|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 18, 2019 13:03:33 GMT -6
Ah, thank you! If it's any help, I have zero ethical problem with the cloning-plan. I still feel like stressing that I was expressing a wish rather than any sort of demand. Interesting night battles are of my two Big Daydreams regarding RtW's future.
What is the other?
Fleshing out fleet management a bit, both with operational planning and logistics. From "simply" forming divisions, battle groups, task forces to even assigning those to different objectives, storing and producing equipment, using auxiliary ships, dealing with patrol patterns, that kind of thing. To put it in a bit of an oversimplified way, we are dealing with politics and fleet building and we are dealing with battles, but what's between those are sometimes a bit too abstracted. I'd gladly go undergunned into the fray, if the reason for it is less "random said so" and more "you did not pick your capital ship because you want to have oil two months later too, remember?", or run into a flock of battlecruisers less because "rng felt like it" and more because "you opted for more ships instead of producing and assigning recon. flying boats, so here we go, have fun". For me, this would be interesting in it's own right well enough, but it would also put more emphasis on purpose-built vessels. For example, I like it that in RtW2 heavily multipurpose ships will get penalized, the problem is, if the player designs let's say, an AA-, and a gunship destroyer, good luck "rolling" both kind for a sortie. In my "dream scenario", you could say for example that "as for now, no capital ships can sortie without at least a single AA-, and two standard destroyers screening her", and if the stars don't align, you could just cancel the operation. I mean, hell, the A-H Navy sit through the entire war in this mindset, but even in RtW the player can dismiss a battle, it's just he doesn't know what does he dismiss (and I do not mean getting information about the enemy, but about the friendly forces, that should be fair game).
All in all, in my "dream world" the player could pick ships, form a force, work on getting the force ready and respond to tasks as such to an extent. Not even always, I like the "Oh snap!" moments (two patrolling destroyers suddenly become a bumper sticker on an enemy BC's hull in the dark - kind of things), but more control over our own fleet would feel nice. Again, for example, I am somewhat afraid that once again "jack of all trades" ships will be the preferred options due to the entirely random nature of battles.
|
|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 19, 2019 8:32:31 GMT -6
Fleshing out fleet management a bit, both with operational planning and logistics. From "simply" forming divisions, battle groups, task forces to even assigning those to different objectives, storing and producing equipment, using auxiliary ships, dealing with patrol patterns, that kind of thing. To put it in a bit of an oversimplified way, we are dealing with politics and fleet building and we are dealing with battles, but what's between those are sometimes a bit too abstracted. I'd gladly go undergunned into the fray, if the reason for it is less "random said so" and more "you did not pick your capital ship because you want to have oil two months later too, remember?", or run into a flock of battlecruisers less because "rng felt like it" and more because "you opted for more ships instead of producing and assigning recon. flying boats, so here we go, have fun". For me, this would be interesting in it's own right well enough, but it would also put more emphasis on purpose-built vessels. For example, I like it that in RtW2 heavily multipurpose ships will get penalized, the problem is, if the player designs let's say, an AA-, and a gunship destroyer, good luck "rolling" both kind for a sortie. In my "dream scenario", you could say for example that "as for now, no capital ships can sortie without at least a single AA-, and two standard destroyers screening her", and if the stars don't align, you could just cancel the operation. I mean, hell, the A-H Navy sit through the entire war in this mindset, but even in RtW the player can dismiss a battle, it's just he doesn't know what does he dismiss (and I do not mean getting information about the enemy, but about the friendly forces, that should be fair game).
All in all, in my "dream world" the player could pick ships, form a force, work on getting the force ready and respond to tasks as such to an extent. Not even always, I like the "Oh snap!" moments (two patrolling destroyers suddenly become a bumper sticker on an enemy BC's hull in the dark - kind of things), but more control over our own fleet would feel nice. Again, for example, I am somewhat afraid that once again "jack of all trades" ships will be the preferred options due to the entirely random nature of battles.
I think these suggestions are very interesting and worthy of discussion - of course, greater knowledge and control of one's own fleet has always been one of those things for which the players have lobbied most intensely. I'm not sure whether I could support the idea of "storing and producing equipment, using auxiliary ships, dealing with patrol patterns" - I feel that might be a little too mundane for me. However, I definitely like the idea of giving the player information about which friendly ships will be involved in a battle when he is given the option to either accept or decline it - he's still always taking a risk so long as he doesn't know the enemy forces, and he's still 'losing out' if he declines to take a battle he feels will be unfavourable, so I don't think that this would negatively effect the gameplay at all. And I also agree that, ultimately, more control over the composition of units, such as the ability to design one's own OOB on a theatre level (even if the player cannot know or choose when a given division or squadron will be available, and even if the random chance of certain ships being torpedoed, striking a mine, or simply requiring routine maintenance might temporarily put individual ships out of action, potentially leaving their formation without a crucial set of capabilities) would be beneficial, because as you say it would open up many new possibilities for more specialised ships. In the current strategic system, I think it is fair to say that there's no substitute for a jack-of-all trades, which is probably the single biggest limitation on the player's creative freedom.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 19, 2019 10:29:16 GMT -6
After having read the RTW2 developers journal I would suggest a better choice of the names of Italian naval units. For example the word Saccheggiatore exists but it has an unflattering meaning, more or less like rapinatore (robber). Fringuello is the harmless chaffinch. It was once used to call Fringuello a young novice. As far as I know, both these names have never been used for Italian warships. Italy didn't name many carriers in real life, so there is not much to go on for name suggestions. If you could provide a list of likely Italian carrier names that mean appropriately "cool" things, it would be very helpful. Here included I send a .txt file with a list of names suitable for Italian ships of any type of the period covered by RTW2. Mostly they are names that were actually assigned to WW2 ships. For the aircraft carriers I have indicated the names of flight pioneers, names of Italian regions, (used in the past for ancient battleships and for cruisers), birds of prey and mythological animals. Italian ships.txt (8.68 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 22, 2019 12:14:43 GMT -6
I do not know if it is interesting enough, but as gun turrets was one of the most complex issues, it could be interesting if there could be same principles as designing the ship. So if you have triple 5" turret, it could be easily designed into another class, however doing it from scratch will cost more as you need to design brand new turrets. Or may be some decrease of reliability at first 1-3 years.
EDIT: or maybe change "research" of guns. As RTW you put some effort into research of guns. However it is more complex and excellent gun could be in unreliable turret. So it could be as you put efforts to research exact turret, e.g. you put your research into triple 14" guns turret. You reaserch and find out that guns are not good quality (-1 eg.) and you put another effort to make better guns. You than decided to have quadruple turret and you put effort on it. But as you already have 14"gun, the amount of effort could be lower.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 23, 2019 13:20:02 GMT -6
Quite interesting immunity zone calculator, much better than in RTW.
Does it calucated sloped deck behind belt armor?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 23, 2019 16:50:58 GMT -6
Too right - that immunity zone calculator is all kinds of exciting . As well as Dorn's questions, how does it treat things like shell technology (so does it calculate the immunity zone 'at building', or do the results update after building to reflect improvements in technology, and do they reflect your technology or your enemies? My 2 cents would be to have it update based on your technology (as enemy technology may be unknown in any event) but happy either way - even if 'just' own tech at building, it's a great step forward in understanding the implications of decisions on how much armour to use and where).
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Jan 23, 2019 17:23:09 GMT -6
Quite interesting immunity zone calculator, much better than in RTW.
Does it calucated sloped deck behind belt armor?
Yes, that looks great. One request... could the gun caliber/ quality, belt, and deck values by inputs on that screen? It doesn't look like they're currently selectable. That would save a bunch of clicking while doing "what if" design exercises.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 24, 2019 5:54:51 GMT -6
I've been considering playing battles on real time whilst doing other things in RTW1, and have thought of a few features that I think would make real time game speed more playable:
1) Pause options configurable per game speed: Many situations that I'd want to pause for on normal speed I'd have plenty of time to deal with on normal speed.
2) Alarms: Some audible cue that can be played on events such as the game pausing, spotting reports, significant enemy course changes, after time intervals specified by the player, or when an enemy vessel comes within a range specified by the player or opens the range behind a point specified by the player. In real time, it might also be useful to let the player set an alarm for the beginning of every one minute turn (but probably not for faster game speeds).
EDIT: I nearly forgot:
3) The ability to have range circles displayed when unpaused on slower speeds.
|
|
bakara
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by bakara on Jan 24, 2019 7:36:54 GMT -6
Loving the immunity zone calculator! couldnt help but notice the "Load T" and "Save T" buttons.. are they what i hope they are?
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 24, 2019 7:50:53 GMT -6
Immunity zone calculator looks all sorts of cool! Could you either have a function to import values from ship maingun turrets instead, or enable manual values of input there so you can quickly experiment how much would be required to get desired result?
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 24, 2019 16:26:02 GMT -6
Another thing I'd like to see: Auto-rebuild options on the right click menu in the ship tab.
For example "Auto-rebuild for fire control" could upgrade fire control to the latest available and display a confirmation dialog showing the ammo reduction needed to bring the weight balance above zero with the new fire control, assuming the same number of FC positions. The dialog would have the options "rebuild with <spinner widget, defaulting to current number of FC positions> FC positions", "open ship design screen", and "cancel", and clicking rebuild would cause a rebuild design to be created automatically (just as if the player had opted to rebuild for fire control as a ship was being completed) and the selected ships to be rebuilt to that design.
You might also have "rebuild for improved gun quality".
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 26, 2019 16:54:09 GMT -6
Bit of a sudden thought. As airplanes become a thing, will we see "friendly fire" / blue on blue incidents? Admittedly it's not an extremely likely issue but still happened a few times after misidentification due to a number of reasons. It's interesting if we should be somewhat cautious about this, or we can vector in strike formations to a close combat slugfest without a care in the world apart from maybe some missed torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 26, 2019 18:20:13 GMT -6
Bit of a sudden thought. As airplanes become a thing, will we see "friendly fire" / blue on blue incidents? Admittedly it's not an extremely likely issue but still happened a few times after misidentification due to a number of reasons. It's interesting if we should be somewhat cautious about this, or we can vector in strike formations to a close combat slugfest without a care in the world apart from maybe some missed torpedoes. Yes, this would make the game more realistic. One major (in Britain) historical example was the hunt for the Bismarck. Planes taking off from the hunting carrier HMS Victorious were told that no friendly ship was in the search area so attack anything that moved. However, there was the cruiser HMS Norfolk there tracking the Bismarck as well. Luckily, the first torpedoes missed and the flight commander recognised her before the second wave. Not sure it would be worth the effort to add to the game at this point but an interesting idea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 26, 2019 20:39:40 GMT -6
Bit of a sudden thought. As airplanes become a thing, will we see "friendly fire" / blue on blue incidents? Admittedly it's not an extremely likely issue but still happened a few times after misidentification due to a number of reasons. It's interesting if we should be somewhat cautious about this, or we can vector in strike formations to a close combat slugfest without a care in the world apart from maybe some missed torpedoes. Yes, this would make the game more realistic. One major (in Britain) historical example was the hunt for the Bismarck. Planes taking off from the hunting carrier HMS Victorious were told that no friendly ship was in the search area so attack anything that moved. However, there was the cruiser HMS Norfolk there tracking the Bismarck as well. Luckily, the first torpedoes missed and the flight commander recognised her before the second wave. Not sure it would be worth the effort to add to the game at this point but an interesting idea. Well, actually it was the HMS Sheffield that was attacked. She had been ordered to steam ahead at top speed to establish contact with Bismarck. Luckily Sheffield combed the torpedoes. This is an example of the old phrase "Somebody always fails to get the word." Added bonus - Actual section of Admiral Tovey’s dispatch to headquarters – Home Fleet, 5th July, 1941 No. 896/H.F. 1325 Sir, Be pleased to lay before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty the following despatch covering the operations leading to the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck on Tuesday, 27th May, 1941. All times are zone minus 2. …. 65. The speed of the King George V was reduced to 22 knots at 1705 on 26th May to economise fuel, and the Rodney, who had by then been overhauled, was formed astern. I had recommended the Flag Officer Commanding, Force "H", to remain with the Ark Royal, he was maintaining his position on the beam of the Bismarck and had detached the Sheffield to shadow. The visual signal ordering this latter movement was not repeated to the Ark Royal, an omission which, as will be seen later, had serious consequences. 66. A striking force of 15 Swordfish, one of which had to return, was flown off at 1450; they were armed with duplex pistol set to 30 ft. instead of 34 ft., in consequence of the doubt which then existed in the Ark Royal whether the enemy ship was the Bismarck or the Prinz Eugen. The weather was particularly bad in the vicinity of the target and reliance was placed on the ASV set carried in one of the aircrafts; this aircraft located a ship at 1550, about 20 miles from the expected position of the enemy, and an attack through the cloud was ordered. The ship detected was the Sheffield, of whose presence near the Bismarck the striking force was not aware, and eleven torpedoes were dropped at her. Two of the torpedoes exploded on hitting the water, and three more on crossing the wake, the remainder being successfully avoided by the Sheffield who, with great forbearance, did not fire a single round in reply.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 27, 2019 5:24:10 GMT -6
After the short battle off Calabria in July 1940 the Regia Aeronautica bombed impartially both friends and enemies. I believe that as a result of that the forecastles of Italian warships were painted with large red and white stripes.
|
|