|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 13, 2019 1:09:59 GMT -6
The alphanumeric prefix system used for destroyers and submarines in RTW1 could be extended to the other classes as well. One thing I would like to see eventually is the MS (or K in RTW2) and AMC name lists split up. I'm working with vonfriedman on a custom name list for Italy for RTW1 and having obvious merchant ship names like Città di... (City of...) looks completely wrong on minesweepers and gunboats.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 11, 2019 18:24:11 GMT -6
Two main problems with salt water getting into the feed system (fresh water for the boilers) are corrosion and scale formation. Chlorides are a contributor to rapid corrosion which can cause leaks in the tubes and loss of boiler efficiency.
Calcium and magnesium in the sea water will form a hard scale on the heat transfer surfaces (the tubes) as the water boils off. The scale reduces the efficiency of the boiler and it acts as an insulator which increases the temperature inside the tube which can lead to failure. It can also block the tube if it is a small tube boiler. The scale is very difficult to remove.
Not relevant to the game but in nuclear systems with steam generators the corrosion could cause a primary to secondary leak in the steam generators resulting in radioactively contaminated water entering the steam system and therefore the engineering spaces. We had constant automatic monitoring and multiple manual tests per hour looking for seawater contamination of the feed system so we could isolate the source of the contamination as quickly as possible if it ever happened.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 10, 2019 1:23:29 GMT -6
I admire your willingness to use technologies your boffins don't fully understand. Like protoculture or the wave motion engine.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 10, 2019 1:08:34 GMT -6
There will be an option for slower aircraft development in RTW2. Will there be an option to turn it off completely? Ditto with submarines? We might be able to use the same trick that worked for submarines in RTW1. Won't know for sure until the game is released.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 9, 2019 7:50:40 GMT -6
Fair point. It certainly wouldn't strike me as wrong if the developers went that direction. As I think I wrote earlier in this thread (or it might have been another thread) this will probably be easy to mod in as well so we could make a BNat file specific for the post Washington Treaty start if the developers don't do something similar.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 9, 2019 1:22:17 GMT -6
I've heard a similar story about the Soviets and British jet engine metallurgy. Either or both could be true but I don't know.
The wiki page for 7075 states that it was developed in 1943 so the Zero predates it.
Anyway, this is way too many things I think. Historically, anything developed after 1914 is probably going to have its history either directly or indirectly caused by WW1 and its aftermath and or the economic problems of the 20s and 30s and the subsequent run-up to WW2. None of that is scripted to happen in the full length scenario. Better I think to use the early advantages already in RTW1 and just let the tech tree play out from there. Just my subjective opinion, not trying to draw a hard line.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 8, 2019 9:39:33 GMT -6
I hope the steel case comes with a signed, limited edition blu-ray of Under Siege.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 8, 2019 9:37:36 GMT -6
but buying from a nation with undeveloped shipbuilding will take longer and have a greater chance of a negative trait like underspeed or overweight. The only construction time penalty that can affect ships you're purchasing from another power is Poor Education; you cannot order ships from foreign powers with undeveloped shipbuilding industries regardless of current tensions. That makes sense. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 8, 2019 7:45:46 GMT -6
Playing as the US, I ordered four 3x2x12" ARY battlecruisers - Ranger, Congress, Constitution, and Independence - from Britain, because while I had main battery wing turrets and both superfiring turrets I lacked cross-deck fire or a third centerline turret (also, Britain had 12"/Q1 guns, which are probably better than the 13"/Q- and definitely better than the 12"/Q- guns I could use if I built them domestically). A few turns later, I get my third centerline turret. Sigh.
Just before these four battlecruisers completed, I got the fourth centerline turret and 14"/Q- guns. Okay, great; the next group of capital ships is going to be built domestically. The Rangers start to commission and I have enough free budget - and $17M in the reserve - so I lay down Yorktown, a heavily-armored 3x2x14"/Q- ABY battlecruiser which I expected to be the first of a two- or three-ship class. Three turns later, I get 14"/Q0 guns. Sigh. Now I get to decide if better guns are worth losing 3 turns of construction and a $19M investment (~$4M/turn in construction costs plus a ~$7M design fee)... At least United States gets a 90% discount for being a Yorktown with better guns and so only costs me ~$700k in design fees.
It's just going to be that kind of game, isn't it?
This is just a fun, I like a lot. Something as thinking to order next capital ship and screw budget at max. and than after 2 months get offer for that ship with 10 % discount.
Is there any disadvantage ordering ship in foreign shipyard except possiblity to be taken over?
I am not aware any of main powers used in RTW (without Spain) that in 20th century ordered capital ships from foreign country except Russia and Japan. In opposite in RTW it gives you advantage as you get some tech progress in case the foreign nation is ahead in development. In real history it was done domestically to support domestic industry.
I like the humor in Great Britain building ships for the USA named Congress, Constitution and Independence. Three months in I would probably give up the $19 million to get a ship with better guns. dorn , Fredrik has stated that magazine explosions are a trait of the owning nation while the chance of flaws like a ship being unable to reach its design speed are affected by the traits of the building nation so buying from Great Britain takes less time to build and does not transfer the hidden flaw trait but buying from a nation with undeveloped shipbuilding will take longer and have a greater chance of a negative trait like underspeed or overweight.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 7, 2019 16:31:29 GMT -6
I am curious about the formation of the carrier task force. Is it a linear formation or a circular formation which is most effective against aerial and submarine threat? Are you asking about historically or from the developers and play testers in-game?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 7, 2019 12:32:55 GMT -6
Individual bonus techs for certain nations like dive bombing for the USN or torpedo bombing for Japan or the UK would be in keeping with the premise of RTW1 but needs to be used with caution because of the sandbox nature of the game and the fact there is no WW1 scripted for the overall game (1900-1950) to relieve Germany of it's Pacific possessions and the subsequent need for an empire spanning fleet including carriers. So care needs to be taken not to penalize players of non-historical carrier nations when the alternative history of the game would not justify it. It seems to me selectable options provide the greatest array of choices to the player, with the different environments provided by such choices offering different game play challenges. The options: (1) "Historical" option, where nations are given advantages in certain areas in keeping with actual history (with the debate here being about which nation getting what advantage); (2) "Customized" option, where the player selects a few areas of advantage from those available at their discretion, with the AI-controlled nations choosing their advantages either randomly or based on its starting conditions; (3) "Level Field" option, where neither the human player nor AI-controlled nations gets any advantages. That sounds like a workable plan. In any case, if the system is carried over from RTW1, research advantages and bonus techs are extremely easy to modify since they are just simples lines in a text file (Bnat.dat) so even if the developers don't we can always make and share modified BNat files for others to use.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 7, 2019 9:03:04 GMT -6
imryn , I'm done with the cherry picking and shifting goal posts so I'm not repeating the mistakes we made in engaging you in the AoN/turtleback thread. You have the right idea about some things but others you are dead wrong (e.g. such as the RN being ahead in fighter direction or the fact that Implacable was a 1939 design whose construction was delayed by the needs of the Battle of the Atlantic and so design-wise was in no way contemporary with Midway. Malta would have been the better choice) and when confronted you either cherry pick sources that agree while ignoring information in the same source that doesn't (see your link regarding HMS Victorious' operation with 3rd Fleet in 1943) or you try to shift the goalpost by claiming that you were only taking about Pacific operations when the topic of the thread makes no such specification and neither did you until contradicted. So what should and could be an intelligent discussion about a topic ends up being a useless game of whack-a-mole. So this is my position on the thread's topic. There is no need and no justification for any nation to be given a specific advantage in initial aerial technology. The RTW research system is already well set up for the task and mentioned additions for RTW2 like requiring a commissioned fleet carrier in the fleet to place related research areas to High priority just makes it that more suited. Individual bonus techs for certain nations like dive bombing for the USN or torpedo bombing for Japan or the UK would be in keeping with the premise of RTW1 but needs to be used with caution because of the sandbox nature of the game and the fact there is no WW1 scripted for the overall game (1900-1950) to relieve Germany of it's Pacific possessions and the subsequent need for an empire spanning fleet including carriers. So care needs to be taken not to penalize players of non-historical carrier nations when the alternative history of the game would not justify it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 7, 2019 0:39:20 GMT -6
The loot box will float with the survivors. Advanced radars will be able to detect them on the surface so they can be recovered even at night. Not the basic radars though. They don't have the necessary resolution.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 6, 2019 10:08:58 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you are asking although I guess that means the answer is no, I haven't mapped event nation effects. I was always under the impression that it tended to vary every game and within every game because there tends to be more reactions by nations that I already have a fair amount of tension with than the one or two nations that I have really low tension with at the time.
I know that every nation is assigned a trouble region. For the European nations it's the Balkans, for the USA it's South America and for Japan the Asian mainland but I thought that was mostly just there to fill in the blank for the applicable events. For example, I've noticed that if an event happens in the Balkans, most if not all of the European nations will react to my response (as the USA) while Japan almost never does.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 6, 2019 9:47:44 GMT -6
- Fighter interceptions - You realise that the RN and the RAF are two completely different services? Also, the USN operated far beyond support of land based fighters and had no way to use the huge array of radar stations that the RAF benefited from. For the US this was fully mature technology and doctrine, they were not "figuring it out as they went along" the way every other navy was. There is a lot to unpack there but let's start with these two. There is a lot of condescension inherent in the first statement which is interesting because in fact the Fleet Air Arm of the RN was actually under the control of the RAF until the summer of 1939 shortly before the start of WW2. The Dowding system of radar based fighter direction had already been developed and was in the process of being polished when the RN took back control of the FAA. The transfer of FAA officers to the RN obviously resulted in a considerable transfer of professional knowledge regarding fighter interception because in 1943 when HMS Victorious was loaned to the USN for operation in the South Pacific the American rear admiral in charge of the group was so impressed with the fighter direction of the British carrier (no Chain Home required) that he had an American fighter squadron from USS Saratoga transferred to Victorious while Victorious' squadron of Avengers was transferred to Saratoga. From that point until Victorious transited out of the area in late 1943 the British carrier specialized in Fleet defense while the American carrier handled most of the offensive attack duties. To be fair, the smaller British carrier had some trouble handling the heavy Avenger and that played a part in the admiral's decision but the fact that British fighter direction was easily superior (and was dorn 's point) and that the Americans adopted much of the British system for future operations still stands. As for the second statement, are you trying to claim that American carrier operations and doctrine was unchanged from 1942 to late 1943-45? Because the USN had already figured out carrier doctrine by the start of the war and it was fully mature. I think you need to read up a bit closer on American carrier air group ops in 1942. Far from being mature, American carrier group operations were often a mess and bordered on being a fiasco at Midway. The Americans didn't match Japan's 1941 capability to coordinate the air groups of multiple carriers together until late 1943-early 1944.
|
|