|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 11, 2019 6:33:54 GMT -6
If I might just causally ignore the real life costs and such and skip to a more meta issue...
The game is called 'rule the waves' and is almost entirely focused on naval development, currently aircraft costs heavily diminish that.
By 1940 its less 'rule the waves' and more 'scrap the navy and micromanage air groups'. It just stops being fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 11, 2019 8:27:46 GMT -6
If I might just causally ignore the real life costs and such and skip to a more meta issue... The game is called 'rule the waves' and is almost entirely focused on naval development, currently aircraft costs heavily diminish that. By 1940 its less 'rule the waves' and more 'scrap the navy and micromanage air groups'. It just stops being fun. Sounds like the problem there is the word "micromanage". |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 11, 2019 8:33:28 GMT -6
Curious, I do find handling air groups cumbersome, but I never got the feeling of "micromanaging" at all. Maybe because I find myself using only a few squadrons that I move around a lot depending on where I expect action to happen, but while I do feel the whole aircraft management section can be refined and made far better, I didn't struggle with it at all. As for the rest... "The game is called 'rule the waves' and is almost entirely focused on naval development, currently aircraft costs heavily diminish that. "The game, whatever way it's called, is intended to give the player the feeeling that he's in command of a nation's navy, and that he has to face similar situations, decisions, and compromises as real life navies did. Aircraft development dramatically changed the way navies operated on almost every level, and does so aswell here. If you find aircraft costs are taking too much from your ability to design and build new ships...then use less aircraft. Your budget is what it is and is up to you to use it in the way that best suits what you think your navy needs; if you think you need more ships then you'll have to compromise elsewhere so you can afford them. Is part of the experience the game delivers, and it works this way on purpose as, again, the objective of the game is to put you in charge of a navy and for you to make the decisions and compromises needed to keep it competitive; balancing costs of planes while keeping a big navy operational is part of that challenge, as it was back in the times the game is focused on. And if you're not fond of it, you can always check the "slow aircraft development" tab when creating a game, so is not as if you're out of options to tailor and tune the game towards your personal preferences and dislike of the extra costs associated with planes  . |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 11, 2019 8:34:20 GMT -6
If I might just causally ignore the real life costs and such and skip to a more meta issue... The game is called 'rule the waves' and is almost entirely focused on naval development, currently aircraft costs heavily diminish that. By 1940 its less 'rule the waves' and more 'scrap the navy and micromanage air groups'. It just stops being fun. Sounds like the problem there is the word "micromanage". Well, now you know how the wartime admirals felt, protect and manage the air groups and send out the submarines. Those were the two most potent weapons as of 1940, and especially during the war. Welcome.  |
|
|
|
Post by jorgencab on Jun 11, 2019 8:34:24 GMT -6
I think with some patches and updates this air micromanagement could be "fixed" eventually. If the developer find it a big enough worth their time to "fix".
Personally I would like to see something to streamline how to handle the air arm in peace time. I don't mind the micromanagement during wars, that is not a problem for me personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 11, 2019 8:37:34 GMT -6
Sounds like the problem there is the word "micromanage". Well, now you know how the wartime admirals felt, protect and manage the air groups and send out the submarines. Those were the two most potent weapons as of 1940, and especially during the war. Welcome. This is a game, not reality. We're allowed to have efficient, capable staff officers to handle all the annoying details  |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 11, 2019 8:42:51 GMT -6
Hey you're not facing with the crapton of paperwork real admirals have to deal with in real life. You already have your staff doing it for you then . Again, if you don't want to deal with planes, then...don't. Tick that "slow aircraft development" box when opening a new game, and enjoy... but managing that stuff is part of what the game intentionally tries to replicate and achieve: giving you the feeling of being in charge of a navy of the time...and planes and submarines were part of that equation. I'm sure that after more prioritary things are out of the way in the development cycle, the game will be revised and some streamlining in the process of managing planes will be incorporated. BUt in the meantime you can't just get rid of, or dumb down, something that's a vital part of the experience the game is designed to deliver, because...well, because it goes against it's own intent and purpose . |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 11, 2019 9:02:25 GMT -6
Well, now you know how the wartime admirals felt, protect and manage the air groups and send out the submarines. Those were the two most potent weapons as of 1940, and especially during the war. Welcome. This is a game, not reality. We're allowed to have efficient, capable staff officers to handle all the annoying details Ya think! Where is my efficient, capable staff officers? They must be at the local pub. |
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jun 11, 2019 9:03:38 GMT -6
Sounds like the problem there is the word "micromanage". Well, now you know how the wartime admirals felt, protect and manage the air groups and send out the submarines. Those were the two most potent weapons as of 1940, and especially during the war. Welcome. Admirals weren't really in charge of land based air groups. On some occasions they weren't even entirely in charge of sea based ones either. |
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on Jun 11, 2019 9:09:40 GMT -6
"Admirals weren't really in charge of land based air groups."Not of any squadrons based there belonging to the air force. The navy wouldn't have a say on the B-29s on Guam or Saipan, for instance. But those squadrons belonging to the navy you can bet they were in charge of them. You're an admiral of the whole navy, so whatever's navy, you control. And naval air forces are part of what they controlled... and what you control .
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 11, 2019 11:14:13 GMT -6
Well, now you know how the wartime admirals felt, protect and manage the air groups and send out the submarines. Those were the two most potent weapons as of 1940, and especially during the war. Welcome. Admirals weren't really in charge of land based air groups. On some occasions they weren't even entirely in charge of sea based ones either. You have to differentiate between Army land based air groups and naval air groups that were flown and operated from land bases. Overall planning would be conducted, at least in the Southwest Pacific by the overall commander of the Southwest Pacific be he, Admiral Ghormley or Admiral Halsey. The army and naval air groups assigned to the land bases would operate together but have their own priorities for targeting. So, in fact, in most cases, all land based air was commanded and its priorities set by a Navy Admiral. One of the purposes for the establishment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was to plan grand strategy which would trickled down to the theatre level. General Marshall specifically stated in a memo that the Army " was willing to do anything reasonable to facilitate offensive action by the fleet." All he wanted was the Navy's strategic plans for operations in the Pacific. It boils down to the European theatre was the Army's and the Pacific was the Navy's even if MacArthur did not like that. For Imperial Japanese Naval Air Service, the land based naval air service for the Japanese, they were commanded and priorities established by Japanese Admirals. The South-Western District fleet was organized around the 21st Air Wing land-based, 23 Air-Wing land-based, 1st. Southern Fleet land-based, 2nd Southern Fleet Land-based and the 3rd Southern fleet land-based. All these forces were commanded by an admiral and that position changed many times. |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jun 11, 2019 11:15:08 GMT -6
I for one, welcome our new aerial overlords
But in all seriousness the addition of aircraft has largely been a joy, it makes a lot more sense when playing in the 1920s onwards and while there are some balancing issues I am confident they will be addressed in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by warlock on Jun 11, 2019 13:52:47 GMT -6
I have to be honest and say I wish the cost of air operations was more transparent and had greater detail. For example, if I lose 78 aircraft in a battle, what does it cost me to replace those aircraft? Same for all the AI controlled air engagements, how much is it costing me per month to replace aircraft? I guess that is another thing, I would like to be able to put air bases into a reserve status when not needed and have my air wings be transferred from outside the theater. I mean right now I am playing France and my main focus has been to dominate the Mediterranean so I have tons of airbases covering the Mediterranean theater, however my current war is with German who doesn't have any bases in the Mediterranean. I would love to place the vast majority of my Airbases in the Med on reserve status and have my Western France Airbases and carrier wings siphon replacement aircraft from those reserve airbases instead of replenishing with new aircraft. Honestly I would also love to be able to populate maybe 1/2 my Airfields and then automatically shift squadrons around combat theaters in times of war so I didn't have to keep a standing airforce twice the size draining resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 12, 2019 1:53:53 GMT -6
Here's a different way of analyzing the relative costs of ships and planes in the game and historically. Here's a quote from: American and British Carrier Development 1919-1940, Hone, Friedman and Mandeles, p. 161. "In 1931 the General Board estimated that replacing a carrier's air wing every three years would, over the carrier's lifetime, cost as much as the carrier itself."
Using this reference as a guide I decided to analyse the respective costs of a carrier and its air group in RTW2. The carrier used for this analysis was the Italian CV Aquila, laid down in 1927 and commissioned in 1929. The image below shows her design as it existed in 1932. The Aquila was the first Italian purpose built CV, so she carries the mandatory 8x8" main guns. Her complement is 74 planes and I will assume that this will remain constant through a lifespan that will extend to 20 years and see 2 major refits. RTW2 rolls the entire cost to build and maintain an air force into a single monthly cost. That is a bit strange but shouldn't negatively impact this analysis since it represents the total cost for the ship's aircraft. That monthly cost for the air group can vary depending on war status, so my assumption for this analysis is that the Italians will see 4 years of war during the ship's 20 year lifespan. That's a bit light for RTW2 but is more than most carriers would historically experience during their lifetime. The one other cost the player will pay for aircraft is when they are initially developed. For this analysis I am assuming a new model will be developed every 3 years. I am further assuming that the carrier will deploy 3 aircraft types - F, DB and TB - each of which will see their own 3 year development cycle. The cost to the player to do this is not extravagant, but over 20 years would reach above 10 million. My final assumption is that the carrier will remain in active fleet status for the entire 20 years, save for two 6 month periods undergoing refit. The ship will never be assigned to the Reserve Fleet or Mothballed. I recognize those are a lot of assumptions, but I think most are reasonable. (I'm sure I'll get plenty of arguments to the contrary.) Below are the way the figures work out, given this ship in this time frame in RTW2. They seem rather close to the rough estimate of comparable figures given in the quote above. If anything, it appears that aircraft costs might be underestimated in RTW2. The difference maintenance costs in wartime and peace are 20 % for aircrafts. Eg. end of game, war using tooltip.
2082 single engines ... 8x2082 = 16656 212 multi engines ... 12x212 = 2544 16 airships ... 18x16 = 288 TOTAL .... 19488
Game shows 19520, difference is 32. Only explenation is that airships costs not 18 but 20 at war even if tooltip say otherwise.
I was thinking about that a lot as I have strong feeling there is something strange and does not completely work as intended.
I will take example of airship base.
Costs view: Monthly costs running airship base: 1 airbase .... 22 (home area in peace)
8 airships ... 144k
TOTAL monthly costs: 166k
increased costs for foreign base: 10k (32 colony in peace) TOTAL monthly costs for colonial base: 176k
Costs of new construction of airbase (included 8 airships): 700k
It means as long as peace is longer than 4 months it is better to scrap airship airbase just after the war.
Conslusion if we compare it to history the in game effects are: - unrealistic scrapping and rebuilding airship airbases including airships.
- a lot of micromanagement by scrapping and rebuilding airship airbases
Both are quite negative effects. Simple solution could be that number of airships increased 1 each month from 0 to 8 so it takes 8 months to fill airship base.
For aicraft base it is different as construction of such bases takes much more time because it is needed to be done step by step (capacity 20/40/60/80/100/120) so scrapping and rebuilding airbases does not work - good.
However principles with aircrafts are quite similar. If squadrons are trained only to level poor or fair, it is usually better to disband squadrons and build them from scratch as war started because there is no limit of number acquiring aicrafts per month. It was usual in history to decrease number of squadrons so it is quite historical to disband squadrons and rebuild them as needed. Which is not completely historical is build up of air forces which in game needs 0 time. In history you need time to make it happen, in RTW it is instantly. May be simply solution to have some time after creation of squadron (similar to working up for ships) to fill it with aircrafts could add to realismus.
In case of aicrafts carriers it is more complicated. Right now there is bug (I reported it) that after refit of carrier squadrons taken before refit to reserve loss experience moving them back to carriers. This means right now it has no reasons not to scrap any squadron on carriers that are expected undergoing refit in peace. Later it could be still better for some squadron to disband them. But I think this is excellent as it is quite hostorical. Navies usually increase number of aicrafts carried on board during wartime.
There were some easy solutions to better situation. Best solution but would be simlulating production in some simple manner. Player order some numbers of certain aicrafts and "factories" will deliver it according to production value which will change during game as function of random number, war/peace and number of orders (more orders, industry is in better shape), trade warfare. It will be automatically distributed to squadrons and any remaining aicrafts will go to reserve. Each losses need to be replenish so it can happen there are not so much aircrafts to replenish. However this is more complicated system even if principles are simple mainly because AI will need to handle it quite well for other nations.
Maintenance costs of aicrafts/airships Tooltip shows: - single engine 8 - multi engines 12 - airships 18
However it seems to be incorrect. It seems that war maintenance is: - single engine 8 - multi engines 12 - airships 20
And peace maintenance is 80 % of that value.
EDIT: some corrections
|
|
|
|
Post by southkraut on Jun 12, 2019 4:43:44 GMT -6
Maybe air wings could have reduced upkeep in peacetime, equivalent to what one can achieve by micro-managing them?
|
|
.
