Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

When reading on the topic of coal powered ships I often read that coal quality was a big factor that determined the speed obtained for coal powered engines and the amount of service time the engines required. Furthermore ships powered by mediocre coal would wear down their engines much faster requiring quicker engine replacement. This was also one of the big advantages of oil powered engines, as fuels are less quality sensitive (appearantly). 

Will coal quality be an aspect in the game either by random events or so or actual sources of access on the campaign map? If uncertain, do you guys feel it should be a part of this game?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should, could be determined by both source locations (so certain territories holding more coal and better quality coal than others), also maybe better coal refining technology as well. Would add an interesting aspect to the game as whole. Also means you would need to effectively plan which places to invade are more important than others and which territories become more or less of a priority depending on how close to the capital they are, resource production, potential ship production and attack value (both allowing you to attack other territories and how highly said territory could be attacked).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

While it sounds fun I think the game uses a more abstract approach so I think it is rather unlikely for this to be a thing other than flat bonus thingies through tech research maybe 

I tend to agree with you here. It is always difficult to say which aspects of a game should be left abstracted and which aspects are prominent.

The devs could introduce a flat bonus to certain owned regions. The region of Great Britain for instance could provide the owner with a reduction in maintenance cost to coal powered ships or perhaps a speed bonus when owning a region that has "high quality" coal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue similar to this topic is engine wear. Should engines in older ship provide less than designed speed? This is something that usually happened due to using low quality coal, but in reality all ship engines (especially those that are not diesels) have a rather limited life span.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal probably would have a very short lifespan campaign-wise, it wouldn’t be warranted since oil is the next tech, diesel after.

HMS Dreadnought used fuel-oil and she was laydown in 1905, so not too many years for coal options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Coal probably would have a very short lifespan campaign-wise, it wouldn’t be warranted since oil is the next tech, diesel after.

HMS Dreadnought used fuel-oil and she was laydown in 1905, so not too many years for coal options.

There are nations though that didn't have easy access to oil. Furthermore using coal has benefits too, such as absorbing impact from shells if they hit the coal bunkers. Furthermore, there were plenty of older ships around still by 1915 that used coal and the campaign itself will start in 1890. I wouldn't say it is not warranted to implement it, especially not if it would be a mere modifier and not a complete overhaul of the game mechanics. Can be nice flavour and offer additional options for some nations in their ship designs.

Edited by Tycondero
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

There are nations though that didn't have easy access to oil. Furthermore using coal has benefits too, such as absorbing impact from shells if they hit the coal bunkers. Furthermore, there were plenty of older ships around still by 1915 that used coal and the campaign itself will start in 1890. I wouldn't say it is not warranted to implement it, especially not if it would be a mere modifiers and not a complete overhaul of the game mechanics. Can be nice flavour and offer additional options for some nations in their ship designs.

But to play the game and be better than the AI, I would enable fuel-oil tech as soon as possible! wouldn't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

But to play the game and be better than the AI, I would enable fuel-oil tech as soon as possible! wouldn't you?

Depends a lot on the circumstances, as the UK, USA and maybe Russia yes, but I could imagine that for example that Austria-Hungary, Germany, Japan, China, Spain and Italy wouldn't want to switch so quickly. Also oil based propulsion comes at a (higher) financial cost.

I often go in some cases for coal still in the ship designer, sometimes for role playing reasons, but also because it is cheaper and offers more protection to flash fires etc. Again, the biggest deciding factor could be reliable access to the oil resource. In Europe coal is a lot more plentiful than oil and in 1905 there were few regions in the world with developed oil resource collection. Mostly the USA had good access to oil. 

EDIT: here is a visual resource for worldwide oil production on an annual base. I know it is a YouTube video, but from a first glance it seems to be very accurate in the relative access to oil. By far most early oil production was USA, Russia, India (British Empire) and Indonesia (Dutch East Indies).

 

Edited by Tycondero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! I only sell good coal you know!

Jokes aside, I believe in RTW various regions produced oil depending on the geographic locations, perhaps this can open up more options for oil vs coal designs when it comes to supply chain maybe even the inclusion of oil storage and stockpiles for war.

And older ships should definitely see increased breakdowns(especially in combat conditions and pushing maximum speed) and reduced top speeds(even ships that were out at sea for a long time with no maintenance due to hull fouling). this would increase the importance for overseas naval bases/friendly ports for vessels to undergo some maintenance. However without knowing how the campaign is built, it could be hard trying to guess around the limitations that the devs may have already implemented.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

I often go in some cases for coal still in the ship designer, sometimes for role playing reasons, but also because it is cheaper and offers more protection to flash fires etc. Again, the biggest deciding factor could be reliable access to the oil resource. In Europe coal is a lot more plentiful than oil and in 1905 there were few regions in the world with developed oil resource collection. Mostly the USA had good access to oil. 

It's my suspicion that the way Dev's are setting up the AI is that it will always be ahead of you tech-wise (that's going to suck big time!), however hypothetically if you're not going to advance tech as soon as possible, like bear the costs and keep up with the AI, you will fall so far behind you will struggle to win any combat. 

It doesn't matter where the resources are because historical role playing won't win the game, game the game will.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

It's my suspicion that the way Dev's are setting up the AI is that it will always be ahead of you tech-wise (that's going to suck big time!), however hypothetically if you're not going to advance tech as soon as possible, like bear the costs and keep up with the AI, you will fall so far behind you will struggle to win any combat. 

It doesn't matter where the resources are because historical role playing won't win the game, game the game will.

I would agree with you on regarding armour, hull, torpedo, fire-control and gun technology. If you fall too far behind that will end up in a disaster. However, besides attaining higher speed a bit easier (less tunnel capacity required with pure oil tech) and having a bit more weight to play around with I feel that keep using coal until 1920-25 or so will be viable, especially for the capital ships. Destroyers and light cruisers perhaps not so much as these ships rely on pure speed and need to squeeze out every little bit of tonnage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skeksis said:

and all we need now is the campaign!

But you do feel that going for coal will not limit the battle capacity for ships as much as let say armour and gun tech right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tycondero said:

But you do feel that going for coal will not limit the battle capacity for ships as much as let say armour and gun tech right?

No, currently every time I design ships I use fuel-oil, never coal.

You said it with destroyers and cruisers already, they need this tech as soon as possible for every advantage and if you enable fuel-oil for them why wouldn’t you use that tech on battleships.

I can’t see myself not advancing fuel tech.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be national tech limitations/bonuses regarding coal. For instance Germany has to rely on coal fired ships for longer, with a reduction in range/speed (or 'strategic speed at least). How much boiler maintenance can be implemented that affects the ship(s) in question would be nice, periodic reduced speed to allow for boiler cleaning, with an option to postpone it in favour for more speed but longer subsequent maintenance periods.

Britain would get access to oil relatively early but also has good coal allowing for less maintenance issues and periodic speed reductions.

Catching a fleet in the middle of boiler cleaning (or being caught) is an interesting mechanic

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While doing so certainly would be accurate technically, I suspect it's one of those factors where you have to weigh up what value is provided by such a mechanic vs the task of implementing it.

Perhaps a "historical resource access" might fall within a toggle of "vaguely historical" vs "entirely sandbox". Unless playing a more "historical" mode, being lumped with a penalty you can't really do much about might be a bit annoying, too.

As much a factor as the quality of the coal is the problem of the crew being exhausted trying to sustain maximum power for any length of time, an advantage oil most definitely had over coal (plus ease of fuelling, less visible stack gasses etc).

On the list of things I'd consider important, I'd in fact put those other advantages of oil v coal ahead of the quality of coal itself. The stack gasses issue has been addressed through the relative adjustments to "smoke interference" now that I think of it. Also reminds me the UI in the ship builder doesn't show you the true value of smoke for a funnel until you put it on the ship, something that I think ideally would be addressed at some point.

Having said all that, obviously we need to see what we get in the Campaign when it comes to tech, resources and whatever else they include.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...