GeneralVikus

I thought that the 'range found' bonus was a good idea - simulating, well, finding the range of the enemy ships over time. Obviously, it's massive, but the basic idea seems sound. Do you disagree? Or is it just that the size of the bonus is hardcoded? Forgive my ignorance, but when I searched 'param', 'parameter', and 'parameters' in my Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts steamapps folder, I didn't find anything. So firstly, can you tell me where to find the file, and secondly, do you have any idea of what would be a good number for the most realistic feasible result?

@o Barão I can understand your preference for a middle ground between realistic accuracy values and light entertainment. Personally, I would like to try the realistic accuracy values, although I can see the problem as the game limits time compression to a greater degree than RTW. Is it something that's easy to mod - for example, by changing the fire control values - or would I have to change every gun?

Another suggestion: In custom battles, I'd like an 'end battle' button which brings up the results screen. I don't want to have to hunt down every last enemy destroyer, through the foggy weather the game has forced upon me, in order to see the stats.

I'd like to have a toggle for automatic targeting, applying to all selected ships: automatically target all weapons, automatic primaries only, automatic secondaries only, or manual targeting all. For example, for my main battle line I would want to set automatic targeting for secondaries only in most cases, whereas for screens I would use automatic targeting for all weapons in most cases, but switch to manual only when needed. I'd also like to be able to set the conditions for custom battles: time of day (morning, afternoon, night) visibility, and sea state. Finally, I suggest changing line abreast so that the lead ship of the column becomes the outer ship of the line, instead of becoming the centre of the line. This would make it practical to switch from ahead to abreast in combat, and most importantly to execute a battle turn away.

Hey guys, a few questions about armour in the game: 1. Is the 'inner belt' treated as being sloped, as in the sloped portions of an armored deck? 2. Do the inner belt and deck contribute to mitigating flooding? I originally assumed otherwise, but a few tests suggest that ships with inner belts / decks appear to suffer less flooding.

Hey guys, I have been reading up on historical gunnery accuracy. I've found a good article here, which covers US Navy gunnery training in the interwar years, and provides some good figures though not systematically organized. International Naval Research Organization Articles - Evolution of Battleship Gunnery in the U.S. Navy - NavWeaps Does anyone have any good sources pertaining to other time periods, especially with helpful tables?

According to wikipedia they left port on 15 - 16 October 1904 and the battle was on 27 May, so it took just over seven months. With my ship of 10 knots and 5800 km range, I made the trip from England to Hong Kong in 13 months, so starting from the Baltic probably would have taken 16. That's a little under 3x as long, instead of 10 times as long.

Hey guys, I'm just now trying the campaign for the first time in 1.09, and I've noticed that on the campaign map, ships seem to move about 10x slower than their cruising speeds would suggest. Is this a bug? Am I doing it wrong? If not, is there a mod to fix it?

I've just checked out a few hulls and the relationship between acceleration and turning circle seems to be as expected when displacement is held constant.

Good point, I did not know that.

@Nick Thomadis Can you offer any explanation of how the game works in this respect?

Hey guys, My understanding was that a higher length to beam ratio resulted in a faster but less manoeuvrable ship - that is, higher speed per HP, in exchange for a wider turning radius. However, in the game stats the opposite seems to be the case - reducing the beam results in a smaller turning radius, a higher turn rate, a higher turning speed, and a lower course change time. This is not true in all cases, (for example, a 26 knot DD has a slightly larger turning radius at 0% beam than 10%, but -10% is still smaller than either.) However, it seems to be generally true across different hulls, different speeds, and different draughts, and in most cases, a narrower seems to always produce a smaller turning radius in a linear fashion. Can somebody explain this to me?

Hey guys, A couple of simple questions: which compartments are the BE and DE armour applied to; and does the game calculate effective armour thickness and ricochet chance on a per - compartment basis, or is there a more granular system?

Hey guys, My understanding is that when a turret is placed on top of a compartment, the magazine is located in the compartment under the turret. If the turret overlaps several compartments, is the magazine located in both, or only in one? If only one, would it be the compartment which the turret overlaps most? I don't know if anyone has looked into this, but it seems like an important question; if, for example, the edge of the turret just barely crosses over into the forward armor zone, is it necessary to provide the entire front section of the ship sufficient armor to protect the magazine? Furthermore, does having a turret overlap compartments double the chance of a magazine detonation?

1. A graphical mode which clearly shows armor in the ship designer by color coding. 2. After the implementation of the above, make the armor zone adjustable to allow for more freedom in design, perhaps by expanding one compartment and shrinking another.

That's a very helpful visualization, thank you!

I don't know about the game, but it does make sense that the deck armour would contribute more than slightly to the horizontal protection in many cases, as in many armour schemes the deck was positioned behind the belt in a sloped configuration. In those configurations, a plate of deck armour of a given thickness would provide more protection against incoming horizontal fire than a plate of belt armour of the same thickness. If that were true in the game, though, it stands to reason that only the lower sections of the ship would be protected by the deck armour; whether this is borne out by empirical observations, I don't know. Obviously, some visual representation seems necessary in order for the player to make informed choices about ship design, which is the core game mechanic.

So, one of the takeaways would be that presumably pre-dreadnoughts would usually have both their main battery turrets in the fore / aft sections of the armor? Can that be confirmed?

@Nick ThomadisAt the risk of stating the obvious, it'd be pretty useful to see this information on our own ships when designing them.

Hey guys, Can anyone explain to me how armor distribution works? Does the game automatically extend the B and D armor to cover from the foremost to the rearmost turrets, with the extensions covering the rest, or are B and D applied to fixed sections of the ship - presumably certain compartments? Likewise, is the machinery always in the same compartments, or does it take up more or less space depending on the ship's horsepower? If armor and machinery are indeed within fixed zones, is there some UI functionality for viewing it, or failing that, a diagram?

Hey guys, Here's a simple question. How does armor distribution work? Does the game automatically extend the B and D armor to cover from the foremost to the rearmost turrets, with the extensions covering the rest, or are B and D applied to fixed sections of the ship - presumably certain compartments? Likewise, is the machinery always in the same fixed compartment, or does it take up more or less space depending on the ship's horsepower? If armor and machinery are indeed within fixed zones, is there some UI functionality for viewing it, or failing that, a diagram?

Of course aircraft would be nice, but RTW2 came after the original RTW, which didn't have them; and it still released far behind schedule and buggy as hell. It took several years for the game to be developed, and the only major addition on top of the original was the aircraft mechanics. I'd rather have a limited but well implemented game to start off with, then pay for a DLC later to add air power, than a more ambitious but less well implemented product. Adding spotting aircraft would, however, be the logical first step, and these could be implemented before air combat is properly modelled.

Hey guys, I've been trying to find a good, condensed source for ship construction by type throughout and ideally immediately prior to World War II. Although this is the kind of thing I would expect to be readily available, all I've been able to find so far are unweildy databases which list each ship class and the construction dates for each individual ship separately, but never a simple table which conveys the number of - for example - destroyers or destroyer escorts were laid down and / or completed by each power in a given quarter or year. Can anybody point me in the right direction?

I agree. My argument is that, in the ideal game, a player would be compelled and not arbitrarily forced to use his ships for a variety of purposes, for the same reason as navies were compelled historically to do so: a finite amount of resources and a variety of objectives that need to be simultaneously accomplished. If, for example, I am bound to escort a certain number of convoys - more realistically in game terms, if I am bound to provide a certain level of 'convoy coverage' spread out across multiple strategic areas - and I am given the choice of whether to send out a CLAA in that role, knowing that it may be left alone escorting that convoy against enemy surface vessels, or to leave it in port, then unless I enjoy overwhelming superiority over my enemy, I am likely to decide that the risk is necessary, and potentially suffer the consequences. In turn, this may compel me to build less specialised ships. Such was the case for most of the Second World War. Conversely, if I do enjoy such overwhelming superiority that I feel I can afford to not assign a ship to a role such as convoy escort, I should not be forced to put it at risk: I should be able to leave it assigned exclusively to the 'fleet escort' role, and have it remain in port unless an circumstances allow it to be used in that designated role. This would of course require a level of strategic depth closer to what I understand existed in SAI than what is available RTW. Alternatively, I would say that a 'random battle generator' is sufficient: the player can be given a randomly selected group of ships at the start of the scenario to perform a randomly generated mission, as in RTW, so long as he is then given the option to organise the available ships and assign roles to them (such as joining the scouting or the main force, screening, scouting, or core for other divisions, etc.) as he sees fit, just as he can in RTW2 fleet exercises.

I am not arguing that highly specialised ships were as desirable as general purpose ships, or that the game should represent it that way for the sake of gameplay balance or any other reason. I am arguing that the relative problems and advantages of specialised ships should be represented by forcing the player for face the same strategic problems that prevailed in history; that is, by giving the player operational control and forcing him to consider operational problems. If a player has chosen to build a number of CLAAs, for example, then the problem should arise when operational circumstances - in RTW's case, the random battle generator - compel him to fight a surface action, and his fleet is less well suited to that action than it would otherwise be. Instead, RTW creates a completely arbitrary impediment to specialised designs by refusing to inform the player of the ships available for an engagement.