|
Post by srndacful on Apr 14, 2024 22:38:33 GMT -6
See how you are scrambling to find increasingly bizarre ways to balance this, ways that aren't even in the game? There is no game mechanic that makes everyone gang up on Germany if Germany decides to increase tensions with one nation. You also say that AI nations can get friends to help, which is a completely different paradigm from the chance event alliances the game gives us. In addition, if you do manage to have Germany fight everyone, but they only alienate everyone through the army, then what fun is the whole naval side then? In addition, you have powers that are doubly disadvantaged by this proposal: Spain, China, and the like. Imagine playing these countries and you get into a war anyways, and, since it is hard to obtain allies, you get swiped off from the map without even getting a chance to play. The original diplomatic system already takes a bit of control away from the player, but now you are asking to completely divorce player decisions and ability from their outcomes. How awful of game design. Such an idea just asks for problems, and fundamentally changes what players come to play the game for. And it would take a number of patchwork systems and hotfixes to even get started working, and even then not nearly like the original game OK - once again, I'm failing to see how I'm "scrambling to find" those "increasingly bizarre ways to balance it". You do realise that Germany and Austria (and probably China and Russia, as well) had most of their military budget invested in the Army instead of the Navy, don't you? As opposed to, say, Great Britain, which had most of it's budget invested in the Navy? It would be interesting - just as a demonstration - to create a mod giving you nations' Army budgets instead of Navy's - just so you can see the difference. As for ganging up - in every game of RtW3 I played so far, I've had the "Nations X and Y sign a pact to contain Nation Z's aggression" at least once. If that isn't it - I don't know what is. And increase (or decrease) of tensions already has a "nation A's historical enmity with nation B" as a reason, which, along with an 'enemy of my enemy' philosophy and with AI alliances and wars firing off quite regularly enough already - is why I don't think there would be much changes at all. The diplomatic system would, simply, now take into account Army strength, as well as Navy's, when calculating how 'scary' a nation is. I imagine it wouldn't take much for, say, Spain to enlist British (or German) help if attacked by France ... would you? I'm not proposing for the Army operations to be run by the player (just any naval support of them - if required) - to the contrary: since it would be running in the background, a simple (invisible) Army budget (for the invasions and Air Force) - along with the (AI-run) Air Force - would be all that's needed. I have no idea how Invasion resolution is actually done - I'd have to leave that one to @fredrik - but I'd say what I'm suggesting wouldn't be that hard to implement. KISS in any case is my motto.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 8, 2024 22:35:30 GMT -6
Ok, tendravina & blarglol - now I'm curious: what mission creep are you guys talking about? I wasn't proposing any new missions - just more of the old ones: Naval Invasions, Convoy Defence/Attack and Coastal Bombardment. 'cuz, IMHO, more missions => more engagements => more fun ... right? Also, yeah - it would mean that Germany becomes OP and everybody should s#it their pants and gang up on it - or get rekt piecemeal. Austria would now become a major threat to Italy - unless Italy gets a friend to help (like, say, France or even Germany) - which is, once again, historically accurate. And yes, USA would totally capture Canada - which, IMHO, is the only reason the Brits wouldn't want to fight them (like they currently like to do all of the freakin' time) Any Russo-Austrian wars could be resolved in a normal amount of time - since, currently, any war between them is so hard to fight it's insane. In any case, the diplomacy and alliances would be much more crucial in this new paradigm - not to mention that some countries would get a new lease on life. Edit: Oh, and yeah, automatic loss can occur only when your Home Area(s) falls, and you have no allies: if you do have them, then your government is in exile, your ships escape, and you can continue fighting. But all the ships that you were building are now in enemy's hands, and you can only build new ones in your ally's shipyards - also, your budget is slashed, your ships are based in your ally's ports, you can kiss your planes goodbye (unless you have more than one Home Area, that is) and have to use your allies' - and your missile stockpile now comes from your ally, too. So, not fun, but also not the end.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 21, 2023 9:36:16 GMT -6
Okay - I seem to remember something, but I failed to take the screenshot and now I can't post it as proof - but, I seem to remember that MTB's have submerged Torpedo Tubes - which, if I remember it right, can't fire at speeds above 25 knots - and MTB's have a top speed of 40 knots.
So ... they're basically incapable of ever using their torpedoes - which are, let's face it, their only weapon. Could someone verify this for me, please? I currently have no save files in this era, so I can't do it myself ... sorry.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 20, 2023 23:42:25 GMT -6
I played two games of Italy, built MTBS both, and I didn't SEE it once I build them (and see them in battles near my coast) all the time - but yeah, they're really ineffective. Also, AI, in general, is much too afraid to launch torps early on (before torpedo salvoes are an option) - basically they'll only launch them at immobile (sinking) targets. So, yeah: low on numbers and low on aggression = 0 effect. And they're supposed to be the 1890's equivalent of 1930's torpedo bombers ... really dissapointing.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 3, 2023 9:52:29 GMT -6
OK, just to provide an example of what I mean:
Say we have 3 BB Divs: (each with 4 BB's + 2 CL & 2x6 DD Screen) 1st Div: BB's @ 35000 tons, CL's @ 6200 tons and DD's @ 2500 tons = 182,400 tons 2nd Div: BB's @ 30000 tons, CL's @ 5000 tons and DD's @ 2000 tons = 154,000 tons 3rd Div: BB's @ 25000 tons, CL's @ 4000 tons and DD's @ 1500 tons = 126,000 tons
Next, we need 310,000 tons for a battleship encounter: 1. we start at the top and work towards the bottom: 1st Div alone is not enough - we need 2nd as well. 2. we now have 336,400 tons in 1st and 2nd Div - 26,400 tons more than required: we are now looking for the greatest tonnage we can remove without going over this amount 3. 1st BB Div's DD Div has 15000 tons total - greatest tonnage (but still smaller than the excess) available - removing it would leave us with 321,400 tons - 11,400 more than required: and the hunt begins again 4. 2nd BB Div's CL Div has 10000 tons total - again, biggest tonnage available, that's still smaller than excess - removing it leaves us with 311,400 tons - only 1,400 tons more than required - but we have nothing we can remove to make it smaller.
Now, yeah, this had us removing entire Divisions - but if the requirement was, say, 300,000 tons, instead, you could just remove one of the 1st Div's BB's and that'd be it. Alternately, if the requirement was, say, 330,000 tons, we'd just remove a single 1st Div's CL.
Just something to chew over. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 3, 2023 9:16:32 GMT -6
Wow ... just wow.
I mean - yeah, I've been seeing stuff like this from the beginning (and - hey - don't listen to those guys, okay: putting your worst ships at the front is an excellent idea - leaves the better ones intact and able to maul the enemy as he spends his ammo on the useless cannon fodder) but the game was new, ship's graphics were nice, the officers were interesting (in a totally non-homosexual kind of way) and I wasn't paying much attention.
Enter the carrier age, however, and the cracks began to show. Now, don't get me wrong: I adore C3I (that's chaos, confusion, cowardice and incompetence, folks - duck those other guys) - show me a CL that's just been torpedoed by her own DD screen that's running away from an enemy battleship (read: KE) that just appeared 2000 yards away on a clear night, and I'm a happy guy.
Still, even with meticulously planned deployments, the C3I reigned (again: not a major problem - used to it from RtW2) - and there were some some posts on this forum about KE's leading Carriers and 2 DD's as main force, and I grew suspicious. So, as a test, I've deliberately removed all the Core and Support connections between the Major divisions (BX, BC, CV and CA) leaving only CL and DD divisions connected (to Majors through Screen role) - and in the next battle (which, fortunately, turned up to be Fleet) I saw the results: wow ... just wow.
A couple of things popped up, though: 1. First Major divisions in each force (BX and CV) had their CL and DD divisions attached correctly: i.e. just like I set them up - everything else, however ... chaos ... beautiful chaos - total and absolute disregard for any orders I've given in the division editor. 2. AI likes to set up the divisions in numbered order - all BX, CV and CL divisions were set up in a nice, neat line from 1st on up - no matter the 'order' on the division editor I assumed thus far - pay attention, everyone. 3. unlike RtW2, AI sets up insane orders like: 2nd and 4th CV Divs supporting 12th DD Div (that is currently Screening 1st CV Div as it's supposed to) and 6th CL Div Screening 4th CL Div Screening 3rd CL Div Screening 2nd CL Div (yes, those are four (4) CL Divs Screening each other) - so, it's new and isn't set up correctly, yet. (meaning: it's a bug even the dev hasn't figured out yet) 4. looks like divisions were 'placed' into the OOB by order of 'rank': first BB's, then CV's, then CA's, then CL's and finally DD's. 5. only DD Div's have been dismembered - all other types of divisions are moved in one piece (might have been a fluke, but still ...) 6. wow ... that's a lot of things
So, it's my strong suspicion (suspicion being the operative word here - since it's the only thing I have) that battle OOB creator is working on a "fill'er up" mode: i.e. he gets the parameters (like: tonnage required) - and then throws Div's and ships into OOB until he meets them (i.e. enough tonnage is in) not caring at all for the division's orders or (possibly) composition.
Therefore, I'd like to propose (for the developer's consideration) that battle OOB creator sub-program adopts a "cut'er down" mode: I.e. takes as many Independent Major (BX, BC, CV and CA only) Divisions (and - most importantly - their subordinates (and their subordinates - and their subordinates' subordinates, and their ... well, you get the picture)) it takes to get above the parameters (i.e. tonnage required) and then start removing ships (or, if necessary, entire Divs) to get to the required parameter.
This would not only preserve the force structure (a win for me) as neatly as possible, but also (possibly) provide a simple (and easy) way to implement it (a win for you) into the game.
Something to think about, anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 23, 2023 22:56:32 GMT -6
As the title says, this is my pitch for the introduction of a (major) component in any national political (and war-making) endeavour: the Army. Naturally, this Army should be AI-run, operating completely independently of the Navy (except when it comes to tension and attacking targets, of course (more on that later)) and, usually, being a bitter rival for the funding provided by the nation's ruler. Also naturally, this is a game centered around the naval battles, so I'm advocating a 'as-minor-modifications-as-possible' approach: nothing major (or fancy) - using mostly what's already provided - and just enough to get the job done. And, after all, let's be honest, here: the Navy cannot win wars by itself - you'll always need boots on the ground to actually end things.
This addition would provide a couple of basic bonuses to the RtW experience:
More Invasions: There are 3 things at play here: 1. Using the current 'invasion' mechanism (and expanding it a bit to include land borders) to enable the neighbouring nations to invade over land (i.e.no Navy assistance necessary = automatic success) - this would simulate the land war waged since the beginning of time. 2. Providing funding for the actual naval invasions (if there are no convenient - friendly - land borders to cross) of the enemy nation's colonies - or even mainland. This would more accurately simulate most of the (for example) US's conflicts up until now - Spanish war of 1898 and Island hopping of WW2 spring immediately to mind - not to mention the Japan's or Britain's ones. 3. Making the 'Home Areas' invade-able gives you a chance to end the war completely in your favour by conquering the enemy's nation. Naturally, this would be quite upsetting to the Admirals (that we are) but, unfortunately, history is full of such examples, so ... yeah.
Army Air Force: More airfields - and planes on them - than you can shake your stick at. On the other hand, you control none of them, and (at best) they'll provide CAP to your ports (and airfields) - and maybe go and raid the enemy's ports (and nearby ships). In any case, this might be an interesting opportunity to provide us (the Admirals) with a dilemma: - Independent Air Force: where we can build ships only (including carriers) but we have no control over aircraft on them. - Partial (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control only the planes on our ships - but not on land. - Full (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control our (Navy) planes - both on land, and on the sea. Army planes' design and deployment would, naturally, be controlled by the AI - with heavy emphasis on attacking land targets and providing CAP. Also, we might actually get to see a Heavy Bomber in action ... so: pretty please?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 19, 2023 10:02:49 GMT -6
I'm not sure what Aurora's sandpapering means... Huh - I really expected that someone (anyone) will get the reference. Oh, well - anyway: Aurora is space 4X game with an emphasis on (lots of) spreadsheets, (space)ship design (and associated research) and deployment - as well as logistics. Naturally, missiles (and their development, design, production and distribution - yes, all those parts are required) are a big part of the game, and you can make them in all shapes and sizes for all kinds of purposes (just like everything else in the game) - the game is basically an open sandbox (and that's why we love it - excessive micromanagement notwithstanding). There are no fixed 'types' of missiles, but 2 main uses for them are: anti-ship (ASM) and anti-missile (AMM - think SAM here) missiles. ASM's are (usually) the main ship-killers since their (relatively) massive warhead can punch a large hole in the ship's armour (think AP here) and do some real damage to the interior. But first they have to get past the AMM's (and CIWS-analog) screen and that's not guaranteed. (any that do get through are likely to cause a lot of damage) However, there is another way to get at ships: AMM's themselves. Sure, they have a tiny warhead (just enough to kill a missile) - but there's a lot of them - and enemy AMM's won't get them as much (if at all - the other side will, most likely, be firing at your own ships) - so there will be plenty of hits for you to remove the enemy armour layer by layer (because damage to armour is being tracked) until you finally reach the vulnerable interior. This process has been described as akin to a carpenter removing rough spots on a chunk of wood using sandpaper in order to get that smooth wooden surface he needs.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 17, 2023 8:53:04 GMT -6
LOL! Good to know Aurora's 'sandpapering' is viable here, too.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 16, 2023 22:40:58 GMT -6
The game's cruise speed behaves like a fleet manuever speed. Where the fleet has a "battle speed" that all ships can do a fair distance at. Best econimical speeds even into WW2 were at 10 - 12 knots. Wave resistance sill having squared and cubed functions, sharp turning curves, as you speed up. And also, I suppose, to blarglol and arminpfano, too: You also have to remember that different ships have different economical speeds - just like they each have their own (different) maximum speed. And since warships rarely (if ever) travel alone, the main problem here is finding the economical speed of an entire formation of various ships.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 7, 2023 6:42:19 GMT -6
No wonder: You're probably taking standard displacement as the basis of your ships - but RtW ships' displacement is actually fully-loaded displacement (i.e. with crew, fuel, stores and weapons aboard) So, a Fletcher has a 2500 tons at full load - that one might fit better.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 22, 2023 22:11:38 GMT -6
No "strategy" thread yet? I´m the first one? I feel honored ;-)
In RTW2 my main strategy is a combined fleet of some fast CAs/BCs and a big number of DD flotillas - they chew up every battle line with ease (captains mode). CLs I only use for Foreign Stations, mainly to get them out of the way - so my CAs/BCs show up in every single cruiser battle.
Now in the 1890 start DDs are not yet available. What to do? I found a surprisingly well working substitute in small torpedo CLs (2500 ts, 22 knts, 6TTs, some 4" guns, armor 1" only). During the first years they can be handled like a DD flotilla, with the bonus of reloading torpedos during battle. It is real fun to drive them through a battle line, firing torps in all directions.
From 1900 on 500 ts DDs get available, then these CLs should be scrapped. Otherwise they tend to explode in battle, as soon as the enemy guns get a little better...
What you are describing is (literally) a diluted version of a 1890's Torpedo Boat attack and it's devastating effectiveness that (historically) led to the development of the cruiser screen and (Torpedo Boat) Destroyer ship type - both of which currently (in game) appear as if from nowhere, since there isn't a single TB in sight. Historically, you could build 50 TB's (with a 100 torpedoes) for the price of a single Battleship (France basically stopped building Battleships to get over 300 of them) - naturally, their short range means that they'll have to be spread out in order to make sure they participate in any battle (so you'll get only about half a dozen of those 50 - one of the reasons Destroyers are more popular) but hey - even a single torpedo hit will sink a battleship, meaning they'll pay for themselves pretty soon. You could think of them as 1890's version of 1930's Bombers (i.e. before AA Cruisers and radar-guided CAP were developed (sounds kinda like cruiser sceeen and Destroyers, doesn't it)) - with no effective defence, you can only watch as they come in - and pray to God they don't blow up anything important. Edit: also, unlike planes, these guys could (and did) attack at night - which only made them infinitely more scary.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 21, 2023 10:13:02 GMT -6
... I've got SSM Boats and Shore Missile Batteries instead of Motor Torpedo Boats and Gun Batteries now too so good luck running in against my shoreline at night guys. Can you provide an account as to how they're working out for you thus far?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 21:55:21 GMT -6
... Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare. I think this is all fair enough over the relatively short timeframe of the the original RTW, but now we're dealing with 80 years in which entire nations underwent massive transformations, and none of their fortunes were preordained. Obviously it shouldn't be possible to transform a semi-peripheral country into a superpower overnight, but there should be room for significant evolution over the course of a full-length game from 1890 to 1970. Also, as far as I'm concerned, in RTW we inhabit a world where the fortunes of nations are decided at sea, much more so than in our historical experience. If the player is winning battles, controlling the sea lanes, seizing new bases and colonial outposts, all of that should have some influence on the wealth and fortunes of his nation. It should at least nudge the trends of development in a certain direction, in my opinion. To be fair: fortunes of nations were always decided at sea - and still are, really. Most of the cargo transport goes by sea (as it's the cheapest option per ton of cargo carried) - and cargo generates revenue - which is, at the end of the day, the reason we fight. So ... not really all that different from our historical experience. Yeah, national modifiers should be able to change - we could nudge them along, naturally, but the process should still be slow, difficult and random. If you ask me, we should also include all the aspects of the actual trade into the game: List of all the goods available (and their effects on gameplay) - the amounts of supply and demand - merchant ships to carry the stuff - price of each item determined by the demand-to-supply ratio. All of it should, naturally, be automated - but at least we'd have stuff like: "Due to abundance/lack of iron ore, ship construction will be cheaper/costlier by x%" or: "Coal/oil is abundant/lacking: the costs of running the ships has gone down/up by x%" Then, of course, come in the taxes, government expenditure on army, air force and basic schools and stuff like that. All of it, naturally, automated, so the player has minimal interaction with the whole thing - except keeping sea lanes open, that is. Naturally, this will be a bitch to implement, so I'm not expecting fredrik and the team to implement any of it all that soon (if at all) but still - it's nice to dream.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on May 17, 2023 7:52:41 GMT -6
To me, the entire meaning of those modifiers is that they are national - i.e. they're applied on the whole nation: not just officers (and crew) but on engineers, scientists, farmers and workers as well. So 'fixing' a flaw requires fixing it on a national level - and that's not a level we're playing at here.
I'd say fredrik and the team are already lax enough in their application: For me, a flaw (or bonus) should be applied over all of the possible things it may effect: so, for example, having some corruption means not only a chance that some money might disappear from your bank account - but also paying more for the ship (those spare parts just keep going missing) but also for food, ammo and fuel ("10% goes straight into your private bank account if you choose my company to supply them")
Poor education, to me, means not only less research, but lower quality officers and crew (and, perhaps, shipbuilders and engineers) - along with (possibly) higher cost on just about everything.
Sure, national modifiers might change - but it shouldn't be up to the player: it should be random and, above all - it should be rare.
|
|