|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 26, 2015 4:02:43 GMT -6
Using the above "signature" mechanism implementing starshells could be relatively easy, if one abstracts "horizonting" (qv?). A starshell is fired on a location at the map with 3kyd night sighting range, a ship checks on the closest starshell whether it is in one of three diameter circles around that position, at the largest diameter (say, 3kyd) it gets a 1.5 visual signature modifier, which leads to it being visible at 4,5 kyd (without other modifiers), at the medium one (2kyd) a 2.5 modifier for 7,5kyd visibility, and at tha smallest (1kyd) a 4 times multiplier for 12kyd visibility.
Have the starshell with a limited time of life and reduce the effects by half for the last 20% of its lifetime (due to lower height).
Of course this might mean a total revamp of the sighting mechanism but I think it should be implementable. Question is whether it is feasible within your time/capacity constraints for RTW. If RTW2 covers the "War Plan Orange" timeline it should however cover more complex nighttime sighting due to the IJN focus on night combat. Mentioning that we also would need an additional fleet torpedo firing mode...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 25, 2015 17:05:27 GMT -6
As is the abstraction detracts from the experience. While searchlights could safely be abstracted starshells can add a lot to any night battle and cannot be abstracted into an uniform sighting range. DD's illuminatng for BB's would also become a viable tactic, with the illuminated targets not getting enough data from gunflashes (if they even see those) to return fire on the BB's. Starshells could greatly extend night sighting and enable longer range combat with units pitching in which only can see the target because of illumination.
We need size, behaviour and status (gunflashes, own searchlights on, speed in respect to "bone" bowwave and, with coal firing, sparks form the stacks) dependant "visual signatures", at least at night, not just an uniform abstracted sighting range.
An average ship could have a signature of "1.0" as a modifier of night sighting range against it, with positive or negative modifiers added based upon different factors. This could mean that at a visibility of 3000 yards a ship with a 0.9 signature would only be seen at 2700 yards and ID'ed later as well etc. Night training would work on those modifiers as well.
All together this could make night combat far more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 25, 2015 15:06:25 GMT -6
That "other dreadnought game" did have arc lights and illumination rounds. They made for very interesting night battles, with the illumination rounds carrying the potential for greatly increased combat (sighting) distance and the arc lights "capturing" close contacts for higher hit propability. Could we see either or both in RTW?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 25, 2015 14:59:31 GMT -6
Got rid of the bug with the standard 96dpi. My gaming rig in my flat is still fully sufficient, though I might look at a new one in the next year. To date I can run mots of anything I want to at close to maximum settings. Though recently I have only been playing RTW...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 24, 2015 16:03:53 GMT -6
oldpop2000 - RTW does not have a 'windowed' mode. Also, the minimum screen resolution for the RTW game is 1024 x 768, so that would be the lowest anyone would want to try. Okay, I did not know that, but he can try to move to the lowest resolution and work up from there. This maybe the only solution short of upgrading to a better operating system. Vista was never one of Microsoft's better moments in operating system history. I "upgraded" about 5 years ago but am travelling for the holidays. Since the "old" Vista machine is a laptop and the "new" one a tower I have the laptop with me. Thought it would be more comfortable than my Windows Tablet I use on business travel. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 23, 2015 23:59:06 GMT -6
While I have that option in the compatibility tab checking it does not solve the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 23, 2015 9:54:29 GMT -6
No, but I have a custom font size set at 110 DPI.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 22, 2015 19:19:29 GMT -6
You can order a "battle turn away" by rightclicking on/in the OOB. This is also how you detach damaged ships to the neares friendly port.
(this should be in the manual but I did not find it there...)
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 22, 2015 18:51:41 GMT -6
I am on Christmas vacation and play with my old gaming laptop at 1900x1200 with Vista. In battles (and the reports at their end), when I open the detailed information window of a ship the bottom fifth (with, among other things, the torpedo information) is cut off and I cannot resize or scroll the window to show it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 22, 2015 18:48:22 GMT -6
You can risk running "out of gas" since the game puts an asterisk (*) beside the status sign (AF,RF,MB,FS or R) when it needs to refuel. Check your raiders every turn if that is the case and change their status to active and move them into an area where you have a base (and ideally are not blockaded). While there still is a probability that it will be interned or scuttled that should be low enough for regular raider operation of your "regular" cruisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 20, 2015 9:07:28 GMT -6
This did not happen in practice all too often because small ships usually avoid heavy weather. They either seek shelter in port or de facto "lie to", that is go on the weather-safest course. They would definitely not be actively "tactical" even if found at sea by such weather, they would be fighting for survival. Perhaps make a weather check for a scenario and if Sea States in excess of 4 are expected in the "weather forecast" all ships smaller than 900 tons, at SS >5 smaller than 1100 tons etc. (but for merchants/AMC's with their high freeboard) are removed from the scenario? Add a "heavy weather forecast forces small ships into port" pop-up note at the beginning. Yes, that is true. However, I didn't want larger ships to regularly run down smaller ones in heavy weather in the game. While theoretically possible, that didn't happen in practice, with a few exceptions like the battle of the Bay of Biscay. So, that is why at present in RTW small fast ships will lose more speed proportionally than larger ships, but they will not be slower. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 20, 2015 8:55:16 GMT -6
That is because the tech descriptions are misleading. It is not a flat 1% weight reduction for a given speed but a movement of the horsepower for a given speed vs displacement curve to the right. The actual formula for this is not a steadily growing function, it has minima and maxima. In your example the "small displacement" minimum, where you get the most speed for the least weight relative to the displacement, is close to 800 tons. Some techs later it will shift to the "right" and come to rest, by my last estimate, close to 2400 tons, making the 1500 ton DD viable. So you need to progress in propulsion technology in your game to get the full benefit from larger DD's. Currently playing the 1.26 beta patch and I am in the middle of designing a DD. At 600 tons the DD has 19 tons to spare. When I toggle it up to 800 tons, The DD has 84 tons to spare. However, toggle it up once more to 900 tons and suddenly the DD is overweight by 9 tons. Shouldn't increasing tonnage to 900 tons lead to even more spare weight than the 800 ton displacement instead of suddenly becoming overweight? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 19, 2015 19:33:47 GMT -6
I usually armor the turrets (T and TT) more than the belt (B) and the deck (D). Every large gun turret is a potential catastrophic explosion. Magazine hits can cause the same but are far lower on the probability scale and I have only seen them with massive overpenetration while I have seen turret induced explosions from lucky 6inch TT hits. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 19, 2015 19:28:05 GMT -6
Yes, you are correct in that the speed loss from weather is a little simplified and could have been more detailed. While it need not be overly complicated what is absolutely needed is the inversion of the "conventional wisdom speed paradigm", i.e. that smaller ships are significantly slower than larger ones in heavy weather. This is a theme which had major influence on battles in naval history, from the age of sail onwards. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 19, 2015 9:24:36 GMT -6
At the moment there is almost no variability between different ship sizes and the amount they are slowed down by heavy weather. In reality size and "architecture" make a huge difference in the amount a ship has to slow down in heavy weather.
In even moderate seas most DD's in the game would have to slow down quite significantly and in heavier seas they would have to slow down even more and take much care in the course they steer. But a 20kton+ BC/BB would be barely affected by moderate seas in the speed it could go.
The design of a ship also has a lot of influence, ships with a "wet" forecastle have to slow down far earlier and more than ships carefully designed for heavy seas.
What I would like to be implemented in the game is a maximum speed in weather mathematical function where displacement is the variable determining the maximum speed attainable at a given sea state. This would probably not be a linear funtion but we would see something like a 500 ton DD imited to 16kn in sea state 5 and a 30kton BC still going at 26kn. We would need about three different functions for displacement vs speed at weather curves, one for "low freeboard" or "wet" designs, one for "normal" designs and one for "dry"/"good seaboat" designs.
Which type of curve applies should be determined when the design is generated (but for low freeboard designs), just like now there is a chance to get an extra knot of speed (or loose one) a message could say "BB Lothringen has shown itself to be a very good seaboat in comissioning trials. She is capable of maintaining a higher speed in heavy weather." or "BC Moltke took in water over the bow during a storm on comissioning trials. Considered a wet boat she will be strongly afffected by heavy weather." National characteristics could "weigh" the probability for these outcomes.
Ideally there would be another variable in the maximum speed and that would be course vs. wave direction. But even though the game already tracks wind direction this would probably be too much...
|
|
