|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 3, 2019 17:54:47 GMT -6
I think this game would greatly benefit from an added layer of simple trade diplomacy to enable trade partners of embargoes of other nations and a tighter focus on resources such as Steel, Oil and Coal, rather than the streamlined abstract way Oil is currently handled.
What do you guys think?
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jun 3, 2019 21:19:11 GMT -6
Except for oil, the issue was always cost not availability and that is part of the national resources. If Italy or Japan is unable to get coal supplies that is already covered by them being blockaded.
Besides oil the only limited supplies I would want to see represented are turbines, drydock spots and large caliber guns. Those were limited enough that they would need to be allocated between competing uses at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by bidius on Jun 3, 2019 23:46:11 GMT -6
Steel shortages are modeled as random events in the game, you'll get messages occasionally saying "X construction was delayed due to lack of available Steel" which is about as deep as I'd care for. The reason why the nations available in the game are used is because historically these are nations that had their own coal, steel and ship building industries. It's one of the reasons why a nation like Turkey had to buy ships from other more industrially independant/capable nations. Coal quality was a real consideration for navies in those times however, the higher the quality the cleaner and hotter the burn. The Germans even complained about their coal to the point they had to lace it with tar oils because they found their smoke-profiles were larger than the British which gave them a fairly hefty disadvantage because thicker, darker smoke is easier to spot on the horizon. turbines, drydock spots and large caliber guns. I always thought that when scrapping ships you should reuse their guns for coastal defense discounts, or even a more specific hard number of available guns for routine maintenance or construction. |
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jun 3, 2019 23:52:33 GMT -6
Well, in a way, yes - aircrafts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 4, 2019 1:02:31 GMT -6
Except for oil, the issue was always cost not availability and that is part of the national resources. If Italy or Japan is unable to get coal supplies that is already covered by them being blockaded. Besides oil the only limited supplies I would want to see represented are turbines, drydock spots and large caliber guns. Those were limited enough that they would need to be allocated between competing uses at times. This is not completely true. When UK starts rearmament program in late 30s they have not capacity large enough to produce armour plates for all that ships. It was true especially with Illustrious class and Admiralty started looking on other possibilities, to other countries which are able to build similar quality armour plates and deliver them. After some time Vitkovice from Czechoslovakia was chosen and first armour plates started to be deliver. However German takover of Czechoslovakia stop this cooperation.
But I think that the game is now complex enough and to put another layer is much demanding. To do it properly you need to simulate convoys much better, completely redo submarine warfare, it probable as difficult as adding aircraftt and carrier warfare itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 4, 2019 1:28:31 GMT -6
Well, in a way, yes - aircrafts. I agree. Aircraft losses are replaced like they didnt happen. The Doctrine we have for elite pilots could be expanded somehow. Pilot shortages holding up deliveries of planes or maybe you have planes but no pilots to use them. I still think Oil needs a little more love in RTW2. I have three problems with it. 1.) An historical option setting for Oil discoveries that launch an event for Oil in colonies that historically discovered Oil the month and year it happened instead of random discoveries of Oil/Colonies. 2.) Is oil cut off after a certain tension level? I know canals are. Oil should also be cut off from any of the allies with a nation with high tension. 3.) The current system doesnt allow for Oil shortages, which I think should be a thing. When the U.S. and Dutch Royal Shell cut off Japan's Oil supply, they took around a 93% hit to their Oil imports. That's huge. You can't fix that Oil shortage buying from Russia like you can in the game currently. So a little more depth to it and I'm happy. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 4, 2019 1:34:26 GMT -6
Well, in a way, yes - aircrafts. I agree. Aircraft losses are replaced like they didnt happen. The Doctrine we have for elite pilots could be expanded somehow. Pilot shortages holding up deliveries of planes or maybe you have planes but no pilots to use them. I still think Oil needs a little more love in RTW2. I have three problems with it. 1.) An historical option setting for Oil discoveries that launch an event for Oil in colonies that historically discovered Oil the month and year it happened instead of random discoveries of Oil/Colonies. 2.) Is oil cut off after a certain tension level? I know canals are. Oil should also be cut off from any of the allies with a nation with high tension. 3.) The current system doesnt allow for Oil shortages, which I think should be a thing. When the U.S. and Dutch Royal Shell cut off Japan's Oil supply, they took around a 93% hit to their Oil imports. That's huge. You can't fix that Oil shortage buying from Russia like you can in the game currently. So a little more depth to it and I'm happy. I think random is much better for the game. If you know when oil will be discovered you will always try to get this colony. As it remains more random this knowledge is useless.
I have not tried it yet, but in case coutry is blockaded and do not have access to oil, strategic movement could be cancelled.
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 4, 2019 2:19:32 GMT -6
Well, in a way, yes - aircrafts. I agree. Aircraft losses are replaced like they didnt happen. The Doctrine we have for elite pilots could be expanded somehow. Pilot shortages holding up deliveries of planes or maybe you have planes but no pilots to use them. I still think Oil needs a little more love in RTW2. I have three problems with it. 1.) An historical option setting for Oil discoveries that launch an event for Oil in colonies that historically discovered Oil the month and year it happened instead of random discoveries of Oil/Colonies. 2.) Is oil cut off after a certain tension level? I know canals are. Oil should also be cut off from any of the allies with a nation with high tension. 3.) The current system doesnt allow for Oil shortages, which I think should be a thing. When the U.S. and Dutch Royal Shell cut off Japan's Oil supply, they took around a 93% hit to their Oil imports. That's huge. You can't fix that Oil shortage buying from Russia like you can in the game currently. So a little more depth to it and I'm happy. Oil shortage is in the game, non-oil producing country will suffer shortage if the war is either long, or they are under blockade. This will result in ships not showing up to battle, and larger ships being more impacted. However I cant say how severe this effect has been, since I'm rarely on the reciving end of this. This is however RNG based, I do think a quantifiable oil count might make things interesting (Like in HoI4), but I also do think that then we will have to be able to design which ship gets oil, which ship should sortie etc... Which might be more change than we are looking for. Other shortages I think is fairly covered by blockade (Which can set back ship production, cost unrest etc), so I don't think separate steel resource is necessary. Though I do think it needs to hurt aircraft more than it does now. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jun 4, 2019 5:12:46 GMT -6
When UK starts rearmament program in late 30s they have not capacity large enough to produce armour plates for all that ships. But they were able to procure the plates. It's akin to my example of Japan or Italy with coal, they lacked the resource domestically but because there was surplus elsewhere there was no general deficit, just complications. There are always going to be random supply delays and shortages, they shouldn't all be modeled. To take the idea to the extreme, a ship might be delayed on account of the teak for the officer's mess not being ready but we wouldn't want teak as a resource. Putting extra complexity into a model (i.e. additional variables and transformations) actually *reduces* the accuracy of a model if they dont contain enough information. This happens through the process known as overfitting which allows for spurious relationships to become distorting factors. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 4, 2019 5:28:02 GMT -6
When UK starts rearmament program in late 30s they have not capacity large enough to produce armour plates for all that ships. But they were able to procure the plates. It's akin to my example of Japan or Italy with coal, they lacked the resource domestically but because there was surplus elsewhere there was no general deficit, just complications. There are always going to be random supply delays and shortages, they shouldn't all be modeled. To take the idea to the extreme, a ship might be delayed on account of the teak for the officer's mess not being ready but we wouldn't want teak as a resource. Putting extra complexity into a model (i.e. additional variables and transformations) actually *reduces* the accuracy of a model if they dont contain enough information. This happens through the process known as overfitting which allows for spurious relationships to become distorting factors. I agree with you that it is not good for game having such complexity and if there is some complicated real world that there is needed simplicity as whole. |
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on Jun 4, 2019 5:52:48 GMT -6
IMO a resource layer would add nothing useful to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 4, 2019 10:04:53 GMT -6
Access to oil and coal was pretty central and I think the game would benefit alot from tracking those as well as tracking the dockyard in a bit deeper way than just max ship displacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 4, 2019 10:20:02 GMT -6
Access to oil and coal was pretty central and I think the game would benefit alot from tracking those as well as tracking the dockyard in a bit deeper way than just max ship displacement. Except all major powers present in the game had some if not great access to coal. The limitations of oil if you don't have access to it yourself were stated before. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 4, 2019 10:27:36 GMT -6
Access to oil and coal was pretty central and I think the game would benefit alot from tracking those as well as tracking the dockyard in a bit deeper way than just max ship displacement. Except all major powers present in the game had some if not great access to coal. The limitations of oil if you don't have access to it yourself were stated before. Yeah, but Japan got most of its Steel and almost all of its oil from the USA. I still think a simply layer of Resource management would give this game an added layer of strategic fun as long as it's smartly done. Edit: Also, would not Oil be in the purview of those conducting the naval budget? The thing that makes ships 'go' should probably be managed by the Navy, or maybe I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin01 on Jun 4, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -6
Except all major powers present in the game had some if not great access to coal. The limitations of oil if you don't have access to it yourself were stated before. Yeah, but Japan got most of its Steel and almost all of its oil from the USA. I still think a simply layer of Resource management would give this game an added layer of strategic fun as long as it's smartly done. Edit: Also, would not Oil be in the purview of those conducting the naval budget? The thing that makes ships 'go' should probably be managed by the Navy, or maybe I'm wrong. Not necessarily. Oil must also be allocated to the army, the air force and the civilian population, so I believe it is slightly above our paygrade. |
|
