|
Post by avimimus on Apr 21, 2024 10:58:41 GMT -6
I'm definitely with the 1880s crowd... it'd require a few tweaks: - One would be able to select the (1) type of armour and (2) the type of gun... (in addition to thickness of armour and size of gun). - One would need a setting for sail area (and perhaps choices of a couple of types of rig... with performance boosts from moving downwind or across the wind). - It might make sense to include a check box for reinforced bow (for ramming) and redo the collision logic.
The build rules would also need a rework to allow central battery ships etc.
What other changes do you think would be needed?
It'd be a very interesting project though. I'd find it more interesting than expanding the late game or expanding submarine design (and/or making submarine playable scenarios). I do think deepening the strategic layer (and making it so ships have less issues in littoral environments i.e. getting caught against the coast) would be an equally high priority. It'd also be nice to expand the variety of doctrines that one can choose (including rolling back doctrines).
|
|
|
Post by kriegsmeister on Apr 21, 2024 14:56:50 GMT -6
To add on your AI wars point: it would be nice if AI can push a treaty against enemy AI nations they defeat, with player also having that option, like get massive points lead against the enemy you can push for a treaty that restricts that nation for an amount of time, like not letting them build a capital ship above a certain tonnage, just like the international treaties/treaty of Versailles. Of course you would need a REALLY massive victory points lead against an enemy to even get to enforce a treaty on them, along with the treaty only having to last for atleast a decade or two until the enemy AI can rebuild once again (legally if they don't start a war and void the treaty within the time limit), but it's just so annoying to beat a enemy fleet to the stone ago only to see them build back up to a naval power in half a decade. Currently in game the player can have this inflicted on them if they lose a war, but can not inflict such punishment on the AI when victorious. Had it happen to me a while ago in a Japan game nws-online.proboards.com/post/105717
|
|
|
Post by dia on Apr 21, 2024 15:08:34 GMT -6
I feel like anything further than RtW3 already covers would require a new game engine built from scratch rather than built off of previous RtW titles. I've seen a lot of opinions that even the 1890-1900s isn't well handled.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Apr 22, 2024 2:55:11 GMT -6
A shipbuilding logistics system. The AI in particular can build a bizarre mix of ships with twin, triple and quad turrets, using 14, 15 and 16" guns. There should be a real significant cost to constantly building new designs in small quantities rather than using standardised designs and parts.
Some ideas: - the ship designer should include modules like a 15" twin turret. First design to use this has to pay for the turret design. Next design to use this can reuse the existing design at minimal cost. - building ships should become cheaper with each ship of the same class, maybe dropping fast from ship 1 to ship 2, then slowly reducing for 3, 4, 5 and then maybe flatlining. - introducing oil firing should be expensive, but then later keeping coal fired ships should be expensive. Perhaps best modelled in terms of maintenance costs of ships
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 22, 2024 6:18:50 GMT -6
A shipbuilding logistics system. The AI in particular can build a bizarre mix of ships with twin, triple and quad turrets, using 14, 15 and 16" guns. There should be a real significant cost to constantly building new designs in small quantities rather than using standardised designs and parts. Some ideas: - the ship designer should include modules like a 15" twin turret. First design to use this has to pay for the turret design. Next design to use this can reuse the existing design at minimal cost. - building ships should become cheaper with each ship of the same class, maybe dropping fast from ship 1 to ship 2, then slowly reducing for 3, 4, 5 and then maybe flatlining. - introducing oil firing should be expensive, but then later keeping coal fired ships should be expensive. Perhaps best modelled in terms of maintenance costs of ships This! There's an old saying that goes: Amateurs study tactics - Professionals study logistics. And all the logistics of this game is boiled down to maintenance cost and base capacity. Now, I'm all for KISS principle - but I'd sure like to expand on it - if only just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 22, 2024 7:05:49 GMT -6
As tempting as going forward from 1970's sounds, there are other games that cover that period better (and far more successfully) than Rule the Waves. IMHO, instead of butting heads with the already-entrenched enemy with decades of experience - not to mention a game engine that is far more suitable for the era, while fredrik and co. would have to develop it from scratch - I suggest RtW sticks to what it does best, and the only era left to it to expand into is backwards - not forwards. So, I hereby cast my vote for the RtW4 to spread to the ironclad period (1860 - 1890). Note: yeah, at that point we might also spread into the Age of Sail, but seriously, the technological advancement there was basically snail-paced at best, so I'd definitely stop there. And which games would that be, if i may ask? Currently? Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations But, IMHO, good ol' Harpoon, as well. Oh, and - yes, I do know those are purely tactical-level games with no strategic nor shipbuilding aspect available - *but* their scenario-creation capabilities are so good, you can (conceivably) create a campaign all on your own. So, basically, (and IMHO) bolting the RtW campaign system to an old Harpoon game would be a better use of dev's resources than turning the RtW's tactical system into a Harpoon-style game. Although, I'm not really an expert, here. If you ask me, Fredrik should stick to what works best (and what this game is excellent at) - and maybe, in the meantime, slowly working on a Harpoon-style tactical system for the RtW5 (if he wants to - and which I'd recommend)
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 23, 2024 12:15:55 GMT -6
For me the biggest thing RTW3 is missing in terms of content is nuclear weapons. Naval policy after 1945 was entirely nuke focused. The 1890-1945 period in RTW3 feels about right, but post 1945 we're in a deeply ahistorical place right now, because the thing that drove all defense spending in that period isn't present at all.
Whether they'd be fun is another question. Personally I think they would be, because I like ridiculous meta shifts in games. Nuclear depth charges, ASROC, and nuclear shells would all slot into the existing gameplay, though of course they'd be OP as heck.
They would also present an interesting challenge for the player-as-naval-planner, as long as the game modeled how some wars go nuclear, and others do not. Designing a ship around nuke use would carry severe design penalties for combat should a future war remain conventional, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by ecrivain on Apr 23, 2024 19:22:26 GMT -6
For me the biggest thing RTW3 is missing in terms of content is nuclear weapons. Naval policy after 1945 was entirely nuke focused. The 1890-1945 period in RTW3 feels about right, but post 1945 we're in a deeply ahistorical place right now, because the thing that drove all defense spending in that period isn't present at all. Whether they'd be fun is another question. Personally I think they would be, because I like ridiculous meta shifts in games. Nuclear depth charges, ASROC, and nuclear shells would all slot into the existing gameplay, though of course they'd be OP as heck. They would also present an interesting challenge for the player-as-naval-planner, as long as the game modeled how some wars go nuclear, and others do not. Designing a ship around nuke use would carry severe design penalties for combat should a future war remain conventional, and vice versa. The devs have been pretty clear since rtw1 that nuclear power is just never getting featured, iirc.
|
|
|
Post by attemptingsuccess on Apr 24, 2024 10:22:24 GMT -6
I think the main thing that I want is a more in depth and expanded Missile era. I would most like a date expansion to 1980, and then a missile procurement system like I outlined in RTW3 suggestions. Included in that is a more in depth sensor system, where you have stuff like RWR to indicate where enemy RADARs are, and RADAR ranges differing between attacks like Level Bombing, which are high, and Mast height bombing, which comes in a low altitude. Wrapped up in that is SAMS and DPAA engaging based on range instead of when attacked, as well as longer ranged HSAM.
Earlier dates might be fun, but it isn't always my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Apr 27, 2024 11:57:42 GMT -6
What do you guys think of extending the builder down to 50 tons? Making our own motor torpedo boats, motor gun boats... and giving them scenarios (rather than having them behave like shore batteries)?
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 29, 2024 11:30:08 GMT -6
Id personally like to see more submarine / coastal battery customisation, and more in depth base construction, submarine designer and coastal battery designer/ placement map, would go a long way, especially the coastal batteries, it would be so nice to be able to choose to place the battery in a strategically important position.
|
|
|
Post by khorne8 on Apr 29, 2024 11:58:42 GMT -6
I'm stretching the definition of "content" here, but my no. 1 wish is for better tac AI. I've had about enough of watching a damaged ship peel out of line and withdraw under AI command, only to blunder straight into a fjord and get stuck there for the rest of the battle.
|
|
|
Post by planetbrain on May 4, 2024 22:43:41 GMT -6
Custom Battles
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on May 12, 2024 9:18:37 GMT -6
So if they were to extend the timeline I'd lean toward earlier rather than later. As has been mentioned, CMANO/CMO and Harpoon both more than adequately cover the moden period, and AFAIK there's nothing comparable for the 1850-1900 era.
That said.... before we ask for a whole new game or any expanded timeline my first request would be that RTW3 do "all the things I track on a separate spreadsheet." - officer histories - detailed ship histories - air unit histories - budget and build plan, including future projections - battle history/summaries - a column on the ship page to sort by "last refit" - a better way to compare your own ship classes, in detail... the in depth stuff you only see in the Designer (TDS, HAA level, gun quality, etc) - comparison of your own and adversary ships - additional info on the Areas tab... make each Area expandable to show possessions and ports/bases within. Maybe even combine Area Overview,Base Overview and Coastal Fortification tabs into one more functional view.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on May 12, 2024 13:31:57 GMT -6
So if they were to extend the timeline I'd lean toward earlier rather than later. As has been mentioned, CMANO/CMO and Harpoon both more than adequately cover the moden period, and AFAIK there's nothing comparable for the 1850-1900 era. That said.... before we ask for a whole new game or any expanded timeline my first request would be that RTW3 do "all the things I track on a separate spreadsheet." - officer histories - detailed ship histories - air unit histories - budget and build plan, including future projections - battle history/summaries - a column on the ship page to sort by "last refit" - a better way to compare your own ship classes, in detail... the in depth stuff you only see in the Designer (TDS, HAA level, gun quality, etc) - comparison of your own and adversary ships - additional info on the Areas tab... make each Area expandable to show possessions and ports/bases within. Maybe even combine Area Overview,Base Overview and Coastal Fortification tabs into one more functional view. Yes...and I would add to this intelligence. That is most key. All of those reports you get? Add them automatically to the almanac as "confirmed" specs.
|
|