|
Post by mycophobia on May 21, 2019 11:09:31 GMT -6
the ability for quad turret to be split into two halves like Richelieu’s where, for a weight penalty you can have a chance of on losing half a turret( if that’s hard to code, make it harder to destroy)
Relatedly, option to put more distance between A and B superimposed turret, again for a weight penalty to reduce chance of 1 shot knocking out both
|
|
swang
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by swang on May 21, 2019 12:33:43 GMT -6
There's a bug report in the bug thread about all ships in the Almanac reporting as 18kn speed. It's not a bug.
Until you see the ship, the value defaults to 18kn. The Enemy Speed value then gets updated when you do meet it in battle. Which is all fine and dandy, but really, the entire class of ships should have their speed updated, not just the ship that we see.
Also, when blueprints are stolen, the entire class of ships gets updated. However, ships built after the stolen blueprints still has 18 kn. That should probably be revealed.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 21, 2019 14:23:17 GMT -6
There's a bug report in the bug thread about all ships in the Almanac reporting as 18kn speed. It's not a bug. Until you see the ship, the value defaults to 18kn. The Enemy Speed value then gets updated when you do meet it in battle. Which is all fine and dandy, but really, the entire class of ships should have their speed updated, not just the ship that we see. Also, when blueprints are stolen, the entire class of ships gets updated. However, ships built after the stolen blueprints still has 18 kn. That should probably be revealed. It is a bug. The speed was known, not exactly but about some knots - similar as it was done in RTW where it is right, as you have speed, but it could be slightly incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 21, 2019 16:32:18 GMT -6
I think that the point value discount on 'old' ships could use another look... ... because I really don't think that sinking a 23kn 5,500t CL commissioned in 1903 and lightly damaging one of its sisterships should be worth more than the loss of two 22kn 9,200t CAs commissioned 1903-1904 even if the CAs were kind of poor to begin with and my CLs were more recently refitted - certainly not by so much that the end-of-battle summary considers this to be a "major" victory for Russia.
If the Russian force had achieved its objective, then maybe I could see this as a Russian victory despite the loss of both of the CAs, but as it stands, one 5,500t protected cruiser sunk and one 5,500t protected cruiser lightly damaged to sink two near-contemporary 9,200t armored cruisers ought to have been a pretty major victory for me.
|
|
|
Post by yemo on May 21, 2019 17:52:24 GMT -6
1) More structure to the notifications window at the start of a turn. Even if categories are just tab-indented. And then let us select which type of messages are 0tab, 1tab, 2tabs, etc. Eg everything concerning nations x and y is 1 tab-indented. Or oil findings are 4 tabs indented.
2) A construction overview window like the raiding one, with the possibility to assign air groups from there.
|
|
|
Post by guino27 on May 21, 2019 21:49:20 GMT -6
One thing that has carried over from RTW 1 is that ships with heavy flotation damage will increase speed when detached. It would be nice to have a checkbox for that "division" to be like "Return to Port Safely", where the speed is kept below 10 kts so the captain doesn't turn his ship into submarine.
|
|
|
Post by amurtiger on May 21, 2019 22:14:36 GMT -6
The ability ( at cost ) to rip belts/decks off on refit. As is the large carrier conversion scheme ends up being fairly futile when converting from sensibly armored ships, perhaps leaving a ~10% weight penalty reflecting the added structure needed to support 10k tons of armor on the belt.
|
|
|
Post by woos13 on May 21, 2019 22:33:51 GMT -6
I suggest adding heavy strategic bombers to the RTW2, which would allow strategic bombing of enemy air bases, ports, and industrial facilities in strategic map mode, thus weakening the opponent's war capability.Ps: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 22, 2019 0:38:38 GMT -6
Should missiles be implemented, I propose that rocket launched depth charges and eventually torpedoes be added as ASW tech to replace K-Guns. We already know we'll be able to get "forward-facing ASW mortars." That sounds close enough to an RBU-6000 for me (yes, yes, I know the RBU and the Hedgehog were different, but the principle was the same; the only real difference was the propulsion method).
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 22, 2019 0:42:52 GMT -6
I suggest adding heavy strategic bombers to the RTW2, which would allow strategic bombing of enemy air bases, ports, and industrial facilities in strategic map mode, thus weakening the opponent's war capability.Ps: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned The thing is, the majority of strategic bombers were historically operated by the army or (where applicable) the air force. Since the player is the head of the navy, strategic bombers would fall outside of their control.
|
|
|
Post by woos13 on May 22, 2019 1:11:45 GMT -6
I suggest adding heavy strategic bombers to the RTW2, which would allow strategic bombing of enemy air bases, ports, and industrial facilities in strategic map mode, thus weakening the opponent's war capability.Ps: I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned The thing is, the majority of strategic bombers were historically operated by the army or (where applicable) the air force. Since the player is the head of the navy, strategic bombers would fall outside of their control. OK you are right! I just thought if Strategic bombing could takes the form of events beyond the player's control, or if player can spend prestige points advising the air force on bombing a specific target.This may enrich the gameplay
|
|
|
Post by elouda on May 22, 2019 4:05:31 GMT -6
Something that I missed in RTW1 and likewise here would be an extra option for 'Fleet Size' when creating, which would be 'Custom' and then allow you to enter the multiplier yourself for FleetSize (for example Very Large is 7 atm).
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on May 22, 2019 7:24:15 GMT -6
1) Eliminate the "Opposing sides did not make contact" early exit event (not sure of exact wording). 2) For late-day scenarios, start with search planes/airships already in the air. (this might necessitate some sort of change to setup and/or doctrine options so that players can specify what their search pattern was at dawn). 3) Have a "did you want to adjust search patterns and CAP" dialog pop up on the first time-advance click at the beginning of a scenario if the player hasn't looked at any CAP/search patterns (or always - it's not that big a burden). In RtW, it was almost always the case that running 5-10 minutes (20 at most) would cause contact to occur between fleets. In RtW2, this no longer seems to be the case - contact often doesn't happen until the orders are un-greyed out. I assume this is because scenarios with air range necessitates setups far beyond visual range in order to achieve first contact. I only have land-based air so far (both blimp and seaplane), but it appears so far that the search planes take off when the scenario starts, rather than at dawn. This leads to some problems: 1) Battles that just need a little while longer for ships to spot each other (due to lack of aircraft) are cut off. Last night I had a convoy attack mission where the fleet direction wasn't quite towards the objective. I ran for an hour in the spawned direction (thinking that was the direction to make contact), then turned towards the objective. Just as I got past it the "no contact" message came up and the scenario ended. The after-battle displayed showed that the enemy were actually inside my visual range circle - just a little longer would have resulted in contact. I like the "Fleets are a long way apart, do you want to end" message, since in that case it's futile to keep going, but it's frustrating to not be able to run a search pattern if you got unlucky in the initial contact. 2) Land-based air seems pretty useless due to short range of aircraft, but this is exacerbated for mid- or late-day starts by the aircraft not already being in the air (and thus potentially in the vicinity of the enemy at the scenario start). It feels like new "aerial search" phase is needed in scenario setup, where each search-plane source emits rays out from its start position, with the lengths of the rays being the "distance flown since dawn", with the origin being either the spawn location of the source (kludge, but probably good enough) or the backtracked position of the source at dawn (by simply moving it backwards the the distance traveled since dawn along the course). If a ray has a hit, the scenario start locations are backtracked to (just before) the moment of hit (with some "don't spawn in land" logic ), the start time is rolled back, and the scenario length is made longer to keep the same end time. This could happen after the CAP/search assignment at the beginning - the opposing forces would simply jump backwards in time if a pre-start contact was determined to be made.
|
|
ap817
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by ap817 on May 22, 2019 13:02:27 GMT -6
- At the end of WW2 to early post-war, countries developed 50 to 57mm guns for better than 37/40mm range and firepower. There could be an "Automatic 2in guns" tech that enabled 2in DP mounts that acted as supercharged medium AA or something. - AA batteries for naval bases just like shore batteries now. Also more important strategic bombing? Haven't gotten to late-game yet so no idea how big it is now. - Super Heavy AA-guns tech that boosts 6in AA performance against big bombers or enables them for land batteries or something to reflect 15cm AA gun development. US concluded post-war that the Type 5 guns were extremely high performance.
- Wasserfall-style and X-4 style manually LOS-guided missiles for late 40's tech.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 22, 2019 13:18:27 GMT -6
Display HAA factor in the design screen. I understand it is heavily influenced by tech and won't stay constant through the life of the ship, but it would be nice to be able compare the effectiveness of different calibers.
|
|