Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 19:19:48 GMT -6
Oh bloody hell. USA and Italy signs a treaty against British aggression. Aggression!! What aggression? Italy! You have repeatedly stolen tech from us. Your spies have been found in our research divisions. Twice! So of course we decline when you want to buy tech or want to form an alliance. And now you call this British aggression? Pffft. So now's gotta split the fleet 4 ways. This is painful. And Italy, what is your fleet doing in the gorram West Africa? Can't you see we are blockading you? To the stone age with these 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 2:41:31 GMT -6
Goodbye, good night!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 3:36:37 GMT -6
You gotta be sh*ttin' me! What the phlying phuck?! Again?!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 22:05:11 GMT -6
The game is finished at 1950. It is I conclude a very, very, very interesting and satisfying game. Fought everyone except Japan. It is a personal record on countries fought and number of wars. Fought USA twice. Fought USA/Italy alliance twice. France twice. Britain is really able to whip anybody and never hesitates much to do so. Sunk 41 BBs, 68 BCs, 19 Bs, 35 CAs, 91 CLs, 257 DDs - more than half of that from USA. Lost 1 BB, 2 CAs, 5 CLs, 45 DDs. The 1 BB and 2 CA losses are arbitrary events. The only ship that went up in a premature explosion is a light cruiser. Gained territory in 6 major seazones including every colony in Northern Europe. Built up base support in NA East coast, the Mediterranean and NE Asia to support entire fleets, in Southeast Asia and the Caribbean to support half a fleet. Built a whopping 130 coastal artillery. Managed to stay ahead of USA in national economy. While USA has a very rapid growth, war victory economy gains made us staying ahead. Managed 134 prestige points in one go. Another personal record. Was able to design and build excellent ships and lots of them. From day 1, our ships are better than the enemies' and it stayed that way. In fact at a Caribbean battleship engagement in 1938, 2 BBs built in 1919 sank 4 US BBs, against the odds and without the help of torpedoes. The only exception being torpedo technology lacking significantly in the war against Germany providing a few surprises. But setting torpedo research to high quickly rectified that. Tech wise, fully researched Turret and gun mountings, Light forces and torpedo warfare, and Torpedo technology. Only 1 item remains in Ship design which is double gun mounts on CL. 16" Q-1 gun was researched a few turns before game end. 15" gunned capital ships have already been commissioned in bulk. These are very advanced in a 10% research speed game. The toughest battle was a convoy attack with 2 BCs. The enemy main force has 1 BC only but got a 3 BB support force. Sank the lone BC, and traded 3 DDs for a battleship. The 2 BCs sustained medium damage and was touch and go for a moment. The most ridiculous one was a fleet battle against Italy, where I had 3 BCs and 1 CA taking part in the fight, with each ship... in his own division. But, in most other capital ship battles, it was really simple: steam rolling the enemy and well, nothing else! With that said, there is an obvious kinky side. The oversea colonies keeping requires a lot of attention. And a lot of resources. And strategically hazardous. The CA fleet that consisted of 10 to 18 ships needs constant attention, but they do not contribute much to the war effort, except fulfilling tonnage requirements. Yet when a battle does happen, the CA needs to be able to fight, and win. Therefore the CA fleet had to go through 2 major upgrades, firstly from the legacy ships to the semi-modern designs, and the 2nd from semi-moderns to modern superimposed turreted CAs. It is a lengthy, tedious and expensive process. When these CAs need rebuilding, it is a constant "FS" status cruiser shuffle to fulfill requirements. Especially early game when the fleet is still low in numbers. It doesn't help that ships coming down to AF status from FS sometimes tend to wonder elsewhere. The vast colonies are always at risk of rebellion or being invaded. They need protection from a lot of coastal artillery, and need constant base expansion to support fleets. They take away resources that can be used elsewhere. Should I fortify that colony, or build a new capital ship, is often a question to ponder on. The colonies in the Caribbean are a big burden. USA is Britain's enemy no.1, and the Caribbean being US home waters is often heavily laden with capital ships. Therefore any war against USA is bound to split the fleet in 3. If USA is allied with anyone, this significantly complicates things. If the US is allied with a European nation, the Caribbean colonies are at the most risk: how can Britain divide the fleet 3 ways, maintain a 1:4 strength ratio in NA East coast and the Caribbean, avoid being blockaded, and still able to have the advantage in tactical battles? I don't have a straight simple answer. I'm lucky enough that USA only allied with Italy in this game. But still, having to divide the fleet 4 ways, and remain competitive in at least 3 zones (minus the Caribbean) is a logistical challenge. I shudder to think about a US - Japan alliance... The only benefit from the Caribbean it seems is the ability to control Panama. It is a delight to see a ship travel from Northern Europe to NA West coast in 2 turns during wartime, and only 3 turns to Japan's front door. All in all I don't think GB is an easy nation to play with. It is devastating to its enemies if done right, but disastrous to itself if done wrong. And to do it right requires a good amount of work. However, highly recommended to experienced players, for the satisfaction factor of seeing enemy battle lines crumble, repeatedly, again and again, at the behest of Britain's superior capital ships, when strategic plans pan out according to one's design. In fact, I think a Great Britain game is the best epitome of RTW's ingeniously designed strategic layer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 2:25:06 GMT -6
Decided to sod it and delete tonnage and belt thickness restrictions on CL. Also deleted belt thickness restriction on CA (12"). CL - CA - BC distinction would depend entirely on gun caliber. However. Still undecided about the 8" CL gun caliber. While the 8" provides significant higher hitting power, the low hit rate against DDs makes them somewhat less effective as fleet screens. Hmmm. Will see.
ResearchAreas.dat: Scouting force and Advanced signalling in [Fleet tactics] both have the same research ID 1307. This seems to make one of the research items redundant. Changed Scouting force research ID to 1311 in exe hex.
Subsequently... deleted the Scouting force research in ResearchAreas.dat. I don't want a separate scout force. It usually only has 2 BCs which lacks staying power, while other BCs in the battle gets assigned to the main force. Playing on captain's I'd rather all the BB and BCs assign to just one force, then pull all the available BCs into a separate group and manually control it - exactly like a scout force, but this time all the BCs would be grouped together.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 26, 2018 9:13:22 GMT -6
In my opinion you should restrict CLs to 6" caliber. I'm not aware of any design that crossed that line except perhaps for the Russian 'Kirov' cruiser with 7" main battery. The 6" shell was the limit of what could be man-handled; anything larger required powered equipment and hence had a lower reloading speed. I don't mind having to build 8"-gun ships as CAs; I mind that the game then never commits them to action.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jan 26, 2018 10:12:12 GMT -6
In my opinion you should restrict CLs to 6" caliber. I'm not aware of any design that crossed that line except perhaps for the Russian 'Kirov' cruiser with 7" main battery. The 6" shell was the limit of what could be man-handled; anything larger required powered equipment and hence had a lower reloading speed. I don't mind having to build 8"-gun ships as CAs; I mind that the game then never commits them to action. Actually, the USN considered 7" shells the largest able to be loaded by a single person, later American Pre-dreadnoughts had 7" batteries (in addition to 8" and 12" guns)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2018 10:42:19 GMT -6
Director: See this post. I am agreeing more and more to it. Actually have yet to use any true modern ones (currently all has single turrets) I've yet to test its true effectiveness. Based on 8" performance so far it takes longer to score a hit on enemy DD, but once hit the DD is mostly done for. So it's hard to say, gotta "playtest" some more and see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 7:21:07 GMT -6
Next up.. Japan. Gonna do 2 strategic phases, first one secure Asia, second one is to take it to Europe. The "heavy light cruiser" concept is gonna receive a thorough test with AI designs all adjusted using 7" and 8" guns when applicable. Will see how it goes when enemy light cruisers also pack a punch. More importantly, having taking Britain the juggernaut for a spin, it is a nice time to relax a bit while cooped up in North Asia. Obviously one can just leave one hand on the Enter key and Zzzzzz, while the mass AMC raider fleet spikes up the enemy's unrest level. So.. just gonna setup the initial fleet for the moment. But problems start to surface. Was gonna build this heavy CL at home. The initial starting tech does not have wing main turrets >7", so naturally it is to downgrade from 8" to 7". Long story short, it ended up being a very big ship. But that's not the problem. Not at all. I like big ships. The problem is... after laying down 2 of them at French yards and finished building the initial fleet, another design came to mind: 8" guns, no wing turrets. Granted it's not as good looking. But it is better. Or is it? I'm not sure....! Huuhh...... That's it for today. Amazing game. I thought I'd got most if not all stuff figured out already. Gonna ponder on this a bit! edit: nvm. 2x2 8" AY turret oughta be best.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 29, 2018 9:07:38 GMT -6
Next up.. Japan. Gonna do 2 strategic phases, first one secure Asia, second one is to take it to Europe. That's it for today. Amazing game. I thought I'd got most if not all stuff figured out already. Gonna ponder on this a bit! edit: nvm. 2x2 8" AY turret oughta be best. I would prefer Izumi as I would prefer having broadside 7x7" with central rangefinder than only 2x8" with central rangefinders and 6x7" with local control. However it seems to me that Naniwa gets better tech as for the same displacement she has much more guns with similar armor layout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 14:06:30 GMT -6
I would prefer Izumi as I would prefer having broadside 7x7" with central rangefinder than only 2x8" with central rangefinders and 6x7" with local control. However it seems to me that Naniwa gets better tech as for the same displacement she has much more guns with similar armor layout. It is just trickery on the brain in this case Imagine building a CA in the unmodded game but only 8" gun max. The obvious choice is to stick 2 turrets fore and aft, then add whatever secondary that is affordable. With a 7" secondary it ends up like Naniwa1, only exchanging the 3 single mounts to 2 double mounts. However, whether it is to use single mounts or double mounts is to be reckoned. Double mount has a 10% RoF penalty or the in game symptom being constant turret jams. More food for thought...! edit: works! and mine!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 0:44:02 GMT -6
Japan. What can I say. 独孤求败。 It is so isolated that nobody wants to fight him. The war against Russia lasted 6 years. From 1902 to 1908. A whopping 73 months. Sod the war weary Japanese people. I am very weary. We built 30+ AMCs. Raider warfare is the only recourse. Russia had been running low on ships and the AI is pretty bad at allocating ships across the globe. This results in very one sided battles. Like a 1 CL force going against a B. 2 CLs against a B. 1 CA against a B. There are more. I just got tired to screenshooting... These battles are still fine. At least it is exciting. The slog that is AMC vs AMC simply kills me. When Russia finally collapsed, it is decided that this kinda war can no longer happen. Phase 2: Europe... here we come!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 2:19:39 GMT -6
Extremely hard battle of several that I suspect will come... Only 2 available BCs had to hold down the fort at NE Asia so 2 CAs were sent to N. Europe. Ofc cruiser action pops up and it's 2 CA against 2 BCs. One of the Russian BCs were almost outta ammo but had to come back for more. It was eventually torpedoed by the barely surviving CA. The Russian BC is a good proper one! Another pair of my BCs are 3 and 4 months away from the docks. Plus 3 turns of working up. This is tight. Upon reflection we started too late into the dreadnought race due to high unrest. The price is paid...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 22:33:54 GMT -6
It is 1938 and have to say it is the most problematic game so far.
Firstly the war against Germany has never been so ridiculous, battle location wise. Apparently battles at the North Sea either take place at location "Germany", or "East Prussia". Both locations have battles very close to the German ports. Both locations are extremely heavily fortified with coastal artillery. Naturally as soon as the enemy intends to run away, he can do so with ease because the port is only 5 minutes away. And the batteries and mines can cover his 6. It has been a bear of a time trying to sink anything with significance.
Secondly, every war is a constant map check against enemy strength in each sea zone. The AI enemy likes to send ships to NE Asia despite there's no base support for them. So in turn, I gotta check West Africa, Indian Ocean, SE Asia, and the American sea zones, just to find where his capital ships are and adjust my forces to prepare for the next battle. It's.. interesting for a few times. But repeatedly doing this is tedious. In previous games, only war vs USA is this way. But this time, every war follows this pattern. After the 1st war against Germany, it lost all its colonies. But in the 2nd war, they still send BB and BCs to NE Asia and well.. everywhere else in the world. It is not rare to see enemy capital ships interned during transits.
Thirdly constantly waging war so far away from the home front places extraneous burden on the CAs. North Europe is usually stationed by 2 or 3 of them, and in the opening stages of the war when the BCs are still transiting from NE Asia, the CAs are often faced alone against enemy BCs and BBs, mines, uber CLs and everything. It didn't help that some CAs were old vintages. Luck has been good so far but the risk is always high up there.
Lastly, research division phucked up. They phucking skipped TPS 2. I've had 2 BCs insta-blow up by taking just 2 torpedo hits. I guess that is TPS 1 during mid-late game. Naturally, we again build foreign despite already having the largest dockyard in the world. And just as 2 CLs with TPS 2 are laid down in British yards, Italy sold us TPS 3. Oh well. Better late than nevah!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 1:18:30 GMT -6
"Volume of Fire"! Simple tests in SAI.. Against a Hood: Against an N3 class BB Apparently it burned out first This is hilarious
|
|