|
Post by phoenix on Jan 29, 2021 10:26:50 GMT -6
Anyone (more familiar with these boards than I, or simply in the loop) know what the rumoured upcoming DLC is to be about? Will there be a campaign generator, for example? Or has nothing been given away?
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jan 29, 2021 12:12:24 GMT -6
Missiles are supposedly a high priority, but there is nothing concrete that I know of that's been revealed. The last I have on a discussion is from Nov with a generic screen shot. nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5479/dlc-exactlyYou might find some additional tidbits using the search function. Some quotes from WilliamMiller - "More detailed carrier ordnance stowage could potentially be part of additions added via DLC, but as yet to determined exactly..." and "The game does model payload effects on maneuverability and speed...a fighter with a heavy load had better jettison its load else it will be in serious trouble We would likely add even more details to this in any DLC that comes out, but that would be just a bit later..."
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Jan 29, 2021 13:23:53 GMT -6
I would really like AI wars. Biggest thing I'd want. More details in the tactical layer like payload effects and ammo storage would be very cool but AI Wars!!! Playing in a vacuum isn't fun. williammillerThere's a lot I want with the strategic layer, alliances doing more is one, but AI Wars is the main thing. Imagine your allied with a country and they get into a war with someone dragging you in. Or joining a war on one side or the other. Would be cool
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2021 12:10:03 GMT -6
I would really like AI wars. Biggest thing I'd want. More details in the tactical layer like payload effects and ammo storage would be very cool but AI Wars!!! Playing in a vacuum isn't fun. williammiller There's a lot I want with the strategic layer, alliances doing more is one, but AI Wars is the main thing. Imagine your allied with a country and they get into a war with someone dragging you in. Or joining a war on one side or the other. Would be cool AI wars is a 100% absolute need even without any DLC. RtW2 is really one of the last strategy games that doesnt feature that in any way, and its really needed. The budget in the game is simulated like its a all VS all campaign, but in reality its much closer to you VS all.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Jan 31, 2021 1:35:03 GMT -6
I would really like AI wars. Biggest thing I'd want. More details in the tactical layer like payload effects and ammo storage would be very cool but AI Wars!!! Playing in a vacuum isn't fun. williammiller There's a lot I want with the strategic layer, alliances doing more is one, but AI Wars is the main thing. Imagine your allied with a country and they get into a war with someone dragging you in. Or joining a war on one side or the other. Would be cool Can't agree more. With the AI wars added, this game will be elevated to near perfection. And it would add to the variety and depth exponentially. Imagine the boundless possibilities of various AI wars involving different nations at different times, and the frequency of these as well. It really is a rather irrefusable and must-have feature.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 31, 2021 2:19:36 GMT -6
In reality between 1920 and 1960 there was only one "naval" war: WW2. How many wars would be fought in the same period if AI wars were to be added to the player's own wars? I am not very interested in any of this. What I want is a WW2 oriented SAI like game with some of the best of RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by tornado1555 on Jan 31, 2021 4:41:44 GMT -6
Coupled with some ability to affect or mod frequency of the conflicts, I think that AI conflicts would be a good addition that would allow more for the players that enjoy building a backstory as much, or more, than the R&D>Tactical aspect of the game, even if the mechanic were limited in nature and/or didn't involve visible combat unless the player were involved too.
Of course what would really boost multipolar interaction [in my probably assumptive view] would be some arrangement for multiplayer play, but that's probably an unreasonably massive undertaking. Opening up the game to more complete modification (rate of gun tech progression and effects, armour effectiveness progression, dockyard size growth/cost, increasing AI flexibility with templates and so on) and improving battle generation somehow would already greatly help the base game.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jan 31, 2021 5:08:33 GMT -6
In reality between 1920 and 1960 there was only one "naval" war: WW2. How many wars would be fought in the same period if AI wars were to be added to the player's own wars? I am not very interested in any of this. What I want is a WW2 oriented SAI like game with some of the best of RTW2. Would you not consider the Spanish Civil War a naval war? I guess civil wars aren’t really modeled in rtw
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jan 31, 2021 7:10:46 GMT -6
In reality between 1920 and 1960 there was only one "naval" war: WW2. How many wars would be fought in the same period if AI wars were to be added to the player's own wars? I am not very interested in any of this. What I want is a WW2 oriented SAI like game with some of the best of RTW2. Just because there wasn't a war as such doesn't mean that naval forces weren't deployed. The (British) Royal Navy deployed for the following between 1919 and 1939: Naval intervention in the Baltic 1919-1920 in support of anti-Bolshevik forces; Chanak crisis of 1923; problems in China from 1926; Abyssinia crisis of 1935-1936; and patrols undertaken off the Spanish coast during the civil war in that country 1936-1939. Post WW2 the major deployment was the Korean conflict 1950-1953.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Jan 31, 2021 18:41:38 GMT -6
Multiplayer would be very cool but I'm not sure how it would work. How would naval battles work when one player gets into a war and the other doesn't? A solution for one v one would be to have the other player serve as the enemy automatically but I don't expect it to be a thing. A RTW style game with multiplayer built in from the beginning would be nice though
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 31, 2021 19:17:26 GMT -6
In reality between 1920 and 1960 there was only one "naval" war: WW2. How many wars would be fought in the same period if AI wars were to be added to the player's own wars? I am not very interested in any of this. What I want is a WW2 oriented SAI like game with some of the best of RTW2. Well, not entirely. During the Korean War there were four naval battles: Action on 12 October 1950 at Wonson Harbor: 2 July 1950 a battle between one US cruiser and two British ships off of the coast of the Sea of Japan when they were attacked by Torpedo and gunboats: The Battle of Inchon of course; Battle of Wonson.
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 1, 2021 4:34:49 GMT -6
I would really like AI wars. Biggest thing I'd want. More details in the tactical layer like payload effects and ammo storage would be very cool but AI Wars!!! Playing in a vacuum isn't fun. williammiller There's a lot I want with the strategic layer, alliances doing more is one, but AI Wars is the main thing. Imagine your allied with a country and they get into a war with someone dragging you in. Or joining a war on one side or the other. Would be cool Can't agree more. With the AI wars added, this game will be elevated to near perfection. And it would add to the variety and depth exponentially. Imagine the boundless possibilities of various AI wars involving different nations at different times, and the frequency of these as well. It really is a rather irrefusable and must-have feature. ...and then it becomes a game of global politics, which is a completely different kettle of fish to do well, involves mind-boggling layers of complexity and a deep understanding of how wars start, or are avoided. A Navy exists to project power and control - protecting the interests of a country (i.e. shipping), and providing a mobile platform that can be used in order to move a nation's military presence around the globe in a fairly sticky fashion. An air force provides a presence more quickly, but is less sticky. If you park a load of warships in someone's backyard for a few days, it sends a very clear message. So for me, adding AI wars would place a requirement for deep complexity on the platform if you ever wanted to achieve a degree of reality. I don't think that is what RTW or SAI is about. This is a concept locked in early 20th century, where we have limitations on flight, electronics, and weaponry. The naval tactics change so fundamentally once you get beyond around 1950 that you'd have to rewrite the game to reflect the move of naval doctrine from fleet battle lines (which goes right back to the days of Trafalgar), through carrier and radar support, up to fast jets and missiles. How is this ramble relevant? Because if you accept the time-bound nature of the game, then you should also accept that balance was achieved through having relatively few, very powerful, global navies. These countries had colonies around the globe and protected them. It wasn't in anyone's interest to upset the status quo too much. Fighting each other would get too expensive, it costs a fortune to replace too many warships. So therefore, AI wars aren't realistic - it simply overburdens all countries to the point where they just stop fighting because they can't build warships fast enough. A DD takes around a year to build, a BB around 3 years. It's impossible to keep up in a war. Granted, the US built A LOT of warships after Pearl Harbor, but what about everyone else? WW2 lasted 6 years, what was the sum total of BBs laid down after 1939 and completed before 1945 by GB and Germany combined? I think most people know the answer to that one. You would end up managing the game by praying for peace so you could take stock of what you were doing, and asking for features that would allow you to open diplomatic channels. I'm still in my first game. I'm a father of two teenage kids, with what I'd determine fairly normal levels of responsibility. I'm in a war, and I manage two strategic turns A WEEK. Because practically every strategic turn starts a military engagement that to handle properly takes up to two hours total playing time. AI wars would increase this, you'd always be dragged into conflict. So for me, I'd rather see a more detailed handling of some of the finer existing points of the game - progression of tactics and strategy as discussed on other threads - rather than a widening of scope and/or technology under the same rules.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Feb 1, 2021 5:52:57 GMT -6
Multiplayer would be very cool but I'm not sure how it would work. How would naval battles work when one player gets into a war and the other doesn't? A solution for one v one would be to have the other player serve as the enemy automatically but I don't expect it to be a thing. A RTW style game with multiplayer built in from the beginning would be nice though I don't know if a multiplayer campaign would work, but multiplayer battles would be entirely doable. Say we have a 800 minute battle. If you make it so that every five seconds the game advances one turn, and during that five seconds players are free to adjust their ship's orders, then that entire battle could play out over the course of a real-time hour or so.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Feb 2, 2021 15:09:41 GMT -6
Can't agree more. With the AI wars added, this game will be elevated to near perfection. And it would add to the variety and depth exponentially. Imagine the boundless possibilities of various AI wars involving different nations at different times, and the frequency of these as well. It really is a rather irrefusable and must-have feature. ...and then it becomes a game of global politics, which is a completely different kettle of fish to do well, involves mind-boggling layers of complexity and a deep understanding of how wars start, or are avoided. A Navy exists to project power and control - protecting the interests of a country (i.e. shipping), and providing a mobile platform that can be used in order to move a nation's military presence around the globe in a fairly sticky fashion. An air force provides a presence more quickly, but is less sticky. If you park a load of warships in someone's backyard for a few days, it sends a very clear message. So for me, adding AI wars would place a requirement for deep complexity on the platform if you ever wanted to achieve a degree of reality. I don't think that is what RTW or SAI is about. This is a concept locked in early 20th century, where we have limitations on flight, electronics, and weaponry. The naval tactics change so fundamentally once you get beyond around 1950 that you'd have to rewrite the game to reflect the move of naval doctrine from fleet battle lines (which goes right back to the days of Trafalgar), through carrier and radar support, up to fast jets and missiles. How is this ramble relevant? Because if you accept the time-bound nature of the game, then you should also accept that balance was achieved through having relatively few, very powerful, global navies. These countries had colonies around the globe and protected them. It wasn't in anyone's interest to upset the status quo too much. Fighting each other would get too expensive, it costs a fortune to replace too many warships. So therefore, AI wars aren't realistic - it simply overburdens all countries to the point where they just stop fighting because they can't build warships fast enough. A DD takes around a year to build, a BB around 3 years. It's impossible to keep up in a war. Granted, the US built A LOT of warships after Pearl Harbor, but what about everyone else? WW2 lasted 6 years, what was the sum total of BBs laid down after 1939 and completed before 1945 by GB and Germany combined? I think most people know the answer to that one. You would end up managing the game by praying for peace so you could take stock of what you were doing, and asking for features that would allow you to open diplomatic channels. I'm still in my first game. I'm a father of two teenage kids, with what I'd determine fairly normal levels of responsibility. I'm in a war, and I manage two strategic turns A WEEK. Because practically every strategic turn starts a military engagement that to handle properly takes up to two hours total playing time. AI wars would increase this, you'd always be dragged into conflict. So for me, I'd rather see a more detailed handling of some of the finer existing points of the game - progression of tactics and strategy as discussed on other threads - rather than a widening of scope and/or technology under the same rules. Adding the AI War feature to the game would not harm your style of playing if we are given the choice of enabling/disabling the AI War feature. You could still stick with your "every nation hates only you" game mode, while other players and me would enjoy the AI Wars enabled game.
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 2, 2021 15:43:09 GMT -6
Except that I'd rather see limited development resources put into something I think a larger number of players would enjoy.
|
|