|
Post by jishmael on Sept 22, 2019 4:43:08 GMT -6
Halleluja, now I had a very weird invasion battle. I am again Germany and in a war with France. I dominate the war and plan the invasion of Annam. The French navy has a BB, 9 DDs and a CL, i. e. totaly beaten. Then I got suddenly an invasion battle in the North sea. I assume an error in the naming and that it is a battleship engagement because my both mdern BBs divisions are involved. It is night, I stumble into the last French BB and sink it. Then I turn back to harbor until suddenly some dispersed DDs of mine are involved in a firefight. The hits are on ships of my classes. Friendly fire? ?. Then transport ships are hit. I turn back, find a conoy of transports and sink it. And find French DDs which bear the naming of German DD classes .... . What is that ? Known bug. Sometimes when an invasion triggers wrong invasion battles trigger in random sea zones on the same turn
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Dec 25, 2019 13:29:46 GMT -6
Yes ... after the last couples of patches the game is better. However ... I am as GE (as usually) in a war with Japan. It is 1950. My air defense in the last battle situated between Japan and Shanghai went well and I was able to sink 2 BBs and 1 BCs. My fighter defended well against Japanese planes. Then again the same region (are all battles between J and GE are there? Seems to be more or less) and my best battleship sails there in the midsummer morning with a single destroyer (I have plenty of them in the region !!!!!!! All on holidays?) in the mid between Shanghai (Japanese) and Japan (also Japanese). Air attacks after air attacks, torpedo hits after torpedo hits and the ship is sunk. Not a single fighter to defend it, no carrier to support it( I have 4 in the region). The sister ship was sunk by a Japanse sub. Who would send in 1950 a lonely battle ship to the enemy without any air cover? ??
|
|
|
Post by plattfuss on Dec 26, 2019 6:54:26 GMT -6
Dear Zardoz,
I absolutely do understand your frustration - but maybe such unfortunate event won´t happen again as in version 1.14 it seems to be possible to request land-based CAP for a certain ship dividion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2019 11:51:43 GMT -6
Yes ... after the last couples of patches the game is better. However ... I am as GE (as usually) in a war with Japan. It is 1950. My air defense in the last battle situated between Japan and Shanghai went well and I was able to sink 2 BBs and 1 BCs. My fighter defended well against Japanese planes. Then again the same region (are all battles between J and GE are there? Seems to be more or less) and my best battleship sails there in the midsummer morning with a single destroyer (I have plenty of them in the region !!!!!!! All on holidays?) in the mid between Shanghai (Japanese) and Japan (also Japanese). Air attacks after air attacks, torpedo hits after torpedo hits and the ship is sunk. Not a single fighter to defend it, no carrier to support it( I have 4 in the region). The sister ship was sunk by a Japanse sub. Who would send in 1950 a lonely battle ship to the enemy without any air cover? ?? You basically described German WWII tactics in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by cabusha on Dec 29, 2019 20:03:34 GMT -6
Late game air really changes how you have to play. If I'm not playing with slow aircraft / reduced research, then I normally park a run by 1945-1950. The ai heavily favors air, and will steadily reduce their navy in favor of huge, stocked air bases. This makes pretty much any nations home territories no-go zones, as even if you bring cvs/cvls, there's no guarantee they'll sorted out.
Mid game, if the force generator is being a pain, send your smaller ships for raiding, trade protection, or colonial service. RTW2 does like to "get stuck" and will keep throwing the same couple of ships into the meat grinder. The force generator still isn't as polished as RTW1, but there's some workarounds.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 4, 2020 4:58:29 GMT -6
The thing what is annoying is that I had 4 CV in the region to cover sea movements.
Yes, the Kriegsmarine sent in 1941 Bismarck and Prinz Eugen alone on a journey with the known result and that is pretty the same what happened to my BB.
With one notable difference:
I had 4 (four) CV in the region to cover that.
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 4, 2020 9:39:21 GMT -6
I need to play through a war to see how the game handles it so can offer some informed commentary on this stuff myself.
The ship designing and basic gameplay loop are cool. But I see several of these "warfare is broken" type threads. Sounds crappy to me. Taking away some player agency is a legit design move to make a computer opponent sufficiently challenging. Taking away ALL player agency is not a "game," though.
I can sympathize with the developer. Designing computer opponent algorithms is not easy. Often it is necessary to write in some "cheats" for the computer under the hood. But completely removing the players ability to influence which ships are used in which roles in warfare? It sounds like that is how the game is implemented, and I am guessing I'm not gonna like that at all. I mean, I'm happy to have bought the game just because it is such a cool concept and a neat overall framework, but if it is as 'bad' as it sounds from some of these complaint threads, I don't think I'll get a lot of mileage gameplay wise, at least not without extensive modding.
Maybe what the developer could do is expose enough of the functionality that handles how warfare is implemented that some modders could tweak it. See how the community likes that?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 4, 2020 10:59:10 GMT -6
I need to play through a war to see how the game handles it so can offer some informed commentary on this stuff myself. The ship designing and basic gameplay loop are cool. But I see several of these "warfare is broken" type threads. Sounds crappy to me. Taking away some player agency is a legit design move to make a computer opponent sufficiently challenging. Taking away ALL player agency is not a "game," though. I can sympathize with the developer. Designing computer opponent algorithms is not easy. Often it is necessary to write in some "cheats" for the computer under the hood. But completely removing the players ability to influence which ships are used in which roles in warfare? It sounds like that is how the game is implemented, and I am guessing I'm not gonna like that at all. I mean, I'm happy to have bought the game just because it is such a cool concept and a neat overall framework, but if it is as 'bad' as it sounds from some of these complaint threads, I don't think I'll get a lot of mileage gameplay wise, at least not without extensive modding. Maybe what the developer could do is expose enough of the functionality that handles how warfare is implemented that some modders could tweak it. See how the community likes that? The reason behind it is that in history Admirals had not that luxury to choose which ships is in the battle. You cannot compare USN in 1944-5 as it outsource IJN as it has never happened before.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Jan 4, 2020 11:45:12 GMT -6
Now I am in 1902 and a CL of mine catches a Russian CL raider. The Russian ship is armed with 2 twin turrets with 6 incher and further 6 6incher as single guns completed by a second battery of 12 3incher. I am out-classed. Ok, can happen, expecially because I prefer cheap ships.
BUT:
Have I missed something? Twin turrets on a CL in 1902?
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 4, 2020 12:20:33 GMT -6
That depends on its armor scheme. RtW1 permitted twin turrets in AY configuration on CLs from game start so long as the ships were protected cruisers. You can't add any further in-line turrets until you move to light cruiser armor scheme, but that costs you the ability to have twin turrets. All of my early CL designs (in RtW1) have twin 6" turrets in AY position, despite the increased chance of malfunction.
Off-hand I don't recall any CLs with twin turrets - I know the British 'Monmouth' class CAs did have twin 6" turrets; 'Monmouth' was at the Coronels - but I haven't cracked the books on early cruiser design in a long time so I trust the designer/developer had sources. The only limitation I can see on using a twin turret on a CL would be the added weight and the need for a relatively wide deck opening, which might not jibe with needing a slender hull for speed.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 4, 2020 13:41:22 GMT -6
Off-hand I don't recall any CLs with twin turrets - USS Olympia (C-6) was armed with four 8" guns in fore-and-aft twin turrets as built. - The Russian Bogatyr class had fore-and-aft 6" twin turrets with four additional 6" guns along each side of the ship. - The Spanish Reina Regente (the 1906 one, not the 1887 one) had fore-and-aft twin 140mm (5.5") guns with another six 140mm guns mounted in casemates along the sides of the ship.
There might be some others, as well, but those are the ones I know of.
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 4, 2020 19:51:26 GMT -6
Here is my feedback having played enough to experience some warfare. My topline summary: the argument that the player should have limitations on how their navy operates would be fine, IF the algorithms which controlled computer entity behavior were exquisitely tuned to reflect the range of variation in behavior of field commanders of the various nations during the period covered. Do any of you advocates for reduced player agency even have a starting point idea of what the key dimensions of behavior that need to be modeled would be? Based on observing how the computer handles itself, I'm guessing that such variables are not represented in the algorithms that run their behavior at all. So unless someone can point out to me what these variables that regulate computer entity behavior and lead the computer entities to engage in this range of behaviors, I'm leaning on the tentative conclusion that there are little to none. I don't want to show up as a new comer to the community and be a total douche bag/negative Nancy. Clearly the game has a loyal following and it is indeed a very cool application. But the ambiguities and incongruities in how the player is given agency in some respects and denied it and forced to rely on mystery algorithms which supposedly are going to offer a "more realistic" experience is simply not fun to me. It is a game, not a super-computer simulation to test historical hypotheses. That means it should be fun, not tedious and frustrating. I've enjoyed tinkering with it and seeing what it was all about, but I unless (a) I figure out the 'trick' to designing my navy so that the computer cannot do stupid stuff with it or (b) there are some major changes in how the player can influence operations--even in Admiral Mode, I don't think I'll get a lot of hours of gameplay out of it.
Here is the feedback I jotted down while playing RTW2 Feedback
1. The Foreign Service assignment is unclear and seems nearly unfunctional. 2. The "End Game" button is vague and obscure, especially when in a Fleet Exercise. 3. It is not clear if there are any intrinsic "disadvantages" to having one's ships built in someone else's yards, and moreover it appears that doing so for a legacy fleet will stop the computer opponent from having their ships well in hand. 4. Fleet Exercises: it would be nice if there were some facilities to automatically create and fill up Divisions. 5. The fact that the Fleet Exercises constantly pause even with all the settings to "do not pause." Is tiresome and tedious. 6. I'm I'm playing in Admiral mode I shouldn't have to unpause the game during scenarios resolving eh? Esp. if I have all the "do not pause" settings to do not pause. 7. Attempting to set more than one ship to Raider or Trade Protection evokes an Access Violation error. 8. The spectator features shouldn't be disabled in Admiral mode (center on division show ranges, etc.) 9. The algorithms controlling raider behavior in Admiral Mode are TERRIBLE! (a) lone CL raids Biscayne Bay region of France, sees unidentified ship (apparently a merchant) goes right past it. Some time passes, sees another, then another, which turn out to be French CLs. German Raider CL doesn't turn or react at all, just keeps on bearing southeast like he is on his way to Bascque Country. 10. The fact I have to adjust my Screen Resolution from 150% Text size down to 100% whenever I want to use the app (which requires a complete reboot of the session) is an annoyance. I know these things are not easy to program for, but if it could be worked in there that the app can compensate for OS settings like that it would be nice.
11. Manually controlling battles is way too tedious and unfun; constant pausing and very little in the way of clear tactical considerations. The battles honestly look more like an arcade game than a naval battle simulation. 12. In contrast, letting the computer control battles is ridiculous, and then of course the random stupidity of how raids compose: Germany 1902 war with Italy and then also France. Two BBs, two or three CAs, 8 or 10 DDs, and 3 or 4 CLs all set to Raider in Northern Europe and the raid that forms up on Nrthern Western France is ONE CL!? Its not the least bit sensical, historical or fun. The only Headquarters Commander or even field commander who would embark on that kind of a raid is a suicidal or mentally handicapped one.
I'm sorry I cannot be more positive I really am. The ship editor and the basic structure of monthly turns, budget/prestige/tension, the map, etc. are all excellent. But when it comes to fighting: bleh. I think I'd like it more if there was just a button that said "Auto-Resolve War" and then the app ran a bunch of maths for a few seconds to decide how it all turned out. Watching the computer do stupid stuff like sending a single CL on a suicide mission in Rochelle Bay is a waste of my time.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 4, 2020 22:27:09 GMT -6
1. The Foreign Service assignment is unclear and seems nearly unfunctional. Foreign service adds a ship's colonial tonnage value to your requirement regardless of where the ship is and allows the AI to automatically move it those zones. If, for example, I needed 4,000t in NE Asia and 8,000t in SE Asia, assigning a set of cruisers of 12,000t total to FS would meet those requirments even if they are currently in Northern Europe. I have noticed some strange behavior with this though, such as ships taking odd routes to their destinations or moving to areas they don't seem to be needed in.2. The "End Game" button is vague and obscure, especially when in a Fleet Exercise. The door-looking button? Simply used to exit the scenario, unless it is ongoing, at which point you would need to use the "save and exit" one.3. It is not clear if there are any intrinsic "disadvantages" to having one's ships built in someone else's yards, and moreover it appears that doing so for a legacy fleet will stop the computer opponent from having their ships well in hand. The disadvantages would be that high tensions can result in that ship being seized by the building nation and that building large ships in local docks can allow "natural" dockyard expansions and the chance to buck the "underdeveloped shipbuilding industry" trait (I think it's both of these, it might just be one)7. Attempting to set more than one ship to Raider or Trade Protection evokes an Access Violation error. I don't think I've seen this, I'd look to see if anyone else has had this problem.9. The algorithms controlling raider behavior in Admiral Mode are TERRIBLE! (a) lone CL raids Biscayne Bay region of France, sees unidentified ship (apparently a merchant) goes right past it. Some time passes, sees another, then another, which turn out to be French CLs. German Raider CL doesn't turn or react at all, just keeps on bearing southeast like he is on his way to Bascque Country. So wait, was this your flag division? I don't play on Admiral mode, but I'm fairly certain you have to manually control that element of your force. Two BBs, two or three CAs, 8 or 10 DDs, and 3 or 4 CLs all set to Raider in Northern Europe and the raid that forms up on Nrthern Western France is ONE CL!? Its not the least bit sensical, historical or fun. The only Headquarters Commander or even field commander who would embark on that kind of a raid is a suicidal or mentally handicapped one. So, with this I feel there might have been a bit of confusion over what setting a ship to "Raider" does. The "Raider" stance orders a ship to act independently and raid commerce independent of the fleet, such as many German cruisers and AMCs did during both World Wars. What you're describing sounds like a coastal raid, which is a larger organized fleet action that uses ships that are in the "Active Force" stance. Essentially, your entire fleet was set to go raid commerce in the North Atlantic, so the only ship available to the navy to take part was the lone cruiser. I only responded to the elements of your post that I felt I had much to say about, the other stuff I don't really have much to comment on. One thing I have said in the past is that RtW is in a bit of a strange spot, as it straddles a line between "game" and "quasi-simulator". Many people who feel that it leans to one side will criticize the opposite elements, while others will argue in the opposite manner. Another element is that the war aspects are substantially less dynamic that the strategic side of things, which can exacerbate things significantly. Losing a battle in the colonies because I sent my outdated cruisers to hold them down is fine, having to fight a similar battle in home waters can be a tough pill to swallow, regardless of historical precedent.
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 5, 2020 7:51:31 GMT -6
Thanks for the comments Noshurviverse! I think the fact the manual is pretty sparse and probably quite a bit outdated relative to current version is probably a big part of the problems. I'm familiar with almost all the concepts and terminology used in the game; but of course each game uses these historical realworld terms a bit differently and in some cases any two historians will differ on their interpretations. Having got my rant about my frustrations off my chest, in the interest of full disclosure: I'm nearly 170 degrees turned around from where I was when I logged out last night, i.e., rage-quit with intent to stay away . . . what shall it be for my Sunday ?? Field of Glory Empires or . . . hmmm, maybe I could build a navy of strictly long-range CAs as Germany and THAT might work . . .
|
|
|
Post by anthropoid on Jan 5, 2020 8:20:40 GMT -6
1. The Foreign Service assignment is unclear and seems nearly unfunctional. Foreign service adds a ship's colonial tonnage value to your requirement regardless of where the ship is and allows the AI to automatically move it those zones. If, for example, I needed 4,000t in NE Asia and 8,000t in SE Asia, assigning a set of cruisers of 12,000t total to FS would meet those requirments even if they are currently in Northern Europe. I have noticed some strange behavior with this though, such as ships taking odd routes to their destinations or moving to areas they don't seem to be needed in.
Yes, "strange" behavior is what I'm talking about. In principle, assigning to Foreign Service and then letting the computer algorithms (I cringe each and every time I hear the term "artificial intelligence" used outside the context of a science fiction novel set some hundreds of years in the future, sorry . . . as the TOAW developers taught me: THERE IS NO A.I., only scripts ) handle things seems fine. However: the tonnage that is 'benefiting' each area needs to be displayed just the same as if it were assigned to that area on active fleet. At present, in 1900 Germany requires 3000 t in Tanganyika (Indian Ocean) and 9000 t in Kiatschou (Northeast Asia). I can easily put a CA or two in these locations on Active Fleet at the beginning, whether using the canned fleet or a custom legacy fleet. In this case, when viewing the Area tab, those tonnages will show up in the table that allows a check on whether requirements are met. It also results in the row in the main menu that lists "Foreign Station: OK."
Now what happens if I reassign the two or three ships I have assigned to these locations to Foreign Service? (a) the tonnage value in the Area View tab disappears, even though the "OK" state remains in the main menu; (b) these ships will often start doing bizarre things, like taking cruises to Central Pacific or playing musical chairs amongst themselves.
2. The "End Game" button is vague and obscure, especially when in a Fleet Exercise. The door-looking button? Simply used to exit the scenario, unless it is ongoing, at which point you would need to use the "save and exit" one.
A fairly minor issue, but until I found that button I more than once had to save and exit the game to get a scenario (by which I mean Field Exercise) to end. A related and more serious issue is that: I shouldn't have to watch the entire fleet exercise to get the value of it. Given that watching it is basically irrelevant and that watching it necessarily involve incessant tapping of the Enter key to continually unpause the game (even with every setting I can see in Preferences set to "DO NOT PAUSE EVAH!"). This is a deficiency in the game more broadly. In Admiral mode (or some sort of mode that is mean to represent the 'most realistic' level of player involvement in actual field operations of naval units) I shouldn't even SEE the battle at all. Perhaps an "instant replay" type of slide show AFTER I see the results of the battle might be nice. Again though: if the player has selected "Admiral Mode" with the understanding that that is the mode in which the friendly units will exhibit the MOST degree of computer controlled autonomy, and then the player has to watch as units he/she cannot actually control (cannot select them, cannot do anything to them apparently) spend ten minutes dashing across Biscayne Bay in front of Port Rochelle to get sunk all the while having to tap Enter to unpause play, then the player is likely to be frustrated. All this to say: ambiguities and incongruities in the nature of the 'agency' the player is afforded over his/her assets in game . . . 3. It is not clear if there are any intrinsic "disadvantages" to having one's ships built in someone else's yards, and moreover it appears that doing so for a legacy fleet will stop the computer opponent from having their ships well in hand. The disadvantages would be that high tensions can result in that ship being seized by the building nation and that building large ships in local docks can allow "natural" dockyard expansions and the chance to buck the "underdeveloped shipbuilding industry" trait (I think it's both of these, it might just be one)
Yes, I had that "seized" thing happen and it was pretty surprising! 7. Attempting to set more than one ship to Raider or Trade Protection evokes an Access Violation error. I don't think I've seen this, I'd look to see if anyone else has had this problem.9. The algorithms controlling raider behavior in Admiral Mode are TERRIBLE! (a) lone CL raids Biscayne Bay region of France, sees unidentified ship (apparently a merchant) goes right past it. Some time passes, sees another, then another, which turn out to be French CLs. German Raider CL doesn't turn or react at all, just keeps on bearing southeast like he is on his way to Bascque Country. So wait, was this your flag division? I don't play on Admiral mode, but I'm fairly certain you have to manually control that element of your force.
What does "flag division" mean? I had no "divisions." The only place in the game I've seen "divisions" is when I set up the Red and Blue forces in a Fleet Exercise. I'll recount what I did, in brief: I designed my legacy fleet with a focus on extreme range, colonial service CAs with 11 or 12" built by France. My BB was built by GB with 13" also long range and normal accomodations if I recall. The idea was: a fleet that was intended to project power into remote areas and engage in either trade protection or trade interdiction of some sort. I upgraded all my overseas naval bases by a notch, scrapped all of my coastal batteries and built at least one 7" battery in all of my possessions except the Carolines. I built a few CL and DDs at home. Once play began I laid down a few more hulls both in GB, France and home and took a few decisions that spark some prestige and tension, mostly with an intent to go to war with Italy. However to my surprise tensions rose with GB and France too. I took Morocco when that event arose and this pretty soon led to war with Italy and then about one turn later war with France. At the point when I went to war with Italy, I had everything set to AF and that includes the couple ships eachs stationed in Cameroon, Tanganyika and China. I reset quite a few of these overseas ships to Trade Protection about 8 DDs in Germany to TP, and ALL of my BB and CA in Germany to Raider. I don't recall for certain if I set CLs to raider or not. In any event, once the CL had arrived in Biscayne Bay it behaved foolishly, i.e., completely oblivious to enemies. Once that captain saw that there were a half dozen CLs active in the area, he should have had some probability to flee (being outgunned) but instead he simply kept steaming southeast. Two BBs, two or three CAs, 8 or 10 DDs, and 3 or 4 CLs all set to Raider in Northern Europe and the raid that forms up on Nrthern Western France is ONE CL!? Its not the least bit sensical, historical or fun. The only Headquarters Commander or even field commander who would embark on that kind of a raid is a suicidal or mentally handicapped one. So, with this I feel there might have been a bit of confusion over what setting a ship to "Raider" does. The "Raider" stance orders a ship to act independently and raid commerce independent of the fleet, such as many German cruisers and AMCs did during both World Wars. What you're describing sounds like a coastal raid, which is a larger organized fleet action that uses ships that are in the "Active Force" stance. Essentially, your entire fleet was set to go raid commerce in the North Atlantic, so the only ship available to the navy to take part was the lone cruiser. I only responded to the elements of your post that I felt I had much to say about, the other stuff I don't really have much to comment on. One thing I have said in the past is that RtW is in a bit of a strange spot, as it straddles a line between "game" and "quasi-simulator". Many people who feel that it leans to one side will criticize the opposite elements, while others will argue in the opposite manner. Another element is that the war aspects are substantially less dynamic that the strategic side of things, which can exacerbate things significantly. Losing a battle in the colonies because I sent my outdated cruisers to hold them down is fine, having to fight a similar battle in home waters can be a tough pill to swallow, regardless of historical precedent.
|
|