|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 4, 2018 13:41:21 GMT -6
I would endorse that, simply because the player-penalty for Using Captain's Mode (gross tedium) is so large in and of itself, however seeing as I only play in Admiral's mode (for that exact reason) I'm not sure my opinion is especially valid.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 4, 2018 13:50:24 GMT -6
Well, I generally play Captain's mode as mostly-Admiral's mode, but with occasional interventions for things like forcing reluctant destroyers to attack, or to launch during an existing attack.
EDIT: What I'd really like, if I thought it had a chance of being implemented, would be a scripting language in which I could write "standing orders" for how ships should behave (with complexity limits imposed by crew quality), and then a "command point" system by which direct orders could be given to any ship or formation, overriding standing orders or specifying standing orders to be used (ships would get a certain number of command points per hour depending on crew quality, to reflect initiative taken by the crew, and then each formation would get a certain number of points that could be distributed to any ship in the formation, or to give orders to the whole formation, to reflect orders given by signal flag / radio by the commander on the scene).
|
|
|
Post by splatterdemalion on Apr 4, 2018 15:44:10 GMT -6
Since the battle scenario already runs past the end to simulate damage control & sinking, it would be nice to model rescue efforts for nearby ships. Say, 30-60 minutes to rescue as many survivors within visual range as possible, prioritizing own-side first, for either side. Currently, woe to the crew of the last ship to be sunk - in the words of the dread pirate Roberts, “there will be no survivors”
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 4, 2018 16:07:56 GMT -6
If you set a ship on AI and let it loose at a particular target ship/squadron. I was wondering what the AI logic is for what range the ship will try to maintain. Is this something we as a player can set ? My thoughts were it could be useful if you know the enemy has an 8km range, you could perhaps set your attackers to attempt to stay out of 8km range etc and do a longer range gun duel to your advantage. Or to perhaps stay out of torpedo range etc.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 4, 2018 16:52:05 GMT -6
And one more possible suggestion: Is there any chance that side mounted guns could fire forward or aft in some cases? From what I've read it does appear that many ships armed with turrets mounted on the side could fire them forward or aft in combat, although some couldn't. You'd probably have to simulate whether a ship has a raised bow or stern, and even then it becomes difficult. Maybe an option to improve firing arcs for wing turrets which comes at a greater weight cost (and doesn't improve the cross-deck firing arc)?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 4, 2018 23:37:56 GMT -6
My impression from what I've read with CDF, and something that likely also applies to forward/aft fire in wing turrets, is that there were a lot of ships IRL that could do it on paper, or in a pinch, but faced obstacles to doing it routinely, like the deck plating not talking the overpressure as well as anticipated, or the turret crews being deafened by reflections of the gun blast. In addition to CDF, I've heard of some all-centerline ships having similar issues with deep over-the-shoulder fire (e.g forward turrets firing as far aft as they can rotate).
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Apr 5, 2018 0:30:55 GMT -6
Maybe a checkbox similar to the cross-deck firing checkbox for expanded arcs on wing turrets. Add additional tonnage (reinforced plating, etc) in exchange for allowing the forward-most (C/D?) and aft-most (J/K?) wing turrets to fire directly ahead/behind. Though if it's just to 0 degrees that's kinda shitty, forcing exactly precise piloting to get all three turrets in play so maybe give it a bit of wiggle room, like 5 to 10 degrees past 0/180. I wonder if you could make that an unlocked tech like crossfiring is now - Enhanced Wing Turrets.
Another way to do it would be to allow the player to set the firing arcs on turrets, within reason. So each main battery turret has a set firing arc which the player can then rotate one way or the other. You'd have to do it within thresholds (ex. rotate 30 degrees either way) and probably have some additional drawback to it as well.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 5, 2018 2:12:08 GMT -6
I concur with the thoughts on wing turrets having greater arcs than RTW allows. A single mid beam wing turret had the potential to have 180 degree fire(HMS Dreadnought), Whilst a double wing could have approx 135 degree fire from forward to rear accordingly(SMS Radetsky). However the stability problems the larger the turret and the increased weight needed to reinforce the hull etc all had to be taken into account. My observation here for RTW-2 is that these designs became obsolete with the advance of long range spotting and centreline superimposed turrets which would be more in keeping with the later timeline start of RTW-2 or would players perhaps bring back this style against historical trends?. However a revamp of RTW would be a very nice thought to give players more wiggle room for pushing the design envelope of their favourite tin cans. wiki link to the wing deisgns en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret#/media/File:HMS_Dreadnought_(1911)_profile_drawing.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret#/media/File:Klasa_radetzky.png
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 5, 2018 9:02:19 GMT -6
Looking at the drawing linked, I don't think Dreadnought could have fired directly forward, even though the guns could train to that angle. It would have wrecked the boats mounted above the inboard guns, and likely deafened the entire bridge crew.
Radetzky looks like it could have, though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2018 11:17:45 GMT -6
I concur with the thoughts on wing turrets having greater arcs than RTW allows. A single mid beam wing turret had the potential to have 180 degree fire(HMS Dreadnought), Whilst a double wing could have approx 135 degree fire from forward to rear accordingly(SMS Radetsky). However the stability problems the larger the turret and the increased weight needed to reinforce the hull etc all had to be taken into account. My observation here for RTW-2 is that these designs became obsolete with the advance of long range spotting and centreline superimposed turrets which would be more in keeping with the later timeline start of RTW-2 or would players perhaps bring back this style against historical trends?. However a revamp of RTW would be a very nice thought to give players more wiggle room for pushing the design envelope of their favourite tin cans. wiki link to the wing deisgns en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret#/media/File:HMS_Dreadnought_(1911)_profile_drawing.pngen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_turret#/media/File:Klasa_radetzky.pngAnalysis of Dreadnought show that her bow turret could fire from 26 degree to port to about 50 degrees to starboard. The wing turrets had a firing arc of 183 degrees. The stern turret had a firing arc from 130 degrees to port to 150 degrees to starboard. The mid-ship turret had a firing arc of 70 degrees on one side to 120 degrees on the other. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 5, 2018 14:17:43 GMT -6
Analysis of Dreadnought show that her bow turret could fire from 26 degree to port to about 50 degrees to starboard. The wing turrets had a firing arc of 183 degrees. The stern turret had a firing arc from 130 degrees to port to 150 degrees to starboard. The mid-ship turret had a firing arc of 70 degrees on one side to 120 degrees on the other. The image you attached appears to show symmetric arcs for turrets X and Y, and doesn't show an arc for turret A or any obvious reason for turret A's arc to be asymmetric. Where are you getting these numbers?
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Apr 5, 2018 14:20:36 GMT -6
Here is an idea I believe was not mentioned in this post but I'm not sure if it's already in game. I am wondering if there is any simulation of crew loss/fatigue's effect on a ship. I have a battle last from the late afternoon of one day to next noon. Due to bad visibility contact was broken many times but the men almost never got breaks longer than an hour. It would seem this will be detrimenta to their performance. I am not sure if there exist a system where crew quality degrades with damage/extended battle so correct me if that's already in place.
If this is incorporated I can see things like persistent air harassment/attack as being detrimental to enemy performance even if they don't cause serious damage to the ship by firing crew and maybe killing some as well.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Apr 5, 2018 14:35:25 GMT -6
Here is an idea I believe was not mentioned in this post but I'm not sure if it's already in game. I am wondering if there is any simulation of crew loss/fatigue's effect on a ship. I have a battle last from the late afternoon of one day to next noon. Due to bad visibility contact was broken many times but the men almost never got breaks longer than an hour. It would seem this will be detrimenta to their performance. I am not sure if there exist a system where crew quality degrades with damage/extended battle so correct me if that's already in place. If this is incorporated I can see things like persistent air harassment/attack as being detrimental to enemy performance even if they don't cause serious damage to the ship by firing crew and maybe killing some as well. Fatigue is already included. If you go to the OB tab, right click on Status, you will see Force Fatigue shown at the top, along with buttons to "rally" and "disengage". There's some other controls that pop up as well that are good to know about.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Apr 5, 2018 14:36:33 GMT -6
Here is an idea I believe was not mentioned in this post but I'm not sure if it's already in game. I am wondering if there is any simulation of crew loss/fatigue's effect on a ship. I have a battle last from the late afternoon of one day to next noon. Due to bad visibility contact was broken many times but the men almost never got breaks longer than an hour. It would seem this will be detrimenta to their performance. I am not sure if there exist a system where crew quality degrades with damage/extended battle so correct me if that's already in place. If this is incorporated I can see things like persistent air harassment/attack as being detrimental to enemy performance even if they don't cause serious damage to the ship by firing crew and maybe killing some as well. Fatigue is already included. If you go to the OB tab, right click on Status, you will see Force Fatigue shown at the top, along with buttons to "rally" and "disengage". There's some other controls that pop up as well that are good to know about. Ok thank you for the heads up, I have a feeling there might be something in place but just couldn't find any indicators.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2018 16:15:24 GMT -6
Analysis of Dreadnought show that her bow turret could fire from 26 degree to port to about 50 degrees to starboard. The wing turrets had a firing arc of 183 degrees. The stern turret had a firing arc from 130 degrees to port to 150 degrees to starboard. The mid-ship turret had a firing arc of 70 degrees on one side to 120 degrees on the other. The image you attached appears to show symmetric arcs for turrets X and Y, and doesn't show an arc for turret A or any obvious reason for turret A's arc to be asymmetric. Where are you getting these numbers? The source for the numbers is "The First Decade of the Twentieth Century: The Burgess Shale of Modern Technology" available on Google Books. Page 87. Image is from a search on Bing. The main source on Dreadnought for this book is John Roberts book, The battleship Dreadnought. Roberts states that the theoretical firing arcs could not have fired over their full range because the blasts would have damaged the superstructure at each end of the arc. Another source is Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War by Robert K. Massie. Attachment Deleted
|
|