|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 15, 2018 16:54:26 GMT -6
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. That would have the entire Grand Fleet quaking in their boots!
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 16, 2018 1:41:12 GMT -6
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.
Both of those are good suggestions. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about, some sense of directing the focus of research while still allowing for lots of randomness that allows for good replay value.
One other thought: I would love to see historically accurate research trees for each nation as an option. So in addition to the general research tree that all nations can access, there'd be an option in game setup to enable research trees appropriate to each nation as was the case historically. I think that might add an interesting challenge, particularly for smaller nations which, in real life, were usually fighting an uphill battle in terms of the technology race. If nation-specific historic research trees couldn't be included directly in the game, if they could be put in as user mods, that'd be fine too.
|
|
|
Post by MateDow on Dec 17, 2018 0:33:53 GMT -6
One way to implement it might be to have priority drop down menus (low/med/high) in the same fashion that we get for the regular research. You could set you priorities for high for the one that you like, but you will still get other calibers on a less frequent basis. Maintains the randomness while still allowing for some direction by the CinC.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Dec 17, 2018 4:13:51 GMT -6
I have to admit that I actually like this randomness. Yes, it can be frustrating when you have to refit all the small ships abroad as local scientists can't comprehend the idea of mine rails in 1920s or getting all the guns upgraded EXCEPT the ones you want. But IMHO that's the point. You work with what you get. You are not a Stalin of the Navy as some here imagine, freely ruling over everything and controlling your scientists like a villain from a Bond movie. You already have more control than navy officials in most countries did historically, having both ability to design, approve projects, assign financing to them and lead navy in battle. The government is working behind the scenes, the army fights and wins or looses in land battles, economy goes up and down and scientists occasionally provide some new discoveries. Yes, this system is limiting to the player. Again, that's the point. Players should be limited so they can't min-max all the time. So they have to think what could be done in given situation. You want to turn RTW into HoI4, and bring in all the problems HoI has. Back to guns - the system is heavily abstracted here. We do not know what -1, 0, +1 means, besides it giving better ballistic qualities to the gun. Is it longer barrel? +0.5in calibre? Better train engines and recoil absorbers, etc?
Why do you assume players should always get what they are wishing for? Maybe gun makers try and fail to create designs sufficiently better than what you already have? Maybe you get new guns in preferred calibres every other year, but they are simply not much better than the ones you already have?
Just like UK pom-poms or German 37mm AAs were worse than same calibre Bofors guns, or WW I german 12in gun was much better than British gun of same size.
I'd say I like to see a +2 in RTW2 that is super rare so each country get no more than 1-3 such improved calibres per game (maybe even a hard limit?) to represent those legendary guns like UK 15in, GER 88mm, USA 5in etc.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 17, 2018 13:06:11 GMT -6
One way to implement it might be to have priority drop down menus (low/med/high) in the same fashion that we get for the regular research. You could set you priorities for high for the one that you like, but you will still get other calibers on a less frequent basis. Maintains the randomness while still allowing for some direction by the CinC. That's a good suggestion too. It would give just enough sense of focus while retaining plenty of variability.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 17, 2018 13:14:50 GMT -6
Yes, this system is limiting to the player. Again, that's the point. Players should be limited so they can't min-max all the time. So they have to think what could be done in given situation. You want to turn RTW into HoI4, and bring in all the problems HoI has.
Except that's NOT what I'm asking for. As I have said repeatedly, randomness is not the problem per se, it's the AMOUNT of randomness. Other than setting priority, there is NO direction at all to research. That seems both unrealistic and putting the player too much at the mercy of a random number generator. It should be possible, at least for some research categories, to offer some direction. Not complete exactness, not certainty of the results, but just a little direction, to shift the RNG somewhat toward the items the player thinks most important.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 17, 2018 14:03:26 GMT -6
Yes, this system is limiting to the player. Again, that's the point. Players should be limited so they can't min-max all the time. So they have to think what could be done in given situation. You want to turn RTW into HoI4, and bring in all the problems HoI has.
Except that's NOT what I'm asking for. As I have said repeatedly, randomness is not the problem per se, it's the AMOUNT of randomness. Other than setting priority, there is NO direction at all to research. That seems both unrealistic and putting the player too much at the mercy of a random number generator. It should be possible, at least for some research categories, to offer some direction. Not complete exactness, not certainty of the results, but just a little direction, to shift the RNG somewhat toward the items the player thinks most important.
Perhaps what would be best would be to have a few (perhaps 3?) sub-categories on major research points such as gun models, aeroplanes, ship design and leave it as it was for simpler points like torpedoes and fire control. That way, there wouldn't be too much control but you can direct major parts. Specific events might be a good idea. For example:
The Admiralty R&D team has come up with 3 proposals for your consideration. The [Nation Leader] is very interested in this project. However, they only have the personel to develop one.
Naval gun - We think that our x inch gun can be improved by [one level]. This is currently being fitted to our [ship class] ships and could be exchanged now. (Adds 2 months to building times +Improved gun +Prestige) Aeroplane - A new bomber can be built for catapult launch and flat deck recovery. It can be integrated into our new carriers. (+Improved bomber) Ship design - We can develop a new type of triple turret but no ships are equipped with them at the moment so we can't carry out experiments. We will therefore need more money. (+Improved turret -Budget) Money worries - "Nope! Can't afford it. Go back to your day jobs!" (+Budget --Prestige 30% chance of anger from government)
|
|