Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2021 19:51:56 GMT -6
Ok. Interesting discussion. But does anyone want to chip in with any info that's available about what this DLC actually is going to be, or is that not known? The devs? I had understood the DLC to be quite near release, no? Could we get some info about it? Thanks. There hasn't been much. There's a small list of things which the Devs have said might be addressed in a DLC: missile warfare, munitions stowage on carriers, but nothing concrete has ever been outlined. The Dev team's been keeping pretty silent on this one, and I don't think they've said anything about how close or far it was from being ready. Cannot really blame them for this "quiet tactics". They seem to have problems completing stuff they already announced. It would be really crazy to jump into even more problems. But TBH, RTW2 seems to be now much more interesting on the forum than in the game itself, I visit the forum almost daily, yet I play the game only about once per 2 weeks. The lack of some critical stuff (for example the AI wars, submarine management and design, etc.) is slowly making this game burried deep under various similar strategy games, and thats really disappointing. And honestly, I do not think that a DLC is gonna change that (unless its something that brings some serious new mechanics, and not just some carrier ammo management and missile warfare, which are hardly problems as they are now...). |
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 6, 2021 8:31:28 GMT -6
Hopefully the imminent competition will cause a sharpening of minds...
|
|
|
|
Post by kotori87 on Feb 6, 2021 14:40:34 GMT -6
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. I already do that for my naval battles, at least until carriers start participating. I set game speed to SLOW, then let it run, trying to manage my fleet in as close to real-time as possible. Of course, this doesn't work so well with aircraft causing 2 or more interrupts every turn, but it is lots of fun until then.... |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 6, 2021 15:31:19 GMT -6
You came up with a problem for a feature you don't even want and you're telling us to figure out the solution. But just to entertain you, we already have a system where friendly ships can be deployed under AI control. It's called ticking the "Support force can appear in battle" box in Preferences. Except in this case the main force would be under AI control and you just control the small group of your own ships as if it was a support force. Or you can just give the player full control like a normal battle which I believe you said was unrealistic. Or you can just not generate those types of battles at all. The last one is exactly how the game already works. More importantly your example involves the player being involved in the war which makes no sense because we are talking about AI wars. You seem to be under the impression that a war started between AI nations that a player nation is dragged into somehow has to be different than the wars that already exist in game. Players already fight alongside AI allies. I've even had events that asked to support an allied AI nation in a dispute with another AI nation that dragged me into a war, though it was my own tensions that chose the enemy AI because that's how the game currently works. The issue that people have is that a)allied AI and enemy AI barely "fight" when at war and b) AI don't fight at all unless the player is involved. Your example and problem have nothing to do with the latter. The player doesn't have to be involved. You've mentioned realism before so lets talk about realism. As the game is now, when an AI is on your side in a war, it: -doesn't contribute to ASW -doesn't contribute submarines to trade warfare -doesn't feel the effects of enemy trade warfare -doesn't sweep minefields -doesn't lose ships to enemy subs and mines at the rate the players (does it at all even?) -doesn't engage in combat except when attached to a player or simulated by a very poorly implemented event that is uncommon and usually results in lost KEs based on the same concept as spamming cheap hulls to act as torpedo sponges. in other words having more KEs in the fleet means that event is more likely to result in a sunk KE The only thing allied AI's are good for is providing force strength for blockades. Fixing these points will not only make allied AI's more involved, but would make AI-only wars feasible. You can also fix all those points while avoiding the problem you brought up by simply not generating playable battles unless the play's own forces are the main force. "You came up with a problem for a feature you don't even want and you're telling us to figure out the solution. But just to entertain you..." I never said I didn't want it - I was trying to raise the point about prioritising features, and work out whether that's really what you want first, or whether there are other features that are more fundamentally important to game satisfaction. Please don't start to get antagonistic. The playing community for this game isn't large, I'm trying to have a discussion not an argument, and I have no interest in any player getting into an angry stand-off such that they quit contributing. I'm not telling you to figure out the solution, I'm asking you for your thoughts. So what it seems to me is that your list of what doesn't currently happen with AI, is effectively a list of things you'd like to see in order to make AI contribution fully satisfying. The thing about this is, that there are a number of things in that list that aren't a million miles away from tactical improvements that I previously listed in the general game, or would likely be incorporated under the same effort. Like sharpening up ASW - you said AI doesn't contribute, I talk about convoy organisation. So an increasing set of options on submarine warfare, then. You could equally categorise minefields into options around raiding parties, minefields generally being a deterrent for that. Your point about AI management of naval resources and needing to track the loss and rebuilding in a like for like way with players, is something that's really at the core of an AI implementation as it effectively demands each AI nation to be fully managed and tracked - which if you look at the savefile appears to happen, but not too sure how much detail is behind that. Anyway - my point is that if you break down the requirements from both points of view, you reach a third set of requirements, which are effectively the foundations to be able to build the product in a direction that suits many more people. So instead of saying just "AI wars" - which is an end goal - surely things like enhancement of submarine warfare and coastal raiding are foundation requirements to be able to support AI wars in a truly meaningful way? Yes they could strengthen some aspects of the tactical gameplay and then if they applied that to the AI it would be nice. However, they have limited resources right? I don't think that exactly is gonna happen especially when they've already said they're working on fleshing out missile warfare. And you don't really need to flesh out everything to get the AI involved. They already fight each other somehow, it's just rare and very little ships die. Change that up to make it more realistic, or realistic in terms of the game. Make allied ships show up in your battles more, maybe entire fleets as support forces. I wouldn't mind showing up in an allied battle every once in awhile too that would play out as said in an above post most likely. The AI fleets start fighting and you just control your own forces and do what you do. The sub thing too, the AI has subs, they clearly have the different tech levels too, just factor that into the current sub warfare calculations. Can't be that hard and doesn't require fleshing anything out, just including a currently excluded bit into the current framework. Same with minefields and the effects of trade warfare. Their unrest level goes up same as yours and your enemies and if it gets too high they could suffer a revolution or bow out or whatever. Same as the player and the current enemy. Nothing as to change except allied nations are involved in it all. That's all we want. Same mechanics, we just want our allies and the enemies allies to experience it all same as the player and enemies. And against each other too in the background outside of player wars. Now I think the biggest improvement would be more operational control instead of just random battle generator stuff. Now with that you could deeper with allies and I don't know how that would work. There was a thread about the battle generator recently and there are lots of different ideas about how it could improved or replaced. Allies weren't even discussed but potentially nothing has to change with that either. Just have them show up as support forces or whatever like now and fight in the background, also like now but better, and just leave all the operational control stuff to the player. The player handles it all and no ally stuff is part of it and allies just show up as support forces sometimes. Or a lot of the time hopefully |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 6, 2021 15:38:37 GMT -6
There hasn't been much. There's a small list of things which the Devs have said might be addressed in a DLC: missile warfare, munitions stowage on carriers, but nothing concrete has ever been outlined. The Dev team's been keeping pretty silent on this one, and I don't think they've said anything about how close or far it was from being ready. Cannot really blame them for this "quiet tactics". They seem to have problems completing stuff they already announced. It would be really crazy to jump into even more problems. But TBH, RTW2 seems to be now much more interesting on the forum than in the game itself, I visit the forum almost daily, yet I play the game only about once per 2 weeks. The lack of some critical stuff (for example the AI wars, submarine management and design, etc.) is slowly making this game burried deep under various similar strategy games, and thats really disappointing. And honestly, I do not think that a DLC is gonna change that (unless its something that brings some serious new mechanics, and not just some carrier ammo management and missile warfare, which are hardly problems as they are now...). I honestly would disagree. What are it's competitors? Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought? The game that hasn't displayed any real progress in an entire year? War in the Sea that just came out? Yeah no that game might have some promise but it has major issues and the scope is limited. Task Force Admiral? I don't even know how that game is doing cuz it ain't out yet but that's more of a competitor to War in the Sea than anything else. The scope of that game is similarly limited. From what they've put out their focus is trying to get WWII carrier ops as realistic as possible which is cool but hardly comparable to RTW. There are certainly ways to improve the carrier stuff in RTW2 but not by much? Some minor stuff about carriers themselves and then maybe more control over the aircraft during flight? But the focus is on the ships in that game and the lack of control of air strikes after launch reflects that. I'm not saying RTW is the best naval game out there but I don't think its being buried by other games. They just have different focuses. Except for UAD but thus far it's been a disappointment |
|
|
|
Post by dia on Feb 6, 2021 22:32:33 GMT -6
Cannot really blame them for this "quiet tactics". They seem to have problems completing stuff they already announced. It would be really crazy to jump into even more problems. But TBH, RTW2 seems to be now much more interesting on the forum than in the game itself, I visit the forum almost daily, yet I play the game only about once per 2 weeks. The lack of some critical stuff (for example the AI wars, submarine management and design, etc.) is slowly making this game burried deep under various similar strategy games, and thats really disappointing. And honestly, I do not think that a DLC is gonna change that (unless its something that brings some serious new mechanics, and not just some carrier ammo management and missile warfare, which are hardly problems as they are now...). I honestly would disagree. What are it's competitors? Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought? The game that hasn't displayed any real progress in an entire year? War in the Sea that just came out? Yeah no that game might have some promise but it has major issues and the scope is limited. Task Force Admiral? I don't even know how that game is doing cuz it ain't out yet but that's more of a competitor to War in the Sea than anything else. The scope of that game is similarly limited. From what they've put out their focus is trying to get WWII carrier ops as realistic as possible which is cool but hardly comparable to RTW. There are certainly ways to improve the carrier stuff in RTW2 but not by much? Some minor stuff about carriers themselves and then maybe more control over the aircraft during flight? But the focus is on the ships in that game and the lack of control of air strikes after launch reflects that. I'm not saying RTW is the best naval game out there but I don't think its being buried by other games. They just have different focuses. Except for UAD but thus far it's been a disappointment Carriers need a lot of improvement imo. From the design feature point of view of the game they are beyond the weakest link. Like they need a complete redone from scratch honestly. The game actively punishes you for building anything but the most meta 100-plane unarmored carrier. I know too many players who don't even bother with any other design but the standard meta for carriers because it's beyond pointless otherwise. Myself included Between terrible fire damage control and DC learning, armor weight vs bomb pen, the proliferation of heavy AP bombs, weight-based aircraft capacity, the lack of situations that made armored carriers preferable to the Royal Navy, and the lack of any other designs features like aircraft storage/hangers, elevator stuff, etc it just kills the point of designing a CV. |
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Feb 6, 2021 23:39:21 GMT -6
I honestly would disagree. What are it's competitors? Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought? The game that hasn't displayed any real progress in an entire year? War in the Sea that just came out? Yeah no that game might have some promise but it has major issues and the scope is limited. Task Force Admiral? I don't even know how that game is doing cuz it ain't out yet but that's more of a competitor to War in the Sea than anything else. The scope of that game is similarly limited. From what they've put out their focus is trying to get WWII carrier ops as realistic as possible which is cool but hardly comparable to RTW. There are certainly ways to improve the carrier stuff in RTW2 but not by much? Some minor stuff about carriers themselves and then maybe more control over the aircraft during flight? But the focus is on the ships in that game and the lack of control of air strikes after launch reflects that. I'm not saying RTW is the best naval game out there but I don't think its being buried by other games. They just have different focuses. Except for UAD but thus far it's been a disappointment Carriers need a lot of improvement imo. From the design feature point of view of the game they are beyond the weakest link. Like they need a complete redone from scratch honestly. The game actively punishes you for building anything but the most meta 100-plane unarmored carrier. I know too many players who don't even bother with any other design but the standard meta for carriers because it's beyond pointless otherwise. Myself included Between terrible fire damage control and DC learning, armor weight vs bomb pen, the proliferation of heavy AP bombs, weight-based aircraft capacity, the lack of situations that made armored carriers preferable to the Royal Navy, and the lack of any other designs features like aircraft storage/hangers, elevator stuff, etc it just kills the point of designing a CV. William mentioned in coming updates there might be an improvement of AI that allows the removal of the 6/10 carrier limit for battles, which should somewhat alleviate the 100 aircraft meta. But agreed, a more detailed system would definitely help with the feel of the game |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 8, 2021 19:37:14 GMT -6
I've used heavily armored carriers in the Med. They did alright. But yeah armor is too heavy for carriers. Idk if pen is too high
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Feb 8, 2021 20:32:20 GMT -6
I've used heavily armored carriers in the Med. They did alright. But yeah armor is too heavy for carriers. Idk if pen is too high Once heavy AP bombs start showing up you'll need at least 7-7.5" of armor to reliably stop them. That's not unreasonable for BB/BC turret top and deck armor, but it's impractical for flight deck armor. I think it's a combination of both too high pen and too heavy armor. Less armor isn't a death sentence, but the bigger issue is fires and superstructure hits. Even if you get lucky and nothing pens your armor, if a fire is started it's game over and sometimes all it takes is a dud hit. I find I lose more carriers to hits other than hanger/flight deck penetrations. It's unfortunately more practical to use the weight saved from abandoning FD armor to use a sloped deck armor scheme and using BE/DE armor to reduce superstructure hits. Fires wouldn't be so bad if your crews had the ability to actually reduce subsequent carrier fires based on the lessons learned. Looking back at some of my saved logs, superstructure and turret hits seem to be the most common hits on carriers in my experience. I can't even remember the last time I saw an actual flight deck hit honestly. Hanger side hits aren't uncommon when guns are involved. Deck hits from guns are already rare in this game so that probably explains the lack of FD hits from guns. But looking at just bomb hits it seems superstructure, turrets, and duds are the most common. FD hits are very uncommon compared to how common they should be. When your tiny island is a bomb magnet and dud hits is all it takes to kill a carrier, using FD armor that's heavier than it should be is just not worth it. |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 9, 2021 21:47:16 GMT -6
I've used heavily armored carriers in the Med. They did alright. But yeah armor is too heavy for carriers. Idk if pen is too high Once heavy AP bombs start showing up you'll need at least 7-7.5" of armor to reliably stop them. That's not unreasonable for BB/BC turret top and deck armor, but it's impractical for flight deck armor. I think it's a combination of both too high pen and too heavy armor. Less armor isn't a death sentence, but the bigger issue is fires and superstructure hits. Even if you get lucky and nothing pens your armor, if a fire is started it's game over and sometimes all it takes is a dud hit. I find I lose more carriers to hits other than hanger/flight deck penetrations. It's unfortunately more practical to use the weight saved from abandoning FD armor to use a sloped deck armor scheme and using BE/DE armor to reduce superstructure hits. Fires wouldn't be so bad if your crews had the ability to actually reduce subsequent carrier fires based on the lessons learned. Looking back at some of my saved logs, superstructure and turret hits seem to be the most common hits on carriers in my experience. I can't even remember the last time I saw an actual flight deck hit honestly. Hanger side hits aren't uncommon when guns are involved. Deck hits from guns are already rare in this game so that probably explains the lack of FD hits from guns. But looking at just bomb hits it seems superstructure, turrets, and duds are the most common. FD hits are very uncommon compared to how common they should be. When your tiny island is a bomb magnet and dud hits is all it takes to kill a carrier, using FD armor that's heavier than it should be is just not worth it. Check out this website about armored carriers- www.armouredcarriers.com/. Seems very comprehensive. That's for everyone, it's interesting. I looked up the FD armor amounts on the famed British armored carriers. The Illustrious had 3in flight deck armor. It stopped a 500lb general purpose bomb but a picture shows it was messed up and buckled. That's just a 500lb GP bomb not even SAP or AP. It was handily penetrated by a 2200 lb AP bomb which left a 19 in hole in it. 1000lb SAP bombs did some work against her too but those hit the elevators I believe, I'm not looking at the site right now. The size of the bombs used against her and the damage they inflicted leads me to believe that 7-7.5 in isn't actually unreasonable like everyone claims. Even on the Audacious the final WWII British armored carrier, the ultimate version of it only had 4 in of flight deck armor. Much less than I actually thought they had and likely it was so little because it was so heavy. |
|
|
|
Post by dia on Feb 9, 2021 22:26:06 GMT -6
Check out this website about armored carriers- www.armouredcarriers.com/. Seems very comprehensive. That's for everyone, it's interesting. I looked up the FD armor amounts on the famed British armored carriers. The Illustrious had 3in flight deck armor. It stopped a 500lb general purpose bomb but a picture shows it was messed up and buckled. That's just a 500lb GP bomb not even SAP or AP. It was handily penetrated by a 2200 lb AP bomb which left a 19 in hole in it. 1000lb SAP bombs did some work against her too but those hit the elevators I believe, I'm not looking at the site right now. The size of the bombs used against her and the damage they inflicted leads me to believe that 7-7.5 in isn't actually unreasonable like everyone claims. Even on the Audacious the final WWII British armored carrier, the ultimate version of it only had 4 in of flight deck armor. Much less than I actually thought they had and likely it was so little because it was so heavy. It's not just that 7-7.5" is unreasonable, it's that even 3" is super heavy and the number one killer of carriers is fires from superstructure hits and duds. I'm probably going to try setting up an experiment to test this, but in my experience thus far the flight deck is barely even hit. |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Feb 10, 2021 1:47:37 GMT -6
Once heavy AP bombs start showing up you'll need at least 7-7.5" of armor to reliably stop them. That's not unreasonable for BB/BC turret top and deck armor, but it's impractical for flight deck armor. I think it's a combination of both too high pen and too heavy armor. Less armor isn't a death sentence, but the bigger issue is fires and superstructure hits. Even if you get lucky and nothing pens your armor, if a fire is started it's game over and sometimes all it takes is a dud hit. I find I lose more carriers to hits other than hanger/flight deck penetrations. It's unfortunately more practical to use the weight saved from abandoning FD armor to use a sloped deck armor scheme and using BE/DE armor to reduce superstructure hits. Fires wouldn't be so bad if your crews had the ability to actually reduce subsequent carrier fires based on the lessons learned. Looking back at some of my saved logs, superstructure and turret hits seem to be the most common hits on carriers in my experience. I can't even remember the last time I saw an actual flight deck hit honestly. Hanger side hits aren't uncommon when guns are involved. Deck hits from guns are already rare in this game so that probably explains the lack of FD hits from guns. But looking at just bomb hits it seems superstructure, turrets, and duds are the most common. FD hits are very uncommon compared to how common they should be. When your tiny island is a bomb magnet and dud hits is all it takes to kill a carrier, using FD armor that's heavier than it should be is just not worth it. Check out this website about armored carriers- www.armouredcarriers.com/. Seems very comprehensive. That's for everyone, it's interesting. I looked up the FD armor amounts on the famed British armored carriers. The Illustrious had 3in flight deck armor. It stopped a 500lb general purpose bomb but a picture shows it was messed up and buckled. That's just a 500lb GP bomb not even SAP or AP. It was handily penetrated by a 2200 lb AP bomb which left a 19 in hole in it. 1000lb SAP bombs did some work against her too but those hit the elevators I believe, I'm not looking at the site right now. The size of the bombs used against her and the damage they inflicted leads me to believe that 7-7.5 in isn't actually unreasonable like everyone claims. Even on the Audacious the final WWII British armored carrier, the ultimate version of it only had 4 in of flight deck armor. Much less than I actually thought they had and likely it was so little because it was so heavy. In real life pilots rarely released at the correct height and correct angle. Most dive bombers came in too low in order to increase the chances of a hit which reduced penetration dramatically and then add the fact the plane was moving to try and drop a bomb which then fell according to gravity and motion and a bit to wind and pressure variance on the way down to try and hit a moving and pitching and rolling target. Many hits would have glanced off the deck. The 1000kg bomb hit on Illustrious was I recall whilst stationary in port and was one out of hundreds dropped at her. That is one of the issues with this game is that the AI hit rate is way too high. |
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Feb 10, 2021 20:07:32 GMT -6
Well, if suggestions are being sought for DLC material, I'd like to see custom submarines and their being able to actually do stuff in fleet battles. Right now they're less detailed than coastal batteries. At least the batteries can have custom defined guns and can shoot during the battle. Submarines are entirely meta.
The Germans had several different types of submarines. Not just the simple aggregate we have now. Many ideas were tested. Some were dead ends, some were abandoned because they weren't worth the effort.
What I love about this game is that I can design battleships. That was a childhood dream of mine. This game made that dream a reality, so it has been worth every penny I spent. Now, let us design submarines. I'd pay money for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Feb 11, 2021 19:16:34 GMT -6
Well, if suggestions are being sought for DLC material, I'd like to see custom submarines and their being able to actually do stuff in fleet battles. Right now they're less detailed than coastal batteries. At least the batteries can have custom defined guns and can shoot during the battle. Submarines are entirely meta. The Germans had several different types of submarines. Not just the simple aggregate we have now. Many ideas were tested. Some were dead ends, some were abandoned because they weren't worth the effort. What I love about this game is that I can design battleships. That was a childhood dream of mine. This game made that dream a reality, so it has been worth every penny I spent. Now, let us design submarines. I'd pay money for that. Agreed. I'd also like to see the ability to actually design coastal batteries, too, and especially an option to place them ourselves, instead of hoping the AI puts them in a useful position. |
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Feb 12, 2021 4:10:45 GMT -6
Check out this website about armored carriers- www.armouredcarriers.com/. Seems very comprehensive. That's for everyone, it's interesting. I looked up the FD armor amounts on the famed British armored carriers. The Illustrious had 3in flight deck armor. It stopped a 500lb general purpose bomb but a picture shows it was messed up and buckled. That's just a 500lb GP bomb not even SAP or AP. It was handily penetrated by a 2200 lb AP bomb which left a 19 in hole in it. 1000lb SAP bombs did some work against her too but those hit the elevators I believe, I'm not looking at the site right now. The size of the bombs used against her and the damage they inflicted leads me to believe that 7-7.5 in isn't actually unreasonable like everyone claims. Even on the Audacious the final WWII British armored carrier, the ultimate version of it only had 4 in of flight deck armor. Much less than I actually thought they had and likely it was so little because it was so heavy. In real life pilots rarely released at the correct height and correct angle. Most dive bombers came in too low in order to increase the chances of a hit which reduced penetration dramatically and then add the fact the plane was moving to try and drop a bomb which then fell according to gravity and motion and a bit to wind and pressure variance on the way down to try and hit a moving and pitching and rolling target. Many hits would have glanced off the deck. The 1000kg bomb hit on Illustrious was I recall whilst stationary in port and was one out of hundreds dropped at her. That is one of the issues with this game is that the AI hit rate is way too high. The fires running out of control all the time is something that happened in a later patch 16+ I think...there was a period when mid and later game when fire fighting on carriers worked. |
|
