|
Post by jfmoyen on May 8, 2020 0:40:04 GMT -6
I am at a loss to understand the fascination with all of you about the Cold War, nuclear armed warships and all that goes with it. The Brush Wars were bad enough; costly, economically degenerative, and socially destructive. Let's just enhance the game from 1900 to 1955. In fact, let's go the other direction, let's move backward from 1900 and develop the game in that direction; the Age of Iron and Steel. It was more interesting technologically and geostrategically. The game, in my opinion, is about designing ships (and fleets) and testing them on the battlefield. In that sense, I'm not too worried by the lack of depth of the diplomatic engine - this is not what makes the game fun. It would work nearly as well, in fact, if you built your fleet and then clicked on "generate a war" when you want to try something new (well nearly, of course you prepare your fleet for a war with a specific opponent, and with specific mission goals). In that sense, the battle generator, as many people pointed out, is a sore point. You can design your ships, all the way down to the colour of the paint in the Captain's cabin, but you have no control on how they will be used operationally - it is a bit silly, I think. I'd like to have something like, at least task forces, or perhaps the way to define a doctrine/mission for my ships a bit more flexible than BB/CA/CL. I'd settle for something as simple as "you give each ship a primary and perhaps a couple of secondary roles. So if you have a shore bombardment mission, the game would at least pick ships for which you gave a shore support role, and won't try to use something that you did not build for that purpose - at all". A dozen of roles, perhaps, such as "shore bombardment", "battle line", "scouting", "AA", "ASW"... They could appear as the result of new tech, of course. Returning to the DLC/expansion. If we keep in ind that the game is about building and adapting, then the logical conclusion is that the real fun periods to game are periods of technical revolutions. So in the present framework, the onset of dreadnoughts and the onset of air power. It is fun to experiments with new designs, road not taken, unlikely ships and so on. It is immensely frustrating and absolute fun to build a super fleet of state-of-the-arts battleships to be rendered obsolete 5 years latter by the advent of carrier based air power. Yes, I want more of that ! On the other hand, playing through a period of no/little/incremental changes is boring. 1935 to 1950 ? Baah. More of the same, just bigger and meaner. Ok, so my state of the art 1935 CV is an average 1945 one, sure, but it is not obsolete. Which means that, indeed, I'd love to see periods of major technological changes included in the game. The end of sail would be awesome (I love all the crazy sips from the 1870s-90s ! Sail and steam, rams, barbettes, the last broadside ironclads.... Anybody here remembers Space 1889 and the associated 'fleet' system ? what was it called again, 'ironclads and ether flyers', I think ?). So many things that change, so many new toys to play with and options to experiment, so many things that can go obsolete overnight (rams !). By the same token, the start of the cold war is also great. Jets, real submarines, radar, missiles... Again, so many toys to render your fleet obsolete overnight. Mind you, even the evolution into the 1970s/80s would be cool (satellites, nuclear subs...), but... ... but. The system is totally geared towards a certain type of warfare. At all levels (diplomatic, design, tactical). If you move too far away from this paradigm (ships with big guns try to blast each other out of the water), why, I doubt the engine will be flexible enough. Into the Late Cold War era, for instance, you'd need to include fleet submarines that take part to fleet actions, for instance. Detection. Counter detection. Figther interception (and not only CAP). And then things become tricky, because this is not the same engine anymore... As many people pointed out, the early Cold War is Ok(-ish), because the differences are not so huge. A 1950s jet is not really different from a late WWII figther - better, yes, but you use it essentially in the same way. But a 1970s jet is a different proposition altogether. An early missile is just long range (and very high penetration !) artillery. But a Tomahawk is a different animal. etc. I'm afraid this also kills the idea of 1880. Sail ships would also require a change of system, I'm afraid. You have to take the wind into consideration, for one thing. A line of battle is paramount. And boarding may still play a role. And of course, the geopolitic scene changes, too. The wars between Powers that we play in the current game, well, it's not the geopolitics of the Cold War. At all. (Well, it's a 1900 diplomatic model, really, it fails to paint appropriately World Wars, but I'll let it pass...). Picking a war of, say, Italy against Japan in the Cold War is just silly, as both belong to the same block. And a war between two countries of different blocks is equally a dubious proposition, because of the chances that the big guys will come to the rescue (yes I know, we still had Indo-Pak and Israeli-Arab, and they were kept short and limited in scope for that reason - I mean, none ended with a Berlin45 style invasion of home territory or even an amphibious invasion, let alone massive transfer of land ownership). Plus the obvious elephant in the room: powers come and go. If you play a 1880 power, say Austria-Hungary, obviously you cannot play it until after 1919 (there was no more AH after then !). Again, you can now, which contributes to the 1900 feel of the game... On the other hand, for obvious reasons you cannot play India before 1947. And playing Spain after Cuba is probably going to be somewhat boring. So to wrap up - I'd love to see the game including as many technological breakthrough as possible, because this is what the game is about. But I suspect the developers can include only so many in the game, least the system starts breaking apart...
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on May 8, 2020 8:09:50 GMT -6
I am at a loss to understand the fascination with all of you about the Cold War, nuclear armed warships and all that goes with it. The Brush Wars were bad enough; costly, economically degenerative, and socially destructive. Let's just enhance the game from 1900 to 1955. In fact, let's go the other direction, let's move backward from 1900 and develop the game in that direction; the Age of Iron and Steel. It was more interesting technologically and geostrategically. I love sailing games with canons. But they don't sell well. I played one years ago... had a blast, but stayed away from all the subsequent games because I heard they all sucked. Has one come along that's really amazing? I'm ready to give it another go. As far as working back from 1900, I'm game. I'd love to see the Spanish American war where Spain lost their status as a global power. The 1890's would be pretty cool. I think the reason people are on fascination street with this Cold War is all the cool new toys that ushered in a new era of naval warfare unlike anything prior. What's not to like about that? I'm not an expert on the Cold War naval stuff (hell, I'm not an expert on anything naval, only a somewhat interested amateur), but given the range of SSMs in the late 60s and on, how much fun would it be to play out a fight? I mean, oh look, this tiny dot represents my battlegroup and that tiny dot all the way over there represents the enemy's battlegroup. Oh look, my missiles sunk half of them. Oh no, their missiles sunk half of mine. Kinda like carrier-on-carrier battles (Coral Sea comes to mind), to be quite honest. Might as well do away with the whole battle-sim part of the game, just roll some dice (X number of SSM vs. Y number of counter-missiles/CIWS) and hand me the results (yeah, I'm probably a bit exaggerating, but you get my drift) Don't get me wrong, I understand the longing for new shiny stuff, but this stuff comes with some serious drawbacks in terms of "is the game still fun?" P.s. Anyone who wants to try his hands on something like this ("realistic" navel combat- space naval combat, that is) and isn't averse to a SF setting, Aurora 4X (C# version) is great - insanely, no, ridiculously, absurdly, insanely complex and detailed (if you think Dwaf Fortress is too complex, don't bother, because Aurora 4X beats it by a lightyear), but also absolutely glorious - and it's free
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 8, 2020 10:37:12 GMT -6
One technological development I would like to see is the Christian Hulsmeyer patent for a Telemobiloscope in November 0f 1903. It could have been used to detect ships nearby in cloudy or foggy weather and at night.
|
|
geroj
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
Post by geroj on May 8, 2020 12:32:37 GMT -6
I am at a loss to understand the fascination with all of you about the Cold War, nuclear armed warships and all that goes with it. The Brush Wars were bad enough; costly, economically degenerative, and socially destructive. Let's just enhance the game from 1900 to 1955. In fact, let's go the other direction, let's move backward from 1900 and develop the game in that direction; the Age of Iron and Steel. It was more interesting technologically and geostrategically. I love sailing games with canons. But they don't sell well. I played one years ago... had a blast, but stayed away from all the subsequent games because I heard they all sucked. Has one come along that's really amazing? I'm ready to give it another go. As far as working back from 1900, I'm game. I'd love to see the Spanish American war where Spain lost their status as a global power. The 1890's would be pretty cool. I think the reason people are on fascination street with this Cold War is all the cool new toys that ushered in a new era of naval warfare unlike anything prior. What's not to like about that? Spain lost their status as a global power 90 years before that, US just strolled in with modern ships and bullied obsolete spanish colonial navy for 3 months
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 8, 2020 13:36:53 GMT -6
We had made the decision some time back not to include nuclear weapons in RTW2, and that has not changed. There are a number of reasons behind this decision (too many and too many details to go into to now), but we did give it due consideration.
|
|
|
Post by vasious on May 9, 2020 21:09:12 GMT -6
My wish list (as they may be impossible wishes) is AI vs Ai wars More AI per game, would love to see a game with the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, A-H, Russia, Japan, China and the four South American dreadnought race powers all in one game with Ai vs Ai wars
As a QOL idea, being able to set up task forces to better organise ships in the same location
|
|
fifey
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by fifey on May 9, 2020 21:22:13 GMT -6
I'm guessing the idea got nixed but I'd really love more granularity in choosing ship roles, particularly smaller ships, it would be nice to be able to build destroyer leaders, escort DDs and CLs. They might still be thrown into unfortunate situations but it would be nice to not feel compelled to build all rounders because you have no idea how those ships will be deployed.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 9, 2020 21:26:02 GMT -6
My wish list (as they may be impossible wishes) is AI vs Ai wars More AI per game, would love to see a game with the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, A-H, Russia, Japan, China and the four South American dreadnought race powers all in one game with Ai vs Ai wars As a QOL idea, being able to set up task forces to better organise ships in the same location AI vs AI is very much needed. The super simple occasional 0-1, 1-1 sinks messages always felt like a placeholder. >>>> I will though repeat that I dont think this game engine is suited for the advanced missile age. We don't have the basis for formation options that are needed. IF you look at the 1980s 1990s Harpoon games you have inner and outer air defence overlapped with ASW and yet somehow doing surface combat all of which is then overlapped with ships turning not to keep formation but to reveal arcs of fire for defensive guns. This game's formation system doesn't show the right data handling for that complexity. Its okay on the WW1 and WW2 eras.
|
|
|
Post by whyme943 on May 9, 2020 23:51:48 GMT -6
Mostly disagree with initial post. I don't think the current game's mechanics could go all the way to 1991 in a fun & realistic way. IMO doing so would require at least a sub designer, airplane designer, and Electronic Warfare system of detecting enemy radar.
I would encourage anyone interested to check out Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations, whose timescale starts in the immediate postwar period, for an idea of what a naval game set in this time period should look like. (most Command Scenarios take place over the course of ~1-2 weeks, but it's set at about the same level of command as RTW). Maybe someone in that community could come up with some kind of resource management campaign plugin?
I could see AShM boats replacing MTBs being added, AShM shore batteries, and maybe a limited Radar Warning Reciever system to flesh things out a bit more. Also ammo capacity for missile systems & being able to attack planes at standoff distance with them? However, this doesn't really take the timescale much farther than 1955.
Personally I WOULD be interested in a DLC starting with the first Pre-Dreadnoughts, but of course you run into the problem of then needing legacy ships. However, many of the current initial techs are already Pre-1900 historically, so...
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 10, 2020 1:28:47 GMT -6
what id like to see added to a cold war dlc or just improved on the main game a few which is consider massively important for the game right now and wouldn't exactly consider dlc things though could very much be in the DLC and wouldnt mind if they were all of these suggestions/wishes is something which was done between 1945 and 1965 tech wise -rebalanced armor and gun penetration to be historically accurate increase penetration of all guns by 30% and decrease armor weight by 30% KEEP BOMB PENETRATION THE SAME AS RIGHT NOW (this basically makes pen and armor values more realistic while keeping current bomb pen but due to lighter armor makes bombs less OP and less able to pierce basically any battleship as was the case historically -remove bombentorpedo tech -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ this is for balancing aa from 1940-1945 post 1945 the AA should scale with radar effectiveness -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -harsher defeats for AI and for you -realistic rate of fire i dont think i need to mention the 4 rof cap or how rate of fire especially post 1945 is hulariously low (seriously how can you not fire a 2-3 inch gun faster than 4 times per minute WHEN ITS AUTOLOADING) 4 rof cap needs to be removed and a cap needs to be set much much higher -fix the 2 inch gun its so neglected and basically useless why is it a thing when its so bad rest of the stuff is something i would like to see in a dlc and pay for -improved submarines (submarine builder missile subs and control of subs) -more in depth radar -faster jets and vtol (several vtol planes existed from 1960-1965) -higher tonnage DDs and corvettes -new frigate class -rocket payloads -heavier plane payloads -double torpedo payloads for torpedo bombers -motorbombaFFF tech be removed its not supposed to be used on torpedo bombers at best it was supposed to be used against slow transports not fast maneuvering warships -ASMs on all planes (to back this up a smaller fighter in 1958 had 2 ASMs with 30km range lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/oMw7Q6_Hg0TS_XV639vyzQi2_YRDW3vtzC5567exEOqBGqsJ75IOdxPEJwGsP623_xjaqVEhz86iO2kBwvNWOfqE4Yoye4qxzMblQ-x6LDe08K1wqViJZynzfRW6rX4LFo7zFAzdrCI6WW7UbJ4HyPOJO3M-remove bombentorpedo tech its unrealistic and too theoretical if tech such as double torpedoes for torpedo bombers is too theoretical then this magical bomb also is -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 -coastal missile batteries -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -improved gun procurement system nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2626/more-depth-gun-customization-system-AI wars (basically a must for me since the budget system is kinda fucked rn) -fixed budget system compare to AI -improved invasion mechanics -improved tech in all areas (obvious) -massively improved gun performance (think of the 1950s soviet 12 inch gun which had comparable performance to some 14-15 inch guns) -weapons to defend against missiles this being early CIWS and sams which can target missiles (all sams) -helicopters -early air to air missiles (Aim9B and r-3)
|
|
berte
Full Member
BANNED
Posts: 109
|
Post by berte on May 10, 2020 2:17:02 GMT -6
what id like to see added to a cold war dlc or just improved on the main game a few which is consider massively important for the game right now and wouldn't exactly consider dlc things though could very much be in the DLC and wouldnt mind if they were all of these suggestions/wishes is something which was done between 1945 and 1965 tech wise -rebalanced armor and gun penetration to be historically accurate increase penetration of all guns by 30% and decrease armor weight by 30% KEEP BOMB PENETRATION THE SAME AS RIGHT NOW (this basically makes pen and armor values more realistic while keeping current bomb pen but due to lighter armor makes bombs less OP and less able to pierce basically any battleship as was the case historically -remove bombentorpedo tech -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ this is for balancing aa from 1940-1945 post 1945 the AA should scale with radar effectiveness -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -harsher defeats for AI and for you -realistic rate of fire i dont think i need to mention the 4 rof cap or how rate of fire especially post 1945 is hulariously low (seriously how can you not fire a 2-3 inch gun faster than 4 times per minute WHEN ITS AUTOLOADING) 4 rof cap needs to be removed and a cap needs to be set much much higher -fix the 2 inch gun its so neglected and basically useless why is it a thing when its so bad rest of the stuff is something i would like to see in a dlc and pay for -improved submarines (submarine builder missile subs and control of subs) -more in depth radar -faster jets and vtol (several vtol planes existed from 1960-1965) -higher tonnage DDs and corvettes -new frigate class -rocket payloads -heavier plane payloads -double torpedo payloads for torpedo bombers -motorbombaFFF tech be removed its not supposed to be used on torpedo bombers at best it was supposed to be used against slow transports not fast maneuvering warships -ASMs on all planes (to back this up a smaller fighter in 1958 had 2 ASMs with 30km range lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/oMw7Q6_Hg0TS_XV639vyzQi2_YRDW3vtzC5567exEOqBGqsJ75IOdxPEJwGsP623_xjaqVEhz86iO2kBwvNWOfqE4Yoye4qxzMblQ-x6LDe08K1wqViJZynzfRW6rX4LFo7zFAzdrCI6WW7UbJ4HyPOJO3M-remove bombentorpedo tech its unrealistic and too theoretical if tech such as double torpedoes for torpedo bombers is too theoretical then this magical bomb also is -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 -coastal missile batteries -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -improved gun procurement system nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2626/more-depth-gun-customization-system-AI wars (basically a must for me since the budget system is kinda fucked rn) -fixed budget system compare to AI -improved invasion mechanics -improved tech in all areas (obvious) -massively improved gun performance (think of the 1950s soviet 12 inch gun which had comparable performance to some 14-15 inch guns) -weapons to defend against missiles this being early CIWS and sams which can target missiles (all sams) -helicopters -early air to air missiles (Aim9B and r-3) Agree with most, but leave in bombingtorpedo, just add twin carrying torpedo fighters at sometime in the 50's. Helicopters would work as plane scouts and or ASW addition... not require ships to stop to launch because no catapult would be needed. Coastal missile batteries are a must... missions would require you to destroy them via air strike, obviously otherwise, they'd give you a bad day. We'd also need SAM batteries. I'd love to see aircraft paylods enable you to have more flexibility with the aircraft you have... Why is Frigate class needed? If DD's are upped in tonnage, why do we need Frigates? That would seem to require a lot of work just thinking about how to add that class in the game. I wouldnt expect this to happen. Faster jets, yes please. Older carriers need to be flagged so they can only operate older legacy aircraft. Jets required longer runways to land and takeoff on a carrier and new flight decks to support their weight and not all carriers would be able to be retrofitted. So... that. Submarine configurator. We dont need a build a sub menu like ships, but maybe a few clicks of options for submarine focus. Like subs that excel towards anti-ship duties, or anti-sub warfare, or both, with trade-offs, and other things to enable us to create subtypes of the classes of subs... that'd be fun as hell. And if you can allow subs have some sort of interactivity than they currently do in a mission when they are present, maybe allowing some control over them in battle, then yeehaw! Harsher penalties for AI and you is already an option at start. And something not on your list, diplomacy. The current way events happen where tension rise or fall based on event multiple choices are fine, but maybe we can have more interactivity to change tensions directly? I know some admirals, and generals for that matter, were directly able to influence politics and tensions by making bold statements, leaking deployments in hostile areas, generally being belligerent, etc., and in the game, it would be excellent if we could do the same, currently we cannot. Perhaps using prestige, which is underused imo, could be a direct way of influencing tensions. I'd see prestige as either a back channel or a bold policy statement from the navy office being able to directly change tension levels with other nations. That'd be great.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 10, 2020 14:34:23 GMT -6
what id like to see added to a cold war dlc or just improved on the main game a few which is consider massively important for the game right now and wouldn't exactly consider dlc things though could very much be in the DLC and wouldnt mind if they were all of these suggestions/wishes is something which was done between 1945 and 1965 tech wise -rebalanced armor and gun penetration to be historically accurate increase penetration of all guns by 30% and decrease armor weight by 30% KEEP BOMB PENETRATION THE SAME AS RIGHT NOW (this basically makes pen and armor values more realistic while keeping current bomb pen but due to lighter armor makes bombs less OP and less able to pierce basically any battleship as was the case historically -remove bombentorpedo tech -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Kamikaze/AAA-Summary-1045/ this is for balancing aa from 1940-1945 post 1945 the AA should scale with radar effectiveness -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -harsher defeats for AI and for you -realistic rate of fire i dont think i need to mention the 4 rof cap or how rate of fire especially post 1945 is hulariously low (seriously how can you not fire a 2-3 inch gun faster than 4 times per minute WHEN ITS AUTOLOADING) 4 rof cap needs to be removed and a cap needs to be set much much higher -fix the 2 inch gun its so neglected and basically useless why is it a thing when its so bad rest of the stuff is something i would like to see in a dlc and pay for -improved submarines (submarine builder missile subs and control of subs) -more in depth radar -faster jets and vtol (several vtol planes existed from 1960-1965) -higher tonnage DDs and corvettes -new frigate class -rocket payloads -heavier plane payloads -double torpedo payloads for torpedo bombers -motorbombaFFF tech be removed its not supposed to be used on torpedo bombers at best it was supposed to be used against slow transports not fast maneuvering warships -ASMs on all planes (to back this up a smaller fighter in 1958 had 2 ASMs with 30km range lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/oMw7Q6_Hg0TS_XV639vyzQi2_YRDW3vtzC5567exEOqBGqsJ75IOdxPEJwGsP623_xjaqVEhz86iO2kBwvNWOfqE4Yoye4qxzMblQ-x6LDe08K1wqViJZynzfRW6rX4LFo7zFAzdrCI6WW7UbJ4HyPOJO3M-remove bombentorpedo tech its unrealistic and too theoretical if tech such as double torpedoes for torpedo bombers is too theoretical then this magical bomb also is -chosable aircraft payloads so you arent limited to ONLY ap after researching said tech aka you can choose between AP HE or SAP bombs -rebalanced anti aircraft guns especially for 1940-1960 especially post 1945 -coastal missile batteries -improved naval missions (bombard enemy airfield and so on) against actual in game targets with value (not just squares which do nothing) -improved gun procurement system nws-online.proboards.com/thread/2626/more-depth-gun-customization-system-AI wars (basically a must for me since the budget system is kinda fucked rn) -fixed budget system compare to AI -improved invasion mechanics -improved tech in all areas (obvious) -massively improved gun performance (think of the 1950s soviet 12 inch gun which had comparable performance to some 14-15 inch guns) -weapons to defend against missiles this being early CIWS and sams which can target missiles (all sams) -helicopters -early air to air missiles (Aim9B and r-3) Agree with most, but leave in bombingtorpedo, just add twin carrying torpedo fighters at sometime in the 50's. Helicopters would work as plane scouts and or ASW addition... not require ships to stop to launch because no catapult would be needed. Coastal missile batteries are a must... missions would require you to destroy them via air strike, obviously otherwise, they'd give you a bad day. We'd also need SAM batteries. I'd love to see aircraft paylods enable you to have more flexibility with the aircraft you have... Why is Frigate class needed? If DD's are upped in tonnage, why do we need Frigates? That would seem to require a lot of work just thinking about how to add that class in the game. I wouldnt expect this to happen. Faster jets, yes please. Older carriers need to be flagged so they can only operate older legacy aircraft. Jets required longer runways to land and takeoff on a carrier and new flight decks to support their weight and not all carriers would be able to be retrofitted. So... that. Submarine configurator. We dont need a build a sub menu like ships, but maybe a few clicks of options for submarine focus. Like subs that excel towards anti-ship duties, or anti-sub warfare, or both, with trade-offs, and other things to enable us to create subtypes of the classes of subs... that'd be fun as hell. And if you can allow subs have some sort of interactivity than they currently do in a mission when they are present, maybe allowing some control over them in battle, then yeehaw! Harsher penalties for AI and you is already an option at start. And something not on your list, diplomacy. The current way events happen where tension rise or fall based on event multiple choices are fine, but maybe we can have more interactivity to change tensions directly? I know some admirals, and generals for that matter, were directly able to influence politics and tensions by making bold statements, leaking deployments in hostile areas, generally being belligerent, etc., and in the game, it would be excellent if we could do the same, currently we cannot. Perhaps using prestige, which is underused imo, could be a direct way of influencing tensions. I'd see prestige as either a back channel or a bold policy statement from the navy office being able to directly change tension levels with other nations. That'd be great. currently i dont think nations suffer nearly a harsh enough penalty for losing a war compared to real life see my post here nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4867/harsher-defeat-conditionsbombentorpedo should not be a tech available it was a prototype bomb "used" by the germans (we dont know if they actually used it) and in game its a direct upgrade over a normal AP bomb as it has the same burst mass and penetration while near misses get converted to torpedo hits in real life they had basically no penetration capability and they had a very small window in which they would hit like a torpedo the tech was a dead end and torpedoes were better in a ton of ways (further drop range larger payload and so on) while bombs had other benefits over it such as higher accuracy (bombentorpedo required very specific angles to work) better penetration and easier to use and produce this is also why not a singular nation post ww2 used anything like a bombentorpedo it was dead end tech forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2020_04/BT-200.png.250e37826e3221c4172fc8805953307e.pngit was a HE bomb (general purpose) wrapped in concrete extremities/nose and a tail and given a magnetic fuse in case it went under the enemy ship it would still detonate causing damage a hit to the armor belt would do nothing except punch it in a slight bit
|
|
|
Post by skoggatt on May 10, 2020 18:57:45 GMT -6
Agree with most, but leave in bombingtorpedo, just add twin carrying torpedo fighters at sometime in the 50's. Helicopters would work as plane scouts and or ASW addition... not require ships to stop to launch because no catapult would be needed. Coastal missile batteries are a must... missions would require you to destroy them via air strike, obviously otherwise, they'd give you a bad day. We'd also need SAM batteries. I'd love to see aircraft paylods enable you to have more flexibility with the aircraft you have... Why is Frigate class needed? If DD's are upped in tonnage, why do we need Frigates? That would seem to require a lot of work just thinking about how to add that class in the game. I wouldnt expect this to happen. Faster jets, yes please. Older carriers need to be flagged so they can only operate older legacy aircraft. Jets required longer runways to land and takeoff on a carrier and new flight decks to support their weight and not all carriers would be able to be retrofitted. So... that. Submarine configurator. We dont need a build a sub menu like ships, but maybe a few clicks of options for submarine focus. Like subs that excel towards anti-ship duties, or anti-sub warfare, or both, with trade-offs, and other things to enable us to create subtypes of the classes of subs... that'd be fun as hell. And if you can allow subs have some sort of interactivity than they currently do in a mission when they are present, maybe allowing some control over them in battle, then yeehaw! Harsher penalties for AI and you is already an option at start. And something not on your list, diplomacy. The current way events happen where tension rise or fall based on event multiple choices are fine, but maybe we can have more interactivity to change tensions directly? I know some admirals, and generals for that matter, were directly able to influence politics and tensions by making bold statements, leaking deployments in hostile areas, generally being belligerent, etc., and in the game, it would be excellent if we could do the same, currently we cannot. Perhaps using prestige, which is underused imo, could be a direct way of influencing tensions. I'd see prestige as either a back channel or a bold policy statement from the navy office being able to directly change tension levels with other nations. That'd be great. currently i dont think nations suffer nearly a harsh enough penalty for losing a war compared to real life see my post here nws-online.proboards.com/thread/4867/harsher-defeat-conditionsbombentorpedo should not be a tech available it was a prototype bomb "used" by the germans (we dont know if they actually used it) and in game its a direct upgrade over a normal AP bomb as it has the same burst mass and penetration while near misses get converted to torpedo hits in real life they had basically no penetration capability and they had a very small window in which they would hit like a torpedo the tech was a dead end and torpedoes were better in a ton of ways (further drop range larger payload and so on) while bombs had other benefits over it such as higher accuracy (bombentorpedo required very specific angles to work) better penetration and easier to use and produce this is also why not a singular nation post ww2 used anything like a bombentorpedo it was dead end tech forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2020_04/BT-200.png.250e37826e3221c4172fc8805953307e.pngit was a HE bomb (general purpose) wrapped in concrete extremities/nose and a tail and given a magnetic fuse in case it went under the enemy ship it would still detonate causing damage a hit to the armor belt would do nothing except punch it in a slight bit I agree the bombentorpedo is a bit too fanciful. Maybe it could be replaced with skip-bombing as an improvement to glide bombing? Skip-bombing would still only be effective against targets with limited belt armor, so it wouldn't replace torpedoes. I think one of the issues in the current version of the game is that torpedoes become rather outdated with how powerful bombs are late game. As for frigates, I don't see why we need a new class for them. Anything referred to as a frigate during world war two fits either in the corvette class or the destroyer class in game, depending on speed and torpedo armament. I agree larger destroyers and flotilla leaders aren't currently possible, so either destroyers or light cruisers need to be changed late game to accommodate those.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 11, 2020 13:51:15 GMT -6
yeah frigates would be kinda redundant as corvettes pretty much serve that purpose (though a bit slower lighter and less armed)
though stuff like ASW rockets and asroc would be nice to see and airborne anti submarine torpedoes like the mk43
|
|
|
Post by brygun on May 11, 2020 18:27:33 GMT -6
yeah frigates would be kinda redundant as corvettes pretty much serve that purpose (though a bit slower lighter and less armed) though stuff like ASW rockets and asroc would be nice to see and airborne anti submarine torpedoes like the mk43 Corvettes though tend to be smaller and shorter range craft, at least in their WW 2 definition. Frigates would be an ASW focused craft. Assuming they go ahead with more detailled post war formations setting a ship as "frigate" could mean the game uses it for on map ASW vs a Destroyer being used for on-map ship fighting.
|
|