|
Post by gornik on Apr 5, 2018 17:36:52 GMT -6
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. It looks like that "starboard" arcs at this scheme shows theoretical possible angles, while "port" arcs are practical. So they should be reflected on the other side and be symmetrical, I think.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2018 18:07:28 GMT -6
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. It looks like that "starboard" arcs at this scheme shows theoretical possible angles, while "port" arcs are practical. So they should be reflected on the other side and be symmetrical, I think. John Roberts book is in paper format only, I don't have it. Firing arcs are not etched in concrete. The shell type and other variables will make the determination.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Apr 6, 2018 11:15:12 GMT -6
A little question based in the air part in title... i imagine we are going to see tactical use of planes (attacking ships) but... is going to work like in Tiller naval games where you control them like another ship OR we simple are going to select mission with parameters, assign scorts and wait they can do the job??? in the period lack of radios made harder they change direction, tagets...
And out of tactical area... we can see the use of airplanes in bombing attacks without need play a tactical battle???
I am very interested in how airwar is going to work in new title because if do it well maybe you can explore the idea of a title focus in airwar... i allways want see a RTW set in WWI airwar with design, production, doctrine, creation of units and training.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 6, 2018 12:15:30 GMT -6
I am hoping for both strategic and tactical use of airplanes.
Maritime Search/ASW patrols would I guess effect strength of encounters in your favour as well as harassing enemy subs etc. Local air strength - to counter surprise attack and coastal attacks. Of course we want to see CV effects, would they assist a battle group to avoid or engage an enemy force. Would the effect be countered by any enemy force air strength. Obviously air attacks on shipping during our encounters. Will the CV have to be present on the grid or just be present in the ocean area and have a % chance of a flight arriving during an engagement?. Chance of encountering an enemy CV group with surface ships etc. Chance of an encounter being your ship/squadron against an air group (Or will you just see a result like the raiders success)
I don't know if NWS have posted any information to date, but obviously airplane use adds a new dimension to the game. As a result we are all keen to find out how they will work in more detail.
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Apr 7, 2018 6:40:20 GMT -6
The question is... tech level affect tactical-operational use of airplanes??? no radio or not good radio for me means that the units launched to attack A could finish attacking B by mistake or totally missing the target and cant launch coordinated attacks over ship X... instead split bombs-torpedos between X, Y and Z ships they only attack one of them.
No animate attack (you dont see planes attacking) needs be present to deal with no enemy presence (i refer no naval targets only land targets) in the combat area, if enemy has ships we can see animated attacks... like in "Carriers at war" with ships receiving attacks and seeing where bombs-torpedos hit.
Planes open a new game into the game and if is well done i pray to see airgames to hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Apr 11, 2018 7:45:37 GMT -6
Planes are tricky to think about because they evolved so fast. Around WWI they had such short flight times that a mission could really only have one destination in mind. Eventually the range improves and you get some signalling but eventually long range recon becomes possible outside the range of possible contact. So you could imagine three different systems being appropriate and clearly that isn't a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 11, 2018 11:04:57 GMT -6
The evolution of aircraft in the interwar period, 1918 to 1939 can be categorized into four main areas. 1. Structural - Materials and construction 2. Aerodynamics - This area involves the use of wind tunnels to improve the air flow over wings along with improvements in control surfaces like ailerons, flaps, horizontal stabilizers and rudders. 3. Power - This would be the move from Rotary to radial and the inline, glycol cooled engine along with turbosuperchargers, fuel injection, negative G carbs and multi-bladed propellers with variable pitch propellers and constant speed propellors 4. Electronics - This would focus more on homing beacons, radios and the beginnings of IFF. www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/contents.htm
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 12, 2018 7:51:28 GMT -6
Perhaps we are over-complicating things for the purpose of game mechanics. We have different types of craft needed.
Role. Reconnaissance, Fighter, Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, ASW, Multi-role. Airframes. Light, Medium, Heavy. Land or Naval capable. Range. Short, Medium, Long, Extreme. (Different levels advancing engine development and design)
Each would need a tech tree development. Perhaps all nations starting with basic light seaplane reconnaissance ship-crane or land capable. Many historical planes will fit most if not all possible combinations.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 12, 2018 15:22:08 GMT -6
Perhaps we are over-complicating things for the purpose of game mechanics. We have different types of craft needed. Role. Reconnaissance, Fighter, Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, ASW, Multi-role. Airframes. Light, Medium, Heavy. Land or Naval capable. Range. Short, Medium, Long, Extreme. (Different levels advancing engine development and design) Each would need a tech tree development. Perhaps all nations starting with basic light seaplane reconnaissance ship-crane or land capable. Many historical planes will fit most if not all possible combinations. I can't speak to the game mechanics but when aircraft requirements are documented and offered by the Navy, the primary role is the most important aspect that the subsequent specifications speak to. However, as you are probably aware, aircraft do perform roles for which they were never designed, but could be adapted. The use of dive bombers and torpedo bombers as naval scouts is well documented. Dive bombers were used in some instances as combat air patrols down at sea level to guard against torpedo bombers. Heavy and medium bombers were adapted as long range reconnaissance aircraft also. Roles are not fixed.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 13, 2018 5:50:19 GMT -6
Perhaps we are over-complicating things for the purpose of game mechanics. We have different types of craft needed. Role. Reconnaissance, Fighter, Bomber, Torpedo Bomber, ASW, Multi-role. Airframes. Light, Medium, Heavy. Land or Naval capable. Range. Short, Medium, Long, Extreme. (Different levels advancing engine development and design) Each would need a tech tree development. Perhaps all nations starting with basic light seaplane reconnaissance ship-crane or land capable. Many historical planes will fit most if not all possible combinations. I can't speak to the game mechanics but when aircraft requirements are documented and offered by the Navy, the primary role is the most important aspect that the subsequent specifications speak to. However, as you are probably aware, aircraft do perform roles for which they were never designed, but could be adapted. The use of dive bombers and torpedo bombers as naval scouts is well documented. Dive bombers were used in some instances as combat air patrols down at sea level to guard against torpedo bombers. Heavy and medium bombers were adapted as long range reconnaissance aircraft also. Roles are not fixed. Hey Pop, yes I totally agree with you, the nation calls for a new "bomber mid range or fighter long range etc" then the industry leads will submit their specifications and the military/government select the one they think best suits their requirement(& Wallet). I don't have your knowledge of military acquisition, but for game purposes I included the "Multi-role" - Role. This would allow cross over of purpose and utility as well as perhaps going down specialist routes, Night fighters, Path finders etc. I guess it all depends how much detail the game designers go into for the purpose of the game itself. As you say all aircraft could cover scouting duties and most could cover bombing/strafing even if their design meant they wouldn't be as efficient as an aircraft purposely setup and designed to do so. What I can say for sure is that my wallet is already waiting to throw out some money at NWS to find out which could allow certain size aircraft to
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 13, 2018 6:15:39 GMT -6
I can't speak to the game mechanics but when aircraft requirements are documented and offered by the Navy, the primary role is the most important aspect that the subsequent specifications speak to. However, as you are probably aware, aircraft do perform roles for which they were never designed, but could be adapted. The use of dive bombers and torpedo bombers as naval scouts is well documented. Dive bombers were used in some instances as combat air patrols down at sea level to guard against torpedo bombers. Heavy and medium bombers were adapted as long range reconnaissance aircraft also. Roles are not fixed. Hey Pop, yes I totally agree with you, the nation calls for a new "bomber mid range or fighter long range etc" then the industry leads will submit their specifications and the military/government select the one they think best suits their requirement(& Wallet). I don't have your knowledge of military acquisition, but for game purposes I included the "Multi-role" - Role. This would allow cross over of purpose and utility as well as perhaps going down specialist routes, Night fighters, Path finders etc. I guess it all depends how much detail the game designers go into for the purpose of the game itself. As you say all aircraft could cover scouting duties and most could cover bombing/strafing even if their design meant they wouldn't be as efficient as an aircraft purposely setup and designed to do so. What I can say for sure is that my wallet is already waiting to throw out some money at NWS to find out which could allow certain size aircraft to And than you have Stringbag. Designed as Torpedo, Spotter, Reconnaissance aircraft which has outstanding record on top of that as anti-submarine aircraft, prove well as dive bomber everywhere where no enemy fighters could shoot him. It was quite usual that aircraft was used the way that suit them best even it was not they were designed for. Specially British aircraft as if you do not have numbers you need invention and operation efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 13, 2018 8:02:56 GMT -6
I can't speak to the game mechanics but when aircraft requirements are documented and offered by the Navy, the primary role is the most important aspect that the subsequent specifications speak to. However, as you are probably aware, aircraft do perform roles for which they were never designed, but could be adapted. The use of dive bombers and torpedo bombers as naval scouts is well documented. Dive bombers were used in some instances as combat air patrols down at sea level to guard against torpedo bombers. Heavy and medium bombers were adapted as long range reconnaissance aircraft also. Roles are not fixed. Hey Pop, yes I totally agree with you, the nation calls for a new "bomber mid range or fighter long range etc" then the industry leads will submit their specifications and the military/government select the one they think best suits their requirement(& Wallet). I don't have your knowledge of military acquisition, but for game purposes I included the "Multi-role" - Role. This would allow cross over of purpose and utility as well as perhaps going down specialist routes, Night fighters, Path finders etc. I guess it all depends how much detail the game designers go into for the purpose of the game itself. As you say all aircraft could cover scouting duties and most could cover bombing/strafing even if their design meant they wouldn't be as efficient as an aircraft purposely setup and designed to do so. What I can say for sure is that my wallet is already waiting to throw out some money at NWS to find out which could allow certain size aircraft to Many birds became multi-role despite not being designed for that role. Even the Zero and BF-109 became multi-role when the operational requirements and missions dictated it. The P-38 was designed specifically as a point to point defensive fighter designed to take off, climb rapidly and destroy bombers. As we all know, it became a multi-role aircraft both as a defensive fighter, offensive fighter in the escort role, fighter-bomber and armed reconnaissance role with the photo-recon role added. I am not certain the game needs to have a specific role classification for it, just allow the bird to be used in different roles. I will also being buying the game, as I always do to support my friends on the team.
|
|
|
Post by splatterdemalion on Apr 19, 2018 9:36:45 GMT -6
Certain battle types should have a higher VP cost to refuse. Specifically, refusing to defend against a coastal raid or convoy attack should cause as much of a VP shift as would have happened had the battle happened and the defender had lost 5-6 transports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 10:41:30 GMT -6
Hi there. Any new about RTW2? Do I have to save some money now, or is it still far away?
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Apr 20, 2018 11:45:26 GMT -6
The Developers came out and said it would be "this year". If that is enough promise to start saving your pennies, then do so. We do not have a more definitive guarantee than that at this present moment. (Unless William posts right after me to trump my cards )
|
|