|
Post by dorn on Sept 23, 2019 2:04:23 GMT -6
I agree generally with aeson, I will just add several things about some guns calibers.
4" - I use them usually on battlecruisers for quite a long time. You save some tonnage and main defence of battlecruisers against destroyers attack is speed. Usually for long time battlecruisers are just 3-6 knots slower than destroyers and in bad weather it is even less making torpedo runs easily evade. Sometimes I use 4" guns on till 1910 on battleships as smaller destroyers are easily stopped by 4" guns and later when large destroyers are available these older battleship are not primary targets.
9" - I use it quite often. They are usually not much worse (especially at game start in 1900) than 10" guns and quite reasonable weight could be saved
target main armament: 16" guns I use sometimes 15" guns as till AI battlecruisers has standard 12" belt, 15" guns are more than enough. And even against battleship they have punch. Sometimes I have tried 17" guns however I find out that 16" guns are usually better as by 17" guns you usually go with lower barrels to ideal configurations (3x3, 2x4). I cannot see any reason for larger caliber guns.
Decision of guns if higher caliber has worse quality It depends what ship I build. If it is economically build ships I go with lower caliber and better quality as penetration is similar and weight saving is important. If I design ship to be useful for long time I use maximum caliber even with -1 quality. As if I get +1 quality in reasonable time, ships can be refitted. Especially for capital ships it could be interesting choice increasing turret top armour making her still usefull. (something similar as in history Queen Elizabeth R class was useful for RN as their punch was still high even if their armour was not adequate)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 23, 2019 1:47:23 GMT -6
I like that. Good on ya guys. On a separate note, What's a healthy number of total aircraft? 10% of your monthly budget? 20%? During Peace, during War? What era? 1930's? 1940's? 1950's? I'd like to see where the AI keeps their numbers. Imo, their expenditures for naval aircraft are bankrupting their nations in later stages of the game, around 1944-46 and somewhere during and after that, ships are getting scrapped for planes they shouldn't be buying and maintaining especially during peace. So how you guys gonna fix that? Edit: THIS is where some things shouldnt be hard coded. Be nice if we had slider bars we could drag back and forth to adjust for all that stuff. Let us ultra-customize the game just the way we like it. jwsmith26 I think that very low, there are too expesive and except carriers they use is limited by geography. So if you play Italy/AH and you expect most fighting near your coast, it is good investment but otherwise it is better to have some regular squadron you just relocate where it is needed. And having large airpower overseas is just too costly. It is much better to have airpower in base near enemy coast if you have such base. And if needed you can fight the first month defensively and build up your strength. note: AI usually spends to much funds on airpower without getting back that investment.
If you want to know how much AI spends on different areas, you can edit save (suggestion to back up your save). Edit RTWGame1.bcs (number is same as slot) 1. You need to exchange [Nation0 to [NationX where X is number of nation you would like to see. And opposite [NationX needs to be changed to [Nation0. 2. You need to exchange Nation=0 to Nation=X where X is number of nation you would like to see. And opposite Nation=X needs to be changed to Nation=0.
You will get save when you can see AI. You cannot play as ship files were not changed. I did no try it but I think if you rename all ships files it could even work. But if you want to see what is AI situation, this work.
You can get income, maintenance costs (details of by ships, "coastal fortifications"), research, airpower maintenance costs, intelligence
Note: I am not sure if intelligence information is correct but it is not significant.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 22, 2019 6:59:40 GMT -6
on battleships and battlecruisers guns of 4 inch or smaller caliber dont appear in the visual for some reason 1.08 It has been on RTW1 too, so it is probably intended. But I do not know reasons behind that.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 21, 2019 20:46:51 GMT -6
I always cringe every time someone starts by answering my question with, 'according to the manual'... makes me feel like an ass, lol for not reading it thoroughly enough. But honestly, even if you do, there's so much information in it, you're bound to miss something. So thanks for that, aeson. On a side note, anyone ever really use Medium bombers? What's their niche? Bases that aren't close to the front lines? As UK I fought Russia. I have bases full medium bombers as any other type have not range to eastern Baltic.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 21, 2019 9:54:44 GMT -6
I thing that at start of scenario there should be line showing course of your support force with reasonable probability it is correct.
Such missions are prepared and admiral of main force should have idea where the support force is. Where he needs to run to get help.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 21, 2019 9:51:32 GMT -6
The battle generator needs a serious rework. At the very least you should be capable of not sending vulnerable ships without escorts to bombard enemy coastal installations. Some of these scenarios can be very frustrating for the sheer stupidity of the entire thing, picture related: a coastal raid against the russian-controlled finnish coast is commenced, and under my control is a single CL, with the mission to sink at least two enemy vessels. An hour in, two CAs, two CLs and their DD escorts emerge and effortlessly crush the lone cruiser. After which they are engaged by a significantly larger supporting force (??) which is victorious. What was even the point of this single CL under my command? Why can't I pre-arrange raider squadrons for such missions out of avilable ships in the area? This needs a rework. I agree that battle generator probably needs some adjustments but I do not agree with your reasons. It was quite common that mission was done by light force and heavy forces where several dozens miles away to cover light force if needed. Especially at mission where deployment heavy forces directly would risky. I do not know exactly your situation but as soon as you knew enemy force is near by you should change course to meet your support force.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 21, 2019 0:12:05 GMT -6
I agree with tortugapower. It is very difficult for Fredrik, it is sure. I found RTW1 after final patch was release. I can see what was patched and it seems that it was mostly minor issues with tweaking. But as RTW2 is built on RTW1 adding airpower and different invasion mechanics. The basic core systems are not built around game but updated to new systems. But it seems it is much more difficult than was anticipated as it has much more effects on core systems. And thats the issue, RTW1 was patched year and half, RTW2 will need probably much more as it is much more complex. I hope that a lot of issues will be addressed in time but it is quite difficult to fix them. Other thing is that before fixing them you need exactly now where the issue is. It is not about something is wrong you need know exactly what is wrong and how. I hope Fredrik will not loose love for the game even if it is getting tedious and difficult to correct all issues.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 20, 2019 0:19:26 GMT -6
I am doing statistics of hits by heavy guns on B/BB/Bc. So far only about 500 hits, probability of turret hit is a little more than 20 %.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 19, 2019 14:55:25 GMT -6
In addition to everything else that was said (torps being dangerous by the 20s, 4000yards being absolutely dangerclose) I want to ask: What caliber secondaries do your capitals pack and how many? Many many times I've seen enemy dds start a flotilla attack and turn away the moment my secondaries open up. In that kind of situations my biggest problem ends up avoiding sinking dds rather then moving one's. I usually pack 4 to 5 inch secondaries and often 3 inch tertiary batteries into the twenties, at least 20 guns per battery. I also do not rely on dds to screen my fleet except for desperate situations, instead I use CL which are a much better gun platform and scare away the enemy dds much better. Last but not least I admit to playing captains mode, which makes adjustment of my support and screen forces really easy (too easy maybe) and never run continuous when either side is closing or visibility is poor Edit: in the end I only get torpedoed when being reckless or doing something dumb as the other posters listed It depends on era. Pre-dreadnoughts: usually 12x6" secondarrie, 3" tertiary Dreadnought era till double torpedo mounts: 12x4" or 12x5" as usually even 4" guns are enough and have higher rate of fire Superdreadnought era till secondary turrets: 12x5", I consider 6" guns too heavy After: Usually 12-18x5" guns, later DP, sometimes combination of small number of 6" guns with tertiary DP 4" guns
Battlecruisers: usually less than dreadnoughts as their speed helps
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 19, 2019 10:17:04 GMT -6
He is certainly not passing it off as normal(in fact claiming it’s a much larger issue) but pointing out that the reason behind current AI logic that lead to the result you observe. I'd like to see the logic the AI uses, cuz I think it's flawed. Getting rid of every BB you have because of air power? Flawed. Reducing your budget so you scrap completely fine new designs of BB's, flawed. I do not know logic. You can see effect and you can think what cause it, that's it. In RTW effect was good so there was no reason going to detail. But in RTW2 effects are bad. 2 main things changed in RTW2 - airpower and invasions. But some of effects is even outside these 2 changes (too heavy fleet).
My estimation is that 2 systems were implemented and core system slightly adjusted. But it does not work well. I think that RTW2 would never have so good balance as RTW1 as RTW1 was designed from scratch, RTW2 on top of RTW1 which is much more difficult to balance as the core systems from RTW1 was not at this time designed with airpower in mind. On top of that RTW2 is much more complicated system. But what is important to have system with reasonable balance as close as possible to quality of RTW1.
As players we can help that with analysis what is not working right. Telling only something is wrong does not help so much as it could be not easily visible and examples are much better to see.
As all of us wish to have best RTW2 possible. So far RTW1 seems better balanced. I hope at the end of evolution of RTW2, RTW2 will be very close with better and richer system (armour system, airpower, invasions etc.)
To compare RTW1 and RTW2, I hope we will get something similar to Master of Orion 1 and Master of Orion 2. Both games (MOO) are excellent, MoO2 is richer, more fun, but MoO even older is much better done. Compare MoO2 to MoO1 it has much more +++ but it has some - (specially micromanagement and some balancing).
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 19, 2019 9:58:35 GMT -6
Excellent analysis and data, dorn . The team will definitely be discussing this. Thanks. If it is useful, here you can have 7 more saves during playthrough. You can see when it starts and how much it was the issue. If some othere save is needed, I have them more.
But the table showing the issues I have only from last save. May be you have some internal resources how to get information from save file quicker than editing save file to be able open it as other nations to get all information in reasonable time.
EDIT: I thought that limit of attachment was increased from 1 MB a little.
Attachments:France_save1.zip (995.12 KB)
France_save2.zip (977.84 KB)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 19, 2019 5:52:56 GMT -6
I have similar experience but not verified it. It happened on my very fast capital ship.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 18, 2019 23:25:40 GMT -6
I think that generally allowing more battles per month is not the way RTW2 should go as it is completely unrealistic. Even Royal Navy with commitments and fighting in all oceans did not have battles so often.
But there can be one thing and it is invasion battles which is on top of this limit. If you invade one colony after another you get a lot of invasion battles as they have priority meaning your light forces are limited as they cannot fight.
I will not go deep i to battle generator as I am certain some changes need to be done too as invasion mechanics change the balance from very good balance from RTW1. But I do not have real data to show it yet so it is more a guess.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 18, 2019 15:00:00 GMT -6
Adding to analysis some other comments.
1. Fleet size scalling With small size issue is that not everything is scaled down. AI limits building of ships but not so much of coastal fortresses and airpower. And ! how large CV is.
2. Trade warfare - surface
In RTW2 it seems to me that chances to intercept raiders were lowered dramatically. It can be seen in trade warfare report (ships thwarting raiders is much less common) and by offering interception of raider mission. I think reasons are that there are more fleet battles and more invasion battles. And interception missions are low priority. This means that even with very large fleet investing into cruisers is not effective as there are not effective even with large numerical advantages (this was not case in history). With small fleet it is completely non-sense as you have several cruisers and they do not intercept nothing. So with lower fleet sizes I suggest to have some modification to increase chance to make it balanced. Right now it has no reason to try to destroy enemy raiders as funds invested into this does not bring almost anything (in reality investments were large but they get effects, in RTW2 investements are large but give very low, sometimes even no effect).
Suggestions: Increase chances of thwarting raiders and make interception missions more priority to be more often offerred. Making balancing AI to build more cruisers (especially protected and light cruisers) will help too. I think that in RTW1 the balance was quite good, in RTW2 balance go in advantage to raiders and significantly.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Sept 18, 2019 14:50:24 GMT -6
Funny thing is, I was ringing the bell for esentially this same exact issue back in ~1.02. I'm rather glad that it came up again, dorn dipped into it and may get something out of it. My original recommendation was to drastically downscale land-based air capacity per base tier. We'll see if the team will cook up something. Issue is that ships are scaled down, but capacity of airbases are not. AI decision process goes well with decreased funds but not decision process for construction of coastal fortresses and building of airpower.
I will add this to analysis as comment.
|
|