|
Post by HolyDragoon on Feb 26, 2018 19:40:07 GMT -6
Wonderful news.
Questions... is the interface already decided on, or is that something for the final phases?
|
|
|
Post by shigure on Feb 27, 2018 14:49:25 GMT -6
This is indeed most excellent news. Thanks for keeping us apprised.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 27, 2018 16:58:30 GMT -6
Wonderful news. Questions... is the interface already decided on, or is that something for the final phases? The interface will be familiar to those who have played RTW, but some changes may be included. That is about all I can give out for now, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Feb 27, 2018 20:09:00 GMT -6
I'm curious, will operations be similar to RTW where you get 1 per month, and the ships in them are randomly chosen, or will you be able to better set up your operations and which ships partake in them?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 27, 2018 20:20:08 GMT -6
I'm curious, will operations be similar to RTW where you get 1 per month, and the ships in them are randomly chosen, or will you be able to better set up your operations and which ships partake in them? Operations may be different in some ways, but familiar enough that previous RTW players should get into it pretty easily - again I cannot go into detail yet, I want to wait till we are closer to release to make sure any details we reveal are more-or-less final. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Mar 2, 2018 20:17:55 GMT -6
One thing I would like is less operations in very bad weather? I don't like having a fleet spawn in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane, and then losing DDs to the storm that I wouldn't have even taken out of port with a storm like that on the way.
Also, nobody could effectively fight in a hurricane, yet I routinely get somewhat acceptable hit rates under such weather conditions.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 2, 2018 23:17:09 GMT -6
Bah, just because nobody ever tried you conclude it's impossible. :-P
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 2, 2018 23:29:05 GMT -6
One thing I would like is less operations in very bad weather? I don't like having a fleet spawn in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane, and then losing DDs to the storm that I wouldn't have even taken out of port with a storm like that on the way. Also, nobody could effectively fight in a hurricane, yet I routinely get somewhat acceptable hit rates under such weather conditions. Hmm I am curious, what ocean and location were you in, when the hurricane occurred? Hurricanes or Typhoons only occur in the Eastern Pacific, Atlantic specifically off the Azores and head west, Western Pacific ocean and the South Pacific. Sometimes in the Indian Ocean towards Madagascar. Specifically in the Northern Hemisphere, rarely in the Southern Hemisphere. Only one hurricane force storm has ever been recorded in the South Atlantic. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Mar 3, 2018 9:36:45 GMT -6
One thing I would like is less operations in very bad weather? I don't like having a fleet spawn in the middle of the ocean in a hurricane, and then losing DDs to the storm that I wouldn't have even taken out of port with a storm like that on the way. Also, nobody could effectively fight in a hurricane, yet I routinely get somewhat acceptable hit rates under such weather conditions. Hmm I am curious, what ocean and location were you in, when the hurricane occurred? Hurricanes or Typhoons only occur in the Eastern Pacific, Atlantic specifically off the Azores and head west, Western Pacific ocean and the South Pacific. Sometimes in the Indian Ocean towards Madagascar. Specifically in the Northern Hemisphere, rarely in the Southern Hemisphere. Only one hurricane force storm has ever been recorded in the South Atlantic. Just curious. Usually in the Caribbean, but I get a few hurricane-force storms in the North Atlantic near Britain.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 9, 2018 16:57:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 12, 2018 11:49:45 GMT -6
Just some random thoughts on RTW2, since I did not know where to put them.
1. The structure of fleet formations with the addition of carriers is important. Twenty-one knot battleships or even 28 knot battleships cannot sail with 32 knot carriers. Carriers have to have that kind of speed to launch aircraft even when they turn into the wind.
2. The escort; destroyers and light cruisers have to prioritize on the carriers. Carrier operations are very complex and the carriers will turn quickly into the wind to launch and recover aircraft. This might cause grief if they are trying to protect battleships and battlecruisers.
So, with this in mind, you have to design the ships accordingly. I don't know if we will have the ability to change the fleet structure, but this will play a part. Remember what happened to the Japanese at Midway. All four carriers were together in a square box formation. You find one, you find almost all of them. Hiryu was in the fog and rain, and it got lucky. We had our carriers separated, consequently the Japanese only found Yorktown, twice. Now as time moves along in the game you might find this defensive-offensive doctrine will change. It did in the Pacific as did air wing composition.
What I am saying is, you have to consider your doctrine and its requirements, then build the carriers, aircraft and escorts to fit those requirements.
I hope the team doesn't mind these comments in this thread. I can move it if they choose.
Thanks for reading.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 12, 2018 12:56:33 GMT -6
There's a reason we need to be able to build fleet compositions and set up our operations.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 13, 2018 4:40:05 GMT -6
Just some random thoughts on RTW2, since I did not know where to put them. 1. The structure of fleet formations with the addition of carriers is important. Twenty-one knot battleships or even 28 knot battleships cannot sail with 32 knot carriers. Carriers have to have that kind of speed to launch aircraft even when they turn into the wind. 2. The escort; destroyers and light cruisers have to prioritize on the carriers. Carrier operations are very complex and the carriers will turn quickly into the wind to launch and recover aircraft. This might cause grief if they are trying to protect battleships and battlecruisers. So, with this in mind, you have to design the ships accordingly. I don't know if we will have the ability to change the fleet structure, but this will play a part. Remember what happened to the Japanese at Midway. All four carriers were together in a square box formation. You find one, you find almost all of them. Hiryu was in the fog and rain, and it got lucky. We had our carriers separated, consequently the Japanese only found Yorktown, twice. Now as time moves along in the game you might find this defensive-offensive doctrine will change. It did in the Pacific as did air wing composition. What I am saying is, you have to consider your doctrine and its requirements, then build the carriers, aircraft and escorts to fit those requirements. I hope the team doesn't mind these comments in this thread. I can move it if they choose. Thanks for reading. It is interesting I think that multi-carriers operations are improvements over divisions with single carriers as they can mutually help each other especially when early warning radar was available. Japanese did it from the beginning however they lack early warning radar, US adopt this quite lately, UK has it as of doctrine and did pre-war exercises with multi-carrier operations, however due to lack of carriers in war they started to use it more in 1942 (firstly I think in 1941). Same is with the fast battleships. May be I am not informed well by I was thinking reading some reports that at time launching and recovering aircraft carrier shortly speed up and went out of formation and after that recovering went back to formation. UK did it quite often in the Mediterranean sea and have a lot of daily launches and recoveries while being almost under constant attacks. The reason the UK did so could be that the carriers usually cover convoy so the strategic speed was limited to convoy and that the slow battleships of QE and R class did not do close anti-AA cover.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 13, 2018 14:08:19 GMT -6
Just some random thoughts on RTW2, since I did not know where to put them. 1. The structure of fleet formations with the addition of carriers is important. Twenty-one knot battleships or even 28 knot battleships cannot sail with 32 knot carriers. Carriers have to have that kind of speed to launch aircraft even when they turn into the wind. 2. The escort; destroyers and light cruisers have to prioritize on the carriers. Carrier operations are very complex and the carriers will turn quickly into the wind to launch and recover aircraft. This might cause grief if they are trying to protect battleships and battlecruisers. So, with this in mind, you have to design the ships accordingly. I don't know if we will have the ability to change the fleet structure, but this will play a part. Remember what happened to the Japanese at Midway. All four carriers were together in a square box formation. You find one, you find almost all of them. Hiryu was in the fog and rain, and it got lucky. We had our carriers separated, consequently the Japanese only found Yorktown, twice. Now as time moves along in the game you might find this defensive-offensive doctrine will change. It did in the Pacific as did air wing composition. What I am saying is, you have to consider your doctrine and its requirements, then build the carriers, aircraft and escorts to fit those requirements. I hope the team doesn't mind these comments in this thread. I can move it if they choose. Thanks for reading. It is interesting I think that multi-carriers operations are improvements over divisions with single carriers as they can mutually help each other especially when early warning radar was available. Japanese did it from the beginning however they lack early warning radar, US adopt this quite lately, UK has it as of doctrine and did pre-war exercises with multi-carrier operations, however due to lack of carriers in war they started to use it more in 1942 (firstly I think in 1941). Same is with the fast battleships. May be I am not informed well by I was thinking reading some reports that at time launching and recovering aircraft carrier shortly speed up and went out of formation and after that recovering went back to formation. UK did it quite often in the Mediterranean sea and have a lot of daily launches and recoveries while being almost under constant attacks. The reason the UK did so could be that the carriers usually cover convoy so the strategic speed was limited to convoy and that the slow battleships of QE and R class did not do close anti-AA cover. The size of a carrier group with larger groupings, does have offensive advantages. It allows you to coordinate air wings and launch a coordinated air strike faster. However, you need to remember that defense is important, because all your carriers are together. Historians use the Midway results to cast dispersions on the Japanese groupings. In fact, there was nothing wrong with that size of a carrier group. The real problem was the Japanese failure to consider defense. They should have pursued research on better ground to air and air to air radios, air search radar and put more fighters on their fleet carriers or at least, put smaller carriers like Ryujo and Zuiho in the formation to provide barrier patrols and inner patrols. This was their weakness and we, with substantial luck, took advantage of it. Now, in our case, having our carrier broken down into two carrier task forces did give us the advantage of separation in case one carrier group is found, the other might escape. But we also had the three items I just listed. We had air search radars, better ground to air and air to air radios and more fighters on our carriers. Specifically, we had increased the fighters to 27 from 18 at Coral Sea. This made a big difference. Later in the war, as our radar improved, fighter direction improved, and we increased our fighter strength to 36 fighters on each carrier plus built specific combat information centers into our carrier, we were able to group more carriers together and with our improved defensive capability, use the larger groupings to our advantage. However, remember that by 1944, the Japanese carrier situation had deteriorated and the threat from well trained pilots and aircraft had lessened. The Zero was no longer feared and their pilots were not at the standard they had been in 1942. After the Battle of Santa Cruz on October 25th-27th of 1942, there were no more carrier battles for two years. Things had changed, we were not on a defensive posture, and the Japanese were not on the offensive posture.
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Mar 14, 2018 15:55:01 GMT -6
In a descending order: Wars between other powers. At present it feels like the other countries exist only to interact with the player country rather than having their own agendas.
More active allies - eg Player USA allied with Italy. Event appears that Italy wants support in conflict against UK. Player chooses to honour alliance and this leads to war. Player USA ends up heavily engaged whilst Italian Navy does nothing - yet it was Italy that wanted this war in the first place (according to the event)! Especially when player USA manages to blockade UK, why does Italy not (for example) invade British Algeria?
Diverting funds to the Army should have an in-game effect rather than just Victory Points. Especially where countries have no land borders - advancing many miles is irrelevant without some fighting in a colony. Perhaps diverting funds to the Army should be a prerequisite to a colony invasion.
More countries, with their own agendas. Perhaps a country might be expected to subsidise ships, or export technology, to gain basing rights in the event of war?
Lesser ideas: Auto view generator. I'm no good at using the top down view or generator. Could the game not generate such views automatically if the player does not. Likewise the side on view could be auto generated.
Details of scrapped ships. When the Almanac says country X scrapped a ship, let the player see the details of the scrapped ship (if known). At present though the type of ship is given the player cannot tell how advanced the ship was).
|
|