weight distribution on ships more specificaly battleships

[JagdFlanker]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.
As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.)
The AIs ships never run low on fuel. They never run low on ammo. Their stokers never tire.
(Before you tell me this is confirmation bias, I've read the details of the after action reports. If there's no record, it didn't happen.)

The AI picks the opponents.
It picks when there is a war.
It picks when and where there are battles.
It picks the Human's order of battle.

All the human can do is react to random events. It's like warhamster. All dice and almost no tactics or strategy. Oh, wait. There's no spots on the dice. So I make a roll and the AI tells me what it was.

Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics.

after hundreds of hours of bliss playing RtW i don't think i'v ever read anything so incorrect in my entire life

[AiryW]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.

If the makers of this game have made an AI which is capable of superhuman hindsight, i.e. predictive unsupervised learning, in a program which only performs about a billion operations a second they are the greatest computer scientists of all time by a considerable margin. We dont even have a theoretical mathematical basis for how such a task could be performed on a supercomputer.

[dorn]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.
As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.)
The AIs ships never run low on fuel. They never run low on ammo. Their stokers never tire.
(Before you tell me this is confirmation bias, I've read the details of the after action reports. If there's no record, it didn't happen.)

The AI picks the opponents.
It picks when there is a war.
It picks when and where there are battles.
It picks the Human's order of battle.

All the human can do is react to random events. It's like warhamster. All dice and almost no tactics or strategy. Oh, wait. There's no spots on the dice. So I make a roll and the AI tells me what it was.

Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics.

You probably play another game.

AI is worse building ships as AI build adapted historical design. The player has the handsight. The AI could build prohibited designs for legacy fleet to follow some historical designs but they are not best that can be build.

It is computer game, so yes, AI does everything. Random, player have small influence, only small as the first lord has almost no influence over foreign policy.

Game has some weaknesses however they are low compared to other games.
Related to quality I can compared to old game Master of Orion which is game I consider closest to "there is nothing left to take it away".

Just note.
If all other players tell "A", you tells "B", you should think more about your conclusions, especially if these info could be easily confirmed in game.

[axe99]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics.

You control (at the very least - I'm writing this 'on the burst', rather than sitting down with the game open in front of me - I'm sure I'll miss something):

- the design of your ships (down to how much ammunition they carry and what types!)
- the emphasis of your research
- the distribution of your ships globally
- the defences of your fleet bases
- the size of your docks
- how close you push your civilian population to revolt to maintain a high military budget
- the tactical behaviour of your fleet (at the easiest level, to the point of selecting individual targets and manually firing torpedoes).


There are oodles of areas you have control over.  Now, these may not be the areas you'd personally like to have control over, but to make a statement implying that 'RtW is Candy Crush with obsolete graphics' is, in my view, less sound than Churchill's ideas for a torpedo cruiser during WW2.  I have no idea to what type of suggestions the devs are most likely to respond, but I'd wager they'd be better disposed to those that don't go making unfairly demeaning comments about what is, by far-and-away, the most enjoyable naval warfare game I've yet come accross.

[oldpop2000]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.
As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.)
The AIs ships never run low on fuel. They never run low on ammo. Their stokers never tire.
(Before you tell me this is confirmation bias, I've read the details of the after action reports. If there's no record, it didn't happen.)

The AI picks the opponents.
It picks when there is a war.
It picks when and where there are battles.
It picks the Human's order of battle.

All the human can do is react to random events. It's like warhamster. All dice and almost no tactics or strategy. Oh, wait. There's no spots on the dice. So I make a roll and the AI tells me what it was.

Leaders ACT. I want to act. I want to make history react to me. Otherwise this is just Candy crush with obsolete graphics.

One of the lessons that I have learned in the past, oh fifty odd years of studying history and military history specifically , is that once a leader or commander has made a decision, after that, he basically does not have much control over the results. There are more examples than I have time to relate. You assemble the intelligence, you and your staff assess the situation based on forces available and the importance of conducting the combat operation, then you get to make the decision, issue the orders then wait for the results. I am certain that Admiral Yamamoto was not real happy with the way Nagumo and his officers conducted the Midway Operation. It did not turn out the way he had expected. You don't always have a voice in the kinds of weapons that you can use or build, you many times don't have control over the training of the men who will follow your orders and conduct the operation. In the last meeting between the Imperial General Staff and Hirohito about the decision to go to war, there were officers who were dead set against going to war with the US. One officer stated "Do you have any idea what they are going to do to us?" There is a phrase that everyone I believe has heard, " The enemy always has a say in your plans". This is true. Once the plans are set and orders go out, its as we used to say, a crap shoot.  The idea of this game is to give you a modest amount of control over as much as possible even a little economics. However, having said all this, you do have the right to express your honest opinion. I have read your words and understand your meaning. I have hope you can find some fun in the game, because when all is said and done, it is a game, not reality. Enjoy, mate. 

[rimbecano]

Dec 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT -6 hardlec said:

As the game works now, I have no control over what happens.

The AI has 20-10 hindsight, better than the human player.
As far as anyone can tell, the AI, all potential opponents of the human player, may use historical designs some of which are illegal for the human player. (The AI does not have to follow its own rules.)

Many of these historical designs are crap (e.g, British-style battlecruisers), and even when they're not, the AI tends to implement them in crappy ways (capital ships always have too little deck armor)

The AIs ships never run low on fuel.

Neither have I ever seen my ships do so. Fairly often I'll get 50% fuel warnings, I don't think I've ever seen anything lower, and I know for certain I've never run out.

They never run low on ammo.

I tend to put a good deal more ammo on my ships than was carried historically, and I have run the AI out of ammo while still having my own on a few occasions.

[oldpop2000]

I wasn't sure where to put this simple bit of information, so I rolled the dice and here it is. There is a convenient ratio for comparing the speed of ships. It is the Speed to length ratio. Simply, its V equal to the sq.rt. of the length at the waterline. Now I know that this game does not allow us the control, but it might interest some of you. Some comparisons:

Queen Elisabeth-class battleships - .94

Helgoland-class battleships - .85

This can be done for any ship from a sailing boat to an aircraft carrier. Just something to play with.

[hardlec]

I have bought another game.

This community might what to expand its way of dealing with alternatives and other opinions.

[oldpop2000]

Dec 30, 2018 12:38:32 GMT -6 hardlec said:

I have bought another game.

This community might what to expand its way of dealing with alternatives and other opinions.

Good luck and I hope you find what you are looking for. This community seems to be doing quite nicely. 

[cwemyss]

Dec 30, 2018 12:38:32 GMT -6 hardlec said:

I have bought another game.

This community might what to expand its way of dealing with alternatives and other opinions.

Excellent. Good luck, bon voyage, sayanora, and I wish you the best.

[rob06waves2018]

Dec 30, 2018 12:38:32 GMT -6 hardlec said:

I have bought another game.

This community might what to expand its way of dealing with alternatives and other opinions.

Thank you. Our sanity thanks you. Good bye!

[corsair]

Dec 30, 2018 12:38:32 GMT -6 hardlec said:

I have bought another game.

This community might what to expand its way of dealing with alternatives and other opinions.

Hopefully this new purchase will provide you with more enjoyment than you appear to have had with RTW. But I am curious, what other navy sim out there offers the chance to design warships the way RTW (and later RTW2) does?

[buttons]

On the topic of technology, while I understand not researching specific technologies I kind of would like more categories, eg. break up guns into small, medium, and large calibre guns (eg. 2-6", 7-11", and 12-20" respectively).

[mycophobia]

Jan 8, 2019 18:32:28 GMT -6 buttons said:

On the topic of technology, while I understand not researching specific technologies I kind of would like more categories, eg. break up guns into small, medium, and large calibre guns (eg. 2-6", 7-11", and 12-20" respectively).

I agree, while it is weird to ask for “superfirin turret” before the idea came to being in game. It doesn’t seem odd to ask for “I want a bigger gun”, “out light gun needs to be improved”. Ofcourse the player doesn’t need to necessarily get what they want, and historically many construction project are altered because the gun aren’t available or will take too long to prepare.(e.g vanguard) but I don’t think player hindsight give any unfairness or unrealistic result if we allow some control on gun development.

[abclark]

Jan 8, 2019 18:32:28 GMT -6 buttons said:

On the topic of technology, while I understand not researching specific technologies I kind of would like more categories, eg. break up guns into small, medium, and large calibre guns (eg. 2-6", 7-11", and 12-20" respectively).

This has actually been suggested and fleshed out previously.