|
Post by winkysmith on Sept 3, 2022 1:06:57 GMT -6
Unfortunately, while I was looking at my profile on the Matrix website, I accidentally cancelled my application to the beta. Have I ruined my chances to be accepted, and should I reapply?
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Sept 3, 2022 1:28:59 GMT -6
With so many start date options, it is particularly important to make sure that legacy fleets are credible, avoiding ocean navies (US, UK, J) having short range or cramped crew accommodations in major ships.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 3, 2022 3:24:39 GMT -6
I don't believe the beta playtest has begun yet. Thank you for the information, I’ll just sit tight! I'd bet the overwhelming majority of us has applied...
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 3, 2022 11:00:03 GMT -6
Unfortunately, while I was looking at my profile on the Matrix website, I accidentally cancelled my application to the beta. Have I ruined my chances to be accepted, and should I reapply? Go ahead and re-apply...even if you miss the first tester group they will be adding more testers from time-to-time as attrition occurs.
|
|
|
Post by winkysmith on Sept 3, 2022 17:06:15 GMT -6
Unfortunately, while I was looking at my profile on the Matrix website, I accidentally cancelled my application to the beta. Have I ruined my chances to be accepted, and should I reapply? Go ahead and re-apply...even if you miss the first tester group they will be adding more testers from time-to-time as attrition occurs. Thank you. I will reapply and cross my fingers!
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Sept 4, 2022 3:22:17 GMT -6
Would jump into the Beta applications, but I'm going to be too busy over the next couple of months to actually get any game time in. Which is irritating...
|
|
pz501
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by pz501 on Sept 4, 2022 13:10:02 GMT -6
Erik Ruins on the Matrix site just posted that the first group of testers has been chosen, and emails have been sent.
I imagine that priority will most likely be given to the existing testers, and then a handful of new ones. I applied at Matrix, but I'm almost certain I didn't make the cut since I've never been a prolific poster either here or at Matrix.
Anyway, congrats to those who made it, and I know you all will be instrumental in making a quality product for the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Sept 5, 2022 9:00:11 GMT -6
Erik Ruins on the Matrix site just posted that the first group of testers has been chosen, and emails have been sent. I imagine that priority will most likely be given to the existing testers, and then a handful of new ones. I applied at Matrix, but I'm almost certain I didn't make the cut since I've never been a prolific poster either here or at Matrix. Anyway, congrats to those who made it, and I know you all will be instrumental in making a quality product for the rest of us. That means I haven't been chosen either. I confess to being disappointed...
|
|
pz501
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by pz501 on Sept 5, 2022 11:49:26 GMT -6
Erik Ruins on the Matrix site just posted that the first group of testers has been chosen, and emails have been sent. I imagine that priority will most likely be given to the existing testers, and then a handful of new ones. I applied at Matrix, but I'm almost certain I didn't make the cut since I've never been a prolific poster either here or at Matrix. Anyway, congrats to those who made it, and I know you all will be instrumental in making a quality product for the rest of us. That means I haven't been chosen either. I confess to being disappointed... I guess this means we can commiserate then I saw your post on the Matrix site too, and IMHO (based on my readings of the forums over here at least), you certainly should have been included. I thought my own chances were always practically nil, but gave it a try anyway. No money charged to find out at least.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Sept 18, 2022 13:04:02 GMT -6
Man, they don't know what they are missing not picking me. 😂
|
|
|
Post by ganjalf on Sept 24, 2022 6:55:40 GMT -6
Would it be possible to have an option in RTW3 to turn off Carriers and related Airpower? I would like the possibility to experiment a what if scenario in which the world never ventured above the comfort and safety of land, with the side bonus of really focusing on big gun warships late into the century of course. It would be nice to have that possibility just to add variation to the games
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 24, 2022 13:28:11 GMT -6
Would it be possible to have an option in RTW3 to turn off Carriers and related Airpower? I would like the possibility to experiment a what if scenario in which the world never ventured above the comfort and safety of land, with the side bonus of really focusing on big gun warships late into the century of course. It would be nice to have that possibility just to add variation to the games Frankly I doubt that is possible...so much of those aspects are so deeply integrated into the game that completely separating them would be a huge job and require a massive effort to accomplish/debug/test.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Sept 26, 2022 14:52:54 GMT -6
Would it be possible to have an option in RTW3 to turn off Carriers and related Airpower? I would like the possibility to experiment a what if scenario in which the world never ventured above the comfort and safety of land, with the side bonus of really focusing on big gun warships late into the century of course. It would be nice to have that possibility just to add variation to the games Frankly I doubt that is possible...so much of those aspects are so deeply integrated into the game that completely separating them would be a huge job and require a massive effort to accomplish/debug/test. Let's not think about it in terms of "turning off" aircraft then. What about providing an option under which none of the aircraft or carrier or AA related tech can be invented by the player or by the AI? The tech groups are pretty cleanly separated (in RTW2 anyway) so it would still allow other developments to progress. This sounds trivial to implement and largely satisfies what's being asked here, unless of course the AI has hardcoded behaviors that are tied to what year it is (which would be far from ideal for many other reasons). It's unfortunate to have to resort to questionable modding to accomplish such a commonly requested feature. Planes are cool, but sometimes we want - nay, need - Jutland 2.0. The heart wants what the heart wants
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Oct 13, 2022 14:40:52 GMT -6
Got a simple question about the new game. Will we be able to rename our officers? Not important for gameplay, but I would really like to be able to from a roleplaying perspective.
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Oct 13, 2022 17:58:59 GMT -6
What Fisher may or may not have had in mind tactically or operationally for his "dreadnought armored cruisers" it is really irrelevant to what the battlecruiser became by the end of WW1. From the beginning, three things characterized all actual battlecruisers: 1. they were as large or larger than battleships being designed at the same time, 2. they were armed with the same caliber main battery (or nearly) guns as battleships being designed at the same time, and obviously, 3. they were significantly faster than battleships being designed at the same time. Thus, Invincible was slightly larger than Dreadnought and armed with 12' guns, Hood was much larger than Queen Elizabeth and armed with 15' guns, and the US Lexington class (CC-1 - CC-6) was as large as the 1919 South Dakota class BBs and armed with 16' guns. The Alaskas were significantly smaller than their design contemporary battleships (the Iowas and Montanas), they were armed with 12' guns as opposed to 16" guns. The same general equation applies to all battlecruisers designed from 1905 to 1920. The Alaskas were exactly what the USN wrote on the tin: large cruisers.
|
|