|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 16, 2019 8:50:00 GMT -6
Hmmm, I'm not sure there is a great solution for what you want currently (other than using the bottom of the almanac which will tell you how many subs you have and are building but I'm assuming you don't want to open that window to accomplish that.)
If you are using prefixes then you can't just rename a sub to the earlier lost one. For example, if you have 25 subs and lose E-2, when you order the 26th sub (E-26) to replace it the counter in the game save file will turn over to 26. If you rename that sub E-2 and order a new one the counter will turn over to 27 and that sub will be listed as E-27 as it is the 27th sub you've ordered. E-26 will be skipped, you would always be off one from that point.
You would have to rename the sub (E-26 to E-2 in the above example) and then go into the save game file and manually reset the SS counter back to 25.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 16, 2019 7:23:32 GMT -6
Earth ramparts were standard for forts made after the gunpowder age because stone and brick walls were too vulnerable to shot and even more so to explosive shells. More modern fortifications in the early twentieth century moved to reinforced concrete and were essentially casemated (or alternatively used what on a ship would be a barbette with or without a disappearing carriage) but the casemated guns often used earthen roofs to help absorb the impact of shells and bombs. In-game the earth rampart is just filling in for where you would normally see coal bunkers in the damage resolution. Older fortification used by the Ottomans in WW1 USA WW2 16 inch gun casemate that used the guns from the 1920 South Dakota-class that the Iowa-class couldn't use because BuOrd and BuC&R didn't communicate with each other.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 15, 2019 9:04:30 GMT -6
It does work like that if there is a list of names for the submarines. Then they work just like ships. Several of the nations though just use prefixes for their submarines like Germany. In this case there is a submarine counter in the gamesave# file that counts up from 1 for every submarine ordered. It always goes up and never repeats. You could however, go into the gamesave# file with a text editor and reset the counter to an earlier number if you wanted to. That's what Germany did in the 30's and 60's resetting their U-boat hull numbers to U-1.
To accomplish what you want would currently require you to actually go into the nation's shipname file and manually enter E-1, E-2, E-3....E-100, etc for the submarine names (you also have to change [SSPrefix] to [SS]). However, you are going to see some random variation in the hull numbers just like you would the names with any other class.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 15, 2019 7:01:42 GMT -6
If RTW2 is like RTW1 in that wars are limited and home areas are not vulnerable to loss or invasion then there is no real justification ethically for the formation of suicide attackers. The concept is best left to history. One less thing that has to be programmed and tested.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 14, 2019 10:44:49 GMT -6
Yeah, for whatever reason when the link was first posted I couldn't download it either (chrome) but had no trouble when I tried again this morning. No idea what the problem was but thanks oldpop2000 for sharing it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 14, 2019 10:24:17 GMT -6
Weight for superfiring turrets is already accounted for in the design process of RTW1. No reason to think it wouldn't be for RTW2 as well. Stability and top weight were not, for the most part, considered in the game. It would be tremendously complicated to do so (from a programming standpoint) I would think.
My guess would be that three superfiring turrets have been discussed and probably will be in the game with some kind of limit on size of caliber and number of guns that can be in the upper-most turret. The largest turrets that I can think of that were used in a triple superfiring position (other than the triple 6.1" secondary turret on Yamato) were the 5.25 twin turrets on Dido and the 5 inch twins on Atlanta/Oakland
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 13, 2019 17:45:47 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum. No sorry, there are no historical scenarios in RTW and no isolated scenario generator. All of the battles are generated from within the strategic layer of the game.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 13, 2019 7:56:49 GMT -6
Now that it is clear that on other thread there were thought about sci-fi strategy. Quite interesting that a lot of naval fans are sci-fi fans too.
Is there minimum required strength (points) for naval invasions?
I'm only aware of the 4-to-1 ratio requirement. I don't know if there is a minimum force level as well.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 12, 2019 9:45:16 GMT -6
No, the point value doesn't change. The only real benefit in RTW1 for upgrading a base is to have enough base capacity to fully support the battlefleet in that area. I usually stop at about 300 total in Southeast Asia (as the USA player) and up around 450 in Northern Europe if I'm lucky enough to get Finland, the Baltic States or Ireland.
Coastal artillery are a separate discussion and have their own benefits.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 12, 2019 8:40:52 GMT -6
As far as I know, base capacity does not affect the likelihood of an invasion.
I can't find a reference to it but I want to say that coastal batteries do make it less likely (or requires a greater advantage in forces) for the invasion event to fire.
Also, I'm pretty sure that home areas and any territory worth more than 10 points can't be invaded.
I apologize for giving a lot of "I think" and "my guess is" answers.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 12, 2019 8:19:54 GMT -6
Having started a new game as the USA in 1900, I have been confronted with the interesting logistical challenges which face the United States Navy in the period when going around the Cape of Good Hope is a quicker way to get from the East Coast of the United States to the Far East than going around Cape Horn. An early war with Germany lasting approximately from late 1903 to early 1905 saw the High Seas Fleet accomplish the impressive feat of launching battleship sorties against both the east and west coasts of the United States regardless of the minor detail of not having any bases there, (with a little protected cruiser getting the fright of its life in first engagement of the war as it was caught alone by a German pre-dreadnought.) It then followed up with the rather less impressive feat of declining every battle after at least one battleship and one armoured cruiser had been interned, thereby becoming the first navy in history to lose more ships to neutral powers than to the enemy. Nevertheless, the daring German operations caught me off guard, and the persistent threat to the continental coastline scuppered my pre-war plans to concentrate forces in the Southeast Asian theatre, which may in fact have contributed in large part to Germany escaping the war with a toehold in the Pacific and a grand total of zero permanent naval losses. This has prompted me to give more consideration than I have in the past for the invasion mechanics. Under what circumstances can an invasion be triggered, and under what circumstances can it succeed? Is it possible, if unlikely, that an enemy battleship could appear suddenly in a quiet sector, launch an invasion and secure victory before or even after reinforcements arrive - or, conversely, is it necessary to maintain naval superiority for several turns and to win (or have the enemy forfeit) several 'support of invasion' battles before victory can be declared? You need a 4-to-1 advantage in naval strength in an ocean region for the chance of an invasion in that region to occur. In RTW1 you don't have any control over which territory in the region gets invaded but they are changing that in RTW2. I don't know if there is a guaranteed way to ensure victory. I always try to maintain a greater strength in that region (even if it still isn't the 4-1 that started off). I believe, but don't have any solid evidence to support, that the greater the difference in naval strength in the region the faster and more likely the invasion will end in that side's favour. One of the later changes to RTW1 did modify that so that now you will see missions that are listed as being in support of the invasion (or defense). Winning those fights improves your chances of success and losing (or declining the fight) reduces them. Again, I don't know if there is a specific percentage increase/decrease to that. There is either quite a bit of randomization built in or we just don't have enough information about what goes on behind the scenes in the game's code to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 11, 2019 18:16:14 GMT -6
Here is my understanding of how targeting works at the various levels.
The main battery will focus on one target at a time only. Guns that are not able to fire along that bearing are not going to fire at another target.
The secondary battery is split into port and starboard sides. Each side battery can fire at its own target so the port secondaries can target a ship on the port side and same with the starboard side simultaneously. The secondary battery can fire on the same or a different target as the main battery depending on the situation. A quote from Fredrik is included below to help clarify that.
The tertiary battery works like the secondary battery and can target one enemy ship on either side which can be the same or different as the secondary battery.
I have the impression that the ship will target a maximum of two ships on a side at a time depending on how many levels of guns your ship carries.
[Edit - This is all for RTW1, it's possible that even if I'm 100% correct that something will change for RTW2.]
"Secondaries of 6 in or less will tend to prefer DDs as targets, while larger guns will tend to prefer larger targets. This is not absolute however, range is a factor, and there is as mentioned above some fuzziness built in to simulate general confusion, visibility, targeting errors etc.
This is of course because larger guns are comparatively more effective vs larger targets. I guess the lesson for ship designers is, if you go in for heavy secondary batteries, make sure you have a decent tertiary battery to keep enemy destroyers at bay."
"AI targeting is first at division level, then at ship level. The AI will tend to prioritize formations over single ships when targeting. Sometimes, when the enemy has a single BB and a B squadron, that might be suboptimal, but if the BB is closer, they should eventually target that."
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 11, 2019 7:29:52 GMT -6
It was technically possible for ships to do it. We talked about this on the RTW1 forum and the only historical example we could think of, if I recall correctly, was Graf Spee at River Plate. I think Fredrik responded that it probably wasn't going to be added because of its historical rarity and the time required to implement it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 10, 2019 17:52:32 GMT -6
Yeah, as the economics of the game stand right now, it wouldn't really matter. Plus it just widens the gap between the US/UK and the other nations regarding construction capacity. RTW1 from a philosophical standpoint takes steps to try to limit the gap between the large and small nations so the smaller nations are still viable to play in the game.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 9, 2019 1:40:08 GMT -6
I think ieshima has pretty much covered it, but I'd like to add: 3. Three and four gun turrets become possible before they are very practical. First you will unlock three gun turrets, and then another technology which reduces their chance of mechanical failure around 1914 (depending of course on your level of technology investment in turrets and gun mountings.) Then you unlock four gun turrets, and then a technology which once again reduces their chance of failure. Once the reliability tech is researched, it is applied to all ships in your fleet, no matter when they were built. There is, therefore, a trade-off; a ship with only two gun turrets will be less efficient before the relevant technology unlocks but more efficient afterwards. So, for example, if I was laying down a ship in 1912, I might design to give it three gun turrets, working on the assumption that by the time the ship is complete after the 27 month construction time it shouldn't have to wait very long - if at all - for the reliability tech. However, if you use three and four gun turrets too early, you will suffer severely, because each turret will be very prone to break-downs, and since you will have a smaller number of turrets, all else being equal, each breakdown will be more impactful. 4. Note that while secondary turrets have the benefit of being usable in all conditions whereas casemates may become unavailable in rough conditions, the turrets suffer a rate of fire penalty until the relevant technology is unlocked. You can see the penalty by clicking the tick icon on the ship designer window, in the 'Notes' section. Just to clarify, the improved reliability for triple and quad turrets and the improved rate of fire for secondary guns in turrets don't automatically upgrade in already commissioned ships or ships that began construction before that tech was researched. You have to perform a refit of some kind (even a blank refit that doesn't change anything else) for the reliability or rate of fire penalty to go away. Even if you start a new construction of an old ship design that precedes the tech being researched that ship will have the reliability or RoF penalty because the penalty is recorded in the actual ship files (in the gamesave# folder). Performing a refit or saving a new ship design creates a new ship file that has the penalty removed. I'm reasonably certain that if you take the option to install an improved fire control at the end of initial construction that would satisfy the refit requirements for any reliability or RoF improvements since doing so creates a new ship file but I've never gone into the files to verify that. There are some techs that automatically upgrade the whole fleet. Primarily shell techs and torpedoes.
|
|