|
I imagine it'd be the fact you don't actually research the planes yourself, so it's a toss up on what you get. Technically.
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:Three RTW2 questions" in terms of 2/3 at 1900 i always go hard on improved torpedoes, more turrets, and subs and then drop them back once i get good torp range, 5 center line turrets, and medium subs. subs though seem a lot weaker in this so i might adjust that strategy. in terms of long term research, always go hard in optics and light forces so i can get above waterline launchers in CLs. also whatever gives me sap rounds i love those. cl fights should be free vps so i suggest you build to counter the ai.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:This is true, but I tend to think it would probably be better for the game if naval aviation had a more gradual effect on obsoleting battleships rather than a snap of the fingers and Langley/Hosho are sinking anything that floats with the first strike. In my one game through to the 1950s, I didn't really get the feeling that aircraft got much more dangerous from ~1930 on. Land based air got the range to bomb pretty much anything instead of just ships near the base (and for every battle to feature airbases on the opposite side of the Mediterranean being destroyed by level bombers) but a 1928 CV with torpedo planes still completely destroys everything. To some extent the AA technology even makes ships better at surviving air attack in the 1940s. Also I think the early carriers can fit too much on a small displacement. Gamerofthegame posted:I imagine it'd be the fact you don't actually research the planes yourself, so it's a toss up on what you get. Technically. I think plane performance just follows a certain trend from year to year, and the areas you choose to prioritize are bonuses on top of that. You might have worse fighters if your design is from 1930 and someone else's is from 1935, but I never noticed the three prototypes you're offered being hugely different. They could stand to make aircraft upgrading a little slower I think. With ship design there's a thing where everything is varying degrees of obsolete and a brand new ship is a lot better than everything else, but I don't get that feeling with new planes when they replace the old ones so quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
What should my doctrine settings be for using SAP ammo
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:What should my doctrine settings be for using SAP ammo nightfighting because they are the best at close ranges
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
 Look, I'm as big of a fan of the Raid on the Medway as the next guy, but this might just be a bit too much.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:In my one game through to the 1950s, I didn't really get the feeling that aircraft got much more dangerous from ~1930 on. Land based air got the range to bomb pretty much anything instead of just ships near the base (and for every battle to feature airbases on the opposite side of the Mediterranean being destroyed by level bombers) but a 1928 CV with torpedo planes still completely destroys everything. To some extent the AA technology even makes ships better at surviving air attack in the 1940s. It'd be interesting if there were points where engine technology improved allowing for quantum leaps in aircraft performance. Historically this was ~1936 and ~1941 for the two big ones.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:They could stand to make aircraft upgrading a little slower I think. With ship design there's a thing where everything is varying degrees of obsolete and a brand new ship is a lot better than everything else, but I don't get that feeling with new planes when they replace the old ones so quickly. I think it's because it can be pretty hard to connect the stats of plane designs and their actual combat performance. I mean look at planes across ten year timespans (even if you ignore the insane developments of WW2) and compare say a 1929 and 1939 plane the difference is enormous but this doesn't really seem to reflect in-game very well for whatever reason. It might be because of just how deadly planes are against ships (imo they are a bit too good from the one game i've had) but it's also because Numbers > every other factor when it comes to sinking the enemy and even obsolete-ish planes are dangerous enough to ships that it doesn't make much of a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
What I really would like them to do but I appreciate would be really hard is reflect the effect of being at war on plane iteration. It's not like the advances of the 40s were prestined to happen then, they happened because of ww2.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
A 1929 biplane could barely carry enough ordinance to tickle a battleship. The advantage would be in scouting. e: ^^ eh, the advances of the 30s and 40s happen because a very few specific companies developed some fantastic engines, and that would have happened war or not. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:02 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:A 1929 biplane could barely carry enough ordinance to tickle a battleship. The advantage would be in scouting. 1929 You had Vildebeasts running about and they were mostly capable of pretty much everything a Swordfish ever did.  Pharnakes posted:What I really would like them to do but I appreciate would be really hard is reflect the effect of being at war on plane iteration. It's not like the advances of the 40s were prestined to happen then, they happened because of ww2. Okay so, you know the big boosts to funding you (and everyone) gets during war, this should increase the R&D budget a fair bit but I am not sure if there is some sort of rubber banding effect in play otherwise it would seem being at war would make your research go much faster. Saros fucked around with this message at 13:34 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
The Vildebeest was, however, not carrier capable. Carriers, especially 1920s carriers imposed huge limitations on the kind of aircraft that could operate off of them.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:A 1929 biplane could barely carry enough ordinance to tickle a battleship. The advantage would be in scouting. Of course it would have happened, but the war provided massive pressure to do so and the resources to do it with. It would have happened anyway but it's no coincidence those advances occurred during the war.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think 1920s era naval aviation is way too good- we're getting Kido Butai+ results with 1925 biplanes and mostly-untrained squadrons who are able to do things like re-vector based on scouting reports from other planes while in the air. Agreed, I rushed aviation as Germany in a 1900 game and built 8 max-size CVLs as soon as possible, then sank half of the Grand Fleet in a day. The basic mechanics are imho good, but early biplanes should not hit this hard. I wonder if the solution is reducing accuracy, reducing damage from early aerial torpedoes, or making AI bolt on lots of AA on their ships earlier?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Tuna-Fish posted:Agreed, I rushed aviation as Germany in a 1900 game and built 8 max-size CVLs as soon as possible, then sank half of the Grand Fleet in a day. The basic mechanics are imho good, but early biplanes should not hit this hard. I had almost the exact opposite experience. Until the early 1930's my CV/CVL's couldn't kill poo poo. Then about 1932 they finally started taking a toll but it seems pretty hit or miss. Now the land-based aircraft is becoming prevalent (I'm playing as France and making GBS threads on Italy). So much so that the Med is turning into a 100% murderzone. It's frustrating to have the battle AI start me out in the middle of the Adriatic surrounded by Italian airbases. -3 CV's.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
I find myself building all my CA's from the very start of the game with the ideal of eventually converting them into CVL which distorts things a bit. My first Russia game has gotten very entertaining. After a massive first run of six early BB's and six BC's as Russia I get a treaty in 1912 that bans everything over 15kt and 10'' guns.  The UK has 9 BB/BC and everyone else has 1-4 against my twelve and I keep getting events to extend the treaty.Oh my god there are so so so many 15kt 10'' CA's though and everyone is refitting the absolute crap out of their old battleships and strapping bigger and bigger guns onto their handful of Dreadnoughts. This is gonna be a wild universe in the 20's/30's. Saros fucked around with this message at 15:37 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Something people are complaining about on their forums but I haven’t made it far enough to see is that once everybody has medium bombers with decent range, any battle in the Mediterranean turns into everybody’s airbases just bombing the poo poo out of each other until the clock runs out
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Something people are complaining about on their forums but I haven’t made it far enough to see is that once everybody has medium bombers with decent range, any battle in the Mediterranean turns into everybody’s airbases just bombing the poo poo out of each other until the clock runs out Yes. 100% this. It sucks, you mash next-next-next. Italy has zero fleet left but I still need to take the bombardment and raid missions to get VP so each time I get to watch sustained carpet bombing of airbases for 30 minutes of clicking.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Knowing how absolute bloody murder the VT fuze was for Japanese aircraft late war (and any, and every, other prop plane that would have flown against it), methinks AA is severely understrenght in the current version. Btw the purchasing process works ok now. It's still dumb, but it works. it's so dumb
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The Vildebeest was, however, not carrier capable. The first carrier-borne torpedo-bomber, the Sopwith Cuckoo, wasn't too bad - on its first exercise, against the Home Fleet at anchor in Portland Bay, 11 aircraft scored six hits from eight torpedoes dropped. It's successor, the Blackburn Dart, achieved pretty impressive results on exercises. In a 1932 exercise, 57 torpedoes were dropped, with 17 hits achieved, though this was against a stationary target. Later exercises saw similar results against moving targets - one, from January 1933, saw 31 aircraft attacking a cruiser squadron moving at high speed and manoeuvring. Six hits were scored. Against a slower-moving battle squadron, 32 aircraft achieved 21 hits. The torpedoes used by these aircraft had the same warhead as the torpedoes used by British submarines and some destroyers during WWI.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
It does help that we all have the power of foresight and know to go in hard on aircraft. And know we can build ships with conversion in mind. RE Mediterranean Bomber Thunderdome; does the bombers hitting enemy airfields even so anything useful? Or is it pretty much back to normal by next turn? Cause if it’s not useful maybe they should restrict the automated strikes against enemy bases. Maybe a Land Airbases Doctrine toggle? Fleet Support vs Unrestricted?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:It does help that we all have the power of foresight and know to go in hard on aircraft. And know we can build ships with conversion in mind. You can send friendly bombers to attack hostile airbases or hostile shipping. I started sending them out for shipping but my carrier CAP became incapable of dealing with the swarms of land based aircraft attacking my ships. This can happen literally every single turn so even though I demolish hundreds of enemy aircraft I have to re-demolish them again next turn. It should be abstracted or changed, it's not terribly fun right now. There's zero coordination beyond that initial selection. It is a cool thunderdome, but has zero reflection on reality with any coordination.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Not having played RTW2 yet it seems like there's not enough incentive not to switch to full on airpower ASAP. We all know CVs obsolete BBs, but the devs probably don't want to make the AI go all in because it's not historical, so there needs to be restrictions on the player* too, otherwise you'll just clown the AI from the air forever. The incentive is that the carrier strike interface is annoying to use.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
There needs to be plane production or something because infinite planes is not cool imo
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There needs to be plane production or something because infinite planes is not cool imo I kind of expected there to be, honestly, before they explained more about the game. It's a bit weird that planes just get produced automatically.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There needs to be plane production or something because infinite planes is not cool imo hey if it's good enough for WITP...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:There needs to be plane production or something because infinite planes is not cool imo Plane numbers weren't a big deal for most powers, and there is a significant maintenance cost to aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Plane numbers weren't a big deal for most powers, Imperial Japan crying.png
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Imperial Japan crying.png IIRC even for the japanese the bottleneck was fuel and trained pilots, not airframes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Reserve vs mothballed- what’s the difference? Also any pointers you have developed as to how to determine when to scrap a ship due to improved upgrades available. My problem seems to be cranking out ships at 1900-02 in anticipation of a conflict but then still saddled well after their usefulness. I suppose what triggers are you looking for to commit then next 24 months to building?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:Reserve vs mothballed- what’s the difference? Also any pointers you have developed as to how to determine when to scrap a ship due to improved upgrades available. My problem seems to be cranking out ships at 1900-02 in anticipation of a conflict but then still saddled well after their usefulness. I suppose what triggers are you looking for to commit then next 24 months to building? RF/MB status are different degrees of separation from active fleet. Ships put on them don't cost as much maintenance (less for RF, much less for MB). Ships coming off of them back into AF status suffer penalties to their crew quality (and thus performance in battle, again, penalty for RF, bigger penalty for MB).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
I haven't been following it at all, really, but is RTW2 supposed to have anything that RTW doesn't, other than planes and carriers? I just discovered I still had RTW installed.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Reserve Fleet ships are largely kept ready for duty but their crews are reduced and the ship spends most of its time inactive in port with the occasional training exercises. Mothballed ships are basically in long term storage with no crew except minimal maintenance teams. It takes time for them to be readied for combat duty (loading ammo, supplies, assigning crew etc). Gameplaywise, ships in Reserves will be ready for hostilities immediately but crew quality will not be good and an experienced ship crew placed in reserve will quickly decline in quality. A mothballed ship takes a turn to make ready for duty and the crew starts at low quality.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:I haven't been following it at all, really, but is RTW2 supposed to have anything that RTW doesn't, other than planes and carriers? I just discovered I still had RTW installed. There are a couple changes to the 1900-1925 game experience but not what I'd call major ones. But "other than planes and carriers" rules out... well, a hell of a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Radar being probably the biggest one that affects surface combat. In other news, it is 1929 and German engineers are still not sure if this whole airplane thing is going to catch on. I have to source my torpedo bombers from abroad, but the fact that their companies can't seem to manage to build a working plane that can drop a loving torpedo hasn't stopped German industrialists from complaining when I don't buy German.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Not sure if anyone's posted this in here yet but Ultimate Admiral now has an actual website with a couple dev blogs on it. If this blog is to be believed they're not dumbing anything down from RTW. It's looking really good.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
sum posted:Not sure if anyone's posted this in here yet but Ultimate Admiral now has an actual website with a couple dev blogs on it. If this blog is to be believed they're not dumbing anything down from RTW. It's looking really good. That's a copy-paste job of the Rule the Waves design spec with actual graphics next to it. Sweet. e: dude you linked to the most boring of the blogs: 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
I'm so hype for Ultimate Admiral.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Looks neat, but no carriers/subs.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Ultimate Admiral looks cool, but I worry I won't be able to save up enough box tops to get my secret decoder ring to decrypt my serial key.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:45
|
|
