|
Post by noshurviverse on Dec 14, 2018 9:21:48 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this idea quite a bit, and decided to check out the details document to remind myself what gun 'quality' represents.
The result of this system is that the player both knows when it's possible to upgrade his guns as well as knowing exactly what the results of that upgrade will be. Combine this with the player knowing the rough march of technology and I'm sure many of us would agree that allowing directed research would give the player a massive advantage beyond what they already have. I can say that if we had a system like this I'd rush 6" gun advancement then direct all other gun research to large calibre weapons.
Allow me to pitch this idea: at the start of a game, each gun calibre will be assigned a handful of possible 'improvements', perhaps 5-10. These improvements would be largely randomized with the different gun qualities (range, ROF, accuracy, penetration, weight, ect). As the game progresses and the 'naval guns' category is researched, these improvements would be discovered and would be applied to future guns of this calibre. The effects of these upgrades could be viewed on the gun data page, so perhaps you're creating your new 1910 BB and need to pick your secondary armament. You go to the 6" guns you're used to using and check the gun data to find: •6" gun upgrades: +10% ROF (1 upgrade)
Somewhat displeased with this finding, you decide to check the 5" guns to see if they've stumbled into any improvements. •5" gun upgrades: +10% Range (1 upgrade), +25% penetration (3 upgrades), -10% weight (2 upgrades), -7.5% cost (1 upgrade)
Suddenly, the 5" guns seem to be a pretty attractive alternative. Perhaps they don't do quite as much damage, but they reach out as far and can punch through almost as much armor. What more, they've undergone 7 upgrades, meaning that it's both possible that they've still got room to expand or maybe they've maxed out the design early. On the other hand, the 6" guns have only gotten one upgrade, so you know for sure that they're gonna get better, but you don't know exactly how or when. Maybe you'll get a stacked draw and end up with a half dozen more ROF upgrades in the next 5 years. To add onto this idea, these upgrade possibilities could be different for each nation, so ordering a ship from a different nation because their gun manufactures have a real nifty style of gun could lead to interesting scenarios. And to relieve the frustration of an upgrade 'missing' your preferred calibre, perhaps each upgrade provides a minor benefit to adjacent calibres. So a gun manufacturer figuring out how to increase the range of their 4" guns also provides a lesser bonus to 3"/5" guns.
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 14, 2018 9:24:36 GMT -6
I'm not seeing a reason to take away "hindsight" if that's what players or a player wants.
If historicity is a priority, as a player I have been unable to build US standard Battleships by 1920, i.e. I can't lay down a Nevada class ship in 1920. The technology gods won't bequeath me superimposed B turrets, triple turrets or 14 inch guns by then. And I spend the max allowed on research and put high priority only on the areas that emphasise these features. Other nations all have their historical tech. Likewise, exploring any alternative option is impossible.
I don't gamble. I think it's stupid to put my money in a computer (slot machine) and let it choose what to give me back. I play simulation games. Again, as a player, I want to make choices. I want history to react to me as much as I react to history.
I also know more than a few professors at small colleges whose careers were ruined because they did not get the results required of them.
|
|
|
Post by director on Dec 14, 2018 9:26:21 GMT -6
What you are overlooking is that the projected requirements were not always met. The British 15" gun, pretty much a straight development from the 13.5", turned out to be a success despite its somewhat low caliber. The 16" gun, developed exactly to Admiralty specifications, was not. The 14" of the King George V class was a good gun, though lighter than the Admiralty preferred, but they stuck with it rather than put more of the old-model 16" guns at sea.
The US wanted a dual purpose 5" weapon and they got one. The British and other navies played around with guns of various sizes and never (to the end of WW2) did get one they liked. The Americans and British worked on rapid-firing autoloading guns and had very mixed results: the American 8" turned out okay but the 6" was a disaster and the 5" and 3" didn't work right until (I think) the 80s.
Moving into a different area, the Italians (and other navies) developed a 'crush-space' torpedo defense that actually would have worked pretty well - against torpedoes of the size that were in service at that time. Against new 'fish' with better weapons, the 'crush-zone' was actually worse than useless - it magnified the damage.
So if you are going to direct research into a specific weapon, you'll need to accept a heavy percentage chance that your developers get it wrong, that you get a weapon whose gun, mount, loading system or such is truly flawed... and then decide whether to try again or move on to something else. Agree to that and I'm with you, but if you want to direct research with your "20-20 Hindsight" glasses on and always get the result you expect, then I'm opposed.
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Dec 14, 2018 9:46:03 GMT -6
I don't understand what's so confusing. Hardlining for a specific choice would make the game boring since there would be no incentive to chose anything else outside of the players will. An element of randomness makes the game more enjoyable. Sometimes it's better to adapt to what you have, instead of changing what you have to adapt to you.
It's a game. For everyone else, the current results have been seen as satisfactory. The odds of it being altered in RTW2 is small. If you wish, maybe you could edit your config files to give you the options you want.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 14, 2018 10:54:44 GMT -6
I don't understand what's so confusing. Hardlining for a specific choice would make the game boring since there would be no incentive to chose anything else outside of the players will. An element of randomness makes the game more enjoying. Sometimes it's better to adapt to what you have, instead of changing what you have to adapt to you. It's a game. For everyone else, the current results have been seen as satisfactory. The odds of it being altered in RTW2 is small. If you wish, maybe you could edit your config files to give you the options you want. I fully agree. The variety and variation from the historical is what makes this game so fun to play.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Dec 14, 2018 12:44:04 GMT -6
at most perhaps actually equipping your ships with specific gun sizes might increase the possibility of your industry and military designing better versions of said guns, exponentially so during a war if said guns are used in battle and improvements or fixes are discovered through it's battle performance (if that's how gun research works)
if i never use 7" guns on my ships it might seem strange if my scientists were spending time making improvements of a gun my navy never uses
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 15, 2018 0:44:09 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. Yes, which is why a randomness factor is a good thing, along with the starting technologies and their research progression. But for some items the research results feel too random. If my battleship fleet is already armed with 14" and 16" main guns, discovering 13" or 15" seems pointless. I'd want an improved 16" and improved 14", since the infrastructure is already in place for those calibers. (And perhaps I'd be okay with a 17" or 18" new gun.) So, for some research categories, being able to offer a little direction to the research would be a welcome touch, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 15, 2018 0:50:38 GMT -6
I don't understand what's so confusing. Hardlining for a specific choice would make the game boring since there would be no incentive to chose anything else outside of the players will. An element of randomness makes the game more enjoyable. The key phrase there is an element of randomness. Right now it feels entirely random. That's too much in the direction opposite to research exactitude. Is it not possible to split the difference and come up with something which, for some technologies at least, offers the chance for inputting some direction while still retaining a randomness?
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 15, 2018 11:10:50 GMT -6
Research fails all the time. You certainly can direct, even demand on pain of death, that your engineers create a 15" gun and you'll likely get a 15" gun, but there's never a guarantee that your new 15" gun is good enough to actually install in a warship. Besides technical failures, research projects are canceled all the time by political or financial issues that are well beyond the control of the person that you represent in the game.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Dec 15, 2018 13:25:44 GMT -6
I don't understand what's so confusing. Hardlining for a specific choice would make the game boring since there would be no incentive to chose anything else outside of the players will. An element of randomness makes the game more enjoyable. The key phrase there is an element of randomness. Right now it feels entirely random. That's too much in the direction opposite to research exactitude. Is it not possible to split the difference and come up with something which, for some technologies at least, offers the chance for inputting some direction while still retaining a randomness? Here’s an idea. If naval gun research was more than a single category then “research larger calibers” could be split off. At a minimum, the calibers already researched could be split between large and small caliber guns. There could also be a medium caliber category. That should cut down on getting an improved 2” gun in 1940. Another, more in-depth option, would be the ability to turn off research for a certain number of already researched calibers, maybe 1/3.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Dec 15, 2018 15:25:12 GMT -6
Research fails all the time. You certainly can direct, even demand on pain of death, that your engineers create a 15" gun and you'll likely get a 15" gun, but there's never a guarantee that your new 15" gun is good enough to actually install in a warship. Besides technical failures, research projects are canceled all the time by political or financial issues that are well beyond the control of the person that you represent in the game. Yes but where is my option to bullheadedly throw good money after bad and give them another four years at the same budget?
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 15, 2018 15:28:31 GMT -6
Research fails all the time. You certainly can direct, even demand on pain of death, that your engineers create a 15" gun and you'll likely get a 15" gun, but there's never a guarantee that your new 15" gun is good enough to actually install in a warship. Besides technical failures, research projects are canceled all the time by political or financial issues that are well beyond the control of the person that you represent in the game. Yes but where is my option to bullheadedly throw good money after bad and give them another four years at the same budget? That's called building a 50,000t BB with 3 single 8" guns with no armour
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Dec 15, 2018 15:44:11 GMT -6
Yes but where is my option to bullheadedly throw good money after bad and give them another four years at the same budget? That's called building a 50,000t BB with 3 single 8" guns with no armour Did I post that design here?!? That wasn't meant for public consumption!
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 15, 2018 15:57:25 GMT -6
That's called building a 50,000t BB with 3 single 8" guns with no armour Did I post that design here?!? That wasn't meant for public consumption! Well, at least it only took 30 months to build!
|
|
|
Post by sittingduck on Dec 15, 2018 16:50:06 GMT -6
Did I post that design here?!? That wasn't meant for public consumption! Well, at least it only took 30 months to build! 22 months to build. One eight month refit to get it UP to 8" guns.
|
|