|
Post by axe99 on May 1, 2016 15:35:59 GMT -6
Would there we any interest in a 'custom nation' setup that has the basic nations but with enhanced budgets? That wouldn't take long to do, though I couldn't say whether it would be balanced. You might run into some trouble with the colonial possessions for nations with more than 10 (or I might just be dopey and have messed something up ), but when I was trying to do a custom UK sans hidden flaws the custom nation could only handle the first 10 possessions - the rest I needed to edit in the map.data. Just mentioning it in case it helps .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 29, 2016 16:16:15 GMT -6
So what determines raider interceptions, anyway? Why does my 8000-ton, 20 knot legacy cruiser get every single interception (and fail to catch them every time), when my 25-knot proto-battlecruisers haven't seen a single combat in 35 months? This is super frustrating Every cruiser type ship (including BC) get an interception roll against raiders in their area. The chance to intercept is modified by a number of factors. For example, if there are enemy battlecruisers in the area, your battlecruisers get a lower intercept chance against non-BC raiders as it is assumed they will be occupied with keeping an eye on their opposite numbers. Great design decision there (and far from your only one!) .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 28, 2016 15:54:20 GMT -6
So, the state of play by 1902 being; 29 first-class battleships in commission, 12 building. 28 second and third-class battleships in commission (smaller modern units, old ironclad turret ships & monitors, etc.) 28 first-class cruisers in commission, 21 building 60 second-class cruisers in commission, 2 building 46 third-class cruisers in commission Basically, enough to turn any other navy in the world into smouldering craters without some tweaking of available resources. It's no fun when the nation that declares war on you only has half your number of battleships; the war boils down into a series of cruiser & destroyer actions, convoy raids, raiders trying to run the blockade; because obviously they're not stupid enough to commit to a fleet action and get smashed flat by the juggernaut flying the white ensign. Speaking of resources, I'm guessing there are no solutions on that front? Ah well. Did you try my historical resources fudge? Either way, you're still going to be left with the issue that no-one in the world will be able to challenge you, except perhaps the US in the last few years of the game. When playing the RN (or any nation) I sometimes like to grab my Conways and build the vessels to historical spec, that kind of gives me a historic feel. It works pretty well until the early 1920s models that were scrapped by the Washington treaty, as there's no way I can get the large decks of the G3 and N3s in, along with everything else, within 52K tonnage.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 27, 2016 16:00:07 GMT -6
I haven't tried for a historical RN build (as a historical RN wouldn't be much of a challenge to play, even with the overseas requirement and the somewhat overstated tendency for their ships to go boom later in the game), but I agree that it's not possible with historical resources, even if you do a lot of mothballing and the like. It's not too far off though. Good luck working out the resource thing - have you played around with a range of numbers? I remember when I was modding in my Britain without the hidden flaws, I got some odd results with some of the trial-and-error figures I put in - it was for the historical resources, I can't remember what it was, but the historical resources would have been 2,000,000(!) - I think it's because it's a ratio rather than a set figure (although can't remember), but you may be able to get your resources by going historical (adjusting other nations as appropriate for the game you want)?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 23, 2016 16:45:04 GMT -6
The main reason for the RN ships going "boom" was neither construction nor unsafe practices, it was chemistry. British propellant (all non-German propellant at the time) was far less stable and more brisant than the German state of the art. This made it more likely to blow up, both in combat and in storage, and made it have greater effect when it did. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm. Thanks for the contribution - deffo beyond my knowledge levels. In-game though, does it make sense to particularly penalise the British (noting the Germans have their own separate buff for reliability)? Also, just a coincidence all the British ships lost at Jutland were the relatively thin-skinned battlecruisers (less armour on belt and turrets), and good luck none of their battleships went up? Note - loss of Vanguard well explained by your post . Note: I don't actually mind a penalty (I like a challenging game, and I like playing as the Brits, so it works well), but the way this one works, where it seems to be that as accuracy increases the risk of flash fires in battle increases substantially, just seems a bit OTT.
@oldpop - of the three BBs of the same class lost to flash fires in one battle, only one was long-range, the other two were within 5km, so plunging fire shouldn't have been an issue (and they had good, tough decks as well).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 22, 2016 16:49:03 GMT -6
As I'm sure we've all noticed, flash fires also affect other nations - sometimes excessively so. A few games ago I fought a fleet battle against the Russians and they lost 5 of their battleships to flash fires in about ten minutes (not that I really minded at the time). I'm sure this is just the random generator hitting a bunch of deuces in a row, but wow. FYI: During WW1, ten ships were lost to flash fires. Italy lost two battleships; Japan one battleship plus one battlecruiser; Russia lost one battleship. These were all capital ships. All were at anchor. So it seems, that combat isn't a requirement to go boom in the night. The IJN lost Mutsu in Tokyo Bay during WW2 to a similar boom in the night. Just be grateful that our ships don't go boom in the night at anchor in the game. Oh aye - I'm not against flash fires (I don't play with the 'reduced flash fire' option on). It's just that it looks like it's a probability thing for each hit (or for certain hits), and by the look of it "Hidden Flaws" increases the probability of it occurring over the base. In the first half of the game, it's not too bad because there aren't so many hits, so there aren't so many random explosions, but in the second half of the game when fire control and ROF improves, British ships go boom more often, because even a small probability comes up enough to be quite noticeable, and for a nation that's often in a challenging position (most of its wars are likely to be against the US or Germany, particularly now that the game adjusts chance of tension raising higher for nations with similar resources - the US has more resources not long into the game, and Germany can concentrate force more effectively as it doesn't have the overseas garrison requirements) it just adds a layer of extra difficulty that's not terribly plausible (the British ships that did go boom were poorly armoured, and if I was in a BC with a 9" belt and a 2.5" deck I'd expect to go boom as well - but when the more heavily armoured British BBs took a pounding they did fine. While the Hood had more armour, it was a messy patch job, so was unlikely to be as robust as something designed to be heavily armoured from the get-go). I also wouldn't be opposed to a random event where ships went boom during training/at anchor either . Thanks for the tip on editing the save file as well . I'm not sure if this'd work, so I've just made a copy of RTW with a modified GB with all its possessions (as if you take away its garrison requirements, it becomes a good deal easier!) with a custom nation and an edited map file, and that works. Not sure to see how to check if editing the save file would work, short of a lot of playing and data collecting!
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 21, 2016 15:52:19 GMT -6
Still playing this most excellent game . Not sure if these have already been posted, apologies if so: - Have the names work all the way through the name list before starting to be used again. At the moment, it looks like it only takes from the top of the list, so lots of repeated names, and not taking advantage of the names further down the list. - Remove or at least tone down the "Hidden Flaws". Playing as the US, I massacred the British, and playing as the British is a bit unnecessarily frustrating because your ships go boom quite often, particularly later in the game, even with quality turret armour (I lost a whole class of three BBs with 15" turret armour in one battle to flash fire explosions a couple of days ago!). I've played for and against the Brits a few times now, and it just feels like a "we're going to randomly screw you over really badly" factor. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that (with normal resources), the Brits are actually fairly challenging to play, despite their advantages. - A "design archive" where saved designs can be opened and played with? I'm thinking more from the perspective of saving the custom funnel and shape configurations, but could be useful for actual fitout as well. - Not sure if WAD, but you can only have 10 possessions for custom nations. Made modding in a Britain without the Hidden Flaws trickier than necessary (as you have to go into Mapdata and change who owns the various possessions, which would mess up playing vanilla 'my ships go boom' Britain) - Make the base nations easier to mod by giving them a similar setup to custom nations. Understand this is a bit trickier given the game needs a 'default' set of nations to fall back on. None of these are necessary of course, just ideas in case they help .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Apr 11, 2016 17:15:18 GMT -6
Cheers for this info, great to know .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 27, 2016 16:24:19 GMT -6
axe99,
Thanks for your support! We don't have a specific email list for such contacts I'm afraid. I do think that such a central email listing would be handy for those who want some sort of automated notices about new games and updates - I can look into this to see if it is feasible or not given our somewhat limited manpower/time resources.
Thanks again!
Thank you and the team for the great games . If it helps, a few years back I used mailchimp (free and easy) to do some mail-outs, but I had to enter the email addresses into it manually (although I was a fairly uneducated user, there may be a way of integrating something into your webstore or the forums). A lot of forum software also includes the capacity to send out emails to all members, but we didn't use this as it ran afoul of anti-spam rules (I can't remember exactly on what level, but just mentioning this in case it helps). Deffo no pressure, and I'll keep coming back and checking regardless .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 25, 2016 16:07:02 GMT -6
Your work is hugely appreciated team NWS (and I'm very happy to hear RtW will get a follow up). On the by, is there an email mailing list or something fans can sign up to, to hear when new games are out? Apologies if you've got one and I just couldn't find it on the site. Not trying to create more work for you or anything like that if you don't already have one (although if you don't, it may be a way of helping people keep in touch with the games).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 25, 2016 16:01:51 GMT -6
Great idea smacktoward . It'd probably help if it went hand-in-hand with being able to choose (to some degree) which ships sallied forth (for fleet battles or battleship fights, where it's likely the admiral would have some say in whether their best and shiniest went into the fray, not so much for cruiser or destroyer actions, when they're likely out patrolling regardless).
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 24, 2016 15:30:37 GMT -6
There are plenty of 'live' games that have to wait longer than three months between patches, and these are games supported by substantial teams. Of course, nothing wrong with asking the question, and great to hear the response. Cheers for the update williammiller, looking forward to the update .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 23, 2016 22:25:12 GMT -6
I'm starting to dabble with the custom nations (see the stickied custom nations thread - here - nws-online.proboards.com/thread/658/post-custom-nations ), and the first nation I had a run with was China. China starts off navally as a small fish in a very big pond - the other nations in the game are Germany, Britain, France, Russia, the USA and China, and at the start of the game China's resources are well below any of them, with an undeveloped shipbuilding industry (so the ships you can afford to build take longer to come out) and a 10,000 ton dockyard limit. I fought four wars (Japan, France, Japan, Germany - cut short by the 1925 end date) and in every one had fewer ships and less advanced and smaller capital ships (but I always try and have strong light forces - and they were even more crucial in this game) - and managed to win every one, but every large encounter was a nail-biter. A lot of fun, and I recommend giving it or another custom nation a look if you've 'played out' the starting nations.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 23, 2016 22:20:50 GMT -6
I too would like to know if someone at NWS can give the scoop on future plans (if any) for RTW or the Steam and Iron system in general.
We are still "looking over options", but a decision should be made "soon" :-) Seriously though, we should be nailing down our plans in the near term now that RtW is stable and Fredrik has less on his plate to handle.
Looking forward to hearing what you'll be doing with it next - RtW has been my best new 'revelation' game in years .
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Mar 17, 2016 14:57:39 GMT -6
Nice work .
|
|