|
Post by tbr on Nov 4, 2015 6:52:02 GMT -6
Is there any chance that an option for centerline tubes on small (<3500 ton or so) CL might be added? As it stands, designs like Tenryu and Yubari are impossible to make. That is already possible. You need to develop the technology "light cruiser armor" and then switch the armor scheme in the ship designer to anything but protected cruiser. Or do you mean centerline torpedo tubes?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 29, 2015 22:18:31 GMT -6
First let me thank you for adding the success message to the turn notifications. But this has enabled me to verify the original problem. Blockaded by Britan as Germany I have 23 cruisers out as raiders. First turn with those raiders out I get one single success message popup followed by a raider intercept battle which I play and have my raider survive. In the turn messages the succes message from the popup is shown followed by 34 (!) "thwart" messages and no raider success messages whatsoever. That raider battle in the least did something to the remaining raider success/failure calculations that turn.
Have a screenshot but am travelling with my WinTablet (which runs RTW fine) and cannot upload.
BTW - Hope to get a battle going "in sight" from my hotel window, though I probably need to starta game as US or UK...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 27, 2015 20:30:28 GMT -6
In theory the docksize is representing this. But perhaps we need some steps in the progress for planned dock epansion. 2000 tons at 2,4 million (very large fleet size) in 12 months is a good step for the first few years, with the 1000 ton private epansion a nice bonus. Perhaps beyond 20000 tons private expansion should stop and deliberate epansion steps should expand to 5000 tons at 60 months and 10 million, from 30000 on increase the price for a 5kton 60 month step to 40 million, make it 2 6000 ton steps at 72 months for 90 million each to reach the 52kton construction limit.
In that way the really large steps cost more in money and time, become true investment decisions and it really feels like a true epansion step when the construction is completed.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 26, 2015 7:46:13 GMT -6
I forgot about wing turrets, I suppose that's feasible (although I'm not a navy architect). How many turrets will it allow you to put on the centerline before giving you an "overcrowded centerline" message? I know with DDs I get that message a lot if I cram too much in the center. Not sure how BBs work, though. That seems to depend on the tonnage of the ship in question, not on technology. The 5+ centreline tech enables designs by removing hard limits on the number of gun turrets but does not override soft limits such as crowded centerline which also concerns centerline torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 25, 2015 21:21:53 GMT -6
But we also have historically very effective coastal artillery in the period, both from a technical/tactical perspective (e.g. German 12inch on dedicated coast defence mount) as well as from an operational/strategic perspective (e.g. German WWI Flanders coast batteries).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 23, 2015 18:32:34 GMT -6
I think I found out what happens, it is more confusion on my side than anything else. The raider successes get pop-ups and the failures turn notifications. It would be nice if the successes also would be in the turn notifications. Perhaps even dispense with the popups for the successes as they can become many with a huge raider force out and a "lucky" turn.
|
|
|
Hello
Oct 23, 2015 17:50:55 GMT -6
Post by tbr on Oct 23, 2015 17:50:55 GMT -6
I have got a Weyers Flottentaschenbuch der Kriegsflotten 1914 somewhere among my books, one of the periodic reprints. Might use it in the game once I find it...
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 23, 2015 16:44:09 GMT -6
Personally I find the 2100 ton cruiser a better fit for the gunboat role if it is built slow. But the problem here is that it is drawn for the "cruiser" role in all battles and I do not want to see them in any screen or support division.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 23, 2015 16:34:53 GMT -6
But MS have some drawbacks, chief among them that they do not count for fleet strength and cannot lay mines. A PG class with 1 fleet strength (max 6inch guns, max 4x centerline main, secondaries allowed but no tertiaries, 800 to 2800 tons, max 20kn, must have "colonial" module, at least medium range and reliable engines, that covers roughly Bramble over Iltis (Panther) to Erie class) and a ML class with minelaying capability (max 4inch guns, max 4 guns, max 16kn, no secondaries and tertiaries, no armor, max 4000tons, 4mines per 100tons, and no ASW/coastal patrol capability) would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 23, 2015 16:15:51 GMT -6
Yes, turbine propulsion should be a marked step, probaby with two to three 5% propulsion weight reducing technologies.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 19, 2015 10:22:25 GMT -6
One of my German BC's just sighted an aircraft when approaching Kronstadt in 1915. What functionality do aircraft have in the game? Recon only? What does their density/range depend on? (Technology or Year) Wehre are the bases?
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 18, 2015 10:06:42 GMT -6
They soak up a lot of attention and ammunition in fleet battles, especially if the battle lines move on, their side retreats and they fall behind. While some of that is realistic (cf Wiesbaden at Jutland) it happens far too often and intensively at the moment. In situation like that (no other targets to switch focus to) you can always order your side to hold fire for a bit, to see whether the ship sinks on its own, can you not? Not if you are playing admirals or rear admirals mode, in that case the orders only affect your flag division(s).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 18, 2015 8:07:03 GMT -6
Sinking enemy ships seem to become invulnerable once the sinking status has begun. That is very much like a problem that also existed in Distant Guns. They soak up a lot of attention and ammunition in fleet battles, especially if the battle lines move on, their side retreats and they fall behind. While some of that is realistic (cf Wiesbaden at Jutland) it happens far too often and intensively at the moment.
Could the 1) AI get a routine to evaluate the status of a target and decide to switch to the next target in the threat list if the AI "thinks" the original target is sinking and combat incapable. Of course have the potential for mistakes in here.
2) Sinking ships be made vulnerable to magazine explosions. I often see dozens of torpedo and very high calibre hits at close range with huge potential for magazine hits.
3) Sinking ships be made vulnerable with additional hits speeding the sinking
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 18, 2015 7:28:56 GMT -6
But it is more remarked in "normal" turns. I have 8 raiders out in Northern Europe as Germany and if every one had a seperate RNG roll I should get at least one or two success rolls every turn with turns without any success few and far between. In this game the turns without any success and only "thwart" messages are in the majority which leads me to the suspiciosn that the RNG at the very least "locks" after the first "thwart" or "intercept" roll.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 18, 2015 7:13:01 GMT -6
After some more raiding turns it sometimes happens that I get a first pop-up notification of a raider's success, then one raider is intercepted and after that battle, regardless of outcome, all raider notifications in the turn notifications are "thwarts" and none of the success are in the turn notification. It seems the raider intercept roll locks all other raider rolls into "thwart" and overrides all previous positive rolls in that turn.
|
|