|
Post by dizzy on Jan 28, 2019 20:30:28 GMT -6
Currently in RTW there's one battle per turn plus a raider mission even if at war with everyone. What I'd like to see is if you are at war with multiple nations, you'd instead have one battle per turn per each nation at war with you per area. So if at war with 3 nations, you'd get 3 battles, one with each nation per turn per area. If all your ships are in one area, then you'd get the default of one battle plus a raider mission per turn. Simple, eh?
I just had a game RTW where I was allied to 2 nations and at war with 4. Yet, despite huge fleets and multiple theaters everywhere... I only had one battle a month, and maybe a raider mission. It seemed... wrong. The whole game mechanic seemed to fail me at this point as it was so limiting. I was really hoping for more, and instead was quite disappointed how one mission a turn along with submarine warfare ended the war without any serious fighting. I felt like the game could have offered so much more and it was a huge let down.
It doesn't make much sense building these huge fleets and then not getting to use them when you're at war with multiple nations. Can you guys fix that? Seems broken.
Edited for spelling and added 'area' to title.
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Jan 28, 2019 21:08:16 GMT -6
I know for sure there isn't a 1 battle limit for each turn, I was just playing a japan game and I had an average of 2-3 battles a turn, none of them raider. And this was with a fleet spread across three different zones, and at war with a singke nation.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jan 28, 2019 22:28:12 GMT -6
I know for sure there isn't a 1 battle limit for each turn, I was just playing a japan game and I had an average of 2-3 battles a turn, none of them raider. And this was with a fleet spread across three different zones, and at war with a singke nation. That's jot been my experience at all. Hrmmm.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Jan 28, 2019 22:36:32 GMT -6
And actually that hasn't been my experience either. Perhaps, saden, you mean 'offered' battles, not accepted? dizzy, there has been discussion about what conditions might give rise to multiple actions/turn, but it has only been discussed at this point. But you can at least be reassured in that it is being talked about.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jan 28, 2019 23:55:57 GMT -6
Thank you for the response. You've already got my money for RTW2, because I love the 1st one so much. But... If I were to review this game... and do my due diligence by playing a WHOLE campaign from start to finish before writing it, here's what I'd say about the above, ::cough, cough, needs category fields in drop down menus, cough cough:: "... playing RTW in the end is like a bad drug. You get completely high off all the features of the game, how they are interwoven in a tapestry of kaleidoscope fractals that somehow all makes sense of why you haven't slept in 5 days, haven't heard from your girlfriend and don't care, and you've probably been fired from your job, but none of that matters because you're about to have the 'prefect campaign' and take over the world. Problem is, every high comes crashing down, and does it ever in RTW.
After you've managed to make it through all the pitfalls that have doomed your previous games, diplomacy, budget issues, ship construction, design escalation, war and rebuilding, this time you've skillfully and craftily prepared your nation for the final conflict, but does RTW deliver? No. Instead, that loose thread in all the glory that is this game unravels in stunning fashion for it's inability to deliver everything you've struggled for thus far. You want to fight with the navy you've built and RTW's limit of one battle/turn is a huge let down on the expectation for why you've even built a huge fleet. With the world starkly coming back into focus, a nervous desperation settles upon you. Do you call your girlfriend back, your boss, or sleep? Reality's a bitch and RTW isn't any different." So there ya go! I was pretty disappointed in how it failed to deliver in the end and I HOPE you guys change it, because this game deserves a happy ending.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 29, 2019 2:06:49 GMT -6
So, in WW1 we had all of the nations represented in RTW at war with each other, and how many sea battles per month were there?
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Jan 29, 2019 2:21:34 GMT -6
Sounds like a realistic depiction of WWI at sea, then. The run-up to war was more interesting than the war itself.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jan 29, 2019 2:58:21 GMT -6
Obviously there's the issue behind closed doors of feasibility... which if limited to one battle, per nation at war, per area, that would limit the number of battles right there. No multiple battles in the same area. I have no clue on if the RTW engine can do that, but it already does 2 per turn, so 3 or 4... maybe it could. The other question is do you want to do this? There's the school of thought that the turn based part of the game is better than too many tactical battles which could slow down the brisk pace of progress the turn based part has with only 2 battles per turn. However, to counter this, the whole point of building a large fleet is to use it and experience the fleet battles all over the map which is the whole point of fighting for and defending possessions. So lots to consider, but for those that don't like more than 1 battle per turn plus a raider mission, then just don't be at war with 3+ nations. Being at war with 2 nations would still give you the same number of battles with my idea, although I'd amend even that to have a Raider mission on top of it. Both, turn based and tactical play are excellent parts of the whole, and there's just not enough of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 29, 2019 3:06:03 GMT -6
So, in WW1 we had all of the nations represented in RTW at war with each other, and how many sea battles per month were there? In RTW 1 era it works quite well (real history). One of the reasons was that UK and France blockade all nations (Germany, A-H, Turkey). But in RTW2 era it could be more complex. USN operate in Pacific and in Atlantic/Mediterranean/"RN Home fleet". But what is change the most is power projection. In time of RTW2 with carriers it is much easier to hit and run.
If you compare of "missions" in time of WW1 and WW2 it is complete different, navies did not remain in port, they were activelly fighting. Even Axis till the Allied get upper hand on seas. In history it was approximetly 1 engement per month per UK or USN, I think (not taking into considaration submarines). But it was real engement so there is no considaration that fleet does not meet.
But in RTW2 it could be even more complex as the power of naval fighting forces could be even more equal than it was in history. Especially if colonial powers is fighting each other, so operations could be in more areas at one time.
Another points: A lot of engagements were between light forces
In RTW the casualties are higher than it was in real history (players can focus on sinking damaged ships which in real history was much more complicated to do so)
In RTW2 era if one side is winning and has superior numbers they can completely annihilate/disabled enemy navy by air power. It was not possible in RTW timeframe.
Conclusion:
It gets interesting conclusion that more battles per 1 month could be available but it would probably decrease "quality of play" of RTW2 so 1 real engagement per month is still probably best. (note: interesting because I thought that more battles would help RTW2 beforer this summary)
Note: May be as time progress different style of battles should occur. In case of UK more convoy battles, in case of invasions in Pacific, more battles to support this etc. Question arise if the blockade should be still as easy as in RTW, just having more ships/points.
Question: Would be port strikes available as one type possible battle types?
|
|
saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on Jan 29, 2019 4:10:55 GMT -6
And actually that hasn't been my experience either. Perhaps, saden , you mean 'offered' battles, not accepted? dizzy , there has been discussion about what conditions might give rise to multiple actions/turn, but it has only been discussed at this point. But you can at least be reassured in that it is being talked about. Offered, yes.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jan 29, 2019 4:54:56 GMT -6
Alternatively, if the RTW Team decides to NOT add more battles per turn per nation at war per area, gonna call that 'bptpnawpa', so as a compromise to get more bptpnawpa happens, can we please ditch the Raider mission and get two real battles vs random nations you're at war with? Not like I'm asking for the moon here. But doing that seems the best of both worlds. But I really want more bptpnawpa!
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jan 29, 2019 14:34:04 GMT -6
One naval battle per month will give you far more battles in an RTW war than were ever fought historically, even in WW2. If anything, the rate of battles is too high in RTW compared to reality.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Jan 29, 2019 14:40:31 GMT -6
i'm confused about the '1 battle and 1 raider mission' per turn - if i play or auto the raider mission the battles for the turn are always over for me
actually i'm pretty sure there is some sort of bug whenever i auto a raider mission because it immediately goes to the next turn without giving me the end of turn notes
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jan 29, 2019 15:21:33 GMT -6
Unless an autoresolve feature is implemented for all battle types (and probably even if an autoresolve feature is implemented for all battle types; given my experience with autoresolve functions in other games, I'm less than certain I'd be willing to trust it except for engagements that usually don't really matter one way or the other for whatever reason - such as when an inexpensive surface raider gets intercepted), I'm against having more battles per turn in wartime. Large battles usually take a lot of time, even small battles can drag on for a while depending on what you get and what you're trying to accomplish, and having a bunch of coastal raids or similarly long and slow engagements in a row would get old fast. Same. I can't recall ever seeing a standard battle scenario offered after playing/auto-resolving a raider interception, or vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jan 29, 2019 15:24:44 GMT -6
If you look at the number of battles/destroyer actions/cruiser actions/raider battles (as I'm guessing they'd be seen in RtW2) in WW2, and then look at the number of months, and take into account that you're only playing as one nation (so you don't need to play _all_ the battles, just all the battles for the US, Britain or Japan, say) then 1/month has you covered just fine. There will be the odd situation where things happened concurrently historically that RtW2 won't be able to handle all in the same month, but I don't think there's a lot of value of trying to add in new systems to allow for 'crunch months' (for example, the air vs naval actions around Crete took place at the same time, more-or-less, as the Battle of the Denmark Strait and the hunt for the Bismarck) as game-wise having these one month after the other works just fine, and is likely easier for the player to digest. This goes doubly as I doubt, highly, any game starting in 1900 or 1925 is going to look a whole lot like WW2 did historically, in terms of the pacing (or even nations lining up).
|
|