Post by mycophobia on May 27, 2019 16:11:45 GMT -6
AKA The March of Ships Marching
In all the games of RTW1 and 2 I have played, I've found that Long/Extreme Range is arguably the least useful stats to consider. Short/Medium offers the trade off between being a homewater ship vs. something that can move around during war time. However Long/Extreme Range serves very little purpose outside of being on a raider from my observation. (Although I haven't played with them too much, so if anyone can clarify any other implications they may have, please let me know. I don't think they significantly affect how likely that ship is going to be available for battle)
Thus I want to discuss on this can be mediated. It is very clear that a ship's range of operations have very significant impact on that ship's strategic performance, yet this rarely seems to matter in game. I am wondering whether it will be a good idea to finally give ship range a numerical value in terms of nm much like aircrafts? We can still just choose S/M/L/EX for ship range and get a corresponding distance scaling with tech rather than worrying about a distance down to the mile. (Older ship can be kept relevant by either refit, or giving a flat bouns as technology advances to represent better fleet logistic) When a mission is generated, and the game picks available ship, ship whose operational range cannot reach the combat area from the nearest friendly port will have a very low chance to partake in that battle(Not impossible, considering underway replenishment will help). Ship's chance to participate will also be proportionally lowered as the battle location get closer to their maximum range. AI nations should also behave appropriately in response (E.G US mostly avoids building S range ships and prefer Long range at least)
This can help making some super power's fleet slightly more balanced against minors since they generally have to build long range ships(Which applies to players playing these major power as well. May help to make US feel less OP later on when player is playing). Further, the choice to have L/EX change matters more since when fighting it open waters or in areas where the player have few bases the longer ranged ships reliably see more action. Even one zone nation like AH maybe have some incentive to build slightly longer ranged ships depending on their enemy. (Maybe more relevant for Russia, so we can see more invasion of bay of Biscay xD)
If an actual numerical range is difficult to code, I suppose a rng based system that affect ship's chance to appear given a particular sea region's size can suffice. But I do think the player needs to have an clear idea of the implications of their choice to not feel frustrated when their ship don't show up/when they pick long range but cant feel any difference.
Anyways looking forward to what everyone thinks.
With VP penalty being more hefty in RTW 2, I can see it being valuable to have long range ships at least offering you a chance to engage some battle that would be free VP for the enemy. It will make quite a bit of realistic sense too. If you build a fleet of powerful but short ranged BBs, there maybe times where they simply cant make it to save that one Convoy against the enemy battle fleet. If you build some weaker but longer ranged BC for trade warfare, maybe you can dominate areas where shorter ranged enemy BC cant come out to match you.
In all the games of RTW1 and 2 I have played, I've found that Long/Extreme Range is arguably the least useful stats to consider. Short/Medium offers the trade off between being a homewater ship vs. something that can move around during war time. However Long/Extreme Range serves very little purpose outside of being on a raider from my observation. (Although I haven't played with them too much, so if anyone can clarify any other implications they may have, please let me know. I don't think they significantly affect how likely that ship is going to be available for battle)
Thus I want to discuss on this can be mediated. It is very clear that a ship's range of operations have very significant impact on that ship's strategic performance, yet this rarely seems to matter in game. I am wondering whether it will be a good idea to finally give ship range a numerical value in terms of nm much like aircrafts? We can still just choose S/M/L/EX for ship range and get a corresponding distance scaling with tech rather than worrying about a distance down to the mile. (Older ship can be kept relevant by either refit, or giving a flat bouns as technology advances to represent better fleet logistic) When a mission is generated, and the game picks available ship, ship whose operational range cannot reach the combat area from the nearest friendly port will have a very low chance to partake in that battle(Not impossible, considering underway replenishment will help). Ship's chance to participate will also be proportionally lowered as the battle location get closer to their maximum range. AI nations should also behave appropriately in response (E.G US mostly avoids building S range ships and prefer Long range at least)
This can help making some super power's fleet slightly more balanced against minors since they generally have to build long range ships(Which applies to players playing these major power as well. May help to make US feel less OP later on when player is playing). Further, the choice to have L/EX change matters more since when fighting it open waters or in areas where the player have few bases the longer ranged ships reliably see more action. Even one zone nation like AH maybe have some incentive to build slightly longer ranged ships depending on their enemy. (Maybe more relevant for Russia, so we can see more invasion of bay of Biscay xD)
If an actual numerical range is difficult to code, I suppose a rng based system that affect ship's chance to appear given a particular sea region's size can suffice. But I do think the player needs to have an clear idea of the implications of their choice to not feel frustrated when their ship don't show up/when they pick long range but cant feel any difference.
Anyways looking forward to what everyone thinks.
With VP penalty being more hefty in RTW 2, I can see it being valuable to have long range ships at least offering you a chance to engage some battle that would be free VP for the enemy. It will make quite a bit of realistic sense too. If you build a fleet of powerful but short ranged BBs, there maybe times where they simply cant make it to save that one Convoy against the enemy battle fleet. If you build some weaker but longer ranged BC for trade warfare, maybe you can dominate areas where shorter ranged enemy BC cant come out to match you.