|
Post by axe99 on Jul 1, 2022 17:34:49 GMT -6
I likes it I have spent much time sorting ! Taking it a step further, having a user-defined "default sort" could also be cool (even multiple ones, so user-sort-1; user-sort-2 and so on).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 21, 2022 16:39:23 GMT -6
On the map, while it'd be nice to have accurate and dynamic borders, it may well be a lot of work, and given limits on dev time, I'm happy if they stay as is. But one thought - and perhaps a terrible one - what about no political borders at all? Instead just have the flags (or spots for a flag, for regions not occupied by powers) for each region? That way, the regions are covered off, but there are no odd-looking borders to deal with? The borders would still need to be there "under the hood" to make sure coastal batteries and airfields were in the right place, but by not displaying them on the map, there won't be the dissonance of the borders being off? Could be a silly idea, and I'm not suggesting it is original either. It's not silly - what's more, it's already in the game! Check under Preferences -> Map colors -> No borders
About "a lot of work" - I'm not asking to overhaul the province system or something like that. I'm just talking about the visual aspect, specifically the main strategical "Map" - no changes would be made to provinces, airfields, ports, land "hitboxes" etc. - so basically no gameplay/coding changes. But upon even closer inspection of the map, it appears that the gray rectangles and blue lines are generated "dynamically" - it's hard for me to explain, but when I zoom out to the point where I see black stripes on the sides of the map window, area borders are still generated on the border between the map and the black stripes. So, as far as I understand, the map is definitely not a raster (duh), and possibly not even a simple vector - the borders and zone connectors might be hard-coded, which would mean that a simple file swap would not work to just replace the map (in fact, I haven't found a "map file" in the game files). If this is true, and would require a lot of work (1+ days) to change, then my argument is invalid, since I was originally hoping that there is a simple solution to the problem. I'm not entirely sure about all of that, so more feedback would be appreciated - at least to satisfy my curiosity. Well then it's very silly for me to ask, lol. Thanks for that I've been on a RtW2 break while waiting for the expansion (I like to have a good break before expansions/new games), and as it's been a bit longer than expected now, it's been quite the break, so I'm a bit out of touch with the details - although I had never noticed that before. Will definitely be cranking that with RtW3
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 19, 2022 16:51:45 GMT -6
On the map, while it'd be nice to have accurate and dynamic borders, it may well be a lot of work, and given limits on dev time, I'm happy if they stay as is.
But one thought - and perhaps a terrible one - what about no political borders at all? Instead just have the flags (or spots for a flag, for regions not occupied by powers) for each region? That way, the regions are covered off, but there are no odd-looking borders to deal with? The borders would still need to be there "under the hood" to make sure coastal batteries and airfields were in the right place, but by not displaying them on the map, there won't be the dissonance of the borders being off?
Could be a silly idea, and I'm not suggesting it is original either.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 11, 2022 4:46:00 GMT -6
If something like this was done, it'd be cool if it was something that could easily modded and shared via steam workshop - although, that may make it more work, and harder to do. It is something that could be cool. but I very much appreciate the importance of development staying focussed.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 19, 2022 17:17:48 GMT -6
Greetings to my Fellow Naval Combat Aficionados,Firstly - my apologies for the delay in this announcement; it has been a trying last few months for NWS since Christopher left us, but we have recovered and have been moving forward in good order. With that out of the way, let us get down to what you have been waiting for - news and/or updates! 1. After *lots* of discussion between Fredrik and myself, and including feedback from our wonderful NWS Beta Team members, we have decided that the upcoming release should be a standalone game, namely "Rule the Waves 3: Ironclads to Missile Cruisers". We have worked on this project for ~ 2.5 years now; with the amount of changes and additions, not to mention improvements in many many areas, we realized a short while back that the work has gone well beyond a simple expansion/dlc...we somehow passed 'feature creep' and entered the realm of what I like to call 'feature bloat' at some point in the past it would appear :-) The previously released 'Expansion Catalog', while it showed much of what was included at its release, will likely become somewhat outdated as additional work is done for the final game release - more details of this will be coming out in our marketing campaign later on. The exact price point for the RTW3 game has not yet been decided, but it will fall close to our (NWS) typical price range for our new games, somewhere in the 35-45 range is my best guess right now - the exact price will be set/announced later on. We do plan to put the game on sale at a *reduced price* for the first week or so of the release, which will effectively give anyone who wishes to take advantage of it a good price break. 2. Release date: The game will be released in OCTOBER of this (2022) year. THIS IS A SOLID RELEASE WINDOW. This release window gives us some additional time to 'finetune' the game, and a chance to add even more new features and useful changes as well in the meantime! 3. STEAM: Yes, we plan on a Steam release at the same time as the game is released to the store!!! The initial sale price (that I mentioned above) should also apply on Steam as well as on the store. Below is just a sample of the updated ship graphics for RTW3, courtesy of our talented Beta Team member John Smith (jwsmith26 ):<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> My word, disappear for a couple of days, come back and there's much excitement This is great news from my angle - and it being converted to a full game sounds quite appropriate given how much work has gone into it. Steam inclusion also sounds great (I'm happy enough with stand-alone installs, but Steam does make it much easier/more straightforward - plus it will make it much, much easier to get the game to a wider audience). The most exciting bit, of course, is a solid release date - woo! As ever, I'll understand if it's delayed, but I suspect given the care to not announce a release date until some degree of confidence was available means there's only a few months now and we'll be able to get our RtW3 on - which makes me very happy indeed And those ship models look excellent Cannot wait!
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 15, 2022 18:59:32 GMT -6
Personally I'm hoping for changes to the damage models. Currently it's possible to sink a BB without once penetrating its armor belt or hitting it with a torp though "structure" damage. This is not only unrealistic, it actively penalizes AoN armor schemes by making them easier to sink though filling the structure damage meter. Something else I'm hoping for changes with is the 20% armor thickness variability. Early game, I have no problem with it, but by late game battleships are effectively losing 3,4, even 5 in of armor, which results in their immunity zones by half or more, or even disappearing altogether. And if shells also geta +-20% pen variable, a belt that's supposed to be proof against 20in of pen is actually only proof against 12in of pen. Any word of any changes to this? Its a TOTAL of +-20%, and this is applied only to effective armor protection, not to both armor thickness and shell penetration. So in your example of a 20" belt the effective protection would vary between 16" and 24" - the great majority of belts were not of uniform thickness and often could taper both in the horizontal and vertical planes to a degree. Bear in mind as well that the effective armor thickness is increased if you strike the belt at an angle that is <> 90 degrees - this is also modeled in the game. Also, we are in the process of making changes to the AON armor scheme that will better reflect its overall effectiveness against shellfire. Thanks! It's not a surprise at all, but love the attention to detail (and all of the above is consistent with my understanding of armour and its effectiveness)
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 7, 2022 17:21:44 GMT -6
Well, it does make a difference to the artistic soul of some of us. A big +1 to this - it makes no difference to the performance of the ship in-game, but it makes a big difference to my enjoyment of the game
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 19, 2021 15:58:57 GMT -6
I've seen "unarmoured" used differently to "unshielded" before - so "armoured" is with more than just thin plating (some 5in/38 twin mounts had 2in or 2.5in that could be considered splinter protection - while 3.18mm of protection for the Mk 22 or Mk 30 is only good for protection from the elements (and, as you say, not always that)). It's worth bearing in mind with weight comparisons (as I'm sure you'll be well aware) the Mk 22 was a low-angle mount, and the Mk 30 a high-angle mount - so not strictly an apples and apples comparison (there are other factos which could feed in here as well in terms of the fairness of the comparison, which again I'm sure you're well aware of ). [lots of other accurate stuf Thus the advantages of the twin turrets are clear even if we assume turret quality being totally similar but twins weighting a few tons more (per gun) reduce need for more handling rooms which take up space and tonnage and have additional tonnage/space problems with hoists to magazines by half by using twin turrets Aye, I was more just trying to help disentangle the "shielded" from "armoured" thing - I agree there were no comparable single mounts to the twins. One alternative could be compairing the Mk 39/0 mount for the 5in/54 (19mm all-round shielding) with a twin 5in/38 mount with similar protection (if we can find one - I don't have one in my notes, but that doesn't mean much - there were far more 5in/38 mounts than I have notes for), as they're both DP weapons. That being said, as you well indicate, there were advantages for twin mounts, particularly in hulls with substantial space limitations like a destroyer, and there's no question destroyers in the age of "gun warfare" generally moved from single to twin mounts. I can't recall off the top of my head why the US went with a single mount for the 5in/54 instead of a dual mount - the decision-making process behind this may shed further light on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 19, 2021 15:51:29 GMT -6
With the following planned for the expansion: Would it be possible to remove the HiddenFlaws feature (increased chance of turret flash fires, I believe) as a unique national / racial characteristic of the Brits -- as if it was something they were destined for and not the product of decisions made by leaders in the role/s the player is supposed to assume in the game -- and instead tie the trait to doctrine choices. For example, a nation that chooses to prioritize Gunnery training without also prioritizing Damage Control could gain the greatest benefit to reloading speed from Gunnery training, but also have the HiddenFlaws trait in place (i.e. they get flash fires until they learn the hard way). Prioritizing both Gunnery and Damage Control could gain a lower benefit to reloading, but avoid the HiddenFlaws trait. Prioritizing only Damage Control and not Gunnery could then have a malus for reloading while also avoiding HiddenFlaws entirely and maybe even a reduced overall chance of flash fires. I don't know if forcing HiddenFlaws on only the Brits is just a carryover from previous historical titles, but it does not make sense in a RTW2 sandbox campaign. I like the idea of having the different training regimes tie in to one another. I would point out that part of the reason Britain suffered from the problems represented by Hidden Flaws was the lack of combat experience in the century preceding the First World War due to the RN's dominance. Perhaps implement your suggestion, but make it worse for the British if they choose to suffer from hidden flaws? I'm still not convinced that "hidden flaws" were a thing - I'm yet to see evidence in my reading to support the contention that there were unique, systemic, navy-wide issues. There's no small amount of evidence that at least the USN and IJN had similar levels of issues (or more), but due to not actually seeing much in the way of action, they never ended up in ships exploding as much. In that context, I'd strongly akd's suggesion
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 18, 2021 15:57:49 GMT -6
2 single 5" guns are 24 tons, a double 5" gun is 35 tons, both unarmored May i ask which gun in question because the 5"/38 Mark 22 mod 0 is an enclosed twin 5"/38 mount there are no "Open" or "Unarmored" 5"/38 twin mounts on that note i dont think i have ever seen a twin mount (of any type) with guns larger than 3 inches unarmored except on early barbette ships this mount also weights 34,133 kg not 35000 kg (i cant find any other mount at 35 tons so i assume its the 5"/38 twin mark 22 mod 0 you are referencing according to "OP 1112 - Gun Mount and Turret Catalog" the Mark 22 mod 0 has the following thickness "Mark 22 Mod 0: 0.125 in (0.32 cm)" These mounts were the ones seen on ships like DD-356 (porter class) For comparison the lightest single enclosed 5"/38 mount the Mark 30 mod 18 came in at a weight of 18,552 kg this would make two 5"/38 single enclosed turrets 2,971 tons heavier Both these turrets have such light "ARMOR" that they wont even stop splinters so they are purely for weatherproofing and even then the thickness was increased because harsh weather could damage or buckle the weatherproofing enclosure (Usually increased to 0.75 inches or 20mm) i cannot find a twin 3"/38 unshielded mount I've seen "unarmoured" used differently to "unshielded" before - so "armoured" is with more than just thin plating (some 5in/38 twin mounts had 2in or 2.5in that could be considered splinter protection - while 3.18mm of protection for the Mk 22 or Mk 30 is only good for protection from the elements (and, as you say, not always that)). It's worth bearing in mind with weight comparisons (as I'm sure you'll be well aware) the Mk 22 was a low-angle mount, and the Mk 30 a high-angle mount - so not strictly an apples and apples comparison (there are other factos which could feed in here as well in terms of the fairness of the comparison, which again I'm sure you're well aware of ).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 13, 2021 15:32:15 GMT -6
Many thanks to @jwsmith and all involved in that RtW2 catalogue - it's a great production, very visually appealing with the right balance of text and images.
As for its contents - well, I was looking forward to things before, and the anticipation has only increased. So many great features - many thanks to Fredrik and all involved in its production.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 12, 2021 14:52:06 GMT -6
About the 50kn rumour. We have a saying in the Royal Navy, 'don't let the truth get in the way of a good dit'. I'd assume the US navy would be the same. Never believe what a matelot tells you lol what is a dit? sorry, gunmonkey tincan sailor here. Never heard that, and I have unfortunately had little interaction with other navies outside of Australia and New Zealand It's a story - it's got a history in the RAN as well - see Nesdale's "Spin me a Dit", for example The story can be (but isn't always) embellished. It is an older term, and may not be in general use in RAN parts?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 7, 2021 17:57:34 GMT -6
The Developer Diary for the had these holes as well, with longer periods of silence. Even if tragedy didn't strike, which I certainly hope, there could be simply mundane legwork to do during development, balancing, boring code to write, bugfixing, ect. My take on the news was basically, that they were posted as they happened and internal versions were reselased. Right now the internal work on the Expansion is mainly bug fixes and adjustments/tweaking of stuff that has already been added. In general I post stuff that I think players would find interesting, i.e. new features or major changes, so I don't post mundane stuff like mere bug fixes or adjustments/tweaks to the added stuff (especially when such tweaks are likely not final). A bit of a teaser, however, to tide folks over: I am currently working on a mini-project that I call "The Expansion Catalog", which is a 'catalog-like' document showing what the RTW2 Expansion will contain/include. This will be the most complete document we have published so far concerning Expansion details, so it should answer most questions about the Expansion as well as give a much better indication of exactly what it will be like. I have no exact ETA for it, but of course when it is ready for release it will be posted here! Best of luck with the bug-stomping, tweaking and so on - and that catalogue sounds tops - looking forward to it
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 4, 2021 17:21:37 GMT -6
In terms of both canals, but particular Panama, I have a vague recollection there was a plan to enlarge it prior to WW2 with larger warships in mind. Perhaps instead of a fixed limit, enable spending on increasing the size of the canal by the owner? That way there'd be an option to build up Panama (or not build up Suez) depending on the player's preference, with the AI perhaps scripted to follow historical patterns? That said, nothing wrong with just following your suggestion either, and it would be simpler, if less dynamic This is an even better idea. Though, I would add, perhaps when the canals are no longer controlled by you or an AI nation, the canals would still be able to "enlarge themselves". For example, the Suez was of such an importance economically to Egypt after Nasser took power and in the following years they expanded the Suez canal significantly. For Panama, historically they lacked the funding and ability to do it with the same level of autonomy like Egypt. The Suez is now so wide that even Nimitz class carriers can pass through with ease. But the panama canal shouldn't be able to allow 90,000 ton battleships and carriers to pass through (we all know the US with their unlimited funding sometimes spam these monsters of a ship). Aye, great thoughts, cheers - dopey me wasn't thinking of post-independence Egypt
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 1, 2021 16:37:26 GMT -6
About Panama, the Iowa class are at the limit of what can transit through the Panama canal. In fact, their design was made as narrow as possible to fit in the canal. And they remain the biggest ships ever to cross it. So I would suggest an upper tonnage limit to ships able to cross the canal of 50,000tm. That limit should remain until the end. In terms of both canals, but particular Panama, I have a vague recollection there was a plan to enlarge it prior to WW2 with larger warships in mind. Perhaps instead of a fixed limit, enable spending on increasing the size of the canal by the owner? That way there'd be an option to build up Panama (or not build up Suez) depending on the player's preference, with the AI perhaps scripted to follow historical patterns? That said, nothing wrong with just following your suggestion either, and it would be simpler, if less dynamic
|
|