|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 7, 2023 3:43:54 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. But there were actually CLs build with 4x8" guns, for example USS Olympia, laid down in 1891.
If a ship was built historically, it ought to be possible to do it in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2023 8:42:39 GMT -6
But there were actually CLs build with 4x8" guns, for example USS Olympia, laid down in 1891.
If a ship was built historically, it ought to be possible to do it in the game.
It's already possible to build Olympia in-game, you just have to build it as a CA - and allowing CLs to have 2x2x8" main batteries wouldn't change that, because Olympia's armor protection is too heavy for the game's CL classification regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2023 10:25:30 GMT -6
But there were actually CLs build with 4x8" guns, for example USS Olympia, laid down in 1891.
If a ship was built historically, it ought to be possible to do it in the game.
It's already possible to build Olympia in-game, you just have to build it as a CA - and allowing CLs to have 2x2x8" main batteries wouldn't change that, because Olympia's armor protection is too heavy for the game's CL classification regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3. Yeah, you can make a CA Olympia, if you really want the crappiest CA ever. Same as you could build a Graf Spee BC in previous games, if you really wanted to have the crappiest BC ever... But that still means that it isnt possible to build it to its historical specs. I agree that the player should not be able to build futuristic designs that werent suitable for that time, but not being allowed to build a historical design? Thats just weird. And unfair. Even UA: D doesnt have such restrictions, at least not intentionally. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 7, 2023 10:35:00 GMT -6
You can make a fairly reasonable version of Olympia (with scaled back armour because it's not Krupp) in RTW2. The game will probably call it a CA (like all the big British 1st class protected cruisers tbf) but it gets to do most of the same stuff. The terms CA and CL are really of much later origin so I wouldn't get too hung up on the language.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 7, 2023 11:08:27 GMT -6
Yeah, you can make a CA Olympia, if you really want the crappiest CA ever.
If you want to model historical ships in-game, there's a lot more "armored cruisers" than just the big nine or ten thousand plus ton ships with usually four or six 8-, 9-, or 10-inch guns, about a dozen 5- or 6-inch secondaries, and ~6-inch armor belts; a fair number of them are not particularly clearly superior to some of the larger protected cruisers, even if you ignore the big British first class cruisers between between the Orlando and Cressy classes. This is also a reason that I, personally, don't really care to use "armored cruiser" and "protected cruiser" as classifications - sure, it sort of works, at least for some navies, but when you're looking at all the armored cruisers and all the protected cruisers you'll find that there's a lot of overlap between the upper end of the "protected cruiser" spectrum and the lower end of the "armored cruiser" spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 7, 2023 12:58:20 GMT -6
when you're looking at all the armored cruisers and all the protected cruisers you'll find that there's a lot of overlap between the upper end of the "protected cruiser" spectrum and the lower end of the "armored cruiser" spectrum. That's certainly true. |
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jun 7, 2023 15:35:45 GMT -6
You can make a fairly reasonable version of Olympia (with scaled back armour because it's not Krupp) in RTW2. The game will probably call it a CA (like all the big British 1st class protected cruisers tbf) but it gets to do most of the same stuff. The terms CA and CL are really of much later origin so I wouldn't get too hung up on the language. The RtW2 CL ship guidelines specifically allowed for protected cruisers to mount two twin 8" guns for reasons I can't imagine other than to build Olympia style protected cruisers. I routinely built Olympia styled CLs with scaled back deck armor and I doubt many people designed 2x2 8" CLs with 4.5" of deck armor at less than 8000tons. So this whole argument that you suddenly can't build CLs with this armament because of the deck armor makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 7, 2023 16:05:03 GMT -6
You can make a fairly reasonable version of Olympia (with scaled back armour because it's not Krupp) in RTW2. The game will probably call it a CA (like all the big British 1st class protected cruisers tbf) but it gets to do most of the same stuff. The terms CA and CL are really of much later origin so I wouldn't get too hung up on the language. The RtW2 CL ship guidelines specifically allowed for protected cruisers to mount two twin 8" guns for reasons I can't imagine other than to build Olympia style protected cruisers. I routinely built Olympia styled CLs with scaled back deck armor and I doubt many people designed 2x2 8" CLs with 4.5" of deck armor at less than 8000tons. So this whole argument that you suddenly can't build CLs with this armament because of the deck armor makes no sense to me. As far as I can tell Olympia only has 2" on the flat deck (and this is pre Krupp stuff so functionally less) with the 4.7" on the slopes (the bit the game reads as belt). As she's pushing 6700 tons full load then 8k is not too "lean on the scales" a bit too make the better designs work) far off given the game's (you often have design generalisations? The USN called it a "Cruiser" (C6) but certainly treated it as a bigger beast than the assorted earlier cruisers they had. It's a great early design certainly though the guns should probably be classed as Q-2 which will be a pain now you can't upgrade them in RTW3! Olympia really is a very good ship for an 1890 design, sadly the current selection of 1890 start fleets are crammed with VERY modern cruisers which rather steal her glory! |
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jun 7, 2023 16:26:26 GMT -6
The RtW2 CL ship guidelines specifically allowed for protected cruisers to mount two twin 8" guns for reasons I can't imagine other than to build Olympia style protected cruisers. I routinely built Olympia styled CLs with scaled back deck armor and I doubt many people designed 2x2 8" CLs with 4.5" of deck armor at less than 8000tons. So this whole argument that you suddenly can't build CLs with this armament because of the deck armor makes no sense to me. As far as I can tell Olympia only has 2" on the flat deck (and this is pre Krupp stuff so functionally less) with the 4.7" on the slopes (the but the game reads as belt). As she's pushing 6700 tons full load then 8k is not too far off given the game's design generalisations? The USN called it a "Cruiser" (C6) but certainly treated it as a bigger beast than the assorted earlier cruisers they had. It's a great early design certainly though the guns should probably be classed as Q-2 which will be a pain now you can't upgrade them in RTW3! The last one I built in RtW had a displacement of 8000 tons, 3" belt, 2" deck, six 6" secondaries, and 8 4" casements. They were not cheap, but I did not treat them as replacements for smaller CLs nor did their design fit the role that this game's battle generator thought CAs should be in. They excelled in small actions with some DDs, alone or as a pair against usually a larger force of light cruisers (was playing as Italy so this happened often), especially outside the Med. The generator would never give me these battles if it was a CA. They also excelled at trade protection because the game loved to have my CLs intercept raider CAs. These things had the speed to outrun contemporary CA's and in later years their 8" guns gave them some standoff ability against more modern cruisers. |
|
|
|
Post by t3rm1dor on Jun 7, 2023 16:42:42 GMT -6
It's already possible to build Olympia in-game, you just have to build it as a CA - and allowing CLs to have 2x2x8" main batteries wouldn't change that, because Olympia's armor protection is too heavy for the game's CL classification regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3. Yeah, you can make a CA Olympia, if you really want the crappiest CA ever. Same as you could build a Graf Spee BC in previous games, if you really wanted to have the crappiest BC ever... But that still means that it isnt possible to build it to its historical specs. I agree that the player should not be able to build futuristic designs that werent suitable for that time, but not being allowed to build a historical design? Thats just weird. And unfair. Even UA: D doesnt have such restrictions, at least not intentionally. You can actually build Deutschland type ships as CA (max weigth 12000 tons, 6 11 inch armament) which allow for interesting CA for the battle generator as 11 inch is a massive improvement over 8 inches. |
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 7, 2023 21:56:06 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?
Once missiles arrive it would be nice if you could have all guns forwards with only two or even one guns, a missile boat with a gun or two for emergencies and shore bombardment without investing into a full battery. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Jun 8, 2023 1:58:21 GMT -6
As far as I can tell Olympia only has 2" on the flat deck (and this is pre Krupp stuff so functionally less) with the 4.7" on the slopes (the but the game reads as belt). As she's pushing 6700 tons full load then 8k is not too far off given the game's design generalisations? The USN called it a "Cruiser" (C6) but certainly treated it as a bigger beast than the assorted earlier cruisers they had. It's a great early design certainly though the guns should probably be classed as Q-2 which will be a pain now you can't upgrade them in RTW3! The last one I built in RtW had a displacement of 8000 tons, 3" belt, 2" deck, six 6" secondaries, and 8 4" casements. They were not cheap, but I did not treat them as replacements for smaller CLs nor did their design fit the role that this game's battle generator thought CAs should be in. They excelled in small actions with some DDs, alone or as a pair against usually a larger force of light cruisers (was playing as Italy so this happened often), especially outside the Med. The generator would never give me these battles if it was a CA. They also excelled at trade protection because the game loved to have my CLs intercept raider CAs. These things had the speed to outrun contemporary CA's and in later years their 8" guns gave them some standoff ability against more modern cruisers. If your heart is really set on having them as CLs then you can always edit the save... I had to with my "Furst Bismarck" mimic as the game won't let you have such slow cruisers without a little prodding! |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 10, 2023 6:59:09 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. i dont think putting triples on a dunkerque hull instead of quads is "cheating" If anything that would make it easier to design the thing I think that 6 gun battleships should be allowed, i see no reason why they cant be, if i want a battleship with 2x3 20" guns then its somehow not counted as a battleship because "it does not have enough guns" This is also a major issue in the missile age where if you want to refit a battleship and say remove the rear triple turret to place down two HSAMs or something instead, the ship becomes illegal because you need three turrets or 8 guns bit silly |
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 23, 2023 12:49:03 GMT -6
It's already possible to build Olympia in-game, you just have to build it as a CA - and allowing CLs to have 2x2x8" main batteries wouldn't change that, because Olympia's armor protection is too heavy for the game's CL classification regardless of whether we're talking about RTW1, RTW2, or RTW3. Yeah, you can make a CA Olympia, if you really want the crappiest CA ever. Same as you could build a Graf Spee BC in previous games, if you really wanted to have the crappiest BC ever... But that still means that it isnt possible to build it to its historical specs. I agree that the player should not be able to build futuristic designs that werent suitable for that time, but not being allowed to build a historical design? Thats just weird. And unfair. Even UA: D doesnt have such restrictions, at least not intentionally. Indeed. In both cases you can build the ship, but you shouldn't because the battle generator will put it up against more powerful ships. |
|
|
|
Post by davedave on Jun 23, 2023 14:03:53 GMT -6
Is the reason the 2x3 battleship types are not in the game simply because then the AI would not know how to build them & take their limitation (small number of guns) into account?
& then when e.g. funds were reduced for the AI nation one year you'd end up facing a class of budget battleships with ~2x3 14" gun layouts in your 20" 3x2 monster?
I'd lay dollars to doughnuts that this is the case, rather than some plot to stop a player having fun.
|
|
