|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 21, 2017 3:43:56 GMT -6
A feature I would like to see is "Our Ship B Revenge has been commissioned into the navy. During trials, it is found that the ship has trouble reaching its design speed. We have assessed a contractual penalty of $200,000 on the builder," and "... During trials, it is found that the ship is easily surpassing its design speed. We have paid a $200,000 bonus to the builder."
|
|
|
Post by bramborough on Dec 21, 2017 4:33:01 GMT -6
One pair of Kentucky's four, 600 psi boiler and turbine sets were used in each of the first two new fast support ships of the Sacramento-class (AOE-1), USS Sacramento and USS Camden. They were a new style of support ship designed to be fast enough to travel directly with the carrier groups rather than behind in a slower moving support train. They repurposed Kentucky's machinery to give them that speed. Ah, there's an interesting tidbit of USN info I hadn't heard before. I remember this pair well; they served in the fleet during the vast majority of my own time. I don't specifically remember operating with SACRAMENTO (although probably fuelled from her at some point), but CAMDEN sailed as part of our CSG (CARL VINSON Strike Group) on her last deployment. She was a good ship. I'd never heard that those AOEs' plants were old battleship machinery. Pretty cool.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 21, 2017 4:59:23 GMT -6
Sorry, did not mean to imply that you were wrong or criticize your post in any way! I was trying to back up what you were saying. I visited the Wisconsin a few years ago, and the tour guide had served aboard her and told us about the collision. No, I should apologize. I rewrote that post twice trying to make it sound less defensive after I read it the first time. I certainly didn't take it personally but that "I was right too" part kept creeping back in so obviously I thought you believed I was mistaken. I'm sorry about that and I'm good. A feature I would like to see is "Our Ship B Revenge has been commissioned into the navy. During trials, it is found that the ship has trouble reaching its design speed. We have assessed a contractual penalty of $200,000 on the builder," and "... During trials, it is found that the ship is easily surpassing its design speed. We have paid a $200,000 bonus to the builder." Was that a feature of warship building contracts back in the game's time frame? I definitely like this idea. It's a simple little immersion item that hopefully wouldn't be too hard to program.
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 21, 2017 6:24:43 GMT -6
Sorry, did not mean to imply that you were wrong or criticize your post in any way! I was trying to back up what you were saying. I visited the Wisconsin a few years ago, and the tour guide had served aboard her and told us about the collision. No, I should apologize. I rewrote that post twice trying to make it sound less defensive after I read it the first time. I certainly didn't take it personally but that "I was right too" part kept creeping back in so obviously I thought you believed I was mistaken. I'm sorry about that and I'm good. A feature I would like to see is "Our Ship B Revenge has been commissioned into the navy. During trials, it is found that the ship has trouble reaching its design speed. We have assessed a contractual penalty of $200,000 on the builder," and "... During trials, it is found that the ship is easily surpassing its design speed. We have paid a $200,000 bonus to the builder." Was that a feature of warship building contracts back in the game's time frame? I definitely like this idea. It's a simple little immersion item that hopefully wouldn't be too hard to program. Penalties and bonuses for construction time and performance were common, that's why the builders put so much effort into gaming trials speeds.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Dec 21, 2017 8:00:35 GMT -6
Sorry, did not mean to imply that you were wrong or criticize your post in any way! I was trying to back up what you were saying. I visited the Wisconsin a few years ago, and the tour guide had served aboard her and told us about the collision. No, I should apologize. I rewrote that post twice trying to make it sound less defensive after I read it the first time. I certainly didn't take it personally but that "I was right too" part kept creeping back in so obviously I thought you believed I was mistaken. I'm sorry about that and I'm good. A feature I would like to see is "Our Ship B Revenge has been commissioned into the navy. During trials, it is found that the ship has trouble reaching its design speed. We have assessed a contractual penalty of $200,000 on the builder," and "... During trials, it is found that the ship is easily surpassing its design speed. We have paid a $200,000 bonus to the builder." Was that a feature of warship building contracts back in the game's time frame? I definitely like this idea. It's a simple little immersion item that hopefully wouldn't be too hard to program. A potential penalty for failing to reach design speed was a definite thing in some design contracts. Came across it regarding RN ships in one of the DK Brown books about requiring 30 knots destroyers. And the RN also figured out that some locations for speed testing gave better results than others due to water depth and other factors, so contracts eventually started specifying requirements about where the testing would/could take place.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Dec 21, 2017 17:07:53 GMT -6
I would like to see the ability to essentially set more specific roles for ships when at war in order to increase the odds of certain encounters. For example you could have Works like it currently does, commerce raiders have a much higher chance of having a battle where they engage an enemy merchant fleet
Potentially very useful for outdated battleships they have much higher odds of having coastal raids battles where the target is a land target of some sort
The ship is tasked with actively hunting down enemy commerce raiders and has higher odds of bumping into enemy raiders
As normal, no higher chance of any particular battle type but can engage in any type of battle that isn't outright prevented by its type (so a battleship still can't fight in cruiser battles)
All ships with this setting will all be part for any upcoming fleet battle which has much higher odds of happening. Essentially you are telling your fleet to sail out and destroy the enemy fleet, presumably in order to shatter enemy morale with a major defeat for them or to break a blockade.
Ship is still considered active and doesn't lose any experience but cannot engage in any battles except for coastal defence, presumably to be used to either avoid fleet battles or protect your important ships if you are winning the war anyway (no sense in risking your flagship if you have twice as many battleships and as the enemy and have them blockaded) I particularly would like the force battle option as it seems weird that my country is blockaded but I can't actively send out my fleet to break the blockade, I just have to hope that I get lucky and have a fleet battle soon. Additionally I would like it that if a fleet battle is refused by a blockading nation the blockade is broken for at least a month (navy is unwilling to enforce the blockade and risk engaging the enemy fleet).
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 21, 2017 17:21:29 GMT -6
I would like to see the ability to essentially set more specific roles for ships when at war in order to increase the odds of certain encounters. For example you could have Works like it currently does, commerce raiders have a much higher chance of having a battle where they engage an enemy merchant fleet
Potentially very useful for outdated battleships they have much higher odds of having coastal raids battles where the target is a land target of some sort
The ship is tasked with actively hunting down enemy commerce raiders and has higher odds of bumping into enemy raiders
As normal, no higher chance of any particular battle type but can engage in any type of battle that isn't outright prevented by its type (so a battleship still can't fight in cruiser battles)
All ships with this setting will all be part for any upcoming fleet battle which has much higher odds of happening. Essentially you are telling your fleet to sail out and destroy the enemy fleet, presumably in order to shatter enemy morale with a major defeat for them or to break a blockade.
Ship is still considered active and doesn't lose any experience but cannot engage in any battles except for coastal defence, presumably to be used to either avoid fleet battles or protect your important ships if you are winning the war anyway (no sense in risking your flagship if you have twice as many battleships and as the enemy and have them blockaded) I particularly would like the force battle option as it seems weird that my country is blockaded but I can't actively send out my fleet to break the blockade, I just have to hope that I get lucky and have a fleet battle soon. Additionally I would like it that if a fleet battle is refused by a blockading nation the blockade is broken for at least a month (navy is unwilling to enforce the blockade and risk engaging the enemy fleet). I have to say a hearty +1 to these, especially the Last 2. It would be so nice to tell your pre-dreadnoughts, "Ok, if the enemy fleet shows up you can sail with the dreadnoughts, but don't you Dare move an inch from that pier without them!"
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 21, 2017 20:56:18 GMT -6
To add to the above posts, I'd like to see overall national postures with varying flavors of defensive neutral and offensive. With this tied to potential unrest,prestige, or budet effects especially at the extremes. I strongly agree with the blockade mechanics described above.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 22, 2017 14:51:38 GMT -6
Additionally I would like it that if a fleet battle is refused by a blockading nation the blockade is broken for at least a month (navy is unwilling to enforce the blockade and risk engaging the enemy fleet). I wouldn't have all fleet battle refusals break blockades, because as things are currently set up it's ambiguous who the aggressor is in a given battle (i.e, whether refusal means you're refusing to respond to enemy action, or just not planning your own operation at a time when the enemy is also not planning anything). Not planning an operation shouldn't break a blockade. Not responding when the enemy fleet sorties to escort a convoy should. There should probably be something like a planning phase where you decide what you want to do in a turn in a given region, an intel phase where you get information on enemy actions and decide on a response (if any), and then a combat phase where an actual battle is generated (or not). More aggressive behavior should also greatly increase the probability of mine strikes (which, to my understanding, greatly influenced the decisions of both fleets in WWI to operate as fleets in being).
|
|
|
Post by neutrino123 on Dec 22, 2017 15:01:14 GMT -6
It would be nice to have detailed descriptions of all the technologies in the game. Some are obvious like gun size, but others, such as "reduction gears" or "inclined armor" would be less obvious to those not as familiar with the time period. It could greatly increase the flavor of the game for such players...
I also like the idea of a ship stance regarding aggressiveness for getting into battles vs. getting hit by mines. It might also be nice to actually divide ships into "fleets" that always sail together (less any down for temporary maintenance). Indeed, it may be useful to have something that says "fleet only sails when 95% ready for action" for the less aggressive player, while a player needing to maintain a blockage may accept 85-90%. This was an important consideration in the North Sea campaign, since the Germans could sortie when they were ready, rather than having to match the enemy fleet movements like the British, slightly ameliorating the German disadvantage in numbers.
Also, how has RTW2 progressed? Could we see something maybe late next year?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 22, 2017 23:29:48 GMT -6
neutrino123,
I am very wary of giving out even remotely solid release windows, as we have done that in the past and have at times been forced to revise and re-revise such dates...which is certainly disappointing for both us and for any players looking forward to said release.
I can say that my current expectation is that an RTW2 release in 2018 is more likely than for, say, 2019. Other than this (admittedly) vague pronouncement the only thing that I can actually promise you right now is that the "game will be ready when its ready" :-)
We do of course appreciate the question regardless of my inability to be more precise at this point, and do I wish you a Merry Christmas / Happy Holiday!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 22, 2017 23:51:11 GMT -6
I will herein off a (qualified) "yay".
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Dec 23, 2017 1:05:30 GMT -6
On Fleet battles and blockade. Fleet battles are not so easy to enforce. The Germans tried hard in 1916 and that resulted in one battle. And refusing a battle will not necessarily open up the blockade. The RN more or less refused battle in August 1916, and that didn't change the blockade situation one bit. It is a lot more complex than one battle decides the blockade, as both sides found out during WW1.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 23, 2017 16:12:43 GMT -6
Other than this (admittedly) vague pronouncement the only thing that I can actually promise you right now is that the "game will be ready when its ready" :-) We do of course appreciate the question regardless of my inability to be more precise at this point, and do I wish you a Merry Christmas / Happy Holiday! The best way to go about these things I reckon (as long as you avoid crazy-scope-creep, but I think it's got to be impossible for someone to be as into warships as you are and lack that level of discipline of thought ). Hope you and the rest of the NWS crew, and all the forumites, have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year .
|
|
|
Post by neutrino123 on Dec 23, 2017 16:58:07 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers. Regarding blockade, I agree that an aggressive fleet often isn't enough to break a blockade. However, all else being equal (which it most certainly was not in WWI), the more aggressive fleet will be more able to enforce or break a blockade. Perhaps a new modifier can be added "blockade efficiency" that can be changed by fleet posture and perhaps winning battles. This could, say, let a somewhat aggressive fleet count for 10-30% more in blockade points that a more passive fleet, which may be enough to enforce or break a blockade.
|
|