|
Post by axe99 on Aug 16, 2021 17:02:20 GMT -6
Would second as GB would often build ships for export that were weaker / less advanced than their current designs... They built for and sold ships to the countries in the commonwealth - Australia, Canada, etc...
I've never had a foreign ship built in my dockyard, so this could already be implemented... I would like to see a small % of the monthly construction cost of a foreign order end up in my coffers or gain prestige from the contract signing or at order completion (hey your nation / naval shipyards won a high level contract and or completed it.) You get prestige and a budget increase when contracting out your leaders build demands so why not for a foreign powers order? UK often built ships that were more powerful than their own ships, e.g. the Kongo (build for Japan) was more highly specced than their own Tiger. This happened with smaller ships as well. While the UK, with a large battlefleet, wanted lots of destroyers for screens, some South American countries preferred larger and fewer destroyers instead. Their ships for the Commonwealth nations, on the other hand, tended to be UK designs (so not bigger/smaller or less advanced - eg, the two County class cruisers for Australia, or the C class destroyers for Canada). But in terms of the main thrust of the suggestion, having occasional non-in-game-country foreign orders in the dockyard would be a nice touch I'm not sure it would need to be anything more than the potential of seizing those ships if war broke out - I wouldn't necessarily increase the budget for it though, or prestige - the budget/prestige increase for the ships for a players' navy is related to building those ships, and the prestige of having those ships built for that nation. The prestige for building foreign ships would accrue to the firms building it (eg; Vickers of the UK) rather than the First Sea Lord. If there was a mechanic for idle build capacity 'running down', then foreign orders could prevent this, but in the absence of that mechanic, then I'd just have the foreign ships as vessels that could potentially be seized at the outbreak of war (as happened for ships in British yards in WW1 and WW2).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 30, 2021 20:10:08 GMT -6
Great news While I'd never do it for a cruiser action or above, I could see me using that for some destroyer actions, or for the 'mopping up' phase It would also be cool for a game as "Chief of the Naval Staff" as well, where you have no tactical impact at all.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 14, 2021 15:35:31 GMT -6
On British Powder, steps were already underway prior to the loss of Vanguard to improve its safety (but iirc - noting it's been a while - Vanguard didn't have the new stuff when she exploded). It's been a while since I read it, but there's an interesting article in Warship Volume 2 (1978) that covers it off.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 27, 2021 16:42:34 GMT -6
Hidden Flaws is my big grumble-moment (which, to be fair, isn't that big) - from my reading, there's no evidence whatsoever that British designs were more susceptible to catastrophic failures (a reading of Friedman's US Battleships (a US book by a US author) actually suggests WW1-era US dreadnoughts had greater safety issues in terms of flash-tightness and magazine safety). Whether I'm playing as the UK, or someone playing against the UK ("Ooooh, this'll be a tough fight. Oh, wait - three of their capital ships just spontaneously exploded") it's never been satisfying. It feels a little too "memey" for my liking. If it's a balancing factor, then it's a bit odd that there's a balancing factor for the UK but not for the US (which, by the end of the game, has by far the largest budget and usually fleet/naval air arm).
And while turning down overall flash risk helps, as far as I understand it also affects the rest of the flash risk for everyone else - so UK ships are still more likely to go boom.
Other than that, though, and no 11, I haven't had the same experience playing it (and I recently finished games as the UK (flash-fire risk left on - I try and get into wars early and have a few capital ships blown up early on to get this under control - that the gameplay mechanics encourage deliberately trying to get ships destroyed early game is, I think, a sign that the mechanic has its issues!) and Austria) and:
1) Seems much better. Used to happen all the time to me, now it's very rare, and comfortably at the level where it doesn't bother me. There'll always be room for more polish in the mission generator, and I hope that each release involves some more effort spent here, but I haven't found this to be an issue.
2) Even with my Austria-Hungary game (in wars against Italy - anyone else had too large a fleet for me to test!) I didn't find this was the case. If I had more ships for a fleet battle or a battleship engagement, or even a destroyer fight, I often but-not-always outnumbered. There was a fair degree of randomness to this, but there was an advantage for having more ships on average, over time. Given the degree of randomness to this historically, I'm currently happy with this balance, as I've experienced it.
3) Covered above - feels like a feature put in to placate the ghost of ADM King.
4) I haven't got this impression at all. Sometimes my position is better, sometimes there's is - with a bias towards the side with the greater forces generally having a better position (but with a wide distribution of results).
5) This would be nice to have, but it's clearly a 'new feature' rather than a bug - and I would imagine a fairly high-resource one to develop if done right.
6) This sounds like a bug. On this one, the figures for Austria-Hungary are often literally impossible to do with their budget (one cruiser request would have required me to scrap all of my fleet and even then I would have built ten cruisers so weak and slow they would have been pointless). There are issues with this event - but it's one event that pops up a handful of times each game, so while I agree it would be nice to fix, it hasn't got me that worked up.
7) This also sounds like a bug and well worth reporting.
8) Given we're playing the chief of the navy and not the head of state, I have no issue with this. Over time, I've felt my selections matter, but again with a fairly high distribution of randomness. I understand that this can be frustrating though, and perhaps adjusting the text in the event to make it clear that it's just an 'influence in the big picture', to manage player expectations may help here?
9) Plenty of far larger games don't have detailed documentation - so this feels more like a "nice to have". That said, I tend to play in "Admirals mode" with lots of ships, so I haven't really gone down this path and can't comment from experience.
10) Hahaha - I suspect this comes from the US' budget again - their budget means that before too long, they'll be spending more on research than anyone else, and all those little bonuses add up, and it could mean their ships are less likely to go boom without a nation-specific modifier. As per my comments above, I do find it a little odd that there's a somewhat memey 'balancing factor' for the UK, but the US have something of a blind eye turned to their historical weaknesses. As you well say, the US is easy mode.
11) Ah yes - the AI here can still be pretty wonky. I've had ships detach, and accelerate into the enemy battle line, or go off in directions that seem all sorts of odd. The poor performance of detached ships influences the way I play tactically (if an important ship is reduced to 15kts, say, with some flooding, I won't detach, I'll sometimes slow down the whole battle to 15kts and try and withdraw/keep the damaged ship from running away on its own until the damage is stopped). Once a ship is seriously damaged and detached, I manage my emotional response by assuming it will end up sunk, but even with this, I can find the AI here a bit hard-to-take at times. Having to manoeuvre a fleet to compensate for wonky AI can be frustrating, and I hope more development time is spent on this going forward. Having multiple capital ships detach and sail towards enemy airbases in the 1950s as Austria (it's not as if I had a lot of caps) to be lost is not the most enjoyable experience ever!)
That being said, all of our experiences and responses vary. I've got many hundreds of hours in RtW and RtW2 combined, and still enjoy the game immensely, but have to pace myself as too much at once can be a bit much (but this can be said for me of any game) - and even though it's still one of my favourite games, it does have its frustrations - but it's also trying to do an awful lot, and does a lot of this stuff better than any other game by far.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 21, 2021 15:45:47 GMT -6
Much excitement - can't wait Love how the expansion goes in both directions as well I'm optimistic about a fair bit here. The persistent ship history will be a nice addition but I really like the idea of an 1890 start date. Especially once seawolf inevitably puts out his historical ship mods to go along with it. It'll be fun to have more time in the pre-dreadnaught era without necessarily having to edit tech speed to do it and 1890 feels a reasonable place to start from. Night air operations seems like a positive too! My curiosity stems to what you mean with refurbishing submarine operations. I'm hopeful that means a more dynamic system for building and using submarines but it's unclear. In addition to the new submarine type, the submarine system has been modestly expanded to allow movement of subs, with penalties based on distance from base and type of submarine. I will admit that I seldom used or even bothered to build submarines in RTW2, but the ability to move them and concentrate them in critical areas or move them out of areas where they are being excessively lost has transformed the system for me. In many ways its the same system but now it's a lot more fun to engage with. The ASW system has also been expanded in some respects, making the interplay of submarine versus escorts more interesting. Just a thought in this regard - this may well not be an issue, but just mentioning it just in case - it would be good if 'submarine whack-a-mole' could be avoided - ie, if the AI or a player moves subs one turn to another area, they get a free turn running amok, then their opponent moves their ASW craft their the next turn, but the submarines move again, and so on. Some kind of system that has the "TP assigned escorts" continue to be allocated automatically, and then has fleet ASW assessed by fleet ASW capability maybe?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 14, 2021 4:50:50 GMT -6
We are currently working on an expansion for RTW2 that will expand some items and add others, etc...more details when we are solid with what we know we will 100% be able to include. Can't wait to hear more
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 10, 2021 4:27:41 GMT -6
Sorry rimbecano, my brain's not having the best day of it - I so should have referenced your earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 9, 2021 15:25:45 GMT -6
I'm having a game as the USA on patch 1.24, and was able to take the Baltic States from Russia through war, and after that was able to take Tunisia from France - so as the USN I was able to nab Med possessions. I'm I don't know what would have happened if I didn't have the Baltic States first. Maybe instead of distance, it's a rule like "must have possessions in an adjoining zone"?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 5, 2021 20:32:35 GMT -6
I'm sorry I didn't see this thread in the last few days - in terms of the SITE and MID codes, they'll pop up in the RtW2 launcher at the top (highlighted in red) as per the screenshot below (with my codes/serial number obscured - I'm not sure how the system works, but I don't want to share anything that would compromise it). It's possible to highlight them and copy them as text (one at a time) and drop them into an email.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 5, 2021 14:01:43 GMT -6
Thanks for your reply and best of luck looking into it I can very happily (and not in the least bit surprisingly) confirm that Rule the Waves 2 is all kinds of awesome once it's reactivated again. For whatever reason, I had a longer break between games last year than I had any intention of, and then my PC broke during a busy patch, and it's sooooooo good to be back playing it again
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 1, 2021 16:32:25 GMT -6
Hey Seabass I'm also coming back after a hiatus. I can't help with the first one (sounds like bad luck more than anything), but with the second, I find putting my CAs and CLs onto TP in the zones cuts down their raiding effectiveness (and also greatly increase the chance of intercepting their raiders as well). Best of luck, and enjoy
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 31, 2020 15:10:20 GMT -6
I just went through the "PC died, send an email to get new activation codes process". Many thanks to Chris for getting me squared away. However, I found there are no pinned instructions here (that I could find) that specifically discuss what to do when this occurs. At the very least, it was wildly unintuitive, which meant Chris had to email me back what he needed. It would have been helpful if in the issues with activation thread (https://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2094/issues-activation-online-store) there was a section for "what to do when your PC dies/you get a new PC/etc", and there's a fair chance it would have saved Chris a little time as well. (or, if there is a section for this, one that passes the "Axe is a little thick and can't spot the current one" test at least ) I also would strongly suggest a less unintuitive system for your next release. Even for situations that are covered by the forums, it's still necessary to find the appropriate thread on the forums to have any idea what to do. This is fine for people that are right into the game (ie, I've been on the NWS forums since before RtW2 released, so at no point was I concerned I wouldn't be able to get the game working again), but for players who are less forum-oriented (and forums are a little 'old school' these days - noting that this isn't a criticism from my perspective ). As it is, I would be very, very surprised if the current process didn't leave at least a small proportion of customers feeling a bit alienated, and less likely to buy future products. I'm not saying this as anti-DRM, but more in terms of "more user-friendly DRM". At one point in the re-activation process, I got very close to the "stuff it, I'll just buy another copy, that'll be easier" stage - but for less attached consumers, that could easily morph into "stuff it, I'll play something else" (never an issue for me - I needs me my RtW ). I know this was heavily discussed at the game's release, but that was a while ago now, and I thought it would be useful to mention it again for the future, as I think NWS do a great job, and it'd be sad to see the audience unnecessarily limited because of "IT infrastructure" reasons.
|
|
|
NEW PC
Dec 31, 2020 4:59:59 GMT -6
Post by axe99 on Dec 31, 2020 4:59:59 GMT -6
In future backup the install files and keep them. Somewhere on your PC, a USB stick, an external HDD or the cloud. Can't believe people don't do this as a matter of course. Even with the backup, I still needed to contact the devs - they need values from the original install to install it onto a new machine, and when the machine dies, the original install isn't available, even if there are backups. That's not to say that backups aren't a good general idea though - they were a lifesaver for me in November when my previous machine decided it had had enough.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 18, 2020 16:59:28 GMT -6
Love your work Director - all the best to everyone over the festive season
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 25, 2020 17:11:55 GMT -6
Hey Kyle - hope you are doing well! We will possibly put out at least one expansion for RTW2...then we will nail down what comes next... :-) This is wonderful news
|
|