|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 1, 2018 7:07:40 GMT -6
The 36 knot and 70000 ton limits until 1950 seems like it's on the low side.
Would it be possible to allow for a bit faster speeds and high tonnage so that all historical designs ( and some blueprints or slightly later designs ) would be possible to do?
For example: IJN Shimakaze: 41 knots USS Sommers: 38 knots ( 1934 ) Many other WW2 DDs: 37 knots+ USS Montana: 72,100 ton full load ( planned ) IJN Yamato: 73,000 ton full load ( 1937 ) H42 Design: 90,000 ton ( design study 1942 ) USS Enterprise: 84,200 ton ( 1958 )
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jun 1, 2018 8:30:08 GMT -6
IMO, the max tonnage should have been something like 90 kilotons.
We can't even make Yamato with this limit!
|
|
|
Post by gornik on Jun 1, 2018 13:21:44 GMT -6
I'll just go to the USS Enterprise (CV-6) museum ship, then, since obviously so famous/heroic/decorated a ship wouldn't have been scrapped while a much older battleship like USS Texas (BB-35) which did approximately nothing in the First World War and little more than shore bombardment in the Second was preserved. On the contrary look at Mikasa or Aurora. 2 very important ships in their respective navies which were preserved as museum ships. Actually, the USS Olympia was important for the Spanish-American war. The US also has the thing where states may want to keep the old ships named after them, as is the case with USS Texas. I know USS Enterprise was put on donation hold for years, but scrapped when there were no serious takers. I do think such a donation hold system would be more realistic and still result in the player having some choice in what ships get preserved. Maybe this could be put on top of the current system. Maybe the player could also choose a ship or two to preserve as a navy owned museum ship (which I think exist), where the player pays for the upkeep of the museum but gets some small benefits from doing so. I’d think small improvements in crew quality over time by inspiring enlistentments, with diminishing returns per ship, and larger and more important ships having better effects than smaller less important ships. And there you have it. 2 additional methods for a ship to be turned into a museum. But this is all discussion regarding a relatively unimportant aspect of the game, so I’m not sure if it would be worthwhile to implement. I don't agree, that this aspect is unimportant, though it is more about our imagination, then actual gameplay. My variants of museum ships improvement are: - sometimes you may get event from naval league/government/locals about making museum ship which meets all conditions (CL or higher, 15+years, 8+ battle stars), If this is the ship you want, press OK, if not, deny, hoping next event choose one you want. Or (better) you may select your beloved ship from drop-down menu. - Before 1920-1930 most of "museum" ships were used as training or auxiliary ships, which may be converted back in active status at considerable cost. Would be nice to make some "training tonnage" requirements (as foreign station ones in RTW1) depended of overall naval displacement. So you will need to set some ships to, say, TS status to fulfil requirements, or crew quality of your fleet will not rise above "fair". There also may be added "school ship" option, like "colonial service", but much more heavy, which works as CS now. So you may either convert pair of old big ships to naval school, build some special-designed training vessels or create larger "training squadron" from obsolete hulks without rebuilt. Such ships will be out of most perils of war though subs, bombers and surprise attacks still may hurt them (like IRL - Aurora was bombed and shelled in 1941 and technically sank in shallow water, many other ships with good museum potential were lost), they may add more depth to fleet management, and I think seeing "venerable elder" in ship list, continuing her service is better than get short message "say goodbye for her, she is museum now".
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 1, 2018 16:01:52 GMT -6
Doesn't RtW1 already do this? I've definitely gone to scrap a ship and had it converted to a museum ship and I'm fairly sure it provided +1 prestige (although my memory can be a bit dodge, and it's been a while since this happened). It felt infrequent enough to me that it wouldn't affect balance significantly. I do think having the option to do this for every ship wouldn't be appropriate. It's infrequent and random. You can get museum ships, but which ones can become museums really doesn't seem up to you. Particularly heroic or important ships get scrapped while an older ship which maybe was on the sidelines in a couple of battles becomes a museum. And it generally seems you can get about 1 museum ship maybe. I was thinking that the point I was commenting on was suggesting a replacement for the current system, which feels a bit inadequate. Aye, sorry - my comment was mainly a response to the first, not the second - my 'multiple-comment fu' just isn't very strong, so I take whatever the quote button gives me! I don't mind the current system - like you I see it as minor and peripheral, and would rather effort put into other things, at the very least for launch. With radar, sonar, aircraft, and an AI that can hopefully manage all this in the game, I imagine Fredrik has enough on his plate already.
|
|
jroy
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jroy on Jun 2, 2018 8:26:46 GMT -6
Hi all, sorry if this has been covered/I've missed something.
Does anyone know if RTW 2 will have a mechanic whereby AI controlled nations will be able to engage in wars with each other, independent of the player? (Could be similar to the notifications you get when an ally engages an enemy in RTW. Maybe just have some notifications in the log/background) One thing I found in RTW was that while I was having my own wars, other nations would just be snowballing their ships as they were suffering no casualties until I got round to them. While it is nice to have a focus on the player it personally somewhat lowered the immersion level.
Just seems more realistic that other nations would be engaging each other for strategic advantages etc.
Anyway, thanks for your time!
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 2, 2018 8:59:48 GMT -6
The 36 knot and 70000 ton limits until 1950 seems like it's on the low side. Would it be possible to allow for a bit faster speeds and high tonnage so that all historical designs ( and some blueprints or slightly later designs ) would be possible to do? For example: IJN Shimakaze: 41 knots USS Sommers: 38 knots ( 1934 ) Many other WW2 DDs: 37 knots+
I just spoke with Fredrik and he agrees that a 40 kt max speed is good, so you can consider that a change I think :-)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 2, 2018 9:41:00 GMT -6
The 36 knot and 70000 ton limits until 1950 seems like it's on the low side. Would it be possible to allow for a bit faster speeds and high tonnage so that all historical designs ( and some blueprints or slightly later designs ) would be possible to do? For example: IJN Shimakaze: 41 knots USS Sommers: 38 knots ( 1934 ) Many other WW2 DDs: 37 knots+
I just spoke with Fredrik and he agrees that a 40 kt max speed is good, so you can consider that a change I think :-)
William: Will the game observe the rule that for every 1000 miles of sailing from its main base, a fleet loses ten percent of its fighting efficiency. It was a standard rule and the reason for occupying islands.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jun 2, 2018 14:42:32 GMT -6
Hi all, sorry if this has been covered/I've missed something. Does anyone know if RTW 2 will have a mechanic whereby AI controlled nations will be able to engage in wars with each other, independent of the player? (Could be similar to the notifications you get when an ally engages an enemy in RTW. Maybe just have some notifications in the log/background) One thing I found in RTW was that while I was having my own wars, other nations would just be snowballing their ships as they were suffering no casualties until I got round to them. While it is nice to have a focus on the player it personally somewhat lowered the immersion level. Just seems more realistic that other nations would be engaging each other for strategic advantages etc. Anyway, thanks for your time! Welcome to the forums Jroy! I brought this up myself over a year ago when I embraced the game, but unfortunately (unless something has changed/is planned of which I am unaware) there is no mechanic for this. If you're going to do AI wars, it would either be horribly abstracted (and unfulfilling compared to everything else the game achieves) or require a whole different level of scripting to actually manage wars "behind the scenes". So, yes it has been brought up, but no; for the moment I don't think this is part of the planned changes for RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Jun 2, 2018 18:05:38 GMT -6
A suggestion that came to my mind while playing today. If you have a screen to take colonies from a defeated nation, could you include the sea zone where said colonies are?
|
|
|
Post by tonewyork on Jun 2, 2018 21:31:32 GMT -6
Is there any thought to having the armor effectiveness bonus for inclined belts increase with range, as that is how it works mathematically. Also I am very excited for this game to come out and appreciate the time and effort you guys put in.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Jun 3, 2018 1:33:24 GMT -6
William: Will the game observe the rule that for every 1000 miles of sailing from its main base, a fleet loses ten percent of its fighting efficiency. It was a standard rule and the reason for occupying islands. Then you'd have to actually pick and choose which port your ships are based out of, not just which sea zone they're in. That's adding finicky bits for the player. On top of that you'd probably also have to have some actual numbers for ship range (more than short/normal/long) in order to determine which ships are valid for selection in a battle at some location. That's adding two finicky bits for the devs. All this, just to inconsistently apply a debuff (or a buff for "good supply") whose magnitude the player can't really affect unless the player can also choose their order of battle for a given encounter, which is another finicky bit. That's like three different kinds of bad.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2018 7:38:27 GMT -6
William: Will the game observe the rule that for every 1000 miles of sailing from its main base, a fleet loses ten percent of its fighting efficiency. It was a standard rule and the reason for occupying islands. Then you'd have to actually pick and choose which port your ships are based out of, not just which sea zone they're in. That's adding finicky bits for the player. On top of that you'd probably also have to have some actual numbers for ship range (more than short/normal/long) in order to determine which ships are valid for selection in a battle at some location. That's adding two finicky bits for the devs. All this, just to inconsistently apply a debuff (or a buff for "good supply") whose magnitude the player can't really affect unless the player can also choose their order of battle for a given encounter, which is another finicky bit. That's like three different kinds of bad. That is exactly the point of the question, this rule would provide a measure of realism. You would have to choose a port or go after one like a Ulithi, Truk etc.
|
|
jroy
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jroy on Jun 3, 2018 14:33:39 GMT -6
Welcome to the forums Jroy! I brought this up myself over a year ago when I embraced the game, but unfortunately (unless something has changed/is planned of which I am unaware) there is no mechanic for this. If you're going to do AI wars, it would either be horribly abstracted (and unfulfilling compared to everything else the game achieves) or require a whole different level of scripting to actually manage wars "behind the scenes". So, yes it has been brought up, but no; for the moment I don't think this is part of the planned changes for RTW2. Thanks very much for your reply! Yeah I understand the reasoning behind it, and it definitely won't stop me from acquiring upon release.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jun 3, 2018 15:27:49 GMT -6
I'd like to know how Kamikaze attacks intend to be handled, both tactically and strategically. Will Kamikazes be limited to only Japanese players, or will all nations have the capability to undertake such operations? Will there be a research tech required to perform them? If so, will it only be a late-game research tech, or have the possibility to show up earlier for some interesting alternate history scenarios? Once it becomes available, how will it be deployed? Doctrine option like munitions? Tactical choice in battle? Perhaps it can only be used when behind significantly in Victory Points?
|
|
|
Post by cheetar on Jun 4, 2018 7:32:19 GMT -6
Hi all, sorry if this has been covered/I've missed something. Does anyone know if RTW 2 will have a mechanic whereby AI controlled nations will be able to engage in wars with each other, independent of the player? (Could be similar to the notifications you get when an ally engages an enemy in RTW. Maybe just have some notifications in the log/background) One thing I found in RTW was that while I was having my own wars, other nations would just be snowballing their ships as they were suffering no casualties until I got round to them. While it is nice to have a focus on the player it personally somewhat lowered the immersion level. Just seems more realistic that other nations would be engaging each other for strategic advantages etc. Anyway, thanks for your time! Welcome to the forums Jroy! I brought this up myself over a year ago when I embraced the game, but unfortunately (unless something has changed/is planned of which I am unaware) there is no mechanic for this. If you're going to do AI wars, it would either be horribly abstracted (and unfulfilling compared to everything else the game achieves) or require a whole different level of scripting to actually manage wars "behind the scenes". So, yes it has been brought up, but no; for the moment I don't think this is part of the planned changes for RTW2. you know what i find even more unfulfilling, having all wars be about the player country.
|
|