|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 16, 2016 4:09:55 GMT -6
I think we do not get enough when the enemy collapses. Germany lost all her colonies and effectively all her fleet at the end of WWI. And the continental European effects went far beyond anything this game can model. To even approach that we would need at least 10 ships and 40 "colony" points as "reward" after a enemy governmental collapse. This would have the benefit of putting all colonies, including India, on the table at peace conferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 15, 2016 18:09:59 GMT -6
Those are just coastal patrol boats generated within the scenario, not stritly part of your fleet but more akin to the merchant ships. The are armed with a single 3inch gun and no torpedoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 10, 2016 7:32:04 GMT -6
Allied bases also support your ships, so if you are playing USA and want to blockade Britain it very much helps to be allied to France, Germany or Russia. Anyone trying to blockade Japan should be or be allied with Russia etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 2, 2016 18:00:38 GMT -6
On my side I actually want to see the kind of rudimentary air operations to be expected in the 1920's and 1930's. Look at the difference in the experience between the original War in the Pacific and the War Plan Orange edition... I've been reading the comments about the extension of this excellent game, and I am puzzled by what appears to be a consensus against air operations being added to the game for the interwar period. It seems to me, that if we really don't want air operations for the game, then don't go farther than 1922; stop the game right there, and as most of you wish, extend it into the 19th century. This would give the players the Sino-Japanese war, Boer War and the Spanish American War, just to name a few conflicts and the rise of Austrian, German, and Japanese naval power. IMHO, if you go beyond 1922 with no air operations, the game does not maintain its realism, it becomes fantasy. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 31, 2015 19:05:11 GMT -6
We still got around 10-15 years of battleship dominance left after 1925. In hindsight everyone accepts the potential of the carrier. But early carrier (and land) planes did not have sufficient performance to fully unlock that potential. The airplanes in service even at the beginning of the Pacific war in late 1941 were in their majority still limited in performance, but the planes that changed that were beginning their service life.
So for the 2 decades after 1920 the carrier (and landbased air) would have a gradually stronger supporting role, not a dominating role. The major impact on the design of our BB's would of course be a stronger emphasis on deck armor and we would need "dual role" HA guns as well as "small arms" (40mm and below) AA which could be abstracted by allocated tonnage and deck space.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 30, 2015 19:37:08 GMT -6
Submerged torpedo launch should only happen at 25kn, but there are exceptions. I am not sure whether those count as bugs since those shots I can take in Captains mode at over 25kn are usually either fore/aft (aft submerged tubes should not have a speed limit for launch and any for forward tubes is debatable) or when the ship is turning and might be below 25kn within the minute turn of the shot.
In any case we should get a technology like "Gradlaufapparat" which would remove this limit. With the ability to set the course of the torpedo regardless of the direction the tube is facing the submerged tubes can be fixed in directions where speed is not an issue. That technology should also widen the launch angle...
The last submerged surface-to-surface 21inch straightrunner torpedo tubes mounted in a DD were mounted as forward and aft tubes (Hamburg class DD).
Today modern 21inch torpedo tubes on surface warships (yes new ships are being built even now with them) are fixed installations firing aft (albeit above the waterline) so that there is no speed or sea state limitation for launch and the wire hose is running directly aft.
Edit: have to correct myself, the Hamburg class tubes were fixed installations in the hull, but above the waterline, not below.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 28, 2015 6:21:34 GMT -6
OK, haven't seen this in anywhere near the frequency I would expect though.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 28, 2015 4:39:20 GMT -6
You could edit the BNat.dat file in the data folder with a text editor. "Baseresources" and "HBR" (historical) are the values for economic size. This file is also where you can add starting techs etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 17:51:54 GMT -6
But they had their own attendant infrastructure, a magazine, hoists/elevators (several mounts sharing in one or more), ready ammunition lockers, extra crew for lateral transfer of ammunition to the guns on main deck level etc. Those "cost" weight as well and are not included in the statistics for "mount weight" available at navweaps etc. But for the turrets most of the "infrastructure weight" is usually included. So your "shielded mounts" are probably too light. In respect to the light turrets and their weight I was writing of unarmored turrets. The "weight penalty" for turrets should be more tied to their armor and not come as an initial "lump malus" on the unarmored turret.
In any case I do not see much loss of "shielded" gun mounts in the battles unless the unit in question comes under really heavy fire. The kind of happenstance as with HMS Chester, where the ship itself was practically undamaged but the crews of the gun mounts on deck were practically all killed by shrapnel, should come to pass far more often. Unlike in Distant Guns RTW does not semm to track crew as a "damage statistic", it seems to be abstracted under "structure". Should not then any hits at all (HE, non-penetrating AP, near miss etc.) generate extra structural damage on ships with many "shielded" gun mounts?
Better yet (for RTW2), introduce crew casualties as a tracked statistic for battle damage...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 14:10:05 GMT -6
No, as I posted, you sacrifice some broadside capability while you have the same ahead/abaft firepower. But as is one twin turret weighs in at almost 1.65 times than two single mounts with the exact same firing arc (e.g. forward and forward superfiring). The negatives (more weight, turret ROF penalty at lower tech level and loss in redundancy) of the twin turret in this case do massively outweigh the benefit, more "space" on the centerline. And as I posted I think this is based in a misinterpretation of available historic stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 14:04:20 GMT -6
I just think starshells would add a nice level of complexity to the night battles. For "non iluminateable" low visibility fights we still have the storms with heavy rain, night or day.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 14:01:32 GMT -6
My my, what a controversy. The dev explained that in this instance he deliberately went against realism and historical accuracy because he considered it beneficial for game balance. While I do not agree I understand his reasoning and appreciate the game he created. Others of my requests, bug reports and observations he took on either already implemented in the game or accepted as general input.
brucesim2003, you need to take a step back. This game is very niche but in that niche the best and least flawed thing to come along since Distant Guns: Jutland before it was ruined by the final "update" and neglect by its creators paired with their hybris about their webstore.
This dev does anything but neglect his creation and I appreciate his work for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 27, 2015 5:32:31 GMT -6
That is what torpedoes are for. And it assumes you can afford to lose them when an armored cruiser or battlecruiser comes out of the night and eats them... |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 26, 2015 18:10:29 GMT -6
At the moment, for smaller calibres and weight challenged ships, twin turrets are no useful alternative to single mounts. At 5 inch the unarmored single (non superfiring) mount weighs 8 tons, the unarmored twin turret mount weighs 28 tons, that is 3.5 times the weight of the single mount. This might be based on the "mount" vs. "turret" weight and dimensions. But this would be a fallacy. The "mount" looks at first to be "lighter" per gun tube than a turret but that is in major part because those aspects (munitions elevators/hoist/transport, magazine, ready munitions locker) of the ship dedicated to the mount, i.e. its infrastructure, are usually not included in the statistics fod "mount" weight. The weight of "Turrets" in official statistics however usually includes much, sometimes all, of that infrastructure. In effect this means that the late game technology "double mounts for DD" is almost worthless because, while double mounts free centreline space, using the 1, 2, 3 and 4 positions for single mounts frees even more centreline space and saves a lot of weight for a minimal penalty in broadside weight. Historical example shows 6 inch twin mounts/turrets installed, even as a refit, saving space (and, implied from the text, weight) over two individual mounts: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald-class_cruiserIn any case primary gun "mounts" that are not "turrets" (without their own hoists/munition elevators and magazine wells) and casemates should actually share a common magazine with all other such guns of the same calibre on the ship, like is done for simplicity with secondary guns. I know this is probably not implementable in the current engine but the related "infrastructure" weight of mounts and casemates should be figured in ,making them somewhat heavier, with perhaps some weight reduction for smaller calibre primary twin (antd triple) turrets to ensure their relative balance. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 26, 2015 15:45:55 GMT -6
Build a lot of small (3500ton) fast (28kn) CL's with barely any armor. Those are good and cheap "fleet scouts". Most likely several of them are in a screen around your BC's/CA's/BB's at the beginning of a coatal defense mission. Switch their role to scout and they will go into a search line ahead of your forces, joining your other scouts. With 4-5 scouts the search front width covers far more than you get with the "vanilla" scout setup. It is, at least by day, far easier to find the opposition that way.
|
|
