berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 6, 2020 12:33:58 GMT -6
seawolf mentioned in a thread somewhere about the devs seemingly moving toward some kind of Cold War scenario. I thought we might have some fun sharing some things we want to see if we get a DLC for The Cold War. I went through the suggestions list and give credit for some awesome ideas. Post yours! Costs no more than $20! Is ready by Halloween! Has a submarine configurator of some sort. nuclearnadal Has submarines you can control in battle! nuclearnadal Has every missile, radar/tech you can think of! Has Jets with swing wings! Has Nuclear power! Has Tactical nuclear weapons! Has Destroyers with more tonnage! titanuranus Has ships with more hardpoints! Has early warning radar planes! Has rocket and missile payloads for planes! christian cogsandspigots Has Tactical Map Tools! @pavelsvt Has Stealth Tech for planes, ships and missiles! Has Waypoints for Planes and Ships! Has more Events and Images! noshurviverse Has Missile coastal batteries! Has AI Wars! tortugapower Has ship and plane tankers! Has coastal defence ships! oldpop2000 colprice Has Natural/Econ Disasters! Coronavirus anyone! oldpop2000 Has Treaties to rebuild ships as carriers! dizzy Has Saved Replays of stats and battles! rimbecano generalvikus Has conning tower refits for carrier conversions! yemo Has invasion mechanic for neutral countries! dizzy Has Diplomacy mechanic using Prestige! dizzyHas manual Air Search! dorn Has aircraft defections! JagdFlanker Has scrapped ship purchase options! stevethecat Has a Halt move order button! brygun Has Emergency Repair of Ships! Yorktown Repair Rule bcoopactual Has Doctrines for Day/Night Coastal Raids! seawolf Has Ship Self Defense Systems!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 6, 2020 12:51:28 GMT -6
I would like to see included in a DLC, Brush Wars. Korea, Vietnam, Greek Civil War, 1948 Arab-Israeli, Malayan Emergency, Indo-Pakistani War, Algerian War, Suez Crisis, Congo etc. These conflicts were supported by the two superpowers and were generally on the Asian Continent. They were not popular in many countries. I was born, raised and served in the military during the Cold War so I watched these wars develop and explode.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on May 6, 2020 12:55:55 GMT -6
You have to remember NWS is a very small studio.
If they choose to make a DLC, having all these features, only costing 20$, and being ready by Halloween are sort of mutually exclusive.
Personally, I’d love to see a DLC solely focused on radar, missile, and aircraft tech, as well as modifying the ship designer to allow an extension through the 1960s
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on May 6, 2020 13:33:08 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the time-span, but personally I would prefer certain game mechanics to be better fleshed out even if it meant the time-span of the game doesn't get extended.
First of all, the current diplomatic system is really shallow. I would like to see nations fighting each other, forming longer term alliances or rivalries, and going to war over specific objectives, not to mention having more than six other nations to fill the map with. I imagine just those changes alone might be worth a DLC or RTW3 on it's own since it would probably entail a lot of changes to the base game though.
The other mechanic I don't really like is that of subs. Right now you just build a bunch of generic subs and they roll a chance to sink merchant or warships based on tech level every turn. I would like to both design subs and use them in the battle simulator. If subs become part of the actual battle side of the game, it would be more important to have ASW on destroyers at all times instead of having pure fleet destroyers and ASW trade protection ships.
Of course none of these are mutually exclusive to a cold war DLC, but any of these changes represent a substantial amount of work on their own.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 6, 2020 14:02:36 GMT -6
I would just note that having ASW equipment for fleet destroyer has reason even now. It protect fleet in same region against submarines so with good fleet destroyers with ASW equipment helps that your warship will be not torpedoed by submarines so often.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 6, 2020 14:25:00 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the time-span, but personally I would prefer certain game mechanics to be better fleshed out even if it meant the time-span of the game doesn't get extended. First of all, the current diplomatic system is really shallow. I would like to see nations fighting each other, forming longer term alliances or rivalries, and going to war over specific objectives, not to mention having more than six other nations to fill the map with. I imagine just those changes alone might be worth a DLC or RTW3 on it's own since it would probably entail a lot of changes to the base game though. The other mechanic I don't really like is that of subs. Right now you just build a bunch of generic subs and they roll a chance to sink merchant or warships based on tech level every turn. I would like to both design subs and use them in the battle simulator. If subs become part of the actual battle side of the game, it would be more important to have ASW on destroyers at all times instead of having pure fleet destroyers and ASW trade protection ships. Of course none of these are mutually exclusive to a cold war DLC, but any of these changes represent a substantial amount of work on their own. I would agree. I would like to see a more detailed ship designer along with a submarine designer. Aircraft design would be very nice. Believe me, you really don't want to try to replicate the Cold War in the game. You really wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by polygon on May 6, 2020 15:13:19 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the time-span, but personally I would prefer certain game mechanics to be better fleshed out even if it meant the time-span of the game doesn't get extended. First of all, the current diplomatic system is really shallow. I would like to see nations fighting each other, forming longer term alliances or rivalries, and going to war over specific objectives, not to mention having more than six other nations to fill the map with. I imagine just those changes alone might be worth a DLC or RTW3 on it's own since it would probably entail a lot of changes to the base game though. The other mechanic I don't really like is that of subs. Right now you just build a bunch of generic subs and they roll a chance to sink merchant or warships based on tech level every turn. I would like to both design subs and use them in the battle simulator. If subs become part of the actual battle side of the game, it would be more important to have ASW on destroyers at all times instead of having pure fleet destroyers and ASW trade protection ships. Of course none of these are mutually exclusive to a cold war DLC, but any of these changes represent a substantial amount of work on their own. This ×100. I would much rather have twice as much game in the same timespan as I would the same amount of game with a longer timespan. The basic mechanics already feel a bit stretched by 1950.
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 6, 2020 15:59:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the time-span, but personally I would prefer certain game mechanics to be better fleshed out even if it meant the time-span of the game doesn't get extended. First of all, the current diplomatic system is really shallow. I would like to see nations fighting each other, forming longer term alliances or rivalries, and going to war over specific objectives, not to mention having more than six other nations to fill the map with. I imagine just those changes alone might be worth a DLC or RTW3 on it's own since it would probably entail a lot of changes to the base game though. The other mechanic I don't really like is that of subs. Right now you just build a bunch of generic subs and they roll a chance to sink merchant or warships based on tech level every turn. I would like to both design subs and use them in the battle simulator. If subs become part of the actual battle side of the game, it would be more important to have ASW on destroyers at all times instead of having pure fleet destroyers and ASW trade protection ships. Of course none of these are mutually exclusive to a cold war DLC, but any of these changes represent a substantial amount of work on their own. This ×100. I would much rather have twice as much game in the same timespan as I would the same amount of game with a longer timespan. The basic mechanics already feel a bit stretched by 1950. I know what you mean. I would usually quit around 1950 in all my games prior to patch 1.20 because the game became stagnant with no more tech progression and little more to do... until Missiles. Missiles are so much fun! You really have to build your fleet differently. There's a whole new set of challenges and building design to be had. My game is still going strong in 1968 with just the little bit they've given us. I'd love to equip my fighters with different types of AAM and AShM and I hope they flesh it all out and give us a proper sim with all these new toys.
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on May 6, 2020 16:32:51 GMT -6
I wouldn't be opposed to an extension of the time-span, but personally I would prefer certain game mechanics to be better fleshed out even if it meant the time-span of the game doesn't get extended. First of all, the current diplomatic system is really shallow. I would like to see nations fighting each other, forming longer term alliances or rivalries, and going to war over specific objectives, not to mention having more than six other nations to fill the map with. I imagine just those changes alone might be worth a DLC or RTW3 on it's own since it would probably entail a lot of changes to the base game though. The other mechanic I don't really like is that of subs. Right now you just build a bunch of generic subs and they roll a chance to sink merchant or warships based on tech level every turn. I would like to both design subs and use them in the battle simulator. If subs become part of the actual battle side of the game, it would be more important to have ASW on destroyers at all times instead of having pure fleet destroyers and ASW trade protection ships. Of course none of these are mutually exclusive to a cold war DLC, but any of these changes represent a substantial amount of work on their own. This ×100. I would much rather have twice as much game in the same timespan as I would the same amount of game with a longer timespan. The basic mechanics already feel a bit stretched by 1950. I agree fully. The pre-dreadnought and early dreadnought era is already my favorite time period covered in game. I would rather see changes made to the game that improve the entire experience rather than just tacking on some new technologies at the end. And while I think the game could be extended to about 1965 with the current engine by adding missiles, helicopters, nuclear power, AEW, etc., anything past that date would be too different to fit in the existing engine in my opinion. The reliance on satellites for surveillance and weapons that can strike thousands of miles would break the game.
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on May 6, 2020 17:02:45 GMT -6
Love these ideas, i know its not ideal, but i would like a change/overhaul/improvement of the Battle finding system. I find so many battles can be one sided, and i get that. However its often only against the player to be one sided. Other gripes include not being able to select ships, for example i would like to create maybe a Battle Cruiser squadron of say 2 BC's and 5 DD's which are modern with decent AA for screening. Yet with current system knowing my luck i will get 1 new 1 old BC both different speeds, some times different guns. with maybe 2 light cruisers as a raider design so minimal AA ect.
Just a bit more control over it would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 6, 2020 17:28:18 GMT -6
No one has said Halloween of which year. >_<
So its like saying the troops will be home for Christmas.
lol
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 6, 2020 22:14:33 GMT -6
I'd rather they overhaul the battle generation system, war/diplomacy system (it's way too simplistic and not at all suited for war in the Pacific), and the carrier conversion/turret rebuild system rather than focus on missiles and extending the play date.
I think the former two need the most work to improve the game play. The player is supposed to be the Grand Admiral of his fleet, but have absolutely zero say on the composition or deployment of said forces. I understand things happen and no plan goes accordingly and believe me I do not want to have to micromanage divisions for every fleet battle, but there's a huge disconnect between design and doctrine that this game is missing. No navy designs a ship just to be thrown into random battle. There needs to be some kind of communication between the head of the navy (the player) and his field commanders (the battle generator).
That being said, I also think there should be more doctrinal and organizational choices and/or management. We already have to micromanage ammo load out and ammo target selection. I'm talking about management or choices that impact personnel/officer corp, naval culture, fleet trains, etc. I'm not talking about micromanaging fleet logistics here, but just some stuff that would give the player some more say over how the navy is run or managed. Aside from a few national attributes, virtually every navy in RtW/RtW2 is the exact same with just different sized budgets.
Also the strategic move system is atrocious.
As for the war/diplomacy system, I just find it too boring. Tensions rise, you go to war, you whittle down/decimate the AI, the AI spams subs, you randomly obtain peace, tensions rise again, and repeat. That's if you're winning the wars. I just wish wars had a little scope or goals either through the ambition of your nation's AI leadership or through your own ambition (in cases where you have significant say in government). And I like how the battle generator simulates raids and such, but I wish missions had more purpose. Like coastal bombardments or raids that actually impact enemy logistics or repair ability in a sea zone or supporting scenarios that impact land combat outside of naval invasions. Intercepting of enemy taskforces that are traversing a seazone rather than a random battle that happens in random places of a seazone when two forces are present. Having some kind of scope or missions, from both the AI and player, would impact what battles happen and where. Does the AI want to attack a possession, defend a possession, actively hunt down the enemy carriers, or simply maintain a fleet in being to control a sea zone would impact what kind of scenarios that would trigger (player versus AI initiated coastal raids/bombardments, cruisers actions vs fleet battles), where they happen (closer to AI or player held possessions), and how often. To be honest the current war system and invasion system works good enough for WW1, but WW2 or Pacific spanning battles - not so much. I also think there needs to be invasions (but not capturing) of home territory, either initiated by the navy or the army depending on location, closeness of the two nations, and logistic ability of the attacker. These would never be initiated by the player, but may rely on the players input (such as, for example playing as the USA and being asked to choose between blockading Japan or attempting to invade) and would depended on how well the war is going. Such an invasion would last a lot longer than invasions of possessions and could either be repulsed (either behind the scenes like usual land combat or in the case of a naval invasion be repulsed in tactical combat), stalemated (more likely to happen in early game), or the invaded nation is overrun and faces harsh peace terms. And regular invasions need to split into different kind of invasions, regular invasions that are currently in the game and dependent on invasion range, large invasions that rely on Army support for possessions greater than 10 and use a different system, and special invasions for cases like in the Pacific when a possession is outside of range even with the most advanced invasion tech. Furthermore allied nations should be doing more with their Navy during a war rather than a few destroyer losses a year. And AI wars be nice, especially if it involves the player nation being able to join like the AI can join player wars. And have required neutrality patrols be a thing
Now as for DLC content, aside from Cold War stuff, I'd love to have neutral nations that spawn outdated generic designed light ships and/or coastal defense battleships depending on their value if the player tries to invade them. With more neutral possessions including in South America. Imagine an diplomatic event like ones we get now involving neutral nations, but it involves an actual peacetime scenario where you find yourself sending ships for a onetime face off against some small fleet of spawned South American dreadnoughts. Or imagine playing as a leading naval power, going to war, and getting an event that give you the ability to seize a neutral ship or dreadnought that was under construction in your docks.
|
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on May 7, 2020 6:33:36 GMT -6
Fleet scouting - nobody is using CLs or any lighter ships because there is no need for them, maybe make them like trade protection where you need to allocate certain number of ships in your fleet for scouting duty and it would tie to battle generator -i.e. low scouting will generate more unfavorable battles or even surprise attacks
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 7, 2020 8:15:03 GMT -6
Fleet scouting - nobody is using CLs or any lighter ships because there is no need for them, maybe make them like trade protection where you need to allocate certain number of ships in your fleet for scouting duty and it would tie to battle generator -i.e. low scouting will generate more unfavorable battles or even surprise attacks Thats a good idea. >>>>> Also on my own recommendation for a "Halt" button in the discussions I came to favor a "Slow" button at 5-10 knts vs a speed 0 "Halt". That slow speed is about preventing flooding damage expanding and for a damaged fleet to gather its members back into a fighting formation.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 7, 2020 8:51:30 GMT -6
nobody is using CLs or any lighter ships because there is no need for them Should I feel insulted? I think you just called me nobody...
|
|