|
|
Post by goosespringsteen on May 14, 2023 17:33:42 GMT -6
Any of us who have played RTW2 (which I imagine would be most of us on this forum!) would have experience of dealing with the fixed national attributes like hidden flaws, corruption, underdeveloped shipbuilding industry etc. I was wondering if, in RTW3, it's possible to move beyond these, especially the negative ones! For example. If I'm playing the UK and designing missile cruisers in the 1960s will I still be subject to hidden flaws something that only really seems relevant to the WW1 period (or perhaps better yet hidden flaws could be something that any design of any nation has a chance of suffering?). Likewise if I'm playing Italy or Russia and have avoided any rebellions and have a booming economy in the 1950s am I still going to be suffering the consequences of corruption and/or poor education? In general I love the "flavour" of national modifiers in the early game. It gives us interesting disparities to work around in the early game. But I don't like the idea of them being entirely arbitrary or static things that don't take into account player decisions. I'm a bit hazy on it but in RTW2 was it the case that Japan at least could lose its initial negative modifier of "undeveloped shipbuilding industry" after a certain date or once you'd developed your docks to a certain size? Anyway, regardless of the answer I'm so excited for release. Thursday cannot come soon enough  . P.S. A very similar post has been made on the Matrix forum by another user but I thought I'd write here in the hope of clarification  . |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 14, 2023 22:06:39 GMT -6
If memory serves, the Hidden Flaws trait degrades with ship losses to magazine explosions in RTW2, which makes it very likely to happen again in 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on May 15, 2023 5:28:27 GMT -6
In general I would prefer that such "national characteristics" not be fixed once and for all, but that they could vary from one game to another, or over the years, so that admirals of a nation who appear "cautious" in a certain occasion, may surprise us with their aggressiveness on a subsequent occasion and viceversa.
|
|
|
|
Post by goosespringsteen on May 15, 2023 8:13:09 GMT -6
In general I would prefer that such "national characteristics" not be fixed once and for all, but that they could vary from one game to another, or over the years, so that admirals of a nation who appear "cautious" in a certain occasion, may surprise us with their aggressiveness on a subsequent occasion and viceversa. I was just thinking about this earlier today. You're absolutely right. It would be great if these kind of modifiers were dynamic over the course of a campaign. It would certainly spice things up a bit! Imagine if you had economic decline a few times in a row or a turbulent political system resulting in a decline in education standards or something like that. Obviously I've got no development expertise at all but it doesn't sound like it would be THAT hard to potentially add at some point in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on May 16, 2023 8:27:25 GMT -6
Something I would love regarding to see is ways to fix flaws, such as education have the option to dedicate a portion of your budget for stuff such as we see in real life to sponsor competition and programs to get people into stem or dc competition. And far as negatives if you lose a war have national and leader negatives. Such as the nation being timid and afraid of a new war. Or become enraged and the budget massively increases to prepare for revenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 7:52:41 GMT -6
To me, the entire meaning of those modifiers is that they are national - i.e. they're applied on the whole nation: not just officers (and crew) but on engineers, scientists, farmers and workers as well.
So 'fixing' a flaw requires fixing it on a national level - and that's not a level we're playing at here.
I'd say fredrik and the team are already lax enough in their application:
For me, a flaw (or bonus) should be applied over all of the possible things it may effect:
so, for example, having some corruption means not only a chance that some money might disappear from your bank account - but also paying more for the ship (those spare parts just keep going missing) but also for food, ammo and fuel ("10% goes straight into your private bank account if you choose my company to supply them")
Poor education, to me, means not only less research, but lower quality officers and crew (and, perhaps, shipbuilders and engineers) - along with (possibly) higher cost on just about everything.
Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by pvtlarry99 on May 17, 2023 8:35:58 GMT -6
To me, the entire meaning of those modifiers is that they are national - i.e. they're applied on the whole nation: not just officers (and crew) but on engineers, scientists, farmers and workers as well. So 'fixing' a flaw requires fixing it on a national level - and that's not a level we're playing at here. I'd say fredrik and the team are already lax enough in their application: For me, a flaw (or bonus) should be applied over all of the possible things it may effect: so, for example, having some corruption means not only a chance that some money might disappear from your bank account - but also paying more for the ship (those spare parts just keep going missing) but also for food, ammo and fuel ("10% goes straight into your private bank account if you choose my company to supply them") Poor education, to me, means not only less research, but lower quality officers and crew (and, perhaps, shipbuilders and engineers) - along with (possibly) higher cost on just about everything. Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare. I think this is all fair enough over the relatively short timeframe of the the original RTW, but now we're dealing with 80 years in which entire nations underwent massive transformations, and none of their fortunes were preordained. Obviously it shouldn't be possible to transform a semi-peripheral country into a superpower overnight, but there should be room for significant evolution over the course of a full-length game from 1890 to 1970. Also, as far as I'm concerned, in RTW we inhabit a world where the fortunes of nations are decided at sea, much more so than in our historical experience. If the player is winning battles, controlling the sea lanes, seizing new bases and colonial outposts, all of that should have some influence on the wealth and fortunes of his nation. It should at least nudge the trends of development in a certain direction, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 21:55:21 GMT -6
... Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare. I think this is all fair enough over the relatively short timeframe of the the original RTW, but now we're dealing with 80 years in which entire nations underwent massive transformations, and none of their fortunes were preordained. Obviously it shouldn't be possible to transform a semi-peripheral country into a superpower overnight, but there should be room for significant evolution over the course of a full-length game from 1890 to 1970. Also, as far as I'm concerned, in RTW we inhabit a world where the fortunes of nations are decided at sea, much more so than in our historical experience. If the player is winning battles, controlling the sea lanes, seizing new bases and colonial outposts, all of that should have some influence on the wealth and fortunes of his nation. It should at least nudge the trends of development in a certain direction, in my opinion. To be fair: fortunes of nations were always decided at sea - and still are, really. Most of the cargo transport goes by sea (as it's the cheapest option per ton of cargo carried) - and cargo generates revenue - which is, at the end of the day, the reason we fight. So ... not really all that different from our historical experience. Yeah, national modifiers should be able to change - we could nudge them along, naturally, but the process should still be slow, difficult and random. If you ask me, we should also include all the aspects of the actual trade into the game: List of all the goods available (and their effects on gameplay) - the amounts of supply and demand - merchant ships to carry the stuff - price of each item determined by the demand-to-supply ratio. All of it should, naturally, be automated - but at least we'd have stuff like: "Due to abundance/lack of iron ore, ship construction will be cheaper/costlier by x%" or: "Coal/oil is abundant/lacking: the costs of running the ships has gone down/up by x%" Then, of course, come in the taxes, government expenditure on army, air force and basic schools and stuff like that. All of it, naturally, automated, so the player has minimal interaction with the whole thing - except keeping sea lanes open, that is. Naturally, this will be a bitch to implement, so I'm not expecting fredrik and the team to implement any of it all that soon (if at all) but still - it's nice to dream. |
|
|
|
Post by goosespringsteen on May 18, 2023 1:56:49 GMT -6
Good discussion guys. I think what we can all agree on is that it would be nice if, one day, these kind of modifiers were dynamic over the course of the 80 year scope of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 18, 2023 13:19:01 GMT -6
Something for us to look at as things get settled down...thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by goosespringsteen on May 20, 2023 11:41:27 GMT -6
Something for us to look at as things get settled down...thanks. Oh it's lovely to get your reply here William. I hope the release is going well for you guys. I'm absolutely loving RTW3 !! |
|
. 
.
