RULE THE WAVES 2 PRE-RELEASE DISCUSSION THREAD

[nipponsteelbest]

I know this question has been asked before but it was not answered. Will there be kamikazes? Will it be only available to Japan or do you have an option to use them when you are realy behind points? Will there be other penalties other than just losing planes like unrest? Will you be able to make specialized planes for the job?

And on a side note will there be aces for planes and can you use them as kamikazes like the first Japanese kamikaze attacks?

Btw this is my first post so go easy on me

[williammiller]

Jun 16, 2018 4:59:02 GMT -6 nipponsteelbest said:

I know this question has been asked before but it was not answered. Will there be kamikazes? Will it be only available to Japan or do you have an option to use them when you are realy behind points? Will there be other penalties other than just losing planes like unrest? Will you be able to make specialized planes for the job?

And on a side note will there be aces for planes and can you use them as kamikazes like the first Japanese kamikaze attacks?

Btw this is my first post so go easy on me

Hello, and welcome to the forums!

Please bear in mind that this is not definite at this point, but suicide attacks using aircraft is a mechanism we have discussed and I would like to have included.

[rimbecano]

Jun 15, 2018 11:44:20 GMT -6 aeson said:

An option to play under the restrictions of the Washington Treaty has been mentioned, so I was wondering if there will be an option to play under the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles or a less restrictive version thereof.

Jun 7, 2018 4:14:13 GMT -6 rimbecano said:

Along those lines, any chance of a "quality control" research field? Basically, each nation has a chance of silently developing various nasty problems, such as bad powder formulations that increase flash fire risk (RN in both wars), high due rates for shells (RN in WWI) or torpedoes (USN in WWII), and the focus you put on quality control determines how quickly such things are caught and corrected. It should eat a sufficient fraction of your research budget, and quality issues should be uncommon enough,  to tempt players to skimp, but the consequences of cost cutting should be as bad as they were IRL.

I kind of feel like quality control effort would be better implemented as something similar to Enhanced Training or perhaps Espionage than as another research field. Just seems like it'd be better modeled as an ongoing effort than something you develop once and don't worry about ever again.

The primary reason I suggested that it be part of research was so that it would compete for a share of the 10% R&D budget so as to make skimping potentially more tempting. It need not necessarily be implemented as a set of technologies.

That said, the way I was thinking about it working is that every month, the game rolls a random number to see if each nation gains a hidden tech like "volatile powder" or "dud shell fuses", which, if gained, does something nasty. A number of rolls equivalent to 5 or 10 years of play is done for each nation at the beginning of the game. Once the hidden malus tech is gained, normal research occurs, according to the QC priority, toward a "volatile powder - known issue" or "dud shell fuses - known issue" tech. Unlike other techs, progress toward this tech might be silent (because "our QC team reports that they are close to mastering 'volatile powder - known issue'" would be a dead giveaway that you should kick QC into high gear), but I could also imagine it being done with progress being mentioned, but sometimes also being spoofed, such as a message "our QC team has discovered worrying signs of a problem with our shell fuses" or "submarine captains are complaining of bad torpedo detonators" that might sometimes appear when you don't actually have the associated malus tech. Once the "known issue" tech is researched, the player is notified of the malus tech, and work begins on a "issue resolved" tech. Once "issue resolved" is researched, all three techs (malus, known issue, and issue resolved) go away, but the malus tech can always be regained silently on a bad RNG roll. There would be a malus, known issue, and issue resolved tech for each potential problem that could appear, and a nation could have multiple malus techs at once. 

[bakara]

For those of us that are artistically handicapped would there be a possibility to choose what design is picked when you press auto design, would atleast for me save quite alot of left clicks. is there also a chance to have the "side picture" be autogenerated?

[JagdFlanker]

Jun 19, 2018 12:11:36 GMT -6 bakara said:

For those of us that are artistically handicapped would there be a possibility to choose what design is picked when you press auto design, would atleast for me save quite alot of left clicks. is there also a chance to have the "side picture" be autogenerated?

agreed, it'd be nice to be able to change the top-down artwork on a ship without changing the ship design - i like having different looking ships but it's a pain to have to auto-design a new ship and re-do all the numbers just to get new artwork when really i just wanted to make a new-design slight upgrade of the last ship i had in service but give it a new look

EDIT: and it would be cool if people were able to upload their own top-view designs that people could add to their game to get more design options

[rimbecano]

Any chance the AI could make more use of fore and aft torpedo tubes? In RTW1 I get away routinely with stern chase and finishing tactics that would be suicidal against the ships I build, as the AI only ever uses broadside tubes.

Also, with diving shells, it would be interesting if there were some chance (at least on varied tech) of regular shells having increased diving performance. There even seems to be some evidence that this was the case in real-life: Kirishima took a number of underwater hits from Washington even though the USN had not put any focus on the diving performance of their shells, so diving shells may have been of questionable utility simply because regular shells dove well enough.

[sittingduck]

May I add another topic to the designer's "They want what?!?" list?

Could an event/option be included that asks the player's opinion regarding whether the nation's docks can be used to build ships for foreign countries? Perhaps with a prestige loss or budget drop if the foreign build is approved and prestige gain if the build is denied or something along those lines. Maybe a notification that such-and-such country is building such-and-such type of ship(s) in our docks (just for the aggravation factor).

A ship tonnage in buld vs ship tonnage availability would be a game within the game and probably not feasable so that sleeping dog is best not awakened (but maybe nudged just a little 🤔).

[bakara]

Also on the subject of holding fleet excersises would it be possible to hold mock up battles where you as a person can practice your tactics against your own fleet?

[alexbrunius]

Eagerly awaiting the next update to the Developer Journal!

Already been a month since the first.

[williammiller]

Jun 20, 2018 14:19:15 GMT -6 alexbrunius said:

Eagerly awaiting the next update to the Developer Journal!

Already been a month since the first.

Once we get a new Alpha for internal testing I will post an update with some new information

[Deleted]

So? Are there any news from new Alpha?

[stairmaster]

NO

[dorn]

Jun 22, 2018 16:12:36 GMT -6 @pavelsvt said:

So? Are there any news from new Alpha?

Be patient. 
It will come when it comes. Three days is no time ….

[wolfpack]

Heres an intresting question, will we be able to build submarines like surcouf or the u-cruisers of ww1, or even the american v-4 class. or will we still use the old submarine system?

[Deleted]

Yeah, I would really like to build submersible cruisers and use them against any enemy, even with seaplanes.
But now I have more important question. Will we have any dev news this month?