|
Post by kasuga on Jul 12, 2015 9:53:33 GMT -6
Ummm i dont see allies in game... max i see was as Japan a cooperation threaty with UK (good for tech area) but not alliances.
The next step in unrest is the option to send a revolutionary, i have this 2 times VS Rusia and UK (using a masive amount of SS and some raiders is very effective).
One thing that needs be reworked in raider war is prevent the use of certain ships as raiders... the only limit now looks like the crew acomodation and a med range, you can send a B ship as raider but well after 1 turn is interned hehehe.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Jul 12, 2015 10:29:20 GMT -6
You will not necessarily have allies in every game. You need very good relations and often at some point the Minister may ask your opinions on whether an alliance or agreement with so-and-so that has been offered or proposed is acceptable to the Navy. But it does not happen every time or in every game that I have played (a lot). Since open belligerence frequently affects tensions across the board, the more bellicose your policies, the less chance that you might see an alliance offer from anybody.
|
|
swl295
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by swl295 on Jul 12, 2015 11:38:42 GMT -6
I helped the French suppress a revolt in Vietnam and shortly thereafter they agreed to an alliance I sought after I brokered an international intervention in the Dominican Republic which upset the British almost as much as the US who was trying to seize the area apparently. Old Franco - German rivalries aside, it made a good deal of sense and has proven one of my better moves.
My convoy raider battle with 3 B's and associated CL and DD support has been a mixed bag. Got one merchie and have damaged several Russian Bs, CA'S and CLs. However, am actually running low on ammo in the northern Baltic with lots of daylight left (5-6 hours). Need to sink another merchie for the victory condition but none are in sight.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 12, 2015 14:38:34 GMT -6
Ummm i dont see allies in game... max i see was as Japan a cooperation threaty with UK (good for tech area) but not alliances. The next step in unrest is the option to send a revolutionary, i have this 2 times VS Rusia and UK (using a masive amount of SS and some raiders is very effective). One thing that needs be reworked in raider war is prevent the use of certain ships as raiders... the only limit now looks like the crew acomodation and a med range, you can send a B ship as raider but well after 1 turn is interned hehehe. A treaty is the same as an alliance, they will become allies and help you if you get into a war.
You can send any ship larger than a destroyer as a raider, provided they don't have short range or cramped accommodation, but as you have found out, the life as a raider is risky and there is a not insignificant risk that they will end up interned or even scuttled. A CL will raid just as well as a B, or actually somewhat better, so battleships make very expensive raiders. Not sure anything needs changing here, but I will listen to further feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 12, 2015 14:52:04 GMT -6
First impresions are very good but are some things that i feel need a rework 1-Raiders... i am a little tired of all the minibattles with raiders, usually they are battles where you search break contact... not a great sense engage enemy with a raider specially when both are similar... i think that is better here made the battles more "automatic" with a big chance to disengage and skiping the battles, specially when you cant play battles where you raid an enemy convoy or similar. 2-Wars... i feel that game needs a screen to show the war resumen because only with VP is hard know what is going on, sometimes enemy suffer a big buff in VP and i dont know where it comes specially when with a fleet of 20 or mor submarines i am depredating their vessels... i think show the number of submarines and merchants lose for both sides... attacks over neutrals... and fleet status. 3-The progresion is a little slow and random... for example with AH i finally research superpost turrets in 1911!!! and all the time with medium or high research leaving a lot of other areas in low... 4-Related with point 3 is harder put on game historical ships because looks like the design in game are overweighted... you need increase a lot displacement to have a 9000-10000 CA with similar protection and armament from 1904 for example. 5-Research is great but sometimes i am MIA... i refer that if is possible show in the research screen message IF the advance is automatic (for example if you have new ammo ships load it, you dont need refit ships) OR if you need refit certain area in the ship. I have fun with game and has a great potential. Thanks for the suggestions and comments.
1. I will await further comments and suggestions. If may people find the raider battles repetitive, I could add an option for some kind of auto-resolve for these.
2. The intention is that technologies should be variable. Sometimes you will not get a certain tech, and you will have to work around that and find other solutions in your ship designs. Historically, some nations did not adopt certain techs, for example Russia never built dreadnoughts with superimposed turrets, but they did use triple turrets. Also, if you keep reasonably friendly relations with other nations, you can usually buy some of the techs you lack (or your top spy can steal them).
3. Ship design is an extremely complex subject, and the ship designer is very complicated under the hood but still makes some simplifications. I would be the first one to admit that it is not 100% perfect and capable of producing every historical ship accurately. Also keep in mind that weights are baselined on WW1 tech, so for example 6 in armour on a 1904 historical ship might be equivalent to 5 in in the game.
|
|
|
Post by clacton2 on Jul 13, 2015 3:54:49 GMT -6
Chris: Any time frame for the CD version. I am an old man and I am used to CD's.
Dennis,
If we get enough demand we may be able to print a run of discs - we do have a professional service that can do runs of discs for us, but we need a certain demand level to do a significant run of discs otherwise we have too great a risk of losing money on them.
I will talk to Chris Dean about it and see where we stand in a few days, will have a better idea of sales rates, trends & demand then... Hi, I would also be interested in buying a CD version of the game. Thanks Jon
|
|
|
Post by kasuga on Jul 13, 2015 5:12:32 GMT -6
The raider battles for me needs some kind of automatic system because in the end you try all the time break contact with your raider and usually hunt enemy raiders is hard unless you have an antiraider ship.
Maybe i have bad luck in my games but i never receive alliance offers... and well i help UK to with some rebels.
The tech area is a little luck question and delay a lot BB and BCs to have the ships i want.
Out of this is a great game, the concept is very good and moved to other periods could be superb (over WWII i think in age of sail but a WWII could be fun to).
|
|
|
Post by cleveland on Jul 13, 2015 6:48:43 GMT -6
An optional auto resolve for raider battles might be useful. I do enjoy playing them out mainly to see if I can get some lucky hits but I've never had a decisive result. Otherwise I'll just put the game on FAST and wait until darkness, which doesn't take long.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Jul 13, 2015 7:41:17 GMT -6
Don't have the game yet, thinking on getting it just to see If you can develop a 1925 to 1955 version including use of aviation. But in the meantime let me ask, is possible to build any kind of carrier or seaplane carrier vessel? Those help in recon? And is possible to create a naval air arm for the same purposes? Recon, harasing enemy merchants...
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 13, 2015 10:22:58 GMT -6
Don't have the game yet, thinking on getting it just to see If you can develop a 1925 to 1955 version including use of aviation. But in the meantime let me ask, is possible to build any kind of carrier or seaplane carrier vessel? Those help in recon? And is possible to create a naval air arm for the same purposes? Recon, harasing enemy merchants... No aviation in RTW, I'm sorry. If there is a sequel, it will in all likelihood have naval aviation. I did plan to add seaplane carriers, but it got complicated enough as it was, so that was dropped.
|
|
|
Post by jdkbph on Jul 13, 2015 12:13:12 GMT -6
No aviation in RTW, I'm sorry. If there is a sequel, it will in all likelihood have naval aviation. I did plan to add seaplane carriers, but it got complicated enough as it was, so that was dropped. Fredrik, I haven't taken the leap yet... although I surely will, and soon... but I must admit to a small bit of hesitancy based on the limited time period covered. For a strictly strategic or tactical game, 25 years is more than enough. But for a grand strategic treatment, involving politics, diplomacy, and the simultaneous development and introduction of technologies, strategies and tactics... I'm wondering if it's enough. No criticism intended, and I freely admit I'm coming from a position of ignorance, but I just wanted to throw something out here for discussion. I can see why you wouldn't want to push the game system any further forward, but h ave you given any thought to going backward in time? By going backward you may be able to extend the game to incorporate an additional tech development cycle, or, as fast as things were moving in the area of naval tech development during the 1880s - 1900, possibly even two development cycles. Unlike the introduction of later technologies from the 30s or 40s, the technologies I'm talking about wouldn't be hugely different from those already in the game... and you would be opening up a pretty much untapped area as far as naval computer gamers go. Granted not much in the way of major naval conflict happened during the latter 2 decades of the 19th century, but this being a what-if game, I think it would be a good fit. Thoughts? JD
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jul 13, 2015 13:05:54 GMT -6
First of all, thank you for developing such great game! It's real enjoy to feel myself an admiral and fleet designer! Event and research systems are the best I ever saw! Some suggestions: - Add menu "do you want to exit?" while clicking at "close window" button (Lost my first game because of this); OR - Optional autosave for every month/year (I sometimes forget clicking save before exit); - If possible, add "show only {ship type}" option at fleet tab to help managing large/very large fleet; -Add more names in minor nations shipnames, as at L/XL size they end too fast, and automatic "Austrian battleship 101" looks ugly. Also the question: is it possible to separate names of MS and AMC in Shipnames.dat?
|
|
swl295
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by swl295 on Jul 13, 2015 13:24:15 GMT -6
Extending the time period backwards could have been done, but really not much before 1895. Earlier than that, it would seem to me, you would have had to introduce some element of wind propulsion for legacy vessels, even armored ones, which is something I think the developers wanted to avoid.
25 years may seem short, but I really never got that sense. Extend the time by playing on very large fleet size to fill the turns with more activity if you need to.
The game is really completely different each time you play, so replay value is tremendous. Legacy fleets, events, and to a certain extent, tech developments are all varied.
I am very pleased with it overall.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 13, 2015 13:27:04 GMT -6
First of all, thank you for developing such great game! It's real enjoy to feel myself an admiral and fleet designer! Event and research systems are the best I ever saw! Some suggestions: - Add menu "do you want to exit?" while clicking at "close window" button (Lost my first game because of this); OR - Optional autosave for every month/year (I sometimes forget clicking save before exit); - If possible, add "show only {ship type}" option at fleet tab to help managing large/very large fleet; -Add more names in minor nations shipnames, as at L/XL size they end too fast, and automatic "Austrian battleship 101" looks ugly. Also the question: is it possible to separate names of MS and AMC in Shipnames.dat?
Glad that you like the game! Thanks for the suggestions! I'll see what can be done.
At prsesnt, MS and AMC share the same shipnames, for simplicity, but I guess it would be possible to separate them. It would make it possible for players who want to mod the game to make their own lists of minesweepers.
Edit: You can click on column headers and sort on ship type, that should help some.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 13, 2015 13:45:56 GMT -6
No aviation in RTW, I'm sorry. If there is a sequel, it will in all likelihood have naval aviation. I did plan to add seaplane carriers, but it got complicated enough as it was, so that was dropped. Fredrik, I haven't taken the leap yet... although I surely will, and soon... but I must admit to a small bit of hesitancy based on the limited time period covered. For a strictly strategic or tactical game, 25 years is more than enough. But for a grand strategic treatment, involving politics, diplomacy, and the simultaneous development and introduction of technologies, strategies and tactics... I'm wondering if it's enough. No criticism intended, and I freely admit I'm coming from a position of ignorance, but I just wanted to throw something out here for discussion. I can see why you wouldn't want to push the game system any further forward, but h ave you given any thought to going backward in time? By going backward you may be able to extend the game to incorporate an additional tech development cycle, or, as fast as things were moving in the area of naval tech development during the 1880s - 1900, possibly even two development cycles. Unlike the introduction of later technologies from the 30s or 40s, the technologies I'm talking about wouldn't be hugely different from those already in the game... and you would be opening up a pretty much untapped area as far as naval computer gamers go. Granted not much in the way of major naval conflict happened during the latter 2 decades of the 19th century, but this being a what-if game, I think it would be a good fit. Thoughts? JD RTW was quite complicated to program as it was, and took more time than anticipated. It had to be limited somewhere, and 1900-1925 seemed the most interesting period, and the period that was closest to SAI, which made things easier. We will consider a sequel depending on interest, and it could be forward in time or back to the 1880's.
|
|