|
Post by director on Mar 10, 2019 1:29:04 GMT -6
RtW3 will assume Captain Nemo patented his inventions and submarines triumphed - in 1880.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 10, 2019 2:39:18 GMT -6
For those who love battleships it would probably make more sense to develop a version of RTW in which the tonnage limit and the gun ranges were conveniently expanded over a longer period of time. All this, however, after having developed the much awaited - at least from me - SAI 2.
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Mar 10, 2019 3:40:44 GMT -6
Well, tonnages up to 90k, 20 in guns, and speeds of 40 knots are confirmed. This is ample space for any battleship admiral to play to his hearts delight.
Even in regular RTW you can make ships that outgun Yamato.
|
|
|
Post by scheerpower on Mar 10, 2019 10:00:14 GMT -6
Wait.... didn't these guys release that exact game in 2016? Haha it's a fair point. Yes, RtW 1 is (mostly) ship-to-ship surface combat, and I'm definitely excited about seeing carriers and planes. Given the history of carriers in WW2 in the Pacific theater though, it would be nice to have an option to keep the ship-to-ship aspect as the most prominent. If carriers in the '40s absolutely flatten battleships the gameplay might be less interesting, especially since I don't think you can directly control your squadrons once they leave the decks.
I guess my point is: historically WW2 naval battles were less interesting, so I'd like the option to avoid (or delay) that happening. Then again, we should probably also realize that the devs have been thinking about these issues, and I'm sure they're working on making the air aspect at least as interesting as the naval one.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Mar 10, 2019 16:10:59 GMT -6
Not sure if it is easy, but I'd like to be able to view separate path for every ship on post battle map (pick ship name from dropdown list). It would be nice if those were a bit more precise than the ones we have in RTW1
|
|
|
Post by kidcharlemagne on Mar 10, 2019 19:20:26 GMT -6
No aircraft/subs combined with no treaty limits would be pretty much comical. A world where the economy collapses if a government even mentions the mere possibility of making another 160,000-ton dreadnought.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Mar 10, 2019 20:19:36 GMT -6
Wait.... didn't these guys release that exact game in 2016? Haha it's a fair point. Yes, RtW 1 is (mostly) ship-to-ship surface combat, and I'm definitely excited about seeing carriers and planes. Given the history of carriers in WW2 in the Pacific theater though, it would be nice to have an option to keep the ship-to-ship aspect as the most prominent. If carriers in the '40s absolutely flatten battleships the gameplay might be less interesting, especially since I don't think you can directly control your squadrons once they leave the decks.
I guess my point is: historically WW2 naval battles were less interesting, so I'd like the option to avoid (or delay) that happening. Then again, we should probably also realize that the devs have been thinking about these issues, and I'm sure they're working on making the air aspect at least as interesting as the naval one.
operationally I think carrier combats are fascinating, and the plethora of night actions in the pacific theatre are very interesting as well. Even if you don’t control the planes, the importance of spotting and judging when to strike etc are very interesting in of itself, arguably more so than a traditional line of battle engagement. That said big gun battleships are definately cool and I’d love to see them having more chance to shine or being relevant in later eras as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 3:46:50 GMT -6
I have a suggestion I consider to be a major issue: what about making a check box in the ship designer for aircraft carriers, which would make them a converted ships from civilian ships. This would not allow any thick armour, and it would lower the aircraft capacity, but it would make their building costs almost negligible. Another limit may be speed, as many converted ships used to be a tankers. Tankers are not well known for their speed. Converting a big ship (30 000 to 50 000) tons would cost some VPs in the war, as this would cost you a higly usable fast ocean liner. Even smaller merchant ship converting would cost you some VPs, because those cargo and tanker ships are not there for navy to take and rebuild. Or it would cost you a prestige point in the peace time. Converting smaller merchant ships (10k - 30k tons) in the peace time may be disabled. The carrier game mechanics would stay the same as for normaly converted ships you make from warships, so I think that it would not be a great deal to put this in game. The game already has AMCs, these are just carrier AMCs... Or you may just call them MACs (merchant aircraft carriers)
|
|
|
Post by kungfutreachery on Mar 13, 2019 14:13:13 GMT -6
An option to see the names of identified enemy ships in battle please, please.
Chance of misidentification should stay the same, I just want to know if I'm firing at Bismarck or Tirpitz...
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Mar 13, 2019 14:55:06 GMT -6
An option to see the names of identified enemy ships in battle please, please. Chance of misidentification should stay the same, I just want to know if I'm firing at Bismarck or Tirpitz... Sorry, won't happen. They never knew in reality. Bismarck thought she had been fighting KGV instead of POW at Denmark Straits for example. At least you will get the truth at the end of the battle scenario.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Mar 13, 2019 18:41:58 GMT -6
An option to see the names of identified enemy ships in battle please, please. Chance of misidentification should stay the same, I just want to know if I'm firing at Bismarck or Tirpitz... Sorry, won't happen. They never knew in reality. Bismarck thought she had been fighting KGV instead of POW at Denmark Straits for example. At least you will get the truth at the end of the battle scenario. IIRC some japanese ships write their name on the side of the ship so you can tell if you can read them clearly. Ofcourse this is pretty minor exception so I don’t have an issue with keeping name hidden. Otherwise(correct me if This is already in rtw 1) but it may make sense for you to be able to distinguish between refitted ships of the same class and their pre refit sisters. You may not be able to tell Bismarck from Titpitz, but you can certainly tell renown from repulse. If the AI will be more actively reforming their ships in rtw2 and the player did some good espionage work, we should have the ability to distinguish ships that underwent significant refits in battle. This will be quite relevant when the refitted variant have a much improved aa suite for example.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Mar 13, 2019 19:49:42 GMT -6
An option to see the names of identified enemy ships in battle please, please. Chance of misidentification should stay the same, I just want to know if I'm firing at Bismarck or Tirpitz... Sorry, won't happen. They never knew in reality. Bismarck thought she had been fighting KGV instead of POW at Denmark Straits for example. At least you will get the truth at the end of the battle scenario. Just out of curiosity, what influenced their misinterpretation? Is it just that POW was brand-new at the time and KM intelligence didn't expect to see it at sea yet?
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Mar 13, 2019 20:07:23 GMT -6
Sorry, won't happen. They never knew in reality. Bismarck thought she had been fighting KGV instead of POW at Denmark Straits for example. At least you will get the truth at the end of the battle scenario. IIRC some japanese ships write their name on the side of the ship so you can tell if you can read them clearly. Ofcourse this is pretty minor exception so I don’t have an issue with keeping name hidden. Otherwise(correct me if This is already in rtw 1) but it may make sense for you to be able to distinguish between refitted ships of the same class and their pre refit sisters. You may not be able to tell Bismarck from Titpitz, but you can certainly tell renown from repulse. If the AI will be more actively reforming their ships in rtw2 and the player did some good espionage work, we should have the ability to distinguish ships that underwent significant refits in battle. This will be quite relevant when the refitted variant have a much improved aa suite for example. All very well if you're in a dockyard 100 metres from a ship with all the time in the world to read the names, but at sea with engagement ranges of many, many miles, IDing even a battleship as a battleship without a lot of time to look at Jane's would be very difficult. I think even refits are a grey area that I'd lean toward keeping as is. True that ships underwent significant refits (see Warspite for example), but their hull and silhouette at 10 miles would change very little I'd reckon.
|
|
|
Post by kungfutreachery on Mar 13, 2019 20:12:51 GMT -6
An option to see the names of identified enemy ships in battle please, please. Chance of misidentification should stay the same, I just want to know if I'm firing at Bismarck or Tirpitz... Sorry, won't happen. They never knew in reality. Bismarck thought she had been fighting KGV instead of POW at Denmark Straits for example. At least you will get the truth at the end of the battle scenario. That's what I'm asking for, though. If Bismarck thought it was KGV, it should be labelled BB King George V, not BB King George V-class. The misidentification would remain. Literally all I want is the game to assign a specific name, even if it's wrong, so I don't have to look at the almanac and hold all the names in my head for my running narrative of the action. If the post battle screen shows I was actually fighting Prince of Wales, not KGV, great! while less realistic, I don't see how this option would be meaningfully different from lowering the difficulty to captain's mode, which is also less realistic...
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Mar 13, 2019 21:19:39 GMT -6
IIRC some japanese ships write their name on the side of the ship so you can tell if you can read them clearly. Ofcourse this is pretty minor exception so I don’t have an issue with keeping name hidden. Otherwise(correct me if This is already in rtw 1) but it may make sense for you to be able to distinguish between refitted ships of the same class and their pre refit sisters. You may not be able to tell Bismarck from Titpitz, but you can certainly tell renown from repulse. If the AI will be more actively reforming their ships in rtw2 and the player did some good espionage work, we should have the ability to distinguish ships that underwent significant refits in battle. This will be quite relevant when the refitted variant have a much improved aa suite for example. All very well if you're in a dockyard 100 metres from a ship with all the time in the world to read the names, but at sea with engagement ranges of many, many miles, IDing even a battleship as a battleship without a lot of time to look at Jane's would be very difficult. I think even refits are a grey area that I'd lean toward keeping as is. True that ships underwent significant refits (see Warspite for example), but their hull and silhouette at 10 miles would change very little I'd reckon. Some significant refits are just another possibility to misidentify as well. Renown was mistaken for Nelson when chasing Scharnhorst and Gnessinau due to the similarity in superstructure. This misidentification are unlikely to have happened if repulse was on scene with her old superstructure. Also, in the above scenario the German was able to correct their mistake rather quickly as well. While it is difficult to determine a ship’s identity at a glance or in confusing night actions, I feel in a protracted engagement people can eventually figure out what they are up against. This, in good weather condition/closeish range, given enough time, it should be possible to identify significantly refitted ships from their pre-refit cousins. That said I suppose the most obvious difference will be changing in number of chimneys and superstructure, neither of which are captured by rtw. But we still have cases like the italian dreadnought that has an entire turret removed. Also,even if conversation to secondary guns, deck armour etc probably won’t allow the spotter to tell any difference at long range, something like Ise’s Aviation deck conversation Certainly can’t escape a careful spotter given time. In any case, I am not asking for accurate identification of ships, but rather that sufficiently distinct refits being a separate class to be identified/misidentified. If the coding is too much work for more subtle refits then at least converted aviation cruiser/battleship like ise and mogami should be treated as a distinct class for all intents and purposes.
|
|