|
Post by hardlec on Dec 13, 2018 12:01:38 GMT -6
I have a fleet with an emphasis on 6 inch and 8 inch guns. I want research on better guns of these calibers. So I get the announcement that I now have +1 7 inch guns. I have that scientist court martialed and then direct the remaining scientists to work on the guns I use. Except even as Grand Pooh-bah of the Navy, I don't get to pick the priority of research. It is way too arbitrary.
As a player I should choose what gun calibers get researched, and which ones don't.
As Pooh-bah I should get the choice to use fewer turrets with more guns per turret. Me, not the AI.
As Pooh-bah, I should get to choose between piston or turbine engines, or even Steam or diesel engines. The Pooh-bah should also get to pick between a conning tower and a CIC.
So I'd like to make a choice and be asked: Option not available. Would you like to research this? Instead of the AI tersely replying: (option) not researched.
Remember the golden rule of research: The one with the gold makes the rules.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 13, 2018 12:44:41 GMT -6
I agree that there needs to be at least some ability to direct research within a category. I understand the developers don't want to use the kind of ultra-specific research direction typically found in games, but the current system, with its essentially random research results, is perhaps going the other direction too much. It ought to be possible to straddle the difference between the two methods.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 13, 2018 15:27:58 GMT -6
Look at it this way: you can have your preferences as to what gets researched, but sometimes engineering difficulties will prevent the technologies you want from being developed for a while. If the suppliers for your 6" and 8" guns are trying and failing to improve the muzzle velocity of their guns, and a startup offers you a high-performance 7" weapon, it may not be exactly what you wanted, but you'll buy the 7" weapon, because it's better than what you currently have, and because you want to reward companies that can actually deliver improvements on existing technology, because those are the ones that are most likely to be able to deliver high quality weapons in the caliber you prefer in the future.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 13, 2018 16:45:50 GMT -6
If I put out a contract for a 6 inch gun, a design for a 7 inch gun won't get past the first screener. It does not meet requirements. Unlike the British Empire, I'm not going to build ships around a weapon. A choice I should be able to make as the supreme authority in my Navy. As leader, I know what to do. My subordinates either know how to do it or get cashiered.
Or
As the Human player, I make the choices. The AI should not be making them for me.
I want two designs of Battleship. One has two quad turrets in the A and B positions. Another has two quad turrets in the X and Y position. They always operate in pairs, one of each. The fact that the computer won't accommodate my doctrine is a failure of the computer and the game. Not a fault of the player.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 13, 2018 17:23:02 GMT -6
Some of the ships the Royal Navy built around new guns were the most effective they ever had.
At its heart this is a historical video game. Historically, you got what you were given, hence why some 14" guns were more effective than 16" guns. Navies adapted. As a video game, there has to be some randomness, otherwise it would become boring.
This is something that would be nice but is it really integral to the enjoyment of the game?
Also, I happen to think that, especially for such a small team, this game is far from a "failure". I just think that there should be priorities.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 13, 2018 18:04:49 GMT -6
This is something that would be nice but is it really integral to the enjoyment of the game? Integral? Perhaps not. But it would improve things considerably.
My thought would be that the player could choose two or three areas within a category on which research could focus. For example, with gun calibers, the user might select 6" and 14" as the focus. This allows some variety of results while allowing more directed research, i.e. you might get 6" first, or you might get the 14", you won't know for certain. The rest of the system can still operate the same as RTW, e.g. selecting between high, medium, or low for the emphasis placed on each overall category, as well as controlling the overall amount of funds directed toward research.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 13, 2018 18:21:50 GMT -6
Perhaps. Or maybe one could just choose the class on which one wants to focus (Light, Medium, Heavy or Super-Heavy)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 13, 2018 19:16:10 GMT -6
Integral? Perhaps not. But it would improve things considerably. I disagree that the ability to focus research efforts into developing specific technologies - rather than just into developing categories of technologies - would represent an improvement to the game. It would change the focus of the game from being on making the best fleet you can with what you have to optimizing research orders to make the closest approximation of some theoretical ideal fleet that you can. These are different styles of game, and while neither is inherently superior to the other, Rule the Waves is most definitely the former and your words strongly suggest that you prefer the latter.
To put it another way, if Rule the Waves were a card game, then deck building as the game currently is would be some variety of draft whereas what you want is essentially a constructed deck.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 13, 2018 19:18:36 GMT -6
More choices controlled by the player. Fewer, much much fewer arbitrary choices by the computer.
Research is by no means random. Theodore Roosevelt directed Aberdeen to develop 14 inch guns, leapfrogging over 13 inch guns. Churchill, as first sea Lord, commanded 15 inch guns be ready for his ships. That's how military research works.
Orders are given. Orders are followed. Or the gallows gets used.
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Dec 13, 2018 20:21:27 GMT -6
There's a big difference between reality and a game, hardlec. Some concessions must be made for an enjoyable experience, and min-maxing what sort of tech you research would result in a very regular sort of play, with nothing stopping you from gunning for a specific sort of design.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 13, 2018 21:05:15 GMT -6
I will add that even in reality, ordering that something be done doesn't guarantee that it will be, nor that it will produce a satisfactory result. There are a number of historical weapons which have proven unsatisfactory in service to one degree or another or which have failed to be developed in time to be installed on the ships for which they were intended. There are also examples of institutions issuing design requirements and getting no response because no one is interested in attempting to meet the specification, and other instances of people pandering to some idiot's ego and wasting valuable resources on more or less completely impractical projects like the Maus.
Beyond that, unless you live in a dictatorial hellhole, it's extremely unlikely that failure to produce something would result in anyone being sent to the gallows or otherwise executed or exiled.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 13, 2018 21:49:38 GMT -6
Integral? Perhaps not. But it would improve things considerably. I disagree that the ability to focus research efforts into developing specific technologies - rather than just into developing categories of technologies - would represent an improvement to the game. It would change the focus of the game from being on making the best fleet you can with what you have to optimizing research orders to make the closest approximation of some theoretical ideal fleet that you can. The opening post of this thread sets out the issue with the current system quite well. But having something as overwhelmingly precise in terms of directing research as in, say, Aurora 4X, is far too much in the other direction. Surely the difference can be split. Some direction to what to research while still allowing for plenty of variation in the results.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 13, 2018 22:29:01 GMT -6
The opening post of this thread sets out the issue with the current system quite well. But having something as overwhelmingly precise in terms of directing research as in, say, Aurora 4X, is far too much in the other direction. Surely the difference can be split. Some direction to what to research while still allowing for plenty of variation in the results. Q0 guns are entirely usable through the end of the game; Q1 is nice to have, but it isn't remotely essential. Most of the improvements your guns get over the course of the game come from improving AP and HE technology anyways. Beyond that, I do not see anything wrong with developing a 7" gun when my fleet's cruisers use 6" and 8" guns. It's a similar caliber suitable for similar roles to both the 8" and the 6" gun, 7"/Q1 offers certain advantages over 8"/Q0 and 6"/Q0, the game doesn't model logistical issues which might lead one to prefer staying with the same caliber (not that that would necessarily be different even were you to use a collection of different 6" guns; not all guns of a given bore diameter can fire all the same kinds of shells), and unless you just want to make something like a Treaty heavy cruiser there's not really any compelling reason to use 8" guns in the game in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 14, 2018 2:25:05 GMT -6
The opening post of this thread sets out the issue with the current system quite well. But having something as overwhelmingly precise in terms of directing research as in, say, Aurora 4X, is far too much in the other direction. Surely the difference can be split. Some direction to what to research while still allowing for plenty of variation in the results. Q0 guns are entirely usable through the end of the game; Q1 is nice to have, but it isn't remotely essential. Most of the improvements your guns get over the course of the game come from improving AP and HE technology anyways. Beyond that, I do not see anything wrong with developing a 7" gun when my fleet's cruisers use 6" and 8" guns. It's a similar caliber suitable for similar roles to both the 8" and the 6" gun, 7"/Q1 offers certain advantages over 8"/Q0 and 6"/Q0, the game doesn't model logistical issues which might lead one to prefer staying with the same caliber (not that that would necessarily be different even were you to use a collection of different 6" guns; not all guns of a given bore diameter can fire all the same kinds of shells), and unless you just want to make something like a Treaty heavy cruiser there's not really any compelling reason to use 8" guns in the game in the first place. I just have trouble squaring that with history (to the extent I am familiar with it). I don't think the USN during WWII said, "Yeah, guys, just go develop whatever size caliber of gun you want, we don't care. 7", 9", it's all good." I'd like to be able to do what the USN did and say, "A rapid fire 8" gun upgrade would be awesome. A rapid fire 3" gun would really help knock down those kamikazes, as the 40mm isn't enough anymore. Oh, and a 6" dual purpose gun would be interesting too. Could you work on those ideas? Let me know if you are able to figure any of them out, because they'd be a big help. Thanks."
I get the idea behind the current system, and I see it can have certain game play benefits, but the system at present just feels too random to me. I'd like to be able to give it a little focus.
|
|
|
Post by hrcak47 on Dec 14, 2018 2:47:48 GMT -6
Player in this game has the superpower of hindsight, and knows that a 30 kn AON battlecruiser with 12x18in guns is the end goal, while accepting no substitutes. Who could have guessed that the development of fine mechanics would be able to make a box of gears and ratchets that would magically, yet reliably give you the directions how to shoot your guns?
Dreaming of such goals back in the early days would see the said minister of the navy hung on a lamp post by the hungry, unwashed masses, wishing for bread, soup, and reality TV over potentially useless superbattleships.
|
|