game will be full of new and exciting features I can see why it makes sense to hide armour equivalence values for foreign ships, but it seems reasonable that a player would have a good basis of comparison for their own armour techs. Whether this can be done in the available time the devs have is a completely different question. |
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Jan 25, 2023 6:29:11 GMT -6
The main difference between starting in 1890 or 1900 is that historically in just 10 years the strength of armour would double. The same gun penetrating up to 16n of the best armour available in 1890, would penetrate only 8in of the newest armour in 1900. That’s why battleships in 1890 have very thick belts, because 15 or 16in of that early armour are only as good as 8in of the latest 1900 armour. So in 1890 you need belts 15in or so thick to withstand the enemy guns at battle ranges. But with that big thickness, armour becomes very heavy, too heavy. Engineers tried to find workable compromises in all sorts of ways: narrow partial belts, too light protection in other areas, lower speeds, short range, low freeboard… I think it would be fun if we start 1890 with this weaker armour too, because that would force us to design battleships with 16in belts or so (if we want to give them any meaningful protection against enemy battleships) and hence we ourselves would need to compromise too when designing them: narrow belts, deficient protection to our secondary guns, short range, low freeboard or whatever. Things that in RTW2 we really do not need to do. In RTW2 we really do not need to design ships with low freeboard or narrow belts or short range unless we want to for whatever reason. Now, if in the 1890 start we think we must give them 15in belts, then we will be -against our will- forced to create ships with some dangerous shortcomings. I think that could be fun.
Unfortunately, this brings all sort of problems for the programmer, the most important: how not to confound the player who, looking at his modernized 1890 battleship, may think that his ship with 15in armour must be better than that 1930 enemy battleship he’s facing that has only 12in armour. Or, looking at the gun data in his 1890 ship, that its 12in guns seem to be able to penetrate 14in of armour at combat ranges! That surely is good enough to get rid of the enemy… and he would be tragically wrong. The enemy’s armour is of course much better. He would be obliterated by the enemy ship in no time. So we need to figure out a way to show the player the true strength of his ships’ armour and the penetration capabilities of his guns without overcomplicating the game experience. Not easy. Well, of course this whole issue with armour could have been ignored this time and decided instead to use the 1890 start only to lengthen the pre-dreadnought era (maybe adding the odd new design like turrets en echelon only as in USS Maine) but we would be starting still with battleships with 8 or 9in belts as in RTW2 (i.e. Early Krupp). Well, it wouldn’t be the end of the world. I’m sure to develop the game to extend it up to 1970 has taken a lot of time, with all those fancy helicopters and missiles and the lot. We’ll find out when everything is revealed… |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jan 25, 2023 8:20:45 GMT -6
I asked a similar question back when RTW2 came out, and was told that they want to keep the actual effectiveness of different armour types somewhat hidden from the players, for realism. Basically, it comes down to a question of which player-base the devs value more; the players who want historical realism, or the players who want to min-max. Given some of the threads I've seen since I joined the forums, I think I could probably call the former a relatively safe bet. I don't think that having some sort of box showing the equivalent standard thickness would be too min maxy. Seems like a fairly realistic thing for a nation to know. Fully agree! Most navies spent an inordinate amount of time firing shells into both test targets and actual old hulls precisely to better understand this sort of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 7, 2023 14:17:04 GMT -6
I asked a similar question back when RTW2 came out, and was told that they want to keep the actual effectiveness of different armour types somewhat hidden from the players, for realism. Basically, it comes down to a question of which player-base the devs value more; the players who want historical realism, or the players who want to min-max. Given some of the threads I've seen since I joined the forums, I think I could probably call the former a relatively safe bet. I don't think that having some sort of box showing the equivalent standard thickness would be too min maxy. Seems like a fairly realistic thing for a nation to know. Don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm just saying what I was told. |
|
