|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 21, 2016 14:09:44 GMT -6
Testing out the new Varied Tech system in v1.33 b1. I had my first "Uh-oh" moment when I got the message below. I'm not sure what the effect will be but I suspect I'll not be getting triple or quadruple turrets any time soon. Other than the message mentioned above, I've not seen anything that appears significantly different so far, but it is only 1905 (playing the Germans with large fleets). And as Fredrik mentioned, I may or may not see some weirdness happen. Here's hoping for something really, really strange. I've included my tech development as it looks like at this point.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 21, 2016 17:42:18 GMT -6
You need to get some new scientists, haha.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 21, 2016 18:29:30 GMT -6
Well, they aren't wrong - for that period. It's later that navies accepted that you could efficiently work more than one gun in a turret, and it was post-WW1 before Britain built anything with triple turrets.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 22, 2016 0:13:56 GMT -6
Well, they aren't wrong - for that period. It's later that navies accepted that you could efficiently work more than one gun in a turret, and it was post-WW1 before Britain built anything with triple turrets. At least main armament triple turrets - there were Renown classes Fisher-driven triple 4" turrets - but definitely agree that triple turrets didn't take on in a widespread sense until later down the track. Japan's WW1 era ships were all (IIRC) twins as well, I think only the US went early on the triple turrets (no idea how good the mounts are, but I'm assuming pretty good, given by that stage US shipbuilding was well into its stride).
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 22, 2016 0:33:32 GMT -6
Hell, Britain was STILL using double mounts AFTER WW2! D;
Vanguard used WW1 15 inch gun turrets!
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 22, 2016 0:48:57 GMT -6
Hell, Britain was STILL using double mounts AFTER WW2! D; Vanguard used WW1 15 inch gun turrets! That was so they could get an additional BB commissioned at minimum cost and time compared to designing and building new turrets for the Lions. Nothing to do with a preference for or more trust in 2-gun turrets over 3-gun turrets. The Lions would have had three 3-gun turrets as designed.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 22, 2016 1:19:47 GMT -6
That was so they could get an additional BB commissioned at minimum cost and time compared to designing and building new turrets for the Lions. Nothing to do with a preference for or more trust in 2-gun turrets over 3-gun turrets. The Lions would have had three 3-gun turrets as designed. Well, true, she was basically a 'we have this ****, so lets use it' sort of ship. But even the KGV's didn't have triples, opting for doubles and quads (A TERRIBLE layout! D; )
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 22, 2016 3:25:36 GMT -6
I don't believe that was the original plan. They were supposed to have three 4-gun turrets, similar to the initial design for the North Carolina's, and they had to go to a 2-gun superfiring turret because of the weight. The British were, I thought, the biggest proponent of the naval treaties and so they did not want to be the first to build new BB's with 16in guns. Could also have been the case that the BL 16in Mk II guns would not have been ready in time for the KGV's. Edit - Nope, According to the Wikipedia entry, the KGV would have had 15in guns until it was decided to go with 14in guns to try to get the other powers to limit their BB's as well.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 22, 2016 8:30:28 GMT -6
True. British policy was to push for international support to keep the 14" maximum armament for new BBs. Once it looked like Japan would opt out the US went ahead with designing a new 16" gun (and put 3x3 on the North Carolina while only armoring the design against 14" gunfire, which turned out OK) while Britain had already spent money on a new 14" and didn't want to hold up construction for a year or more while a 16" was proofed. The B turret was reduced to 2 guns in order to reduce top weight (and give some extra tonnage for protection). Personally I think they should have just bitten the bullet and built in big triple turrets on the KGVs, with 14" as launched and a 16" (or 15" as bcoop says) when ready. The 14" quad layout was not two twin turrets in one housing as France did with their quad turrets. It's impossible to sort out fact from rumor at this point so we have to assume that, other than Prince of Wales being unready to fight, the quads worked OK or had only minor problems in service. There are persistent casual quotes that the quads were not mechanically reliable but I haven't seen that from what I would consider reputable sources. Campbell only partially verifies this (Naval Weapons of WW2, John Campbell, p30), laying the fault on "lack of experienced personnel and time for detail design and development" as well as "imperfect functioning of several other components". It is impossible to say if this was common in other modern battleships (I suspect so - heavy caliber gun turrets are extremely complex) or just a failing of this particular design. bcoop, I'd never heard that the KGVs were intended for 15" guns. Not disputing that, just never heard it. Axe, I also didn't know that Britain used a triple 4" turret. Live and learn. You must have been studying your Campbell too.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 22, 2016 8:52:33 GMT -6
The Royal Navy is in no way my wheelhouse. Navweaps lists the BL 15in/45 Mk II as the the proposed choice (The BL 15in/45 Mk II was never actually built) for one of the most promising proposals for the KGV. Also the Wikipedia page lists the preferred choice for the KGV to be the 15in prior to choosing the 14in due to political and time considerations.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 22, 2016 11:56:19 GMT -6
So now I'm not so sure that the warning that I received earlier about multiple gun turrets had any actual effect in the game. It's May 1910 and I just researched triple turrets. It was a scary warning since I typically jump to triple turrets as soon as available, especially if I'm limited to three center-line turrets. That warning message doesn't appear to have had a major impact, though triple turret development was perhaps a bit slower than normal. Below is a snapshot of what my tech looks like at this point. Research seems to be somewhat ignoring the priorities that I set, getting me to level 6 in two areas that I assigned low priority to, while researching only to level 3 and 4 in two areas assigned to high, but truthfully, I have seen this kind of variation in past games using the standard research. I would have to say at this point that I have not seen the wild research that I was anticipating, but as Fredrik has pointed out, the effects of varied research is random and being relatively normal certainly falls within the range of randomness. Probably, it will take a much larger sampling of games to see how this new feature works.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 22, 2016 15:50:49 GMT -6
Axe, I also didn't know that Britain used a triple 4" turret. Live and learn. You must have been studying your Campbell too. Campbell's great . A little dry, perhaps (although there's some quality understated near-humour in there), but really enjoying it in short bursts. I only remember that triple 4-inch because it was so unusual (silly Jacky Fisher and his crazy ideas - although the varied tech system is cool in a way as it puts us more in his position - what if he was right?!)
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 23, 2016 11:15:15 GMT -6
So now I'm not so sure that the warning that I received earlier about multiple gun turrets had any actual effect in the game. It's May 1910 and I just researched triple turrets. It was a scary warning since I typically jump to triple turrets as soon as available, especially if I'm limited to three center-line turrets. That warning message doesn't appear to have had a major impact, though triple turret development was perhaps a bit slower than normal. Below is a snapshot of what my tech looks like at this point. Research seems to be somewhat ignoring the priorities that I set, getting me to level 6 in two areas that I assigned low priority to, while researching only to level 3 and 4 in two areas assigned to high, but truthfully, I have seen this kind of variation in past games using the standard research. I would have to say at this point that I have not seen the wild research that I was anticipating, but as Fredrik has pointed out, the effects of varied research is random and being relatively normal certainly falls within the range of randomness. Probably, it will take a much larger sampling of games to see how this new feature works. Thanks for the feedback. Some of the effects may not show until you actually go to war. As for ignoring your priorities, there is a certain amount of luck to research. It is assumed that some genius my invent something in a low tech area, while high spending do not always equal great results.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 23, 2016 11:50:40 GMT -6
Fredrik, now that you mention the effects showing up more in battle I think I can see that in action. I typically jump quickly to triple turrets so I have a lot of experience with them. In past games I've not seen many triple turret failures, at least no more than are typical for double turrets. This seemed to be the case even before I had developed improved reliability for triple turrets. That's why I jumped to them immediately, there was very little downside. But in this game, I am seeing many more issues with triple turrets being disabled more frequently and staying disabled longer. In many of my ships I find that I am operating most of the battle with just 6 or even just 3 barrels available.
I've just developed improved reliability for triple turrets and I'm now in the process of rebuilding all of my triple turret armed capital ships so they can utilize the new tech. It is so bad that I'm going through this process even though I am in the midst of a war with the USA. I'll report back when I see if this improves things. If not I may have to go back to double turrets, which will be quite painful for me - I do love triple turrets. This world is a different place, a much darker place, with varied tech. Hopefully, in future games I'll get some good stuff to balance out this evilness that has descended on the world of RtW. :-)
BTW, I'm loving having to deal with this new obstacle.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 30, 2016 10:39:16 GMT -6
My test of the varied tech option was on hold because of the misplaced fleet option. Fredrik just fixed that bug allowing me to continue this game. Even after researching improved triple turrets I am still experiencing reduced reliability for my triple turret armed ships. In two recent battles involving capital ships I found that my capital ships (the only ships currently armed with triple turrets) consistently operated with either one or two turrets disabled. That's a pretty tiny sampling so it may not prove anything but I appear to be having more difficulties keeping these turrets up and running than in past games. I'm thinking about rebuilding these ships to carry double turrets to see if this impacts things.
I'm looking forward to seeing what other mischief pops up when varied tech is enabled in my next game.
|
|