Combined Review/Feedback/Bug/Wishlist

[avimimus]

Overall review:

I'm a new player (although I've played nine games so far). The game is stunningly accurate to the basic problems of naval design in the period. The unpredictability about whether a war will start prior to a technological advance becoming obsolete leads to significant replayability. The 'varied technologies' option further increases this. It is simply fantastic as a game, a simulator, and a historical education tool. I cannot state how marvelous this is.


Significant issue 1:

In the late game, capital ships often end up without aircraft carriers to protect them. Similarly, anti-aircraft cruisers are often assigned to inappropriate tasks (e.g. shore bombardment) and hardly ever accompany capital ships.

Solutions:
- New doctrines or new ship classes (e.g. AA cruiser)
- The ability to group ships together (e.g. a ship always travels with another ship). The player who chooses to do this could be penalised by having the availability of all of the ships in the group be significantly decreased.



Significant issue 2:

In the late game the Baltic and the Adriatic are completely dominated by land based aircraft.

Solutions:
- Have the size of airfield scaled to the fleet size option in the menu (i.e. games with 'small' fleet sizes would have similarly smaller land-based airfields)
- Have the ability to select a fleet doctrine which ensures your ships mainly attempt to operate at night.

It would also be good to have less notifications of air activity by default (as it can lead to a lot of pausing/unpausing). I've also noticed that sometimes land based aviation patrols will be ordered but weather will prevent them from taking off. The result is that the game has to be run for many 'hours' after all of the ships on both sides have entered port so that the weather can clear and the aircraft can fly.



Significant issue 3:

There is no way to detach destroyers for a night action. The work around I use is putting the destroyers on 'patrol' as night falls. This results in the destroyers acting as a barrier while my fleet retires. However, it is just a work-around. Perhaps giving the 'fleet attack' order at night should detach the destroyers? They would then be taken over by AI and begin a search for the enemy. Alternatively, destoyer squadrons could be given a single flagship to act as a destoyer leader.

[avimimus]

Minor issues:

- Light cruiser speeds calculations seem a bit off. I particularly noticed that 2000 ton destroyers easily outpace a 2500 ton light cruiser.

- Destroyers rarely use more than nine torpedoes. This makes the Kitakami and some large destroyers a bit useless. It would be good if the AI could recognise it had twelve (or more) torpedoes and fired larger spreads.

- In cames with 'small' fleet sizes the AI often leaves capital ships without screening destroyer or cruiser escorts. I know this happened historically, but it gives a major advantage to offensive use of destroyers, and ignores the fact that they were originally developed defensively to intercept potential torpedo attackers.

- Radio ships were important (tsushima) and radio equipped aircraft gave a spotting advantage in naval battles (Battle of Rufiji Delta). The system for modelling the spread of radars is quite neat, and something similar could eventually be added for the deployment of radios.

- Recovering float-planes seems much too fast. The major downside of a float-plane is the difficulty recovering them - and their uselessness in high seas.

- Floatplane hangars and main gun turrets seem to take up little-to-no deck space.



Small things it would be nice to have:

- By the mid-1930s there were catapult launched float-equipped torpedo bombers (Latécoère 298), and dive bombers (Aichi M6A), and fighters (Loire 210). If these additional categories of aircraft became available in the late-game, it could temporarily make seaplane carriers less obsolete - even if they would still be overshadowed by CVs and CVLs.

- Radio-equipped floatplanes should help with ranging guns (as happened historically).

- Instead of saying 'ship configuration cannot be recognised as a legal ship type' the ship builder should provide a list of all criteria for ship classification to make it easier to spot why the design is an illegal type. This would help new players.

- There is no reason why a nation with "+1" 5 inch guns as their main secondary caliber would develop 4in and 6in dual-purpose mounts before developing 5in dual purpose mounts!

- Event logs include reductions in maximum available speed (as this is often decisive).

- Have rare treaties which permitted large guns but restrict building to small displacements.

- To start the game with a few "-2" large caliber guns as they were certainly available (even if they had terrible performance).

- Have research into small caliber and large caliber guns split into two different research areas.

- A ship class for monitors and harbour defense craft. These would tend to appear only on bombardment missions or defensive missions (and would have slightly different design requirements).



Big things it would be nice to have:

- A difficulty setting which prevented the end of a war causing a reduction in tension with non-involved nations. Perhaps even a random impact on tension could take place (so sometimes a nation would declare war to take advantage of your war exhaustion). This would increase the risks of going to war with smaller adversaries (as a larger adversary would be more likely to attack you as well). Similarly, it might be good if AI nations formed larger alliance structures in the late game (i.e. the 1940s) to better simulate a world war.

- A difficulty setting that significantly increased the likelihood of misunderstood orders/flags.

- Having radios be distributed through the fleet in a way similar to radars (i.e. so there is a gradual transition from flags which depend on visibility to radios).

- Being able to select from the 'fleet doctrines' which have been researched (e.g. choose to revert to an older one).

- A few more ship classes (e.g. monitors, fleet submarines, harbour rams).

- RTW3 (covering 1875-1900)!

[aeson]

There is no reason why a nation with "+1" 5 inch guns as their main secondary caliber would develop 4in and 6in dual-purpose mounts before developing 5in dual purpose mounts!

Realistically speaking, there are very good reasons why a nation with "+1" 5" guns might develop 4" DP guns prior to developing 5" DP mounts. Each step in quality corresponds to an increase in range and armor penetration in the game, indicating at least one of heavier shells or higher muzzle velocities. Heavier shells are harder to handle, especially over prolonged periods of time, which is a problem for AA weapons which - especially prior to the development of radar-directed AAA - tend to benefit more from greater rates of fire than from greater maximum range, superior armor penetration, and larger bursting charges. Higher muzzle velocities tend to be a product of longer gun barrels, which are necessarily heavier and have higher rotational moments of inertia than shorter gun barrels, thereby making it more difficult to achieve the high rates of train and elevation necessary for effective AA weapons - again especially prior to the development of radar-directed AAA. A lighter gun firing lighter shells more rapidly at lower velocities might not be as good against surface combatants but is probably better suited to the AA role than a heavier gun firing heavier shells more slowly at higher velocities and therefore could very well be chosen in favor of further development of a good extant SP weapon. Development of a 6" DP mount prior to a 5" DP mount is a bit harder to justify but could plausibly be the result of difficulties during development - it's certainly not unknown in the real world for systems which you'd expect to be relatively easy to implement to have more problems during development than similar systems which you'd have expected to run into greater difficulties.

Going from 5" Q1 SP guns to 5" Q1 DP guns would probably be more nearly equivalent to the US Navy going from the WWI-era 5"/51 SP guns originally mounted on most American dreadnoughts and superdreadnoughts to the late-WWII 5"/54 DP guns carried by the Midway-class aircraft carriers than to the 5"/25 and 5"/38 guns that superseded the 5"/51 in the 1920s and 1930s - DP guns within the game suffer no loss of anti-surface performance as compared to same-caliber same-quality SP guns whereas the historical 5"/38 and especially 5"/25 have inferior range and armor penetration characteristics as compared to the earlier 5"/51, but that was considered acceptable because the trade-offs that produced those deficiencies also made the guns significantly more suitable for the anti-aircraft role while still leaving them acceptable in the anti-surface role.

Also, I will note that the game considers all heavy AA guns to be dual-purpose whereas in the real world the 3" and to a lesser extent 4" guns used for early heavy AA usually weren't really meant to be used against surface targets.

[rdfox]

Oct 25, 2019 13:08:55 GMT -6 avimimus said:

- Have the ability to select a fleet doctrine which ensures your ships mainly attempt to operate at night.

This actually already sort-of exists--selecting Night Battle under the Enhanced Training doctrines will not only improve your ships' performance at night (somewhat increased spotting radius at night, formations less likely to lose contact with leading formations, etc.), it also significantly increases the odds that any given battle the game generates will be at night. It's not perfectly reliable, and it's still entirely possible (particularly in things like Fleet Battles and Invasion Battles, with their long durations) to have a battle start at night and drag on into the day, but it does help reduce the number of day battles that land-based air can completely dominate.

[avimimus]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[avimimus]

Another issue: Maximal Battleships (e.g. 89,500 tons) can easily use their floatation advantage and deck armour to be relatively impervious to air-attack. To compensate for this I would suggest increasing the probability of aircraft scoring hits against large/super-large ships.

Note: From my experience in flight-simulators I suspect that the probability of hitting a ship increases at a rate which is higher than the rate the surface area increases (partly due to the lower speed of the ship relative to its length, partly due to the fact that miss-estimation of distance by a pilot has a basic 'background noise' which makes very small errors much more common than larger errors).

[avimimus]

I have been thinking about possible DLC content for RTWII. One thing that is a bit lackluster are the aircraft. RTWII is a naval strategy sim, not an aviation simulation - however, one of RTWII's greatest strengths is the diversity of approaches and doctrines the player can try out. But with aircraft it becomes largely how much one invests in naval aviation, how early one invests, and a choice between torpedo bombers and dive bombers (with fighter-bombers and medium bombers becoming important later on). Aircraft lack character.

Providing a handful of additional aircraft types would provide players with more room to explore.

So here are some suggestions.


1. Produce separate tables for:
- Biplane
- Monoplane
- Jet aircraft

The inclusion of increasing landing speeds in 1.15 (requiring larger carriers) got me thinking about the possibility of a player wanting to choose to deliberately keep earlier types in service for their smaller carriers.

There were also significant 'step-wise/discontinuous' changes in performance with these innovations... the possible performance spectrums of biplanes, monoplanes, and jet aircraft are very different. The changes are dramatic and do not represent gradual transitions that a single table can capture.

Furthermore, having to take the active decision to convert squadrons to types with higher landing speeds could present the player with the very real difficult choice of accepting more accidents and requiring more training.

Having different tables would better captures the history/engineering, and would impact gameplay more.


2. Expand the table for very early torpedo bombers

Examples of very early torpedo bombers include the Gotha WD.14, Oeffag G, Pescara-Guidoni Torpedo Seaplane, Air Department Type 1000, Short 184 (and its various less successful competitors).

Note that, with the note-able exception of the Type 184 - most of the designs listed are unsuitable for shipboard operation - the first torpedo bombers should be in the 'Flying Boat' category, not the 'Floatplane scout' category.

It might actually make sense to have a 'torpedo equipped flying boat' category as a separate table (so that there is the option of requesting a torpedo capability or going with a design that doesn't expend the extra weight).



3. Possible additional types


a. Very large flying boats

Currently single-engined seaplanes (from the small 150hp FBA types to the 750hp supermarine Walrus) are grouped in with the giant four engined seaplanes...

Large naval aircraft were developed for long range scouting patrols, and were later adapted for anti-submarine, search-and-rescue, and supply purposes. However, their primary role was that extreme endurance patrol and fleet shadowing (e.g. R-Planes designed to replace Zepplins; British Sea Shadower aircraft).

It would make sense to give these large expensive aircraft their own tables separate from cheaper coastal patrol and ASW seaplanes.
This would mean that there would be separate tables for 'medium flying boats' and 'very large flying boats'.


b. Floatplane torpedo and floatplane dive bombers

Several floatplane torpedo bombers (e.g. Short 184, Latécoère 298) were developed that could be carried on ships. Adding a table for these designs could potentially make AVs a bit less completely obsolete in the mid 1930s... they would still be at a disadvantage, but investing in such aircraft could give them a little more usefulness.
This would also be of use for smaller powers and expeditionary forces.

Note: Catapult capable floatplane dive bombers were also developed (Aichi M6A, Heinkel He 50) on occasion.
It would be interesting to let the player see the pros and cons of such designs.


c. Seaplane/Floatplane fighters

Several countries developed seaplane fighters, especially during the First World War, but also into the 1930s (e.g. Loire 210). Arguably, some of the better armed seaplane scouts tasked with shooting down enemy spotters were also design for such a role (e.g. Arado Ar-196).

Having a table for such designs might be useful (rather than the player just requesting 'firepower' in the design screen). This would also the game engine to distinguish between catapult launched floatplanes which actively try to engage enemy aircraft, and those which attempt to avoid combat.


d. Anti-shipping aircraft equipped with rocket projectiles or cannon

Such aircraft were developed by multiple nations, and it would make sense for us to be able to order them.

Obviously, they should be ineffective against warships. But such aircraft should be more effective against submarines and small ships such as KEs and merchants.


e. Land based aircraft

Now that it is possible to have squadrons which are not 'carrier-capable' it might make sense to model the higher performance of land based fighters. This could be done through creating a table for the aircraft that cannot be used on carrier-capable squadrons.


Summary

Current types:
-Fighter
-Torpedo bomber
-Dive bomber
-Floatplane Scout (Catapult launched)
-Flying Boat
-Medium Bomber


Proposal 1 - Produce separate tables for Biplanes, Monoplanes, and Jet aircraft: 
- Biplane Fighter
- Biplane Torpedo Bomber
- Biplane Dive bomber

- Monoplane Fighter
- Monoplane Torpedo Bomber
- Monoplane Dive Bomber

- Jet Fighter
- Jet Torpedo Bomber


Proposal 2 - Produce separate tables for Flying Boats, Very large flying boats, and Torpedo equipped (early) flying boats:
- Flying Boat
- Large Flying Boat (note: This could include R-planes)
- Flying Boat Torpedo bomber (note: This could include the earliest torpedo bombers)

Proposal 3 - Allow more types of catapult launched float-plane aircraft:
- Floatplane Scout (catapult launched)
- Floatplane Fighter (catapult launched)
- Floatplane Torpedo Bomber (catapult launched)

Note: The development of very large seaplanes could be a reward for completing the 'lighter than air' development program (which currently often doesn't seem worth it), since long range patrol aircraft were an extension of the same doctrines that produced Zeppelins.

Note: There were also proposals for several twin-engined carrier based aircraft... but these were fairly rare and would need the addition of a 'spot factor' variable... so more coding. But they would be interesting to research if 'spot factor' was added somehow.

Finally, I'd be happy to help track down reference information to make it easier to implement these new aircraft types.

[aquelarrefox]

i like thisone:

Proposal 2 - Produce separate tables for Flying Boats, Very large flying boats, and Torpedo equipped (early) flying boats:
- Flying Boat
- Large Flying Boat (note: This could include R-planes)
- Flying Boat Torpedo bomber (note: This could include the earliest torpedo bombers)


AA at least should work in other way, from the moment the air attack starts and after few tunrs it ends (5?) every ship in a range from the "planes unit" should fire aa, and stack the damage non linealy or get multiple rounds of aa over the same "unit" until the run ends. I bealive its not reliable to hunt planes going in or out becose you dont model the plane altitude...

[avimimus]

I like the idea of organising divisions - especially if it leads to reduced availability.

However, the current solution still doesn't remove a major frustration - the classification of cruisers.

In the late 1940s I tend to start building some dedicate anti-aircraft cruisers (homogenous 5" or 6" anti-aircraft batteries, lighter armour) to accompany my larger warships. However, I also operate some cruisers designed to engage other cruisers and/or support destroyer squadrons which retain heavier guns or armour.

The game regularly mixes my anti-aircraft cruisers in with my other cruisers - and this leads them to get slaughtered - or forces me to pull all of my cruisers back from anti-destroyer screening/scouting to anti-aircraft screening. It is very frustrating (I've actually stopped several playthroughs).

There are a few possible solutions:

• 1) Create a custom anti-aircraft cruiser logic
  
• 2) Allow adding cruisers to BB/BC or CV/CVL divisions
• 3) Making a distinction between forward/screening divisions and core divisions which determines how far forward they are in the formation.

I think this third option is optimal - because it would even allow putting destroyer squadrons with 3" guns closer to the enemy than ones wit 5" guns. It could be very flexible.

So I'd suggest having a setting to determine whether the division should be placed in the vanguard or the rear.

P.S. Some of these solutions might also help a bit with those of us who try to create 'through deck cruisers' as commerce raiders or try to create coastal monitors etc. It isn't a perfect solution, but it would at least make it less impossible. I also like the idea that player created divisions should lead to less availability for the ships (whereas ships which are left 'loose' tend to show up more often)

[avimimus]

The other frustration I've had recently is being blockaded when playing the Jeune École... if my ships aren't already on station I can't use them effectively for raiding. It would be great to have a 'break out at all costs' order to give to the navy.

This could possibly be done in the form of a battle (which one could accept or decline). Alternatively, if the player tries to break out three times in a row - have the third time succeed but with significant casualties.

Note:
A final frustration I'd almost forgotten about - is the inability to detach a destroyer squadron to conduct a night attack on enemy warships (without it attempting to return to my capital ships as soon as contact is lost)!! We really need to have a the flotilla attack button also detach destroyers if the flotilla attack order is given at night!

[avimimus]

It'd also be nice to be able to choose whether or not to adopt a doctrine (after it is developed). Allow me to be foolishly conservative and ignore good ideas!