|
|
Post by jason91680 on Mar 25, 2020 19:00:20 GMT -6
Playing the US and it's early 1950's.
why are my BBs being put into battle by themselves against enemy carriers and battlegroups? There is no way that you would send out ships haphazardly like that without AA ships like CLs and DDs to ward off the enemy. I have plenty of all classes of ships in the region and getting stupid scenarios that don't make sense and make it impossible to win. why is the enemy getting all their ships massed together so that I can't attack them while my BBs get decimated? when land based aircraft do strikes against the enemy it barely puts a dent in their fleet. why? why is my AA not effective against the enemy aircraft and my aircraft not effective at sinking the enemy ships despite having better stats than the enemy. Everything is getting decimated and is so ineffective at sinking enemy ships??? The battle system is completely insane and frustrating and there's not enough information in the manual or in game to understand why things are turning out the way they are.
I enjoyed the first 20 years of BB battles but the air portion of the game is insane to figure out. I simply couldn't figure it out and got decimated. not very fun to play not knowing what to do despite having better ships, aircraft and numerical superiority.
|
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Mar 26, 2020 7:52:01 GMT -6
Let me guess- a war against Great Britain? I fight any war in this game, except against GB. You can´t win this, even with a high amount of raiders and subs and kill half of their fleet in the first few months. There are several events with food shortages in GB and the Brits are demanding peace. At some point all is turning to your disadvantage- you get 15 subs sunk each month for the next 3 months (losing about two thirds of your sub fleet), several raiders scuttle or are interned or get sunk in battles and you start to get really wierd garbage matches- e.g. convoy raids with about 4 DDs near Portugal with Germany, half of your vessels don´t make it into battle because of their lack of fuel (they have medium range) and than you have to fight 20 DDs and 2 CL and perhaps a CVL in the back. With the new rule to sink 6 instead of 2 TR, unwinable! Enemy major victory.
Or a convoy defence with 1 CL (your entire fleet waits in Wilhelmshaven, there are no lack of fuel events) against the whole rest of the enemy battle fleet. Next British major victory.
I had a game with Austria-Hungary, possessing half the Mediterranian (all that was Italian or French except the home areas!) in the late 40s and you think you have 2500-3000 planes and this is enough to beat the Brits out of "your" Mediterranian- yes, of course! At one point all what was, doesn´t count anymore- in that case it was my CV-force of 4 CVL with fighter-bombers (I had 3 different types of fighters in that game and one could carry 1000lbs bombs), next to 3 screaning CL-AA and 2 units of DDs, thinking it is OK to spot their own targets at night and fight at point blank range, while my main force was searching- the enemy spawned between my main force (near Sicily) and my CV-force (next to Malta- they could talk to several villages near the coast). All were punished (I don´t know how many torpedo hit pop ups there were)! From a logical point of view- which man in charge of such an important force- it is the pride of your nation- leads it near Malta (or any enemy coast)? CTRL+ALT+DEL- ragequit!
And this is something I started noticing with RTW1! You wiped out the whole globe, everywhere are your possessions- I had a playthrough with Japan and had even Finland and the Baltics and all non-british possessions in Westafrica and the Indian Ocean. Endboss Great Britain shows you its ugly face after a few successful starting-months!
Landing battle in West Africa (well, this time against France- happend this morning, about 4 hours ago)- I have 40 torpedobombers with enough range, split on 2 bases (in addition 2x16 bombing-capable air ships and 2x10 bomb carrying flying boats). The landing point is exactly between these bases. I have 1 CL to defend this. I try hit and run from the flanks to get a few shots at the TRs and hope my torpedo bombers start and sink these buggers. In 1543 minutes (the time until the battle ended- I talk about more than a whole day!) 11 out of 2x20 TB started and landed 2 torpedo hits and sunk one single TR. My CL lands one torpedo hit on an enemy BC (these first crappy ones with 4x2 12"- 2 of them winged- and 6" belt without any TDS) at about one third of the battle. At the end this thing has heavy damage but isn´t sunk- there is still flodding (38) in the vessel´s log. I lose ships through "progressive flodding" (1) with about 100 spare tons of space, still afloat at the end of the battle, about a little jump next to one of my harbours. This thing had to make several 100 miles home (from Angola to Cameroon)! Enemy major victory, lose 2 Prestige and get sacked because you start the war with 17 prestige.
You try to prevent high tensions with early 1920 Germany, because you can´t build some big points vessels fast enough, that have any battle value for later wars (I don´t build 12000ts Bs with shitty attributes that I have to scrap 5-10 years later). But at one point the Duce in Italy or some socialist idiot in the USSR thinks it is better to disturb your business- than you don´t have enough vessels and because "tension is rising, you don´t have enough ships" your prestige suffers significantly. And I normally get these events every 2-3 months ( I had a similar event with the US where I had to few CA/BC- lost 10 prestige in 1 year, got sacked, because the president was an idiot!). My building list is full of ships, but the big points (CAs and some fast BBs, because I had a successfull facist coup event and the Führer stopped all treaties) have a bit duration untill they have finished. I ruin my funds with accelerated building and get sacked within a year. And there is absolutely nothing you can do. If this happens 1-2 times out of 10, all is OK. Let´s say **** happens. But this happens far too often imo. Especially than, when I try to have some medium tension (yellow) to gain some extra budget. OK, some say, that´s the difficulty with 1920 WNT/Versailles Germany and it´s a challenge I love to master, but in this case, you can´t do anything against this and you ruin about 1-2 hours playtime.
There are things in this game I really start to hate, because the amount of bad luck is far to high- and it is in 4 out of 5 games where something really strange happens and ruins the current game! And I bet my ass, if something is running far too well- maybe you get Norway and the Baltics with Germany in the early years of the game, or the very rare event to conquer something not in Europe, you get punched really hard later on!
Yes, there are insanely frustrating situations (coupled with some bugs)!
|
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Mar 26, 2020 17:40:18 GMT -6
"why are my BBs being put into battle by themselves against enemy carriers and battlegroups? There is no way that you would send out ships haphazardly like that without AA ships like CLs and DDs to ward off the enemy." It absolutely did happen in history though. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse |
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 26, 2020 18:53:09 GMT -6
Additionally, any of the Kriegsmarine's Atlantic commerce raiding operations involving one or two major warships could fairly plausibly have ended with essentially-unescorted heavy ships being destroyed by superior battle groups and supporting carrier forces, even though in the event only Rheinubung (Bismarck and Prinz Eugen) really suffered this fate. Similarly for the abortive 1944 Indian Ocean raid conducted by three Japanese heavy cruisers.
The Battle of the North Cape could also count, since the five destroyers which were to accompany Scharnhorst had become separated from and lost contact with the battleship by the time it ran into the mostly-British forces covering Convoys JW 55B and RA 55A, though I don't think any carriers were around for that one.
Operation Ten-Go arguably also counts since Yamato's escort was more or less completely inadequate given the opposition it was likely to and did encounter, but on the other hand the Japanese Navy wasn't really in a position to put a more appropriate force to sea by that point in the war. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Mar 26, 2020 22:52:09 GMT -6
The difference, of course, is Gamer's Fallacy. We have 20/20 foresight in that we 'know' from history what happened and, to a great degree, why.
Prince of Wales and Repulse, and Bismarck, were all lost by taking what appeared to be a reasonable risk but which turned out not to be.
The game does attempt to recreate history but it strait-jackets the player who knows better (and who may have some idea of why it is a foolish risk), who would not put his forces in that position if he had the choice. This is Gamer's Fallacy: we demand historical accuracy and demand almost-perfect control over our forces while resenting being forced into bad but historical situations. The reason, of course, is that we do not operate from the false assumptions, bad data and lack of knowledge that plagued our historical counterparts. We all 'know' that the carrier is the weapon of the future, that oxygen torpedoes are best, that radar is a magic cure-all for air cover and night-fighting too, so we beeline for those key technologies and then complain that tech advances too fast...
One 'quick fix' would be to limit those 'bad move' missions to one-time-only, or limit missions that expose ships to air attacks to a time before a certain limit. A deeper solution would be the equivalent of the variable technology rules but covering specifically AA equipment and aircraft equipment and operations. The player would get data on how his gear and planes would perform, which would be correct for a certain value of correctness... but truth would only emerge after things were 'field-tested'.
I see no prospect of getting that adopted as we players love the Gamer's Fallacy: we demand perfect knowledge and total control and historical accuracy too - and we know too much history so we min-max our way to the most optimum strategies.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Mar 27, 2020 2:27:34 GMT -6
I myself have claimed some weird issues in the game.
I can understand the mood a bit, especially if the game engine throws your BBs without aircover into the enemies airforce ... if you have carrier in the region. And I agree that cover from land-based planes is still not very good. I have also sometimes had the impression that some nations have advantages but I have to confess that is impression vanished in later games I played.
The problem with the UK is that ... it is the UK. They had the biggest navy in the world. And they had everywhere a harbour. Therefore, every war with the UK is a risk ( if you do not play the USA). But this is a good simulation. Compare that with WW 1. The German navy had no real chance to win the naval war. For Raiders they had no secure ports abroad to replenish them. And the HSF was 5:8 inferior and could have easily lost Jutland with very heavy losses.
In RTW 1 I sometimes achieved a white peace as Germany in a war with UK when I had lots of subs and DDs. Even with Japan in RTW 2 I achieved that when I could sink a lot of UK BBs as they were in a battle without sufficient air cover.
Yes, a war with the UK is always a high risk issue. But that is a correct simulation of the reality. All other issues can happen always as this is a game and not a military training program.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Mar 27, 2020 2:32:58 GMT -6
The Battle of the North Cape could also count, since the five destroyers which were to accompany Scharnhorst had become separated from and lost contact with the battleship by the time it ran into the mostly-British forces covering Convoys JW 55B and RA 55A, though I don't think any carriers were around for that one. IMHO, it really doesn't count, because there's a reason no carriers were around: The battle took place north of the arctic circle in December in a blinding snowstorm. Except for some twilight around noon, it was a night battle, and the weather was neither balmy nor bomby. Scharnhorst could operate with zero fear of air attack. |
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 27, 2020 4:07:55 GMT -6
I reckon in reality, to put it simply, the two reasons the above mentioned scenarios can be traced back to were > necessity > negligence The issue is I feel that the point is not so much whether or not the battle generator generates explainable results, but that the player is not directly involved in the "negligence"-part, and is not directly aware of the "necessity"-part. I often said and believe still that putting missiles, 1870, 1970 and whatnot aside, the title would profit the most from bridging over the rift between the strategic and tactical layer. Odd hits and penetrations, magazine explosions etc., many occurences can be decently simulated with answers generated randomly on percentages on the tactical level, but frankly, no amount of "historically it happened twice for whatever reasons" can bring back the suspense of disbelief and the gameflow when the player finds himself with two lone destroyers in the middle of the operational range of 600 land-based aircraft in broad daylight. I do not think the issue is unbearable, especially not "insanely frustrating", I just think that the reasoning above (arguing about the historical nature), while true, is not necessarily the best approach for the problem.
By the way my biggest gripe with the current system is not the "strange" or ""unfair"" or "unbelievable" results it sometimes produces, but the fact that specialized designs are absolutely neutered in any shape of battlefield practicality, as the player has zero influence over the battle generation and nigh-zero influence over the OoB.
|
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Mar 27, 2020 4:30:34 GMT -6
I reckon in reality, to put it simply, the two reasons the above mentioned scenarios can be traced back to were > necessity > negligence The issue is I feel that the point is not so much whether or not the battle generator generates explainable results, but that the player is not directly involved in the "negligence"-part, and is not directly aware of the "necessity"-part. I often said and believe still that putting missiles, 1870, 1970 and whatnot aside, the title would profit the most from bridging over the rift between the strategic and tactical layer. Odd hits and penetrations, magazine explosions etc., many occurences can be decently simulated with answers generated randomly on percentages on the tactical level, but frankly, no amount of "historically it happened twice for whatever reasons" can bring back the suspense of disbelief and the gameflow when the player finds himself with two lone destroyers in the middle of the operational range of 600 land-based aircraft in broad daylight. I do not think the issue is unbearable, especially not "insanely frustrating", I just think that the reasoning above (arguing about the historical nature), while true, is not necessarily the best approach for the problem.
By the way my biggest gripe with the current system is not the "strange" or ""unfair"" or "unbelievable" results it sometimes produces, but the fact that specialized designs are absolutely neutered in any shape of battlefield practicality, as the player has zero influence over the battle generation and nigh-zero influence over the OoB.
well said resp. written
whereas I accept that on this level of abstraction you have sometimes odd scenarios; sometimes;
sometimes even the player has an advantage of that; I play at the moment Italy with historic budget; so my fleet is small and not the best; the reclassification issues lead tot the result that I had only 2 BC; therefore, the game engine throws always these 2 ships in all battles with the effect that these ships have now absolute elite crews able to win all battles even Italy has a fixed deficit there.
|
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Mar 27, 2020 6:07:33 GMT -6
Excuse my quasi-double post, I felt like reacting to what director said, as it is very thoughtful, but ultimately can't necessarily agree with it fully. I, for one, would like more occassional control,but the main point is not to power up my mighty 20/20 hindsight , but to be more involved in the game by following up the cause with an effect without the ever-present need to force a perceivedly historically plausible scenario.
...because then we don't need the strategic overlay at all. We just need Steam and Iron 2, and every problem got suddenly solved.
Right now the player can build ships up to 90k tons (but can't some ship types, which were still historically present), slap down random airbases at random places, enforce very, very dubious blockades, suffocate massive nations with submarines. If you'll excuse me this, the abstractions work very well and I am rather pleased with them, it's a good game but it's rather far from reality - for very, very good reasons of course. But then the battle generator takes over to produce "historically accurate" scenarios so the player can't utilize former experience apparently. The player however still utilizes former experience, jut not historical experience this time, but experience regarding the battle generator. Looking at the discord for example, players already build according to the "meta", and I actually had some proposals to counter that (for example, somewhat randomize the 16.000t CVL-conversion hard number).
Once again, I think that taking the arguments towards the historical hindsight <-> total control issue is problematic because first it polarizes the issue (I do firmly believe that the player can be made involved much more with giving some control while absolutely avoiding total control, I made proposals regarding this as well even without getting rid of the battle generator), and secondly - perhaps more importantly - the problem lies much less in those situations being "frustrating", and much more in being disconnected and unexplained apart from "random said so". It has no context.
|
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Mar 27, 2020 6:18:27 GMT -6
RTW and RTW2 lack an intermediate stage between the great maritime / industrial strategy and the purely tactical phase.
Most players strive to create a well-balanced fleet and, should they play a SAI campaign, they would take care to sail with a well-balanced task force wherever possible.
Perhaps it would be possible to limit the arbitrariness of AI by setting some basic operating criteria, as suggested also in an other thread.
For example, you should be able to choose whether to use your CVs to accompany the BB divisions, as the Royal Navy almost always did (if HMS Indomitable had not run aground she would have sailed with Prince of Wales and Repulse), or on the contrary to gather as many CVs as possible in indipendent task forces, as the US Navy did.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Mar 27, 2020 6:22:46 GMT -6
The Battle of the North Cape could also count, since the five destroyers which were to accompany Scharnhorst had become separated from and lost contact with the battleship by the time it ran into the mostly-British forces covering Convoys JW 55B and RA 55A, though I don't think any carriers were around for that one. IMHO, it really doesn't count, because there's a reason no carriers were around: The battle took place north of the arctic circle in December in a blinding snowstorm. Except for some twilight around noon, it was a night battle, and the weather was neither balmy nor bomby. Scharnhorst could operate with zero fear of air attack. The point is more that it ran into a superior hostile battle group without any escort than that it was exposed to air attack. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2020 12:22:30 GMT -6
By the way my biggest gripe with the current system is not the "strange" or ""unfair"" or "unbelievable" results it sometimes produces, but the fact that specialized designs are absolutely neutered in any shape of battlefield practicality, as the player has zero influence over the battle generation and nigh-zero influence over the OoB.
This is the main reason I build more general purpose cruisers, which has good speed, protection, armament, AA defences and torpedoes. If I need some savings I do compromise and refits according the needs. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Mar 27, 2020 12:25:26 GMT -6
For example, you should be able to choose whether to use your CVs to accompany the BB divisions, as the Royal Navy almost always did (if HMS Indomitable had not run aground she would have sailed with Prince of Wales and Repulse), or on the contrary to gather as many CVs as possible in indipendent task forces, as the US Navy did. I think that main reasons were the resources available. As RN did not have so many carriers they need to choose that carriers will just protect fleet from land based aircraft and fleet deals with enemy fleet. |
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Mar 27, 2020 15:19:31 GMT -6
... Perhaps it would be possible to limit the arbitrariness of AI by setting some basic operating criteria, as suggested also in an other thread. ...
This would solve many problem, I guess.
Perhaps some additional buttons in the doctrine menue could help there. What about some kind of "global doctrine" like Jeune Ecôle (every DD units gets his own CL as leader), Raiding Task Forces (1-2 BBs, 1 CV/L, a few cruisers and DDs as standard composition), Fleet in Being (your BB/BCs are split to all harbours in your area, not only one spot), Carrier Task Forces (all CV build your core and all is screaning it- a separated scouting force is your bait), and so on? You chose this doctrine, like your training but with a preparation time of 24 months- depending what you chose, you get a little help in the battle creation. Or we do that totally different and give each class of ship its own purpose- you build a super large cruiser like a 4x3 12"/1 Alaska-Class and all this thing is doing is CV-screaning, instead of hunting cruisers and raiders? Really? In RTW1 a BCs purpose was clear- battle scouting and cruiser hunting. In RTW2 all is becoming CV-screan at some point in the game. (and this especially sucks, if the AI is building hordes of CAs during some treaties- you build some conter and all it becomes is CV-screan)
Or it is a pitty that you can´t build some large DDs or very small cruisers as flotila leaders, that count as such and are deployed as DD leaders- like the IJN did in WW2.
I think, what starts to kill my fun is, that there is this point in the game, all is about CV and all battles are made around CV/CVL and maybe land bases (in case of the Mediterranian). There is no Battle of the Atlantic with some CVE and old BBs covering a large convoy stalked by a raiding group of 1-2 BBs and their escorts. It doesn´t matter if you have Iceland or Norway as Germany- 80-90% of the battles are around the North Sea and starting with 1940 my medium bombers with 600+ range and some 2000lbs guided bombs handle anything.
There could be so many more aspects in the game but currently there is only one direction to play the game.
|
|
