|
Post by fightingflattops on Nov 23, 2016 3:16:55 GMT -6
Suggestion: divide the reasearch in "experimental" phase(high risk of breakdown or explosion) and "operational" (all testing and safe). Research is completed in the "experimental" phase the player can start a design, and even build a ship. The ship will be marked with the letter (E), similar to (O) for obsolete, and will be at high risk of breadown or explosion etc... After a set time, ex 1 year the time could be shorter if there is an experimental design built, the reasearched technology change to "operational" or standard, same as now.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Nov 23, 2016 13:57:02 GMT -6
One thought about changing the information available in the RTW 2 Almanac for ships under construction. In real life this wasn't as much of a thing since there weren't strict definitions of ships until the Washington and London Naval treaties but in-game, the type of ship that the AI builds gives me a reasonable idea of what it's characteristics are going to be, especially when combined with the tonnage.
For example, in my latest game I can see a new Japanese 19,000 ton ship, Kongo was just laid down. The fact that it is listed as a BC tells me right there that it is going to be fast and lightly armored compared to what I would see if she was listed as a BB. If the ship was just listed as 19,000 tons (perhaps just list all ships under construction by tonnage together at the top of the almanac) I wouldn't know whether she was going to be fast as a BC or heavily armored as a BB or fast, heavily armored and under-gunned as a German style BC unless I got an intelligence report or my operatives managed to steal the plans on her. If that happens or once she is commissioned (and presumably, outside observers start to get a look at her) she would be placed in the appropriate place on the ship list. It would change the way you react in shipbuilding and add an element of suspense.
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 23, 2016 16:54:36 GMT -6
Suggestion: divide the reasearch in "experimental" phase(high risk of breakdown or explosion) and "operational" (all testing and safe). Research is completed in the "experimental" phase the player can start a design, and even build a ship. The ship will be marked with the letter (E), similar to (O) for obsolete, and will be at high risk of breadown or explosion etc... After a set time, ex 1 year the time could be shorter if there is an experimental design built, the reasearched technology change to "operational" or standard, same as now. While an interesting idea, I'm not actually sure if this reflects how military research works in the real world - it may be the military, but they still have safety standards and regulations like everybody else, particularly in peacetime. On the other hand, where I think I could see this coming into play is our broader discussion of reliability, teething problems, and operational experience. It'd be great if not just crew quality and turret explosions went through a "green" period when a unit is commissioned, and if untested weapons and configurations had a period of adjustment. One thing I'm a big advocate for is dispelling "superweapon myths" - which RTW does avoid but not entirely. I do often find myself rushing construction of mega-juggernaughts when war breaks out so that I can have the ultimate war-winning weapon ready in time to make a difference, when history shows that choosing to prioritize more modest but proven weapons is what gets work done... I think it'd be great if not just individual ships, but also particular weapons and systems as a whole went through a semi-randomized period (affected by things like tech investment, national characteristic, combat experience) where their true effectiveness is unknown. And rather than mark them with (E), I would actually purposely keep this hidden. Consider, for instance, the infamous BuOrd torpedo crisis which left American fleet submarines without an effective torpedo for nearly 2 years of the war, where the bureau stubbornly denied there was anything malfunctioning or "experimental" about the Mark 14 torpedoes. Although perhaps some of this is already built into "variable tech" options... but if not, I think that's a great way of expanding on it!
|
|
|
Post by ccip on Nov 23, 2016 17:00:39 GMT -6
One thought about changing the information available in the RTW 2 Almanac for ships under construction. In real life this wasn't as much of a thing since there weren't strict definitions of ships until the Washington and London Naval treaties but in-game, the type of ship that the AI builds gives me a reasonable idea of what it's characteristics are going to be, especially when combined with the tonnage. For example, in my latest game I can see a new Japanese 19,000 ton ship, Kongo was just laid down. The fact that it is listed as a BC tells me right there that it is going to be fast and lightly armored compared to what I would see if she was listed as a BB. If the ship was just listed as 19,000 tons (perhaps just list all ships under construction by tonnage together at the top of the almanac) I wouldn't know whether she was going to be fast as a BC or heavily armored as a BB or fast, heavily armored and under-gunned as a German style BC unless I got an intelligence report or my operatives managed to steal the plans on her. If that happens or once she is commissioned (and presumably, outside observers start to get a look at her) she would be placed in the appropriate place on the ship list. It would change the way you react in shipbuilding and add an element of suspense. As far as I know, there is already some "fog of war" built into enemy ship specs. You can also notice that the table data in the Almanac differs from the data you see when you click on the ship and pull up its picture. I'm not sure which of these is the inaccurate data (maybe both?) I agree that usually, what it says and how the enemy ship performs is not far off. Ironically, though, I'm not sure if increasing the possible variation from true numbers would help - even in the current almanac, I can usually tell pretty quickly if the numbers are lying, especially when it comes to speed. I noticed that when it comes to CLs and DDs, the Almanac sometimes has a tendency to lie about their speed - and especially in the early game when the AI sticks to the fairly conservative pre-set templates, it's easy to spot the ships that couldn't possibly be that fast
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Nov 23, 2016 17:50:30 GMT -6
Suggestion: divide the reasearch in "experimental" phase(high risk of breakdown or explosion) and "operational" (all testing and safe). Research is completed in the "experimental" phase the player can start a design, and even build a ship. The ship will be marked with the letter (E), similar to (O) for obsolete, and will be at high risk of breadown or explosion etc... After a set time, ex 1 year the time could be shorter if there is an experimental design built, the reasearched technology change to "operational" or standard, same as now. While an interesting idea, I'm not actually sure if this reflects how military research works in the real world - it may be the military, but they still have safety standards and regulations like everybody else, particularly in peacetime. On the other hand, where I think I could see this coming into play is our broader discussion of reliability, teething problems, and operational experience. It'd be great if not just crew quality and turret explosions went through a "green" period when a unit is commissioned, and if untested weapons and configurations had a period of adjustment. One thing I'm a big advocate for is dispelling "superweapon myths" - which RTW does avoid but not entirely. I do often find myself rushing construction of mega-juggernaughts when war breaks out so that I can have the ultimate war-winning weapon ready in time to make a difference, when history shows that choosing to prioritize more modest but proven weapons is what gets work done... I think it'd be great if not just individual ships, but also particular weapons and systems as a whole went through a semi-randomized period (affected by things like tech investment, national characteristic, combat experience) where their true effectiveness is unknown. And rather than mark them with (E), I would actually purposely keep this hidden. Consider, for instance, the infamous BuOrd torpedo crisis which left American fleet submarines without an effective torpedo for nearly 2 years of the war, where the bureau stubbornly denied there was anything malfunctioning or "experimental" about the Mark 14 torpedoes. Although perhaps some of this is already built into "variable tech" options... but if not, I think that's a great way of expanding on it! How about using the max dock size as a stand-in for "cutting edge"? e.g. if you build a ship that is within say 2-5,000 tons of your max dock size, there's a higher chance of the 'overweight' or 'can't attain design speed' events, or even a 'hidden flaw'. This would simulate that your naval architects are pushing the knowledge limit and running the risk of making a design error. Maybe also there could be a chance that the first time you build a ship with a new gun size there's a chance it doesn't perform as advertised- i.e. the quality is downgraded by 1.
|
|
|
Post by fightingflattops on Nov 23, 2016 21:55:06 GMT -6
Suggestion: divide the reasearch in "experimental" phase(high risk of breakdown or explosion) and "operational" (all testing and safe). Research is completed in the "experimental" phase the player can start a design, and even build a ship. The ship will be marked with the letter (E), similar to (O) for obsolete, and will be at high risk of breadown or explosion etc... After a set time, ex 1 year the time could be shorter if there is an experimental design built, the reasearched technology change to "operational" or standard, same as now. While an interesting idea, I'm not actually sure if this reflects how military research works in the real world - it may be the military, but they still have safety standards and regulations like everybody else, particularly in peacetime. On the other hand, where I think I could see this coming into play is our broader discussion of reliability, teething problems, and operational experience. It'd be great if not just crew quality and turret explosions went through a "green" period when a unit is commissioned, and if untested weapons and configurations had a period of adjustment. One thing I'm a big advocate for is dispelling "superweapon myths" - which RTW does avoid but not entirely. I do often find myself rushing construction of mega-juggernaughts when war breaks out so that I can have the ultimate war-winning weapon ready in time to make a difference, when history shows that choosing to prioritize more modest but proven weapons is what gets work done... I think it'd be great if not just individual ships, but also particular weapons and systems as a whole went through a semi-randomized period (affected by things like tech investment, national characteristic, combat experience) where their true effectiveness is unknown. And rather than mark them with (E), I would actually purposely keep this hidden. Consider, for instance, the infamous BuOrd torpedo crisis which left American fleet submarines without an effective torpedo for nearly 2 years of the war, where the bureau stubbornly denied there was anything malfunctioning or "experimental" about the Mark 14 torpedoes. Although perhaps some of this is already built into "variable tech" options... but if not, I think that's a great way of expanding on it! ccip I share you concerns, my suggestion is not a perfect solution, is a direction to explore. I like the "green" period (variable and unknown) idea. What I see, for ships and systems, are experimental models or prototype naval ship, like Sea Shadow or M80 Stiletto or USS Timmerman (DD-828) or you name. Maybe the design screen could have an option to flag the ship as "experimental" (E) to reduce the "green" period, etc..
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 30, 2016 16:41:42 GMT -6
Here's a suggestion.
Fleet exercises were common among all the major fleets. It would be very interesting to include these in some fashion in RTW2. I can see two ways they could be used - one quite simple, the other more interesting.
The simple way would be to allow the player to pay to initiate a fleet exercise (these exercises ain't cheap). The amount paid would be based on the number and types of ships he wants to utilize in the exercise. Based on the size of the exercise there is a chance that the player would be given a technology boost in one of the new technology sets that will likely be a part of RTW2. Perhaps he gets a tech boost in carrier plane handling or a procedural boost that enables better task force composition. This would provide the player a different way to invest in technology, especially procedural or doctrinal tech improvements. It would be a nice bonus if some of the ship's crews gained experience during an exercise.
The more complicated way to utilize fleet exercises would be to include them as a form of mission in RTW2. I think the player would still need to pay a monetary amount based on the number and types of ships involved. The game would then generate two opposing forces both composed of ships and aircraft owned by the player. At that point the player could pick a side and fight against the AI to try out new strategies. All gunfire would be as normal but no ships would take any actual damage, except for ship collisions. Aircraft and crew would be subject to normal operational losses (and those could be a lot in the early years). I would expect that the crews involved, including those in the aircraft, would get experience similar to what they would get in a normal mission. Completing the mission might provide tech advances as above but the real value in this expanded system is that it would provide the player a way to test new tactics in much the same way these exercises were used historically. For instance, actually seeing the attrition your planes are experiencing through normal operations may cause you to rethink how you launch strikes or perhaps change the composition of the flight squadrons you have assigned to carriers. Perhaps you discover that the two elevators you built into your carrier are completely inadequate to handle flight operations as quickly as you had expected. The next carrier will have three.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Nov 30, 2016 21:42:17 GMT -6
The more complicated way to utilize fleet exercises would be to include them as a form of mission in RTW2. I think the player would still need to pay a monetary amount based on the number and types of ships involved. The game would then generate two opposing forces both composed of ships and aircraft owned by the player. At that point the player could pick a side and fight against the AI to try out new strategies. All gunfire would be as normal but no ships would take any actual damage, except for ship collisions. Aircraft and crew would be subject to normal operational losses (and those could be a lot in the early years). I would expect that the crews involved, including those in the aircraft, would get experience similar to what they would get in a normal mission. Completing the mission might provide tech advances as above but the real value in this expanded system is that it would provide the player a way to test new tactics in much the same way these exercises were used historically. For instance, actually seeing the attrition your planes are experiencing through normal operations may cause you to rethink how you launch strikes or perhaps change the composition of the flight squadrons you have assigned to carriers. Perhaps you discover that the two elevators you built into your carrier are completely inadequate to handle flight operations as quickly as you had expected. The next carrier will have three. This is a fantastic idea! I would totally want a chance to try out my latest and greatest designs like this. Maybe even do joint wargames with a close ally. My only worry is that it might not be realistic because judges in wargames are always so famously biased...
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 1, 2016 9:15:19 GMT -6
Judges were indeed biased so I would hope that the results would not be completely accurate, but these exercises often resulted in positive changes for the navy involved. Here's an example from the USN's Fleet Problem XIV in 1933. "Fleet Problem XIV began off the West Coast to train the fleet for the complex mission of escorting an expeditionary force overseas while enemy forces threatened to raid an outlying possession. ... Lessons learned included the “crying” need for planes capable of better performance and the “great handicap” that the slow speeds of patrol, bomber, and torpedo aircraft were causing; the necessity for carriers to attain the treatystrength of three 18,000-ton ships; the superiority of cruisers over destroyers as plane guards; and the need to improve communication procedures and the system of identification." Quoted from: United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010 by Mark L. Evans and Roy A. Grossnick www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/publications/1910/4%20Chapter4.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 1, 2016 9:43:10 GMT -6
Yeah wargames certainly had value. I'm just saying it might not be realistic to be able to have a wargame that will perfectly replicate battlefield conditions. The people designing the exercise are going to have misconceptions no matter what. I dont actually know how big those misconceptions are, just that people love to talk about all the times the judges screwed up!
|
|
kiba
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by kiba on Dec 1, 2016 10:01:03 GMT -6
An auto update function so that you wont be pending on your serial key.... making you still able to play and update even if you deleted the mail with your serial... whicih is not the case now.... It sees i will be bound to 1.21 forever....
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 1, 2016 14:34:10 GMT -6
An auto update function so that you wont be pending on your serial key.... making you still able to play and update even if you deleted the mail with your serial... whicih is not the case now.... It sees i will be bound to 1.21 forever....
Please contact Chris Dean (nws-online@nws-online.net) with your info and he can send you a copy of your serial.
I feel the need to point out that we have rather minimal DRM on our products - we (like many players) don't like the seriously invasive DRM that you may see elsewhere, but we do feel that some minimal security is reasonable. It may be possible that we can add some sort of auto-update function to the installer for RTW2, we will see when we get closer to completion...
Now...back to your regularly scheduled show...err, thread.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 1, 2016 14:39:49 GMT -6
Lets please try to steer/keep this thread to specifically suggestions for our upcoming "RTW 2" game, as it appears that sometimes we slightly wander off topic here from time-to-time...when we (Fredrik and myself) comb through this thread to evaluate your suggestions it really helps if as many of the posts are directly related to "RTW 2" suggestions as possible.
Thanks for listening - and even bigger thanks for your feedback and suggestions!
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Dec 1, 2016 21:49:16 GMT -6
if i may propose setting requirements from researchers say at the start of the game you set up your doctrine ( smaller guns and less armor but more speed, bigger guns more armor slow , and a mix of the two ) based on categorize (ex. armor much ,little , or medium pick one ) then your research will be mroe tailored to this style speed oriented ? more researchers working on engines,propeller setups, and hull designs to meet your speed requirements
|
|
kiba
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by kiba on Dec 5, 2016 2:39:54 GMT -6
As a suggestion when generating a battle one side should not be able to avoid/deny it if it has not the speed advantage. Ship might turn away but if the other side has a speed advantage it should be able to pursue and engage fight.
|
|