gato
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gato on Aug 29, 2016 7:08:01 GMT -6
My any suggestions about RTW-2 1. Timeline 1925-1950 2. Playable nations: Great Britain, USA, Germany, France, Italy, USSR, Japan 3. Ships classes: CV (over 13,000 t), CVL (before 13,000 t), BB, BC, CB (not over 12 inch caliber, not over 8,5 inch main belt), CA, CL, DD, AMC, SS (coastal, medium range, large range), MS, LS (after 1941) 4. Formal restrictions according Washington Treaty 1922 5. Option a historical legacy fleet in 01/01/1925 6. Fleet CV battle in battle generator (map scale 400X400 miles) 7. Airbases, land, ship air wings 8. Options for rules of air combat engagements 9. Real basic aircraft models 10. Combined operations 11. Nuclear attacks (after 1945)
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 29, 2016 8:30:55 GMT -6
Honestly, we have NO IDEA when RtW2 will be set...
I can only hope its WW2 era...
MOSTLY because carriers are cool.
How would AA work?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 29, 2016 9:00:16 GMT -6
Poorly, for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 29, 2016 9:27:09 GMT -6
Poorly, for the most part. Now now! USN AA was pretty good!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 29, 2016 11:06:47 GMT -6
It was good in comparison to the other nations. But even the 5"/38 with the VT fuse was calculated to need on average 340 rounds per kill. Base ring mounts could shoot between 15-22 rpm per barrel depending on crew skill so that's roughly 100 seconds of fire (at 20rpm) for an entire battleship 5"/38 broadside (10) per plane brought down on average. That's a long time during an attack for that many guns to have to be pointed at one plane. Fortunately, the Fast Carrier Task Force carried a lot of barrels: Attachment Deleted You also have to take into account that for the most part, the US was shooting at planes that were fragile and easily set on fire and being flown after the Solomons campaign by mostly poorly trained and inexperienced pilots. Don't get me wrong. USN AAA chewed up the Japanese air forces but a lot of Japanese planes, particularly suicide bombers, still got through and sank/damaged a lot of ships and killed a lot of sailors.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 29, 2016 11:10:45 GMT -6
It was good in comparison to the other nations. But even the 5"/38 with the VT fuse was calculated to need on average 340 rounds per kill. Base ring mounts could shoot between 15-22 rpm per barrel depending on crew skill so that's roughly 100 seconds of fire (at 20rpm) for an entire battleship 5"/38 broadside (10) per plane brought down on average. That's a long time during an attack for that many guns to have to be pointed at one plane. Fortunately, the Fast Carrier Task Force carried a lot of barrels: You also have to take into account that for the most part, the US was shooting at planes that were fragile and easily set on fire and being flown after the Solomons campaign by mostly poorly trained and inexperienced pilots. Don't get me wrong. USN AAA chewed up the Japanese air forces but a lot of Japanese planes, particularly suicide bombers, still got through and sank/damaged a lot of ships and killed a lot of sailors. That doesn't make AA useless! Musashi proved that a single carrier's worth of planes is still required to take out a 'modern' BB, and she was terrible with AA! Iowa would likely suffer massive damage by a single carrier still, but she would NOT be easy to take out.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 29, 2016 11:17:51 GMT -6
I didn't say AAA was useless.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 29, 2016 11:25:43 GMT -6
I didn't say AAA was useless. Well, true... But I think you're underplaying it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 29, 2016 11:42:48 GMT -6
Anti-aircraft fire downed around 21% of attacking aircraft in WWII. It got much more effective later in the war, especially after VT fuses came into use. 50% of the aircraft downed by AA fell in the last year of the war. Here's a link to an excellent article on the subject: www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 29, 2016 12:03:50 GMT -6
I didn't say AAA was useless. Well, true... But I think you're underplaying it a bit. I don't think I am. I used the US Navy's own numbers. And the last year of the war that jwsmith26 is referring to was against almost entirely obsolete, poor performing aircraft flown by barely trained pilots on suicide missions. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that against an equivalently trained enemy flying their own versions of the much more rugged and faster Hellcats, Corsairs, Avengers and Helldivers that the US AAA performance, which was the best in the world, would have been substantially weaker. Fortunately for us, the Japanese were capable of no such thing at the time. Furthermore, the technological trend at the time was tilting towards the offense with jet aircraft and radio controlled missiles and bombs.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 29, 2016 12:53:51 GMT -6
Coming back to the horizon calculation metioned earlier in this thread one thing I would like to see is visibility/sighting calculation based on horizon, ship "height" etc. with weather effects (haze, fog, night etc.) modifying that "horizon range". I would also like to see rain showers etc. with localized effect on visibility.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 29, 2016 13:04:47 GMT -6
Coming back to the horizon calculation metioned earlier in this thread one thing I would like to see is visibility/sighting calculation based on horizon, ship "height" etc. with weather effects (haze, fog, night etc.) modifying that "horizon range". I would also like to see rain showers etc. with localized effect on visibility. I thought most of that was already in the game. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 29, 2016 14:19:49 GMT -6
Rain, mist, night and smoke are taken into account in the accuracy effects. Maximum visibility range models these effects as well. I even saw a hit modifier for "glare" (a whopping -50) in a recent battle. Accuracy is also negatively impacted if you are firing at targets that are near the edge of maximum range. Height already affects visibility range - just look at the visibility rings for BBs vs. DDs
The only thing missing is local squalls, but even this might be being simulated by the often quite rapid changes in visibility range. Still, it would be nice to see a squall affecting just a portion of the battlefield which often had an impact on battles. This would be especially nice for RtW2 if carriers are implemented, because local weather conditions had major impacts on several of the carrier battles in WWII. But I can see that the programming involved would be much more extensive than just implementing the same weather across the entire map.
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Aug 29, 2016 14:22:57 GMT -6
I don't think I am. I used the US Navy's own numbers. And the last year of the war that jwsmith26 is referring to was against almost entirely obsolete, poor performing aircraft flown by barely trained pilots on suicide missions. I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that against an equivalently trained enemy flying their own versions of the much more rugged and faster Hellcats, Corsairs, Avengers and Helldivers that the US AAA performance, which was the best in the world, would have been substantially weaker. Fortunately for us, the Japanese were capable of no such thing at the time. Furthermore, the technological trend at the time was tilting towards the offense with jet aircraft and radio controlled missiles and bombs. But uniquely in the USN, shipboard AAA was the last line of defense. The primary defense was the vast swarms of fighters on CAP, all controlled by radar direction somewhat more evolved than used by the RAF in the Battle of Britain. Not a lot got through that, and the massed guns of the huge US task forces then did a pretty good job on the leakers. Far from perfect, of course, but still quite good. So the US had both things going for it: huge numbers of the world's best aircraft backed up by huge amounts of the world's best AAA. Nobody else had either of these, and the lack of massive, powerful CAPs exacerbated the problems of the inadequacies of their AAA batteries.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 29, 2016 16:32:31 GMT -6
It was good in comparison to the other nations. But even the 5"/38 with the VT fuse was calculated to need on average 340 rounds per kill. Base ring mounts could shoot between 15-22 rpm per barrel depending on crew skill so that's roughly 100 seconds of fire (at 20rpm) for an entire battleship 5"/38 broadside (10) per plane brought down on average. That's a long time during an attack for that many guns to have to be pointed at one plane. But keep in mind that AA fire can result not only in straight up kills but also in aborted attacks, altered tactics, and mission kills (planes forced home due to damage).
|
|