RTW2 review

[imryn]

I played RTW for quite a while and enjoyed the strategic elements of the game but eventually had to quit because the scenario generator and the behavior of the AI controlled squadrons in the scenarios drove me insane. I felt that there was a total disconnect between the strategic game and the scenarios whereby good strategic play was not rewarded, and in fact the only element of the game that mattered was the scenario results which decided the outcome of wars and ultimately decided the game.

I understand that the intent of the scenario generator is to create interesting and challenging scenarios no matter what the strategic situation, however that is not realistic and almost always incredibly frustrating. I understand that in real life commanders don't always get to pick their battles, and don't always get to pick which forces are available to them, but just because the don't always get to do those things means that sometimes they do. Always giving the opponent superior numbers and superior position is ridiculous, and always limiting the player to a tiny fraction of their available forces (and normally the oldest and least capable ones at that) is equally ridiculous.

I have come back to RTW2 now, and while a lot of the new stuff is great the scenario generator is still garbage. It is worse in RTW2 though, because the solution has been implemented but we aren't allowed to use it. I am talking about the interface used to create fleet exercises.

When we get offered a scenario we should get the same information we get now, and when we click accept we should then get taken to the fleet exercises interface which allows us to select our forces from those available and organize them into squadrons, set roles etc. When I say "those available" I am not talking about everything in the zone, i am talking about the ships left after the AI has pruned the list. Each scenario should have a tonnage limit based on the size of the battle, and we should be able to select a start time for the scenario (within a suitable time window). The player should also be able to view the area of operations and see where they will be starting and where the need to go (if there is a target). There should also be an option to cancel at this point and decline the scenario.

This is not asking for much, and it's not unrealistic. It allows for the AI to sometimes grant the other side more tonnage or bigger ships; what it does do is allow the player a degree of control over their own force composition. It allows the player to create specialist ship designs and at least hope to use them in the correct force roles. It allows players to at least take a ship on bombardment missions capable of destroying the bombardment target. It makes the players strategic play meaningful instead of the current situation where no matter how good your strategic play the scenarios always give you your oldest and least suitable ships to use.

Declining some scenarios have consequences beyond just losing some VP's (invasion and counter invasion comes to mind), and under those circumstances it is OK to make them mandatory, but at least we should be able to organize the ships we have into the force structure we want.

Once the player has selected and assigned forces the scenario starts. At this point there would be a possibility that some of the ships have suffered a breakdown and didn't make it into the scenario. This is realistic and could be planned for by doubling up on mission critical types. This would even tend to counter "power creep" by making it better to have smaller lighter ships so you could fit more into the force structure for the scenario.

This degree of control is exactly what commanders in real life have. They are given a mission and they then select the units from their available forces that will carry out the mission. If they really don't have the forces to complete the mission the tell their bosses, "sorry, no can do". And before someone says "But there are plenty of bad commanders in history" I will point out that the player is the commander, and a bad player can still select the wrong ships for a mission.

RTW2 could be a good game, with some fairly minor changes, but as it is the complete disconnect between strategic and tactical play and the stupidity of the scenario generator makes it frustrating and ultimately unplayable. I honestly wish I had not wasted my money on it.

[dizzy]

Sept 20, 2019 12:32:59 GMT -6 imryn said:

RTW2 could be a good game, with some fairly minor changes, but as it is the complete disconnect between strategic and tactical play and the stupidity of the scenario generator makes it frustrating and ultimately unplayable. I honestly wish I had not wasted my money on it.

That 'disconnect' is what I call reality. Let me get back to that in a second. I do agree with one thing you said and disagree with the rest of it entirely, but I wouldn't mind every now and then being able to 'assign' ships to divisions. Now the reality part is how ships were historically assigned to roles for a task force. I don't think I'd want to waste too much of my time 'assigning' ships when the scenario generator does an adequate job on that mundane task. Chow.

[tortugapower]

Sept 20, 2019 12:32:59 GMT -6 imryn said:

I understand that the intent of the scenario generator is to create interesting and challenging scenarios no matter what the strategic situation, however that is not realistic and almost always incredibly frustrating. I understand that in real life commanders don't always get to pick their battles, and don't always get to pick which forces are available to them, but just because the don't always get to do those things means that sometimes they do. Always giving the opponent superior numbers and superior position is ridiculous, and always limiting the player to a tiny fraction of their available forces (and normally the oldest and least capable ones at that) is equally ridiculous.

I have come back to RTW2 now, and while a lot of the new stuff is great the scenario generator is still garbage. It is worse in RTW2 though, because the solution has been implemented but we aren't allowed to use it. I am talking about the interface used to create fleet exercises.

<snip>

My thoughts:

1) It's not my experience that the battle generator intentionally favors one side or the other, specifically I don't think it is biased against the player. That may be partially because I learned to "game the system" a bit and tweak little things to get more favorable setups from the battle generator.

2) I think that there is still plenty to be dissatisfied with about the battle generator. This is just my opinion, but I feel that Fredrik is probably burnt out on RtW2, and it has become more a chore of maintenance than a love and passion. Code maintenance and bug-squashing usually is like that. I would guess that this means it's a very big ask to request a redo of the battle generator. Bug squashing is usually a priority and rather draining, leaving little enthusiasm for such enhancements.

So what I think the solution is, for this and a lot of other issues, is to open it up to the modders.

(Building a revised battle generator is third in line for my own projects for modding this game, although I have less time for this lately.)

[christian]

Sept 20, 2019 13:58:18 GMT -6 tortugapower said:

Sept 20, 2019 12:32:59 GMT -6 imryn said:

I understand that the intent of the scenario generator is to create interesting and challenging scenarios no matter what the strategic situation, however that is not realistic and almost always incredibly frustrating. I understand that in real life commanders don't always get to pick their battles, and don't always get to pick which forces are available to them, but just because the don't always get to do those things means that sometimes they do. Always giving the opponent superior numbers and superior position is ridiculous, and always limiting the player to a tiny fraction of their available forces (and normally the oldest and least capable ones at that) is equally ridiculous.

I have come back to RTW2 now, and while a lot of the new stuff is great the scenario generator is still garbage. It is worse in RTW2 though, because the solution has been implemented but we aren't allowed to use it. I am talking about the interface used to create fleet exercises.

<snip>

My thoughts:

1) It's not my experience that the battle generator intentionally favors one side or the other, specifically I don't think it is biased against the player. That may be partially because I learned to "game the system" a bit and tweak little things to get more favorable setups from the battle generator.

2) I think that there is still plenty to be dissatisfied with about the battle generator. This is just my opinion, but I feel that Fredrik is probably burnt out on RtW2, and it has become more a chore of maintenance than a love and passion. Code maintenance and bug-squashing usually is like that.

So what I think the solution is, for this and a lot of other issues, is to open it up to the modders.

(Building a revised battle generator is third in line for my own projects for modding this game, although I have less time for this lately.)

if i knew how this damn game worked i would scream in happyness

i have to use the exercise function to even know how much bombs penetrate

and i still have no idea how much sap penetrates



oh and we have no idea how to edit torpedo performance


THERE IS SO MUCH WE COULD DO IF WE KNEW HOW THE DAMN GAME WORKED

[BathTubAdmiral]

While "always give(s) you your oldest and least suitable ships to use" in my experience is an unreasonable exaggeration, I think you do have a point here -too often the game subjects the player to some frustrating arbitrary effect, that is not founded on some bad play or decision, or "historically correct", but just an artefact of game/coding mechanics.

This is not limited to the scenario generator, though:

• ships with active flooding or high floatation damage sink themselves by insisting to go "rediculous speed ahead" until the flooding becomes uncontrollable and they sink
• ship lose contact to their whole fleet around them, and steam off in some random direction, sometimes magically regaining contact when 30 miles away. If "lost contact" would mean "broken radio", maybe they should just look to the left and right, where the rest of the fleet steames along in <500y distance?
• AI subs thankfully do not work any longer (since v1.07), before that, losses of and to subs where wildly random, with coastal subs sinking warships 10 000 miles from their home waters (and at least 8 000 from any base..), losses and sinkings seem to be completely independant from sub numbers and sub warfare setting; Obviously the RNG is some single random roll ("1D10") instead of a distribution which gives more consistent results ("3D6") - if you are lucky like me, you get three "0" in a row and all your 50 high-tech subs only get themselves sunk
• the battle simulator is feeding Victory Points to the AI by having all player bases run full CAP and scout plane cover, even if the battle is only 1 raider against 1 random ship (not even necessarily from the TP list!), far from any base so the planes cant reach the battle area. Planes crash all the time, so losses are mounting, while the planes are of no use during the battle
• the AI using illegal ship designs. Those might be funny in 1900, it's not so great when AH uses 1938 DDs in 1920 ...
• mission (reward) points are totally broken and can turn battle results on their head: "Sink 2 ships" means you get 16000 points for sinking 2 KE, so it's ok to lose 5 1500t DDs to achieve this.
  
• the AI nations don't (really) fight among themselves, only the player really sinks ships. So basically, it's the player against the rest of the world

[dohboy]

I keep hoping that this game will come around, but hope is running out and I'm losing interest. I got turned on to RTW by my father and his friends and got RTW2 as soon as it finally came out. They have been waiting to pull the trigger on my recommendation, "it was released months late and it was still too early" I told them. I get more disappointed with every update that fails to address the major issues. I no longer have faith that the issues I consider major will ever be addressed. Every update is a bandage on an insignificant blemish while the patient bleeds out from the ignored critical injuries. I won't get fooled again.

Then again... I'm a hothead and a fan of the genre, I'll probably forget all about my frustration and throw money and time at whatever half-baked product they put in front of me. Unless someone else comes up with a quality offering, then they won't get away with it.

[dorn]

I agree with tortugapower.
It is very difficult for Fredrik, it is sure.
I found RTW1 after final patch was release. I can see what was patched and it seems that it was mostly minor issues with tweaking.

But as RTW2 is built on RTW1 adding airpower and different invasion mechanics. The basic core systems are not built around game but updated to new systems.
But it seems it is much more difficult than was anticipated as it has much more effects on core systems.

And thats the issue, RTW1 was patched year and half, RTW2 will need probably much more as it is much more complex.
I hope that a lot of issues will be addressed in time but it is quite difficult to fix them.

Other thing is that before fixing them you need exactly now where the issue is. It is not about something is wrong you need know exactly what is wrong and how.

I hope Fredrik will not loose love for the game even if it is getting tedious and difficult to correct all issues.

[stevethecat]

I definitely agree with frustrations of the battle generator, to the point that I often refuse to build any CL's becuase I know that the game will pick one of those instead of the 25 spare capital ships I have in the area to fend off the entire enemy fleet.

[zedfifty]

Sept 20, 2019 14:00:44 GMT -6 christian said:

Sept 20, 2019 13:58:18 GMT -6 tortugapower said:

My thoughts:

1) It's not my experience that the battle generator intentionally favors one side or the other, specifically I don't think it is biased against the player. That may be partially because I learned to "game the system" a bit and tweak little things to get more favorable setups from the battle generator.

2) I think that there is still plenty to be dissatisfied with about the battle generator. This is just my opinion, but I feel that Fredrik is probably burnt out on RtW2, and it has become more a chore of maintenance than a love and passion. Code maintenance and bug-squashing usually is like that.

So what I think the solution is, for this and a lot of other issues, is to open it up to the modders.

(Building a revised battle generator is third in line for my own projects for modding this game, although I have less time for this lately.)

if i knew how this damn game worked i would scream in happyness

i have to use the exercise function to even know how much bombs penetrate

and i still have no idea how much sap penetrates



oh and we have no idea how to edit torpedo performance


THERE IS SO MUCH WE COULD DO IF WE KNEW HOW THE DAMN GAME WORKED

Sorry if this is a threadjack, but are you a boardgame or miniatures player? I have come to accept that computer games are inscrutable, whereas pen-and-paper games are open-source at their finest, particularly when publishers like GMT publish the manuals on their website. To their credit, I really like that NWS puts their manuals available online.

[deeznuts]

its easy to assume that it always gives the AI superiority because the AI tends to be very battle averse if you have numerical superiority in a sea zone while players tend to be aggressive in almost all cases

[rodentnavy]

I suspect a very simple fix to a fair chunk of the battle generator issues would be to remove the AI's option to refuse a scenario. After all these are missions being presented to you as Grand Admiral to approve. For a start this would result in a lot more fleet battles and while light cruisers would still see a lot more action than the rest, few players I think object to that, it is having the rest of the expensive and lovingly designed fleet be given a chance to shine they want to see.

[mycophobia]

Sept 25, 2019 17:20:57 GMT -6 rodentnavy said:

I suspect a very simple fix to a fair chunk of the battle generator issues would be to remove the AI's option to refuse a scenario. After all these are missions being presented to you as Grand Admiral to approve. For a start this would result in a lot more fleet battles and while light cruisers would still see a lot more action than the rest, few players I think object to that, it is having the rest of the expensive and lovingly designed fleet be given a chance to shine they want to see.

I like the idea, though sometime I don't want to turn down scenarios where the AI have essentially 1-2 DD in the region to give them VP, but nor would I want to fight them manually. 

[imryn]

Sept 25, 2019 22:04:57 GMT -6 mycophobia said:

Sept 25, 2019 17:20:57 GMT -6 rodentnavy said:

I suspect a very simple fix to a fair chunk of the battle generator issues would be to remove the AI's option to refuse a scenario. After all these are missions being presented to you as Grand Admiral to approve. For a start this would result in a lot more fleet battles and while light cruisers would still see a lot more action than the rest, few players I think object to that, it is having the rest of the expensive and lovingly designed fleet be given a chance to shine they want to see.

I like the idea, though sometime I don't want to turn down scenarios where the AI have essentially 1-2 DD in the region to give them VP, but nor would I want to fight them manually. 

Terrible idea! If you are that dominant then the last thing you want to do is accept that scenario. Chances are you will lose the scenario even if you sink both DD. It will probably be at night, the enemy will probably have an easy objective, you will probably take more losses to aircraft, and finally you risk a random "submarine sank your battleship" end of scenario message. I dread battles when the enemy has next to nothing left - I click accept and pray the AI declines. You just haemorrhage VP's fighting battles that even if you do everything right you will still probably lose.

I had a coastal raid scenario recently - France attacking me (GB). They had 1 CL and 2 DD in the scenario and I had 2 BC and 2 CVL plus supporting ships. I also had 2 x Frances shore based air. A ridiculous miss match! I tried to send the CVL's back to port but as soon as they got out of visual range they switched to Ai control and came back! I found the French forces and sank them, taking no damage in return, sailed back to port and docked then ran the scenario on to the end. At the end I got a pop up to tell me that one of my CL's struck a mine and sank (while tied up alongside in Portsmouth harbour apparently). I also took twice as many air losses as France, and this tipped it into a marginal victory for France. If the random event had claimed one of my capital ships, or if the French had stumbled across a couple of TR's (their objective) it would have been a major victory. I really hate these scenarios!