|
Post by arminpfano on Jun 11, 2019 12:33:41 GMT -6
I feel like I always get either neutral or unfavorable match-ups - almost never do I get an advantageous battle unless I have overwhelming superiority in the sea zone (i.e. they don't really have capitals to contest). The number of times I've had 1 or 2 Cls against several CAs or BCs in my damn home region is ridiculous. This is easy to solve: send away all CLs from Home, just keep CA/BC and DD. You get even forces, or better.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 11, 2019 12:40:26 GMT -6
Rule the Waves is a strategic shell to provide combat/battle generation for the underlying Steam and Iron tactical combat engine. It's not to a point where it can generate very realistic battle types, or create a running narrative. Battle events are not (to my knowledge and experience) predicated upon previous events. If you win a huge battle in the channel against the French as the Germans, you may still get a suicidal charge of French naval units in the Baltic in the next battle. A lot of this is left to the player to role-play a justification. So I guess the answer for very unfavorable battles, even unrealistic ones, or other injustices would be: find a way to make it part of your narrative. That's the answer I have received regarding similar injustice with the resolution of war: RtW does not seek to have fair outcomes, its outcomes are meant to play into a narrative that the player is creating. Shortly put: this game is a battle-generator that requires the player's imagination to create a backdrop for the events in the game. - The tactical system (SAI) is tight and very believable (without imagination).
- The events getting us to that battle setup (i.e. the strategic level of RtW) are often beyond player control -- no OOB control, limited battle type control (accept/decline), no objective or location control -- and it is our job to make a believable story out of it.
|
|
|
Post by gorthaff on Jun 11, 2019 13:38:06 GMT -6
Its not our job, its a significant design problem, that needs to be adressed. The strategic layer fails to serve its porpous if its outcomes are not at least partailly dependent on the good or bad decisions of the player. If it fails in that regard, it starts being a game, and becomes mere gambling. Anyone defending this is fooling themselves. There is no reason for the strategic layer to ignore already existing context besides limited development resources. Which is a completely fair, if unfortunate explanation. Jut pleas stop sugarcoating it people. Its diminishing the chanse of resources in future ever being spent on fixing it.
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 11, 2019 13:51:29 GMT -6
The location of the fights doesn't matter all that much, and it's certainly not the result of player action in most cases - it's not like Germany could lose their Baltic bases even if they wanted to. As for the force ratios, I find the battles I get to be pretty reasonable, overall. All of them seem to be within a 2:1 ratio at worst, and I'm the stronger side a reasonable percentage of the time, even when my fleet isn't dominant in the zone.
I do want some more immersion here, if the devs can break free the time for it - instead of "Size: Medium", perhaps "A fishing boat has spotted a couple large ships flying German flags near our coast!", so you can get a sense of what you might be facing in a more immersive way. But that's not too high a priority for me. This is a ship design and combat engine, not a random history generator.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 14:18:09 GMT -6
The match of forces themselves isn't all that unrealistic since it is still possible for pieces of a superior fleet to be caught by a locally superior enemy force. The problem is more with the location choices of some of the battles being very odd. Besides the US into the Baltics against Germany, I've had a fair share of Russia into the bay of Biscay and fighting a massive fleet battle there against the French on multiple occasions. While I feel these scenario can happen occasionally, the battle generator should skew things towards a more reasonable placement of battles. North Sea should be the most likely place for conflict in a Russo-French war, and perhaps the Baltics if we imagine France gaining an upper hand. It makes no sense for Russia to sail their whole fleet into bay of Biscay when the French battle fleet was intact x.x Agreed. A fleet battle between France/UK on one hand and Germany/Russia in the other should take place in the North Sea or maybe the Baltic, not the Bay of Biscay. I also think that the randomness of the randomizer should be tied to how large the fleet in a sea area is. A massive fleet in one zone should be less liable to getting caught with its pants down than a medium sized fleet, all else being equal. Battle in North Sea in war between France and UK is unlikely. There is not much reasons why France should go to North Sea. France is expected to be less powerfull and more on defensive and North Sea means that home ports are much further than for UK. So I would expect that most battles would be around West and South coast of France.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 11, 2019 14:19:22 GMT -6
It's not to a point where it can generate very realistic battle types, or create a running narrative. Battle events are not (to my knowledge and experience) predicated upon previous events. If you win a huge battle in the channel against the French as the Germans, you may still get a suicidal charge of French naval units in the Baltic in the next battle.[backdrop for the events in the game. ‘Predicated on previous events...’ let that sink in, ya’ll. Imagine the battle generator recalling the previous battle offered last month and having it not offer that same battle on a consecutive month as the first battle offered if more than one battle is available. This is a suggestion already in the Suggestion forum that’s intended to give the illusion the battle generator has more mission diversity. If you think a simpler method would be more effective I’d love to hear it. Until then, this should be near the top of the list of ‘quality of life’ improvements the game makes.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 14:40:26 GMT -6
It's not to a point where it can generate very realistic battle types, or create a running narrative. Battle events are not (to my knowledge and experience) predicated upon previous events. If you win a huge battle in the channel against the French as the Germans, you may still get a suicidal charge of French naval units in the Baltic in the next battle.[backdrop for the events in the game. ‘Predicated on previous events...’ let that sink in, ya’ll. Imagine the battle generator recalling the previous battle offered last month and having it not offer that same battle on a consecutive month as the first battle offered if more than one battle is available. This is a suggestion already in the Suggestion forum that’s intended to give the illusion the battle generator has more mission diversity. If you think a simpler method would be more effective I’d love to hear it. Until then, this should be near the top of the list of ‘quality of life’ improvements the game makes. I am almost certain that repetitive missions are more common in RTW2 than RTW1.
It seems to me that there are much less cruiser interception missions in RTW2 which where around the globe and decrese feeling of repetitive missions quite a lot.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 11, 2019 20:22:02 GMT -6
Agreed. A fleet battle between France/UK on one hand and Germany/Russia in the other should take place in the North Sea or maybe the Baltic, not the Bay of Biscay. I also think that the randomness of the randomizer should be tied to how large the fleet in a sea area is. A massive fleet in one zone should be less liable to getting caught with its pants down than a medium sized fleet, all else being equal. Battle in North Sea in war between France and UK is unlikely. There is not much reasons why France should go to North Sea. France is expected to be less powerfull and more on defensive and North Sea means that home ports are much further than for UK. So I would expect that most battles would be around West and South coast of France. Well, Dorn, my friend let me pose some ideas for you. First of all, the French have three good ports that are essentially on the North Sea except Boulogne which is close. Those would be Gravelines and Dunkerque. Now, what strategy could you adopt for those bases? Well, how about blocking the Thames and London for a start. How about Newcastle upon Tyne which is a shipbuilding area. Now, if the war did not include Holland, Belgium and Germany then you could interdict supplies moving between those countries and England. What do you think, could it actually be an advantage? You might be able to draw some forces to the North Sea which was reduce those at Portsmouth and Southampton. That could give you advantages in areas like the Bay of Biscay and the Irish Sea area, not to mention the North Sea area. It could reduce the threats to Brest, Nantes and La Rochelle. You may not have the British outgunned, but just a fleet-in-being stationed at those ports would mean they would have to watch those ships and that means they can't be somewhere else. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 11, 2019 22:36:28 GMT -6
Battle in North Sea in war between France and UK is unlikely. There is not much reasons why France should go to North Sea. France is expected to be less powerfull and more on defensive and North Sea means that home ports are much further than for UK. So I would expect that most battles would be around West and South coast of France. Well, Dorn, my friend let me pose some ideas for you. First of all, the French have three good ports that are essentially on the North Sea except Boulogne which is close. Those would be Gravelines and Dunkerque. Now, what strategy could you adopt for those bases? Well, how about blocking the Thames and London for a start. How about Newcastle upon Tyne which is a shipbuilding area. Now, if the war did not include Holland, Belgium and Germany then you could interdict supplies moving between those countries and England. What do you think, could it actually be an advantage? You might be able to draw some forces to the North Sea which was reduce those at Portsmouth and Southampton. That could give you advantages in areas like the Bay of Biscay and the Irish Sea area, not to mention the North Sea area. It could reduce the threats to Brest, Nantes and La Rochelle. You may not have the British outgunned, but just a fleet-in-being stationed at those ports would mean they would have to watch those ships and that means they can't be somewhere else. What do you think? I was thinking about situation where RN has numerical advantage which is very likely. First we can think about convoys to France, you cannot use south France as RN can easily blockade them from Gibraltar and Malta, so your convoys would be limited between France and Africa. Other convoys from Atlantic need West coast. Trade with Benelux could be by land. Now we can look on offensive part. As French will be outnumbered main force will be more like fleet in being. If it is stationed that it can raid in North Sea, you will lack ships to help protecting convoys. I agree that small forces are could be used very well in North Sea. But any such force has one disadvantages, it is easy for RN to cut them from returning to port. The Mediterranean is probably best suited for operations using ports in Norh Africa and South Africa. Another possible space for operations is west from France. I would be worried to use French fleet more offensively as numerical superiority and probably even quality superiority is dangerous to French Navy. All this is the reasons I can see that French main forces will not operated in North Sea being too dangerous. What do you thing about this thought?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 11, 2019 22:56:31 GMT -6
Well, Dorn, my friend let me pose some ideas for you. First of all, the French have three good ports that are essentially on the North Sea except Boulogne which is close. Those would be Gravelines and Dunkerque. Now, what strategy could you adopt for those bases? Well, how about blocking the Thames and London for a start. How about Newcastle upon Tyne which is a shipbuilding area. Now, if the war did not include Holland, Belgium and Germany then you could interdict supplies moving between those countries and England. What do you think, could it actually be an advantage? You might be able to draw some forces to the North Sea which was reduce those at Portsmouth and Southampton. That could give you advantages in areas like the Bay of Biscay and the Irish Sea area, not to mention the North Sea area. It could reduce the threats to Brest, Nantes and La Rochelle. You may not have the British outgunned, but just a fleet-in-being stationed at those ports would mean they would have to watch those ships and that means they can't be somewhere else. What do you think? I was thinking about situation where RN has numerical advantage which is very likely. First we can think about convoys to France, you cannot use south France as RN can easily blockade them from Gibraltar and Malta, so your convoys would be limited between France and Africa. Other convoys from Atlantic need West coast. Trade with Benelux could be by land. Now we can look on offensive part. As French will be outnumbered main force will be more like fleet in being. If it is stationed that it can raid in North Sea, you will lack ships to help protecting convoys. I agree that small forces are could be used very well in North Sea. But any such force has one disadvantages, it is easy for RN to cut them from returning to port. The Mediterranean is probably best suited for operations using ports in Norh Africa and South Africa. Another possible space for operations is west from France. I would be worried to use French fleet more offensively as numerical superiority and probably even quality superiority is dangerous to French Navy. All this is the reasons I can see that French main forces will not operated in North Sea being too dangerous. What do you thing about this thought? First, the British are an island and depend on trade for many supplies from the US and other nations. France does not depend on those supplies. That gives her the advantage. Don’t be overwhelmed by the British numbers, they can’t be everywhere at once. The ships that are in Gravelines and Dunkirk could be light cruisers and destroyers plus submarines. The British cannot neglect protecting the Thames, if the game is programmed correctly. The Mediterranean is a good area; However, it is an enclosed sea and they have control of Gibraltar and Alexandria plus Malta. A small fleet should be able to keep those ships in Gibraltar in place to protect the straits. For France, it is not that important. The problem is you don’t know who owns North Africa. The French should have the western portion of North Africa and this means the British must maintain force in Gibraltar. Do you see the concept of operations? Use the French fleet to pick away at small British forces. When you are at a numerical disadvantage, avoid fixed battles and decisive engagements. Use the idea of He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. I use this for Italy and Japan and never lose. We tend to think Mahanian, decisive battles. This idea got the Japanese into a lot of trouble in the War in the Pacific. It never bothered the US Navy. Think outside the box. Don’t allow your fleet to be drawn into major engagements. Avoid decisive battles like the plague. Hit and run is the best policy. Wear the British down.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on Jun 11, 2019 23:34:48 GMT -6
Some of you need to learn you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 12, 2019 0:29:18 GMT -6
I was thinking about situation where RN has numerical advantage which is very likely. First we can think about convoys to France, you cannot use south France as RN can easily blockade them from Gibraltar and Malta, so your convoys would be limited between France and Africa. Other convoys from Atlantic need West coast. Trade with Benelux could be by land. Now we can look on offensive part. As French will be outnumbered main force will be more like fleet in being. If it is stationed that it can raid in North Sea, you will lack ships to help protecting convoys. I agree that small forces are could be used very well in North Sea. But any such force has one disadvantages, it is easy for RN to cut them from returning to port. The Mediterranean is probably best suited for operations using ports in Norh Africa and South Africa. Another possible space for operations is west from France. I would be worried to use French fleet more offensively as numerical superiority and probably even quality superiority is dangerous to French Navy. All this is the reasons I can see that French main forces will not operated in North Sea being too dangerous. What do you thing about this thought? First, the British are an island and depend on trade for many supplies from the US and other nations. France does not depend on those supplies. That gives her the advantage. Don’t be overwhelmed by the British numbers, they can’t be everywhere at once. The ships that are in Gravelines and Dunkirk could be light cruisers and destroyers plus submarines. The British cannot neglect protecting the Thames, if the game is programmed correctly. The Mediterranean is a good area; However, it is an enclosed sea and they have control of Gibraltar and Alexandria plus Malta. A small fleet should be able to keep those ships in Gibraltar in place to protect the straits. For France, it is not that important. The problem is you don’t know who owns North Africa. The French should have the western portion of North Africa and this means the British must maintain force in Gibraltar. Do you see the concept of operations? Use the French fleet to pick away at small British forces. When you are at a numerical disadvantage, avoid fixed battles and decisive engagements. Use the idea of He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. I use this for Italy and Japan and never lose. We tend to think Mahanian, decisive battles. This idea got the Japanese into a lot of trouble in the War in the Pacific. It never bothered the US Navy. Think outside the box. Don’t allow your fleet to be drawn into major engagements. Avoid decisive battles like the plague. Hit and run is the best policy. Wear the British down. You are completely right, I use this strategy in RTW quite often and it is succesfull, slowly destroying their light forces which are quite important in fleet engagement as they are eyes, protecters and even hammers.
However it seems to me that in RTW2 there are much higher % of fleet battles than in RTW2.
Relating to resources, French is dependent too but it is more likely how Italy and Germany will trade with France.
Do you think that main British trade goes through North Sea and not as historically from Western Approaches?
If we look at period of WW1 than I think French vs. Germany has advantage that they have better access to open Ocean so surface raiders are more viable option and submarines has better access to approaches to Isles.
North Afrika will mainly depend on army and supplies comming there. UK has issue to supply North Africa as going around Africa does not help as it gets France a lot of opportunities to attack such convoy. Going through the Mediterranean means that large part of Royal Navy needs to protect such convoy. On opposite distance helps French to get supplies to North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Jun 12, 2019 0:48:29 GMT -6
Some of you need to learn you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. But you catch the most flies with a fly trap.
|
|
|
Post by Procopius on Jun 12, 2019 5:41:03 GMT -6
Some of you need to learn you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. But you catch the most flies with a fly trap. Or poison gas!
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 12, 2019 5:47:58 GMT -6
It can be frustrating, I built 4 new battleships as the Japanese at massive cost just for them to *never* be spawned in battle across a 18 month war.
The Soviets were stuffing my face in around the home islands as my CAs and CLs were the only ships picked to fend them off.
It's not often I rage quit strategy games...
|
|