Seawolf? Akula?

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by DetCord

The engine components are closed. They can't be accessed. Well, I guess they could if you decompiled them in Unity. But no, KFG will not allow this. So that means no new models or textures.

I have to say this is kind of a shame. I mean the games that allow in-depth modding always fare better with regards to sales than those that don't, probably more so for a very niche title like this. Hey, maybe they'll change their tune down the road?

Damn, I was hoping to edit a texture here and there. They should allow that much, at least, shouldn't they? It doesn't really threaten potential DLC plans.

[Carthaginian]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Damn, I was hoping to edit a texture here and there. They should allow that much, at least, shouldn't they? It doesn't really threaten potential DLC plans.

Well, considering that the 1996 campaign in RSR would be the 'best' campaign for the Sovs, and considering that the things that made it unique (Seawolf for the US, technological parity via the Akula for the Sovs) is precisely what you suggest adding... yes, I'd say it could trim their margins a bit.
I personally am just happy we can stat mod existing boats till then. It gives us a reason to buy, but lets us scratch the itch till then.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Carthaginian

Well, considering that the 1996 campaign in RSR would be the 'best' campaign for the Sovs, and considering that the things that made it unique (Seawolf for the US, technological parity via the Akula for the Sovs) is precisely what you suggest adding... yes, I'd say it could trim their margins a bit.
I personally am just happy we can stat mod existing boats till then. It gives us a reason to buy, but lets us scratch the itch till then.

But I was talking about textures, "skins". Most new subs, like the Seawolf or the Akula, British boats or European diesels, would require a new 3D model as well. I'm fine with those being locked away.

[ikalugin]

For 1996 campaighn do we assume that Soviets kept the rates of production?

Then if we go by submarines that were layed down in the relevant time period and use historical (for those that were completed) and estimated (for those that were not, based on Soviet construction times) basis then we can expect in terms of non strategic nuclear subs:
- ~21 Akula series (7 Akula, 5 Improved Akula, 1 Akula-II, 8 Akula-III)
- 6 Sierra series (2 Sierra-I, 2 Sierra-II, 2 Sierra-III)
- ~16 Oscar series (2 Oscar-Is, 14 Oscar-II, 0-3 Oscar-III)
And possibly:
- first Yasen
- additional Victor-IVs
p.s. Akula class break down differs source to source.
p.p.s. historically in terms of 2nd gen subs 6 Charlies-IIs, 7 Victor-IIs, 22 Victor-IIIs, 5 Victor-IVs could be viewed as usable subs.

[Carthaginian]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

For 1996 campaighn do we assume that Soviets kept the rates of production?

Then if we go by submarines that were layed down in the relevant time period and use historical (for those that were completed) and estimated (for those that were not, based on Soviet construction times) basis then we can expect in terms of non strategic nuclear subs:
- ~21 Akula series (7 Akula, 5 Improved Akula, 1 Akula-II, 8 Akula-III)
- 6 Sierra series (2 Sierra-I, 2 Sierra-II, 2 Sierra-III)
- ~16 Oscar series (2 Oscar-Is, 14 Oscar-II, 0-3 Oscar-III)
And possibly:
- first Yasen
- additional Victor-IVs
p.s. Akula class break down differs source to source.
p.p.s. historically in terms of 2nd gen subs 6 Charlies-IIs, 7 Victor-IIs, 22 Victor-IIIs, 5 Victor-IVs could be viewed as usable subs.

God, I hope so.
It'll also mean 10 Slavas, another Kirov, the Oryel-class CVN, and probably several more Udaloy IIs.

[cookiemonste]

Is the Victor IV made up? I never read anything about a IV.

[Doctor Haider]

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Is the Victor IV made up? I never read anything about a IV.

I presume that the "Victor-IV" are the last Victor-III subs originally designated as project 671RTMK and updated to use the SS-N-21 Sampson cruise missiles from their torpedo tubes. But I never seen the "Victor-IV" designation for them in the related literature.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Is the Victor IV made up? I never read anything about a IV.

These boats are very heavily modified victor III 4 are still currently active they are the equivalent to the early project 971 boats and thus still in use

[Doctor Haider]

Originally Posted by Carthaginian

God, I hope so.
It'll also mean 10 Slavas, another Kirov, the Oryel-class CVN, and probably several more Udaloy IIs.

Only 2 additional improved Slavas after the 4th original Slava (not completed and ceded to Ukraine) were planned at all.

Two hybrid nuclear-gas turbine project 11990 "Anchar" large destroyer/cruisers were planned as the escort for the first Ulyanovsk class CVN.
http://alternathistory.com/files/use...r349/%2001.jpg

Oryel is actually the abandoned mid 70-s 1160 project. The real soviet CVN was the project 11437 Ulyanovsk. One was planned to be bult up to the end of 1995 and one more (slightly improved) afterwards with 8 carriers (4 Kievs, 2 Tbilisi and 2 Ulyanovsk) in commision up to the 2000, not counting the Moskva class CVH.

Originally was planned to buld more Udaloys-II, atl least six. And about the same number of improved Sovremenny (actually built for China in reality). It was projected to built the gas-turbine VLS-armed multipurpose destroyer of the 11560 project afterwards to gradually replace the destroyers older than Sovremenny/Udaloy, but more likely after 1996 still.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9256/..._3f95e003_orig

Also the fifth Kirov-class CGN was taken into consideration in late 80-s but was abandoned in favor of nuclear carriers.

[Doctor Haider]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

For 1996 campaighn do we assume that Soviets kept the rates of production?

Then if we go by submarines that were layed down in the relevant time period and use historical (for those that were completed) and estimated (for those that were not, based on Soviet construction times) basis then we can expect in terms of non strategic nuclear subs:
- ~21 Akula series (7 Akula, 5 Improved Akula, 1 Akula-II, 8 Akula-III)
- 6 Sierra series (2 Sierra-I, 2 Sierra-II, 2 Sierra-III)
- ~16 Oscar series (2 Oscar-Is, 14 Oscar-II, 0-3 Oscar-III)
And possibly:
- first Yasen
- additional Victor-IVs
p.s. Akula class break down differs source to source.
p.p.s. historically in terms of 2nd gen subs 6 Charlies-IIs, 7 Victor-IIs, 22 Victor-IIIs, 5 Victor-IVs could be viewed as usable subs.

20 Akulas were really laid in(not all completed), 1 more prepared to be laid in, around 24 planned to build.

Good match for the Sierras: only one builder and titanium hull construction, cannot be built in great numbers.

Actually 16 Oscars were laid in (not all completed), and 3 more prepared to be laid in. Original plans were to built 24 units.

1 Yasen up to the 1996 is ok too.

As for the Victors, there were not any plans to build them after the last hull entered service in 1992. And it had sense since the initial design had its roots in late 60's and more modern and capable designs were on the march already.

But I've add some Yankee and Delta SSGN conversions in the range of dozen subs equipped the SS-N-21 Sampson Tomahawk equivalent in VLS.