|
Post by williammiller on May 16, 2019 16:32:35 GMT -6
This is the original thread for player suggestions for RTW2, it has been locked.
To make it easier for us to notice new suggestions please post suggestions in a separate thread in the main Suggestions sub-forum.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 18, 2019 1:23:08 GMT -6
Information about carrier limitation missing
1920 start as Germany I have just tried to convert old CAs to CVLs. After "checked" the design I get this error: "Error: Treaty restrictions prevents you from building aircraft carriers!"
I expect that it is Treaty of Versailles limitation however it would be very good to show it in almanac and howevering over "peace treaty".
|
|
|
Post by charybdis on May 18, 2019 1:54:35 GMT -6
It is a big ask but I would love to see more minors, Ottomans, Greece, China, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, to give the possibility of each area having more local conflicts in addition to the big wars with big powers.
More importantly, I want Spain back. When I purchased RTW 1 years ago and hit that dropdowm menu and saw that Spain was there, I flipped out. Since I moved to Phila back when I was in Middle School and visited USS Olympia for the first of what became many trips her little war was always of personal interest. I delved into the conflict and became especially excited by the poorly armed, underfunded, but often bravely led and heroically crewed Spanish Navy which was utterly crushed by the rising USN. So when, many years later I saw that I could fictionally rewrite that history I started my first ever RTW game as little, overstretched and underfunded Spain.
Within I think eight years I was disgraced and replaced. I had never had such fun losing a game. I loved the disparity between Spain and her rivals, the inherent asymmetry of the game in every aspect, Technologically/politically/fiscally. After several playthroughs with other nations I came back and survived as Spain and that was one of the most satisfying experiences I have had in a game, it felt hard fought and earned. It also played to the game's strengths and evidenced the viability of the program as a learning and teaching tool for those interested in the constraints, utility, and strengths of a navy of the period. Therefore, I really hope that Spain will return. !No Pasaran!
|
|
swang
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by swang on May 18, 2019 2:10:29 GMT -6
For crowded centerline mounts, DDs mounting torps exclusively don't really care, because torpedo launches are not constrained by reload speed, so there really isn't a downside to squashing as many tubes as you can into them. Maybe have the consequence be the possibiliy of multiple torpedo explosions on a mount hit?
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 18, 2019 3:13:59 GMT -6
Designing carriers is a blast -- bravo to everyone who helped make this happen!
* Enable more role-specific ships (major)
RtW2 lacks a system to give more specific role information to ships. We should be able to prevent slow, 20 knot minesweeping destroyers from ending up with 30-knot carriers as escorts. This would enable the full spectrum of designs, with specific lip service paid here to the CLAA fleet escort, which cannot be built in RtW2 if it's going to routinely be pitted against raiders or as convoy attack/defense (of course randomly it can happen). This seems like a reasonable request considering the player's role as both the highest level of command/management in the navy, and also the admiral of a division. Having control of which ships move in a task force is the middle layer between the two. I'm open to any system that will enable this. Some ideas: - The existing Fleet Exercise already provides a means to create very specific task forces, which could then move sea zones together. (Added bonus if this lessens the tedium of moving ships strategically, which is currently a shift/ctrl clicking mess)
- Expand ship roles to include things like "fleet escort" (prioritized as capital ship escort), maybe "minesweeping"
or others
Links:
A Topic on this subjectRelated post from RtW2 release day* Viewing "Aircraft type" (minor)
Sorting aircraft stats in Aircraft Types should be more user-friendly. - allow sorting by columns, other usability improvements similar to what exists in ship list - allow to filter by type for only one's country (not everyone's) * Viewing "Air groups" (minor)
Very happy to have aircraft in, but it's a bit painful to manage them. I think the interface could do with a few improvements.
- ability to save a template from one airfield and place it in others - set all airbases of size X (20/40/60) to [this] template - other interaction improvements that I can't think of at 2am
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 18, 2019 4:47:01 GMT -6
Suggestion after moving ship in "ship in service" visible list is unchanged. Righ now after any move order (even cancel move order), the visible list is end of list (destroyers) - quite confusing.
EDIT: when I moved destroyers, list went back to start. But important is list is not moved and same ships are visible before giving orders and after giving orders
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 18, 2019 7:25:49 GMT -6
Playing 1920 start as UK the foreign station is overhelming.
The "Area overview" tab help a lot however there is still need of manually place ships on foreign station and use FS function/role to the ship.
However I do not know how much ship I have on automatic FS function.
It would help a much to have in "Area Overview" this information: Column "Tonnage accepted" - as tonnage that is taken in that area (manually) Row TOTAL - where there is total "Tonnage accepted" and "Tonnage requested"
And some sumary bellow: TOTAL REQUESTED: xxxxx TOTAL area accepted: xxxxx TOTAL FS function: xxxx Balance: xxxxx (where -red number with same amount as on main overview bellow and importantly black number of tonnage which is over limit ==> so we can know that we can take some ships from FS).
Main point is to have overview how much total tonnage is on FS not only missing but even over minimum limit.
note: Another solution could be add possitive black number in the overview (next to prestige) after "OK" to have knowledge how much we are above minimal limit.
|
|
|
Post by rhetoric on May 18, 2019 8:07:18 GMT -6
A pretty niche case, but I'd quite like a pop-up asking if I want to upgrade the guns to a newer model, if I've researched a superior quality between laying down a ship and it being completed - much like how you get one if your fire control technology has advanced. (Obviously it would take significantly more time and money than an FC upgrade) I think it'd be too much of a feature creep to include in RTW2, but at some point it would be nice if we could make some minor design revisions to ships under construction, depending on how far along they are in being built - perhaps with a greater chance of negative events when they're finished (eg overweight, can't reach design speed) I'd also like the ability to re-classify older destroyers - if not as corvettes, then perhaps "destroyer escorts," just to make it clearer in the UI which ones I'm going to assign to TP etc. Ideally these would also have a reduced chance of appearing as escorts to the main fleet.
And of course, the perennial request for a limited ability to shape what ships get deployed together
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 18, 2019 9:36:59 GMT -6
As map become more complex and there are much more information including airships and aircrafts, could be possible use some icon system.
Eg. recon plane are as plane when you zoom in. But as you zoom out it is becoming smaller and smaller dot and at some time practically is not visible. Could be done that these "icons" has always been visible.
|
|
bubby
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by bubby on May 18, 2019 10:16:13 GMT -6
Just had a Fleet Battle where my CV task force was put under AI control due to bad weather and line of sight, only to have them wander directly into the enemy battle line. I. Need. Custom. Taskforces. They never should have been in this engagement to start with, let alone wandering around some 30 miles ahead of my battle line. Either give me the ability to properly structure my navy (Aren't I the Lead Admiral?) Or give me the ability to set my own flagship. When the AI makes completely nonsensical decisions like setting mothballed obsolete Dreadnaughts to flagship duty... Come on. I need more control over what happens in MY Navy. Period.
This paradox that we're the man in charge - yet have no real control over anything that happens is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
swl295
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by swl295 on May 18, 2019 10:20:05 GMT -6
Maybe something for a bit further down the line in terms of an update, but how about instituting admirals into the game, with a sort of promotion system and with the player being like several of those guys in succession since the game spans between 1900-1972? Each admiral could have special qualities, be better suited for different types of commands. And, of course, they would have life/career spans, death in battle (rare), promotion to fleet command or to the player's job as CNO. Then, like after an unsuccessful war, the player's admiral would be replaced by someone else...the best performer during the war, for example, or maybe not...could be a political appointment. I wouldn't mind if the whole thing would be controlled by the AI. Just think something like this would give more immersion rather than the player being just the 72-year naval Zeitgeist. Just a suggestion...wouldn't think it would be too hard to implement either.
|
|
|
Post by rhetoric on May 18, 2019 10:32:25 GMT -6
Just had a Fleet Battle where my CV task force was put under AI control due to bad weather and line of sight, only to have them wander directly into the enemy battle line. I. Need. Custom. Taskforces. They never should have been in this engagement to start with, let alone wandering around some 30 miles ahead of my battle line. Either give me the ability to properly structure my navy (Aren't I the Lead Admiral?) Or give me the ability to set my own flagship. When the AI makes completely nonsensical decisions like setting mothballed obsolete Dreadnaughts to flagship duty... Come on. I need more control over what happens in MY Navy. Period. Specifically looking at the flagship issue, if the devs want a "soft" approach to the issue, then perhaps add a "Equip as flagship" option - for a small cost in weight, maybe gives a very modest increase in signal reliability, and is weighted to be picked as the flagship if it's in the core division. If there are multiples, then the game picks at random between the flagships. Finally, it should be very easy to remove (like one month in the dockyard at most)
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 18, 2019 11:00:21 GMT -6
Just had a Fleet Battle where my CV task force was put under AI control due to bad weather and line of sight, only to have them wander directly into the enemy battle line. I. Need. Custom. Taskforces. They never should have been in this engagement to start with, let alone wandering around some 30 miles ahead of my battle line. Either give me the ability to properly structure my navy (Aren't I the Lead Admiral?) Or give me the ability to set my own flagship. When the AI makes completely nonsensical decisions like setting mothballed obsolete Dreadnaughts to flagship duty... Come on. I need more control over what happens in MY Navy. Period. Specifically looking at the flagship issue, if the devs want a "soft" approach to the issue, then perhaps add a "Equip as flagship" option - for a small cost in weight, maybe gives a very modest increase in signal reliability, and is weighted to be picked as the flagship if it's in the core division. If there are multiples, then the game picks at random between the flagships. Finally, it should be very easy to remove (like one month in the dockyard at most) I like this idea - thanks.
|
|
|
Post by rockmedic109 on May 18, 2019 14:03:34 GMT -6
A box on the ship design area that gives the base cost of maintenance maybe. I'm not sure it is needed but I am currently trying to figure out what is going to cost more in maintenance between a small DD and a large KE.
|
|
|
Post by leglaen on May 18, 2019 16:27:14 GMT -6
Many thanks for setting up this thread; so far deeply enjoying RTW2!
One fruitful change I would like to see is a greater lag-time between aircraft design, production, and assignment to airbases. As of now, new aircraft very quickly appear once the few months of design are finished.
RTW is superb (and historically sound) when it forces you to use older ship designs to fight the current war. Very tough but fair challenges--and gives the player such joy when his or her new BC design arrives 7 months into the war.
Why not model aircraft production in a similar fashion? I realize that pilot loss was a greater issue in the Second World War, but limiting the number of planes produced per month would add that thrill of using the hi-tech squadron (and not wanting them to die!) versus the older mass-produced ones. Perhaps even a retooling factor (greater efficiency of building older plane designs) could assist?
|
|