|
Post by bobcarrierguy on May 24, 2019 22:20:25 GMT -6
These are in no particular order. - Ability to change/redesign a ship that is under construction.
- Ability to rename ship class.
- Ability to sort by column on ALL screens.
- Ability to click an area of the Map, choose a location, and move ships from that location.
- Option to turn off or Auto-Resolve "Small Engagements". The VP is seriously not worth it, especially when I am fighting a war with 35,000 VP.
- The entire Coastal Raid battle system needs changed. To many times I have had targets in the zone where my ships cannot go and cannot target. To many times I have has a small DD squadron or CLs attempting to raid the enemies main port with multiple BBs.
- Are Raiders to powerful? I get a couple of good Raiders near the enemies main areas and I can bring them to their knees with really no VP's to speak of.
- Someway to see ALL technology discovered, in the same manner as the Naval Guns.
- A list of what technology field needs to be researched to discover a specific technology. For instance, what do I need to research to discover DP guns?
- Ability to create Task Forces. You create a TF, send it to an area, give it a Status.
- Ability to set submarines to a specific area in the manner that ships are done.
|
|
|
Post by spartyon on May 24, 2019 22:57:43 GMT -6
Late in the game submarines become unusable as aircraft become very good at sinking them. However merchant raiders seem unaffected. If flying boats can sink submarines one would think they could also attack the surface raiders or at least direct TP ships to intercept them. Also might be nice for submarines to get some better technology late game that prevents them from being sunk at such a high rate.
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 25, 2019 4:51:01 GMT -6
It seems to me like submarines are a little weird.
I'll list a couple things which are 'off'.
1: Submarines seemingly don't get the sudden absurd power they did once the XXI/I-201 submarines were made. These could outrun merchants underwater, were very hard to detect, and commonly had guided torpedoes to take out escorts.
2: Mine laying submarines historically were made in small numbers and typically were minelayers firstmost, and torpedoes for defence or the occasional lucky target nearby. Ingame they seem like a more expensive, but less useful medium range submarine, with an unknown (10?) number of mines. A 'modern' minelayer submarine could carry about 40-60 mines. Comparable to a max size light cruiser ingame in mine capacity.
3: In WW2 the germans figured out how to make a mine which fitted in a normal tube, this isn't exactly space age tech, anyone could do it. Be interesting if you could unlock a tech which gave medium submarines a small mine laying ability. Nowhere near a minelaying sub however.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 25, 2019 9:59:09 GMT -6
I was just watching Sink the Bismarck and I had an idea. One of the problems with intercepting raiders in-game is that it's very isolated; one lone intercepting ship against one lone raider. This is very ahistorical; if a ship made contact with a raider and couldn't defeat it alone, it would shadow the raider and wait for reinforcements. On the other hand, a raider would often have escorts while breaking through a blockade (like how Prinz Eugen escorted Bismarck, or how AMC raiders like Kormoran were escorted by a handful of torpedo boats).
Here is my suggestion; when a raider is attempting to break through a blockading fleet, but is intercepted, it gets a small escort (eg a cruiser might get a handful of destroyers, a capital ship may get a cruiser or 2). In addition, before a raider interception, the intercepting side gets an estimate of the enemy's strength; numbers and strength (with a margin of error, obviously), and what ship(s) are intercepting. Then, they get a choice. They can either continue the interception as is, and attempt to defeat the raider (and escorts, if it has any), or they can choose to attempt to shadow the raider. This gives the intercepting side a larger force (though it may still be weaker than the raider's force, depending on the situation. Also, it will never be overwhelming; think Battle of the Denmark Strait levels, not Final Battle of the Bismarck levels), but with a high chance of losing track of the raider. If that happens, the battle doesn't happen, and the raider successfully breaks out into the trade lanes unopposed (ie exactly what Bismarck was attempting to do).
|
|
|
Post by primeflux on May 25, 2019 10:30:41 GMT -6
When you play a battle with lots of aircraft which do a lot of spotting of enemy ships the map can get quite cluttered with reporting markings. 2 features which would be nice to conter this is: *A toggle to show all report markers *A way to dismiss individual report marks. If that mark is already old and inaccurate. Possible is there should be a automatic cleaning up report-marks older then say 6 hours.
Also When you want to call in an airstrike on a report mark, It might be bugged because the time stamp gets weird. There is alot of spotting marked with 30 00:00 making it hard to find the latest most up to date report.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 25, 2019 10:32:41 GMT -6
Ideas for improving co-ordinating search vs strike The control recon and cap feature is very handy to set the arcs of coverage and range of recon flight Suggestion is to add an ability to set what squadrons will make up the auto controlled recon and/or cap units. Game could default as is. Option would be for the player to go in to select on/off auto recon/cap. This could be a type of mission such as "auto search" or "auto cap" vs the existing "recon", "n strike" etc. It sometimes grabs planes that I might have wanted for a different role. Historically the Japanese used cruiser launched float planes for scouting saving their torp bombers and diver bombers to be ready for the attack on detection. USA carriers had scout-bomber planes that would at times be used for scouting to have more range. This shows the navies did things differently vs any one auto default setting. I would like at times to control whether torp or dive bombers would be used for scouting. For a naval battle Id like the dive bombers to scout so my torp planes can ready torpedoes. At a land target that reverses. The dive bombers are needed for bombing so the torp planes are better to use as the scouts watching for enemy fleets. The suggestion to assign squadrons to the auto search would allow each player to figure this out by their situation. Another example is in the early days of planes I had bomb capable float planes. So with planes scattered across a few cruisers and an aviation ship some of these I would want to search while having a small cluster ready for a strike. Existing auto search picks the all up and sends them all out on recon. Allowing squadron by squadron "auto search" selection would allow the player to decide to use this tactic. There is an option for float plane search priority (the Japanese way) in the doctrine screen.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 25, 2019 11:42:28 GMT -6
Also When you want to call in an airstrike on a report mark, It might be bugged because the time stamp gets weird. There is alot of spotting marked with 30 00:00 making it hard to find the latest most up to date report.
That's actually discussed in the manual: Less than perfect communication is modeled by the game, and spotting reports can end up with a time of 00:00 to indicate that the time at which the sighting was made did not make it all the way up the chain to you (something like the crew of the plane forgot to report it out of negligence, or they ended up in combat and got distracted in the middle of their error, or a weak radio signal made the time unintelligible, etc).
|
|
|
Post by sekullbe on May 25, 2019 12:56:36 GMT -6
I'd like for my crews to remember the identities of observed ships and installations for longer. I had a ship sail by and bombard an enemy shore battery, then when it turned around and saw the same target again it would not fire because the target was unidentified. I've seen the same thing happen when enemy ships come in and out of weather. If that kind of memory is difficult to implement I'd like a command to declare a target hostile similar to what CMANO does.
This is an issue I had with RTW1 as well.
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on May 25, 2019 13:09:15 GMT -6
Idea while commenting in the "Blockading and BB question" thread. The short version: Introduce a "sortied" vs. "un-sortied" (or "offensive" vs. "defensive") stance flag for each zone that e.g. will allow a player to represent sortieing his or her fleet to break a blockade. Now for the long version. There are two motivations: A) Maybe in a future update they will provide an option for players to adjust the ratio for a blockade to be put into effect. Or perhaps they could provide an event anytime a blockade is in effect asking the blockaded admiral if they want to engage the enemy fleet to break the blockade. That would force a fleet scale battle in that ocean area instead of a randomly generated one. I think this is a great idea. To summarize the gist of the thread, IRL blockade dynamics are that it's small ships enforcing the blockade, while the concentrated fleet prevents the enemy from sortieing to attack the small ships. This is presumably why the "strength" algorithm is weighted towards favoring many small hulls over one big hull. So this idea is to give the player a mechanism to force the fleet-on-fleet engagement, but it doesn't model the "BBs trying to protect commerce vs. hoards of CA, CL, or even DD or KE trying to interdict it" (after the enemy fleet is defeated, or if it declines to sortie) conundrum. It also doesn't provide a mechanism for forcing a fleet-on-fleet engagement when blockade conditions aren't in effect. B) I *LOVE* the new trade protection mechanism. I've always loved the concept of RTW's abstraction of battle generation - I think it strikes a great balance of abstraction to avoid micro-management of every ship in the fleet at all times. The weaknesses I've seen in it are: 1) battles tend to be tuned to be (at least in RTW; RTW2 seems better) "like on like" (e.g. cruiser or destroyer engagement) and 2) one battle per month and 3) no strategic direction as to scattering your fleet for e.g. escort duty vs. keeping a concentrated fleet. The trade protection mechanism abstracts that away - I was wondering why my CA and CL in a zone weren't showing up for enemy shipping raids until I realized they were all on trade protection. So the trade protection mechanism gives a way to dictate a "concentrated offense" vs. "distributed defense" balance. With that in mind, here's the suggestion: 1) In home waters (and possibly other zones) have a "stance" variable, that can either be "sortied" or "in being (port)". The matrix of stances in a zone affects the types and frequency of battles involving the "active" ships that spawn: - both sortied leads to fleet/CA/DD action and raider intercept (AF vs. AF and AF vs. R, with high probability) - one sortied and the other not leads to lots of convoy and coastal raids (AF & R vs. TP, with high probability) - both not sortied leads to occasional "raider interception" events (TP vs TP, with low probability) - actually this should be a background event in all stances. This is very similar to the "offensive" vs. "defensive" stance mechanism for armies in Ageod's game engine (American Civil War etc) - it lets the player choose the level of aggressiveness in that zone. 2) If it's not already the case generalize TP to include offensive missions (e.g. small raids on convoys), especially when the stance is "sortied/offensive". This would morph the AF vs. TP setting for ships to be a "concentrated vs. distributed" flag, after which the offence vs defense flag would adjust whether the distributed ships were more balanced towards raiding or protecting. 3) Remove the "1 battle per month" limitation and replace it with "at most one battle per zone" (with higher probability of a battle in small zones with lots of ships and lower probability for big zones like south pacific with few ships. This would prevent a DD action in West Africa from blocking a fleet action in Northern Europe. 4) I don't know if there's already a mission for this, but "(air) raid on enemy port facilities", where being "in port" doesn't protect ships from being attacked would be a great mission. This mission would be a flavor of coastal raid, so would tend to spawn for one sortied/one not situation. I assume it would be very similar to a sneak air attack (which I haven't seen generated yet). For added fun, maybe there should be facilities (e.g. the fuel tank farms at Pearl Harbor) that if attacked and destroyed reduced the ability of that zone to support fleets at the strategic level (the opposite of "improve bases" button, not sure if effects should be permanent, temporary, and/or have economic cost). 5) Possibly introduce the concept of "soft blockade", where the blockade mechanic is much more unified with the raider mechanic. In other words, TP in a zone with an offensive stance will also act as raiders resulting in both hard sinkings and interrupted commerce. So a result might be something like "3 merchants were sunk in the Med, and 30% of enemy trade was suppressed for a total of XX VP". In a strong blockade, the trade suppression would be (almost) 100%, and sinkings would be low due to there being no merchies to sink. Convoy battles and/or shipping raids could affect the suppression level. Trade suppression would also enter into the morale effects. John
|
|
|
Post by nesyliamy on May 25, 2019 15:22:46 GMT -6
I want to reiterate the suggestions above. Also as far as organizing our own task forces, why not allow players to organize our task forces just prior to battle when given a specific randomly selected contingent of forces? For example, suppose the battle generator sets up a fleet action and chooses a few ships for that battle. If we could see which ships we will have just prior to battle, and then be able to organize those randomly chosen ships into task forces, that would be GREAT! That way I can design AA cruisers out of my old CLs and I could set them up as escorts for heavier ships, and it will preserve the randomness of the ships selected for a battle. A lot of people are suggesting this. Personally, I'd like to be able to set up divisions on the strategic level, but I'd be happy to accept this as a compromise. Pardon if this was already mentioned, but while this is great on paper IMO in practice if you were required to make divisions by hand before every single battle, it would make the small engagement spam even more unbearable, let alone the thought of having to make divisions for large battles, every single time. Sounds cool in theory but in practice I am going to be pretty frustrated having to manually make damn destroyer divisions so often. My suggestion: This should be implemented together with a "auto assign division" button that: 1- takes the remaining ships unassigned and make remaining divisions with them 2- is also available so that if a player does not want to make these divisions he can click the button and have the game make the divisions as it does currently. The fleet exercise UI seems like a good design, but to reiterate, the auto division button is mandatory IMO, I do NOT want to be forced to make divisions myself every time, but at the same time I DO WANT to make my own divisions as an option, when I want before some battles.
|
|
|
Post by trifler on May 25, 2019 17:01:28 GMT -6
After a successful war ends and the window comes up to choose territories to take control of, it would be really handy if the game allowed us to click on the main window behind it to view the map. Maybe just disable the end turn button instead of preventing us from clicking on the main window.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 25, 2019 18:48:47 GMT -6
I noticed in the manual that refitting for cross-deck fire is no longer possible in RTW2. I think, to model some of the troubles navies had with getting CDF working, that it might be good to have an "Early CDF" tech, which allows CDF to be selected in the design screen, but gives any CDF design, say, a 50% chance of not actually being CDF capable, and then a "Reliable CDF" tech that guarantees that any CDF design will be CDF capable, and allows the refitting of failed CDF ships to add CDF (but not ships where CDF was never specified in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by bigstick on May 25, 2019 19:24:26 GMT -6
Gotta agree with the convoy point system look at this, my DDs outnumbered 13 to 7 bravely fought the enemy and sank 3 cargo vessels and 4 DDs with none of mine sinking. Sure they took a pounding but in a few turns they will be back in the fight. I get you are trying to simulate here that those vital supplies got through. We need to either give me a cruiser or bigger for these, increase the points for kills, or decrease surviving merchants bonus Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by merkavaiv on May 26, 2019 20:16:55 GMT -6
This is/was an issue in RTW and it still is: please let me tell the DD's in your flotilla to stop putting torpedos into sinking warships, just because they aren't sinking fast enough for the AI commanders. Historically torpedos were prohibitively expensive to just keep pumping into a foundering ship to make it sink faster. And in many cases, I have wished my destroyers and light cruisers would have held onto some of those torpedos when I have to fight heavy combatants that are still out there. This is especially true when your forces have already determined you are outnumbered and facing a superior force. Just a check box or something to disable the mass coup de grace torpedo spam would be nice.
It's not like commanders couldn't tell when the fight was beaten out of an enemy. A lack of resistance, coupled with obvious settling, going dead in the water, and people abandoning ship are all clues that war ships would have that the target ship doesn't need any more help sinking. Please help with this.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 27, 2019 3:49:29 GMT -6
If we could somehow tie the "AI recon pattern" system into the manually ordered searches, that would be absolutely awesome. If this isn't viable, showing the already picked routes for aircrafts launching a manually constructed pattern would still help a lot. I often times find myelf wanting to conduct a manually ordered sweep, and currently I can't think of a more tedious process in the game. Maybe drag&dropping air squadrons one by one while managing those.
|
|