|
Post by axe99 on Aug 20, 2016 18:17:41 GMT -6
Poor old Hood, can't even get a break in a videogame! That's excellent work by the AC .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 20, 2016 18:14:59 GMT -6
Random thought - I wouldn't mind if RtW 2 went a bit deeper with the tech and design elements as well - more choices over how much work is put into internal subdivision and bulkheads, raised forecastles as more than a visual thing (ie, less wet ships, better able to cope with rough weather), choices over how easy it is to get ammunition from magazine to turret (and the relative safety of particular arrangements), that kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 17, 2016 15:47:30 GMT -6
I was going to take a brief break from HoI4, I'll give it a run if that helps at your end .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 16, 2016 18:33:38 GMT -6
Cheers for the improvements Fred, a great game getting greater .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 14, 2016 15:38:19 GMT -6
They all sound great Director . If I had a choice, I'd go for the third, as I like big fleet battles, and as it'd put in a third 'heavy hitter' along with the US and Britain, to mix things up a bit - but I'd happily play any/all .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 13, 2016 18:39:20 GMT -6
Aye, I far, far prefer RtW's tech system to any other I've ever played. Far more realistic and far more enjoyable. One thing that could perhaps add depth, if they 'went large' on tech, is focuses within techs (so you could focus on rangefinders within fire control, or breeches in guns), but these focuses would be like the focuses of the techs proper - they only increase the probability, they're not a guarantee.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 12, 2016 15:28:21 GMT -6
The budgets for smaller nations already limit the amount of capital ships they can build at one time does it not? Do we really need more limitations on the smaller nations compared to the larger? Wouldn't this idea would negatively affect Germany as well compared to Britain? Just my opinion so it's not necessarily right or wrong and I understand that it's realistic because it's based on historic limitations but I like where the line is drawn now between realism and playability. No need to make it harder for the smaller nations. It'd incentivise buying from other nations, keeping relations nice, and stop the silliness of say, Austria, from popping up 10 new dreadnoughts out of the blue. How often is Austria in a position to do this though? Generally, on their budget, their build-ups tend to be fairly slow.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 4, 2016 15:53:07 GMT -6
For the 1.32 b3 beta patch its d05e0, which defaults to 07. This is the multiplier, minus 1, so at 07 the multiplier is 8. I use 09 for a multiplier of 10 personally. This address is the value for the very large option, so make sure to pick that for it to take effect. No idea on specific ships parts or costs, these would probably be very hard to edit without breaking something. You're a multi-talented machine .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 27, 2016 18:25:36 GMT -6
I tend to run with 150 rounds as a general rule, as that way when refits push it down a bit, there's still plenty for a decent engagement. That said, I tend to go for fewer, bigger ships, with larger guns and decent armour, so relatively more ammo makes sense in that context. I can't speak for the RtW time period specifically, but I've been putting some stats together in relation to WW2 warships, and by the look of it, 100 rounds is more-or-less the average for the big guns (although there seems to be a bit of ammunition storage inflation over time, at least for US guns - the higher capacities tended to be for later vessels, like the Alaska (166) and Iowa (130) and the lower capacities for earlier vessels.
In game, I haven't found the AI runs out too early, as they tend to go with more, smaller vessels (at least until the 1920s).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 25, 2016 16:56:23 GMT -6
admiral - don't forget that you can always make a copy of the pre-patch files in another folder, then update, and if the update doesn't work out go back to the pre-patch files. That way you can have your update and security too .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 21, 2016 16:35:16 GMT -6
Great work BCoop .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 20, 2016 15:31:09 GMT -6
Aye, I think the command system in the game is great . Like Marcus, I also tend to play on rear admiral, so that I can manually stop my ships sinking themselves from speeding too fast with flooding, but beyond that I let my ships follow orders. Works really well, if sometime frustrating/entertaining early on when the battle line can get itself all tangled in knots (this isn't a criticism - it's great to see the battle line behave organically, instead of like it's being controlled by omniscient robots)!
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 13, 2016 15:41:38 GMT -6
Cheers for the update, they all sound like great changes, look forward to giving them a shake . will my ships go their refit speed and not slower now ?, ( refitted an pre dread and its speed went down by two instead of up by one (( was 20 at launch refit was supposed to make it 21 and instead made it 18 )) ) I am not sure I understand if this applies to the new version or the old. And I need more details to check it up. Did you add bulges as well? When I've done this in the past, it's slowed my ships considerably (so the speed increase was more than offset by the slowing effect of the bulges).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 5, 2016 17:07:19 GMT -6
My own opinion is I like it the way it is. Having different numbers of techs per area makes the game less cookie-cutter and increases the incentive to periodically switch priorities. In fact, I really like the way they set up the research portion of the game in general. It's randomized enough that you will still get all but maybe the latest, end-game techs but you don't get them at the same time every game and therefore there is no standard "build this exact ship in this year and this one in this year" because the techs that you had for that ship in one game may not have finished at the same point in the next. In Civilization, as much as I like it, I can go the first turn and input the research order all the way past fusion and nanotech to future techs with the only real change being whether I start near an ocean and need to research sailing techs earlier. I agree that it can be frustrating sometimes if the RTW system causes you to fall behind through no fault of your own in important areas like transitioning to dreadnoughts but then that means you have the opportunity to try to exercise diplomacy to keep the peace until you catch up. Just my two-cents. I'm in complete agreement. The tech research system is the best I've encountered in any game, sci-fi or historical. I do disagree with oldpop's research priorities, but then he plays the game very differently than I do, which just demonstrates one of the strengths of the game - there are so many strategies that can produce satisfying results (I hesitate to say "victory" because that is so ambiguous in the game). A huge +1 here as well, I'm a huge fan of the tech system - both far more historically plausible, and far more enjoyable as well as you have to adjust your gameplay each time.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jul 3, 2016 16:05:45 GMT -6
Great idea jwsmith, I'd definitely find that helpful as well.
|
|