|
Post by stevethecat on May 31, 2023 13:57:30 GMT -6
Edit: Title should say turrets, not guns.
Been helping a friend through a play through, it hits the mid 1920's and he gets all-forward gun layout tech unlocked.
Cool, the battle fleet needed an overhaul, so we pop into the designer, the first auto design is essentially a Nelson, but we opted for just A/B turrets, and this was an illegal layout? So no Richelieu then?
Add a C turret and the game accepts it. Even if it's just one single gun on the turret.
Is this linked to a later tech or something?
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kingbenno on May 31, 2023 14:56:36 GMT -6
It is a bit weird but battleships need 3 turrets unless you have 2 quad turrets. You can have a Dunkerque/Richelieu configuration but they have 8 guns not 6
|
|
|
Post by skyhawk on May 31, 2023 17:35:35 GMT -6
Try BC or CA with all forward guns. You used to be able to make those pretty dang early in the game in RTW2 though i'm fairly sure you're not allowed to any more. Not sure if it'll work in RTW3 but its worth a shot.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 1, 2023 0:56:37 GMT -6
It is a bit weird but battleships need 3 turrets unless you have 2 quad turrets. You can have a Dunkerque/Richelieu configuration but they have 8 guns not 6 That's just weirdly arbitrary! The design sequence that ended up with the G3 type (Nelson's ancestor) included variants with just two triples forward...
|
|
|
Post by kingbenno on Jun 1, 2023 4:23:13 GMT -6
It is a bit weird but battleships need 3 turrets unless you have 2 quad turrets. You can have a Dunkerque/Richelieu configuration but they have 8 guns not 6 That's just weirdly arbitrary! The design sequence that ended up with the G3 type (Nelson's ancestor) included variants with just two triples forward... Yeah, I think BC can have 2x3 guns and I believe you can refit BB by removing a turret to install missiles in the late game. But you should be able to have a BB with two turrets, maybe for installing 19/20 inch guns. Don't think 6 of those those high calibre guns would do much DPS compared to 9 16inch but still should have the choice.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 4, 2023 6:29:10 GMT -6
It is a bit weird but battleships need 3 turrets unless you have 2 quad turrets. You can have a Dunkerque/Richelieu configuration but they have 8 guns not 6 RTW3 seems overall to be more strict than RTW2 about what designs it will accept. E.g. I recently tried to build a CL whose main armament was 4x8" in twin turrets. The system wouldn't allow this, so I had to drop the calibre to 7". In RTW2 4x8" would've been fine.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 4, 2023 8:37:15 GMT -6
It is a bit weird but battleships need 3 turrets unless you have 2 quad turrets. You can have a Dunkerque/Richelieu configuration but they have 8 guns not 6 RTW3 seems overall to be more strict than RTW2 about what designs it will accept. E.g. I recently tried to build a CL whose main armament was 4x8" in twin turrets. The system wouldn't allow this, so I had to drop the calibre to 7". In RTW2 4x8" would've been fine. I wish there was an "override" button to some of the limits. I know the AI may get confused as to how HMS Wtaf should be deployed and behave in action but the player making odd choices is not really an issue in a determinedly single player game.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 5, 2023 3:39:52 GMT -6
RTW3 seems overall to be more strict than RTW2 about what designs it will accept. E.g. I recently tried to build a CL whose main armament was 4x8" in twin turrets. The system wouldn't allow this, so I had to drop the calibre to 7". In RTW2 4x8" would've been fine. I wish there was an "override" button to some of the limits. I know the AI may get confused as to how HMS Wtaf should be deployed and behave in action but the player making odd choices is not really an issue in a determinedly single player game. Reasons are that player have hindsight and would build best ships as player knows what works and what does not. However these ships were impossible to build as naval thinking was not so far. It takes time to get there. Dreadnoughts were certainly possible with some limits before HMS Dreadnought was launched but advances in shells, engines, fire control makes them viable solution at that time and not before.
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 5, 2023 5:04:54 GMT -6
I wish there was an "override" button to some of the limits. I know the AI may get confused as to how HMS Wtaf should be deployed and behave in action but the player making odd choices is not really an issue in a determinedly single player game. Reasons are that player have hindsight and would build best ships as player knows what works and what does not. However these ships were impossible to build as naval thinking was not so far. It takes time to get there. Dreadnoughts were certainly possible with some limits before HMS Dreadnought was launched but advances in shells, engines, fire control makes them viable solution at that time and not before. As I've said before, this is a single player game so it doesn't really matter if your players cheat, we can literally edit the save files to give ourselves maximum quality armour, an extra million in cash etc. My interest is to try and produce, principally for myself, the most historically accurate version of alternate reality I can. There are MANY ships that REALLY EXISTED that the game will not let you build. The 1890 is especially egregious for this as it exists in the junction between ironclads and the more modern navies to come.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2023 12:20:20 GMT -6
I wish there was an "override" button to some of the limits. I know the AI may get confused as to how HMS Wtaf should be deployed and behave in action but the player making odd choices is not really an issue in a determinedly single player game. Reasons are that player have hindsight and would build best ships as player knows what works and what does not. However these ships were impossible to build as naval thinking was not so far. It takes time to get there. Dreadnoughts were certainly possible with some limits before HMS Dreadnought was launched but advances in shells, engines, fire control makes them viable solution at that time and not before. Oh really? I guess the existence of USS Olympia is a hoax then...
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 14:32:25 GMT -6
Reasons are that player have hindsight and would build best ships as player knows what works and what does not. However these ships were impossible to build as naval thinking was not so far. It takes time to get there. Dreadnoughts were certainly possible with some limits before HMS Dreadnought was launched but advances in shells, engines, fire control makes them viable solution at that time and not before. Oh really? I guess the existence of USS Olympia is a hoax then... A more or less historically-accurate Olympia could not be built as a CL in-game whether or not CLs using the protected cruiser armor scheme were allowed to mount a pair of twin 8" turrets.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jun 6, 2023 14:35:13 GMT -6
I built Olympia style cruisers in RtW2 and the AI never seemed to have an issue.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 16:17:11 GMT -6
I built Olympia style cruisers in RtW2 and the AI never seemed to have an issue. 1. Olympia had an armor deck up to 4.75" thick; CLs in RTW1/RTW2 could only have up to 3". Unless you're editing ship files, a historically-accurate in-game reproduction of Olympia would have to be built as a CA, regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3.
2. The AI may not have had issues using such cruisers, but it did have issues countering them.
- CLs (and, practically speaking, small CAs) can't really be armored against 8" guns - A 2x2x8" battery is approximately equivalent to nine or ten 6" guns by weight of broadside and can be combined with 6" secondary and 5" tertiary batteries of about a dozen guns each; if you're building this on a 6,000t or larger hull, you also probably won't need to make any serious compromises in armor protection or speed as compared with 6" CLs in order to fit this. This is significantly more firepower than most of the historically-based CL templates have - especially once you get into the 1910s and early 1920s, when 6" CLs still couldn't put more than 11 or 12 main guns on the broadside (and then only if built as turret farms with fifteen or sixteen separate gun positions used) and many of the ships the computer actually built have just four or five 6" main guns and maybe a couple 3" or 4" secondaries.
- 8" guns start to have a practical range advantage over 6" guns in the late-'00s and the '10s as fire control improves to the point where you can start to expect to score hits at long range while closing with the opponent. - Especially if you kept your 8" CLs relatively small (say, around 6000 tons), the game would often give you a pair of 8" CLs against a single 8,000- or 10,000-ton CA, which was probably slower than your CLs, likely didn't really have enough armor to resist 8" gunfire either very well or very long, and at most matched one of the 8" CLs for firepower.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jun 6, 2023 17:52:56 GMT -6
I built Olympia style cruisers in RtW2 and the AI never seemed to have an issue. 1. Olympia had an armor deck up to 4.75" thick; CLs in RTW1/RTW2 could only have up to 3". Unless you're editing ship files, a historically-accurate in-game reproduction of Olympia would have to be built as a CA, regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3.
Now you're just being pedantic. I clearly said Olympia style as in 2x2 8" armed CL, something not uncommon among players in RtW2.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2023 17:56:21 GMT -6
I clearly said Olympia styleBut I did not, and your previous post appears to have been in response to mine.
|
|