|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 30, 2016 10:10:37 GMT -6
I believe the game could cover 1926 to possibly the beginning of WWII- I.E. Sept. 1939. Since this will be a naval game, then its research should include anti-aircraft artillery development, aircraft carriers of any size and the aircraft to occupy those carriers. Those aircraft would include fighters, torpedo bombers and dive bombers. I don't see any need to develop land based bombers but they should be available to the computer to launch raids against fleets like the German's and Italians did in WWII. I would suggest the development of long range seaplanes like the Emily and PBY Catalina, just to name a few and floatplanes for capital ships. As to the details of research, I leave that to the team. It is obvious, that capital ships will evolve, as will cruisers and destroyers along with submarines and motor torpedo boats like the E-boat and others. The game can either be fantasy, as some like, or realistic with a realistic historical timeline. I let the team choose, they know where they want the game to head.
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Aug 30, 2016 10:13:06 GMT -6
....While they had all sorts of issues, once they got in the air, Seafires look to have been decent close-in CAP fighters, and remained so until it was time to try and land them again.... Once the British Pacific Fleet was a thing, I'd be very surprised if larger, USN-style CAPs weren't a pretty standard thing, just that no-one, anywhere, was going to match the scale of the USN by about mid-late 1943 (I cant recall exactly when USN forces overtook the Japanese in the Pacific, but I think it was around then). It doesn't mean they didn't have them though - it's a question of doctrine vs scale (and if we start talking scale, then once we get to 1945, we may as well say that there was only one navy ). Edit: Sorry, I've completely shanked the quote system - I agree with a lot of what you've said, although I think it's worth pointing out that the AA of the USN you're describing is more the 1944/45 USN, than the 1941/42 (there were still lots of 5"/38s in 41/42 of course, but nowhere near as much or as good close-in AA). Heheh, that's the best description of Seafires I've ever heard . But it really wasn't a laughing matter. IIRC, while the RN was in the Pacific, the attrition of Seafires simply due to landing accidents was in the region of 100%, on top of operational losses. Due to the difficulty in getting replacements out to that theater, this meant that the RN never had very many Seafires on hand at any given moment, further exacerbating the problem of not having relatively many to begin with. I agree that nobody could match the USN in scale, but scale has a lot to do with the effectiveness of any form of defense. The fewer defending assets you have, the less force the attacker needs to overwhelm it, and the more leakers get through. Of course, the RN Pacific fleet never faced the intensity of attacks thrown at the USN off Okinawa, either. But no matter how you slice it, CV for CV, the RN simply couldn't put up as strong a CAP as the USN, so it took less effort by the attacker to get through an RN CAP from a given number of CVs than for a USN CAP from the same number of CVs. This in turn put a greater burden on the RN AAA than the USN AAA. And again, ship for ship, the USN could put more AAA in the air than the RN. That's my point. I mentioned the late-war USN AAA outfits because that's what was considered the best in the world, which is what I thought we were talking about to start with. True, earlier in the war, the USN didn't have much light AAA, but it had something pretty rare: lots of heavy AAA. Except for the WW1 4-stackers and a few of the early interwar classes, every USN DD had DP 5"/38s. This enabled them to make a significant contribution to overall fleet air defense, whereas the DDs of other nations usually had only SP guns. And of course the USN cruisers and BBs designed just before the war also had rather more heavy AAA than their Brit contemporaries. So for the USN, for the most part, improvements to AAA were in the form of tweaking the 5"/38 (better radar, VT fuses) and adding more light AAA. The RN didn't have enough of any type of AAA, couldn't fix their deficit in heavy AAA, and so could really only add more light AAA, and they didn't add as much as the USN.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 30, 2016 14:41:01 GMT -6
As presently conceived RTW2 will cover the period up to 1950 including aircraft. It is still very early in development, so we cannot offer more details at this point. This discussion is good inspiration however, so please keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 30, 2016 15:16:23 GMT -6
As presently conceived RTW2 will cover the period up to 1950 including aircraft. It is still very early in development, so we cannot offer more details at this point. This discussion is good inspiration however, so please keep it up. Fantastic! Best news I've heard since I installed RtW.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 30, 2016 16:16:16 GMT -6
As presently conceived RTW2 will cover the period up to 1950 including aircraft. It is still very early in development, so we cannot offer more details at this point. This discussion is good inspiration however, so please keep it up. Interesting. Thanks for the info. So that gives us some water to move in as my Nav-ET buddies would say. Some of my thoughts. For most of these, please assume I'm referring to Admirals mode or its equivalent in RTW2: 1. Airfields built like coastal forts which appear on the map in scenarios. 2. How many plane types to include? Long Range Patrol (PBY), fighters (F4F), Scout (OS2) for cruisers and battleships, how many bomber types? Torpedo (Avenger), Dive (Dauntless), land-based multi engine (B-25). Do we want to go all the way up to four engine bombers? If memory served, the B-17 had little success bombing ships but did good work as a reconnaissance platform in the Southwest Pacific. Do we want land based versions of fighters/bombers (Mustangs and Thunderbolts, etc) or just stick to naval versions? 3. How much micromanaging do we want to have for aircraft search plans and attacks? Start with a fleet aircraft screen similar to the division screen in RTW1. For attacks it should be fairly simple. Click on the squadrons you want to send out and then click on the spot of ocean you want them to fly to. Search plans could be very tricky. The doctrine of search plans had a major effect on many of the major carrier battles in 1942. Maybe make search plans a research area like fleet tactics to prevent players from immediately going to the late war doctrines. 4. What would be the best way to handle aircraft/pilot replacement? I'll stop there for now, please feel free to chime in with your thoughts or additional ideas.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 30, 2016 17:23:59 GMT -6
As presently conceived RTW2 will cover the period up to 1950 including aircraft. It is still very early in development, so we cannot offer more details at this point. This discussion is good inspiration however, so please keep it up. Well break a champagne bottle over my head, my excitement factor has just been launched to high altitude . Great to hear . Obviously your game, but would love it if you maintained the "you'll never know whether you'll research X by a certain date" approach, so I can't rely on getting VT fuses or good RP control or however the tech system approaches that kind of thing. Bullethead - deffo agree about the USN's heavy AA - their was no navy with near as close as they had, and that's even if you count the "kinda sort not really" DP functionality of the Japanese DD guns. Also, I agree the Seafires thing wasn't a laughing matter - was just trying to keep a lighthearted tone to the conversation - I have huge amounts of respect/sympathy (as appropriate) for everyone operating machinery of war, often under great difficulty, with it often not working like it should. On the CAP side of things, I was more addressing the comment that "uniquely in the USN, AAA was the last line of defence". I'm not suggesting the AA defence of US fleets wasn't comfortably the best in the world at the time. As an aside, I took a sneak preview at the next book on my reading list, Friedman's Naval Anti-Aircraft Guns and Gunnery, and it has some good numbers on how many aircraft that got through the CAP were then shot down. It also noted that the Mk 37 director wasn't much chop at close-in fire control, but if the 5"/38 was connected to a Mk 51 (or other good close-in fire control), BuOrd "considered one twin 5"/38 firing proximity fuses equivalent to four of the existing semi-automatic 3"/50s* firing proximity-fused projectiles and to two quadruple Bofors guns". (Assuming 50 per cent VT fuse operation). The book notes, however, that many ships, "particularly the picket destroyers off Okinawa" lacked sufficient directors, and were forced to resort to local control with the sights of their guns. *(these are the old 3"/50s, not the new 3"/50s with the high rates of fire) Just mentioning, in case it's of help to the devs - in that once AA's in the game, it may be worth rating directors on both their surface and anti-air performance (as at least in the RN many AA directors could also control the secondary armament of large ships for surface fire), and having primary directors, secondary directors for large AA, and separate directors for close-in AA. On the effectiveness of AAA and Carrier borne aircraft, Friedman highlights substantial differences between the USN and IJN. In the first half of 1944, 315 Japanese aircraft penetrated the CAP to attack ships, which resulted in 31 hits or damaging near-misses. Of those 315 aircraft, 106 were shot down by AA guns. Friedman doesn't have a direct comparison for the flip side, but in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, 5 (3.2 per cent) of the 159 attacking US aircraft were lost to Japanese AA fire. On the effectiveness of USN air attacks, it's again not a strict comparison, but US carrier aircraft claimed 30 per cent hits on Japanese shipping during the first six months of 1944, and in the Battle of the Philippine Sea (what looks to be a direct comparison with the Japanese figure above) 159 US aircraft made 71 hits (44.7 per cent). Of course, these battles take place after most of the well-trained IJN pilots are no longer around, so training is likely a significant factor in the hit rates against ships, but I'd expect that the deterrent and disrupting effect of US AAA fire to have had a significant impact as well. @bcoop - great points. On the four engine bomber thing, while the B-17 didn't have a lot of luck, I'm fairly sure the B-24 Liberator sunk a few ships in the Pacific in its time - and if aircraft are involved in ASW, then four-engined aircraft and large flying boats become more important.
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Aug 30, 2016 18:51:48 GMT -6
As presently conceived RTW2 will cover the period up to 1950 including aircraft. It is still very early in development, so we cannot offer more details at this point. This discussion is good inspiration however, so please keep it up. Hells to the yeah! Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 30, 2016 19:51:28 GMT -6
axe99 mentioned ASW. CVE's. If the ship designer carries over and we can design our own CV's that would be great. It will be interesting to see if players just maximize airgroup size or if they try for somthing like the armored British carriers or somewhere in between. CVE's were also very useful but I believe we might need some mechanism in-game to protect them from the battle generator depending on how the player decides to use them. For example, if I recall, the Japanese used them in supporting forces for their offensive fleet operations. The Americans held them back from fleet operations but used them extensively for amphibious assault support and ASW operations. The British I know used them for ASW and convoy protection but I'll have to rely on someone else's knowledge if they used them for other missions. Other than conveying aircraft. I assume that all three navies used CVE's to transport spare and replacement aircraft around the battlefront. So I believe the player might need several different stances available for CVE's. ASW to support the (I assume) still abstracted submarine warfare. Active Duty to simulate the Japanese use of CVE's in fleet operations as a supporting unit. And then some kind of Active but Secondary status to reflect operations away from the main battlefleet but still in the battle area like amphibious support. Selecting Active Duty would make it fully available for the battle generator, ASW should prevent selection in the battle generator and then Active/Secondary. Where the CVE would have only a small chance of becoming involved in the battle generator to reflect the rare occurrences like Samar. What do you think? Too complicated? axe99, did the Allies use Liberators for skip bombing and mastheight bombing? I thought that was mostly twin-engine Mitchell's and some of the A-series aircraft like the A-20. I thought I had always read that the Liberators were not very pilot friendly aircraft. Not the kind that you would want to take on a low level attack mission but I could certainly be mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 30, 2016 23:28:46 GMT -6
axe99 , did the Allies use Liberators for skip bombing and mastheight bombing? I thought that was mostly twin-engine Mitchell's and some of the A-series aircraft like the A-20. I thought I had always read that the Liberators were not very pilot friendly aircraft. Not the kind that you would want to take on a low level attack mission but I could certainly be mistaken. It was something I noticed when I was putting together a spreadsheet (still a WIP, been distracted by modding HoI4, but it'll be finished sometime or other) of ships that served 1936-48 by their fate, and the Liberator showed up more than I expected. I've only done Japanese ships launched or at least laid down up to 1/1/1936, and the Liberator turned up as accounting for 1 CL (Abukuma) and 1 SS (I174). Most of the info on fates tended to just be "allied aircraft", so two specific sinkings by Liberators was a surprise to me. I also remember reading something about air operations in the Pacific (but I can't for the life of me remember what or where it was) that mentioned B-24s. Hang on, I'll see if Google can help my memory...... ... ahh, there it is - the PB4Y-1 was the name of the B-24 in naval service, and by the look of Wikipedia it got a bit of use. I'd need to do more research to get more specific than "it was used a bit, and sunk a few ships" though. It was successful enough that they made a navalised PB4Y-2 from it though, also four engined, which was designated a "patrol bomber". Sorry I can't say more. In the Atlantic, the Germans used 4-engined condors in an anti-shipping role. Again, I'm not sure how successful they were, but they were at least worth sticking hurricanes on catapults for merchant ships over.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 30, 2016 23:46:33 GMT -6
Oh god...
144 kiloton (H44?) uber-battleships layered with AA and CAP (BATTLECARRIERS!? D; ) fighting off jet fighters with guided anti-ship bombs will be insane... D;
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 30, 2016 23:50:28 GMT -6
No, we do not have true "horizon" visibility calculation. That would mean in clear water that ships with high masts have more visibility range, smoke from coal fired ships would be visible far further than the ships themselves etc. At the moment we have a flat visibility range that varies with "weather" (also within a scenario) but always is limited to a maximum range. 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 marcorossolini on Aug 31, 2016 0:44:09 GMT -6
Frankly, I don't give a damn where RTW2 goes! (apart from space, got plenty of games like that already) Exactly how I picture it. The Artist's name is Jan Boruta. janboruta.deviantart.com/art/HMS-Dreadnought-in-space-64093030I like the fact that he included turrets on the underside to minimize blind spots unlike a certain re-purposed Japanese Super-battleship. To be quite frank I've never really liked that sort of thing. It kind of devalues the actual ships like they need to be made "better" or something. But whatever...
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 31, 2016 2:41:05 GMT -6
Oh god... 144 kiloton (H44?) uber-battleships layered with AA and CAP (BATTLECARRIERS!? D; ) fighting off jet fighters with guided anti-ship bombs will be insane... D; There was a rather off-the-wall proposal to develop one of the Lion's partially-completed hulls into a hybrid carrier-battleship - although it never got seriously considered for construction! It will be interesting to see how radar plays into things, and night battles in that patch in the timeline when people are developing radar could be brutal!
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Aug 31, 2016 3:41:26 GMT -6
In the Atlantic, the Germans used 4-engined condors in an anti-shipping role. Again, I'm not sure how successful they were, but they were at least worth sticking hurricanes on catapults for merchant ships over. I thonk that the Condor was used mainly for recon purpose and not for attacking ships. It was a converted civilian plane and for this not very suited for the attack role (too large, too vulnerable)
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 31, 2016 4:12:18 GMT -6
Oh god... 144 kiloton (H44?) uber-battleships layered with AA and CAP (BATTLECARRIERS!? D; ) fighting off jet fighters with guided anti-ship bombs will be insane... D; There was a rather off-the-wall proposal to develop one of the Lion's partially-completed hulls into a hybrid carrier-battleship - although it never got seriously considered for construction! It will be interesting to see how radar plays into things, and night battles in that patch in the timeline when people are developing radar could be brutal! I was thinking stuff like the Ise.
|
|