|
Post by axe99 on May 21, 2023 6:15:14 GMT -6
So I took Hawaii and Midway. I feel like the game lacks a lot of Jutland style engagements. Would love to see a massive battle between the US and British ships around Maine, but that never happened. Almost took Maine in an invasion BTW, but we made peace before I took it. British world domination continues into the age of airplanes with the first 3 LCVs. I plan on having 7. I know you can mod the game to create those Jutland type engagements, but I don't know how yet. I've had a few fleet engagements (medium-sized fleet for first run) in the 1890s in multiple wars with the very unlucky Germany. The last one was actually really Jutland-like, in that we met in the evening, they saw my line, decided discretion was the better part of value, and retreated (Unlike Jutland, I didn't have any BCs to explode - I'm sure they'll come later - and I managed to catch about half of them before they got back to base). It was always a bit random in RtW1 and 2 though, and I expect it might be similar in 3. Hopefully you'll get some big fleet battles soon
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 20, 2023 17:21:47 GMT -6
May have made a mistake here - I bought the game on Matrix figuring from previous posts I'd seen it would help the devs more and I would get a steam key as well, but I did not see any key but the one for the installer and I'm a bit frustrated. Am I missing something or did I just purchase the wrong version? No, you did the right thing if you want more of a share going to the developer. Once you purchase on our site, you need to register your copy through the My Page at the top of the site. Note that if you were logged into your site account when you purchased, that gets done automatically at the time of purchase. Once it's registered on your My Page, there's a button there that allows you to request a free Steam key. Takes about a second or two, the page reloads and you'll have the key you can use to activate the game on Steam. Thanks for posting this erutins, and for asking the question cycnus. In case it helps anyone else, I started on the Matrix version, but just requested my Steam key and was able to copy my saved game over ([Rtw3 Folder]/Save/Game1 to [Steam folder]/steamapps/common/Rule the Waves 3/Save/Game1) and it seemed to load fine.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 20, 2023 0:23:33 GMT -6
And it's soooooo goooooood Only five years in and loving it - many thanks for the excellent work, and looking forward to seeing how it plays out as the years go by
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 20, 2023 0:17:07 GMT -6
A bit further in, still loving it Used to RtW 1/2 Britain at the start being spread thin if there's a risk of war with two powers after the first few years, but Britain in the 1890s is (to be fair, as it was) a monster! Feel a teensy bit mean, but I'm sure economic growth in Germany will have them catch up and cause trouble soon emough Lots of little touches that make things better as well as the big things, the tweaks to the UI and so on are great. Being able to move whole divisions at once is excellent
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 18, 2023 22:10:36 GMT -6
Really enjoying it (not perhaps the most unexpected result!) Been hanging out for this for ages. Really like the officers, the divisions, the new ship visuals, the great number of nations in a game, the relations matrix, and of course the core gameplay loop remains as excellent as ever A few minor things worth mentioning for possible "A & As" for the future: * The 1890 start has the most senior officers without enough time in position to be promoted, but other officers who are nominally less senior with enough time - so I can only promote division commanders at this stage by taking a prestige hit. Not a big issue, but might be nice to tweak at some stage. If I just press "yes", the promotions are prestige-hit free (and seem to sometimes break the rules for manual promotions in terms of years served). * Agree with your point cormallen about speedy cruisers - Mine are 20 and 21kts in 1890, when my notes have the New York class as the first ACs to hit 20kts in 1893, and Reina Regente (forced) in 1888 - most cruisers in 1890 would have been a few knots slower, some as slow as 15kts. Not a big issue, but a "nice to have" if the devs were happy tweaking it (setting up templates for starting ships for 10 or so navies for four starting periods is no mean feat - same story for officers!) * A minor thing I had was "historic enmity" raising tension with Germany in 1890 - iirc, Germany and Britain were still relatively friendly in 1890, it wasn't until a bit later when tensions arose, and they may not have had "historic enmity" until after WW1. * When sorting by rank, it might be nice if it sorted by seniority (both within and between ranks) than alphabetically by rank name. But all up it's absolutely wonderful - many thanks to everyone involved in putting it together - you've done a sensational job
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 28, 2023 3:19:25 GMT -6
Ok, talking to Matrix I get some (good) news: "If you purchase the game through Matrix Games, then Steam doesn't take its cut and we can still offer a free Steam Key to all registered owners." So, if you purchase via Matrix you can get both the Matrix version and a Key for Steam, and we (NWS) get a bit more compensation...so a 'win' for everyone I think. Of course if you choose to purchase directly from Steam that is fine, we very much appreciate your support no matter where you buy from! Thanks! Wonderful news, and perfect
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 24, 2023 19:05:37 GMT -6
I'm just excited about the game coming out soon - I'd been holding off on playing more RtW2 so I was "fresh" for RtW3, and I've been sorely tempted to give in!
Re the legacy fleet limitation, given it's a single-player game, I don't see an issue with allowing a legacy fleet build for all eras, but I'm quite relaxed either way (and I'll certainly be starting from 1890 with an auto-built legacy fleet for my first game).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 24, 2023 18:19:16 GMT -6
Much excitement - have wishlisted (but will follow your investigations as to whether it's better to purchase via Matrix or Steam and act accordingly ).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 10, 2022 17:48:30 GMT -6
They look wonderful - thanks for posting, and to John Smith for their work
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 10, 2022 16:07:04 GMT -6
Great thoughts blarglol , and wonderful news @fredrik W
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 9, 2022 9:45:41 GMT -6
On the whole aircraft design thing and the RN, another issue that's scratching at the back of my brain (and I think was a significant issue, but going from memory and all that entails) was that Britain's war started in 1939, while the US' war started two years after that, and they were never existentially threatened in the same way. Again, from wobbly memory I think this meant that for 1939 through to about 1943 (IIRC - take that number with a grain of salt) designs for the RN didn't get the priority of the land-based aircraft, and came into service relatively later than their US or Japanese equivalents. This also manifested in land-based aircraft sometimes getting priority for engines. This led to designs that might have been quite competitive if arriving on a normal development cycle and with the originally intended engine, ending up being less so in practice. It's worth noting the Admiralty's specification for the Firebrand, a single-seat high-performance fighter, had a minimum top speed of 650 km/hr, and was issued in mid-1940. Had this been realised in 1943, historical opinion on British carrier fighters might have been somewhat different, but slow development and engine issues meant it didn't turn up until 1945, and 100km/hr slower than hoped for.
One other thing to bear in mind is that the Fulmar was also intended as an interim design, but like the FAA more generally, got caught at a bad time. The two-seater Fulmar replacement, the Firefly, also suffered from some development issues - it was originally expected to start deliveries of operational aircraft at the end of 1941, with a top speed of 360mph, which would have been a much more respectable performance.
That said, I'm not suggesting that the RN losing control of the FAA wasn't a serious issue in the interwar period. I haven't come across a reputable source that suggests otherwise, and Hobbs in 'The Dawn of Carrier Strike' makes a good point of numerous reasons why there were difficulties (for example, the RAF, having the expertise in designing and operating aircraft, not sufficiently supporting the Admiralty when specifications were drawn up). The RAF's rather poorly-judged focus on turret fighters in the second half of the 1930s also did the RN's fighter force no favours.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Nov 7, 2022 15:57:57 GMT -6
A very interesting discussion For some random thoughts of dubious merit on the matter: - First thing to make clear is what do the numbers mean and what does gun tech cover. Does gun tech start at the breech block, or does it include the ammunition hoists and magazine arrangements (from an ammunition supply perspective - damage control would look after safety elements)? Personally, I'd see the gun as just the gun, with turret tech covering hoists, training and elevation and what-have you, and the below flows from that. - With RTW3 going back to 1890, we've got the situation where (IIRC) some of the earlier muzzle-loaders (or low-tech breech loaders, depending on the navy) are still in use, which I think certainly suggests for a -3 for 'legacy' tech, a -2 for "cutting edge in 1890" (British 12in/25 Mk I-VII, say), -1 for developed in the 1890s (British 12in Mk VIII and IX - I'm using the British 12in here because there are lots of examples through the time period), +0 for 1900s (12in/45 Mk X), +1 for late-WW1 (no real example here) and +2 for the 1930s Mk XIV. I'd expect timing of what's available when to still vary a bit, as larger calibres were as best I understand it, particularly when talking 14" and up, more work as they got bigger (some of this is in turret techs, to deal with recoil forces, but it might make more sense to think of them under guns, given we don't develop calibre-specific turrets). - As I understand it, there were improvements in both material science and understanding of ballistics/gunnery that warrant a "WW2 era" gun tech (+2), separate from a "+1 for late-WW1 good guns). Better materials and things like autofretting allowed (I think - I'm at the bleeding edge of my memory here, and don't have time to look up) chambers that could handle higher pressures, for example, and guns that were less likely to distort under those pressures (as well as the understanding that a heavy shell at a lower velocity was a better bet than a lighter shell at a higher velocity, at WW1 and later engagement ranges). So, for example, I'd certainly see the British 14in Mk VIII as a +2 weapon (it had really low dispersion, and a heavy shell), as well as the US 16in/50 Mk 7. - If the figures on the scales were taken to represent a certain stage of technology, then it may be worth thinking about some countries skipping techs rather than having to go through each tech. For example, the 18in -3 might represent the 17.72in muzzle-loaders on the Italia class of the 1880s, but Britain or the US developing 18in guns for the First time in WW1 wouldn't start with a muzzle-loading design and 1880s materials technology or gun design, so perhaps they might start with "one less than the max tech for the best heavy gun they already have". (The progression system would need to be managed to make sure this couldn't be abused - ie, no player, no matter how much they prioritise one calibre in the 1890s, will get better than +1 until the 1930s). - I'm not up on my post-WW2 development, but I wouldn't be surprised if diminishing marginal returns in material science and gun design would mean that, as the good Director says, post-WW2 improvements would be down to ammunition, turret arrangements, and sensors/fire control, so I'm not sure there's much of a case for a +3 gun tech - but I could well be wrong, I'm no expert.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 14, 2022 16:54:51 GMT -6
BĂ©arn had an armored flight deck on conversion. Not a very thick one, just enough for splinter protection, but I suspect it would be difficult to get more than that on a conversion in game anyways The best source I have on Bearn is John Jordan's article on the ship in Warship 2020, and it makes no mention of any armour on the flight deck, and the main deck armour was very much lower down, on the main deck and 1st platform deck. The hangar deck plating is listed as two layers of 12mm steel - in this context, I'd be surprised if the flight deck was more than 24mm (which is, as you say, splinter protection), which is quite a bit different to what would generally be considered an armoured deck (often 76mm or more). It's also worth bearing in mind that Bearn was only completed up to the lower armoured deck (first platform deck) when the conversion to a carrier was started - so to get a similar result with an existing ship would require stripping it down to this deck and starting again (iirc, not unlike the big (and very lengthy/expensive) conversion Victorious underwent post-WW2).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 12, 2022 18:13:07 GMT -6
Just some thoughts, and of dubious value, but deck armour is generally very heavy - and the flight deck is high in the ship - so adding flight deck armour to a ship that hasn't been designed to manage the stability implications of it could, potentially be very difficult - and in some cases impossible without reducing stability so much that it created a capsize risk. I imagine it wouldn't be impossible in all situations, but might be a bit tricky to get the balance right.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 8, 2022 17:01:46 GMT -6
Best of luck for the arrangement Team NWS - would be great to be able to get your work distributed more widely
|
|