|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 18, 2020 9:31:17 GMT -6
It is great to see that Rule the Waves 2 has improved a lot since I last played it!
While reading the forums, I came across a thread alluding to a DLC. This is great news, however there are still a few issues that imho need to be fixed in the main game.
So here is a list of technical and design bugs still present in v1.24 together with some important quality of life improvement suggestions.
The list will be updated and thus will be in chronological order of encountering the problems:
TB = technical bug, DB = design bug, QL = quality of life, IS = improvement suggestion
Suffixes: "-" = minor issue, "o" = ordinary issue, "+" = major issue, imho.
1. [QLo]: When multiple ships are selected in the "Ships in service" tab, the number of selected ships is displayed, but not the cumulative tonnage. Tonnage is necessary for the "mothballing" ratio, adjusted tonnage is necessary for the "foreign stations" requirement. Suggestion: expand the "5 ships selected" to eg "Selected: 5 ships, 30000 tons, 20000 FS tonnage".
2. [TB+] When designing a rebuild using a foreign yard (for tonnage and eg gun upgrade purposes), the rebuild actually happens at "Builder: Local yard" according to the "Ships under construction" tab.
3. [DBo] When designing a rebuild, the conning tower armor can not be changed. This is strange for a "Warspite" like rebuild, but utterly ridiculous and immersion breaking for a carrier conversion.
4. [IS-] Reducing the armor for secondary casemate guns for a rebuild is imho very expensive for the amount of work it would take to do so. Without changing the guns.
5. [IS-] Maintenance costs are not displayed in the design window, which is imho a crucial design aspect for eg KEs.
edit:
6. [DB+] Design studies can only be reworked through the pop up, directly after finishing the design study. Loading a design with the Ready=1 flag in the design file should behave like the "open design of existing/under construction ship" and start with the corresponding "10% change, <class name>".
7. [TBo] I completed a design study for building place A (eg Austria) with eg 4''Q1 guns. Then I reworked the design (with the 10% change modifier) by selecting another building place B (eg Britain), which only has 4''Q0 guns. I was then able to build the ship in B (Britain) with 4''Q1 guns.
8. [QLo] The almanac "Nation Data" tab lists the available gun calibers for the nation, but not their quality. For nations which the player can choose as foreign yards, this simply leads to dozens of clicks through the calibers for each relevant nation in the design window. Since this is very important information, especially when deciding on the nation/yard to rebuild an existing ship.
9. [QLo] Related to (8.), the "Nation Data" tab could also list the nations best fire control and torpedo protection. Both are relevant for the "build at foreign yard" choice, and fire control is also very relevant for the "rebuild at foreign yard" choice. Both stats are available by clicking through the design window (if relations permit), saving clicks.
10. [TB-] Loading a design which had a "foreign yard" selected, reverts to "blank" building location and "blank" fire control. This should only happen if the foreign yard is not available anymore due to deteriorating relations.
edit2: I disagree with the new title of this thread as only "suggestions" while half of the points are bugs, but I guess that is my fault for not making 2 threads in the first place. I also can not update the title as the list grows. I therfore made a new bugs only thread in the bug report forum and stop wasting time and effort writing out quality of life and other improvement suggestions until the bugs are fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 19, 2020 10:37:19 GMT -6
Fine. Let's go through your list publicly:
1. Select multiple ships, display aggregate tonnage / FS tonnage.
Feature suggestion.
2. Rebuilding in a foreign yard appears to rebuild in the local yard in the construction tab.
Bug.
3. Modifying conning tower armor, either during a regular rebuild or during a conversion.
Feature suggestion.
4. Modifying secondary armor is too expensive.
Opinion with an implied suggestion.
5. Display maintenance cost in the design window.
Feature suggestion.
6. Allow design studies to be reworked by loading the design file, not just from the pop-up.
Feature suggestion.
7. 4"/Q1 guns in shipyard that doesn't have access to them.
Bug.
8. Almanac display of gun quality.
Feature suggestion.
9. Almanac display of fire control and torpedo protection.
Feature suggestion.
10. Loss of fire control and building yard location on loading design for foreign yard construction. Bug.
Ten points, three bugs, seven suggestions. Your list is mostly one of feature suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 19, 2020 12:35:46 GMT -6
3. Conning tower
A carrier conversion requires the removal of the center line guns, funnels and conning tower to allow aircraft operations.
If the centerline turrets weight would not be substracted, even though the turrets are removed, that would be a bug.
If the centerline conning tower weight is not substracted, even though the centerline conning tower is removed, that is a bug.
=> Bug.
6. Design study rework.
If a design is loaded by right clicking on an existing or under construction ship, it starts with 10% change, <class name>.
If the exact same design is loaded from the design window, it starts without the 10% change, <class name>.
=> Bug.
5/10 bugs, just as the flags indicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 19, 2020 13:41:34 GMT -6
3. Conning tower A carrier conversion requires the removal of the center line guns, funnels and conning tower to allow aircraft operations. If the centerline turrets weight would not be substracted, even though the turrets are removed, that would be a bug. If the centerline conning tower weight is not substracted, even though the centerline conning tower is removed, that is a bug. => Bug Ability to modify conning tower armor or add or remove a conning tower is not a documented feature; inability to do so is therefore not a bug. Whether or not it would be necessary to remove the conning tower as part of a conversion in reality is not relevant.
Furthermore, the majority of the historical carrier conversions were converted at a stage of construction where they did not have main armaments, superstructures, or conning towers to remove, and at least two of the early carrier conversions (Furious and Vindictive) essentially built the flight deck and hangars around the preexisting superstructure and conning tower rather than razing the superstructure and removing the conning tower and remained in this configuration or a slightly-modified variation of it for something like six or eight years after conversion. Additionally, most historical conning towers are relatively small, and so while it would be inconvenient to leave it in place it is not necessarily an obstacle which would completely prevent the construction of a hangar and flight deck.
Finally, the tonnage you are unable to recover from the conning tower armor will not cost you more than a handful of aircraft on a conversion except possibly if you had an unreasonable level of conning tower armor to begin with. A handful of aircraft one way or the other will not make the difference between an adequate carrier and an inadequate carrier, but it does make the conversion less efficient than a theoretical contemporary purpose-built carrier of similar size, speed, and protection, which is consistent with reality, and it also somewhat offsets the ability of a conversion to circumvent the normal CV size limit.
Right-clicking on a ship under construction or in service and clicking "open design" is essentially telling the game "create a copy of this design for me to modify;" opening a design file in the design menu just says "open this design so I can view or edit it." It would be nice to get the design discount the latter way, but you should not confuse "thing that I would like to work in a given way" with "thing that does not work the way it is supposed to work." This is the former; only the latter is a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 20, 2020 9:01:27 GMT -6
I understand that there are no hard lines for the "bug" definition, aside from crashes and such. And I understand that this is a small indie game.
But I personally disagree with your argument of "not a documented feature = not a bug" in these instances. It imho is too close to a corporate cop out, arguing the form, not the function.
Playing devil's advocate and applying the same logic to the other 3 "bugs":
2. When designing a rebuild using a foreign yard (for tonnage and eg gun upgrade purposes), the rebuild actually happens at "Builder: Local yard" according to the "Ships under construction" tab.
It is not a documented feature that the rebuild has to happen at the foreign yard. The foreign yard just sends assistance to the local yard. => It is a feature, not a bug.
7. 4"/Q1 guns in shipyard that doesn't have access to them.
It is not a documented feature that the yard in nation B has to use guns from nation B. It simply imports the guns from nation A, just like in reality. => It is a feature, not a bug.
10. Loss of fire control and building yard location on loading design for foreign yard construction.
It is not a documented feature that those information are retained. On the contrary, it makes the player recheck the design. => It is a feature, not a bug.
In case this comes across as a bit argumentative:
Imagine coming back to a 35$ indie game after some time,
downloading a patch with a much higher version number,
>>>reading about a DLC,<<<
then finding lots of the same issues you reported or read about a long time ago,
then putting in some effort finding, documenting and reporting them again,
and then having them tossed to the "suggestions" waste bin,
due to suboptimal form (mixing them with suggestions),
and then having to argue what constitutes a bug,
against some corporate cop out argument of "not a documented feature".
I understand that this is a small indie game.
And I knew it was a work in progress when I bought it.
And I understand and welcome that DLC development happens in parellel to fixing stuff, like it is for paradox games and such.
And I understand that my failure to split the list into 2 threads contributed (the list started smaller).
But it is still a 35$ game and this "experience" left some sour taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 20, 2020 10:50:04 GMT -6
If a design says it's being built in France and the construction yard says it's being built at home, you have an internal contradiction => bug.
Designs are not legal without both a fire control system and a building yard, and designs set to be built in the local yard retain both on being loaded; thus, you have inconsistent behavior => bug.
If it were intended functionality, it'd be an option in the Guns tab rather than something you can only do by switching the building yard and not changing the gun caliber => bug.
With regards to changing CT armor, there is neither an internal contradiction nor inconsistent behavior nor any documentation supporting the idea that the inability to modify the CT armor is a bug, therefore inability to modify CT armor is not a bug. |
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 20, 2020 13:58:55 GMT -6
With regards to changing CT armor, there is neither an internal contradiction nor inconsistent behavior nor any documentation supporting the idea that the inability to modify the CT armor is a bug, therefore inability to modify CT armor is not a bug. Carrier conversions are a documented feature of the game. A proper carrier conversion includes the removal of the central conning tower.
Using the existence of prototypes/partial conversions as a reason why standard/full conversions do not have to be possible, is bizarre. It would be a bug if battleships could not have rear turrets, despite the existence of battleships without rear turrets.
And if the early Furious conversion is your argument, then is it a bug that the player can not also leave the rear turret in place?
Frankly, you are cherry picking and clutching to straws to support your earlier made "conclusion", instead of just taking a step back and reevaluating.
And if your stars would still be silver instead of violet, I guess you would be among the first to point that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 20, 2020 14:41:48 GMT -6
6. Allow design studies to be reworked by loading the design file, not just from the pop-up.
Feature suggestion.
aeson,
I might be misunderstanding you, in the above quote regarding number 6 it is implied that one can modify existing but un-built designs with at the 10% modification rate.
The manual I think backs this up - "Normally, the first ship in a class will cost 10% extra to simulate the costs of developing the design. A ship developed from an earlier design will get a discount on the development cost. To develop from an existing design, right click on an existing ship in service or in construction and select “open design”. When changing the design, you can see the percentage of the development cost you will pay in the top left corner in the “Developed from” box. The more changes you make the smaller the discount, and if you make big enough changes you will have to pay the full development cost." I bolded the section that indicates that an existing design can be used, the following sentence only gives instructions for an existing design in service or construction.
My question is - If I design a ship but do not begin construction, how do I load the design for modifications at the 10% rate???
I've tried loading the design in the ship designer in two games and it doesn't provide the 10% modification charge... As such, I've started to lay down a ship and put it immediately on hold if I start getting messages of impending breakthroughs... This is very expensive, but sometimes the few design months saved will get a ship into a war before it ends.
Thanks,
Nimrod |
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 20, 2020 15:04:39 GMT -6
6. Allow design studies to be reworked by loading the design file, not just from the pop-up.
Feature suggestion.
Aeson,
I might be misunderstanding you, in the above quote regarding number 6 it is implied that one can modify existing but un-built designs with at the 10% modification rate.
However you latter wrote: Right-clicking on a ship under construction or in service and clicking "open design" is essentially telling the game "create a copy of this design for me to modify;" opening a design file in the design menu just says "open this design so I can view or edit it."
My question is - If I design a ship but do not begin construction, how do I load the design for modifications at the 10% rate???
I've tried loading the design in the ship designer in two games and it doesn't provide the 10% modification charge... As such, I've started to lay down a ship and put it immediately on hold if I start getting messages of impending breakthroughs... This is very expensive, but sometimes the few design months saved will get a ship into a war before it ends.
Thanks,
Nimrod
Directly, you cannot. You can achieve it via a workaround.
Start building a ship of design you want reworked.
Right click on ship in construction. change name of design, make adjsutments at 10% rate, save and begin design work study. Scrap the ships you've jsut started building ->it wont cost you anything, since it didnt even start construction, you're still on the same turn you ordered it. To keep thing clean go into build ship dialog, right click and delete the original design.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 20, 2020 15:12:26 GMT -6
Thanks janxol! What I figured - workaround sounds good and I'll double check it.
In the past when laying down the first of a class I'm charged quite a bit of monies - 10% or so... I've never noticed the down payment being recouped if scrapped in the same turn as the order. |
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 20, 2020 15:39:08 GMT -6
Aeson,
I might be misunderstanding you, in the above quote regarding number 6 it is implied that one can modify existing but un-built designs with at the 10% modification rate.
However you latter wrote: Right-clicking on a ship under construction or in service and clicking "open design" is essentially telling the game "create a copy of this design for me to modify;" opening a design file in the design menu just says "open this design so I can view or edit it." My question is - If I design a ship but do not begin construction, how do I load the design for modifications at the 10% rate???
I've tried loading the design in the ship designer in two games and it doesn't provide the 10% modification charge... As such, I've started to lay down a ship and put it immediately on hold if I start getting messages of impending breakthroughs... This is very expensive, but sometimes the few design months saved will get a ship into a war before it ends.
Thanks,
Nimrod
Directly, you cannot. You can achieve it via a workaround.
Start building a ship of design you want reworked.
Right click on ship in construction. change name of design, make adjsutments at 10% rate, save and begin design work study. Scrap the ships you've jsut started building ->it wont cost you anything, since it didnt even start construction, you're still on the same turn you ordered it. To keep thing clean go into build ship dialog, right click and delete the original design.
Yep, that is the workaround to load completed design studies with the discount at "any" time.
Unfortunately an active minister/ruler demand for more ships can interfere. If you accepted such a demand, eg for 2 more BBs, and you fulfill the conditions at the check-time (6 months after the demand has been made), the included classes (in this case BB, BC and B) are flatout locked from cancelation for some time.
While this is an easy dev workaround to prevent players from simply having the necessary ships under construction for the "check-time" month, it also erroneously blocks players from scrapping any ships of those classes for any other reasons.
This game is such a hidden gem, but sometimes it is unnecessarily tedious. Even the bug reporting is (made) tedious.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 20, 2020 16:05:37 GMT -6
Thanks yemo,
A lot of spreadsheet games I play (Gary Grigsby - Bombing the Reich, Eagle Day, War in the East, etc.) are tedious and tough to navigate. The focus on historical realism rather than game-play experience or user interface converts them into gems for hardcore historical gamers.
The casual gamer just doesn't have the time or desire to learn the in-and outs of the interfaces (spreadsheets) that aren't fully interconnected or designed to work seamlessly with one-another. But the ease of putting in solid data for HMS Warspite or B-17's or T-34's or the USS Iowa is relatively easy to do, and it makes these historically minded games do-able. Getting reasonable damage / battle calculations and having a reasonable AI are the programing mountains that spreadsheet game designers have to devote a lot of time and energy on.
|
|
|
|
Post by yemo on Nov 20, 2020 16:28:26 GMT -6
nimrod, Yeah, I just wish those games would be more moddable. Many issues are as quick to fix as it is to write and argue over them. And on top of that, a RTW 2 update requires a whole tedious ritual if something is modded. What would games like Minecraft, KerbalSpaceProgram or DistantWorlds: Universe be without mods?
|
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Nov 20, 2020 16:58:29 GMT -6
nimrod , Yeah, I just wish those games would be more moddable. Many issues are as quick to fix as it is to write and argue over them. And on top of that, a RTW 2 update requires a whole tedious ritual if something is modded. What would games like Minecraft, KerbalSpaceProgram or DistantWorlds: Universe be without mods? Agreed! A vibrant modding community is a dedicated community.
Arguing over the fixes though is a time tested honor of keyboard warriors... That is to write - making sure the historical facts and figures line up and is enjoyable to play with is important - especially in a historical minded game or if coming from the developers.
At this point in my life, I'm very leery of a game if modding is actively discouraged by the developers. If modding is encouraged, than I'm much more likely to be all-in.
|
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Nov 20, 2020 17:13:24 GMT -6
With regards to changing CT armor, there is neither an internal contradiction nor inconsistent behavior nor any documentation supporting the idea that the inability to modify the CT armor is a bug, therefore inability to modify CT armor is not a bug. Carrier conversions are a documented feature of the game. A proper carrier conversion includes the removal of the central conning tower.
As far as I know, the game doesn't have the concept of a "central" or "deckside" conning tower. A CT hit isn't determined by calculating an actual shell trajectory and seeing where it hits on a 3D model of the ship, the game basically just rolls a die (so to speak) to see if the shell hits the ship, then rolls another die against a list of probabilities to hit different locations, and then checks the armor for the location hit and rolls more dicefor the effects of the hit. As a simplifying assumption, the devs decided that only certain armor types could be changed during a rebuild. This decision was made for RTW1, before carriers were part of the game, and even then, it ruled out some historical rebuilds (e.g, Warspite). The devs have made some changes since then, and may make more, but unless they simulate the entire first half of the 20th century atom-for-atom, there will always be some things that were possible IRL that aren't in game (and vice versa). The point is, the current behavior of the game in this regard is what is documented in the manual. What's in the manual isn't historically accurate, and, in the case of carriers, yes, gives some silly results. If the devs have time, there's a good chance that they'll eventually add nuance to some of the simplifying assumptions that underlie the current way the game behaves, but a bug is something where the devs intended one thing, made a mistake in the code, and got a different result than they intended. In this case, the code behaves as they intended with the simplifying assumptions they decided to make. Those simplifying assumptions aren't perfect, and they may well revisit them. But asking them to revisit those assumptions is a feature request, not a bug report. |
|
