|
Post by noshurviverse on Jun 4, 2018 11:47:28 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. That's pretty disappointing, it always bothered me that unless you personally got them involved in a war the other nation's navies simply sat at anchor their entire life. Seeing as how decolonization has been mentioned, might it be possible that rebelling colonies might be able to destroy enemy ships? Something as simple as "Rebel saboteurs from the British possession of Ireland have blown up CL Galilee at anchor!"
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 4, 2018 22:15:02 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 ) 1- Most of WW2 DDs weren't good for anything more than 32-33 knots in real service. Speed trials on light load is one thing. True wartime capability is another. DDs being loaded to the top with ASW gear, extra AAA, radar (in some cases), wartime crews ,etc went a long way to ensure that in most cases real service top speeds had little to do with design speeds. It was the case with cruisers too, there are multiple instances of "faster" ships being run down by "slower" ships (just look at Bartollomeo Colleoni vs HMAS Sydney if you want to know what I mean) Summing up: I don't see the 36 knot limit as anything abnormal. 2- as I understand it RtW models standard displacements, not full load. Yamato's was 64000 tons. Montana's 60000. H42 was a design study for a ship never intended to be built (nothing after H-41 was anything more than a study design of what size of battleship would be needed to meet minimum protection standards vs different threats, not something that was contemplated as, much less actually, buildable). And USS Enterprise (CVN-65, that is) is well far removed from the timeline of the game, and a design two carrier generations ahead of USS Midway (the biggest carrier within the game's timeline). 70000 tons is 6000 tons over the biggest behemoth history was seen, and probably the biggest thing that could be feasibly not yet built, but actually useful in service (as it was the Yamatos were restricted enough in the bases they could operate from)
|
|
17inc
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by 17inc on Jun 5, 2018 1:02:29 GMT -6
Hi guys are you going to do real world cost for ships in the new game eg a battleships cost 3 million per ships then the game works how much money a month over the build time for each ships the cost go's down over the time so we can get more ships on slips ways as time go's by. And in war time can we have more money to play with to build more ships to fight with.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 5, 2018 1:13:03 GMT -6
1- Most of WW2 DDs weren't good for anything more than 32-33 knots in real service. Speed trials on light load is one thing. True wartime capability is another. DDs being loaded to the top with ASW gear, extra AAA, radar (in some cases), wartime crews ,etc went a long way to ensure that in most cases real service top speeds had little to do with design speeds. It was the case with cruisers too, there are multiple instances of "faster" ships being run down by "slower" ships (just look at Bartollomeo Colleoni vs HMAS Sydney if you want to know what I mean) Summing up: I don't see the 36 knot limit as anything abnormal. 2- as I understand it RtW models standard displacements, not full load. Yamato's was 64000 tons. Montana's 60000. H42 was a design study for a ship never intended to be built (nothing after H-41 was anything more than a study design of what size of battleship would be needed to meet minimum protection standards vs different threats, not something that was contemplated as, much less actually, buildable). And USS Enterprise (CVN-65, that is) is well far removed from the timeline of the game, and a design two carrier generations ahead of USS Midway (the biggest carrier within the game's timeline). 70000 tons is 6000 tons over the biggest behemoth history was seen, and probably the biggest thing that could be feasibly not yet built, but actually useful in service (as it was the Yamatos were restricted enough in the bases they could operate from)
1.) Isn't that already part of the game though? RTW1 at least as I remember it had ships moving slower than designed speed, even more so if you refit them to add extra stuff. I guess it wouldn't be hard to also add old machinery slowing down legacy ships a few more knots. My point was that the speed on the design sheet ingame should match the historical speed of the design, rather then the practical speed.
2.) That makes a little bit more sense, but we still need to keep in mind that Yamato was laid down in 1937. If the game let's us play all the way up until 1950 in a alternative timeline where things like the Washington naval treaty which stops the Naval race size increase for 15 years perhaps don't happen... Well I can easily imagine ships going up to 100'000 tons. Remember that design studies with 18 inch guns and over 70000 ton displacement was conducted as early as 1917! ( Maximum battleship / Tillman ).
I would prefer to see extreme speeds and extreme sizes be prohibitively expensive ( soft cap ) rather then limited by artificial caps, since I think that is a much better solution. If the player want to spend their entire naval budget on trying to build a single 38 knot Battlecruiser or a single 85000 ton battleship, why not let them ( and stack the game mechanics so an enemy that got 4 BC/BB for the same price instead defeats them with ease ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 5:11:55 GMT -6
1- Most of WW2 DDs weren't good for anything more than 32-33 knots in real service. Speed trials on light load is one thing. True wartime capability is another. DDs being loaded to the top with ASW gear, extra AAA, radar (in some cases), wartime crews ,etc went a long way to ensure that in most cases real service top speeds had little to do with design speeds. It was the case with cruisers too, there are multiple instances of "faster" ships being run down by "slower" ships (just look at Bartollomeo Colleoni vs HMAS Sydney if you want to know what I mean) Summing up: I don't see the 36 knot limit as anything abnormal. 2- as I understand it RtW models standard displacements, not full load. Yamato's was 64000 tons. Montana's 60000. H42 was a design study for a ship never intended to be built (nothing after H-41 was anything more than a study design of what size of battleship would be needed to meet minimum protection standards vs different threats, not something that was contemplated as, much less actually, buildable). And USS Enterprise (CVN-65, that is) is well far removed from the timeline of the game, and a design two carrier generations ahead of USS Midway (the biggest carrier within the game's timeline). 70000 tons is 6000 tons over the biggest behemoth history was seen, and probably the biggest thing that could be feasibly not yet built, but actually useful in service (as it was the Yamatos were restricted enough in the bases they could operate from)
1.) Isn't that already part of the game though? RTW1 at least as I remember it had ships moving slower than designed speed, even more so if you refit them to add extra stuff. I guess it wouldn't be hard to also add old machinery slowing down legacy ships a few more knots. My point was that the speed on the design sheet ingame should match the historical speed of the design, rather then the practical speed.
2.) That makes a little bit more sense, but we still need to keep in mind that Yamato was laid down in 1937. If the game let's us play all the way up until 1950 in a alternative timeline where things like the Washington naval treaty which stops the Naval race size increase for 15 years perhaps don't happen... Well I can easily imagine ships going up to 100'000 tons. Remember that design studies with 18 inch guns and over 70000 ton displacement was conducted as early as 1917! ( Maximum battleship / Tillman ).
I would prefer to see extreme speeds and extreme sizes be prohibitively expensive ( soft cap ) rather then limited by artificial caps, since I think that is a much better solution. If the player want to spend their entire naval budget on trying to build a single 38 knot Battlecruiser or a single 85000 ton battleship, why not let them ( and stack the game mechanics so an enemy that got 4 BC/BB for the same price instead defeats them with ease ).
I agree on that. Experimenting is part of success. If your strategy is able to win a war with a 80k tons, 38kts, 8x17in Battlecruiser with armor like Yamato, then why not?
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 5, 2018 6:06:48 GMT -6
1.) Isn't that already part of the game though? RTW1 at least as I remember it had ships moving slower than designed speed, even more so if you refit them to add extra stuff. I guess it wouldn't be hard to also add old machinery slowing down legacy ships a few more knots. My point was that the speed on the design sheet ingame should match the historical speed of the design, rather then the practical speed.
2.) That makes a little bit more sense, but we still need to keep in mind that Yamato was laid down in 1937. If the game let's us play all the way up until 1950 in a alternative timeline where things like the Washington naval treaty which stops the Naval race size increase for 15 years perhaps don't happen... Well I can easily imagine ships going up to 100'000 tons. Remember that design studies with 18 inch guns and over 70000 ton displacement was conducted as early as 1917! ( Maximum battleship / Tillman ).
I would prefer to see extreme speeds and extreme sizes be prohibitively expensive ( soft cap ) rather then limited by artificial caps, since I think that is a much better solution. If the player want to spend their entire naval budget on trying to build a single 38 knot Battlecruiser or a single 85000 ton battleship, why not let them ( and stack the game mechanics so an enemy that got 4 BC/BB for the same price instead defeats them with ease ).
1- to an extent, but not one that really pictures how far off the "design" specs of most of the "fast ships" of the era were from their actual in-service performance, even before contemplating things like machinery aging, etc. Said that I don't miind a top limit of 40 knots, which, from what we've been told, could very well happen. 2- the WT was a diplomatic solution for an untennable situation for most of the signataries. Out of all of them only the US (and even so, barely) was able to afford the massive building program they had put in place. Japan would've been bankrupt well before being able to complete their full "new" 8-8 program, and UK outright bluffed with the G3s and N3s because it neither had the infrastructure needed to either build nor handle those behemoths, nor the Empire's finances could aford doing it, nor there was any interest in entering such a naval race in the first place with WW1 just over and a nation on a very serious financial state. On top of that you can imagine ships going up to 100.000 tons but let's face it, noone who knows the costs involved with building, running, and managing ships of that size do. It's not just the inordinate ammount of money and resources needed to build behemoths of that size - it's that you need the infrastructure to build them in the first place, which wasn't there (so LOTS more money needed for shipbuilders), and after that you needed the infrastructure to manage them: dredging ports in order to accomodate the massive draft those ships would've had, which ain't cheap. Building piers big enough to dock them, which ain't cheap either. Building drydocks big enough to put them inside for regular mainteinance and repairs, which ain't cheap either. Training and maintaining a far larger trained manpower in order to use them, which (you guessed it) is not cheap either... and a long etcetera. Most of the cost associated with exceedingly large ships weren't related with actually building them, but rather with actually enabling you to use them. The germans spent more than three times the cost in dredging ports, enlarging the Kiel Channel, building drydocks, and increasing the manpower of the Kaiser's Marine than in actually building the WW1 HochSeeFlotte. And we're speaking of ships not exceeding 35.000 tons here. There's always been a running joke about the german H44 designs, that it'd taken Hitler to blow up a nuke in order to create a port deep enough in order to accomodate a ship like that, because for damn sure german ports couldn't. (theoretically a norwegian fjord could, but good luck building the ship there). And once you're done with the costs involved in building and running those ships, you have to go with the severely limiting strategic limits they bring to the table. The US Navy took almost 50 years to accept losing the Channel of Panama as a viable path to redeploy ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific...the Montanas would've been the first ships unable to do it (the later supercarriers were the actual firsts). The Royal Navy (amongst many others) likewise limited their designs with the Suez Canal in mind. And then you have to be mindful of making sure that the place you deploy those ships has the facilities to actually handle them (the St.Nazaire Raid happened for a very good reason), and that your nation has an ample reserve of strategic resources (One of the big reasons the Yamatos were showboats for 3 years was that Japan couldn't afford moving them too much, they were such insane fuel hogs). In fact - you can look at the severe limitations of ships of such sheer size nowadays, with the supertankers and how they have to be managed...or the US aircraft carriers, a class of ship that the US Navy experts admit themselves that if a nuke was to be detonated at or near Newport News, the US wouldn't be able to build anymore, as it is the only shipyard in the world able to get it done(both in infrastructures and engineering know-how) after the Brooklyn yards were offlined in the 60s. I think that a 70k ton design limit is perfectly fine and actually correct to keep possible designs within the realms of what was either realistically achievable and affordable for navies (and nations) of the time. So, contrary to the speed limit (which I wouldn't mind seeing increased to 40 knots), I really hope the design team decides to stick with 70k tons as the upper limit.
|
|
|
Post by jamiejamster on Jun 5, 2018 7:01:33 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 ) cue incomparable class en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 5, 2018 7:07:48 GMT -6
The problem with arbitrary limits is that they don't lead to realistic or historical games, because reality don't have arbitrary limits. Just having arbitrary limits risk leading to it being very easy to build 70k ton ships ( Just like it's very easy to build 50k ton ships in RTW ), because the developers can ignore the balancing issues of what happens if anyone wants to be building larger ships. I would much prefer to have a realistic game where: "Japan would've been bankrupt well before being able to complete their full "new" 8-8 program" is actually modeled in the game by your naval budget being tanked if you try to build too many expensive ships as a poor nation. "you need the infrastructure to build them in the first place, which wasn't there (so LOTS more money needed for shipbuilders" is actually modeled in the game by higher cost for large dockyards and maintaining large ships. "Most of the cost associated with exceedingly large ships weren't related with actually building them" is actually modeled in the game by things like dockyards and bases where the ship can dock/repair is being very expensive to expand beyond certain points. "Once you're done with the costs involved in building and running those ships, you have to go with the severely limiting strategic limits they bring to the table" is actually modeled in the game with things like size limits to the Panama and Suez canals. As you can see much of this ( but not all ) is already modeled in RTW. If a player want to blow their entire naval budget on a single huge ship let them do that and then watch as all their colonial possessions are invaded because they can only defend one place at a time or because it was torpedoed and sunk and it takes 5 years to build the next. Next time around they will have learned from the mistake and will build more realistic ship programs for the same reasons they were built historically, not because an arbitrary limit was in their way.
The only limits that are needed IMHO are physics or diminishing returns based: - For example adjust formulas so that it's impossible to build a ship faster then say 45 knots due to how you would need more then 100% of payload being engine with current available technology to reach that speed - For example make costs scale so you get diminishing returns of extra tonnage for each extra investment you make into a more expensive or larger dockyard / ships.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 5, 2018 11:47:51 GMT -6
The problem with that is that while I agree that **some** of the consequences of larger ships are modelled in game, a lot of them are left out. Dredging ports (it's not a matter of cost here ,is that a 100.000 ton ship will have a draft that very few ports will be able to accomodate them at all to begin with, even with continuous dredging). Much larger berths and drydocks (which AFAIK are not modelled...shipyards are modelled but not drydocks, and shipyards are *not* drydocks. Or at least don't need to be, so most aren't), etc etc etc. Of course if all those limitations were modelled to their REAL scope I wouldn't have a problem. But they aren't and honestly I'd rather have the small dev team focusing in delivering us a game with 70k ton ship limits ASAP than delay it because they're too busy implementing all the bothersome stuff that's only needed for inordinately large ships that, realistically, shouldn't truly happen in a game played from a minimally realistic point of view . But hey, if they canadd all those things into the game with no delay on it's development, bring the 100k tonners on! . But I'm pretty sure they can't do that...so I'd rather have it left out and who knows, maybe get it done later in an update of sorts, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by skjold on Jun 5, 2018 13:19:34 GMT -6
Great to see some more news on this project, i can't wait!
Edit: Found the answer to my question.
|
|
|
Post by stairmaster on Jun 5, 2018 13:19:58 GMT -6
Expanding dock size should increase non linearly to represent that.
Anyways in my view even if the implementation would be sub-par the devs should put in some sort of mechanic modeling war between ai nations. There's already plenty of things in RTW1 that strain our disbelief. The playerbase as a whole would probably even be satisified if you just expanded upon the pre-existing random events in RTW1 that covered this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jun 5, 2018 13:39:57 GMT -6
100 kton is probably excessive, but I'd like to see a limit around 80 or 85 kton.
It also might be good to make building new yard capacity more expensive, but compensate with more frequent expansions of private yards, so that it's less feasible for a player to simply keep adding capacity every year until they hit the cap, but everybody expands more or less in line with historical trends.
A limit on tonnage through the Panama canal would also be good, with an expensive option for the owner to expand it.
|
|
|
Post by netWilk on Jun 5, 2018 15:32:07 GMT -6
Not sure how feasible this would be, but tracking of number of slips available in addition to maximum tonnage might add an interesting dimension to the game. Do I refit my old ships, or build new ones? And what do I torf to repair my current fleet?
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 5, 2018 17:28:39 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 ) 1- Most of WW2 DDs weren't good for anything more than 32-33 knots in real service. Speed trials on light load is one thing. True wartime capability is another. DDs being loaded to the top with ASW gear, extra AAA, radar (in some cases), wartime crews ,etc went a long way to ensure that in most cases real service top speeds had little to do with design speeds. It was the case with cruisers too, there are multiple instances of "faster" ships being run down by "slower" ships (just look at Bartollomeo Colleoni vs HMAS Sydney if you want to know what I mean) Summing up: I don't see the 36 knot limit as anything abnormal. 2- as I understand it RtW models standard displacements, not full load. Yamato's was 64000 tons. Montana's 60000. H42 was a design study for a ship never intended to be built (nothing after H-41 was anything more than a study design of what size of battleship would be needed to meet minimum protection standards vs different threats, not something that was contemplated as, much less actually, buildable). And USS Enterprise (CVN-65, that is) is well far removed from the timeline of the game, and a design two carrier generations ahead of USS Midway (the biggest carrier within the game's timeline). 70000 tons is 6000 tons over the biggest behemoth history was seen, and probably the biggest thing that could be feasibly not yet built, but actually useful in service (as it was the Yamatos were restricted enough in the bases they could operate from) It wasn't just DDs - the Capitani Romani class made over 40 kts (not much, but a little) in wartime conditions (based on article in Warship Vol 2) and going from memory but relatively confident that the later French contre-torpeilleurs could also make speeds in wartime conditions above 36kts. They definitely also were numerous vessels with design or trial speeds that weren't realistic, but if the game set the limit at a kind of 'average highest speed available' then a number of historical designs wouldn't be possible. There was definitely not hard (ie, physics) limit on 36 kts as the top speed for a DD or above warship. I'd second others' comments about the 70K limit as well (and Warship Vol I debunks your comment that the G3's and N3s weren't feasible from a construction perspective - whether Britain would have been able to find the financial will on the other hand is a counterfactual we'll never know the answer to) - in the context of a world weary of war, the Washington Treaty makes a heap of sense, but again in a fifty-year timespan where historically capital ships had 40K+ tons before 1920, setting the Yamato (or thereabouts) as the 'max possible' is picking a situation where history is likely to have kept tonnages lower than they could potentially have been (many major powers bankrupt and tired of war, world lays off naval arms races for the better part of 20 years - forty per cent of the games' time period). That said, I trust Fredrik's judgement - it won't be the maximum tonnage limit that makes or breaks the game.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 5, 2018 17:59:54 GMT -6
A brief thought on allowed maximum ship displacement (specifically battleship tonnage):Part of the issue is solid *realistic/reliable* data on ships that were larger than the Yamato class (i.e. the largest class actually constructed). All we have for classes larger than that are design plans of varying (and in some cases IMHO rather dubious) reliability / test-ability and/or quality. Lacking actual tested performance figures for these larger ships means less confidence in formulas that mimic the factors that generate such vessels game specifications. This is certainly not to say that including such larger vessels is 'undo-able', but I am suggesting that one has to consider the trade offs in a number of possible areas (not only ship design but other factors as well) when one considers the maximum tonnage that (we) the designers feel comfortable/confident in including.
Thanks.
|
|