|
|
Post by alpha2518 on May 30, 2022 11:46:10 GMT -6
At some point fast battleships are a thing. But whenever we get to 30 knots we are prompted to a change in class. Now for some nations I think this might be a problem in regards to tonnage where you must have a certain amount of tonnage in BB, which means we now have to make our fast battleship slower for no good reason other then the game demands it. A yes or no prompt wouldn't be needed for this. Simply a box to check to override the class change to avoid the pop up "Do you want to change this to a BC?"
|
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 30, 2022 21:01:14 GMT -6
I think its because BC have better battle generators(Show up more often), so the forced switch is because 27-29 knot BCs lose their effective advantage over BBs.
Is it a perfect system? Not really. I wish the bg just used displacement and speed to allocate into battles instead of using present system of ship class.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on May 31, 2022 18:36:29 GMT -6
I think its because BC have better battle generators(Show up more often), so the forced switch is because 27-29 knot BCs lose their effective advantage over BBs. Is it a perfect system? Not really. I wish the bg just used displacement and speed to allocate into battles instead of using present system of ship class. Well there is one other thing that also needs to be done that I ran into today because I had the perfect storm of tech breakthroughs where I am effectively making fast battleships for 1910-1915. somewhere in that period. But my BCs don't count towards my battleship count because I get a warning of "We will have less then 10 battleships!" And this is when I'm trying to get rid of my pre-dreadnoughts. Well why? For all intents and purposes I have them and the game should acknowledge that as reality and it doesn't make sense even if you don't use hindsight |
|
|
|
Post by alias72 on May 31, 2022 19:51:24 GMT -6
Why not fix the event so that the tonnage is checked against all capital ships and not merely battleships?
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on May 31, 2022 21:17:55 GMT -6
Why not fix the event so that the tonnage is checked against all capital ships and not merely battleships? Well I thought it was something more baked in that I couldn't change. So I'll have to take a look. But it brings up a larger issue with RtW3. Eventually we're not going to have battleships anymore, or not a whole lot of them in favor of aircraft carriers or other capital vessels. So the game in future needs to be able to recognize that at a certain point it is ok to not have any battleships at all or capital vessels at say less then 10 or 0 depending on the nation in question. And I mean outside of treaties because you don't see any other countries through the cold war with supercarriers and the WW2 ones don't count because they are soon to be very outclassed by the super carriers of the Forrestal Class which are then outclassed by the nuclear ones of the Nimitz. |
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 1, 2022 3:18:43 GMT -6
Why not fix the event so that the tonnage is checked against all capital ships and not merely battleships? Well I thought it was something more baked in that I couldn't change. So I'll have to take a look. But it brings up a larger issue with RtW3. Eventually we're not going to have battleships anymore, or not a whole lot of them in favor of aircraft carriers or other capital vessels. So the game in future needs to be able to recognize that at a certain point it is ok to not have any battleships at all or capital vessels at say less then 10 or 0 depending on the nation in question. And I mean outside of treaties because you don't see any other countries through the cold war with supercarriers and the WW2 ones don't count because they are soon to be very outclassed by the super carriers of the Forrestal Class which are then outclassed by the nuclear ones of the Nimitz. WW2 completely screwed everyone's economies, that's why. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jun 1, 2022 6:20:40 GMT -6
...So the game in future needs to be able to recognize that at a certain point it is ok to not have any battleships at all or capital vessels at say less then 10 or 0 depending on the nation in question. i'm almost positive there already is a point in the game where it doesn't care how many BBs you have anymore and you can retire how ever many you want |
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Jun 15, 2022 14:45:33 GMT -6
Well I thought it was something more baked in that I couldn't change. So I'll have to take a look. But it brings up a larger issue with RtW3. Eventually we're not going to have battleships anymore, or not a whole lot of them in favor of aircraft carriers or other capital vessels. So the game in future needs to be able to recognize that at a certain point it is ok to not have any battleships at all or capital vessels at say less then 10 or 0 depending on the nation in question. And I mean outside of treaties because you don't see any other countries through the cold war with supercarriers and the WW2 ones don't count because they are soon to be very outclassed by the super carriers of the Forrestal Class which are then outclassed by the nuclear ones of the Nimitz. WW2 completely screwed everyone's economies, that's why. That's not why I'm referrring to that. I'm referring to the issue with not having BB's because aircraft carriers will be dominant and if we get rid of our BBs like we are supposed to the game will freak out in RtW3. Remember, there may not even be a WW2 in RtW3 so we can't just say "Well WW2 ruined everyones economies" when that doesn't make sense in the simulation. It makes far more sense where if in a series of smaller conflicts CVs become the dominant force and so Admiralties all over start making appropriate changes to reflect that in a world where WW2 doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 16, 2022 0:58:13 GMT -6
WW2 completely screwed everyone's economies, that's why. That's not why I'm referrring to that. I'm referring to the issue with not having BB's because aircraft carriers will be dominant and if we get rid of our BBs like we are supposed to the game will freak out in RtW3. Remember, there may not even be a WW2 in RtW3 so we can't just say "Well WW2 ruined everyones economies" when that doesn't make sense in the simulation. It makes far more sense where if in a series of smaller conflicts CVs become the dominant force and so Admiralties all over start making appropriate changes to reflect that in a world where WW2 doesn't happen. I mean it isn't necessary that we won't have battleships. As far as I can see. armour will influence protection from missiles, and a large displacement would allow a lot of SAMs, so BBs can be a thing until the end of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Jun 17, 2022 9:58:52 GMT -6
That's not why I'm referrring to that. I'm referring to the issue with not having BB's because aircraft carriers will be dominant and if we get rid of our BBs like we are supposed to the game will freak out in RtW3. Remember, there may not even be a WW2 in RtW3 so we can't just say "Well WW2 ruined everyones economies" when that doesn't make sense in the simulation. It makes far more sense where if in a series of smaller conflicts CVs become the dominant force and so Admiralties all over start making appropriate changes to reflect that in a world where WW2 doesn't happen. I mean it isn't necessary that we won't have battleships. As far as I can see. armour will influence protection from missiles, and a large displacement would allow a lot of SAMs, so BBs can be a thing until the end of the game. You're missing the point. If the game freaks out over you not having enough BBs, why are we forced to in the future era of the CVs when the game should rightly recognize "Ok you don't need to maintain 10BBs minimum anymore. You can use these instead to meet the capital requirement." |
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 17, 2022 16:12:38 GMT -6
I mean it isn't necessary that we won't have battleships. As far as I can see. armour will influence protection from missiles, and a large displacement would allow a lot of SAMs, so BBs can be a thing until the end of the game. You're missing the point. If the game freaks out over you not having enough BBs, why are we forced to in the future era of the CVs when the game should rightly recognize "Ok you don't need to maintain 10BBs minimum anymore. You can use these instead to meet the capital requirement." Well, it's realistic to an extent. If you lose them, you aren't likely to build more. If you don't...well, just look at the fate of the Iowas. Although the number of BBs one needs to have could be tweaked from game size-dependent to number of enemy BBs-dependent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2022 16:21:57 GMT -6
This is part of a larger issue where missions seem to spawn a fixed number of ships irrespective of the total number of warships on both sides. In addition it does not consider displacement? so you can get missions where the enemy gets a 90,000 ton battlecruiser, escorted by a heavy cruiser and a light cruiser, while you get 3 protected cruisers.
Yes it happened to me why do you ask?
|
|
