|
Post by Noname117 on Sept 22, 2019 22:06:37 GMT -6
So looking at this list, I’d asses the gun calibers like this: 2” guns: only used on legacy auto-generated destroyer designs. 3” guns: used frequently by the AI in the early game, but not a weapon players use as much outside of early DDs and as DP armament for old refit cross-deck-firing BBs and BCs. 4” guns: mid game destroyer armament. Raider CL armament as well. And a DP gun caliber 5” guns: probably the best DP gun caliber, also used on some protected cruisers, as a common secondary armament, and on AA cruisers. 6” guns: main CL armament. 7” guns: kind of in an awkward place between 6” and 8” guns. They’re too large for the typical CL but too small for the typical CA. They might be found as secondary armament on some Bs, but 5”-6” guns just are better for dealing with destroyers as secondaries do. 8” guns: used by the AI, sometimes used by the player. They’re lighter armament for a CA, but can be the maximum gun caliber of a treaty and can also get auto-firing, making them a useful CA gun. Can also be used on early Olympia style CLs. 9” guns: exist in that awkward zone between 8” and 10.” Too big to get the potential advantages of 8, but not quite maximizing firepower like the 10” does. 10” guns: largest proper CA guns, also ideal secondaries for semi-dreadnoughts, and may be found on some second class Bs as well. 11” guns: weak pre-dreadnought armament. Not used by nations with access to 12” guns, but the nation’s which start out with them (Germany, Austria Hungary) do use them a lot until better guns come along. 12” guns: standard pre-dreadnought and 1st generation dreadnought armament. 13” guns: a bit awkward of a gun caliber, but still may be used on some dreadnoughts. The problem with heavy caliber weapons is the player often will use the best one available to them, which means there aren’t really good choices on heavy caliber guns to dissallow. 14” guns: standard super dreadnought armament. 15” guns: also standard super-dreadnought armament, although with more staying power. 16” guns: common mid game to late game BB armament with good staying power. 17” guns: probably not as used as the 16 and 18, however I could still see it being somewhat used. 18” guns: common super heavy BB gun. 19” guns: again in an awkward position between 18 and 20. 20” guns: heaviest guns in the game, used when they can be.
So I’d argue 2”, 7”, and 9” guns should definitely be allowed. Maybe 13”, 17”, and 19” guns as well, but I’d argue it’s hard to pick good BB guns to use. Maybe 11” guns too, even though those are found on German and Austro-Hungarian Bs?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Aug 1, 2019 9:21:14 GMT -6
So I'm playing as Spain (1900 start) in RTW2 version 1.06. In my first war, against Austria Hungary, I took the province of Dalmatia. Now, in 1930, I'm in my second war against Austria Hungary, and the first mission I got is a bombardment mission. Except this is interesting, given that the bombardment target is located in Dalmatia. Right off of Cattaro in fact. Apparently the Spanish Civil War has started a bit early. Or maybe there's a building filled with Austrian spies in Spanish Dalmatia. I don't know. Here are two zip files of my save. One is the turn before the glitch happened; the other is of the battle with the glitch. Game5.zip (2.13 MB) (Prior to Glitch) Game5.zip (2.16 MB) (Shows off Glitch) Several game options were changed, like historical budgets, manual build of legacy fleet, slightly slowed down tech, and turned on slow aircraft development, but I kind of don't think they matter in regards to this glitch.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jul 21, 2019 23:56:28 GMT -6
So I have an idea: given that what a game classifies a ship as has many nuances, some of which change over time, should each ship class (B, BB, BC, CA, etc) get it's own page with a more in depth look at the various nuances with the "ship class" page having a more general overview of each class or not?
I kind of made the definition for protected cruiser more exact (in game terms) on it's page, but I'm wondering if it's too much info for that page. And the same stuff would need to be done for the CA, B, BB, and BC as well, at the very least. Some photos could also be provided on dedicated ship class pages, of normal ingame designs and maybe a few of real life examples too.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 20, 2019 13:46:57 GMT -6
Being the wonderful board that treats him kindly, I will note that he is right in saying “we can only take one ai ship in peace deals”. I haven’t had experience with AI taking ships from me so I can’t comment on that. But I will also kindly point out that by now we have strayed from AI cheating in battle generation to what’s basically finding any areas in which ai and players are treated differently. In that case I always thought the fact that ai don’t fight wars with each other will be better for you to use instead If the game does not work for you, feel free to vent your frustration, but sometime it’s best for everyone to just drop what doesn’t work for you and move on. In any case, I think it’s the time to go check out the officer’s mess again. I absolutely dont understand your point. When you pay for game without graphics as much as for a new A+ class strategy, you expect other things to be better than in other games, not worse. Even if I have unlimited money, I would still stuggle to just move on... The point moved from battle genereation to other things simply because it was already solved that the battle generation is heavily biased. Look, I have not seen the battle generation be consistently biased against me for even a full length war yet. Individual battles maybe, but not a full war. I've had fair fights, fights balanced against me, and fights balanced with me. And as I stated before, what is probably going on here depends on how you built and deployed your fleet, with maybe a sprinkling of luck. With the medium to large battles the game tries to generate, it tries to put a roughly even number of ships of each type on each side. If you lack a specific class of ship, then you get less of them than your enemy, while not gaining any more of the other classes of your ships in the region (which would explain the example given with the lone B going up against a larger force, because that larger force was larger due to other ship classes). Having support forces disabled means that you're never going to get one while the enemy might, further decreasing your chances of having favorable numbers. And yeah, there is a bit of luck as well. But from all my playing of RTW2 and RTW1 this is what I have seen, and the differences in battle generation between the two games do not seem that major.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 19, 2019 5:50:05 GMT -6
So I was fighting both Austria-Hungary and Japan as Russia, and Austria-Hungary sailed a battlecruiser over to Northeast Asia. I fought both that battlecruiser and a Japanese battlecruiser in an engagement, damaging both, and a turn later I received the intel report that BC Voralberg had been interned in a neutral port.
Now this is very weird, since although Austria-Hungary doesn't have any ports in the region, it is the home region for their ally Japan. So I would think they should be able to sail the ship to Japan and repair it there rather than having to intern it in a neutral nation.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 18, 2019 14:00:42 GMT -6
With Japan a group of my newest battleships went their entire careers with never being spawned by the battle generator, even with engagements in home waters. The battle generator certainly leaves something to be desired, at times, but keep in mind that HMS Dreadnought was never once spawned by the battle generator either. ;-) Yeah, but she was spawned in an enemy submarine sunk event.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 17, 2019 14:07:30 GMT -6
Could blue be tertiaries or torps?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 17, 2019 14:04:52 GMT -6
In the limited amount of playing of RTW2 I've done so far, I've seen a nice mix of unfair and fair engagements, some of which were balanced with or against me. A large factor in determining unfair engagements seems based around what ship types you have in a region, and who gets a support force and who doesn't. Typically I've noticed that the battle generator tries to generate the main forces of an engagement with roughly equal numbers of the same ships on each side, but if either side lacks ships of a specific class then they wind up at a disadvantage. So if you lack a ship class compared to your enemy and the battle heavily relies on that ship class, you're likely to be at a disadvantage even if you have a large number of ships in the region. Or it might be the case where you have the heavy units to fight a battle, but the battle generates with a fair amount of heavy units per side and a lack of medium and light units harms your force.
Or sometimes you just get unlucky and the enemy gets a support force while you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 17, 2019 2:25:00 GMT -6
Look, I saw a 3.5" belt bounce an 18" -1 shell, so I'm pretty certain armor angling is in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 10, 2019 0:04:24 GMT -6
It's just the set value of maintenance I think not a reactivation cost. So for any given ship, you're going to have different maintenance cost for Peacetime AF, Wartime AF, Peacetime RF, Wartime RF, and Mothball. Plus an adjustment for Home Waters or Overseas. (I don't think mothball cost changes during a war but AF and I think RF both do.) Mothball is 1/5th of Peacetime AF according to the poster above but it's 1/(7.5)th of Wartime AF. So if you bring a ship out of mothballs during a war then it's maintenance cost is 7.5 times what it used to be and will remain so until you change it to some other maintenance state by either achieving peace, moving it, or changing its readiness. Your language suggested something completely different. What you wanted to say is that your budget will be in the red in war if its maxed out in peacetime. This much is obvious, and people deal with it by suspending construction. Thre is NO REACTIVATION COST. so you should have all ships mothballed you do not intend to be making hits and sinking enemes in the next war. Simple as that. And heck, if you reactivate your ships a few months prior to war they'll be worked up to decent crews by the start of the war. You've probably got an extra battleship or a couple extra cruisers with the saved budget at the start of the war.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 3, 2019 19:57:09 GMT -6
Doesn't maintenance cost go up slightly during war? I always thought it was. Anyway, I don't suggest quite as agressive a pruning policy as JagdFlanker However, pruning older ships is always a good idea imo. B's can be somewhat useful for a bit after 1904, but only for a bit. I honestly get rid of them the second I think I have enough BB's to even barely handle things. Same goes for older BB's, a BB made in 1906 with 2" of deck armor is going to be useless once ships with 14" 15" or especially 16" guns start proliferating. Heck against 15"-16", even a 3-1/2" deck is a liability IMO. The way I view it, if you don't scrap it, your enemy will, and you'll be losing VP for it too. (not to mention its costing you 500-700 a month) So while I don't scrap capital ships at regular intervals, I do think long and hard about when they've outlived their usefulness. That being said! Yeah, I have a hard time keeping up on BC's as well, as japan on historical settings. Usually I prioritize BB's over BC's, so I only have one or two BC's running around. But I don't think thats such a bad thing, it doesn't take that long to get fast battleships, which make BC's completely obsolete imo. As long as you can keep up something even resembling battleship parity, I think your doing fine. Your battleships will cut through BC's like wet paper, any time they get in a fleet battle. So as long as your careful with cruiser engagements (or just keep a handful of BC's) you'll be fine :3 I'd say the best time to prune ships is always right after a war. Warships are only useful in war, and as such your navy is going to be near-useless between wars. If you don't want to have a ship for the next war, it makes no sense to keep that ship for part of that interwar period, where it eats up funds for awhile while being useless and then is scrapped. That's months or years of maintenance funds gone to waste. For timing, I generally say that you should scrap your first Bs sometime around maybe 1910; although after the end of a war taking place sometime around then. I'd typically suggest scrapping the later pre-dreads and semi-dreads in the mid to late teens, again, at the end of a war. First gen dreadnoughts should go in the early to mid 20s probably.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 3, 2019 11:01:40 GMT -6
I managed to get 10 without collapsing an enemy into revolution, but I've not seen more than 10 even with doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 2, 2019 14:18:42 GMT -6
Wait, how long does the reactivation upkeep last for?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 2, 2019 12:34:58 GMT -6
Construction costs are about 8-10 times higher than upkeep on a comparable vessel. Putting ships into the Reserve Fleet or in mothballs helps a bit, but it's not going to have a big impact on your construction programs in the short term unless you're putting a lot of ships into a reduced state of readiness - especially in a period where modern ships are considerably larger, considerably more capable, and considerably more expensive than most of the ships you currently have in service, such as the first decade or two of the dreadnought race.
Additionally, reactivating ships from reduced states of readiness can be a problem. It takes time for crew quality to recover - especially when reactivating from mothballs - which can be a bit of a problem in battles, and going from RF to AF in wartime triples a ship's upkeep while going from MB to AF in wartime increases upkeep by a factor of 7.5 (MB is 0.2, RF 0.5, peacetime home waters AF 1, peacetime overseas AF 1.2, and wartime AF 1.5 times nominal upkeep). Before you put a ship into a reduced state of readiness for a long period of time, take some time and think about whether or not you're actually going to want to reactivate it for the next war. If the answer's no, you might want to scrap the ship instead.
Well, yeah, putting large numbers of ships into the mothballs does help a bit. By the numbers you gave you'd have to scrap about 9 ships or put 14 in the mothball and reserve fleet (assuming 50% in both) to afford a new ship. But yeah, then you're talking about losing 9 older ships for a new one (or maybe 10-11 ships for 2-3 new ones if you're talking about smaller vessels) or doing the same by keeping the 9 ships and reducing them plus another 5 ships in readiness I mean, you get to keep those 9 ships around for the next war in a reduced state of readiness at the cost of 5 ships having a worse crew than they'd otherwise have. Naturally, there are times when you want to scrap ships and times when you don't. Primarily based on whether you want to have those ships around for the next war or not (as you said). But yeah, reducing your fleet in readiness is always going to save you a bit of extra cash, which might get you 1-2 extra capital ships or several light ships between one war and the next. The main loss, as you stated, is poor crews, but all that means is you need to activate your ships a few months before war to let their crew work up. Good crew might not even be necessary on some older ships held on to for numbers (and for directing some fire away from your main damage dealers). And also, some people don't like to do this to keep elite crew around. The problem with this line of logic, in my opinion, is twofold; you lose elite crew status on refit, which means it's pointless to keep your elite crew if you plan on refitting the ship between wars, and elite crew isn't going to matter much if your ship is outdated, and mostly there to add numbers to your fleet. It really only makes sense to keep elite crew on your most modern ships, which will still be decent 4-6 years down the road when you find yourself at war again. But yeah, his budgetary problem may be more than just one thing. There's probably 2-3 things going on. Not scrapping ships, not mothballing and reserving ships, and keeping training on in peacetime can all contribute to budgetary problems in this game.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Jun 2, 2019 9:39:55 GMT -6
jorgencab Maybe I'm pushing to hard to maintain BB parity with the European powers then. In my current 1929 VL Game budget I'm at 6 BB 3 of which are 12-18 yrs old one of which is very anemic on the guns. 2 legacy CAs which I'm not sure why I still have around probably because designing a new class was delayed indefinitely by trying to build capitals. 4 CLs which are 10 years old but to be replaced with a new class of 6. Then 66 DDs and KEs combined (40 to 26) since I just converted a class to KEs and scrapped old designs. A new lot of 12 1500 tons is probably in the near future. Finally 2 CVs one of which is a crappy conversion and 4 CVLs two of which are meh conversions. AiryW That may be my issue. I've been aiming for 10-15 years before mothballs and backline service but seeing as NEA is almost secure and they were getting devastated by Russian battlelines anyways I should look towards shorter terms of service. Have been avoiding engine refits like the plague though and only really messing with their FC and secondary/tertiary batteries. Perhaps too much of your fleet is active all the time? When at peace with low to medium tensions you don't exactly need to have your entire modern navy mobilized and ready to fight war. Don't feel bad at moving all but your couple most modern warships from each class (or a couple modern ones with elite crew) into the mothball and reserve fleets even if they're still fairly modern. Also check your training; you don't need to be funding it until a year prior to war breaking out. Also make sure you don't have too many aircraft on active status; that can eat into your funds and you can just build them back up prior to war anyways.
|
|