|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 2:47:31 GMT -6
I will create this thread as there things which are certainly not a bug but could be nice to have.
Armoured flight deck information - could be possible to show it in ship view (standard view after clicking on ship with "view data"/double click") similar as belt, deck, turret etc. armour. This is quite important information.
historical note: Axis known well that British "armoured carriers" had armoured flight deck and thus they were using AP/SAP bombs.
Radar Could be even good to have information on radar just under fire control.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 15, 2019 3:39:34 GMT -6
I'll take the opportunity and while I know that the testers already voted against it, I have to ask for..
(at least partial) Manual control for land-based air assets Do note that a part of my panic may be that so far at least three people reported that their bases are slacking off and noone reported AB's operating, but regardless of this, my opinion, as of now, stands still.
Why? In short: To access the game's new crown jewel feature, you HAVE to build carriers, even though it's "just" a different platform for the same capability you already have on paper.
The counterargument was that managing too many airfields is encumbering for the player. I'm not in place to argue with testers who played the game maybe hundreds of hours, but (...but I am doing it right now ) frankly, assessing the status of the different squadrons and ordering missions does seem pretty nicely implemented and not horribly time-, or attention-consuming. Besides, come on now, we are playing Rule the Waves, certainly just about everyone can spare that additional two-five minutes per battle.
This would be important in my book because currently, if you decide to go with land-based approach, which can be a sensible choice in many ways even if used not exclusively but parallel to a CV-contingent of secondary role, you are missing out big time. If the ABs are working properly currently, this might already be a feasible way of doing things not in a way of engaging gameplay, but in a way of efficiency, however a.) you are not using the features of the game yourself (remember why there is no "auto-calculating" for battles? For you to use the gameplay-elements...) b.) you are entirely at the mercy of the AI. (Granted, when you have CVs, you are at the mercy of the force selection.)
So, what would I honestly wish to do with ABs manually? While - for now... - I don't think that managing the bases is too much of a hassle in a game which is esentially turn based in the first place, and the ui dealing with this seems to be fairly well done in the second, I don't want to brush off the claims that yes, it is too distracting. Still I have to argue that - to quote a saying of my folks - you are dumping out the newborn baby with the bathwater. What could be done maybe? a.) Considering that apparently (and looking at some DevJournal AARs) this possibility WAS part of the game once - as such, I'm very likely not asking for something new -, maybe a checkbox in preferences for switching between AI and manual control of ABs would probably be the absolute best. b.) While I do not prefer this option, but an idea may be to link the possibility to the game's "control setting" - I mean, on Rear admiral's mode the player has direct control over ABs, on Admiral's mode he has not. c.) Handle it just like with any sea asset, IF it is possible, as the bases are(? - can't test it currently, I apologize) probably present in the OB. Right click on their flag to uncheck their "under AI control" tickbox, just like with any naval squadron (Their flag goes into square form), then their squadrons appear in the aerial missions tab. Put them into AI-control (flag goes triangular), and they do their thing just as they are supposedly doing right now.
In either case, it would be downright amazing if they could be delegated under a specific naval squadron and set to "support" role (again: akin to how CVs does this according to the manual) to order them to send CAP over the supported squadron.
Thank you for your attention and time.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 15, 2019 3:50:08 GMT -6
I suppose I'm curious about how difficult it would be for the team to add the ability to decide whether airbases are AI or player controlled. I understand the testers experienced difficulty trying to control them manually, but I would still appreciate the option of controlling them myself.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on May 15, 2019 3:50:36 GMT -6
I'll take the opportunity and while I know that the testers already voted against it, I have to ask for..
(at least partial) Manual control for land-based air assets Do note that a part of my panic may be that so far at least three people reported that their bases are slacking off and noone reported AB's operating, but regardless of this, my opinion, as of now, stands still.
Why? In short: To access the game's new crown jewel feature, you HAVE to build carriers, even though it's "just" a different platform for the same capability you already have on paper.
The counterargument was that managing too many airfields is encumbering for the player. I'm not in place to argue with testers who played the game maybe hundreds of hours, but (...but I am doing it right now ) frankly, assessing the status of the different squadrons and ordering missions does seem pretty nicely implemented and not horribly time-, or attention-consuming. Besides, come on now, we are playing Rule the Waves, certainly just about everyone can spare that additional two-five minutes per battle.
This would be important in my book because currently, if you decide to go with land-based approach, which can be a sensible choice in many ways even if used not exclusively but parallel to a CV-contingent of secondary role, you are missing out big time. If the ABs are working properly currently, this might already be a feasible way of doing things not in a way of engaging gameplay, but in a way of efficiency, however a.) you are not using the features of the game yourself (remember why there is no "auto-calculating" for battles? For you to use the gameplay-elements...) b.) you are entirely at the mercy of the AI. (Granted, when you have CVs, you are at the mercy of the force selection.)
So, what would I honestly wish to do with ABs manually? While - for now... - I don't think that managing the bases is too much of a hassle in a game which is esentially turn based in the first place, and the ui dealing with this seems to be fairly well done in the second, I don't want to brush off the claims that yes, it is too distracting. Still I have to argue that - to quote a saying of my folks - you are dumping out the newborn baby with the bathwater. What could be done maybe? a.) Considering that apparently (and looking at some DevJournal AARs) this possibility WAS part of the game once - as such, I'm very likely not asking for something new -, maybe a checkbox in preferences for switching between AI and manual control of ABs would probably be the absolute best. b.) While I do not prefer this option, but an idea may be to link the possibility to the game's "control setting" - I mean, on Rear admiral's mode the player has direct control over ABs, on Admiral's mode he has not. c.) Handle it just like with any sea asset, IF it is possible, as the bases are(? - can't test it currently, I apologize) probably present in the OB. Right click on their flag to uncheck their "under AI control" tickbox, just like with any naval squadron (Their flag goes into square form), then their squadrons appear in the aerial missions tab. Put them into AI-control (flag goes triangular), and they do their thing just as they are supposedly doing right now.
In either case, it would be downright amazing if they could be delegated under a specific naval squadron and set to "support" role (again: akin to how CVs does this according to the manual) to order them to send CAP over the supported squadron.
Thank you for your attention and time.
The reason land airbases are not player controlled is that historically, cooperation between land air assets and naval forces was often not very good. Also, playtesting showed that a player controlling all airfields on the map could coordinate devastating strikes on any naval force in the area. The player is able to have a much greater level of control than was ever achieved by historical forces. This gave land based air a much greater impact than it had in reality.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on May 15, 2019 4:15:44 GMT -6
The reason land airbases are not player controlled is that historically, cooperation between land air assets and naval forces was often not very good. I understand, but I still wish it would be modeled some other way. A serious lag in the communication chain, strikes steering off course, something. My main issue is that the current method suffocates the naval AB-focus and kind of forces the player towards carriers when - in a way also historically - they made no sense. The player doesn't have to be almighty, just engaged.
Again - fair enough, but from one end of the spectrum we lunged to the other. Can't we come up with a different solution? The game already features a proximity-feature in the default rear admiral's mode, so the player can only issue orders directly to units he has communications estabilished with. Would this not work with ABs? This way, the player couldn't control ALL bases, but only bases in "radio-distance" (this could even justify a tech branch). I honestly think this would be a great compromise both for gameplay and historical authenticity. Other factors could aso be present; ABs should not show 100% avability either, they could have maintenance problems, they could have "losses from earlier engagements", they could have "squadrons delegated to another missions already, thus not available" - so just as with naval assets, random could be a factor. Hell, as the starting base capacity is 20, might as well could be 6 or 4 for example.
So it's not that I don't understand the concerns, however I think the decision to esentially and simply cut the control entirely makes ABs much less desirable to deal with, and it pains me because the game mechanics that could handle this is already present. Currently, if a player wants to go down on a historically fairly sound way, he does not have access to a significant part of the game. It's a funny thing, because as for RtW1, pretty much everyone and his mother dabbled in dreadnoughts in one way or another, even if they had to sell their kidneys for it, and while "everyone" had aircrafts, it's really not the case for carriers. Ultimately, this is why I think that "THE feature" should be aircrafts rather than carriers, may it sound however idiotic maybe.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 15, 2019 4:16:23 GMT -6
Also, playtesting showed that a player controlling all airfields on the map could coordinate devastating strikes on any naval force in the area. The player is able to have a much greater level of control than was ever achieved by historical forces. This gave land based air a much greater impact than it had in reality. Thanks for this. William had said in another thread that the workload of controlling land-based air in addition to naval assets was too much during playtesting, which I'm sure you can understand had a lot of us wishing we could opt into that workload.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 5:05:57 GMT -6
Air group window
Is it possible to double click on any squadron open "aircraft types" with filter of selected type of aircraft.
Right know I need to close this window, and open "aircraft types"
Aircraft types Is this possible to cancel comparison without closing and reopening window?
Aicraft operations Get knowledge that squadron has land and available to other task. Right know it is just manually need to click and check, if I have available squadron. It could be good to inform player about that.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 15, 2019 5:22:55 GMT -6
The reason land airbases are not player controlled is that historically, cooperation between land air assets and naval forces was often not very good. Also, playtesting showed that a player controlling all airfields on the map could coordinate devastating strikes on any naval force in the area. The player is able to have a much greater level of control than was ever achieved by historical forces. This gave land based air a much greater impact than it had in reality. It's a good argument for army airbases, which are not paid from by the navy budget and which have airplanes that are not paid from by the navy budget nor very effective against ships. But I think that there are multiple examples of Navy airbases and Navy bombers being used in excellent coordination with the Navy task-forces to have a large impact historically. Coordinating devastating strikes on naval forces in an area of Naval operations sounds like exactly what happened to Prince of Wales and Repulse of Malaya historically, or what happened to the countless of Japanese warships and convoys that got caught in the open within range of Guadalcanal Airfield in daylight. The Navy submarine I-65 spotted PoW & Repluse and two hours later the sighting report was in the hands of the commander of the land based airgroup that would later sink them. Another 2 hours the Bombers had been reloaded with Torpedoes and prepared. The Navy submarine I-58 also spotted the Battleships in the early morning hours before the date they were sunk, and this report was very quickly in the hands of the land based airflotilla commander who acted and send out searchplanes and the strike group that sunk them at dawn. Source: An interview with Captain Sonokawa, Kameo, IJN Flight Leader of Genzan Air Corps: www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/pilot.htmlFor RTW2, would it be possible to consider: - Making it an option to manually control land based air - Increase the cost of air by X% for balance reasons when manually controlled - Decrease the availability/reliability/preparation times and so on for balance reasons when manually controlled ( They can take many hours more to prepare a strike than CV air ) - Decrease the navigational accuracy of where the land based air-groups go vs where they were ordered to for balance reasons when manually controlled. ( They can end up many miles of the target ) I think it would make alot more sense if land based air could be controlled but had other aspects reduced ( cost, availability, navigation ) to make them balanced and still give Carrier Air a historical edge.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 15, 2019 6:33:31 GMT -6
Maybe it's just disabled by the demo version, but I'd like to be able to change the class name in the rebuild dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 7:58:21 GMT -6
Armour penetration table
Is it possible in case of inclined belt is selected to show penetration including inclined belt, so "armour thickness used" is belt armour + 10 %.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 15, 2019 8:45:58 GMT -6
Can the limit on turret armor be raised to be at least equal to the limit on belt armor, if it isn't already so in the full version?
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 15, 2019 9:12:59 GMT -6
Can the limit on turret armor be raised to be at least equal to the limit on belt armor, if it isn't already so in the full version? Same conning tower.
And just question. During refit to CVL conning tower is not replaced which is quite strange as it should be completely replaced in such refit.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 15, 2019 12:24:12 GMT -6
(Note: moved from its own thread because I didn't notice this thread).
I set a target for an airstrike but decided to delay launching until I had better information. Somewhat later I got a positive contact, but forgot to change the target before pressing "Launch"--I realized the mistake before leaving the screen, but after updating the target I couldn't re-launch that strike--I had to stand it down and ready it again. It would be nice to allow re-launching at a different target until the first turn advance.
|
|
|
Post by peregrine on May 15, 2019 12:44:11 GMT -6
Can you expand the "Base overview" tab to include Airship bases, MTB squadrons, and coastal fortifications on top of the Airbases already presented there?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 15, 2019 13:23:40 GMT -6
(Note: moved from its own thread because I didn't notice this thread). I set a target for an airstrike but decided to delay launching until I had better information. Somewhat later I got a positive contact, but forgot to change the target before pressing "Launch"--I realized the mistake before leaving the screen, but after updating the target I couldn't re-launch that strike--I had to stand it down and ready it again. It would be nice to allow re-launching at a different target until the first turn advance. I seem to recall this was mentioned by a beta tester sometime very recently - I'll make sure it gets it in the suggestions thread for Fredrik & Beta Dudes ©. Thanks!
|
|