|
|
Post by yemo on Jul 19, 2019 13:45:51 GMT -6
Between the broken fleet building compositions (more capital ships than cruisers + DDs), the broken legacy fleet compositions (especially 1920 start), the broken peace deal mechanis (white peace after annihilating enemy fleet, but they can keep the invaded colonies), the broken invasion mechanics, the broken research machanics (jumping techs can make a field unusable for decades), the improvable battle generator, the broken wayfinding AI within scenarios, and the broken blockade mechanics, I m considering going back to RTW 1. RTW 1 might not have airplanes and such, but with the smaller timeframe being more forgiving to some stuff, at least it felt more immersive. I m seriously tired of crushing fantasy capital ship fleets without escorts, steaming around in circles in a bay, just to have blockade mechanics prevent me from sending a fast ship to contest all those AI invasions and then having a white peace give me nothing while the AI can keep all those invaded colonies.
It is imho time to tackle one of all those listed broken gameplay mechanics, which were there since the first demo. Yeah, the battles are fun (if the enemy is not circling in a bay) and the ship builder is fun, but without all those other mechanics, non of this matters since the immersion is gone.
I understand that this is a "one person project" and that bug fixing had priority. But there needs to be some progress in the gameplay. Or externalize one of the broken mechanics to the cfg files and let the community tinker with it and fix it. I would prefer the latter. Fixing that stuff and/or finding out how to improve it would be more fun than playing the game at the moment. Like seawolf did with the speed curves.
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 19, 2019 14:58:37 GMT -6
Of the issues above, I think Blockade, late game Carrier Battle Generation, and the fact that captured territory are not returned even when the player have won the war are top priorities. Many of these issues existed since RTW 1 and I am okay with them for the most part (Blockade being the only one that consistently bugged me).
Enemy capturing your territory and not give them back when you WIN the war is particularly jarring. I can somewhat justified a forced white peace leading to status quo over captured territory, but when you have won the war, even when not given the option to take possessions, you should at least be able to recover land that was taken in the war.
The rest of the issues have been fairly extensively debated on the forum so I wont reiterate anything here, just listing out the issues that I personally consider in most immediate need of change.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 19, 2019 16:04:16 GMT -6
You are right that actual state of RTW2 is not on pair with RTW1 but it steadily improving. I will take your points one by one. I would think that what works in RTW1 and does not in RTW2 is matter of time to be right.
1. Fleet composition - yes, it is an issue, in RTW1 it works almost perfectly may be a little more BCs 2. Legacy fleet composition - correct, right now it is issue, especially 1920 start
3. Peace deals - this I completely disagree and I think that todays system is the right one. You need to take into considaration that winning war is not about naval situation. Navy is here to achieve goals. Even if you have several times more VP it does not means you are winning the war.
4. Invasion mechanics - it was quite improved, there are still some bugs but overall it would work 5. Research mechanics - it was changed from RTW1 and technologies are not going much beyond 1955, sometimes even not to 1955 which has some negative effect probably not foreseen. But this is something that can be finetuned. 6. Battle generator - yes, there is a lot of issue and especially with small fleets it is the most visible but it works reasonable well in RTW1 so I believe it will be improved 7. Wayfinding AI - it was issue in RTW too. But with carriers it is going to be even worse. But this one is probably possible to solve even by players by modding 8. Blockade - this is not broken, just utterly simplified. Issue is that it is quite complex matter and doing some simplification is the only way to go. Finding the best mix is difficult. But it is same with RTW1
I get RTW1 when there have been already final version so i cannot compare the first release with final version. It took more than year to have final release. I expect that amount of work in RTW2 would be much more as it is much more complex adding air warfare. I hope at the and RTW2 would be much better game even if it is not today. No matter of future I think that it would be more comparable to MOO2 vs MOO, MOO2 is much more complex game and usually much more fun but as piece of engineering MOO1 shines much more because of simplicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 19, 2019 17:04:02 GMT -6
Gentlemen:
I am seeing some frustration from all of you about the game and some issues that are arising. I can't speak to them, it isn't my place and I am not in the know. However, I want to tell all of you that if you can't duplicate a problem, you cannot test for it and therefore you can't fix it. This is true of programming problems and it is certainly true in flight gripes in my world. There have been more times in my career when I have gotten a flight gripe from a test pilot or from the fleet, that we could not duplicate because the plane had to be in the air. I have also had programming errors that we had problems trying setup tests to find the issue and fix. Sometimes we succeeded, and many times we did not.
I suspect the team is going through each problem carefully, prioritizing and fixing the easy ones first, then going after the more difficult. I don't know but that is how I would do it. Trust me, I've been around this team for many years and they will fix it, they just need good information and your patience. Carriers, land and sea based aviation is very complex, just give them time.
Thanks for reading this
Oldpop
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jul 19, 2019 17:45:49 GMT -6
Keep in mind that RTW1 was continually updated for at least 18 months after release, while RTW2, in addition to being much more complex than RTW1, has been out for ~ 2 months at this point in time.
Not trying to make any excuses here, just trying to bring a bit of perspective to the situation...
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jul 19, 2019 17:47:31 GMT -6
You are right that actual state of RTW2 is not on pair with RTW1 but it steadily improving. I will take your points one by one. I would think that what works in RTW1 and does not in RTW2 is matter of time to be right.
1. Fleet composition - yes, it is an issue, in RTW1 it works almost perfectly may be a little more BCs 2. Legacy fleet composition - correct, right now it is issue, especially 1920 start
3. Peace deals - this I completely disagree and I think that todays system is the right one. You need to take into considaration that winning war is not about naval situation. Navy is here to achieve goals. Even if you have several times more VP it does not means you are winning the war.
4. Invasion mechanics - it was quite improved, there are still some bugs but overall it would work 5. Research mechanics - it was changed from RTW1 and technologies are not going much beyond 1955, sometimes even not to 1955 which has some negative effect probably not foreseen. But this is something that can be finetuned. 6. Battle generator - yes, there is a lot of issue and especially with small fleets it is the most visible but it works reasonable well in RTW1 so I believe it will be improved 7. Wayfinding AI - it was issue in RTW too. But with carriers it is going to be even worse. But this one is probably possible to solve even by players by modding 8. Blockade - this is not broken, just utterly simplified. Issue is that it is quite complex matter and doing some simplification is the only way to go. Finding the best mix is difficult. But it is same with RTW1
I get RTW1 when there have been already final version so i cannot compare the first release with final version. It took more than year to have final release. I expect that amount of work in RTW2 would be much more as it is much more complex adding air warfare. I hope at the and RTW2 would be much better game even if it is not today. No matter of future I think that it would be more comparable to MOO2 vs MOO, MOO2 is much more complex game and usually much more fun but as piece of engineering MOO1 shines much more because of simplicity.
1. Fleet composition - I m not after historical fleets two months after release and yes, eg the US did not build cruisers for some, but I m tired of seeing those absurdly skewed numbers. Just a bit more believable ( would be nice and then revisit in a few months. 3. Peace deals - I do not care about VP, but when the enemy does not have a fleet left but still gets to keep all the colonies they invaded from you, something is extremely wrong. And when Britain has no fleet left, I wonder what in the world could make them win the "land war" against Japan? I do not seek a perfect system, but there is a difference between roleplaying anomalies within a credible framework and making stuff up out of thin air. 4. Invasion mechanics - Agree, it was somewhat improved. But that does not matter as long as the blockade and peace deals are in the current state. 5. Research mechanics - Call it finetuning if you want, but making no progress for 20 years in a field set to high research priority is just not credible, especially when you can visually spot a new tech on foreign ships for a decade. 6. Battle generator - Imho not a priority, good enough for the moment. 7. Wayfinding AI - Give me a way to load and edit the world map visually and I fix (workaround) the worst of it in an afternoon. 8. Blockade - When the game not even allows a 33knot BC to run the blockade on purpose, while it prompts the player with catching 20? knot blockade runners, something is broken. No "roleplay" way around it.
Imho it is not a matter of complexity, it is a matter of credibility.
As mycophobia said, the peace deals are an immersion breaker. |
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 19, 2019 17:51:41 GMT -6
Keep in mind that RTW1 was continually updated for at least 18 months after release, while RTW2, in addition to being much more complex than RTW1, has been out for ~ 2 months at this point in time. Not trying to make any excuses here, just trying to bring a bit of perspective to the situation... No need to worry, I can totally understand the difficulty of tackling a project of this scale, and solution to issues may never be as simply as the player wish them to be (and if the debate on the forum is a good indicator, there may not even be an obvious solution). While I was trying to highlight some things I consider more problematic above, please don't take it as a complaint about the team's effort. Even if the game has some issues currently, I can say I personally still enjoyed it greatly and is looking forward to more positive changes. Keep up the good work! |
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jul 19, 2019 17:55:26 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I am seeing some frustration from all of you about the game and some issues that are arising. I can't speak to them, it isn't my place and I am not in the know. However, I want to tell all of you that if you can't duplicate a problem, you cannot test for it and therefore you can't fix it. This is true of programming problems and it is certainly true in flight gripes in my world. There have been more times in my career when I have gotten a flight gripe from a test pilot or from the fleet, that we could not duplicate because the plane had to be in the air. I have also had programming errors that we had problems trying setup tests to find the issue and fix. Sometimes we succeeded, and many times we did not. I suspect the team is going through each problem carefully, prioritizing and fixing the easy ones first, then going after the more difficult. I don't know but that is how I would do it. Trust me, I've been around this team for many years and they will fix it, they just need good information and your patience. Carriers, land and sea based aviation is very complex, just give them time. Thanks for reading this Oldpop And I understand that, bugfixing had priority. But honestly the novelty factor of 1925+ tech is wearing off and I feel like I do not care about bugfixing since I do not care about the gameplay.
And when people stop caring about the gameplay, the forum population dwindles. And then the feedback for fixing the gameplay dwindles.
Fleet composition is what you fight. Colonies is what you fight for (peace deal, invasions, blockade stopping you to prevent invasions).
These two components make the core game (ship design and battlegeneration) interesting in the long and medium run.
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Jul 19, 2019 17:58:54 GMT -6
Keep in mind that RTW1 was continually updated for at least 18 months after release, while RTW2, in addition to being much more complex than RTW1, has been out for ~ 2 months at this point in time. Not trying to make any excuses here, just trying to bring a bit of perspective to the situation... Yep, and I m looking forward to it.
The thing is, imho an active forum can contribute to that. But unless you (soon) start fixing (not making perfect, just fixing) the "what you fight" and "what you fight for" from my post above, the forum will dwindle much faster than it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 19, 2019 18:01:05 GMT -6
You are right that actual state of RTW2 is not on pair with RTW1 but it steadily improving. I will take your points one by one. I would think that what works in RTW1 and does not in RTW2 is matter of time to be right.
1. Fleet composition - yes, it is an issue, in RTW1 it works almost perfectly may be a little more BCs 2. Legacy fleet composition - correct, right now it is issue, especially 1920 start
3. Peace deals - this I completely disagree and I think that todays system is the right one. You need to take into considaration that winning war is not about naval situation. Navy is here to achieve goals. Even if you have several times more VP it does not means you are winning the war.
4. Invasion mechanics - it was quite improved, there are still some bugs but overall it would work 5. Research mechanics - it was changed from RTW1 and technologies are not going much beyond 1955, sometimes even not to 1955 which has some negative effect probably not foreseen. But this is something that can be finetuned. 6. Battle generator - yes, there is a lot of issue and especially with small fleets it is the most visible but it works reasonable well in RTW1 so I believe it will be improved 7. Wayfinding AI - it was issue in RTW too. But with carriers it is going to be even worse. But this one is probably possible to solve even by players by modding 8. Blockade - this is not broken, just utterly simplified. Issue is that it is quite complex matter and doing some simplification is the only way to go. Finding the best mix is difficult. But it is same with RTW1
I get RTW1 when there have been already final version so i cannot compare the first release with final version. It took more than year to have final release. I expect that amount of work in RTW2 would be much more as it is much more complex adding air warfare. I hope at the and RTW2 would be much better game even if it is not today. No matter of future I think that it would be more comparable to MOO2 vs MOO, MOO2 is much more complex game and usually much more fun but as piece of engineering MOO1 shines much more because of simplicity.
1. Fleet composition - I m not after historical fleets two months after release and yes, eg the US did not build cruisers for some, but I m tired of seeing those absurdly skewed numbers. Just a bit more believable ( would be nice and then revisit in a few months. 3. Peace deals - I do not care about VP, but when the enemy does not have a fleet left but still gets to keep all the colonies they invaded from you, something is extremely wrong. And when Britain has no fleet left, I wonder what in the world could make them win the "land war" against Japan? I do not seek a perfect system, but there is a difference between roleplaying anomalies within a credible framework and making stuff up out of thin air. 4. Invasion mechanics - Agree, it was somewhat improved. But that does not matter as long as the blockade and peace deals are in the current state. 5. Research mechanics - Call it finetuning if you want, but making no progress for 20 years in a field set to high research priority is just not credible, especially when you can visually spot a new tech on foreign ships for a decade. 6. Battle generator - Imho not a priority, good enough for the moment. 7. Wayfinding AI - Give me a way to load and edit the world map visually and I fix (workaround) the worst of it in an afternoon. 8. Blockade - When the game not even allows a 33knot BC to run the blockade on purpose, while it prompts the player with catching 20? knot blockade runners, something is broken. No "roleplay" way around it.
Imho it is not a matter of complexity, it is a matter of credibility.
As mycophobia said, the peace deals are an immersion breaker. 3. I agree with Yemo on the peace deal point, it is fine that the politician derail a winning war into a compromise peace, it is also fine to me that a large victory is followed by no territory gains, or god-forbid, a defeat in the war. These are things that happens in real life outside of the Navy's control. What is problematic here is not the signing of the peace deal themselves, but their effect on any territory seized in a war. If the peace deal ended in favor of one side, their enemy should not be able to keep any territory they had seized. If it was a white or compromise peace, I can give it the benefit of the doubt, but a victory where the opponent essentially cedes land to you should also automatically return anything they captured. Ofcourse, if we use our imagination we can always come up with scenarios that can justify this situation, but as is I am afraid that the way things are will only further reinforce the idea that the player is somehow "cheated" by the AI who can quickly seize possession and then not give them back even if the player won the war. I don't think having any clear "victory" peace deal return all captured territory will in anyway detract from RTW's modelling of limited player control over politics. 4. I actually don't mind as much with the current research system, hindsight is way too powerful in the hand of the player, and the way tech works are mostly acceptable for me. I don't think the "everyone else have them" alone means that the player's nation will adopt a tech, but at the same time some current bottleneck tech should be looked at again since I think the effect of missing them maybe too drastic as is. 8. Blockade is over simplified, which is fine. Main problem is that there should be missions to deal with it, the same goes with raider as is. There is no effective "counter" once the status quo have been established. |
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Jul 19, 2019 21:23:01 GMT -6
There are some issues with this game but I'm not giving up on it. I have confidence it will get there, and I'm still having fun through the frustration.
The thing that has frustrated me the most so far is the CAP situation, and not being able to build my task force. I hate when all my carriers are in a separate force and I can't split the CAP. I can run my carriers right next to the battle line to get some air cover, but that sucks when you happen to be in the middle of a gunfight.
As the Admiral my job is to set up the battle before it begins, when you can make the biggest difference. I would love to have the ability to build my own task force out of the resources the generator's dice roll came up with. Let me decide which carriers go to the support role and which ones go in a separate force. I hate having my rear end hangin' in the breeze when the balloon goes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by polyarmus on Jul 20, 2019 1:14:42 GMT -6
It would be nice to hear from the dev's how they see the status of the game and what are their priorities for future development.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jul 20, 2019 1:23:11 GMT -6
Gentlemen: I am seeing some frustration from all of you about the game and some issues that are arising. I can't speak to them, it isn't my place and I am not in the know. However, I want to tell all of you that if you can't duplicate a problem, you cannot test for it and therefore you can't fix it. This is true of programming problems and it is certainly true in flight gripes in my world. There have been more times in my career when I have gotten a flight gripe from a test pilot or from the fleet, that we could not duplicate because the plane had to be in the air. I have also had programming errors that we had problems trying setup tests to find the issue and fix. Sometimes we succeeded, and many times we did not. I suspect the team is going through each problem carefully, prioritizing and fixing the easy ones first, then going after the more difficult. I don't know but that is how I would do it. Trust me, I've been around this team for many years and they will fix it, they just need good information and your patience. Carriers, land and sea based aviation is very complex, just give them time. Thanks for reading this Oldpop I completely agree with that oldpop2000. This is reason why I do not only report bugs but all other issues which I think is not competely right - feedback to improve the game. And I completely agree that it would take time. The core game is working fine, it is about fixing bugs, finetunning and some improvements.
But if we look at period 1900-1920, age of dreadnoughts, the design improvements of RTW2 is quite nice and after some improvements RTW2 could be much better even for that period. With aicrafts being introduced in 20s the game begin much more complex and will need more improvements however the core mechanismus works fine.
note: I am just used to post about how it is without any negative emotions, nothing to hide as my oppinion always is that honest description of state is the best way how things could be improved. My opinion is that both way either telling that RTW2 now is perfect game or telling that game is completely unplayable is not true state and does not help anything.
There is other thing which need to be realized. We players are not beta team testers, there is minimal feedback from developers about our reports not because it is impossible but because it will be tremendous time consuming to do so and things need to be done efficiently meaning they (developers) can discuss all issues only within small team to be effective.
So if somebody feels frustraded from actual state of game I suggest to make a holiday from the game and come back much later. It is always better than be frustaded from game which should be fun. And I am certain it will in future. For myself I have quite fun from some bugs, behavior, reportig all things even if sometimes it happens that at this state game is no fun itself. Look at nice AAR reports people having fun just opening their imagination. There is a lot of ways how you can make it fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jul 20, 2019 2:54:10 GMT -6
dorn got it right on point I think, the game has is issues, but that’s not to say you cannot have fun despite them. There are many ways to approach these issues and I think there are a lot of things you can do to make the game more fun for yourself. That being said I don’t suggest that there is a way that the game ought to be played, merely that if something don’t work for you, maybe try take a different approach or perspective(house rules, different play style, mods, etc are all ways to go about this, find one that works for you) and if that still doesn’t work then taking a break and coming may help.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jul 20, 2019 5:18:52 GMT -6
I think one thing to distinguish is between the game being unplayable and a campaign becoming unplayable without any sense of fun because of a serious of unfortunate and beyond the player's control events. Given the game does attempt to simulate events that are deliberately beyond the player's control and given the AI itself has no sense of balance or restraint it can happen that you can win every battle and still be stuck watching a disaster spiral.
If a campaign becomes an rewarding slog there is no shame in quitting that one and starting again.
That said and while my poor cat has heard a few (quite a few) choice words hurled at the screen I do think the game is progressing. Yes there is a lot wrong but I am glad the devs decided to release it. It is playable, not perfect as a real world sim by any means no but you can play to the game and feel the AI is competing with you and not allowing you to cruise to victory and wins feel like an earned achievement. I also feel it is getting better because bit by bit fewer thing feel broken and a lot of the debate is getting to the point of discussing matters of preference rather than necessity.
|
|
