|
Post by psyden on May 30, 2019 20:09:29 GMT -6
Something that I wanted in RTW:
An in-game definition of what is allowed for what ship type, ie if you are outside of the parameters of a ship type, it will tell you, instead of when you are just 'close'. For instance, I am trying to design a small light cruiser of ~3000-4000 tons (ideally, I am looking for 3500 tons or less for centerline torps), but the game wants it to be an AMC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd like something like:
I'd also like to see a Scout-Cruiser/Destroyer Leader. Something in between Destroyers and Light Cruisers, like the Italian esploratori and French contre-torpilleurs.
There were some Fletchers which were modified or built with seaplane catapults, which I won't mind.
Neither would I mind the ability to build CAMs (Catapult Armed Merchantmen), even if it is just to allow AMCs to have catapult fighters.
EDIT:
ALSO! Torpedo Boat Carriers need to be a thing. I'd love to be able to haul around a number of cheap, disposable deployable torpedo boats, to distract, harass, and finish enemy ships.
|
|
|
Post by epsilon19 on May 31, 2019 8:06:22 GMT -6
Torpedo Boat Carriers need to be a thing. I'd love to be able to haul around a number of cheap, disposable deployable torpedo boats, to distract, harass, and finish enemy ships. I like this idea, and the MTBs could probably be set up similarly to how planes currently work.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 31, 2019 9:40:55 GMT -6
Torpedo Boat Carriers need to be a thing. I'd love to be able to haul around a number of cheap, disposable deployable torpedo boats, to distract, harass, and finish enemy ships. I like this idea, and the MTBs could probably be set up similarly to how planes currently work. MTBs are already in the game. In fact, they were in RTW1. I'd say, just use those, and give the player direct control, and just let them refuel from carriers or something.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 31, 2019 13:27:23 GMT -6
Removing threads
In RTW2 thread there are 2 pinned threads: Moved: OFFICIAL RTW2 RELEASE BUG REPORT THREAD (Now live)
Moved: OFFICIAL RTW2 RELEASE BUG REPORT THREAD (Now live)
They do provide nothing as subthreads are easily visible, could they be removed are unpinned not to needed so much scrolling down?
|
|
|
Post by jeffen on Jun 1, 2019 5:50:40 GMT -6
Many thanks for setting up this thread!
Have some question about the torpedo. Is it possible to have a fleet tactic tech that allows you to fire a blind torpedo salvo to a wide area? (A order that You can choose which sector you want your DD or CL to launch torpedo just like the recon airplane)
I think it will make the game more real since torpedo is the only weapon for screen to counter the main battleship, it is quite weird for DD or CL to stay under BB fire for long period of time to launch just a few but not all their torpedo, and I believe that in reality, torpedo is sometimes used as a widespread weapon, not always a precision weapon. In the current game, it is quite hard to maintain visual contact with the target in night battles(for the screen, to launch a torpedo strike, they must maintain under fire from the enemy main fleet or even charge to a dangerously close distance and pray that their torpedo officer can give fire clearance before they die).
If it may greatly damage the game balance by allowing the player to make a blind shot, please at least make a tactic/doctrine for screen to launch a widespread torpedo salvo after she finishes her aim to increase the chance to hit, instead of only fire one torpedo turret to the aiming point without any prediction of enemy's evade movement (This can also make torpedo cruiser possible to play, such as IJN kitakami)
And it might be helpful if enemy's torpedo can also be visible to us(AI almost always make a turn when they detect our torpedo, but I always need to guess whether the enemy DD has launched their torpedo), it will be nice if my observer can tell me there are some torpedo in water.
|
|
|
Post by mjm4444 on Jun 1, 2019 16:58:50 GMT -6
Keeping in mind the existence and role of the Deutschland and Alaska classes, may I suggest creating a new class between Heavy Cruisers and Battlecruisers, Supercruisers/Large Cruisers. They could have a maximum gun size of 12", with Heavy Cruisers being once again limited to 10". If created they should probably be treated more like Heavy Cruisers than Battlecruisers.
|
|
|
Post by cavalier on Jun 2, 2019 16:49:09 GMT -6
Just a quick thought. Since the way armor was handled has changed so that exact tech used in construction influences how resistant it is, maybe there should be a little note or box or something that the player can reference on older designs? It might would help to be able to check that when determining whether to rebuild or scrap an older capital ship.
|
|
|
Post by psyden on Jun 2, 2019 17:08:43 GMT -6
Better firing angles for centerline turrets for the direction they are facing. This would only be for fore and aft centerline mounts.
Maybe weight savings for clustering barbettes? Example: fore, superfiring fore, and reverse facing fore would weigh less than a similar layout, only with the last turret being forward facing, but the second arrangement would have better forward fitting arcs.
Separating machine space and ammunition space belts as an option for box ammo.
Adjustable angle for inclined belts.
Torpedo Battleships!!! The ability to put many underwater torpedo tubes on a battleship or battle cruiser sized hull (multiple tonnes for an underwater battery? ). Would have limited top-side armament.
Hull focus (Normal, Speed, Maneuverability). Speed increases turning circle, but lowers hp requirements; Maneuverability focus is the opposite.
Bow designs. Reverse bows reduce hp requirements, but are more prone to flooding. Cutter bows make none super- firing forward turrets have centerline- like angles, but reduce rough weather effects. Ram bows are like reverse bows, but armored and decreases self-damage from rams and increases damage done, but is heavier.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Jun 2, 2019 18:27:13 GMT -6
Hull focus (Normal, Speed, Maneuverability). Speed increases turning circle, but lowers hp requirements; Maneuverability focus is the opposite.
I like this idea.
It also reminds me; IIRC, US battleships were restricted in length by the requirement to be able to fit through the Panama canal. Perhaps this could be simplified as a maximum tonnage requirement to use the canal, or perhaps it could be combined with the above idea; US battleships were short and fat (to use the canal), which meant they were more manoeuvrable. Thus, the tonnage limitation I just suggested, but a higher tonnage allowed with a manoeuvrability-focused ship, and lower tonnage with a speed-focused ship. Perhaps the limits could also be increased later in the game.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 2, 2019 22:03:32 GMT -6
Hull focus (Normal, Speed, Maneuverability). Speed increases turning circle, but lowers hp requirements; Maneuverability focus is the opposite.
I like this idea.
It also reminds me; IIRC, US battleships were restricted in length by the requirement to be able to fit through the Panama canal. Perhaps this could be simplified as a maximum tonnage requirement to use the canal, or perhaps it could be combined with the above idea; US battleships were short and fat (to use the canal), which meant they were more manoeuvrable. Thus, the tonnage limitation I just suggested, but a higher tonnage allowed with a manoeuvrability-focused ship, and lower tonnage with a speed-focused ship. Perhaps the limits could also be increased later in the game.
There are canal limits for both beam, length, and draft: beam limit was about 107 feet, length about 950 feet, and draft of roughly 39 feet. These are historical figures, recent or near future work will increase these.
|
|
|
Post by psyden on Jun 2, 2019 22:41:31 GMT -6
The idea comes from my research into the D and P Classes design history, how the Germans wanted a specific ratio for speed and maneuverability, and from how battlecruisers were often longer than their battleship counterparts, so as to maintain a narrow hull form for similar tonnage.
I generally tend to design high-speed warships with all frontal guns and heavy armor, gun count even being restricted for better armor on a 30 knt ship, which allows me to control most engagements I'm in.
|
|
|
Post by bidius on Jun 3, 2019 3:11:20 GMT -6
I have several suggestions take em or leave em;
1) Lengths of ship graphics based on their Range. Short Range vehicles being stubbier than Medium and Long range being visually longer.
2) Length of ships governing maneuverability as a modifier, something like 15% more or less maneuverable depending on length of ship. A short-range BC would be the same length and maneuverability as a medium-range BB.
3) A technology to enable centerline secondaries ala Yamato class would be neat. Maybe even being able to manually place where secondaries are placed akin to how superstructure graphic placement would be fun, but with no utility as with superstructure placement - no meta just aesthetics.
4) Changes to the way CLs are identified. They should be specifically tied to gun size as they are IRL, NOT armor as they are in game. Armor should have no bearing on whether a cruiser is considered heavy or light. If the devs are worried about early CLs being too heavily armored, you could always just change the limit to only apply to a certain armor scheme (Protected Cruiser) this way we could retain the ability to actually armor our CLs from RTW1.
5) Armored KEs should have increased chance to win gun duel with submarines.
6) Ship building efficiency as technology would be nifty too, this way the weight of the ship isn't the only thing governing how long it would take to build, and disparity in technology could encourage nations to utilize ordering foreign-built ships if they want them to arrive faster.
7) 3.5 inch guns. it was one of the most popular across-the board HAA calibers ranging from 85mm to 92mm depending on nation and isnt modeled in the game very accurately.
8) WASD/Arrow keys controling speed and heading of ships? If not that then give us some sort of hotkey to control speed on-the-fly.
|
|
|
Post by psyden on Jun 3, 2019 11:15:00 GMT -6
Aviation Cruiser/Flight-Deck Cruiser and Hybrid Carrier.
CAV/CFD would have the ability to mount a flight deck and centerline main turrets, but only fore, fire superfiring, aft, and aft superfiring up to 6-inch, or just fore and aft up to 8-inch.
Hybrid Carriers like the Ise, which could carry up to 28 planes iirc, would be an easy fix for the ability to refit BBs into CVs in USN service. When trying during my playthrough of the USN, I got a warning that the US required 8-inch guns on carriers of a certain size. Since only turrets of size 6 or less can be added, I couldn't do the conversion.
Also, I would like to see submarine carriers and submarine cruisers. The SSCV would carry a limited amount of planes. Some classes carried 1 and the I-400 class carried 3. This would add scouting ability, which small random air patrols. Cruiser Submarines would be better raiders and could maybe win gun duels with CLs. They'd have a decreased risk of accidentally sinking civilian lines, too. On the flip side, however, if they can win duels, they can lose them, too.
|
|
|
Post by warlock on Jun 3, 2019 12:53:30 GMT -6
I would like to see the ability to create "Super Crusiers" i.e. Alaska, Design B-65, etc at least once we get to a certain tech level around 1945. Basically all the same rules and limitations for building a CA currently in game but with the ability to mount up to 12 inch guns. Currently the closest thing you can build in game is a CA with 10 inch guns without it automatically being regarded as a BC.
|
|
|
Post by malioto on Jun 3, 2019 19:56:53 GMT -6
Attachment Deleted^ It'd be really convenient if you displayed estimated enemy speed and damage in the border of the picture-in-picture window.
|
|