|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 1, 2019 16:44:30 GMT -6
However I did FC refit and did not change ammunition so ship was slightly overweight. Could this be really issue that as long as ship is overweight in refit it loose her speed advantage?
I've never seen it confirmed by the developers but I could easily see making a ship overweight during a refit causing the removal of the "exceeded design speed" perk. Both the design speed and the ship's actual speed are recorded separately in the individual ship file so it would be easy enough to program that result. I don't think I've ever seen this myself but I'm careful about refits for my front line units not going overweight. If I had to guess I would say that was the cause. Have you tried refitting another unit in the class (if you have another) and maintaining the ship within weight to see if it loses the speed perk? I am _very_ uncertain about this, but I vaguely recall maybe watching some YouTube, or reading it on the forums...? Huh, either way, to my knowledge it's probably a bug, as you can or could(?) do the opposite as well. Meaning, if you managed to construct a class that couldn't reach it's design speed, a blank refit solved the issue. Probably because the refits produce a different game file and the "over/under the design speed" does not get inherited, maybe? Again, take this with a liberal amount of salt, but that's how I remember it. I've never seen the underspeed trait go away unless I performed a refit that changed the machinery but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I'm surprised that a blank refit could do it. I would think that at the least it would require either an overweight ship to be brought back within the design weight or the machinery to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 28, 2019 14:59:31 GMT -6
Slightly off topic but I’ve got 3 x £45 books by Friedman for just over £1 each on kindle His books really good on all things naval just finished the one on British battleships which sells for £45 hardback and cost me £1.20 on kindle! I just checked the US Amazon and they had several books for Kindle of his for $1.30 as well. I normally prefer paperback or hardbound but that was too good of a deal to pass up. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 26, 2019 17:12:17 GMT -6
Assuming the game's file structure is similar to RTW1, it would be some work but the best chance might be to make a saved game folder in RTW2 when it comes out and then modify the ship files and the gamesave# file to meet the initial conditions you want.
First the initial conditions as far as fleets and budgets would have to be figured out.
Then, since I'm assuming that the game will create designs based off of but not identical to the actual ship designs available you would have to create each historical design and then replace the game generated ships with the historical ones. For that you would need to adjust the tech levels in the game to what they were when the ship was designed. E.g. for a ship laid down in 1916, mark all the 1915 and earlier techs as completed and all of the 1916 and later techs as not completed. Design the ship and save the ship file. Then go into the gamesave# file and rename the game generated ship name with the one you created. You also have to fix the maintenance costs and other data in the gamesave# file as well. You might also need to add ships to have enough for that class. Repeat this for every ship and every nation. Once all of the ships are done you would need to adjust base capacities, home ports, etc for a 1920 start to a 1935 start. You would possibly need to adjust national budgets as well.
Lots of complications there. Not the least of which is the economy of the game might not support historical fleet sizes. I'm pretty sure that in RTW1, we don't build as many ships as were built historically, particularly in the runup to WW1 because the budget won't support it. Sometimes the RN was laying down 4-5+ battleships in a year plus smaller vessels. Repeated over multiple consecutive years. Good luck trying to pay for all of that in RTW1. (For the record, that's not a criticism of the game, the game isn't trying to be a direct historical simulator). But anyway we might have to settle for Historical-Lite fleet lists.
Using a game save folder locks it into one player country as well although once the majority of the ship files and such are created you could make additional game save folders around other player nations in significantly less time.
And then the final thing to remember that even if all of that is accomplished the game still won't (to my knowledge) have AI nation vs. AI nation conflicts without direct player nation involvement. Again, not a criticism, that kind of game is beyond the scope of what I believe the developers are shooting for (or realistically have the resources to create).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 26, 2019 16:40:13 GMT -6
armouredcarriers , Welcome to the forum. Yours is an excellent website. Bravo Zulu. Just for the record, I'm #TeamGrannySmith.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 24, 2019 6:40:53 GMT -6
I certainly haven't.
The odds at one extreme or the other are low as you said but I have seen deck hits at point blank range and I've seen belt hits at long range.
One thing to note is the different quality guns have the same deck penetrations for the same caliber. The data we are given in the game (that I made my tables from) could be a bit generalized since they are snapshots for specific ranges but the developers are on record stating that different quality guns for the same caliber don't automatically have longer barrels at higher qualities and that the guns should be looked at as total systems not just 14 in/40, 14 in/45 and 14 in/50 (as an example) for -1, 0 and +1 qualities. So I wouldn't be surprised if the different quality guns don't have different arcs of fall simulated unless you are in one of the between ranges where the range category is different for different quality guns (e.g. a distance that is medium range for a quality 1 guns and long range for a quality 0 gun).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 23, 2019 19:45:47 GMT -6
Placing the forward stack in front of the bridge is interesting. To quote a certain color commentator from ESPN-8, The Ocho: "That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them." Not that it has any effect on gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 23, 2019 0:06:20 GMT -6
It's not a minor factor at all. A significant portion of the Pacific war was based on the need to invade an island to establish an airfield to provide cover for the next island invasion. The New Guinea campaign was essentially the same since there was little to no inland lines of communication.
The difference between the two Theatres, I think, was the distances involved in the Pacific gave more freedom of movement. There were more areas out of reach of land based air than say the Med where it was harder to find a "safe" area out of range of land based bombers.
It should be noted that in the first couple years of the war both the US and Japan considered their carriers to be raiding forces and both avoided slugging it out with major air bases. At least until the US had the ability to field 8 fleet and 8 light carriers carrying about a thousand aircraft total. Then it was a whole different ballgame.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 21, 2019 17:23:24 GMT -6
No, I don't think either navy would have done well in the other's place in the early part of the conflict. The British carriers would be more survivable (assuming they didn't get torpedoed which is a good possibility since that was Japan's preferred ship strike weapon) but they wouldn't have been able to check Japan's aggression either because they probably wouldn't have been able to sink many, if any, of the Japanese carriers in return.
And the US carriers without British inspired fighter direction would have been overwhelmed and sunk by massed land based aircraft armed with heavier bombs than they faced in the Pacific. Even with better fighter direction, the Wildcat just doesn't have the performance to effectively react to protect against large, multiple waves of incoming aircraft.
And I agree totally with you and Drachinifel that the real, true right answer is the combination of the two. A carrier large enough to have an armored flight deck and still carry an Essex-class sized airgroup, a.k.a. the Midway-class. Of course those are not cheap but they are still the best answer for the time.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 21, 2019 6:27:46 GMT -6
The only nation I would recommend staying away from is the UK. They have a lot of micromanagement handling the refitting of ships on their numerous stations. The US is relatively easy. Downsides is you have to deal with two oceans and going around Cape Horn until 1914 when the Panama Canal opens. Also, since none of the other powers share a home area in the same Ocean area, wars can get somewhat boring since any expeditionary fleet you send to enemy waters can easily see heavy (if temporary) losses due to internment from even relatively light damage. So early on at least until you or they get bases in the same ocean area the fights tend to be cruiser actions in remote areas and raider intercepts. Japan is probably a good choice for beginners. They can fight Russia and possibly England and Germany straight up since all three, particularly Russia have bases in Japan's home area. France and Germany would also probably be good choices although they have more colony management than Japan. Both have home areas in Northern Europe so there is no shortage of action against numerous foes. Italy or Austria-Hungary are smaller nations without a lot of overseas management but their budget limitations can be frustrating. [Edit - I was typing this up as dorn was posting his advice. It's good advice and well worth considering. I have some differing opinions but I could certainly be wrong because I don't have a ton of experience playing nations other than the USA so maybe I missed something.]
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 20, 2019 17:27:36 GMT -6
CT hits are relatively rare but their effects can be devastating. Reducing your fire control one level (i.e. equivalent to going from Directors to Central Firing), reducing crew quality one level and/or locking your ship on course for a number of minutes. One or all of those results are possible and any one of those things can cost you the ship. While I understand why it was done historically, in-game I would never reduce my CT armor to secondary gun or splinter levels of protection. That's just my personal take on it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 17, 2019 0:40:09 GMT -6
I wouldn't mind being able to set submarines to air/sea rescue priority to get back some of my downed pilots if pilot experience is ever tracked whether at the squadron or individual level. Same with using search planes post battle if it's not a decisive defeat.
Although I suspect it would be a significant programming task so I would move down on any wish list.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 15, 2019 17:43:04 GMT -6
vonfriedman provided a prospective list of names for the Italian navy for RTW2 on that forum and I have been working with him to make a list appropriate for RTW1 since I didn't like the names I had added to Italy for my own custom list. This list assumes that WW1 never happened so names from territories acquired after WW1 and generals and admirals from WW1 that were used historically by the RM post-WW1 are not included. There are about 780 names on the list with about 300 of them being MS/AMC. The F prefix was added for submarines in case the expanded submarine list ends up being inadequate due to a glut of submarine construction. vonfriedman deserves full credit but any editing mistakes or spelling errors are my own. ItalyShipNames.dat (8.51 KB)
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 13, 2019 18:22:07 GMT -6
I guess my answer is how do most Americans (the ones aware of the fact which is probably not many) feel about USS Pueblo (seized in 1968) being displayed in North Korea as a prize.
The immediate period after the war was a somewhat strange juxtaposition between eliminating as many traces of Japanese militarist culture and symbolism as possible and the need to rebuild Japan so it could serve as a stable buffer against the spread of communism. A battleship is a tremendous example of that militarist culture and if it was preserved would have been an inevitable rallying point for nationalist and populist agitation (to see it returned) that could have soured relations between the two countries.
Battleships are expensive to preserve and maintain. Heck, after the war we couldn't find the money to preserve USS Enterprise CV-6, our most decorated warship.
While a small part of me regrets that we don't have foreign examples of battleships preserved as museums to explore and contrast with our own the rational side of me understands why the defeated powers were demilitarized after WW2 and that the surviving enemy combatants (equipment, not people) were best eliminated in one fashion or another.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 13, 2019 10:01:24 GMT -6
Well done. The only upshot for the British is the extra chance for magazine explosions goes away after they lose a number of ships that way due to "implementing their lessons learned". Better for them to lose a bunch of armored cruiser rather than dreadnoughts or battlecruisers to learn their lessons.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 13, 2019 8:50:19 GMT -6
Anyone looking for names to add for the shipname lists in RTW1, I've updated my British DD theme list files with additional names for other classes. It's mostly American and Royal Navy and Commonwealth smaller ship classes like destroyer escorts, frigates, corvettes and minesweepers. I've managed to add lists for Japanese destroyers through WW2 as well as WW2 era kaibokan. I'm using a number of online sources including wikipedia, destroyerhistory.org, dreadnought project.org and uboat.net . I don't have a lot of sources for non-english language nations so sorry about that.
|
|