|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 17, 2020 9:51:52 GMT -6
Try reducing the numbers in the columns of AircraftBasicData that this thread associates with aircraft ranges by 30%. Note that if this works then it would only work for new aircraft models; existing aircraft models would be unaffected.
If you want to modify existing aircraft models as well, you would presumably want to cut the numbers in the AT#(Load)Endurance entries in the *.bcs files by 30%.
I will try it, for plans to develop non the pre-existing planes, is for 1900 new games
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 16, 2020 20:15:02 GMT -6
Someone know if is possible to make the ranges 30% shorter? I mean get in 1935 planes with ranges 30% shorter than the average you can get in 1935 with the same other attributes. Not slower development just shorter range. I still subject dive into the planes and what could be edit.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 14, 2020 7:03:24 GMT -6
I at least world like to have a task Force manager to regroup and move the ships targeting the real force to a region even if it's not used in combat generation but a much easy way to handle large fleets. I've proposed in the past a system that would add a new column to the ship list that would serve as a Taskforce/Group assignment. It was as simple as assigning a text string to a ship. The player could edit a ship's entry in this column just like they are already able to edit a ship's name. The player could input whatever text they like, but the point of it was so that a player could use the sorting function already built into the ship list to order/sort ships by the text the player inputs. You can read about it here where I go into a little more detail, but at its core it's probably the most simple grouping system you could come with and probably the least interfering to any other system in the game. It's purely a display feature, but would be a massive QoL improvement for the player. The fact that something so simple like this hasn't been implemented yet leads me to hope something more advanced is in the works. i totally agree
|
|
|
Oilers?
Sept 13, 2020 17:29:06 GMT -6
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 13, 2020 17:29:06 GMT -6
An oiler like a merchant higly explosive? or with witch new elements?
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 13, 2020 9:09:13 GMT -6
While being able to create an actual fleet structure for, well, the fleet would be really great, my biggest gripe is the inability to form my task-force in an actual battle beforehand. I mean, I'm supposed to be the admiral of the fleet, that is engaging the enemy in a tactical battle, so surely I should be able to organize my fleet _beforehand_ any way I see fit, no? And given the mechanic to do so is already there in the fleet exercise, it is mind-boggling to me, why we aren't able to do this. Just have the organization screen (only our own side, of course) from the fleet exercise pop up prior to battle, with the current fleet organization already there, for those player who don't want to fiddle with this (just hit "accept") and let everyone else organize the given fleet to their liking. Seriously, this shouldn't be rocket science. They should not make it works with Ai still and that's the probably reason to not include it. Murder it will be a dlc content
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 17:32:27 GMT -6
I wish a bit clear data about armour scheme should be available. What's the reaction with the hits.its not possible to get info from combat log data to know what's happening
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 17:10:35 GMT -6
Recently I have been watching kotori87's YouTube play-through of Great Britain, and he explained an interesting philosophy of not using the possession points after you win a war and the unused points will in turn become increases of your base resources which indirectly increases your base-level yearly budget. Is this true? I have already listened the same in an old tortuga power. I'm not sure if it's too much advantage, also adding possession get much budget in the time or at least I perceived it. The video of Magnus playing Spain, destroying all worlds fleets and getting the lower budget of the world was so funny.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 17:03:44 GMT -6
I would like few minor changes in the interface
1- change the font of weather and range data in lower right corner in night fight are quiet dutiful to read.
2- add gun info in secondary guns in design screen
3- a damage control table: a pop up tackle where appears only the ships with flooding, fire, sinking, sunk or similar to find fast and easy the ships, and locate by clicking. In a large feet combat this world be too much useful. Also low ammo or empty ammo could be nice.
4- a task Force editor: you set ships into a task Force, the task Forceis assigned to a Sea region, the any ship in the task Force is moved there, no need to affect the combat generation, just for organizing the fleet.
5- add the size of ammo in the hit line of event list because it's hard to read the type of hit in the previous line to the (bold) but announce.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 16:45:05 GMT -6
I at least world like to have a task Force manager to regroup and move the ships targeting the real force to a region even if it's not used in combat generation but a much easy way to handle large fleets.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 16:41:19 GMT -6
Would second this and agree that the time frames proposed look reasonable to me. Have thought that being able to go from mothballed to active fleet within a a month was weird. Big issue on my end was how do you man potentially 20-30 ships within that time period as well as conduct more extensive maintenance that was neglected. Yes crew quality in game would be poor, but it can take a month plus just to get ammo, food and other stores to the port and into the ship. Let alone do a shakedown cruise / get guns calibrated, etc. My understanding was that their can be three types of non-active duty: 1. Commisioned, but not on active duty / deployed. Trained crews are readily available for the ship but not berthed on the ship (example of this was AMC's for example that used merchant marine sailors with Navy gunners). Ship is generally not in a state to deploy (ammo and sensitive cypto and other electronic gear offloaded) but is kept in a mostly oceangoing state where it can get to a dry-dock under its own power. Can be brought to operational status fairly quickly - US Ready Reserve Force / NDRF is an example and ships can sail within 20-120 days. 2. Decommissioned and lightly manned and or equipped. Ship lacks trained crew, and ship receives yearly care to address sea worthiness issues, exercise equipment but not much beyond that. Guns are out of calibration - so an extended work-up time for the crew is needed on top of getting the ship ready. 3. Decommissioned and unmanned - museum / awaiting scrapping. USS New Jersey was decommissioned in 1969 and reactivated in July 1981 and recommissioned Dec 1982 and deployed June 1983 due to equipment maintenance / upgrades and lack of trained crew. Additionally the 16" charges had to be reworked as they were outside of specs... You convince me, a ship waiting for scrap if it's move to another status it will need some mouth of rebuilt to get into active again a ship fur scraping could trigger a event to sell it got a bigger price than scrap. Wu needed to get upper level
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 12, 2020 15:51:31 GMT -6
Agreed. It especially doesn't make sense when it keeps happening over and over. The game lasts for fifty years. Are you telling me that over decades the British not once figures out why it's ships keep popping off more than any other nation? IRL, this was the source of an issue with the King George V-class battleships: the flash protection system was so extensive it did indeed negatively impact the RoF. I would like to see hidden flaws linked to the ship building. Make to few ships of a type or been building too much should also get hidden flaws.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 11, 2020 14:08:43 GMT -6
I can't think of any more advantages to a Mid Atlantic Gap than those I have mentioned already. In summary, these are: - Germany should not have to fight Britain or France far away from its own air bases and cut off from its own ports. - It ought to be possible to raid the Trans - Atlantic commerce of Britain, France, or Germany without approaching their coasts, ports and air bases. - Forcing Britain, France, and Germany (but especially Britain) to worry about fighting in this region would change their strategic outlook to an arguably more historical one. For example, they will have to rely more on carriers and surface ships than on land based air power, compared to the Mediterranean countries who can rely more heavily on the latter. With low or no base capacity, the defending power (such as Britain) would have to rotate ships in and out, and would benefit from longer ranged ships. The raiding power (such as Germany) may have better numerical odds against the defender than he would if fighting in the home area. im not sure go to work fine as them, letme tell you, and your points are more interesting that i think at first, but in the mod i use like original mapv3 for RTW1, we have central atlantic working like that and the ai dont see to handle than well. consceptually mybe its a strong point bu as far iknow ai its not screipted to see how to change that. I dont have germany raiding the mid atlantic "the defending power (such as Britain) would have to rotate ships in and out, and would benefit from longer ranged ships." this still happens in asia regions but i didnt see happening in north atlantic-central atalntic. posible with an ai proper tune to more regions your idea works, and could be nice to see it. i will upload a version with a mix of RTW1 and RTW2 posession while i move much from RTW2 map mainly european posession/med. i found a single problem i have to solve with split med: suez its not working as suez, i will see if its posible to patch it some how (mybe switching area numbers for both med and assingning the same position for egypt. If some dev could get more light over this please.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 11, 2020 13:52:15 GMT -6
i added patagonia and south brazil to get some territories to interchange also, more gun positions, thanks
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 11, 2020 13:00:52 GMT -6
The merchant fleet should me modelled in some way even if you dont build the ships, so having huge losses in convoy defense have long term effects. Also the effect of the british merchant fleet, japan lost their number when go to war with uk cutting his own supply chain. This merchant fleet could be a number X witch get higer with the time, and be a Y efective fleet where you get X + 0.15 others countries X, so if all countries have 1000 merchants, and uk 5500, you have efetible 2575 merchant in peace, if you goet a wa rwith no uk ally you get 24225 merchants, but in war with uk you get 1700 merchants, welll is a idea numbers could be fit. have few merchants affect the nation as a bloqueade or you cant acept or do operations. Something like that could be very nice to see.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 11, 2020 10:33:12 GMT -6
i will copy torpedo2 or tropedo warfare, that picture in particular is ugly, the rest are quiet good boi
|
|