Aircraft need more emotional attachment / player involvement

[arminpfano]

This post was inspired by the "Possible to play without aircraft?" thread in the main section.

I also experienced two tendencies when playing RTW2:

• The whole business of airborn warfare makes me feel much more exhausted and somehow impatient and result-fixed than the surface battles. I want to get it done efficiently, but I do not enjoy the process too much.
  
  
  
• After the point when CV took over completely and aircraft decide most battle outcomes, I stop playing a game and start a new one, mostly at 1900.

This is a pity, because I really like the idea of including aircrafts and carriers, which is a gread enrichment compared to RTW 1. So I think the problem is the implementation, up to now it just does not meet the high expectations.

I don´t want to sound ungrateful for what we have, I am aware that this whole thing is a difficult task. But here are some thoughts which may help to improve the game further.

1) Manual control of air strikes

It may be historically correct that - as an admiral - you decide how to arm your airgroups and when to start them, but from this point on you just have to wait for some meager reports - or for your planes to come back without any sighting. From a player perspective this is not really satisfying.

1.1) Manual control of CV-based air strikes

Maybe we could have a battle solution like with the DD on captain level, where you have some influence on the doing of your planes underway. You change into the airgroup leader seat, so to say. Then you also see the enemy, and you can scheme maybe the attack vector or so. I imagine it much better to bomb the Akagi personally and to see her burning, than just to wipe out her name in mind after hearing about some hits.

1.2) More control of land-based aircraft
Whatever your non-CV airplanes do is mainly beyond the players horizon. Also historically correct I guess (these Airforce guys never understood the needs of the navy, right?), but not good for the emotional state of the player.
I think it should be easy to handle airfields like CVs, so you could send out the squadrons according to your own situational rating.

2) Emotional attachment boosters for aircraft types

For sure one of the sweetest aspects of RWT1/2 is the design of warships. You can spend hours to fiddle out just the perfect setups, and the you are eager to test your constructions in battle. This works fine and installs a good emotional relation to each of your designs. You care for them, you have to work for the budget, and you see at least a rough sketch, so you can imagine them easily, some historical readings assumed. So when your precious babies got some heavy hits in battle, you feel the pain physically.

This is completely different with planes. The mechanism with the proposals works fine enough to drive the game, but you just don´t feel really connected with the types emerging. Only when an aircraft maker proposes a B, C, D... version of an existing plane, this bonding process is coming into effect somehow, at least with me.

Based on this experiences I would like to propose:

2.1) Longer life span of aircraft types

For gameplay reasons it is sufficient to order a new generation of planes as soon as possible, all 3 years or so. This lifespan is too short to collect experiences and feel connected to a certain type. Maybe the change of a type should create some extra expenditures (which only would be accurate I guess), so it would pay to extend the lifespan.

2.2) More influence on the design process during the life span

What I really would love: When you could influence the development of the versions. Say you have a good fighter, but it lacks firepower. So you could give order to develop this item especially - maybe at the cost of speed, if the available enginges can´t compensate the additional weight. Then two years later the range is to increase, then robustness or whatever. This would connect you to your creations over time, and also lead to plane types which could be more specific to the own strategic needs.

2.3) Some graphical representation of the types

I think some auto-generated pictures would be sufficient, a real plane designer is not really neccessary (would be even nicer of course). But if you can see the creations, it would be more meaningful and attaching then just a line of data in a list.

2.4) Messages about heavy losses of airgroups and reduction of training level

I´m not sure if the training level of an airgroup drops when too many of the experienced pilots don´t survive a battle. It should, and it should be announced - maybe it is implemented, but I just forget to check this item all the time. This leads to a careless handling of my airgroups: regularely I send them out into dusk or night flights, not minding at all about the danger of crashes.

Discussion opened.

[sittingduck]

Well thought out and respectfully presented.

As some may be aware from my previous comments, I am not a major fan of the aviation side of the game. With no malice or derision towards the Developer and the Team, my first and foremost pleasure with RTW2 is ship design and combat effectiveness, or lack thereof, and I consider aviation a very distant second to that. There are those diametrically opposed to that who will stand up for more emphasis on air assets and missile development: I respect that and hope they find what they like as the game grows. For example, your ideas of developing a more personalized interaction with aviation elements is laudable and could draw together the surface and aviation gameplay.

My fondess for the game is the designing of a surface fleet with the developing technologies being a constant prod to improve that fleet for its intended function; dominating any opposition. The aviation introduction and its creep and then lunge to domination undercuts my personal enjoyment of the game. I play a "vanilla" game - no mods, 1900 start and manual build. This is what I enjoy most. I play through to the 1956 stop but interest and enjoyment wanes as aircraft start to become dominant. When at war with an enemy with airbases covering the sea zone like napalm on a cane field the entertainment value deminishes about as quickly.

Again, with no disrespect or disdain to the Developer/Team there are so many things carried over from RTW1 that could be addressed. The often discussed Order of Battle, Fleet Composition, Ship Specialization/Utlilization could still be addressed. I look forward to each update hoping for another patch directed at these topics.

I know the Developer/Team are proud of the product and do indeed work to improve and stretch the game as time goes by, but my personal (personal!) interest is in the surface aspect of the game. Perhaps a future release could be focused on 1890 to 1935 emphasizing armour, machinery, guns and gunnery control developments. Again, that's admmittedly a purely personal wish/inclination.


Additionally, I have searched for, and watched, as many RTW/RTW2 You Tube posts as I can find. Originally to learn how to play, like being tutored, then comparing game play, and now to see how those players adapt to the Aviation side of things. I have not seen anything that makes my like of the early game diminish or a desire for the Aviation side to grow.

Well, didn't mean to preach, but as you said in your original post: open for discussion.

[aquelarrefox]

i have a perticular problem with air strikes, and its present for surface ships too.

The lack of the concept of silence of radio. Its not minor thing its link to the capacity or the incapacity to redirect attacks.

The fatigue of 2nd or 3 th wave of the same wing should have effects, much harder than lost in landing, the wings should have a chance to lost the track and could not find the carrier.

An air strike should be attached to a landing spot programmed, if you have to scape you lose your planes.

The planes need some kind of nerf by this concepts.

I have no doubts of the love of developers to this game, and its a great game, unique in surface battle but still need some elements in late game. Comunication is a key for 30s game much important as the planes. Devs could solve it, becose his concepts are hard, and some elemets as the spotting in surface battle dont have comparation to any othe game or simulator.

I agree about a better representation in map of air groups when they should be visible.