|
Post by rimbecano on Sept 21, 2019 12:38:19 GMT -6
The battle generator needs a serious rework. At the very least you should be capable of not sending vulnerable ships without escorts to bombard enemy coastal installations. Some of these scenarios can be very frustrating for the sheer stupidity of the entire thing, picture related: a coastal raid against the russian-controlled finnish coast is commenced, and under my control is a single CL, with the mission to sink at least two enemy vessels. An hour in, two CAs, two CLs and their DD escorts emerge and effortlessly crush the lone cruiser. After which they are engaged by a significantly larger supporting force (??) which is victorious. What was even the point of this single CL under my command? Why can't I pre-arrange raider squadrons for such missions out of avilable ships in the area? This needs a rework. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel like the battle generator needs work on multiple points, and on this point specifically, it tends to be very frustrating when you end up facing a decidedly superior force when you have better forces in the area than what you got for the battle, and I usually ragequit when it happens. On the other hand, in real life, commanders sometimes end up facing a superior force without the option of using task manager to destroy the universe and go back to the beginning of the month. Sometimes they have no option but to run, and sometimes they have no options, period, so however frustrating it is, I'm not sure it should be different. That said, I wish there were pre-battle decisions you could make to affect the risk of such battles happening (with trade-offs), so that it didn't always feel like you're being screwed by the RNG.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Sept 21, 2019 12:46:28 GMT -6
You could always just design ships that are fast enough to run when facing superior forces
It still causes a good amount of battles to be kinda boring, but don't blame the battle generation on losing ships that were too slow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 14:13:28 GMT -6
The AI torpedo spam is even worse the passed time in game. In 1930, in my war against France, I have 60 anti submarine destroyers, some have increased DC storage, but still 2 ships of my fleet gets wrecked by subs once they leave the port. Its not like anti sub nets and minefields has any effect in this game, but those DDs should have safely prevent such disaster to happen less than 20 turns from the battle start (I wonder what would happen in another 980 turns if I didnt exit the game).
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Sept 23, 2019 5:37:30 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here.
Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 23, 2019 7:36:28 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here. Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time. I like the idea in principle, but it would require an AI wars mechanic to keep balance or the player will get too far ahead. It should also give a smaller bonus to the nations not involved in the war and greatly increase technology leakage. Neutral nations watch closely and have observers on hand when others go at it, and they will invest in the technology they witness to maintain balance. It's hard to keep tech secret and use it at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Sept 23, 2019 8:18:10 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here. Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time. This is already a feature of RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 23, 2019 8:27:06 GMT -6
This is already a feature of RTW2. I would be interested in the details of how it is implemented. If warring nations get a research bonus, and without an AI wars mechanism the player nation is in every war, it seems like a balance issue.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Sept 23, 2019 8:27:19 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here. Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time. I like the idea in principle, but it would require an AI wars mechanic to keep balance or the player will get too far ahead. It should also give a smaller bonus to the nations not involved in the war and greatly increase technology leakage. Neutral nations watch closely and have observers on hand when others go at it, and they will invest in the technology they witness to maintain balance. It's hard to keep tech secret and use it at the same time. I was thinking that the non-player controlled nations would not be affected by this change - they would maintain a steady tech climb as they do now. Only the players nation would be affected, and this would tend to encourage players to take a more belligerent stance, rather than avoiding wars and building up their tech and fleet size. Currently, fighting wars is counter productive as you have to put your ships back into the active fleet and you tend to lose ships and subs, as well as having to send ships overseas to prevent your colonies being invaded. The bump you get in your budget doesn't cover the added expense and I often have to suspend my building programs when I go to war.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 23, 2019 8:27:22 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here. Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time. Quite interesting as I was thinking about it yesterday. Issue is how to make it simple to be easily implemented without large change in AI and the limitation that only player with some AI is in war. The only reasonable solution I have found is increase high priority research by 50 or 100 % and decrease low priority research by 50 % in case of war for everybody simulating war effort and other nations preparing for war.It would more simulate any field of research being more and less priority during war. On top of that during war there could be disabled penalty for research time ahead. Your solution would need some coeficient to adjust total research points and would try be more in wars as player get more RP. Another possibility is locking max. % of budget during peace to 10 % and 15 % in war. As budget increases in war the real advantage is even higher.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 23, 2019 8:29:01 GMT -6
I have harped on about the scenario generator elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here. Instead I would like to see technological advancement affected by being at war or at peace. Historically war drove technology at a much faster rate than during peace time, so what I would like is a simple multiplier be added to the equation that calculates how many points get added to each technology each turn. That multiplier could be 0.50 if the country is at peace and 1.50 if the country is at war (or other more suitable values). This multiplier would be applied to the result of the current calculation that incorporates the players research budget and high/medium/low preference and would simulate the mobilisation of scientific resources during war time. This is already a feature of RTW2. Interesting I did not noticed that more than increase budget means more funds to research.
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Sept 23, 2019 8:29:08 GMT -6
This is already a feature of RTW2. I would be interested in the details of how it is implemented. If warring nations get a research bonus, and without an AI wars mechanism the player nation is in every war, it seems like a balance issue. I didn't know that either, and would also be interested to hear how it works.
|
|
|
Post by requiem762 on Sept 23, 2019 22:34:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 23, 2019 23:31:24 GMT -6
Quite frankly, missiles are not in the game yet. There are certainly minor tech as game ends in 1955. So I cannot see any reason for advanced missiles and sattelites.
The possibility to play after 1955 is for players request but there are almost no tech tree after that period. It means tech advancement will not work well and I have already find out that even 1950-55 tech advancement is not ideal as there is already a lot of research fields without technology so it is a little (not much) unbalanced.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Sept 24, 2019 8:14:40 GMT -6
Missiles are at the very bottom of my wishlist. There was exactly 1 CGA in commission between 1900-1955, for less than 2 months (and no CGA achieved operational status until mid-1956). Let's hope the developers focus on the important things rather than novelty fluff.
|
|
|
Post by styrre on Sept 24, 2019 16:56:24 GMT -6
All I want is a functional combat generator. I've been at this all day and I'm fairly tired of having theatres with naval parity spawn nothing but 1 CL vs the entire enemy BB line battles.
|
|