|
Post by krankey on Mar 28, 2018 8:56:36 GMT -6
I don't know if this has already been requested, but could we possibly get the option to use (appropriately converted) metric units? Germany, for instance, didn't use imperial calibres, and for non-imperial users it's hard to visualise distances, etc. I can see that the mix could be confusing, especially if you aren't an old toad like me who has lived through imperial and metric systems Pending an in game fix/mod I hope the bits & bobs below will help you out. Naval Gun Calibre For weaponry I tend to use simple 25mm per 1" calibre. I attach (If it lets me) a wiki page of comparable naval guns along with which nation it is associated with. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_guns_by_caliberNaval Gun Range For range purposes. I've done a simple comparison below. Hope that helps out for game purposes as a crib sheet. A nautical mile is 1,852 meters, or 1.852 kilometers. In the English measurement system, a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles, or 6,076 feet. As we are Navy enthuisiasts I'll use NM below. 5,000m = 2.7 nm 8,000m = 4.32 nm 12,000m = 6.48 nm 15,000m = 8.1 nm 20,000m = 10.8 nm 25,000m = 13.5 nm
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 28, 2018 13:41:51 GMT -6
Naval Gun Range For range purposes. I've done a simple comparison below. Hope that helps out for game purposes as a crib sheet. A nautical mile is 1,852 meters, or 1.852 kilometers. In the English measurement system, a nautical mile is 1.1508 miles, or 6,076 feet. As we are Navy enthuisiasts I'll use NM below. 5,000m = 2.7 nm 8,000m = 4.32 nm 12,000m = 6.48 nm 15,000m = 8.1 nm 20,000m = 10.8 nm 25,000m = 13.5 nm But the most relevant distance units in the game are in yards, not nm. A yard is 0.9144 m, and for purposes of getting an intuition of scales, can be rounded off to a full meter. So 5000 yd ~= 5km. Speeds in knots can be rounded off to .5 m/s = 1 knot, or to km/h with the nm to km conversion factor given above.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 28, 2018 16:10:01 GMT -6
specifically their are 25.4mm per inch, which happens to mean that 5 and multiples of 5 inches go evenly into millimeters (127mm 5", 254mm 10", 381mm 15")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 17:01:47 GMT -6
Yeah, I would really appreciate if the alliances would have some deeper meaning (for example much more ships sunk in automatic battles between friendly and hostile AI than now, or some ally reinforcements in battles), now having an ally is worth like having 2 bad raider cruisers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2018 17:06:39 GMT -6
Yeah, I would really appreciate if the alliances would have some deeper meaning (for example much more ships sunk in automatic battles between friendly and hostile AI than now, or some ally reinforcements in battles), now having an ally is worth like having 2 bad raider cruisers. For example when playing as Russia, having a British friends should cause the Germany to lose the war quickly, but instead your fleet is smashed and British friends are having an all-year-long tea time and do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Mar 29, 2018 8:53:56 GMT -6
Yeah, I would really appreciate if the alliances would have some deeper meaning (for example much more ships sunk in automatic battles between friendly and hostile AI than now, or some ally reinforcements in battles), now having an ally is worth like having 2 bad raider cruisers. RTW 2 indeed addresses this request...all I can say for now
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Mar 29, 2018 14:42:51 GMT -6
Yeah, I would really appreciate if the alliances would have some deeper meaning (for example much more ships sunk in automatic battles between friendly and hostile AI than now, or some ally reinforcements in battles), now having an ally is worth like having 2 bad raider cruisers. For example when playing as Russia, having a British friends should cause the Germany to lose the war quickly, but instead your fleet is smashed and British friends are having an all-year-long tea time and do nothing. I don't know about "quickly", it took 4 years IRL, and Russia folded first.
|
|
|
Post by joebob73 on Mar 29, 2018 20:54:03 GMT -6
Will things like battleship guns on CAs be allowed in RTW2 as they are currently? I would hope so, as they are quite fun to use, and allow “challenge” runs such as going without battleships or dreadnoughts while still participating in fleet actions.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Mar 29, 2018 22:04:31 GMT -6
One consideration for RTW2: what would a non-Washington Treaty 1920s and 1930s look like in regards to new ship construction?
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Mar 29, 2018 23:40:05 GMT -6
Something i want see is a skirmish mode + build tool out of campaign mode to use them together, the idea is play tactical battles without need play the campaign testing the ships you design. I'd like something like this as well, generally speaking, provisions for casual gameplay outside of campaigns. For example, being able to open the ship designer outside of a campaign, select a tech level (ex. 1905 techs, 1906 techs, 1914 techs), then just design a ship or load a design from a campaign. Then save the ship design and be able to edit or rebuild it later, import it into a campaign, or share it with other people. You could then use those ships (or saved designs from a campaign) in a skirmish (or 'exercise') mode against some kind of opposing force. The player could select the opposing force (ex. two Badnought-class Bs and six 1903-era CLs) or just select the broad sort of engagement (ex. Cruiser skirmish). Separating the design module and battle module from the campaign also allows for community play. For example, ship design competitions and tournaments, or competing to beat a scenario with the best possible outcome.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Mar 30, 2018 7:33:47 GMT -6
New Tech mid build ?
With build times being as long as they are, I would prefer it if I could opt to send an amendment to the dockyard to incorporate newly researched tech during a build or maybe even a complete change of direction for the hull type rather than launch it as originally designed.
It was a feature in reality that hulls laid down would sometimes have armament and even purpose changed mid build. e/g/ Smaller / Larger turrets/ more AA turrets fewer TT's forget that cruiser lets make it a CV etc.
I know this would come with a time and maybe cost penalty on the initial build but perhaps a lesser impact than a full post launch rebuild. Perhaps it could be linked to % complete as to how severe the requested change could be.
Early Build = Hull and armour. Any purpose mid or later build items could be reviewed Mid Build = Structure, engines and main armaments. Any major armament and engine items plus later build could be reviewed Later build = same calibre upgrades, ancillery fittings and secondary/tertiery armaments. No Early or Mid build changes possible.
A long list of bad decisions to perma upgrade a ship in a dock will cost precious time and longer launch dates as well as extra finances required. But sometimes you just have to have the latest coffee machine in every mess - right ?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Mar 30, 2018 7:45:26 GMT -6
Assuming RTW has a similar ship design interface, for the picture itself under picture it used to list the y (or the x,y) coordinate of where the cursor was. After one of the updates that was changed to let people know you can use the "s" and "d" keys to help set or delete waypoints for the superstructure. The problem I have now is it's becomes a hit-or-miss game trying to set the funnels equally apart because I don't have that y coordinate shown to tell me where my cursor currently is. Would it be possible in RTW2 to either shoehorn the y coordinate back under the picture or have the field change back to the y coordinate display when you click on the place funnel boxes? Again, assuming that RTW2 uses a similar setup.
|
|
|
Post by spharv2 on Mar 30, 2018 9:56:47 GMT -6
Personally, I would love to see the option for weekly or bi-weekly turns rather than monthly. I love how simple the game is in general, but I would like a tad more granularity, the games tend to end on me way too quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Mar 30, 2018 10:41:26 GMT -6
Assuming RTW has a similar ship design interface, for the picture itself under picture it used to list the y (or the x,y) coordinate of where the cursor was. After one of the updates that was changed to let people know you can use the "s" and "d" keys to help set or delete waypoints for the superstructure. The problem I have now is it's becomes a hit-or-miss game trying to set the funnels equally apart because I don't have that y coordinate shown to tell me where my cursor currently is. Would it be possible in RTW2 to either shoehorn the y coordinate back under the picture or have the field change back to the y coordinate display when you click on the place funnel boxes? Again, assuming that RTW2 uses a similar setup. Or, better yet, make the funnel coordinate an input field. If I remember correctly, it wasn't Cartesian (x, y) but polar (radius, angle) coordinates, meaning you had to be careful to place your cursor exactly on the centerline to get an accurate y coordinate.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Mar 31, 2018 1:12:20 GMT -6
RtW has an auto-design option, which fills out the whole ship from tonnage and armour to the superstructure doodle. I like how it draws a superstructure and places the funnels, it's much more detailed than I care to do by hand. Can we have that feature separate from the auto-design ship button? So the player can design the ship, and the player can place the funnels and draw the superstructure lines, or the player can have either one (or both) of those done automatically. This, on the right here. See how it looks nice? Do that for me.And while we're at it, can we also have an auto-generated side-view? The little lineart-ish graphic on the ship's profile(?). This thing. Usually you have to place all the turrets and the masts and the superstructure elements and the details and all that by hand. I like pretty ships, but I also really do not care enough to hand-draw them when they're going to be obsolete in a few years anyway. For simplifications sake, you could tie the auto-doodle and the auto-detailing together for visual cohesion. So, intended workflow for the player is make a ship with this speed and that armour and those guns, fiddle the design to make it all fit, then hand it over to the computer and say "Okay, now make this pretty."
|
|