Page 10 of 12

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:55 am
by ArmouredLion
I never noticed raw being reduced before. I run steam, could that be an issue? Ohh well, I pass this to the guys with the higher pay grade.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:29 am
by ironduke1955
Looking at fuel types some ships are listed as oil some listed as None not sure what None would translate to as fuel but they do have consumption rates. I did not see RAW listed as a fuel type for the French anyway. Perhaps those ships listed as none will default to RAW as a fuel.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:34 am
by Bombur
Could you tell me what is the composition of your fleet? Some older ships use coal (raw) instead of oil, it´s possible I made a mistake. The Revenge (Ramillies) class Battleship is one of them. If you created lots of these ships...well.....

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:39 am
by Bombur
Also tell me what ships use none as fuel. This is a mistake.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:44 am
by Bombur
This raw comsumption seems to be related to ship production. How many ships did you produce this turn?

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:50 am
by ArmouredLion
A bunch, so you are saying this is a normal read out that just registers after I bombard? I'll get you the ships, but they are all Queen Elizabeth... I believe.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:02 am
by Bombur
ORIGINAL: ArmouredLion

A bunch, so you are saying this is a normal read out that just registers after I bombard? I'll get you the ships, but they are all Queen Elizabeth... I believe.


No, my mistake, there is also the loss of raw after bombardment.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:22 am
by Bombur
The Queen Elizabeth used oil as fuel, it seems I made a mistake here.....must wait until I´m back to home.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:26 am
by ArmouredLion
Ahhh... so the 5K raw loss in a ship bombardment?! That seems extreme, no? And what's the rationale? The shells? But okay, I'll take that into consideration in the future.... Thanks and sorry, I didn't know that... ship game is my prime weakness.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:35 am
by ArmouredLion
I'll do the round with that in mind thanks...

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:52 am
by Bombur
ORIGINAL: ArmouredLion

Ahhh... so the 5K raw loss in a ship bombardment?! That seems extreme, no? And what's the rationale? The shells? But okay, I'll take that into consideration in the future.... Thanks and sorry, I didn't know that... ship game is my prime weakness.



The trouble is that the fuel comsumption is related to AP spending, there is no way to make a ship to spend less fuel when it is doing bombardment because it spends AP anyway. Actually, I designed the scenario to make ships in combat spend MORE fuel/AP (iwas thinking about combat as a whole, and bombardment is a kind of combat). Of course, I could review it so fuel spending in combat is the same. Keep in mind, however, that 15 Battleships (not sure if you have this number) is a HUGE force anyway and it will a big drain to your supplies, both in the game and IRL. had I didn´t do this mistake you would lose about 5k of oil in each bombardment operation.

This said, I´m pretty sure I made a mistake with Queen Elisabeths.I could fix it, but my priority has been to upgrade GD1938v3. Bombur mod needs an overhaul. The resource logistics, in particular is a topic that isn´t well balanced.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:51 pm
by ArmouredLion
"but my priority has been to upgrade GD1938v3' YES IT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) No worries. Now I know... I do like extra fuel and AP being used in combat. And in sea bombardment you'd likely use less fuel, and I think the raw makes sense maybe just less if there isn't a flaw in the Queen BB. Sorry for making Tom redo the round due to my ignorance. Thanks again guys for the time and feedback.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:32 pm
by ironduke1955
French ships with fuel set to None

BC Dunkerque
MTB
Raider

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:15 pm
by Twotribes
MTB LOL how in hell does a little tub use coal?

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:33 pm
by ironduke1955
I think none means they run on fresh air RAW is coal.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:01 pm
by ArmouredLion
CL Danae, Queen E, Bayern, Konigsberg fuel listed as none... that means they ride for free?! :)

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:20 pm
by Twotribes
Already tested it none means raw.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:54 pm
by ArmouredLion
Thanks two tribes. Is that raw to move!!!! ACk, that would effectively end the Empire.

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:22 pm
by Bombur
Not to none.....0 means raw

RE: A modest proposal

Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:29 pm
by Bombur
Sorry for my mistakes, I reviewed all the fuel types for my mod. The trouble is that it was built over an old file. The 1st version of Bombur mod set many ships to coal because it started before WW1 when I made the changes I forgot to make the fuel adjustments. It doesn´t make sense in the 30´s, as almost every warship was converted to use oil (or mixed fuel). Some aircraft also use coal.....my daughter found funny that I created coal aircraft...well....
I will send a fix in a few minutes, now everyting, except trains, use oil for movement.
I cannot make naval bombardment to spend less fuel, it is considered combat. What I could do is to set fuel spending to be the same for combat and movement (but ships spend a lot of fuel in combat because they fight at higher speeds).