Post by mycophobia on May 30, 2019 13:12:24 GMT -6
The discussion over destroyer refit time got me thinking on the refit system as a whole and I feel the current system does not adequately capture three kinds of historical refits that aren't very relevant in the RTW1 time frame, but is relevant with rtw 2.
Quick Refits
Firstly, very quick and expedient refit involving things like shoving AA guns all over a ship, replacing fire control(Depending on superstructure rework may take longer but can be quick as well). Removing shells without changing magazine to make weight for AA gun, etc...
These kind of refit should be very limited in what can be changed. Such as removal/addition of 2-3in guns, change to AA armament, fire control, removing ammo without changing magazine(as discussed in the DD ammo change thread). The refit should be cheapish and quick, taking only 1-2months at most. This kind of refit WILL NOT reset any debuff from the ship's age and will not refresh the O tag.
Extensive Refits
This will be for very extensive rework done on ships like the Italian BBs in the interwar years and the Kongos, where there is a significant displacement change beyond the 500t allowed by bulging currently, and fairly extensive change to armour, main armament, etc...
This should be very expensive and time consuming, something that should generally only be considered when under treaty restriction. It should allow more freedom of adjusting designs, such as limited amount of belt/deck armour change, range change, etc...(It can be comparable to a 10-20% change when designing a ship based on existing class).
Refitting Ships Undercontsruction
As above, but done to a unfinished ship, should also allow chance for carrier conversations. Ideally this should work with existing treaty mechanism but can also stand on its own. It should not be cost-effective it all, and adds more buildtime. It should only be done to a ship below a certain percentage of completion and maybe limited to once per ship. Furthermore doing so will potentially give the ship hidden defects or mess up design speed. It will still be about as limited as an extensive construction, but can let the player have the option to pay a premium to incorporate some last minute development into their latest ship. (E.g adding higher lvl TDS, changing turrets to DP, etc...at a substantial cost so it cant be abused.)
Change to Design Options
Furthermore, I feel there are some additional change that can make certain design options more appealing than they are currently, chief among which is Range and Engine Reliability.
Reliability
I'd suggest that engine reliability reduce the maintenance cost of the ship, thereby making a long-term cost saving investment to design reliable ships besides its benefit in raiding and battle.(It can also make the Outdated debuff kick in later)
Range
Range should have a more significant effect outside of raiding warfare and campaign movement. I've posted the idea in an earlier thread so I will just copy it over:
May 27, 2019 15:11:45 GMT -7 mycophobia said:
AKA The March of Ships Marching
In all the games of RTW1 and 2 I have played, I've found that Long/Extreme Range is arguably the least useful stats to consider. Short/Medium offers the trade off between being a homewater ship vs. something that can move around during war time. However Long/Extreme Range serves very little purpose outside of being on a raider from my observation. (Although I haven't played with them too much, so if anyone can clarify any other implications they may have, please let me know. I don't think they significantly affect how likely that ship is going to be available for battle)
Thus I want to discuss on this can be mediated. It is very clear that a ship's range of operations have very significant impact on that ship's strategic performance, yet this rarely seems to matter in game. I am wondering whether it will be a good idea to finally give ship range a numerical value in terms of nm much like aircrafts? We can still just choose S/M/L/EX for ship range and get a corresponding distance scaling with tech rather than worrying about a distance down to the mile. (Older ship can be kept relevant by either refit, or giving a flat bouns as technology advances to represent better fleet logistic) When a mission is generated, and the game picks available ship, ship whose operational range cannot reach the combat area from the nearest friendly port will have a very low chance to partake in that battle(Not impossible, considering underway replenishment will help). Ship's chance to participate will also be proportionally lowered as the battle location get closer to their maximum range. AI nations should also behave appropriately in response (E.G US mostly avoids building S range ships and prefer Long range at least)
This can help making some super power's fleet slightly more balanced against minors since they generally have to build long range ships(Which applies to players playing these major power as well. May help to make US feel less OP later on when player is playing). Further, the choice to have L/EX change matters more since when fighting it open waters or in areas where the player have few bases the longer ranged ships reliably see more action. Even one zone nation like AH maybe have some incentive to build slightly longer ranged ships depending on their enemy. (Maybe more relevant for Russia, so we can see more invasion of bay of Biscay xD)
If an actual numerical range is difficult to code, I suppose a rng based system that affect ship's chance to appear given a particular sea region's size can suffice. But I do think the player needs to have an clear idea of the implications of their choice to not feel frustrated when their ship don't show up/when they pick long range but cant feel any difference.
Anyways looking forward to what everyone thinks.
With VP penalty being more hefty in RTW 2, I can see it being valuable to have long range ships at least offering you a chance to engage some battle that would be free VP for the enemy. It will make quite a bit of realistic sense too. If you build a fleet of powerful but short ranged BBs, there maybe times where they simply cant make it to save that one Convoy against the enemy battle fleet. If you build some weaker but longer ranged BC for trade warfare, maybe you can dominate areas where shorter ranged enemy BC cant come out to match you.
Quick Refits
Firstly, very quick and expedient refit involving things like shoving AA guns all over a ship, replacing fire control(Depending on superstructure rework may take longer but can be quick as well). Removing shells without changing magazine to make weight for AA gun, etc...
These kind of refit should be very limited in what can be changed. Such as removal/addition of 2-3in guns, change to AA armament, fire control, removing ammo without changing magazine(as discussed in the DD ammo change thread). The refit should be cheapish and quick, taking only 1-2months at most. This kind of refit WILL NOT reset any debuff from the ship's age and will not refresh the O tag.
Extensive Refits
This will be for very extensive rework done on ships like the Italian BBs in the interwar years and the Kongos, where there is a significant displacement change beyond the 500t allowed by bulging currently, and fairly extensive change to armour, main armament, etc...
This should be very expensive and time consuming, something that should generally only be considered when under treaty restriction. It should allow more freedom of adjusting designs, such as limited amount of belt/deck armour change, range change, etc...(It can be comparable to a 10-20% change when designing a ship based on existing class).
Refitting Ships Undercontsruction
As above, but done to a unfinished ship, should also allow chance for carrier conversations. Ideally this should work with existing treaty mechanism but can also stand on its own. It should not be cost-effective it all, and adds more buildtime. It should only be done to a ship below a certain percentage of completion and maybe limited to once per ship. Furthermore doing so will potentially give the ship hidden defects or mess up design speed. It will still be about as limited as an extensive construction, but can let the player have the option to pay a premium to incorporate some last minute development into their latest ship. (E.g adding higher lvl TDS, changing turrets to DP, etc...at a substantial cost so it cant be abused.)
Change to Design Options
Furthermore, I feel there are some additional change that can make certain design options more appealing than they are currently, chief among which is Range and Engine Reliability.
Reliability
I'd suggest that engine reliability reduce the maintenance cost of the ship, thereby making a long-term cost saving investment to design reliable ships besides its benefit in raiding and battle.(It can also make the Outdated debuff kick in later)
Range
Range should have a more significant effect outside of raiding warfare and campaign movement. I've posted the idea in an earlier thread so I will just copy it over:
May 27, 2019 15:11:45 GMT -7 mycophobia said:
AKA The March of Ships Marching
In all the games of RTW1 and 2 I have played, I've found that Long/Extreme Range is arguably the least useful stats to consider. Short/Medium offers the trade off between being a homewater ship vs. something that can move around during war time. However Long/Extreme Range serves very little purpose outside of being on a raider from my observation. (Although I haven't played with them too much, so if anyone can clarify any other implications they may have, please let me know. I don't think they significantly affect how likely that ship is going to be available for battle)
Thus I want to discuss on this can be mediated. It is very clear that a ship's range of operations have very significant impact on that ship's strategic performance, yet this rarely seems to matter in game. I am wondering whether it will be a good idea to finally give ship range a numerical value in terms of nm much like aircrafts? We can still just choose S/M/L/EX for ship range and get a corresponding distance scaling with tech rather than worrying about a distance down to the mile. (Older ship can be kept relevant by either refit, or giving a flat bouns as technology advances to represent better fleet logistic) When a mission is generated, and the game picks available ship, ship whose operational range cannot reach the combat area from the nearest friendly port will have a very low chance to partake in that battle(Not impossible, considering underway replenishment will help). Ship's chance to participate will also be proportionally lowered as the battle location get closer to their maximum range. AI nations should also behave appropriately in response (E.G US mostly avoids building S range ships and prefer Long range at least)
This can help making some super power's fleet slightly more balanced against minors since they generally have to build long range ships(Which applies to players playing these major power as well. May help to make US feel less OP later on when player is playing). Further, the choice to have L/EX change matters more since when fighting it open waters or in areas where the player have few bases the longer ranged ships reliably see more action. Even one zone nation like AH maybe have some incentive to build slightly longer ranged ships depending on their enemy. (Maybe more relevant for Russia, so we can see more invasion of bay of Biscay xD)
If an actual numerical range is difficult to code, I suppose a rng based system that affect ship's chance to appear given a particular sea region's size can suffice. But I do think the player needs to have an clear idea of the implications of their choice to not feel frustrated when their ship don't show up/when they pick long range but cant feel any difference.
Anyways looking forward to what everyone thinks.
With VP penalty being more hefty in RTW 2, I can see it being valuable to have long range ships at least offering you a chance to engage some battle that would be free VP for the enemy. It will make quite a bit of realistic sense too. If you build a fleet of powerful but short ranged BBs, there maybe times where they simply cant make it to save that one Convoy against the enemy battle fleet. If you build some weaker but longer ranged BC for trade warfare, maybe you can dominate areas where shorter ranged enemy BC cant come out to match you.
