|
Post by director on Aug 18, 2016 8:08:10 GMT -6
Yes, I agree. In particular there should be a slider or something to represent how hard the Navy is willing to push (and spend) for land operations. A series of events could run like this:
a)If no area is currently prioritized then event is pretty likely to fire where Government proposes military action in (area with enemy colony). How much do you agree (little, neutral, lots) with level of agreement affecting funding temporarily taken from your budget.
b)Government decides to prioritize the area (or not), influenced but not determined by your vote.
c)If prioritized, then invasion can occur with MTTH of, say, six months. If it doesn't fire in six months then area is no longer prioritized.
d)If invasion fires then invasion mission immediately happens - your fleet in the area (or some part of it), a merchant convoy and the enemy fleet in the area (or some part of it). Save the merchies and the invasion succeeds, lose them and it fails.
e)If the invasion succeeds then control flip can occur with MTTH of, say, three months.
Repeat cycle so that there is never more than one area prioritized at any one time but (if enemy has colonies) there is usually an area prioritized.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 18, 2016 8:12:50 GMT -6
thatzenoguy, Most of the territories in the game outside of the Pacific and Caribbean islands are too large for naval gunfire support to be relevant past the initial landing. After that, the navy supports by providing resupply of men and logistics to friendly forces and denying the same to the enemy which is represented in game by having to have naval superiority in the ocean region for an invasion to happen. And the game puts you as head of the Navy. As such, you would not get a say in who the Army sends to lead their forces and sometimes it ends up being a bad choice. Poor leadership or even just inexperience can doom even an advantageous military position. The Japanese had to invade Wake Island twice to take it. The US almost failed at Tarawa. Having naval superiority should not be a guarantee although I would agree that island territory campaigns should have a higher percentage for success than say the African or mainland Asian territories because they are more isolated.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 18, 2016 8:42:27 GMT -6
I can understand that naval support is limited.
But for god's sake, when a country has been blockaded for a year, I expect them to starve...And thus be easy to invade.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Aug 18, 2016 8:48:24 GMT -6
My suggestion for influencing land battles: Have a "Troop Transport (AP)" type that you can design similar to AMC's. They would be expensive (the cost simulates not just the ship but the associated troops/training/logistics). Having some AP's in an area, along with naval supremacy, provides a positive modifier to the 'die roll' determining if an invasion takes place. If you start an invasion, and the enemy may move naval forces into the area, when 'convoy' missions come up the AP's will comprise the convoys in question. Losing an AP is a big prestige hit. Moving AP's into an area where the other side is conducting an invasion will reduce the chances of success (i.e. you are attempting to reinforce the defenders).
There could also be tech advances that allow more effective troop transports over time that provide better invasion modifiers as tech progresses. So the game starts with 'basic' AP tech that represents converted passenger steamers and going on to add stuff like landing craft, improved amphibious warfare doctrine, purpose built landings ships (LSD, LST etc.). It could be it's own tech tree or added to the doctrine tech.
Also, to make the 'colonial service' check box more attractive to use: if a colony rebellion occurs, the chances of it being suppressed are increased with the presence of ships so equipped in the area.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 18, 2016 13:24:09 GMT -6
I understand your frustration with naval invasions (and the lack of), but history doesn't really show that a year of naval blockade accomplishes much.
In WW1 it took four years, huge casualties from failed final offensives and Allied tank-led offensives backed by massive potential amounts of US manpower to bring Germany down. But all of the German colonies were overrun in the first year or two (I think von Lettow-Vorbeck's men fought on but the colony was under effective British control) and this doesn't happen in RtW.
In WW2, decisive defeats of the Imperial Navy in 3 battles (Midway, Guadalcanal, Philippine Sea) and the effective destruction of the Japanese merchant marine by US submarines did not make invasions easier. You could argue that from Kwajalein to Okinawa the difficulty stayed the same or even increased, but they didn't get easier.
As I say, I understand and share your frustration with RtW invasions and I think the game could use a little more WW1 and a little less Russo-Japanese War in its modeling of land warfare. I like the AP idea, fredsanford, with the caveat that - like AMCs - you should only be able to build them in wartime. I do think the 'how do we start an invasion' mechanic needs a little tinkering too, as I outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 18, 2016 17:52:16 GMT -6
i don't mind the way invasions are handled now, but it would be nice to have to support island invasions in different ways like instead of bombarding shore batteries you bombard troop or supply positions while the enemy has to counter it. if the enemy doesn't have ships in the seazone then you can auto-resolve that battle to get the bombard results without having to play it out
also there would be AK supply runs/troop reinforcements to the island so there could be battles protecting/attacking convoys. the success of the mission will affect the ongoing battle, similar to the ultra classic PC sub sim Red Storm Rising
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 20, 2016 18:14:59 GMT -6
Random thought - I wouldn't mind if RtW 2 went a bit deeper with the tech and design elements as well - more choices over how much work is put into internal subdivision and bulkheads, raised forecastles as more than a visual thing (ie, less wet ships, better able to cope with rough weather), choices over how easy it is to get ammunition from magazine to turret (and the relative safety of particular arrangements), that kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by flyingtoaster on Aug 25, 2016 12:16:49 GMT -6
Random thought - I wouldn't mind if RtW 2 went a bit deeper with the tech and design elements as well - more choices over how much work is put into internal subdivision and bulkheads, raised forecastles as more than a visual thing (ie, less wet ships, better able to cope with rough weather), choices over how easy it is to get ammunition from magazine to turret (and the relative safety of particular arrangements), that kind of thing. More differentiation between different fire control methods would be interesting as well. I've just been reading Friedman, and there was a massive amount of little things that made a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2016 12:34:06 GMT -6
I would like to see radar research added. Heinrich Hertz had discovered that electromagnetic waves bounced off of objects and were reflected in 1886, in fact he had developed an apparatus for generating and detecting radio waves with a dipole antenna. By 1934, Great Britain, Germany and the US had begun the development of basic radar. I don't see any technological barriers to having radar researched earlier and developed. In WW1, we had wireless telegraphy and radio direction finding, so the steps to get to radar were not that difficult, engineers simply had to connect the dots. The triode which served as the basis for the early radars was developed in 1906 by Lee De Forest, the first commercial electron tube was manufactured by RCA in 1920. diodes were already developed earlier and the magnetron, the initial power tube for radars, was invented in 1921. All the necessary pieces just have to be assembled and installed on a ship as a surface search set with a manual antenna. The cathode ray tube for displaying targets was invented in 1923.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 25, 2016 15:41:52 GMT -6
I would like to see radar research added. Heinrich Hertz had discovered that electromagnetic waves bounced off of objects and were reflected in 1886, in fact he had developed an apparatus for generating and detecting radio waves with a dipole antenna. By 1934, Great Britain, Germany and the US had begun the development of basic radar. I don't see any technological barriers to having radar researched earlier and developed. In WW1, we had wireless telegraphy and radio direction finding, so the steps to get to radar were not that difficult, engineers simply had to connect the dots. The triode which served as the basis for the early radars was developed in 1906 by Lee De Forest, the first commercial electron tube was manufactured by RCA in 1920. diodes were already developed earlier and the magnetron, the initial power tube for radars, was invented in 1921. All the necessary pieces just have to be assembled and installed on a ship as a surface search set with a manual antenna. The cathode ray tube for displaying targets was invented in 1923. Not a suggestion for RtW-2 (which I'personally perfer be based on historical developments as it's base - although alt-history developments like varied tech as an option would be cool), but I've been thinking an alt-history scenario that gave a longer life to the big gun ships might be one where effective radar-directed AA fire control was designed much earlier, along with better remote power control of AA weaponry, such that it wouldn't be until jets or effective anti-ship missiles that anything but very large numbers of aircraft could threaten a fleet. Might be a little hard to spin the VT fuses being developed much earlier than they were historically, but it's an alt-history!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2016 16:30:15 GMT -6
I would like to see radar research added. Heinrich Hertz had discovered that electromagnetic waves bounced off of objects and were reflected in 1886, in fact he had developed an apparatus for generating and detecting radio waves with a dipole antenna. By 1934, Great Britain, Germany and the US had begun the development of basic radar. I don't see any technological barriers to having radar researched earlier and developed. In WW1, we had wireless telegraphy and radio direction finding, so the steps to get to radar were not that difficult, engineers simply had to connect the dots. The triode which served as the basis for the early radars was developed in 1906 by Lee De Forest, the first commercial electron tube was manufactured by RCA in 1920. diodes were already developed earlier and the magnetron, the initial power tube for radars, was invented in 1921. All the necessary pieces just have to be assembled and installed on a ship as a surface search set with a manual antenna. The cathode ray tube for displaying targets was invented in 1923. Not a suggestion for RtW-2 (which I'personally perfer be based on historical developments as it's base - although alt-history developments like varied tech as an option would be cool), but I've been thinking an alt-history scenario that gave a longer life to the big gun ships might be one where effective radar-directed AA fire control was designed much earlier, along with better remote power control of AA weaponry, such that it wouldn't be until jets or effective anti-ship missiles that anything but very large numbers of aircraft could threaten a fleet. Might be a little hard to spin the VT fuses being developed much earlier than they were historically, but it's an alt-history! I think we should give the player, the option of pursuing radar since the pieces were already invented and tested. In 1904 Christian Hulsmeyer demonstrated the use of radar echoes to detect ships so that collisions could be avoided. He actually patented the device called a telemobiloscope but there was no interest. He received another patent for estimating the range of a ship. A navy just had to show interest and pursue this development, it isn't alt-history, just a missed opportunity. www.design-technology.info/resourcedocuments/Huelsmeyer_EUSAR2002_english.pdf
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 26, 2016 16:59:42 GMT -6
Not a suggestion for RtW-2 (which I'personally perfer be based on historical developments as it's base - although alt-history developments like varied tech as an option would be cool), but I've been thinking an alt-history scenario that gave a longer life to the big gun ships might be one where effective radar-directed AA fire control was designed much earlier, along with better remote power control of AA weaponry, such that it wouldn't be until jets or effective anti-ship missiles that anything but very large numbers of aircraft could threaten a fleet. Might be a little hard to spin the VT fuses being developed much earlier than they were historically, but it's an alt-history! I think we should give the player, the option of pursuing radar since the pieces were already invented and tested. In 1904 Christian Hulsmeyer demonstrated the use of radar echoes to detect ships so that collisions could be avoided. He actually patented the device called a telemobiloscope but there was no interest. He received another patent for estimating the range of a ship. A navy just had to show interest and pursue this development, it isn't alt-history, just a missed opportunity. www.design-technology.info/resourcedocuments/Huelsmeyer_EUSAR2002_english.pdfWell, technically as historically radar was missed as an opportunity, it is alt-history, but it's plausible alt-history and having the option there is definitely a reasonable thing to suggest - the trick would be making it not be a 'no brainer' from a gameplay perspective, so that we don't have the Battle of Jutland fought with radar every time, or similar.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 26, 2016 17:55:14 GMT -6
I think we should give the player, the option of pursuing radar since the pieces were already invented and tested. In 1904 Christian Hulsmeyer demonstrated the use of radar echoes to detect ships so that collisions could be avoided. He actually patented the device called a telemobiloscope but there was no interest. He received another patent for estimating the range of a ship. A navy just had to show interest and pursue this development, it isn't alt-history, just a missed opportunity. www.design-technology.info/resourcedocuments/Huelsmeyer_EUSAR2002_english.pdfWell, technically as historically radar was missed as an opportunity, it is alt-history, but it's plausible alt-history and having the option there is definitely a reasonable thing to suggest - the trick would be making it not be a 'no brainer' from a gameplay perspective, so that we don't have the Battle of Jutland fought with radar every time, or similar. Based on actual historical events, there is no reason that a collision avoidance system using electromagnetic radiation couldn't have been developed and used. It would be used for maintaining formation during nighttime or inclement weather conditions. If Hulsmeyer's development had been adopted, there is no reason why range finders using his technology couldn't have been in development. The modern police radar gun uses the simple Doppler principle to gauge the speed of a vehicle and this is essentially what Hulsmeyer's developed. Radar could be placed under varied technology to add some historical uncertainty. If RTW-2 includes a later time period, say from 1926 to 1939, then radar should be added to the list of research projects that could be explored and developed. www.radarworld.org/huelsmeyer.html
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Aug 27, 2016 1:49:05 GMT -6
Also this could be in RTW 1, but to increase the accuracy and range of shore batteries by 30% and 50% over the best ship mounted equivelents at the time when they are built. Even if shore batteries had a stable platform and were often placed in high places, the overall quality and the training level of their crew was generally lower than in naval units.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 27, 2016 3:47:52 GMT -6
16 inch coastal gun range= 56 km (35 mi) (German 16 inch coastal emplacement)
16 inch USN gun= 38 kilometers (maximum listed range for USN gun)
Coastal guns could be elevated WAY higher.
|
|