|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 8, 2023 6:44:54 GMT -6
during battles in the TF detail screen you can go in and the change the role of the TF to core/support/screen/etc. one of the options is 'patrol' which i use all the time to keep a TF in a specific area (waiting for the enemy, or i find an area where i want my CVs to stay in). however, i don't consider it a 'role' because i often use it to temporarily override a TF's actual assigned role, and the vast majority of times when i use 'patrol' i switch it back to 'screen/core/etc' later. i would bet that the majority of players are not even aware that the option exists and never use it when it can be a very handy tool to use when you are waiting for contact or playing out the battle timer
perhaps it would be much better if 'patrol' was actually a checkbox like 'ai control' since i consider 'patrol' to be exactly the same as 'ai control' except the ships stick to a particular area instead of being able to wander all over the map. also if a TF on 'patrol' sights the enemy it seems to me it will not engage unless you take it off 'patrol', and having a checkbox makes that easier instead of digging into the dropdown menu
it might even be handy if when a TF on patrol spots the enemy a popup box appears and give the player the option of staying on patrol, switching to ai control (giving the ai more freedom to manoeuvre), or switching to manual control
the 'all reserve' button on the main game screen could need more detail - it's very handy to have the button to send all your ships into reserve (i use it multiple turns in a row after a war ends and when refitting ships as they all return to service in different turns), but i *never* want my CVs to go into reserve because it ruins the pilot experience of all the air wings, and every time i hit the 'all reserve' button i have to manually go in and set all the CVs back to AF which gets tedious when you have to do it 5+ turns in a row after a war. perhaps consider splitting the 'all reserve' button into 3 buttons - ship reserve, carrier reserve, and airbase reserve, or add popup boxes when you press the 'all reserve' button to specify if you want your CVs to also go in reserve (as well as airbases)
airbases might be a lot easier to manage if when they are unoccupied they automatically remain in 'reserve' since an airbase with no aircraft is not really 'active', and since active airbases cost more to maintain it adds up a lot when you have a ton of active airbases with no aircraft on them. so if you press 'mobilize' and it asks you if you want to mobilize all airbases, it really should only be all airbases that contain aircraft. or switch choosing active/reserve from airbases to air groups, since it's the air groups that are affected by this, not the air bases
speaking of pilot experience i think it's strange that when you put an air group in 'reserve' that the pilot experience decreases very quickly when in fact if that air group participated in a war it likely keeps many/all of those experienced pilots, it just has less of them in the air group. i think it would make more sense if either pilot experience went down very slowly (over years as pilots move on, assuming the air group stays in 'reserve' over years), and if the air group goes from 'reserve' to 'active' it would be at that point the pilot experience would decrease since there is now a new influx of inexperienced pilots joining the wing
Norway might need a bit of love - when i'm playing a European nation it seems quite common that i end up occupying it but it's not setup quite right. in the game Stavenger and Bergen are not ports accessible by your navy, however if i get a damaged ship that needs to go back to port it almost always tried to go to either one of those bases and ends up patrolling back and against the coastline trying to reach an inaccessible port for the rest of the battle, sometimes resulting in sinking
However Trondheim is an accessible port, but doesn't have the 'inaccessible to the enemy' zone surrounding it like every other port. i think it's the same for Narvik, but it's so far north no battles or ships ever end up even remotely close to it so it doesn't seem necessary to have it on the map
speaking of Trondheim as well as Reykyavik Iceland, they are both in a unique position on the map where in the summer the airbases get dawn/dusk but never actually go to night time. what i noticed is that when dusk hits all patrolling aircraft will head back to those bases before night hits when in fact night will never hit so there's no reason for recon to stop, especially when some of the recon routes take place in 24 hour daylight. i realize it's a product of how all airbases are programmed to operate so likely not fixable, but it's something i noticed
in battles when you spot a ship on 'very fast' timer speed it will drop down to normal speed automatically, however if you get a radar contact it does *not* do this which is inconsistent, and sometimes very harmful if you get that close radar contact at night because once you click ok the game does *not* stop, it keeps going at 'very fast 'which sometimes gets you in big trouble. radar contacts should be treated like spotting contacts and the game should go back to normal speed automatically, or at least pause the game so you can set the speed without ramming into the middle of an enemy formation by mistake
finally a possible tweak to how guns are researched - instead of the current 'Naval Guns' entry in the 'general' research tab, perhaps instead you would apply priority directly to each naval gun so you have a bit more control over which gun types you develop. perhaps they all start on low or no priority and you get to choose a few guns on a higher priority (# dependent on nation - poorer nations might only be able to research 2 types at a time while richer nations get more research slots) and/or the more guns you give priority to the more 'diluted' your gun research becomes and it takes longer to develop better guns
perhaps all '5' rated guns start hidden and are researched like other techs in the 'Naval Guns' entry in the 'general' research tab, then appear at -2 (or even -3) when researched as a flawed concept that needs development. -3 could be suitable for land forts, but not naval use without development (i think i remember there might be -3 guns in RtW3 representing the old muzzle loaders, so -4 or 'L' instead for land only?)
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 28, 2022 5:21:43 GMT -6
interesting the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine have their flags switched in those results screen
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 13, 2022 6:34:42 GMT -6
Or do you just get one level of credit no matter how long you continue? i believe it's just the one fixed level of credit
Gunnery: Gunnery training will give your ships 10% better accuracy when firing guns. It will
cause maintenance costs to be 30% higher.
Night fighting: This will give your ships a bonus when spotting enemy ships at night, and less chance of hesitating before opening fire at night. It also gives a 10% accuracy bonus at night.
20% increase in maintenance.
Torpedo tactics: This will make your light forces more alert when carrying out torpedo attacks, quicker to react on flotilla attack orders and give better hit chances when firing torpedoes. 20% increase in maintenance
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 13, 2022 6:27:53 GMT -6
Do you have to convert a CVL, a CV, or both before your first purpose built CV? no, you can go straight to building a purpose built CV whenever you get the tech
doesn't hurt to do a single CV conversion to get the 8" gun prerequisite for your first CV out of the way though
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 13, 2022 6:18:17 GMT -6
the date is just a number - if you play at 20% research rate it would be nice to play until you get the end game tech, which (theoretically) should be well past 1970. not historically accurate, but it's a lot of fun stretching out the eras
i'v mentioned it before, but if there is a hard cutoff date it would be fun if the game stretched according to the research rate you choose - so if you go with 50% research the hard cutoff would be 2040
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 8, 2022 9:08:25 GMT -6
different bug, might as well use the same thread since it's the same game
decided to try something different and make cheap permanent AMCs using AVs, the designer and the ship building window says it should take 5 turns but in actuality it takes 13 turns
if i create an AV >1000t it shows the right build time, but at 900t it's wrong
it seems it has to be at 20kts or less as well, at >20kts it has the right build time
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 7, 2022 4:51:21 GMT -6
playing Japan, the battle was out of seazone (supposed to be the Japan seazone) and had no ships
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 3, 2022 5:18:11 GMT -6
How did you get such a big budget without having it taken away by the army? the army doesn't touch your budget, but if you have more than around $140k savings there's a chance that $30k of your savings will be allocated to the army
if you don't like it when that happens you can re-play the turn and there's a good chance it won't happen a 2nd time
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 27, 2022 4:54:22 GMT -6
a simplified way of dealing with size might be to have a 'tech' that raises general aircraft size (and perhaps linked to aircraft range/payload) by 10%(?) that pops up every 5+ years or something. it could be size 1 up to size 10 (?) more rambling - i guess a better way of dividing up "size eras" might be
Biplane 1 or Biplane Gen1 Biplane Gen2
etc (Triplanes? less speed than biplanes but more manoeuvrability?)
Monoplane Gen1
Monoplane Gen2
etc
Jet Gen1 Jet Gen2
etc
also (generalization) - late biplanes would be slower but tougher and more manoeuvrable than early monoplanes.
perhaps late monoplane vs jet might be the same?
another possible thing to consider is reliability - when progressing through to a new generation, all newly designed previous generation aircraft reliability should perhaps increase by 1 to signify it is now proven tech and should (theoretically) be more reliable. this might give the player more to think about when designing new aircraft - do you want bleeding edge that might end up being a hangar queen, or do you want to stick with proven tech to keep availability up?
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 25, 2022 7:15:32 GMT -6
Okay, as an update to my post above, I now have this game. It does look promising though it is slightly limited in EA right now. The game is prettier than Atlantic Fleet but does play a lot like it. Manual command of damage control doesn't seem to work right. At least, I haven't figured it out yet. Still pretty early and might turn into something nice. i think i saw somewhere that damage control isn't implemented yet
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 25, 2022 7:10:39 GMT -6
a simplified way of dealing with size might be to have a 'tech' that raises general aircraft size (and perhaps linked to aircraft range/payload) by 10%(?) that pops up every 5+ years or something. it could be size 1 up to size 10 (?)
when you develop a new aircraft you would also choose the size (perhaps another drop down menu), but if you develop a larger sized aircraft and want to put it on a CV(/CVL) you would need to refit the CV to accommodate that larger size which would reduce the total number of aircraft you could station on that CV
if you wanted to stick with developing smaller sized aircraft to keep your aircraft capacity up you would be also be developing lower capability aircraft (less or stagnated range/payload, perhaps less or stagnated speed as well) compared to a larger sized aircraft
it's a little "1 size fits all" since if you refitted a CV to accommodate the larger aircraft but you were still also using smaller sized aircraft on the same CV, those smaller aircraft would still be limited by the new lower capacity but it's a way of keeping it simple, and perhaps in compensation the smaller aircraft may have a quicker ready time or something
land bases would be unaffected
in reality i would think that before any new aircraft could be accommodated on a CV, the carrier should require a refit anyways in order to setup the carrier for operating a new aircraft type, no matter what size it is
also there should be a minimum CV weight requirement (or max age) for each aircraft size level so you don't get someone putting jets on a CV built to handle biplanes 50 years earlier
this would be a good way to encourage players to build new CVs as the game progresses, because as it stand right now once i build a 100 capacity CV early on i don't feel any reason to build a newer CV class later on except perhaps 'for fun'
if there was a reduction on capacity over time, in order to 'future proof' a CV i might have to give it 120 capacity so it can still carry 100 aircraft years later which might not be possible if my CV size tech is still lower
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 23, 2022 10:17:20 GMT -6
very minor thing
i am playing Russia, in my 1st war vs Japan i took Hokkaido as reparations from them
now i am in our 2nd war and Japan keeps attempting amphib invasions, however they are always trying to invade Sakhalin or Port Arthur instead of trying to take back Hokkaido
figure i'd mention there wasn't even a single attempt out of many
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 23, 2022 5:19:31 GMT -6
to be fair if you want to make the game more difficult when playing USA or UK you should *not* use Historical Resources to level the playing field budget-wise
i usually have a few rules that handicap me some, but it's usually to simplify playing the game or to save budget - i limit myself to 60 capacity airfields and only place aircraft in either my home seazone or the enemy's home seazone, i don't usually build subs and use AMCs instead, and i auto-resolve all raider battles
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 23, 2022 4:44:22 GMT -6
i'l take back what i said about Matrix charging more on Steam - been eying War in the East 2 and on sale it's cheaper on Steam than on Matrix ($65 vs $80)
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Nov 19, 2022 5:17:52 GMT -6
Matrix/Slitherine charge more for their products on steam, so outside of purchasing through NWS (if it's going to be possible) you'r always better off buying the game directly from Matrix/Slitherine, then redeeming the steam key to play it through the steam launcher
|
|