|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 18, 2019 6:41:10 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum tycondero . akosjaccik 's explanation is excellent. Here is a picture of the general coverage of the different armor designations used in the game. It was made by galagagalaxian . The extended areas of the deck and belt armor protect the the areas fore and aft beyond the main gun turrets as well as the area of the hull above the main belt. Everything inside that is generally considered the citadel because that is where the magazines and propulsion machinery is located. In-game, belt extended armor does indeed protect the intakes. I'm not sure how their protection is determined with the AoN concept in-game. I'm assuming it's a percentage of the belt armor value but the developers, to my knowledge, have never officially stated that. One of the benefits of the AoN concept once you have researched it is that it provides additional protection against flooding based on the armored raft concept that was developed as part of the AoN scheme. Since the ends were going to be unprotected it would have to be assumed that battle damage would cause one or both ends of the ship to flood. So the designers ensured (to varying degrees of success) that the internal volume of the protected areas in the citadel had enough buoyancy to keep the ship afloat even if both ends completely flooded. So, in-game, AoN schemes have greater resistance to progressive flooding. In general, with AoN since you don't need to have armor on the ends, the belt and deck armor thickness will be greater than a non AoN design that you have to armor the ends. Personally, when I've transitioned to dreadnoughts but haven't researched AoN yet I'll put 2.5 inches on the ends to protect against splinters and oblique shots. More than that starts to provide diminishing returns because of the weight required.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 17, 2019 7:02:23 GMT -6
I love that idea. It would be nice to see it implemented wherever it made sense like in submarine research but regardless, I hope the idea works out.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 17, 2019 6:17:41 GMT -6
imryn , everything I mentioned was referring to the design process itself not once construction was underway. There are plenty of reasons why designers may go back and add armor during the design. Either because of technological improvements that reduced the required tonnage for the propulsion system or by direction of the people in charge of approving the designs because they aren't happy with the current design as is because of whatever compromises had to be made and they want to see various options. I'm aware that past a certain point in the design acceptance/building process that making changes is problematic at best resulting in lengthy delays or even impossible without scrapping the work done to that point.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 17, 2019 2:56:31 GMT -6
I do agree that there should be some sort of "advanced turtledeck" design that, at the cost of additional weight, has the flooding protection similar to AoN. I agree with this as well to an extent. My understanding is the Bismarcks at least were certainly designed this way to prevent flooding from the ends getting into the citadel. I'm not sure it should cost extra weight because I think that the game already takes into account the armored bulkheads at the front and rear of the citadel. The developers would have to verify that and then check to see if the WW2 era German designs used a beefed up (i.e. heavier) armored bulkhead design compared to their WW1 designs to see if the added weight in game is appropriate. My main question would be did the design actually work to to do that. The sloping portion of the armored deck is mostly below the nominal waterline and the flat portion of the turtleback is only a foot or so above it. Any kind of a list or of the ship is down by the bow or stern would seem to me to make the spaces above the deck vulnerable to progressive flooding. I have to assume that any battle damage sufficient to cause a significant list or trim would probably compromise the watertight integrity of the unprotected spaces above the armored deck to some extent as well. And since the armored deck is so low does the protected portion have enough reserve buoyancy to save the ship if one or both relatively unprotected ends are flooded and the spaces above start to flood? The historical answer would seem to be no but the ships had the advantage that their armored citadels covered a greater percentage of the hull length than contemporary battleships (I assume due to having to cover the space between four turrets instead of others' three or two) and the ships were quite beamy (thicc as the kids today would say) so maybe that makes up for the lower armored deck but I kinda doubt it. I haven't done the math so I don't know for sure. I would presume that as late game designs, they would benefit from continued improvements in Subdivision and Damage Control techs and that may be enough to account for any real life benefits of the design rather than give them similar protections to AoN. Interesting idea with plenty of food for thought one way or the other though.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 17, 2019 2:12:42 GMT -6
I play as A-H. Date is March 1918. I have not research any torpedo protection at all yet. And for several years I increase priority for subdivision on high.
I think that I will give order that any capital ship must be back in port till sunset.
Sound tactical advice. And having them be short ranged to free up tonnage totally works with that plan.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 16, 2019 8:52:24 GMT -6
imryn , I don't believe that adding more armor to the citadel than you think you need (assuming you've met your speed/firepower goals) is wasted. What you are really doing is increasing the ship's immune zone not not truly making the ship "more immune" (i.e. not making an already invulnerable ship more invulnerable) to whatever weapons it was designed against. Immune zones are misnomers and not only are they not absolutes (as I have no doubt you were already aware) but the designers (and the captains who would fight the ships) could never be sure that the enemy didn't have to audacity to employ guns more powerful than what the designers initially planned for. So if you have the extra tonnage available, adding more armor than what you believe you need for your desired immune zone at worst provides a bit of insurance in case you've underestimated the enemy's capabilities and/or better may actually extend the ship's immune zone against the enemy giving the captain additional flexibility to fight at a range where his ship's strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized compared to his enemy. That's certainly not a waste in my book. I would agree there would be real life tradeoffs. The ship would end up being larger and more expensive and perhaps have greater fuel consumption than if you had stuck to the original immune zone armor tonnage. That's not trivial although I personally would be willing to spend the little extra to get that edge to survivability but that easy for me to say when I'm not spending real money. Fortunately in the game most of those negatives (additional steel production required that could have gone to tanks or submarines for example) aren't simulated.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 16, 2019 8:14:47 GMT -6
Welcome to the forum Adseria and you're right. It's the second-to-last (1917 date) tech in the Light Forces and Torpedo Warfare area.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 13, 2019 7:21:47 GMT -6
In my opinion, ship names must seem credible to the players that belong to every single nation represented in the game. I fully agree. I was just trying to provide possible ideas. I should have probably had the Praetorian prefects names removed from the list before I posted it, I never intended for them to be considered. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 12, 2019 17:28:52 GMT -6
I noticed the Italian AI tended to run out of BC names pretty quickly. I used Wikipedia and went through the battles of the four maritime republics the modern Italian navy draws its history from looking for victories that didn't take place over another one of the republics and added a half-dozen or so names that way. They are English versions so would probably need to be translated into Italian. I'll post the list next time I'm at my computer. [Edit - Here is the list. I forgot to copy the file before I modified it apparently so I can't tell you for sure which names were there before and which names I added. Sorry about that.] The attempt is appreciable, but I do not understand why the names of the units that fought in the 2nd world war are not listed. The names proposed for the BC, apart from Lepanto, Girolata ( ) and Pianosa (an island-prison, like Sing Sing), are not Italian. There are also many names in Latin, which have never been used in the Italian navy. I do not know if names of cities far from the sea have ever been chosen for major units. Instead, the names of various founding fathers have often been used (Cavour, Garibaldi but not Mazzini, who was not loved by the monarchists). Well, the list was intended for the original game that was based around WW1. The BC names are based off of naval victories for the Italian Republics of Venice, Genoa, Amalfi and Pisa so the locations of the battles (that didn't occur against another one of the Italian Republics) are usually not current Italian territory and as I wrote earlier, those are the english language versions so they would probably need to be translated to their italian versions. Here are the reference pages I used. If there is some cultural or historical reason why those names would not be appropriate then I apologize and we can cross them off the list. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adramyttion_(1334)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gallipoli_(1416)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Megara_(1359)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palleneen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chios_(1319)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Girolataen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pianosaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Algeciras_(1342%E2%80%9344)I'm sure a bunch of the names I added were never used by the Italian navy. Italy as a unified country is fairly young and didn't have much of a history to work with so I added some names from Roman times (such as the Praetorian prefects in the CL list) just so the game wouldn't run out of names. This list was originally intended only for my personal use and I'm not saying it's a good set of additions overall. The list of battles by the various Italian republics was the only part I was seriously putting forward. And again, since I don't have the original, unmodified ship list available I apologize if some of the names above are actually from the original list.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 11, 2019 11:51:23 GMT -6
I noticed the Italian AI tended to run out of BC names pretty quickly. I used Wikipedia and went through the battles of the four maritime republics the modern Italian navy draws its history from looking for victories that didn't take place over another one of the republics and added a half-dozen or so names that way. They are English versions so would probably need to be translated into Italian. I'll post the list next time I'm at my computer. [Edit - Here is the list. I forgot to copy the file before I modified it apparently so I can't tell you for sure which names were there before and which names I added. Sorry about that.] ItalyShipNames.dat (7.58 KB)
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 11, 2019 10:44:59 GMT -6
I don't see any reason why the game wouldn't consider AoN the most advanced. Most nations with the most notable exception of Germany went to that scheme and Bismarck itself is somewhat of a unique variation of it. There is only a narrow 60mm belt forward of the citadel to the bow and a narrow 80mm belt aft of it to the stern. Much less than a traditional distributed scheme like on the Queen Elizabeth-class. That armor seems mostly like wasted tonnage for all the good it would do (and did). The main difference with Bismarck as I understand it is the use of the turtleback deck. That made the ship's magazines and engineering spaces basically invulnerable at short range also left the ship with at least one deck less reserve buoyancy protected within the citadel. That was costly and ultimately contributed to its sinking. Also, a lot of important equipment was forced to be left outside of the protected volume and no doubt it contributed to how quickly Bismarck was silenced. I don't want to turn this into the n+1 argument about the Bismarck where n=infinity but the ship was silenced within 30 minutes of the beginning of its final battle. There is no reason to think that an AoN design on a similar tonnage with a greater volume of protected space wouldn't have done at least as well.
The North Atlantic and North Sea is a relatively small corner of the ocean. If you are not Germany then there is a good chance your ships are going to be fighting in areas quite different in temperament than there.
There is nothing requiring you to go to the AoN design in game. You're not wrong that in-game, many of the fights tend to be at short range which isn't really inconsistent with the time frame. That being said the future of battleship design was the AoN format. The game is just following along with that. If nothing else it will make it easy to transition from the WW1 time frame to the WW2 time frame in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 9, 2019 9:37:27 GMT -6
I love everything I'm seeing in these pictures. Except for your strategic situation garrisonchisholm . Better you than me there. I think the screenshot of the map is a good example of why I believe the selected Soviet ensign is too similar to the Japanese one at that resolution but that is the most trivial of concerns. Release day ( Der Tag) can't get here soon enough.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 9, 2019 8:59:21 GMT -6
imryn , my understanding is in RTW2 the displayed armor value will be the actual thickness of the plates and the effectiveness of plates for a given thickness will improve with technology level instead of the RTW1 system of the protection being the same for a given thickness and the required weight to achieve that protection going down with tech level improvements. The American AoN scheme was tested in WW2 with the exact scenario that critics said made the ships unnecessarily vulnerable with the ends of the ship unprotected against lighter caliber guns. USS Colorado was hit twenty-two times in about a fifteen minute time period by a 6 inch coastal artillery battery on Tinian while the battleship was providing shore support. Roughly forty men were killed and two hundred wounded but the battleship's ability to continue to provide support for the marines ashore was unaffected and the battleship stayed on station for another ten days before heading to rear areas for repairs. Add to that USS South Dakota's experience at Guadalcanal. The ship's superstructure took significant damage at close range which combined with its electrical troubles made it less than effective but the citadel's integrity was never seriously breached and it was never in any danger of sinking. Regarding its place in RTW1, USS Nevada, the first dreadnought to have the AoN scheme was laid down in late 1912. The AoN tech in RTW1 is a 1911 tech so it's available roughly on par with when the design of the Nevada-class was finalized prior to beginning construction. The AoN scheme was ahead of its time in that it was designed with long range gunfights in mind (probably longer than fire control and visual sighting systems were capable of reliably providing at the time). So in a short range fight, the turtleback design might be better at protecting the engine room and magazines since the deck provides some backup for the belt but less of the internal volume of the ship is protected. You are more likely to be rendered combat ineffective even if the engine rooms and magazines aren't directly penetrated and more likely to suffer progressive flooding. Bismarck might not have suffered a direct hit to the propulsion spaces or magazines but its guns were completely silenced within about 30 minutes and it was already sinking before the order was given to scuttle the ship.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 9, 2019 7:50:19 GMT -6
Also, are the cost cumulative? (2 techs cost 10, but in actuality the first one cost ten but the second twenty) I'm not 100% sure this is what you are asking but the research cost number only applies to that tech. There is no cumulative effect from one tech to another. The RP in a research area actually resets to zero after each tech is researched.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 8, 2019 21:06:26 GMT -6
Date is the nominal year the tech is researched. Researching a tech ahead of that year will throttle RP gained (in that research area only) until you get to that year.
Y/N is whether or not that tech becomes more likely to be researched by other nations once the first nation researches it. For example, once a nation researches triple turrets and other nations see that, they are more likely to try to use them (i.e. research the tech in game terms).
The 100/90/80... etc is the percent chance of that tech being researched when the previous tech is completed.
The next number is the amount of RP (* 20,000) needed to research that tech.
The last number is the ID number (used to assign bonus techs to nations in the BNat file)
|
|