An immodest DLC/Expansion proposal: Rule the Waves 2:Vampire

[requiem762]

There has been much discussion about the future of RTW2 and the implimention of things like missiles and jet fighters, I believe I have come up with a comprehensive set of ideas for systems that can be incorporated into the game based on the systems that are already present and can provide valuble gameplay out to around 1980. This exercise will take the form of multiple posts in this thread and I invite all memebers of the community and NWS team to discuss this proposal and the future of RTW2


so the elephant in the room is missiles. I think that missles can function effectively and not be game breaking in a number of ways and this can be done by essential making missiles a hybrid of the Aircraft, Torpedo Mount, and Turret Mount sytesm

LAUNCHERS:

What is a missile without an ability to launch it? well mostly useless. The core of the missile system as I invision it is the launching system, and that in game there should be a number of different launch systems that become more capable and change with time and tech progression:

Catapults: the initial launch system for early missiles like Regulus style weapons, large, unwieldy, and questionably reliable, this would be as simple as placing a check box on the ship design screen: Use Aircraft Catapult for Missile (Y/N) with the missile replaceing the floatplane scout.


Launch Rails, single and double: Launch Rails would be the "standard" method of launching missiles with the exapansion and would become researchable in the mid 50s/ early 60s. this is where we start to see more useble missiles come about like Talos and later the early standard missile and harpoon style systems start to come about. Launch Rails would be capable of launching multiple types of missiles but have a lower rate of fire for delivering salvos. 



Small Missile Tubes: Where launch rails function much like turrets currently do, Launch Tubes would function more like torpedo mounts, only coming in varied sizes. Small missle tubes would enter in around the same time as launch rails and would fill a station similar to the US Mk-16 box launcher for harpoons and ASROCs and the MK-29 launch box for Sea sparrow missiles initially and as tech progresses systems similar to mk-141 would enter service (may need to be a medium missle tube catagories) Small missle tubes would again be placed like torpedo and turret mounts and would have a variable number of cells per mount maxing out at 8 or 12. 



Large Missle tubes: Large Missile tubes function a lot like the aforementioned small missile tubes but can accommodate large missiles. Obviosuly they would be much heavier, take up more space, and have fewer tubes per mount (max of 1 or 2 with up to 4 around 1975+) when invisioniong this I think largely of the missle tubes present on soviet missle boats like the OSA or cruisers like the Kara or Kresta, These tubes only being suitable for heavy anti-ship or land attack missiles.


The next section of this thread will cover missile types, see you in part 2

[requiem762]

Part 2: Missile design and use!

Now that I have covered launchers I shall address ship and land based missiles themselves. How I envision it, missiles will function a lot like aircraft, missile design will function with a type of missile desired, an two focuses.


Types:
Large Surface to Surface: Mostly in the vein of the early missiles like the P-15 Termit and later the P-500, these missiles require large launch tubes.
Medium Surface to Surface: Harpoon, Excocet, TSAM. and mid cold war soviet missiles, can be fired by launch rails or medium/small launch tubes
Small SAM: Think Terrier, then the sea sparrow style of missile, used for short to medium range. if vls is included, may allow multipacking into vls tubes
Medium SAM: Think Talos, later evolving into the standard missile series and the like. launched from small tubes, and launch rails.
Large Land Attack: Regulus and other early missiles needs large launch tubes or catapult.
Medium Land Attack: later weapons like TLAM, small tubes, or rails, vls if included.

ASROCs: YES! ASROCS! I think these should be included, launched from small tubes and rails, but its use is abstracted due to the nature of submarines, the number of ASROCs in a magazine should lead to a corresponding increase in ASW ability. (ex 1 ASROC= .25 ASW score so 4 ASROC = +1 ASW score.) this leads to another discussion on magazine composition which I will cover soon.



Focuses:
Speed
Range
Reliability
Warhead size
Seeker/ECCM quality

Things like warhead size would scale with the actual size of the missile, and things like speed scaleing until adavances in propulsion and miniturizastion (for instance it should be very hard to make a small supersonic antiship missile without sacrificing warhead seeker and range)


MAGAZINE COMPISITION:

For missiles I feel to get the nessarcy value out of the system the player needs more detailed control over magazine composition on individual classes if not individual ships, I propose this be done by adding another tab to the doctrines tab. In this new tab for missiles one would find a list of the classes of ships with missile lanchers or individual ships with launchers. From there the player selects the ship or class and then adds missiles the same way the player adjust the composition of airwings for carriers and bases. Like carriers, launchers and magazine capacity is decided in ship designer and composition in doctrines or a separate page.


MISSILE EMPLOYMENT:

Again calling back to air wing functions, the control over missile use would be similar if not identical. instead of CAP the ship uses missiles to engage incoming planes and missiles, prioritizing use of long range missiles first, then short range, then point defence and other defensive systems (addressed in part 3). The Player would have limited control in SAM expenditure like 1 missile per target per time or 2 or 3. Or 1 missile for incoming planes 2 for incoming missiles with these values adjustable.


Antiship missiles and land attack missiles would function much like torpedo bombers and dive bombers. the Player designates a target or bearing to fire missiles and how many of what type are expended.



Continued in part 3: point defence and other systems!

[requiem762]

Part 3: Point Defence and other systems

Admittadly this is the least fleshed out of my comphrehensive proposal, but I shall press on regardless and this can be a good point of discussion!

Point Defence:
The name of the game in modern battle group/ ship defence proceadure is layered defensive systems. the final layer in that system is going to be a hard kill rapid fire anti missile system, today these take the form of rapid fire cannons like phalanx goal keeper and kashtan, as well as missiles like the ESSM, Dialing back the clock to he proposals time frame we have mainly just the rapid fire cannons which don't start to appear till the late 60s early seventies, flack batteries and radar directed guns as well as DP guns played a massive role in fleet air defense for many navies well into the 60s.


I propose that CWIS guns like phalanx and goalkeeper be placable like turrets at the players discretion with defined firing arcs. These arcs would be wider than most side mounted turrets but not 360 degrees. maximum arc dependant on placement.


OTHER SYSTEMS: these are brief because of their abstraction or simplicity


Chaff or Decoy Ejectors: Likely Placed like AA Guns Currently are they would increase the ships antimissile factor, these systems would be expensive and pretty rare, probably a hard limit on there number or utility until the late game.


Defensive jamming: similar to chaff and decoys but would have a slight chance of spoofing enemy radars, would be put on ships similar to TPS. having missiles with better seekers/ECCM counters this somewhat but not completely.


Homing torpedos: Similar to ASROC but become available earlier, largely abstracted, would include a check box in designer or doctrine "allow homing torpedos" and then player decides how many to include vs regular torpedos, ships prioritize regular torpedos over homing torpedos as homing torpedos are short range and slow up until the mid seventies. Primarily a anti submarine tool, they function similar to asroc in terms of asw score.


Torpedo Decoys: similar to Chaff and defensive jamming, player sets number and increases ability to doge a homing torpedo shot.


Radar Fire control: new type of fire control required to use most sams and antiship missiles, would be a separate fire control option from gun fire control.

Part 4: coming soon, Will be about aircraft changes, taking a slight break to rest my hands on this one.

[requiem762]

Part 4: Aircraft and carriers

Most changes here revolve around aircraft types and the weapons they carry. much how as tech progresses currently and the player unlocks new aircraft, this is more of the same but with new aircraft types subplaniting aircraft roles from older eras. Much of air combat remains abstracted.

New Aircraft types that become available with tech progression:
Heavy Jet Fighter: think F-4 and later F-14, would be a type alongside light jet fighter but have higher range speed and weapons capacity.
Light Jet Fighter: I think this should come alongside fighter when jet engines are discovered, fast short range, highly maneuverable with a light weapons load. Think the FJ-Fury and F2H Banshee, progressing towards the F-8

STOVL Multirole Fighter: late 60s tech and would appear lat game, slower than light jet fighters, but more capable at a2g than light fighters and take up less space and weight on ships. Would make light carriers relevant in the late game again and help small nations be competitive when they cant afford large fleet carriers. the ship design screen should include a check box for a ramp, checking this makes the carrier have a ramp increasing the range and weapon load for stovl fighters embarked, but prevents the ship from mounting catapults. Also after a point Aricraft carrier catapults shpuld become a design requirement except for light carriers, but most jets should not be deployable to non catapult carriers after a point except a stoval jet. more catapults= higher sortie rate.


Light Attack aircraft: replaces dive bomber, similar to the F9 panther and evolves into the A-4, then A-7/Super Entendard, starts with rockets and bombs, later able to carry small antiship missiles.


Heavy Attack Aircraft: Replaces torpedo bomber, carries heavy bomb loads and later antiship missiles. Think A-6.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft: REplaces flying boat, hass better asw score and can later carry antiship missiles like the p-3 orian, more or less just a name change here.

Utility helicopter: More or less replaces floatplane scout, think seasprite evolving into seahwak. Would require a certain minimum tonnage and require no Y or X mount or allow Y or X mount if Free R mount. can have more than one, tonnage requirement not present for light and heavy carriers, and no separate hangar required on these classes of vessel just lumped into airwing size. Have ASW score increase for a ship carrying them and a chance to sink enemy subs far from fleet when on patrol.



AIR CRAFT Weapons:

Air to air missiles are probably best left abstracted but aircraft designs are assigned a number and in the design screen and the number of air to air missiles increases its fire power rating but that fire power rating getting lower until an active plane restocks after landing.


Aircraft Carriers should have an air launched antiship missile magazine when the tech becomes available, to limit stocks of air plane launched air to surface missiles and force the player to make tough decisions.

Laser Guided Bombs: late game tech, similar to guided bombs now except they are a loadout otption selectable by the player, better than early guided bombs in game now, but not as good as antiship missiles, inreases attacker stand of range slightly. cheaper alternative to missiles.

Other than that I feel aircraft weapons more or less remain the same except for MPAs and helicopter carrying ASMs and homing torpedos on recon missions as tech makes them available.



SATILITES:


If this thread jumps the shark anywhere its here...

Think RORSATS

Satilites should be simple temporary items that the player can launch starting in the sixities. They start with low reliablility (could fail randomly) and very high cost and only are capable of staying up for a year max. Reliability and air time increase as tech advances and cost decreases but it should still remain high.


Satilites get displayed in the almanac and shold have maybe a 1 month- 3 month build time. once they are built they go into a moth ball stock pile until the player chooses to launch one. Stock pile is cheap but launch and its time aloft is very expensive.

A Satilite should have a percentage chance of being present in a battle and depending on tech level and battle duration how many passes it has through the battle field. Satilits would deliver a once perpass instantaious and very accurate position report. More satilites the higher the chance one shows up for a battle.



Part 5: conclusion coming soon.

[requiem762]

Part 5: Conclusion

I feel the proposal I have laid out here provides a comprehensive vision for an expansion into the first generation of missile based combat in naval warfare. I feel my proposal is simple to implement based on systems present in game, and balances the high power of some tech while holding on to a high degree of realism. I feel the ideas I have laid out here would make for a superb paid expansion to RTW2. I understand that the team and Fredrik are focused heavily on bug fixing and balance right now, or may already have ideas in progress for the implimentation of these systems and I wanted to throw out as many helpful(or hurtful potentially) ideas I had. I Fully Acknowledge that I am not a game developer, what I describe as simple in relative terms is likely way off the mark and that this thread here while a proposal, is also in a way a dream thread. It may also be likely what I have decribed here is more fitting for a third RTW game than a paid DLC. I encourage everyone to discuss and critique my proposal.


Regardlass, I just want to say to the Devs, and whole NWS Team, Thank you for RTW2 I absolutely love the game!