|
Post by demb222 on Sept 20, 2023 5:37:33 GMT -6
I was wondering if it is possible to recreate capital ships. I did try with Bismarck and Hipper class cruisers, and it did work fine. The bigger problem was carriers, to be exact the number of planes, when trying to "recreate" Shokaku class aircraft carriers or generally Japanese carriers it is almost impossible to fit the number of planes. I was wondering if it is possibly a mistake on my side.
|
|
|
Post by ewaldvonkleist on Sept 20, 2023 8:30:10 GMT -6
Note that tech levels influence the ship's parameters significantly.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Sept 20, 2023 9:10:30 GMT -6
I was wondering if it is possible to recreate capital ships. I did try with Bismarck and Hipper class cruisers, and it did work fine. The bigger problem was carriers, to be exact the number of planes, when trying to "recreate" Shokaku class aircraft carriers or generally Japanese carriers it is almost impossible to fit the number of planes. I was wondering if it is possibly a mistake on my side. There are multiple factors to consider. Current tech levels in hull design, propulsion, aircraft, etc. Can you build ships with double hangars? How much space do your aircraft take up and how many of each type are you carrying? Folding wings or not? How many aircraft are you managing to get into them? The Shokaku class was originally intended to carry 96 aircraft but with the increased weight and size of the available aircraft they ended up carrying 72 operational aircraft with a dozen dismantled spares for a total of 84 when they entered service. I don’t know if the game can have dismantled spares.
|
|
|
Post by demb222 on Sept 20, 2023 18:35:04 GMT -6
I was wondering if it is possible to recreate capital ships. I did try with Bismarck and Hipper class cruisers, and it did work fine. The bigger problem was carriers, to be exact the number of planes, when trying to "recreate" Shokaku class aircraft carriers or generally Japanese carriers it is almost impossible to fit the number of planes. I was wondering if it is possibly a mistake on my side. There are multiple factors to consider. Current tech levels in hull design, propulsion, aircraft, etc. Can you build ships with double hangars? How much space do your aircraft take up and how many of each type are you carrying? Folding wings or not? How many aircraft are you managing to get into them? The Shokaku class was originally intended to carry 96 aircraft but with the increased weight and size of the available aircraft they ended up carrying 72 operational aircraft with a dozen dismantled spares for a total of 84 when they entered service. I don’t know if the game can have dismantled spares. But are those things even implemented into the game? I have never seen an option to modify and aircraft, or double hangars.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Sept 21, 2023 8:02:35 GMT -6
There are multiple factors to consider. Current tech levels in hull design, propulsion, aircraft, etc. Can you build ships with double hangars? How much space do your aircraft take up and how many of each type are you carrying? Folding wings or not? How many aircraft are you managing to get into them? The Shokaku class was originally intended to carry 96 aircraft but with the increased weight and size of the available aircraft they ended up carrying 72 operational aircraft with a dozen dismantled spares for a total of 84 when they entered service. I don’t know if the game can have dismantled spares. But are those things even implemented into the game? I have never seen an option to modify and aircraft, or double hangars. Exactly. You can’t build a historical design without having these features. I don’t know if they’re extrapolated in carrier ops, carrier design, or aircraft design research areas but it’s impossible to get a historical design that had these features without them.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 21, 2023 15:11:19 GMT -6
From the player's point of view, the question is not, 'can we replicate the exact structure' but rather 'can we design and build a ship of the same dimensions and having the same combat power'. The answer to that is often, 'yes', and if not, then usually it is the lack of some technology which needs to be researched.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 21, 2023 15:34:42 GMT -6
I decided to start a British game circa 1935. I then designed a carrier with my modifications and here it is. I've highlighted some of my changes.
Now, in line with this discussions, what are some of the issues? First of all, I haven't reached the point in research where I can install catapults. This means the planes, as they increase in weight, will need a longer take-off run and a faster forward speed of the carrier. Unfortunately, to get 121 aircraft I had to strip the ship of its primary guns and deck armor along with turret armor. I highlighted that issue. Also I eliminated unit machinery. I also had to eliminate flight deck armor and hangar side armor. With those mods, I reached 121 aircraft. So, there is the balancing act. At this point, I can't build a carrier heavier than 32,800 tons so I am limited. Would a 33 knot speed be better with less aircraft?
All warships and especially carriers are a balancing act of speed, protection and fire power. For a carrier, protection is the aircraft on board and the same is true of fire power. To launch quickly your birds, you need a catapult with carrier speed. I emphasize carrier speed. You turn into the wind, and go full speed then launch. In real history around 1933 to 1937, no nation had any experience in wars with carriers. Were they the center of an attack fleet? Were they escorts for the fleet with battleships as the center of action? Who knew? . Anyway, the game is, in my humble opinion probably headed in the right direction. Can you duplicate Shokaku? Yes, maybe, but why. Branch out, head in another direction. This is the purpose of the game, to allow the gamer to explore new avenues.
Idea: what if the entry "air capacity" was changed to operational aircraft and another entry for spare aircraft. Would that be more accurate and helpful in designs. Air capacity is fairly accurate but I feel my idea is more exact and provides more flexibility from peace time to war time/
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Sept 22, 2023 1:56:48 GMT -6
From the player's point of view, the question is not, 'can we replicate the exact structure' but rather 'can we design and build a ship of the same dimensions and having the same combat power'. The answer to that is often, 'yes', and if not, then usually it is the lack of some technology which needs to be researched. To a degree, yes. However, there are many variables which simply cannot be replicated without an insanely detailed construction system. for example, look at the Blake-class and follow on Edgar-class - same primary and secondary armament though slightly thinner armour, but the Edgar-class were shorter by 15' and 5' slimmer, allowing similar speed on lighter machinery resulting in them being built on 7,700t displacement (1,800t displacement saving - presumably at full load). Try replicating either design in RtW around 1890 requires them to be built on roughly 11,000t hulls.
|
|
|
Post by director on Sept 22, 2023 2:47:06 GMT -6
Yes, I agree with you. The game also does not permit building ships like Victoria and Sans Pareil, since the bow gun caliber is different from the after gun. And recreating some historical designs is tricky because the conditions of how to measure displacement vary. As you say, the Blake could hit 22 knots at forced draft and the Edgar 20 knots at forced draft, which could account some of the lighter displacement for the latter... or just could mean the data are not available or reliable. The Blake is listed at 1800 tons coal with no range listed while Edgar has a range of 10,000 miles but no tonnage of coal listed... I'm working from limited info since my books are in storage, so I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just pointing out that it is hard to compare even supposedly similar ships.
I'm not troubled by things like this, since I can usually get a ship that will fill the need that I have, but - yes - if you want to exactly recreate a historical ship, then there are in-game limitations, some of which can be mitigated by developments in technology.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 23, 2023 10:16:43 GMT -6
I just tried to duplicate my dads carrier, CV-3 USS Saratoga. I got the tonnage corrrect, air wing size of 90 planes(72 operational), armor correct, armament correct and speed: 33.5 knots. But the game would not allow a 38,700 ton carrier with 33.5 knots. This was in a 1935 starting game. Real shame.
Update:
I can build this one, it works. No catapult but the actual ship had a 155' F Mk II catapult. Intended for launching seaplanes, the catapult was seldom used during active operations. I don't think this is an issue. Catapults during WW2 were hydraulic and were not used very much.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 29, 2023 10:08:23 GMT -6
When an aircraft in the 1930's and 1940's took off, the carrier would turn into the wind, accelerate to top speed and the plane would launch. Fighters first, dive bombers next, torpedo bombers last-they needed the longest runway. Now if I haven't developed catapults, I now have to hope that the carriers top speed and wind speed is enough to get the bird off of the deck. Catapults were not always used. My dad said that the fighters and dive bombers generally did not use the cats, and the torpedo bombers until later in the war.
My point is "does the game calculate the necessary takeoff speed based on weight, then does it provide the necessary wind speed and carrier speeds to allow takeoff to occur." Takeoff distance is directly proportional to the wind speed. Example: F4f Wildcat required 246 feet with a 25-knot speed over the deck. This would be a combination of carrier speed and wind. Into a 15-knot wind, it would be 384 feet, calm would be 631 feet. I have more data relating to the SBD and the TBD/TBF.
Anyone know about the game?
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Sept 29, 2023 10:50:45 GMT -6
I wouldn't expect anything like that level of modelling for RtW. One of the many issues is that both the airframe and engine would need to be modelled in detail to generate such data.
That would also result in the general rules of a minimum speed for the carriers to enable launches.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Sept 29, 2023 12:23:21 GMT -6
I think the main drawback of not taking into consideration speed (other than the minimum carrier speed) is that it makes quite foolish for us to give our carriers anything like +30knots speed. Speed is very very expensive and as long as we give our carriers a speed we're happy with, it doesn't make sense to waste on very high speeds that do not give us any benefit, particularly because carriers are supposed to be safe far away from our main battle fleet, so being a few knots slower than the enemy BCs shouldn't matter. I think somehow the game should encourage us to build carriers with very high speeds but at the moment it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 29, 2023 12:42:43 GMT -6
I think the main drawback of not taking into consideration speed (other than the minimum carrier speed) is that it makes quite foolish for us to give our carriers anything like +30knots speed. Speed is very very expensive and as long as we give our carriers a speed we're happy with, it doesn't make sense to waste on very high speeds that do not give us any benefit, particularly because carriers are supposed to be safe far away from our main battle fleet, so being a few knots slower than the enemy BCs shouldn't matter. I think somehow the game should encourage us to build carriers with very high speeds but at the moment it doesn't. Carrier speed was not just for the launching and recovery of aircraft, it was also valuable for moving the carrier task force to another location to attack another target. The faster the carrier task force could move, the quicker the force could close with the target and launch another strike. After this, they could move quickly to the recovery point and recover the strike. It was also effective in averting submarine attacks and eliminating attacks by surface forces. The Solomon's campaign is a good example of how carrier speed could be effective in hitting multiple targets before the enemy could react and defend the target.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Sept 30, 2023 7:51:03 GMT -6
I enjoy your historical comments, they are always very interesting. But in my post I was referring to RTW only. Yes, historically there were many reasons to make carriers as fast as possible. But in the game I still think there's not a compelling reason to spend huge amounts of money to make them reach 35 knots instead of 27 or 28. For sure not battle as the Solomon campaign is possible, no with carriers rushing around to attack different targets. The last point I was trying to make is that, to better mimic history, the developers should try to find ways in the game to entice us to build the faster possible carriers.
|
|