|
Post by Airy W on May 26, 2018 21:55:10 GMT -6
How many real life admirals controlled the navy for 25 years in a row?
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on May 27, 2018 2:41:48 GMT -6
How many real life admirals controlled the navy for 25 years in a row? How many real life admirals acomplished a 10-1 KD ratio for 25 years in a row and destroyed entire navies within a year? ^_^
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 27, 2018 2:52:49 GMT -6
The reason I think prestige would work well for this is because ability to implement radical changes is predicated on how much a leader has proven himself. If a new First Sea Lord starts a program to replace all existing capital ships with some completely unproven concept, he is likely to be out on his ear in short order. If an experienced First Sea Lord that has previously introduced successful new concepts proposes a radical new concept, he is more likely to succeed. But Prestige is basically your long-term score, right? I'm always really reluctant to take a prestige hit so I can't see myself trading prestige for techs unless it's something critically important (Steam turbines, main battery wing turrets, 3 centerline, superimposed B turret) which doesn't really jive with most techs being incremental improvements. Maybe if instead of using Prestige, there was a proxy for it like "Influence". Conceptually, Prestige is your long-term score like how you're written down in the history books, while Influence is how much you can leverage that in the short-term. Influence starts at 0, every time you gain 1 prestige, you gain 1 influence. Influence is then spent to buy a tech, get a budget increase or a raw injection of cash, maybe negate a bit of tension, maybe shorten some construction time, maybe provide a better outcome for random events. So Prestige keeps being your 'score' while also being directly linked to a resource that you gain and spend. The game is somewhat a "you decide your victory conditions" game. Prestige is one possible metric, or you could have territorial goals or something else. Whether you did prestige or a new influence stat, the player would have to risk losing if they tried pushing doctrine too far too early. Perhaps influence could take the role prestige now has as far as losing if you embarrass the politicians too much, and you'd gain something like one influence per turn, with your prestige being a cap on your influence. You then might have a cost schedule like this, where (x/y) means x points of influence to gain research access to a tech early, and y points to buy it outright: Before introductory year, nobody has: (6/12) Before introductory year, others have: (4/8) After introductory year, nobody has: (-/6) After introductory year, others have: (-/4) Multiplier for dreadnought techs after "Tsushima": 0.75 An outright tech buy for something nobody else has before its introductory year would cost 12 points and would be fairly risky with early-game prestige, and it would take a year to regain the influence spent. The numbers given here might need to be balanced, but should give an idea of how such a scheme could work.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 27, 2018 4:06:24 GMT -6
It would be really nice if RtW2's battles had an easy way to see "Range to Target". Right now in RTW it's not immediately apparent how far away the ship I'm shooting at is.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on May 27, 2018 9:50:58 GMT -6
It would be really nice if RtW2's battles had an easy way to see "Range to Target". Right now in RTW it's not immediately apparent how far away the ship I'm shooting at is. To get the range to your target ship you can hover your mouse over the ship on the battle map. The currently targeted ship and range to it will be listed in the pop-up info box. You can also find the range from the division flagship to the target on the division screen. In addition, the range to target is listed when you click on the ROF Details button or the Hit chance Details button on the individual ship status screen. The details buttons for the secondary guns will give you the range to their specific target, which may be different than the target of the main guns.
|
|
|
Post by kallek on May 27, 2018 12:24:40 GMT -6
First: Take my money! Just the changes in the initial changelog would've been worth paying for. Nice work.
Second: One must not forget that the randomness of research is in part what makes this game so utterly replayable. The ability to force doctrine in one direction or the other would make min-maxing and cookie cutter designs more appealing. Being forced to work with potentially bizarre design constraints is a large part of the appeal of the game.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on May 27, 2018 13:25:14 GMT -6
First: Take my money! Just the changes in the initial changelog would've been worth paying for. Nice work. Second: One must not forget that the randomness of research is in part what makes this game so utterly replayable. The ability to force doctrine in one direction or the other would make min-maxing and cookie cutter designs more appealing. Being forced to work with potentially bizarre design constraints is a large part of the appeal of the game. For actual "technological" technologies, I agree. For "doctrinal" technologies, the player should have more ability to guide things. It would have to be properly balanced, but some ability to direct the doctrine of ones navy is desirable.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 27, 2018 17:45:39 GMT -6
First: Take my money! Just the changes in the initial changelog would've been worth paying for. Nice work. Second: One must not forget that the randomness of research is in part what makes this game so utterly replayable. The ability to force doctrine in one direction or the other would make min-maxing and cookie cutter designs more appealing. Being forced to work with potentially bizarre design constraints is a large part of the appeal of the game. For actual "technological" technologies, I agree. For "doctrinal" technologies, the player should have more ability to guide things. It would have to be properly balanced, but some ability to direct the doctrine of ones navy is desirable. I strongly agree that any choice of 'technology' be limited to doctrinal elements - but if it was to be a thing, also limited by technology and circumstances as well. Things like 'multiple carrier air strikes' shouldn't be possible until a nation has at least two carriers, and preferably 3-4. Similarly, tactics involving independent divisions in a battle line should require having enough capital ships that there'd be the capacity to test and develop this kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by gabeeg on May 28, 2018 2:37:24 GMT -6
I have not been this excited for a game in awhile...and we have not even gotten to the major addition of aircraft yet!
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 28, 2018 10:53:21 GMT -6
I have not been this excited for a game in awhile...and we have not even gotten to the major addition of aircraft yet!
Thanks gabeeg - we are excited as well to be able to bring the game to you, we will try our best to meet with your expectations!
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on May 28, 2018 16:45:37 GMT -6
I think we're all very excited, haha.
Are there any plans to expand on Treaties? For example, there could be treaties that only apply to certain ship classes (ex. No CLs over 5000T), treaties that limit the number of ships with a certain parameter (ex. only two 16" gun battleships per nation), or even treaties that only apply to certain countries (ex. As part of war demands, Germany is not allowed to construct new battleships).
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on May 28, 2018 17:28:23 GMT -6
How many real life admirals controlled the navy for 25 years in a row? The closest might be Adm. Rickover who was head of Naval Reactors for 30 years. His critics certainly believed he had too much control over the navy.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 28, 2018 22:18:57 GMT -6
I've come up with some questions regarding RTW2.
How will the names of planes be picked? Is there a list of historical aircraft names which they'll be selected from or will it be a pairing of either a designation (like in F4F, P-51, Ki-61, etc) or a shortened representation of the manufacturer (like in ME-109, Ju-88, Il-2, etc) with a number (in a sequence, with maybe some random numbers skipped)?
How will developing one aircraft design from another work? Say, modernizing an aircraft design so you can get a modern aircraft design being built more quickly, more cheaply, and less riskily than designing a whole new aircraft, or re-purposing an aircraft for a role it wasn't built for?
How will the game handle the great depression in regards to 1900 starts? Will it always happen at roughly the time it should? Will it happen at a random time with more random effects? Will the game just have "depressions," which can hit at any time and last for any length of time? Or will it not be simulated if you start from 1900?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 29, 2018 1:40:16 GMT -6
will it be a pairing of either a designation (like in F4F, P-51, Ki-61, etc) or a shortened representation of the manufacturer (like in ME-109, Ju-88, Il-2, etc) with a number (in a sequence, with maybe some random numbers skipped)? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by a 'designation' as opposed to a 'shortened representation of the manufacturer,' but it seems to me as though the 1924-1962 US Army Air Service/Corps/Forces system is an archetypal example of the former while the 1922-1962 USN system is a perhaps-slightly-obfuscated example of the latter. Under the 1924 US Army system, each major design was given a designation comprised of a symbol indicating its type (e.g. B for Bomber) and a unique model number (e.g. 29) pulled from a series shared by all manufacturers. The USN system, however, gave each major design a designation comprised of a symbol indicating its type (e.g. F for Fighter), a symbol indicating which manufacturer produced it (e.g. F for Grumman), and a number pulled from a series (typically) specific to that manufacturer indicating the model of aircraft. Furthermore, whereas under the Army system all aircraft sharing both a type and a model number were of the same major type, no such relationship was implicit in the Navy system - the F4F and F4U, for example, are unrelated beyond both being single-engine single-seat carrier-borne fighter aircraft. In fact, under the USN system, two aircraft of the same type could have different designations depending on who built them - the FM, for example, is the Grumman F4F Wildcat built under license by General Motors, while the F3A and FG are the Vought F4U Corsair built under license by Brewster and Goodyear respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on May 29, 2018 4:54:09 GMT -6
Ah, I did not realize that. So I placed the F4F in the wrong category then.
|
|