Candle_86 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Speglord said: Wanna thank and congratulate the devs on a great patch so far. Enjoyable and the new content is a breath of fresh air -- I'm even more excited for the new hulls, which will hopefully add more early-game variety for other countries (particularly Italy and Austria-Hungary). I've already reported a handful of battle bugs in game but wanted to put this here. Love the ability to refit ships, which makes the campaign feel more dynamic and gives the player more options on a strategic level. I appreciate that displacement is locked during a refit, but shouldn't other things be locked as well, like hull bottoms (double/triple hulls), the type/quality of the ship's armor (i.e. Compound, Iron, Krupp, etc.), and the citadel/armor layout? I know many battleships were refit in the 30s/40s with added torpedo protection, but as far as I know it's sort of impossible to refit a ship and add/subtract hull bottoms, and it's definitely impossible to straight up change out the armor on ships (... at least, as far as I know. It at least makes more sense to just build a new ship rather than completely strip off the armor from a hull and apply new armor). Anyone else is free to provide input on this one, because personally I'm not quite sure. No you can change the armor belt or improve it, the Japanese did it to upgrade their old battlecrusiers to fast battleships, they got uparmored big time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candle_86 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Anyone else getting odd camera movement, my camera is what I'd call glitchy suddenly with the patch, it doesn't stay locked on a ship but floats then jolts back to said ship its really quite jarring 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AurumCorvus Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Speglord said: Wanna thank and congratulate the devs on a great patch so far. Enjoyable and the new content is a breath of fresh air -- I'm even more excited for the new hulls, which will hopefully add more early-game variety for other countries (particularly Italy and Austria-Hungary). I've already reported a handful of battle bugs in game but wanted to put this here. Love the ability to refit ships, which makes the campaign feel more dynamic and gives the player more options on a strategic level. I appreciate that displacement is locked during a refit, but shouldn't other things be locked as well, like hull bottoms (double/triple hulls), the type/quality of the ship's armor (i.e. Compound, Iron, Krupp, etc.), and the citadel/armor layout? I know many battleships were refit in the 30s/40s with added torpedo protection, but as far as I know it's sort of impossible to refit a ship and add/subtract hull bottoms, and it's definitely impossible to straight up change out the armor on ships (... at least, as far as I know. It at least makes more sense to just build a new ship rather than completely strip off the armor from a hull and apply new armor). Anyone else is free to provide input on this one, because personally I'm not quite sure. For one of the most extreme cases ever, there is the IJN's Hiei (wikipedia link). To comply with the interwar naval treaties, she gave up her entire belt armor, a good portion of her armament, and some of her boilers. She was demilitarized and turned into the training ship. After Japan exited the naval treaties, they miraculously found Hiei's belt lying around in pristine condition, put it back in, and strengthened it to a uniform thickness. They also reinstalled turrets, made the ship longer by adding to the stern, changed the powerplant, added floatplanes, and did extensive work to the tower and secondary armament. However, there's nothing that would've stopped the Japanese from fitting a completely new belt to the Hiei apart from the cost and industrial work to manufacture such a thing. For less extreme versions, the British did a lot of refits to strengthen deck armor after Jutland. I know the Renown class had a lot of completely new deck armor added. Combining with the above, there's really no reason that ships are truly completely bound to the armor scheme that they came out. It's (like you mentioned) a cost and effort vs effectiveness argument. You'd have to rebalance the ship and make sure the belt is thick enough if you change from turtleback to AoN, but there's nothing really that stops you. Superstructure can be removed to get access to the deck armor (after all, towers are often changed around; just see the Queen Elizabeth's gaining the Queen Anne's mansion superstructure). There is one practical limit to adding armor, though: the face-hardening process. You can add as much backing as you want; that's the relatively soft metal and doesn't require much. However, you can't make "more" face-hardened armor. That's one of the reasons refitted armor is slightly less effective than true designed-for armor. It lacks the same ratio of face-hardened to soft armor that would otherwise be present (because it only has the 'face-hardened' amount that it originally had). The one part I am concerned about is the double/triple hulls, though. I'm not aware of any refits off the top of my head that would give historical justification. But it kinda makes sense if you consider that you're carving out space on the inside to add a hull? Maybe? It's not like a torpedo bulge where you get more displacement; your displacement is fixed, you're just changing the internals, and mostly with structural steel, I would think. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 God bless you devs. Stay safe & hello kitty the fascist invaders 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speglord Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 26 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said: For one of the most extreme cases ever, there is the IJN's Hiei (wikipedia link). To comply with the interwar naval treaties, she gave up her entire belt armor, a good portion of her armament, and some of her boilers. She was demilitarized and turned into the training ship. After Japan exited the naval treaties, they miraculously found Hiei's belt lying around in pristine condition, put it back in, and strengthened it to a uniform thickness. They also reinstalled turrets, made the ship longer by adding to the stern, changed the powerplant, added floatplanes, and did extensive work to the tower and secondary armament. However, there's nothing that would've stopped the Japanese from fitting a completely new belt to the Hiei apart from the cost and industrial work to manufacture such a thing. For less extreme versions, the British did a lot of refits to strengthen deck armor after Jutland. I know the Renown class had a lot of completely new deck armor added. Combining with the above, there's really no reason that ships are truly completely bound to the armor scheme that they came out. It's (like you mentioned) a cost and effort vs effectiveness argument. You'd have to rebalance the ship and make sure the belt is thick enough if you change from turtleback to AoN, but there's nothing really that stops you. Superstructure can be removed to get access to the deck armor (after all, towers are often changed around; just see the Queen Elizabeth's gaining the Queen Anne's mansion superstructure). There is one practical limit to adding armor, though: the face-hardening process. You can add as much backing as you want; that's the relatively soft metal and doesn't require much. However, you can't make "more" face-hardened armor. That's one of the reasons refitted armor is slightly less effective than true designed-for armor. It lacks the same ratio of face-hardened to soft armor that would otherwise be present (because it only has the 'face-hardened' amount that it originally had). The one part I am concerned about is the double/triple hulls, though. I'm not aware of any refits off the top of my head that would give historical justification. But it kinda makes sense if you consider that you're carving out space on the inside to add a hull? Maybe? It's not like a torpedo bulge where you get more displacement; your displacement is fixed, you're just changing the internals, and mostly with structural steel, I would think. Pretty crazy, didn't actually know that Washington stipulated Hiei be disarmed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candle_86 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 52 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said: For one of the most extreme cases ever, there is the IJN's Hiei (wikipedia link). To comply with the interwar naval treaties, she gave up her entire belt armor, a good portion of her armament, and some of her boilers. She was demilitarized and turned into the training ship. After Japan exited the naval treaties, they miraculously found Hiei's belt lying around in pristine condition, put it back in, and strengthened it to a uniform thickness. They also reinstalled turrets, made the ship longer by adding to the stern, changed the powerplant, added floatplanes, and did extensive work to the tower and secondary armament. However, there's nothing that would've stopped the Japanese from fitting a completely new belt to the Hiei apart from the cost and industrial work to manufacture such a thing. For less extreme versions, the British did a lot of refits to strengthen deck armor after Jutland. I know the Renown class had a lot of completely new deck armor added. Combining with the above, there's really no reason that ships are truly completely bound to the armor scheme that they came out. It's (like you mentioned) a cost and effort vs effectiveness argument. You'd have to rebalance the ship and make sure the belt is thick enough if you change from turtleback to AoN, but there's nothing really that stops you. Superstructure can be removed to get access to the deck armor (after all, towers are often changed around; just see the Queen Elizabeth's gaining the Queen Anne's mansion superstructure). There is one practical limit to adding armor, though: the face-hardening process. You can add as much backing as you want; that's the relatively soft metal and doesn't require much. However, you can't make "more" face-hardened armor. That's one of the reasons refitted armor is slightly less effective than true designed-for armor. It lacks the same ratio of face-hardened to soft armor that would otherwise be present (because it only has the 'face-hardened' amount that it originally had). The one part I am concerned about is the double/triple hulls, though. I'm not aware of any refits off the top of my head that would give historical justification. But it kinda makes sense if you consider that you're carving out space on the inside to add a hull? Maybe? It's not like a torpedo bulge where you get more displacement; your displacement is fixed, you're just changing the internals, and mostly with structural steel, I would think. Don't forget the refit done to Florida, Wyoming and New York class Battleships where they literally ripped the top off the ship removed super structure, funnels, armored deck, other decks and removed the coal fired boilers then put in new oil fired boilers, rebuilt the decks, and added an entirely new super structure ontop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Don't forget the classic: County-class cruisers just perfectly happened to have the displacement for a bunch more amour to be slotted in once the treaty system failed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 A lot of superstructures can't quite fit on resized beams. Any chance we could get a workaround? Some ability to resize them, or just less-stringent placement/border restrictions? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 (edited) "Move" button seems to be bugged--frequently you can't move ships--seems like if they've moved before/recently it's disabled? Is this a feature? Seems like it's got to do with range of the lowest-range ship? Very unintuitive--still not really sure what's going on here. Edited February 25, 2022 by neph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangoriously Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 I need to hit the sack, or I'd investigate further, but i just want to say before i do that I just did a refit on 28 BB fleet in my A-H 1890 campaign and what i got was all those ships de-contented to their most basic default equipment, instead of all the new toys my refit should have added. and the chase cam unlocking itself from your ship when ever you mouse over anything that provides information is mad annoying. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Delaying "Meeting" engagements seems to spawn a second duplicate engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Range/navigation elements seem to be obscured by the sea state, occasionally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 (edited) hahaha get hello kittyed Edited February 25, 2022 by neph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neph Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Unsure: but seems like the "will you lose transports in this sea" calculation don't take into account whether or not a ship is mothballed? The Austrohungarians have supposedly 85 cruisers operating in the eastern med, but only 24 of those are reported to be active. They aren't losing transports, but I am. https://imgur.com/undefined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenzul Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 2 hours ago, neph said: Range/navigation elements seem to be obscured by the sea state, occasionally That isn't new to this patch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drenzul Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 5 hours ago, Candle_86 said: Anyone else getting odd camera movement, my camera is what I'd call glitchy suddenly with the patch, it doesn't stay locked on a ship but floats then jolts back to said ship its really quite jarring Yep, in battles just can't move the camera at all sometimes for quite a few seconds. Manually moving it works better, but double clicking a ship to zoom to it can take 20 seconds +. Also now stuck mid-turn on 'building ships' was stuck there for 10 mins before I gave up and quit Am in 1942 and only had 2 battles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodE Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Started 1890 campaign with AH. Won 3 battles, but VPs were awarded to the opponents instead of me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel5471 Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Is anyone else not able to get battles on the campaign map in later years? I'm in a UK 1940 campaign where I've built only battleships and heavy cruisers, and it's mid 1942 and I've had no missions pop up. I've even had a task force right on top of a German one for like a year and they've done nothing and I've switched them to every role available, and another task force sitting outside German ports who haven't seen action either. Does it have something to do with the fact that the AI simply doesn't want to fight my BBs, or are the AI just extremely timid? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danz_Von_Luck Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 One thing I would say about the refitting ships option is when you press the wrench to start your refits it automatically does the guns, this can break designs and prevent you from actually refitting them as the newer guns sometimes dont fit (not to mention I made a pretty nice leander class but then the guns changed and it didnt look as good lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handam Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 smoke is not working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
German CL mk II guns Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 (edited) camera movement is buggy apart from that I had to quit first 1900 campaign because I couldnt get past a turn cause stuck on "updating(?) relations" and now I cant start another 1900 campaign cause campaign never launches (early version of previous beta problem), stuck on loading. I can start 1985 though. uninstalling reinstalling beta doesnt work Edited February 25, 2022 by Terminus Est detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAKTCOM Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said: MAJOR NEW FEATURES Customization of Beam / Draught: Thanks, this is a big step in ship design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Khyron Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 Hm. Overall, a great improvement, a pity, that no new german hulls are available, but, hey, I like it. One thing : I just won an early campaign against great britain, peace was negotiated...and the overall campaign ended. Italy and france were pretty much a threat, but the campaign is over. Is this intended or not finished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard_BR Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 (edited) All, My feedback so far (Playing as Germany 1920 campaign) - liked the new features, some are not working such as the refit - very few battles poped up in the initial 2 years. - the battles are very easy to win, not sure if RTW 2 set the bar to high for me 😀 - the aiming is very very bad even with veterans - AI is in a crazy building spree Cheers Edited February 25, 2022 by DieHard_BR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbert Sattler Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 I started a 1890 campaign as Austria Hungary with self-design templates. When designing my torpedo boat (250 t max displacement) I encountered an odd jump in weight in the engines. Up to 29 the game adds 2 tonns per knot. At 29 kn the boat displaces 233 t. At 29.9 kn the boat displaces 235 t. At 30 kn the displacement suddenly jumps to 288 t. I would prefer a more gradual increase in tons per knot, rather than having this arbitrary single point where you go up more than 20% of the boats entire weight for 0.1 knots of speed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts