Planning of next updates

[RAMJB]

Just did a fast visit to wikipedia and it's entry on Punta Stilo makes no mention of any british floatplanes doing anything. It mentions the british CV (Was Eagle, btw, not Formidable), mentions the floatplane being hit (the cruiser it was aboard was HMS Neptune), mentions the battleship firing on incorrect fall of shot (HMS Malaya being the culprit), of course mentions Warspite's hit on Giulio Cesare...

But there's no mention of any floatplanes involved. Not that Wikipedia is any kind of bible, far from it, but, well, one would expect that if a floatplane was involved, it'd be mentioned. They do so in battles where they did pretty much nothing after all (the komandorski entry mentions the japanese one, for instance, and that one truly got nothing done at all)...

[FFire31]

3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Someone will tell me I'm a very toxic person for daring to comment on this, and probably someone else will also come here calling me a hissing dishonest and rude writer of rants...but I'll still do it XDDD

Nothing toxic there, I just read a well documented answer and learn new things. The actual game experience makes me feel that long range is op, but I prize realism, and the game balance will change as soon as night, weather, or anything else that limit visibility will be in game.

[RAMJB]

17 minutes ago, FFire31 said:

Nothing toxic there, I just read a well documented answer and learn new things. The actual game experience makes me feel that long range is op, but I prize realism, and the game balance will change as soon as night, weather, or anything else that limit visibility will be in game.

Nah, that was just a sarcastic comment aimed at he-knows-whom. Probably should've not even mentioned that at all


Back to the fight at punta stilo and answering Akd. Found this:
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38273.pdf


Includes an AAR summary by Adm. Cunningham himself, and a very in-depth chronology of the battle as seen by the Royal Navy.

That report mentions that Warspite launched one plane (Duty Q) after blasting the other one off her platform with her guns (seems a recurring theme in WW2 naval engagements to destroy your own floatplanes in the catapult, lol). No mention it's made about it doing any kind of fall of shot correction (which the report would mention several times, as the report about the battle of the River Plate did), but it makes repeated mention of it's observations, which means that plane was just keeping an eye on the italian fleet to radio back their maneouvers.

Hence, no spotting of fall of shot nor anything of the sorts. Still, regardless that the plane was not doing shooting correction, this is a combat use of a floatplane in a surface engagement I did not know about until I read this source. Whatever you read that mentions it too must be one I've not read. So I have to ask again, where did you read about that? :).

At any rate, good find!

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

Quote

High above the action was the Swordfish piloted by Petty Officer Rice. The Warspite was down to just one aircraft at the time, so he had his work cut out:

“Our other Swordfish had been flying in support of the Australian cruiser HMAS Sydney but had failed to find the action she was involved in. Rather than bring a full bomb load back to the ship they thought they would go over and bomb the Italians at Tobruk. Unfortunately for them some RAF Blenheims had just carried out a raid so the enemy was waiting for them. They got shot down and ended up prisoners of war for five years. That left just my Swordfish. They used us for spotting the fall of Warspite’s 15-inch shots at Calabria. The Italians could do thirty knots but Warspite could only do twenty-four knots, so it was quite a chase. When the Warspite fired back at the Italians, initially her shells were falling short, so we were telling them to correct. They were adjusting by 200 yards but should have done so by 600, so they only got one hit. The Italians did fire on us with their AA but failed to hit my aircraft. Was I scared? No. I was only twenty-four and well trained in how to react when things turned hot.”

From Ballantyne’s Warspite.  He, of course, might be tooting his own horn a bit.  That the gunfire was not conducted solely by aerial observation, however, is evidenced by the Italian destroyers blocking further accurate fire with smokescreens as the Giulio Cesare withdrew after being hit.  This highlights an earlier point: spotting aircraft could be very useful for improving range corrections for long range gunnery, but targeting was still dependent on the ship’s own fire control seeing the target.  Spotting planes did not act as “eyes” of the battleship allowing them to “see” and accurately target other ships underway at long range, although they did play that role for shore bombardment on many occasions (where seeing the target from the ship was often impossible). 

Other highlights in Rice’s remarkable service aboard Warspite can be found in his obit:

Quote

Swordfish pilot who sank a U-boat at Narvik and helped the Navy to beat the Italians at Cape Matapan

FREDERICK RICE, always known as “Ben”, initiated his impressive career in the Fleet Air Arm by being the first rating pilot to land on an aircraft carrier, HMS Courageous, in February 1939. He subsequently made important contributions to both the Second Battle of Narvik and the Battle of Cape Matapan. He graduated from Colchester Technical College in 1932 and became an apprentice at the Redwing Aircraft Company in Ardleigh, Essex. When this enterprise went out of business, he joined the Royal Navy as a boy seaman and served in the cruiser York on the West Indies station and the destroyer Brilliant during the rescue operations accompanying the Spanish Civil War. As a leading seaman, he volunteered for flying and joined the first ratings’ pilot course, No 41, at Leuchars, Fife, in May 1938. In January 1940 he joined the battleship Warspite, flying a seaplane variant of the “Stringbag” Swordfish. Although a biplane and obsolete before the war started, this remarkable aircraft was still in service in nine squadrons in 1945 and responsible for the sinking of numerous enemy warships and submarines. Robust, highly manoeuvrable and easy to land on a carrier’s pitching deck, it was a pilots’ favourite. A bright spot for the Allies in the otherwise melancholy Norwegian campaign was the Second Battle of Narvik. The first battle had ended with considerable destroyer casualties on both sides, and on April 13, 1940, under the command of Rear-Admiral Whitworth, it was decided to take the enormous risk of sending Warspite with nine destroyers many miles up the narrow Ofotfiord towards Narvik to finish off the substantial remaining German forces. Rice, with Lieutenant-Commander “Bruno” Brown as his observer and Leading Airman Pacey as his telegraphist air- gunner, was catapulted off at about midday. Flying between steep cliffs and under low cloud, they sighted and reported the destroyer Koellner lurking in a small bay. She was attacked by destroyers and sunk. Meanwhile, Rice spotted the submarine U64 anchored near a jetty in the Herjangsfiord. Attacking with two 100lb bombs, he scored a direct hit, but his tailplane was damaged by return fire which was suppressed by Pacey’s Lewis gun. The crew then spotted the fall of shot for Warspite’s devastating 15in guns until the remaining seven German destroyers were scuttled or sunk. The Swordfish dropped its final two bombs on a beached German destroyer before returning to Warspite after more than three hours in the air. U64 was the first U-boat of the war to be sunk by the Fleet Air Arm. The official report of the action commented that “it was doubtful if a shipborne aircraft had ever before been used to such good purpose”. Rice was awarded the DSM and Brown the DSC. Warspite left Narvik in late April for the Mediterranean and became Admiral Andrew Cunningham’s flagship, leading the Mediterranean fleet in a series of Malta convoys, brushes with the Italian fleet, bombardments and the devastating Swordfish aircraft night attack on Italian battleships at Taranto. News on March 27, 1941, that Italian heavy ships were at sea, threatening an Allied convoy, caused Cunningham to sail his battlefleet in pursuit. His memoirs recount a frustrating day punctuated by differing reports from a variety of sources about the enemy’s composition and manoeuvres. Rice was catapulted shortly after midday with Pacey and the new fleet observer, Lieutenant-Commander (later Rear-Admiral) “Ben” Bolt to try to clarify the situation. Their first sortie — of nearly five hours — was fruitless. Warspite and the other battleships were struggling to close the range on the modern Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto and to recover the floatplane, by the usual method of turning sharply to form a calm “slick” to land on, would have caused further unacceptable delay. Instead, Rice landed his aircraft in front of the charging Warspite and matched her speed by taxiing until the crane hook could be grabbed — an unpractised but effective manoeuvre. Refuelled, they were launched again and Bolt was finally able to report the disposition, course and speed of the Italians. Cunningham remarked: “By 6.30 we had the first of a series of reports from this highly trained and experienced officer, which quickly told us what we needed.” Cunningham’s bold tactical handling thereafter resulted in the sinking of three Italian heavy cruisers and two destroyers for no British losses. Rice had to land at Suda Bay in Crete in the dark, having prudently brought along a few floating flares to tell him where the surface was, and taxied some five miles to get into harbour. He had been airborne for more than eight hours. Bolt received a bar to his DSC and Rice a mention in despatches. Rice stayed with Warspite throughout her many actions of the Mediterranean campaign. Damaged by German bombing during the evacuation of Crete, she went to Seattle for repairs. Rice left her in early 1942. The rest of his war was mainly spent communications flying in a variety of single and twin-engined types. In 1945 he was promoted to warrant officer and was personal pilot to the Flag Officer Naval Flying Training. In 1947 he was appointed to a squadron based at Trincomalee in Ceylon. He contributed to the winning of the Fleet Air Arm’s Boyd Trophy for flying three Beech C45 Expeditor aircraft from Trincomalee back to Lee-on-Solent in adverse winter weather. He continued flying a multiplicity of aircraft types until the end of his career. Having been commissioned, he was variously in command of the Safety Equipment and Survival School near Portsmouth, staff officer to the RN Test Squadron at Boscombe Down and senior pilot of 750 Squadron, based at Hal Far in Malta. He retired from the navy as a lieutenant-commander in March 1967. In retirement he managed Enterprise House, a 200-apartment complex for old people in Chingford. This he ran for 13 years in disciplined naval fashion. Much sought-after as a raconteur, he was famous for his flying stories at such institutions as the Portsmouth Retired Naval Officers’ Club. He is survived by his wife Edna, whom he married in Kirkwall in 1939, and by their son and daughter. Lieutenant-Commander “Ben” Rice, DSM, wartime Swordfish pilot, was born on March 17, 1916. He died on February 14, 2003, aged 86.

Datum: 01. 04. 2003

http://www.militaria.cz/cz/detail-154‘

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1430473/Lieutenant-Commander-Ben-Rice.html (Login required)

Edited January 17, 2020 by akd

[RAMJB]

13 minutes ago, akd said:

From Ballantyne’s Warspite.

Another one for the list of books to purchase :D. 

I don't understand why that isn't in the report I found. I know the one about the battle of the river plate makes ample mention to the Seafox, it's problems with the radio (was configured for search frequency upon launch, had to be readjusted midflight, which wasn't easy on a radio like the one the plane had), and it's problems with spotting the fall of shot of Achilles instead of Ajax. Why this one makes no mention of what the quote you posted here says, really I don't understand - for it's clear the plane was indeed spotting the fall of shot so it should've been mentioned accordingly.

Really, really good find!


Btw the quote about the battle of narvik I knew about. But the destroyers the floatplane corrected Warspite's fire on were the ones at anchor - that's land bombardment spotting duty, not fall of shot correction on a ship-to-ship engagement ;).

That floatplane did detect a couple german destroyers on the move trying to ambush Warspite, but on those there was no fall of shot correction done, just a contact report to attract Warspite's fire to them. There was little correction to be done anyway because they were pretty much massacred in no time as soon as Warspite (and the rest of the fleet) opened up on them. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

But Narvik is very good example of a floatplane playing a very important role at the smallest tactical level (straight up destroying direct threats and orienting guns onto other threats in near real time, not just bringing a fleet into the vicinity of another, as the same pilot did at Matapan, but Narvik was a pretty unique tactical situation).

Quote

“Warspite’s Swordfish aircraft was catapulted off at 11: 52 off Barøy to scout ahead of the fleet and in particular to look for German vessels in the side fjords. During the ensuing operations this aircraft and its crew, Petty Officer Frederick ‘Ben’ Rice, Lieutenant Commander W ‘Bruno’ Brown (observer) and Leading Airman Maurice Pacey (gunner), were to give exceptional service in spite of difficult flying conditions, and show results way beyond normal expectations. ‘I doubt’, wrote Vice Admiral Whitworth later, ‘if ever a ship-borne aircraft has been used to such good purpose.’”

 

— The German Invasion of Norway: April 1940 by Geirr H. Haarr

http://a.co/2IwHpgI

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by akd

[RAMJB]

Oh it *WAS* a tremendous contribution in the tactical level. But for what was mostly bombardment spotting - something I already made clear in one of my posts in the last page, I'm not denying that from floatplanes at all. Floatplanes did a lot of work at naval bombardments, and a very good job at that role, too. 

But we don't have bombardment in the game, do we?. Nor we do have fighting in restricted waters. That's what I point out - that the most prevalent (And almost only) reason to put floatplanes in the tactical level in the game at this stage is for a role the game doesn't cover yet, to begin with. Why would we put planes because they spotted for bombardment, when there's no bombardment in the game yet? ;). Aren't more urgent things to do far before? (like...adding bombardment scenarios and make sure they work properly, to begin with? ;))

And that goes back to the points I repeatedly make: First bring the game foundation and make it work. THEN, add planes on top of it. I'm not saying they don't have a place here - on the opposite, they do (Even while maybe not in roles some people give them too credit about). But add them at the right time, when the other pieces are in place and working well. 


As for the sinking of the submarine off narvik - that's either port attack or ASW roles - both fall squarely into the operational level where I also stated floatplanes did a good job too. And here I make no argument: floatplanes had big influence on the operative level (what would be the campaign), at least until carriers were so common that their value decreased drastically.

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[FFire31]

23 minutes ago, akd said:

Instead, Rice landed his aircraft in front of the charging Warspite and matched her speed by taxiing until the crane hook could be grabbed — an unpractised but effective manoeuvre.

OMG... the guy did pull such a brilliant manoeuver that no one ever tried before under combat stress. Just even try to imagine how scary it is to taxi a light plane ar sea few yards away from a steel monster steaming as fast as it can

[akd]

58 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

If you have any source citing those we can take a look and see exactly how bad (or nonexistant, depending on the case) the dispersion problem would be at max ranges. IT certainly didn't look like anything serious for Yamato off Samar, that's for sure, and all accounts about the battle of Jutland mention that dispersions achieved by both british and germans were far too narrow, for the detriment of both sides (as with wider patterns more hits would've probably been achieved). Keeping in mind Jutland happened at 20-15km for the most part, that doesn't really seem like promising huge dispersion patterns at 30km or beyond.

But as I said I'm out of my element so I won't go any further than speculation - until we find some hard data to look at and to comment on :).

As I recall, the best possible pattern achievable was 200-300 yards for range.

[RAMJB]

10 minutes ago, FFire31 said:

OMG... the guy did pull such a brilliant manoeuver that no one ever tried before under combat stress. Just even try to imagine how scary it is to taxi a light plane ar sea few yards away from a steel monster steaming as fast as it can

Actually it wasn't that uncommon. I'll quote a passage from a book here... even while I hate to transcribe from books lol :D:
 

Once the aircraft was in the air, there were four recognised methods by which it could land and be recovered aboard the ship. In keeping with the phonetic alphabet of the time, these were known as Able, Baker, Charlie or Dog recoveries.

The first two were used when the ship was at anchor or not underway. In both cases the aircraft would land near the ship, but in the case of an Able recovery the pilot then shut down the engine and one of the ship’s boats would tow it under the stern or alongside, to a position where one of the crew could catch the crane hook and attach it to the aircraft’s hoisting slingpoint.

With a Baker recovery the drill was similar except that the pilot would taxi the aircraft into position under the crane and only shut down the engine when it was safely secured to the crane.

The Charlie and Dog recoveries were made while the ship was underway and utilised a sled streamed alongside or aft of the ship. The Charlie recovery was used when sea conditions were rough and when the ship had some freedom to manoeuvre. The process started with the ship steaming at approximately 45 degrees to the wind. It would then turn 90 degrees through the wind and this turn would create a slick of relatively smooth water in which the aircraft could alight and then taxi up to the sled. This consisted of a canvas-covered wooden spar from which trailed a rope net. As the aircraft ran over the net, a spring-loaded hook in the bottom of the float engaged the rope webbing and the pilot could then shut down the engine as the aircraft was then towed along by the ship and one of the crew could engage the crane hook. The sled was normally streamed from the end of one of the catapults, which was trained outboard for the purpose.

In a Dog recovery the ship streamed its sled but did not alter course and the pilot landed on any suitable area of water before taxiing to catch up with the ship and running onto the sled. In either case, once the aircraft was on the sled and the crane hook was engaged, it could be hoisted out and lowered onto the deck or back onto its catapult trolley. This required great care and skill by the handling crew, who controlled the swing of the aircraft by means of wires streamed from the wing-tips and using long poles with padded ends to prevent accidental contact with parts of the ship. Needless to say, these evolutions demanded constant practice and were often carried out under the eyes of captains impatient to alter course and increase speed in order to carry out other tasks and assignments."

This comes from "Catapult aircraft" from Leo Marriott.

Basically what Rice seems to have done in that particular time looks very similar to a Dog recovery in the US Navy. Sans the sled (the sled wasn't always used in US Navy ships anyway).

At any rate none of the recoveries was for the fainted-hearted, specially not the ones used when the ship was underway. The guys who flew those things had balls of steel.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[Chris Hale]

Hello again.

Still playing through the academy. Loving the game. Very polished for an alpha. Cant wait to see the final game.

Have seen no real "bugs" to speak of. Aside from a bit more freedom in the shipyard (already mentioned ad nauseum);  the biggest thing i find lacking right now is an after action report.

Maybe it was great ship design, maybe great captaincy, or maybe just luck: but my (very nice) BC just ripped through 2BB, 1CA, 2Cl, and 6AP like a hot knife through butter. Something more than just "mission accomplished" would be very welcome at that moment.

Some sort of after action report or mission summary would not only let us revel in our victories, but also learn from our mistakes.

Thanks, chris.

[ElAurens]

Well, as I am quite new to the game, I have been hesitant to weight in on this thread.  I still have a lot to come to grips with after all.  I really enjoy the "engineering" and tactical challenges that the game presents.  I have enjoyed the battles, even the ones I have lost, as they give much to think about, even without an AAR.

My biggest wish for further updates, at least at this point, are on the graphical side of things.  The "look" of the game at this point has taken me aback really.  I understand that with all the AI running in the background that graphics may (probably have to) take a back seat to playability, but I guess I just expected more up to date graphics in a modern title like this, even in an Alpha state.  When I was watching videos of the game before purchase, I chalked up the "look" to the typical YouTube video compression, etc... 

I enjoy the game play immensely, but we should be a bit on from Silent Hunter III graphics, yes?

[Shiki]

One thing I'd like to see is related to one of the first things on here: armour penetration details. Currently, when you mouse over a gun to get its penetration values, I can only assume that the absurdly high numbers quoted are against the stock iron plate armour available. I don't know if it'd be difficult to do or not, but warships are generally rated to resist their own guns: therefore, could it be possible to change the pen chart to "penetration against current armour"? As an example, if you change to Krupp III, the penetration chart will change to reflect that. It would make it a lot easier for when you're building to a specific IZ against your own guns.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Never underestimate the smallest advantage one may get with single biplane.
Such arrogance is a down fall of any army or navy.
To see your opponents maneuvers before they see yours is a advantage of unimaginable for a commander.
Hence to win your opponent you must know yourself and know your enemy
(now were the heck are we on this map again?)

[Tycondero]

12 hours ago, ElAurens said:

Well, as I am quite new to the game, I have been hesitant to weight in on this thread.  I still have a lot to come to grips with after all.  I really enjoy the "engineering" and tactical challenges that the game presents.  I have enjoyed the battles, even the ones I have lost, as they give much to think about, even without an AAR.

My biggest wish for further updates, at least at this point, are on the graphical side of things.  The "look" of the game at this point has taken me aback really.  I understand that with all the AI running in the background that graphics may (probably have to) take a back seat to playability, but I guess I just expected more up to date graphics in a modern title like this, even in an Alpha state.  When I was watching videos of the game before purchase, I chalked up the "look" to the typical YouTube video compression, etc... 

I enjoy the game play immensely, but we should be a bit on from Silent Hunter III graphics, yes?

The game is already very taxing on most machines. Yesterday I tried a battle with over 30 ships and my fps on the second highest graphics setting went to 30 fps on a PC with 32GB ram, 1070 GTX and 3700X Ryzen 7. Compared to some fleet actions we have in RTW 30 ships is still not full fleet size engagements. Imagine Jutland (150 British versus 100 German ships).

Better graphics is always nice, but the game has to stay playable as well.

[Shaftoe]

Feature: unified library of ship designs

We need a single library of ship designs that could be accessed and edited from every game mode. Even if scenario does not allow some components (unless it's hull itself), we should still be able to load ships we have already designed in part (capacity) that is allowed by parameters of current scenario.

[rgreat]

Please add difficulty settings.

[Koogus]

Just an idea for if less realistic hulls, guns and etc get added (like a Tillman battleship hull or guns larger than 18inch).

Maybe before you start a campain or custom battle add an option that makes these parts and hulls available or not available to use when building a ship.

I've seen some posts wanting stuff like this which I would be cool but there are some people who probably would not be a fan of that kind of stuff so why not make an option to remove it for those people?

[Cptbarney]

19 minutes ago, Koogus said:

Just an idea for if less realistic hulls, guns and etc get added (like a Tillman battleship hull or guns larger than 18inch).

Maybe before you start a campain or custom battle add an option that makes these parts and hulls available or not available to use when building a ship.

I've seen some posts wanting stuff like this which I would be cool but there are some people who probably would not be a fan of that kind of stuff so why not make an option to remove it for those people?

Ye, been saying dat. Hopefully the devs will take it into consideration, player choice is important and will get good press for the guys at gamelabs as well.

Also i can finally play this again now that my semester 1 stuff is out of the way (just got assigned semester 2 but that can wait a bit).

[Thistle_Tea]

The custom battle mode feels very restrictive. Give me the ability to design every ship in my fleet, have multiple classes of ships, design the ships in the enemy fleet as well and I'll be a happy camper until the end of time.

 

I think the really annoying thing right now is that when it says "custom battle" a lot of people think "noice, time to play out every historical engagement and alternate history scenario ever" but as it stands it's more of a "random battle" mode where you get to have a say about some of the ships in the engagement. 

[Latur Husky]

It has been a while since we heard about any game update. Any news? We really need one pinned topic only for Dev's to post news so we won't miss them lol xD there is too much of people discussing if airplanes should make it's way into the game lol....

 

[Yuubari_]

Happy new year to the Dev team and everyone else ^^

What I would like to see would be a "true" AoN armor scheme, so there is really no need for having any extended armor.

What also comes to mind is some weirdness with the turret sizes, i.e. a triple 16" and a single 16" having the same sized turret ring

And lastly what would be nice having some morphing or something similar so you wouldn't have empty casemates on the and/or have some more freedom about the hull design based on that, deciding which kind of hull shape + bow shape so you could have more historical ships or just go for something you prefer etc

Edited January 26, 2020 by Yuubari_

[Cptbarney]

yeah, i wouldn't mind seeing a peak of the next alpha like they did with alpha 4.

i wonder if different dockyards should be a thing in the future and maybe see your ship design progressively being built as time goes on?

would be a cool little feature too be honest.

[Tycondero]

14 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

yeah, i wouldn't mind seeing a peak of the next alpha like they did with alpha 4.

i wonder if different dockyards should be a thing in the future and maybe see your ship design progressively being built as time goes on?

would be a cool little feature too be honest.

Seeing them build would be incredible, however I fear this would tax the developers too much. 

[Cptbarney]

19 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

Seeing them build would be incredible, however I fear this would tax the developers too much. 

True, it could be a side project or something, a task they can complete over a few years or so piece by piece. That way they don't have to rush and stress getting it done while also focusing on far more important things, maybe an idea for it to be released with one of the DLC's if this game is successful enough?