|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 7, 2018 15:15:50 GMT -6
RTW is designed for plays until 1925 and was extended to allow plays to last beyond that point to 1950. This was in part due to requests from players (me among them) for a longer, slower game option. So my hope is that we will at least get the same kind of extension for RTW2, i.e. the option to play beyond untill 2000.
But "slow research" only really works well if one combines it with adjustments to the dates in the ResearchAreas.dat file.
So, better yet (or in addition to the above) I would like the option to select how many turns I want to have per year and whether this includes adjustment of budget, build rate and research, or not.
i.e. if one were to select "48 turns per year" with full budget, build rate and research rate adjustment (to 25%) this would in essence only mean that there would be 52 battle and event chances per year, not just 12. But if one were to select e.g. 120 turns per year without build rate and budget adjustment (both at 100%) but with research rate at 10% this would result in a 10x longer game where research truly moves at 10%. Of course this would necessitate some save file format and UI adjustments.
At the moment I am doing this by manually resetting the savegame date in January but this has some drawbacks in addition to being awkward.
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Oct 8, 2018 8:12:46 GMT -6
it could be as simple as just extending the amount of years in the game, since this is basically a naval based 'fantasy game' - it might not be 'realistic' to play a 100 year game at 50% research rate or a 250 year long game at 20% research rate (or your choice of game length and research rate), but it would sure be fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 8, 2018 12:09:55 GMT -6
If we can get a revised ResearchAreas.dat file and associated mechanism which does not run counter to the intent of research rate percentage that would work. At the moment, regardless of set research rate, the "nominal invention year" mechanism overrides research rate setting. More than two years before the date it is next to impossible to research something successfully, more than two years later it is an almost instant success, unless it has been skipped over earlier or the researchers are stuck in an overambitious project. In effect even 10% research rate retards invention date by at most 4 years, most times 2-3 years. it could be as simple as just extending the amount of years in the game, since this is basically a naval based 'fantasy game' - it might not be 'realistic' to play a 100 year game at 50% research rate or a 250 year long game at 20% research rate (or your choice of game length and research rate), but it would sure be fun! |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Oct 9, 2018 15:18:49 GMT -6
An option to have more turns per year would be better than having more years. That way the economic growth would better match the research rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 9, 2018 21:30:01 GMT -6
An option to have more turns per year would be better than having more years. That way the economic growth would better match the research rates. Increasing the number of turns per game-year has undesirable knock-on effects that increasing game-years per game doesn't.
If you increase turns to complete a ship to keep the game-years necessary to complete a ship constant, you lock up funds in construction programs for more turns and you have more possible battles before new ships commission. Keeping funds locked up in construction programs longer means more dead turns waiting for construction programs to complete so you can afford to lay something else down, and increasing the number of potential engagements before new ships arrive increases the likelihood of dead turns where one side or the other simply lacks the ships to do anything - something which is entirely possible in the current game on Very Large fleet size and Game budget, though against the major powers it tends to take a string of very successful major engagements. Both of these things mean more dead turns.
If you keep the number of turns required to build a ship constant regardless of the turns-per-game-year setting, you instead need to figure out what to do about the economy, because if the total cost of the ship remains the same regardless of the turns-per-game-year setting and the annual budget remains the same regardless of the turns-per-game-year setting your net budget per turn goes down while the construction cost per turn of a ship remains constant. This is also undesirable, because it makes it more difficult to budget for building the big ships - at 12 turns per year, I have 2.5 years of income to put towards the cost of a battleship that takes 30 turns to build, but at 48 turns per year I have only about 0.6 years of income to put towards the cost of a battleship that takes 30 turns to build, meaning that I probably have to be able to pay for a lot more of its cost out of the reserve fund, so instead of having more dead turns waiting for construction programs to complete I have more dead turns waiting to be able to afford to have anything building in the first place. On the other hand, increasing the annual budget or reducing the total cost of each ship to compensate is also undesirable, because it means the size of your fleet scales with the turns-per-year setting.
Also, if you want to have the economic growth match the research rate, the simplest way to do that would be to multiply the economic growth by the research rate. Instead of 1% every six turns at all research rates, you'd make it 1% every six months at 100% research and 0.2% every six months at 20% research.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 10, 2018 0:12:51 GMT -6
Question is if there is possibility to have more battles per turn or not.
Eg. if you are UK or any large nation fighting global war than 1 battle per turn is quite limiting and effect is you have a lot of ship never saw combat which is no realistic at all.
On opposite small nation with 1 battle per turn have after year of fight usually half of fleet quite experienced as ships in battle are always the same (they have not another :-)).
It could be interesting if more battles per turn are available and dependent of number of potential clashes.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 10, 2018 12:21:55 GMT -6
We are currently looking at the possibility that the battle intensity (average rates of battles per turn) of a war may vary based on certain metrics 
More on this later, or in a future Dev update if it is implemented...
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 10, 2018 13:39:03 GMT -6
We are currently looking at the possibility that the battle intensity (average rates of battles per turn) of a war may vary based on certain metrics
More on this later, or in a future Dev update if it is implemented…
Good to read it. I am really looking forward to RTW2. There will be a lot of small improvements on top of another 25 years. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 10, 2018 14:48:18 GMT -6
We are currently looking at the possibility that the battle intensity (average rates of battles per turn) of a war may vary based on certain metrics
More on this later, or in a future Dev update if it is implemented...
Intriguing, in a good way  . |
|
|
|
Post by zulu354 on Oct 10, 2018 15:20:04 GMT -6
An option to have more turns per year would be better than having more years. That way the economic growth would better match the research rates. [...] Both of these things mean more dead turns. [...] The campaing expansion for Steam and Iron did it nicely. You were able to choose turn lenght at the begin of the campaing. Choices were weekly, two weekly and monthly turn lenght. The shorter turn lenght often resultet in a more accurate battle generation, as you had quite a few small encountered between larger battles. Bread and butter missions were able to create fun, though. The letter options let you more oftenly playing bigger battles, but you could miss easily things like minelaying mission and such. I plea for an option to choose the turn lenght, if possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 11, 2018 21:20:57 GMT -6
[...] Both of these things mean more dead turns. [...] The campaing expansion for Steam and Iron did it nicely. You were able to choose turn lenght at the begin of the campaing. Choices were weekly, two weekly and monthly turn lenght. The shorter turn lenght often resultet in a more accurate battle generation, as you had quite a few small encountered between larger battles. Bread and butter missions were able to create fun, though. The letter options let you more oftenly playing bigger battles, but you could miss easily things like minelaying mission and such. I plea for an option to choose the turn lenght, if possible.
is a very different game from Rule the Waves. You're never at peace in Steam and Iron, but are probably at peace for half or more of the game in Rule the Waves. You're responsible for neither designing nor building your ships in Steam and Iron, but that's a large part - possibly the largest part, though battles are probably the most time-intensive part - of Rule the Waves. Steam and Iron allows you to design your order of battle around mission objectives or even to better-preserve high-value units; Rule the Waves chooses the ships you get for an engagement for you. Battle scenarios in Steam and Iron can be more complex than they are in Rule the Waves. |
|
|
|
Post by zulu354 on Oct 17, 2018 9:46:59 GMT -6
The campaing expansion for Steam and Iron did it nicely. You were able to choose turn lenght at the begin of the campaing. Choices were weekly, two weekly and monthly turn lenght. The shorter turn lenght often resultet in a more accurate battle generation, as you had quite a few small encountered between larger battles. Bread and butter missions were able to create fun, though. The letter options let you more oftenly playing bigger battles, but you could miss easily things like minelaying mission and such. I plea for an option to choose the turn lenght, if possible.
is a very different game from Rule the Waves. You're never at peace in Steam and Iron, but are probably at peace for half or more of the game in Rule the Waves. You're responsible for neither designing nor building your ships in Steam and Iron, but that's a large part - possibly the largest part, though battles are probably the most time-intensive part - of Rule the Waves. Steam and Iron allows you to design your order of battle around mission objectives or even to better-preserve high-value units; Rule the Waves chooses the ships you get for an engagement for you. Battle scenarios in Steam and Iron can be more complex than they are in Rule the Waves.And that's why I would like to have the strategic part from RTW and the tactical part from SaI merged together. I want build my own divisions and not be thrown into a fleet battle with only 2 of my brand new battleships and the rest made out of my old reserve fleet. I also like the tracking in SaI more than in RTW, as it shows wich battles a ship fought and wich success it had, not only a couple of stars to show how many engagements it had.
I see your point, with a shorter turn timeframe. Maybe it could dynamicly change during war/peace time, but I wouldn't mind to have more turns at all. Could be, as I am a war game and don't mind click torture at all though.  |
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Oct 17, 2018 10:22:35 GMT -6
Can we have an extension to the technology as well?  (An RTW that went from 1900-2000 would be a very weird game to say the least!) |
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 21, 2018 17:00:29 GMT -6
Pre and post 1950 is a clean break compared to say pre and post Washington Naval Treaty. The transition to guided munitions and electronic warfare did away with all the tradeoffs that characterized battleships and cruisers.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 21, 2018 17:14:15 GMT -6
I just want to be able to play very long games at a relatively relaxed technology pace that allows savouring the "odd" periods which might have been either very short or never really came to pass due to the rapidity of technological progress.
I want to be able to play a game with
- multi-year period where semi-dreasnaughts are king
- decades in wich every little progress impacts naval balance and shapes ship designs for five years or more (cross-firing etc.)
- an extended period of low-performance airplanes where hybrid carrier-cruisers can be explored
- grand historic progress where Austria-Hungary can battle Japan in the South Pacific
all in one game with hundreds of "game years"...
|
|
.
