|
Post by epsilon19 on May 23, 2019 6:32:20 GMT -6
There are very few countries to play for the 1920 start date, so I would be interested in seeing more minors, such as Yugoslavia in the place of AH, for the 1920 start date.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on May 23, 2019 10:35:35 GMT -6
Update the WW2 and later classification requirements of Light cruisers so that ships that historically were built of this class will fit into this class also ingame ( instead of being flagged as CA ). I suggest increasing the tonnage and belt armor criteria for when ships become CA instead of CL from 10000 / 3" to somewhere about 12-16k ton / 5-6" belt, somewhere around 1935-40 See more info of list were 13/15 historical CL ships ingame classify as CA: nws-online.proboards.com/post/45785/thread
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 23, 2019 10:55:21 GMT -6
This is a very small thing, but I'd like to have some way to design a ship such that it has 3 turrets mounted forward of the superstructure, but with only the 3rd turret superfiring (like the Mogami and Worcester classes, among others). This is already possible aft (using the V, W and Y mounts together), but it's not possible forwards; you have to live with the A, B, L "pyramid" arrangement. I realise that what I'm suggesting is a tiny thing that would have little/no effect on gameplay, but I've always felt that that layout looks neater than the pyramid arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on May 23, 2019 11:39:53 GMT -6
Some better control over CAP would be nice. In my current scenario I have a single 'main' force, although it comprises a cruiser division and a distant carrier group in the baltic. With the huge enemy air presence I set CAP to maximum, but the game has decided to put all but a single fighter over the cruisers. A single fighter patrols over the carrier, which is now being swarmed by enemy land-based aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by nuclearnadal on May 23, 2019 12:52:52 GMT -6
Don't know if someone has suggested these yet but,
More sub techs, nuclear subs, tech that reduces sub losses to ships and aircraft, etc. Reason being is that subs just become useless after 1950 imo, they get sunk way to fast, like 11 per month from 130 subs total for limited returns.
Also would like to see autoloading 8in guns much like the Des Moines guns.
Also what about SONAR?
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 23, 2019 12:53:44 GMT -6
Some better control over CAP would be nice. In my current scenario I have a single 'main' force, although it comprises a cruiser division and a distant carrier group in the baltic. With the huge enemy air presence I set CAP to maximum, but the game has decided to put all but a single fighter over the cruisers. A single fighter patrols over the carrier, which is now being swarmed by enemy land-based aircraft. Maybe we could have 2 versions of CAP; a "local" CAP for maintaining fighters over the carrier(s), and a "targeted" CAP for protecting another division. Then, just set the levels manually (obviously, the "targeted" CAP would have to be able to be turned off, unlike "local" CAP.
|
|
|
Post by thesovietonion on May 23, 2019 13:01:09 GMT -6
I like this idea. I'd also like to add some more generic control over divisions outside my direct command to a wishlist. Here we see the US surface fleet in the baltic, facing massed land based air and a blockaded enemy alliance. I have turned my entire fleet North, to gain distance and rely on my offensive airpower to win the day rather than massed gun lines. You can see to the South one of my BB divisions and its escorting screens has decided it would rather sit and duel with coastal batteries while the enemy continually sortie aircraft against them. gyazo.com/2242724d83975465af233dec90433496gyazo.com/abd29ca9a1e558ef1d458c96d192d4cb
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 23, 2019 13:46:56 GMT -6
I like this idea. I'd also like to add some more generic control over divisions outside my direct command to a wishlist. Here we see the US surface fleet in the baltic, facing massed land based air and a blockaded enemy alliance. I have turned my entire fleet North, to gain distance and rely on my offensive airpower to win the day rather than massed gun lines. You can see to the South one of my BB divisions and its escorting screens has decided it would rather sit and duel with coastal batteries while the enemy continually sortie aircraft against them. gyazo.com/2242724d83975465af233dec90433496gyazo.com/abd29ca9a1e558ef1d458c96d192d4cbI second this. I just had a battle (in the demo). I had to destroy a bombardment target with 2 light cruisers. I fired literally every shell on both my ships without destroying it. There was a support force of another cruiser and a destroyer, but no, they'd rather wander off and come back just in time to finish a lone merchant ship than do what we actually came here to do. Oh, and icing on the cake, the support force cruiser goes and gets itself sunk by an enemy sub as we're disengaging, so, even though we sank all of the enemy merchants, chased their lone destroyer into port and heavily damaged the bombardment target... it was still a minor victory for the enemy.
Another suggestion; make it so that, rather than a magic 8k points for destroying the bombardment target, make it worth 8k points for destroying it and give the player a portion of that for damaging it, the same way as ships work.
EDIT: For context, here's an idea of how much damage to the target:
Attachment Deleted
Attachment Deleted
This was worth a grand total of 230 points, out of 2774 damage points done by my team. each of the 4 merchants was worth almost 3 times that (though, admittedly, they were sunk). I feel like, under most circumstances, a bombardment target damaged this badly should be worth at least half the points you get for destroying it.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on May 23, 2019 15:22:08 GMT -6
Long-term, I'd like to see a mechanic added for taking disabled ships under tow. This sort of thing was done, and creates quite a dilemma for the player, whether to risk functional ships to try to save disabled ones. Related to this, an option to scuttle might be a good idea as well.
Another thing I'd like to see would be some sort of abstracted mechanic for representing the sort of fleet train which allowed the U.S. Navy to fight its way across the Pacific during World War II.
|
|
|
Post by Wirbelwind on May 23, 2019 16:51:27 GMT -6
Nuclear power for ships would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 23, 2019 17:00:24 GMT -6
Update the WW2 and later classification requirements of Light cruisers so that ships that historically were built of this class will fit into this class also ingame ( instead of being flagged as CA ). I suggest increasing the tonnage and belt armor criteria for when ships become CA instead of CL from 10000 / 3" to somewhere about 12-16k ton / 5-6" belt, somewhere around 1935-40 See more info of list were 13/15 historical CL ships ingame classify as CA: nws-online.proboards.com/post/45785/threadKeep in mind that classifications in RtW exist primarily for the sake of the AI; those historical classifications existed for the sake of the London Naval Treaty. The treaty-limit 6" ships were operationally considered mostly interchangeable with 8" CAs, and used distinctly differently from the smaller CLs. Adopting treaty classification in-game would probably lead to AI difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by hoffmads on May 23, 2019 17:06:04 GMT -6
The blockade thread set me too thinking that there should be some modelling of the degree to which a nation is affected by being blockaded. Obviously, any country will be affected, but island nations, countries which have to import most of their food due to lack of arable land or the way in which their workforces are distributed (Japan, UK, Germany in World War One), and countries which have to import much of their raw materials should be affected more than countries like the U.S. or Russia which are more self-sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by secondcomingofzeno on May 23, 2019 20:38:35 GMT -6
Something that would be nice is some sort of automatic carrier usage. Or at least make them a lot less time consuming to use.
Having to click upwards of 6-18 times to select all of the planes, another click for the place, and another to launch them is a bit annoying at times. Then you have to do it again in like 2 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 23, 2019 22:49:03 GMT -6
Would it be possible to remove the overtime for airstrikes aimed at land targets?
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on May 24, 2019 1:47:46 GMT -6
Designing carriers is a blast -- bravo to everyone who helped make this happen!
* Enable more role-specific ships (major)
RtW2 lacks a system to give more specific role information to ships. We should be able to prevent slow, 20 knot minesweeping destroyers from ending up with 30-knot carriers as escorts. This would enable the full spectrum of designs, with specific lip service paid here to the CLAA fleet escort, which cannot be built in RtW2 if it's going to routinely be pitted against raiders or as convoy attack/defense (of course randomly it can happen). This seems like a reasonable request considering the player's role as both the highest level of command/management in the navy, and also the admiral of a division. Having control of which ships move in a task force is the middle layer between the two. I'm open to any system that will enable this. Some ideas: - The existing Fleet Exercise already provides a means to create very specific task forces, which could then move sea zones together. (Added bonus if this lessens the tedium of moving ships strategically, which is currently a shift/ctrl clicking mess)
- Expand ship roles to include things like "fleet escort" (prioritized as capital ship escort), maybe "minesweeping"
or others
Links:
A Topic on this subjectRelated post from RtW2 release day* Viewing "Aircraft type" (minor)
Sorting aircraft stats in Aircraft Types should be more user-friendly. - allow sorting by columns, other usability improvements similar to what exists in ship list - allow to filter by type for only one's country (not everyone's) * Viewing "Air groups" (minor)
Very happy to have aircraft in, but it's a bit painful to manage them. I think the interface could do with a few improvements.
- ability to save a template from one airfield and place it in others - set all airbases of size X (20/40/60) to [this] template - other interaction improvements that I can't think of at 2am I want to reiterate the suggestions above. Also as far as organizing our own task forces, why not allow players to organize our task forces just prior to battle when given a specific randomly selected contingent of forces? For example, suppose the battle generator sets up a fleet action and chooses a few ships for that battle. If we could see which ships we will have just prior to battle, and then be able to organize those randomly chosen ships into task forces, that would be GREAT! That way I can design AA cruisers out of my old CLs and I could set them up as escorts for heavier ships, and it will preserve the randomness of the ships selected for a battle.
|
|