|
Post by ddg on Oct 8, 2017 21:03:39 GMT -6
Y/N I can only guess at but I think it might be whether a tech can be "re-rolled" if you skipped it the first time. Again, that's a guess but it seems to fit anecdotally with what I've observed. 100 is also an educated guess but I think that's the chance that a tech will be successfully researched when the previous tech is completed or skipped. So 100 means it always gets researched, 90 means 90% chance, etc. I mainly base that on the test game I did a long time ago with ddg where none of the 100 techs were skipped during the game.
Y/N denotes if a tech will be substantially easier to develop once someone else has developed it. For example, triple turrets are pretty obvious once used by somebody. Other, more internal and less visible techs are only slightly easier to develop once someone else has invented them.
The 100 is indeed the chance a tech will be skipped. But there is a chance it will be invented each time that tech area starts on a new tech.
Excellent, thank you. It's nice to find out when your conjectures are correct. I'm not sure we would have ever figured out the Y/N column, though, given our methodology. We'd likely have had to keep track of every other nation's tech progress.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Oct 8, 2017 21:08:16 GMT -6
Dock Size Growth: Private dock size expansion halved to 500tons (default 1000). Manual dock size build post 1910 reduced to 2000tons (default is 3000). Should impose better tonnage limits on slow research games. Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Oct 9, 2017 11:57:57 GMT -6
Dock Size Growth: Private dock size expansion halved to 500tons (default 1000). Manual dock size build post 1910 reduced to 2000tons (default is 3000). Should impose better tonnage limits on slow research games. Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by metalslug on Oct 9, 2017 12:20:02 GMT -6
Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2. The best route if you could make it happen would be to add an option to restrict development of dock size like you did with the research speed. After we have broken the game with overpowered tactics and designs we like to impose restrictions on ourselves to make everything more interesting, but having the game be too hard out the gate would drive more casual players away from it.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 9, 2017 12:30:56 GMT -6
Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2. the cost to grow docks is tiny - i generally keep a $100mil warchest so $3.5mil 1-shot is nothing. if there was a monthly cost like ship construction (along with delays, cost overruns, etc) it'd make it more of a budget decision maybe you could include an option to adjust dock growth rate the same way you can select tech rate (lol Metalslug beat me) or have ship size tonnage as part of the tech tree (like DDs, but for all ships) so you can only build certain sized ships anyways regardless of your dock size
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Oct 9, 2017 13:31:44 GMT -6
BTW dock size increase was calibrated to let Japan start humbly but still be able to build 40000 tons + ships in the 1920s. To make that possible, the increase must be pretty steep.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 9, 2017 14:43:13 GMT -6
BTW dock size increase was calibrated to let Japan start humbly but still be able to build 40000 tons + ships in the 1920s. To make that possible, the increase must be pretty steep. Would a non-constant dock size increase be acceptable? Even a relatively simple function like dock_size_increase = floor((80,000 - current_dock_size_in_tons) / 50, 100) where floor(x, y) is the function which returns the largest integer x' such that x'/y <= x/y would still let Japan ramp up its dock size fairly quickly while still retarding overall dock size growth rates, especially as dock sizes become larger. With the function I used as an example, dock size would go something like the above assuming that the state begins work on a dock expansion every January and that there is no increase in dock size due to private enterprise. The dock size also maximizes at 75,100t sometime around 2015ish, again assuming only state-funded dock expansions. Since you shouldn't need to call the function too frequently, you don't really need to worry about the effect of the computational complexity of the function on the game's performance and you could do something more complicated, but if you wanted to save performance floor((80,000 - current_dock_size_in_tons) / 50, 100) should be equal to ((800 - current_dock_size_in_hundreds_of_tons)/50)*100 using integer math, and of course you could find other functions which produce similar results. Another option for slowing down dock expansion would be to have the cost of the expansion increase as the current dock size grows.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Oct 9, 2017 15:44:05 GMT -6
Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2. I think it's too easy to increase it for the nations with larger budgets but the principle of basing it on Japan being able to achieve a certain tonnage by the 20's seems sound to me. It might be too late in the development process but what about instead of using a flat rate the game uses a percentage of the nation's current budget like maintenance or research. Except, keep it as a one-time up-front cost and not a turn-by-turn thing like research and maintenance. It would be hard to find a sweet spot since budgets frequently change in game but the goal would be a percentage where a nation with Japan's budget would pay about the same current 3.2 million. Assuming it could be programmed I could justify larger nations paying more in my head by thinking of things like the UK not having a lot of untapped real estate to expand facilities. Since their shipbuilding industry and supporting industries were so well developed they would have to tear down existing facilities to make room for larger ones which is more expensive than being able to build on fresh land. Germany had to expand the Kiel Canal which isn't modeled in the current game but the concept could be used to justify a higher price even though they didn't have England's problem of no new real estate. I guess you could use the Panama Canal for the US to justify the same since currently the US basically gets it for free. Edit - I also like the concept that aeson put forward about it not being a constant rate of increase. Keep it as a flat fee but make the tonnage increase 1,000 to 1,500 tons early on in game and then let it increase by as much as 2,500-3,000 tons later in game when the historical dreadnought races were occurring.
|
|
|
Post by ddg on Oct 9, 2017 19:11:52 GMT -6
Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2. I think bcoopactual summed up my general feelings pretty well (we make a good a team): Dock growth seems a bit fast to me primarily for the richer nations. On the other hand, Austria-Hungary is one of my go-tos and I don't recall having ever felt pressured by slow dock growth there. It's not something I see as a fundamental problem with the game design so much as an interesting variation. It's similar to why I've advocated for a deeper treaty system in the suggestions thread. In addition to the two interesting suggestions of scaling cost or scaling tonnage increase, I had another thought. If it's calibrated mainly to let Japan catch up, what about adding a special dock size increase triggered by losing the undeveloped shipbuilding industry modifier? Although I could see that being over-generous to Russia in the default condition—perhaps it could be variable.
|
|
|
Post by elouda on Oct 15, 2017 12:55:58 GMT -6
Alternatively, a 'rapid dockyard capacity growth' trait could be added if Japan is the only outlier here.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 15, 2017 15:27:47 GMT -6
Alternatively, a 'rapid dockyard capacity growth' trait could be added if Japan is the only outlier here. I'm not sure that even makes sense with Japan. Their first domestic battleship, Satsuma was laid down in 1905 and was quite a bit larger then Lord Nelson, New Hampshire and Evstafi laid down in the first year. So with their very first battleship, they were already on caught up in terms of maximum build size. I think the better representation would be to have a technology for max warship size just like there is a technology for max destroyer size. Most major powers would start with 15 kton displacement. Austria and Spain would start with 10 kton displacement technology. Japan would start with just 5 kton displacement technology. Ideally Japan would actually skip straight past 10 kton and 15 kton to go straight to 20 kton but I dont know how that would work in game mechanics. Everyone would be able to build dockyards at the same price (which should be higher) and would even be able to build past their warship technology.
|
|
|
Post by goodmemes on Dec 26, 2017 14:40:28 GMT -6
Hi I was taken here from one of my own posts about mods and was interested in downloading this one. I would like to but I don't really understand what the process is for downloading this, if someone could explain the steps to set this up properly this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dimovski on Dec 26, 2017 14:49:01 GMT -6
You click on RTW mod 4 on the 1st page,
a mediafire page opens. You click download(1.36mb). You then open the file with a file manager (I use 7zip), and unpack the "Data" folder and the .exe file into your Rule the Waves install dir, replacing files when asked (although you'd be best off creating a separate install directory by copying the Rule the Waves folder and renaming it "Rule the Waves - modded" for modded playthroughs). For me, it's C/NWS/Rule the Waves. As the author used some hex editing to make his mod fully usable, you need to run the game from the .exe he provided.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 26, 2017 15:31:04 GMT -6
One thing this mod with a 20kton limit for CL's needs is enabling up to 8inch guns for those CL's. This would mean that the end evolution of the CL is the modern CA, while the "reborn" CA will be the Alaska equivalents they most times turn out to be.
|
|
|
Post by chris19delta on Dec 27, 2017 14:22:01 GMT -6
Sorry to double post but I'm glad you found this. One thing I always wanted to try was restricting everyone to automatic dock size increases, since rapid manual growth is so easy. Adding more constraints to the game tends to make it more interesting. I've been tracking how often they occur recently and it appears to be about once every other year on average, so I should be able to get a reasonable growth rate. Is that a general feeling that dock size increases to fast in the game? If so I could consider reducing it in RTW2. IMO yes, the rate of automatic expansion is too high. It's more than enough to keep pace with technological development on it's own, even for players fond of oversize late game BBs. Personally, after the 1st decade I usually won't pay for any dock expansion and rely 100% on commercial growth.
|
|