Cancel the 1970 game year hard cut-off

[Emma de Normandie]

Currently RTW2 has a hard cutoff of 1970 or so, I believe, which makes a lot of sense given that there are no more technologies to be researched. However, I would love to see the hard cut-off for RTW3 removed. Even though technologies may be all researched and no new game content can be accessed for after 1970, I don't think it hurts the game if some players wanna keep playing the game until well into the 2200s. After all, the "game year" in the game is just an irrelevant number after all the tech is researched.

Currently, what I've been doing is to edit the game year from 1969 back to 1960 or 1900 as I've tried to edit to 1971 to bypass it, which doesn't work. This is fine but does become annoying after a while, especially because it messes with the technology sometimes, for example, I'd get a "1950" fighter with a higher speed than my 1960 fighter.

Plus, who wouldn't want their first dreadnought to last through the ages like HMS Victory? Or better yet, have an active ship for 300 years, that'd be a real legacy ship then

Nowadays technological advancement has slowed down again (still fast but no where near the amazing speed in the early 20th century, so it doesn't even feel that alt-history to have a 1960s design Soviet style missile cruiser still around in the 2020s.

Overall I don't think it's a difficult change to the game. It wouldn't impact the historical and immersive experience at all (just simply quit the game before 1970 to embrace pure realism). 

Thanks.

[wlbjork]

I believe that it's because budgets can spiral out of control the longer you play. Indeed, my current AH game is somewhat in this position - I have a large surface fleet, all in AF, and I can still afford to build a couple of 90 kiloton battleships or multiple CVs with the surplus funds

However, a 'let me keep playing' option would be good.

[zederfflinger]

Dec 1, 2022 23:49:51 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

I believe that it's because budgets can spiral out of control the longer you play. Indeed, my current AH game is somewhat in this position - I have a large surface fleet, all in AF, and I can still afford to build a couple of 90 kiloton battleships or multiple CVs with the surplus funds

However, a 'let me keep playing' option would be good.

How did you get such a big budget without having it taken away by the army?

[wlbjork]

Not 100% sure there. I try to keep the 'cash on hand' between 20,000 and 100,000 though which I understand always helps.

Granted, this screenshot is whilst at war, but my monthly budget is roughly 150% of my Base Resources so I'm guessing I actually have a minimal budget...and I'm still struggling to spend it all!!!

Attachments:

[zederfflinger]

Dec 2, 2022 15:58:19 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

Not 100% sure there. I try to keep the 'cash on hand' between 20,000 and 100,000 though which I understand always helps.

Granted, this screenshot is whilst at war, but my monthly budget is roughly 150% of my Base Resources so I'm guessing I actually have a minimal budget...and I'm still struggling to spend it all!!!

I see where I was confused here. As I'm sure you are well aware, AH has a really small budget in the base game, rather than having the worlds largest like you have here. Do you have some kind of back story for how AH has way more money than the US and double Britain's budget?

[wlbjork]

A fair bit of luck early on for sure, as you can see both France and Italy have been limited to ~600,000 apiece due to my repeatedly crushing them (no white peace treaties, thankfully). Only territories I've taken whilst playing were Greece (via a coup), Corsica (in a treaty) and Madagascar (in a treaty, forgetting it was located in the Indian Ocean), meaning I've taken their Base Resources for my own. Russia, I'm pretty sure I went to war with them once before, but they were so riddled with unrest that they more or less collapsed immediately into Communism and gave me a massive budget boost there.

Don't think I went to war with Britain or the US. Indeed, I think both nations have pretty much sat this game out, which has limited their opportunities for budget growth outside of the 'natural' 1% twice a year boost.

For Britain it's worse, as the 'Global Navy Power' trait means they increase their budget whenever anyone appears to be getting close to their level of expenditure but that can - and in this case, did - generate unrest resulting in the budget being cut. Note also, we've gone to the 'post-colonial' period when the AI releases dozens of colonies, reducing their budget slightly each time.

Other than that, I did seem to get lucky early on with the option to build railroads (taken every time, might be only a 200 increase in Base Resources per event but they do benefit from the two 1% annual bonuses). I'd also guess that the 'Improved Industrialisation' and 'Recovered from a Global Slump' events also trigger Base Resource increases - and I've had several of those fire more recently whilst not noticing any negative events that would reduce things.

So, most of my massive budget comes from me deliberately targeting Base Resource increases, along with a degree of luck in timing.

[JagdFlanker]

Dec 2, 2022 8:54:53 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

How did you get such a big budget without having it taken away by the army?

the army doesn't touch your budget, but if you have more than around $140k savings there's a chance that $30k of your savings will be allocated to the army

if you don't like it when that happens you can re-play the turn and there's a good chance it won't happen a 2nd time

[zederfflinger]

Dec 3, 2022 1:16:36 GMT -6 wlbjork said:

A fair bit of luck early on for sure, as you can see both France and Italy have been limited to ~600,000 apiece due to my repeatedly crushing them (no white peace treaties, thankfully). Only territories I've taken whilst playing were Greece (via a coup), Corsica (in a treaty) and Madagascar (in a treaty, forgetting it was located in the Indian Ocean), meaning I've taken their Base Resources for my own. Russia, I'm pretty sure I went to war with them once before, but they were so riddled with unrest that they more or less collapsed immediately into Communism and gave me a massive budget boost there.

Don't think I went to war with Britain or the US. Indeed, I think both nations have pretty much sat this game out, which has limited their opportunities for budget growth outside of the 'natural' 1% twice a year boost.

For Britain it's worse, as the 'Global Navy Power' trait means they increase their budget whenever anyone appears to be getting close to their level of expenditure but that can - and in this case, did - generate unrest resulting in the budget being cut. Note also, we've gone to the 'post-colonial' period when the AI releases dozens of colonies, reducing their budget slightly each time.

Other than that, I did seem to get lucky early on with the option to build railroads (taken every time, might be only a 200 increase in Base Resources per event but they do benefit from the two 1% annual bonuses). I'd also guess that the 'Improved Industrialisation' and 'Recovered from a Global Slump' events also trigger Base Resource increases - and I've had several of those fire more recently whilst not noticing any negative events that would reduce things.

So, most of my massive budget comes from me deliberately targeting Base Resource increases, along with a degree of luck in timing.

Its good to hear that you can improve your budget by such a massive amount. I thought that you had modded it to give Austria more money. Did the majority of the big boost come from war reparations, or from events?

[wlbjork]

Dec 3, 2022 11:15:15 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Its good to hear that you can improve your budget by such a massive amount. I thought that you had modded it to give Austria more money. Did the majority of the big boost come from war reparations, or from events?

Strangely enough, I'd have to say both.

Not completely sure, but I seem to remember that 'Improved Industrialisation' and 'Recovered from a Global Slump' events add 2% Base Resources.

At 20,000 that's 400. Once you get to 100,000 though it becomes 2,000.

So, 102,000 - and the first 1% bonus pushes to 103,020. The next 1% bonus makes 104,050(.2) and then another event triggers taking me to 106,131(.204) - the decimals are in brackets as the game doesn't display these though I'm pretty sure they are tracked.

Hence my comment about timing being important. 40 years of 1% budget boosts is equal to 80 years of compound interest at 1% per annum, and that more than doubles your initial investment. 2% budget boosts when the budget is already high has a much more noticeable effect than when the budget is low, as shown.

I have a feeling I won't see that much budget again for a few games though...thankfully!

[Emma de Normandie]

I'd also like to mention that naval designs have been able to last a lot longer in the late 20th century. For example, the Soviet Kashin class destroyer, which was designed in the 1950s (final design approved in 1957), is still around to this day, in the format of an adapted and improved design for the Indian Navy; namely the Project 61E (Rajput class), having 3 ships still in active service in 2022. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think it's quite possible and even realistic to have an old design in game even after the technological progression stops. Anyways, I hope the Devs notice this thread and feel generous enough to give us an option to keep on playing

[srndacful]

Emma de Normandie I'm just curious: why do you even want to play past 1970?

I've continued my recent game past 1955 cutoff point (am in 1965 currently) and with the amount of SAM's flying around - seriously: everyone (and their mothers) have them - even DD's, and no real ASM's to offset them, my airstrikes are next to useless.
If I have 2 or more CV's in the field, I'm perfectly safe against any and all airstrikes - unless there are multiple forces in the fleet, and I need to set up some more CAP. 
I'm actually seriously thinking about increasing the ratio of fighters from 2:1 to 5:1, and decreasing the ratio of CV's in the fleet - letting my CA's (and/or BC's) be the primary workhorses. 
Unless that's your reason: a return to a happier time, when battleships ruled the waves? 

[JagdFlanker]

the date is just a number - if you play at 20% research rate it would be nice to play until you get the end game tech, which (theoretically) should be well past 1970. not historically accurate, but it's a lot of fun stretching out the eras

i'v mentioned it before, but if there is a hard cutoff date it would be fun if the game stretched according to the research rate you choose - so if you go with 50% research the hard cutoff would be 2040

[Emma de Normandie]

Dec 12, 2022 22:19:03 GMT -6 srndacful said:

Emma de Normandie I'm just curious: why do you even want to play past 1970?

I've continued my recent game past 1955 cutoff point (am in 1965 currently) and with the amount of SAM's flying around - seriously: everyone (and their mothers) have them - even DD's, and no real ASM's to offset them, my airstrikes are next to useless.
If I have 2 or more CV's in the field, I'm perfectly safe against any and all airstrikes - unless there are multiple forces in the fleet, and I need to set up some more CAP. 
I'm actually seriously thinking about increasing the ratio of fighters from 2:1 to 5:1, and decreasing the ratio of CV's in the fleet - letting my CA's (and/or BC's) be the primary workhorses. 
Unless that's your reason: a return to a happier time, when battleships ruled the waves? 

I see what you mean, but according the available information, a lot of concerns and issues we have with RTW2 will be addressed fully in RTW3, there is a chance that the missile era will be a lot more enjoyable overall in RTW3 comparing to RTW2.