|
Post by noshurviverse on Mar 28, 2019 11:20:13 GMT -6
This may have been mentioned, but to me, one of the unfortunate omissions in the entire RTW system is the inability of players to construct "war games within the war game". In other words an ability for the player to test their own ship designs against known other nations' ships in hypothetical SAI-like engagements that do not play a role on the overall game. Something like how real navies could test their ship designs and tactics during peacetime with war games and war college exercises. Not only does this simulate how navies often decide things, it would eliminate the frustration that can occur in RTW when you design what you believe to be a wonderful battleship class and never get to see them in action because a war never breaks out or the game AI never creates a battle that includes them. I think this would increase the "fun" quotient of RTW without impacting its wonderful overall system. While I understand the reasons to wanting this, I feel that those issues of being uncertain of how your design will work against the enemy and of not getting your ship into action fits well into the nature of the subject of RtW. The Yamoto's are a classic example, a ship designed to stand toe-to-toe with multiple hostile dreadnoughts and yet never got to shoot at anything larger than a fleeing escort carrier. On the other hand, I think that being able to test your designs against other nation's designs might also be an issue. Would the "enemy" be a perfect replica of the true opponent? Would it have the same crew training, RoF technology or damage control as the real thing? Wargames often provide valuable insight into future conflicts, but they also can be very misleading (really don't want to start a flamewar, but the Millennium Challenge 2002 would probably be an example that's still debated over). They've been stated to be included in RtW2, but as something that awards experience to the crews that take place in them and perhaps some fleet tactics points.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Mar 28, 2019 12:22:21 GMT -6
There’s a difference between a fleet exercise and the war games being discussed. The USN conducted EXTENSIVE war games in the early 20th century. These started out using generic ships, then moved toward estimated capabilities of enemy ships. I think the “estimated capabilities” part is especially important to this discussion. In RTW your intelligence generally isn’t perfect, and any enemy ships should have the capabilities your intelligence service thinks they do, in addition to generic crews.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 28, 2019 13:00:14 GMT -6
Has anyone tried text-editing saved scenarios to set up "arena" style matches? Presumably the scenario detailes are stored inside the .bcs file or something like that... Active scenario information is saved in the *.SAC file in Rule the Waves. I have never tried adding or removing ships from it, but I don't see any particular reason why it could not be done unless there's a checksum or something like that computed by means of an arcane formula or stored somewhere with accessibility issues.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Mar 28, 2019 15:03:48 GMT -6
Ok, so now we just need to spend some time digging in the .sac file. RtW generally has mostly-plaintext saves, so it's probably not that hard to figure out what everything means and create a "test" mission with 2 opposing AI-controlled ships.
Now that I think about it, the obvious end result is a PvP tournament to see who can make the best AI-piloted ship.
|
|
|
Post by requiem762 on Mar 28, 2019 21:06:31 GMT -6
So I have a few questions/ potential suggestions for aircraft procurement and other things.
1. as we approach release will we see more dev diaries or maybe even gameplay videos?
2. From the dev diaries, I got the impression that aircraft replecament is essentially automatic. So my question will we be able to operate multiple aircraft of the same type side by side with out the game trying to replace one with the other? For example lets say I design a fighter with a focus on maneuverability and speed which I intend to use on my carriers, but I then decide to design a fighter with focuesse on range and payload to operate from land bases for long range a support. would the game consider the 2nd fighter as a replacement and begin replacing the first fighter with it?
3. the last dev diary on aircraft procurement it was stated the weapons on aircraft can be changed (ex. torpedo plane carrying bombs) will this be changeable by squadron? will we be able to set squadron tactics to suit armerments or vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Mar 28, 2019 22:00:38 GMT -6
2. From the dev diaries, I got the impression that aircraft replecament is essentially automatic. So my question will we be able to operate multiple aircraft of the same type side by side with out the game trying to replace one with the other? For example lets say I design a fighter with a focus on maneuverability and speed which I intend to use on my carriers, but I then decide to design a fighter with focuesse on range and payload to operate from land bases for long range a support. would the game consider the 2nd fighter as a replacement and begin replacing the first fighter with it? From what we currently understand, yes, if you design the new fighter with different parameters the game will automatically start replacing your carrier squadrons with the new one--you can't control what your squadrons are equipped with manually, so you can't say "this is my land-based fighter" and equip naval air stations with that one and "this is my carrier-based fighter" and equip carriers with that one. I'm led to assume there was some kind of programming or game design challenge associated with doing such a thing that makes it prohibitively difficult for the devs to implement.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Mar 28, 2019 23:27:18 GMT -6
2. From the dev diaries, I got the impression that aircraft replecament is essentially automatic. So my question will we be able to operate multiple aircraft of the same type side by side with out the game trying to replace one with the other? For example lets say I design a fighter with a focus on maneuverability and speed which I intend to use on my carriers, but I then decide to design a fighter with focuesse on range and payload to operate from land bases for long range a support. would the game consider the 2nd fighter as a replacement and begin replacing the first fighter with it? From what we currently understand, yes, if you design the new fighter with different parameters the game will automatically start replacing your carrier squadrons with the new one--you can't control what your squadrons are equipped with manually, so you can't say "this is my land-based fighter" and equip naval air stations with that one and "this is my carrier-based fighter" and equip carriers with that one. I'm led to assume there was some kind of programming or game design challenge associated with doing such a thing that makes it prohibitively difficult for the devs to implement. The Dev diary described an early implementation of the air management system. The game now allows far more control over where your squadrons are stationed. You will be able to station specific squadrons on specific airbases and aircraft carriers.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Mar 29, 2019 0:12:28 GMT -6
From what we currently understand, yes, if you design the new fighter with different parameters the game will automatically start replacing your carrier squadrons with the new one--you can't control what your squadrons are equipped with manually, so you can't say "this is my land-based fighter" and equip naval air stations with that one and "this is my carrier-based fighter" and equip carriers with that one. I'm led to assume there was some kind of programming or game design challenge associated with doing such a thing that makes it prohibitively difficult for the devs to implement. The Dev diary described an early implementation of the air management system. The game now allows far more control over where your squadrons are stationed. You will be able to station specific squadrons on specific airbases and aircraft carriers. And we will be able to designate which model of plane each squadron receives, enabling us to (let's say) have two different fighter models in service at once without worrying that our carrier squadrons will suddenly be populated with the wrong airframes?
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 29, 2019 1:37:38 GMT -6
Ooh, that is an interesting turn of events, if that's the case; there was a fairly lenghty debate about this issue when said devblog came out. Frankly, I expected that to be the final installment of the system.
|
|
|
Post by requiem762 on Mar 29, 2019 16:16:38 GMT -6
From what we currently understand, yes, if you design the new fighter with different parameters the game will automatically start replacing your carrier squadrons with the new one--you can't control what your squadrons are equipped with manually, so you can't say "this is my land-based fighter" and equip naval air stations with that one and "this is my carrier-based fighter" and equip carriers with that one. I'm led to assume there was some kind of programming or game design challenge associated with doing such a thing that makes it prohibitively difficult for the devs to implement. The Dev diary described an early implementation of the air management system. The game now allows far more control over where your squadrons are stationed. You will be able to station specific squadrons on specific airbases and aircraft carriers. any chance we will see a new dev dairy on aircraft soon?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 29, 2019 16:43:47 GMT -6
I think we can post on that soon - sometime next week I think might be workable.
|
|
|
Post by requiem762 on Mar 30, 2019 21:58:07 GMT -6
I know there was some earlier discussion of non-frontline vessels being in the game such as seaplane tenders/carriers/AVs as well as the adition of specialized corvettes are there going to be any other support classes of vessles that the player has access to such as sub tenders or other classes for fleet supply? or will such vessels be abstracted/not present as they are in RTW1?
|
|
|
Post by triggerhappypilot on Mar 30, 2019 23:59:26 GMT -6
I know there was some earlier discussion of non-frontline vessels being in the game such as seaplane tenders/carriers/AVs as well as the adition of specialized corvettes are there going to be any other support classes of vessles that the player has access to such as sub tenders or other classes for fleet supply? or will such vessels be abstracted/not present as they are in RTW1? There's probably not any point to including submarine tenders or most other auxiliaries, since the scale the game operates at mostly abstracts the operational level of gameplay (staging areas, fleet resupply, etc) to focus on both strategic and tactical levels. If subs still work the same way as in RTW1 then sub tenders will not do a thing in game since the subs just get randomly included in scenarios beyond the control of the players, so strike those. Seaplane Tenders are a bit of a special case since they have a direct role in tactical engagements by launching attached seaplane squadrons for recon/light attack, so including them as controllable units makes more sense. Minelayers/Minesweepers are mostly abstracted, although in RTW1 you can add mine rails to ships to increase the rate at which minefields are laid and sometimes clear mines. Manual mine warfare might be interesting but by this point it's probably beyond the feature scope for RTW2. Besides, the automatic mine warfare usually works well enough. Oilers/Colliers/Ammunition Vessels/etc. are completely abstracted in RTW1 since most combat takes place between fleets stationed at static bases (WWI Europe style) rather than the much more mobile style of fleet movements in WWII era. Either way, If i wanted to bother shuttling ships around like that i'd play something like WitP instead. It's not really very interesting gameplay. Repair Ships and Floating Drydocks might be interesting but again they're probably better off being abstracted out into the "Build bases" mechanic since they have no role in combat scenario and nothing interesting going on outside that either. In RTW1 Corvettes (called Minesweepers) were already the most versatile units because they were used to represent a variety of ships, from colonial sloops/gunboats/avisos to ASW corvettes - basically any small armed ship that wasn't a destroyer or cruiser. Since RTW2 allows manual control over AA/ASW armament it seems like this class will be further expanded in scope. My hope is that a technology will exist to allow these ships to mount torpedoes so we can have proper destroyer escorts and frigates. There really aren't many other auxiliaries that I can think of that would have a direct impact on a tactical level. Maaaaaybe something like the Japanese minisub carriers or a hypothetical PT boat mothership (think like USS Mobjack but faster and able to keep up with an MTB squadron) but these are so niche that any development time spent on these would be pleasant surprise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 2:46:06 GMT -6
What about adding a heavier merchants into the game? The heaviest merchant I ever met in RTW 1 was 5000 ton ship, this would be considered to be a coastal merchant in WW2, as most merchant ships were a lot over 10 000 tons. In RTW 1 it is not very doable to create an efficient raider, as you usually get more VPs for sinking the escorts that for sinking the merchants...
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Apr 1, 2019 3:54:47 GMT -6
What about adding a heavier merchants into the game? The heaviest merchant I ever met in RTW 1 was 5000 ton ship, this would be considered to be a coastal merchant in WW2, as most merchant ships were a lot over 10 000 tons. In RTW 1 it is not very doable to create an efficient raider, as you usually get more VPs for sinking the escorts that for sinking the merchants... Where the heck did you find a 5000 tonner in RtW 1!? IIRC all I ever could find were 'small' and 'medium' Merchants, maybe 2000 tons? But agreed on the idea! WW2 merchants went up to, and perhaps even larger, than 14000 tons! Huge vessels.
|
|