|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 10, 2019 1:10:35 GMT -6
It varies immensely, as would any play-through in year 37. In my game above over Half the play time has been under limitation treaties.
Rest assured, the economics start at proper levels and then evolve organically- just like a RTW1 game.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 20, 2019 22:18:08 GMT -6
Well. Well well well. In true Samurai fashion, the Kongo's sacrifice and the bare end of the IJN's submarine arm has won for the Emperor a mighty victory. First France collapsed, and then after fighting another year-or-so, America's president was impeached and they sued for peace. Nazi Germany then laid down its arms, though they yielded no territory. However, if you will note the bottom-most Red figure. During the war (and between Alpha versions) costs for supporting aircraft were finally introduced. As I was at war I could afford them. However, with peace, clearly harsh measures are required. We scrapped 4 CLs, the 3 surviving 1st generation CVLs, 1 CA, the 3 1st generation BCs (really semi-DNs), and all the remaining pre-dreadnoughts. The two replacement Kongos building in the UK were placed on Hold, research reduced to 1%, 10 med-range Submarines under construction were halted, and nearly 40 small CLs and DDs put in mothballs. The emperor can boast 1 Capital Ship, and Zero carriers. In 1939. And no military budget at all. So, can we stay at peace long enough to actually build a Navy? Time will only tell!
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 20, 2019 23:06:11 GMT -6
I have to ask, what is the plan for the "range" stat? I always felt that it was a bit of a weak element of RtW1, since you could end up with rather odd situations like ships not being able to move across areas they logically should, even with a short range. Spain playthroughs could get painful if your new short-range flagship got completed in wartime with Italy/A-H.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 20, 2019 23:30:34 GMT -6
Bah, it's only a deficit of 24 million and change each month, with fully two million and change in the reserve fund. Surely no loyal warrior of the Emperor would blanch at such minor economic troubles as these. The emperor can boast 1 Capital Ship, and Zero carriers. In 1939. And no military budget at all. Revanchist America, time for Round 2. Time to liberate Guam, the Aleutians, Hawaii, and ... Midway, I think; looks too close to Hawaii to be Wake Island. Considering your financial situation, I'm surprised you kept the Takasagos; they don't seem like they'd be worth much this late in the game, and there seem to be enough of them for their individually-low costs to add up to something reasonably significant.
Also a bit surprised that you have new-build Takasagos dating to more than twenty years after the first was commissioned. Even if the original class has been comprehensively modernized, I'd expect a new design to have enough advantages to be more attractive than yet more ships built to the old design by the 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 21, 2019 1:39:51 GMT -6
Considering your financial situation, I'm surprised you kept the Takasagos; they don't seem like they'd be worth much this late in the game, and there seem to be enough of them for their individually-low costs to add up to something reasonably significant.
Also a bit surprised that you have new-build Takasagos dating to more than twenty years after the first was commissioned. Even if the original class has been comprehensively modernized, I'd expect a new design to have enough advantages to be more attractive than yet more ships built to the old design by the 1930s.
Eh, that was laziness simply alacrity on my part. The Navy Minister demanded 10 cruisers, and at the time I was trying to afford my modern BBs (that were soon scrapped by treaty) so I simply re-built the cheap cruiser I already had designs for from the Last demand for cruisers. They will definitely go as soon as I can afford to scrap them. Bear in mind that since the goal is to "test air" I was pretty much in 'play as fast as possible' mode. I really, Really rue losing the 4 fleet carriers I had building to the the THIRD disarmament treaty. (no, treaties are not more likely in RTW2, this is just the 1 in 100 freakish occurrence)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 21, 2019 4:39:27 GMT -6
What does mean column between "status" and "maintenance"?
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 21, 2019 5:01:53 GMT -6
What does mean column between "status" and "maintenance"?
I reckon Crew Quality.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 21, 2019 11:21:10 GMT -6
Correct. I had compressed the columns on another screen and not re-aligned them. (maybe remembering page formatting screen-to-screen should be a thing...)
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 21, 2019 11:23:57 GMT -6
What does mean column between "status" and "maintenance"?
I reckon Crew Quality.
Correct, it shows crew quality.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 21, 2019 11:57:33 GMT -6
I have to ask, what is the plan for the "range" stat? I always felt that it was a bit of a weak element of RtW1, since you could end up with rather odd situations like ships not being able to move across areas they logically should, even with a short range. Spain playthroughs could get painful if your new short-range flagship got completed in wartime with Italy/A-H. "Range" I think will continue to function as is. There is a trade off of advantages for S vs M, and that is where most player's experience will end (unless they are very observant). Obviously more could be done, and fleet replenishment could make use of it, but the "fleet train" matter is still yet to be put in place.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 22, 2019 3:53:36 GMT -6
"Range" I think will continue to function as is. There is a trade off of advantages for S vs M, and that is where most player's experience will end (unless they are very observant). Obviously more could be done, and fleet replenishment could make use of it, but the "fleet train" matter is still yet to be put in place. It's a real shame to use such crude range definitions as S vs M, when we got a ship designer capable of going down to the smallest few tons of displacement priority and a combat map where actual ranges your ships can go from the base in full combat speed could play such a crucial role, especially for smaller screens and in the era before on-sea refueling. And even more so when we now will get weapons capable of striking against the enemy fuel storages in their bases ( the missed opportunity of the 3:ed strike at Pearl harbor ). Having accurate fuel tracked could add a bit of complexity, true. But I think the additional tactical considerations during combat and strategical considerations for base buildup and capturing oil sources could easily be worth it. There are few historical battles in WW2 where fuel or refueling played no role, especially in theaters like the Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on Jan 22, 2019 3:59:48 GMT -6
Thank you for the pictures. I do like the fact that there is a logical arrangement of secondary batteries on your Kongos Agreed! Fredrik must have done some new things with the programming to ensure that the secondary turrets aren't just symmetrically paired up on either side of the middle of the ship. Kudos to Fredrik and the RTW2 team!
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 25, 2019 8:00:22 GMT -6
1949, in battle with the Soviets- I finally replaced the Kongo, with the largest ship in the world. Unfortunately, the economic straits caused me to run at 1% research for several years, so no radar fire-control yet, only surface detection. So, first action- of course, night.
The night-time Soviet air attacks are an AI kink to be worked out yet.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 25, 2019 8:24:17 GMT -6
Oof! That... will not be a pleasant talk with the Emperor. Then again, she went down as tradition dictates.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jan 25, 2019 8:24:24 GMT -6
Honestly, without radar fire control 12inch belt is way too low for a BC/BB of that size and value.
|
|