|
Post by stevethecat on Feb 12, 2021 14:08:49 GMT -6
Honestly at this point it's not so much the contents of the DLC that matter, although I find the suggestion of missiles being moved there irritating when they were advertised for the main game and are bare-bones at best...
But the janky purchasing and copy protection system that will put me off future purchases.
My HDD just died, so a replacement was fitted. Within an hour my Steam and Epic libraries were up and going... As for RTW? Well that's an email daisy chain.
|
|
Salty
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Salty on Feb 13, 2021 22:00:44 GMT -6
More operational control in battle generator (in the old harpoon game you were stuck with specific ships by scenario, but you had operational control of how to organize them. You could combine groups or peel off slower damaged ships etc..) and AI Wars would be awesome.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 14, 2021 12:35:22 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. No the big hit came during the main attack while she was on the move with 2 battleships escorting her as did most of the hits on her. She did receive some hits while at Malta but most were during that main attack while at sea. I haven't had a ton of air wars as I've mostly played as the US and Japan. As Italy I had a very vicious war with the UK and France though. My carriers received very few hits and then only really when fighters weren't there to engage them. I tend to put pretty serious AA on my ships though. I generally have a heavy AA rating of at least 50 and usually past 70 on my carriers. 30+ on destroyers and cruisers. The effect of that cannot be overstated. The disruption is massive when the combined AA rating is like 2 or 300. I've seen large strikes push through CAP and the AA to score maybe 1 or 2 hits but that was rare. I think the worst I saw was 3 or 4 hits on an escort carrier and that took place over several raids. Most hits I took happened while the CAP was rearming as I said which makes sense. As for crazy fires and lack of flight deck hits that someone else said I've seen that but it's always made sense to me. I usually took flight deck hits in that war as Italy. Interestingly I was using armored carriers quite similar to Illustrious except with 70 aircraft rather than what 48? Less? The bombs generally penetrated the deck and started fires among fuelled aircraft. Due to bad luck or just how I was fighting the battles I almost always took hits on my carriers while preparing strikes. So the constant crazy fires that nearly killed my carriers all the time made perfect sense. I lost a few carriers to fires, one of the most egregious was a brand new carrier late in the war. I needed carriers badly, and aircraft and really just everything. So I put it into active service immediately rather than letting it work up. Crew quality was -2 lol. So when it took a single 1500 lb bomb that penetrated the flight deck and started a fire that eventually sank the ship I was a little upset but I also understood that it was mainly due to bad crew. I wasn't even preparing strikes and I'd seen much worse fires and dmg taken under control handedly by my elite crews. That difference makes sense to me though. The bad part of that engagement though was that my carrier force was right in front of a port and wouldn't go into it because they kept on launching fighters because they were under constant air attack for hours. I think I lost a 2nd carrier there purely because they wouldn't freaking go into port. Like 10 miles away. So just in my experience hit rates seem fine, a single hit or two during rough strikes if that, more when AA and CAP is low. Dmg control also seems mostly fine to me, it at least made sense in my games when huge fires overtook ships when aircraft kept exploding in the hangers. But carriers not listening to orders when launching is bad. I get the idea behind it but let us over turn that if necessary cuz it is necessary a lot of the time
|
|
|
Post by bshaftoe on Feb 19, 2021 4:10:57 GMT -6
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. Why do you say this? I mean, it's not necessarily true. That's only true if you are allied to one of the war participants, and it's essentially the same as you being declared a war, that is something that you can't always control.
For me, the most immediate benefit of AI wars, it's that now the only attrition that other navies have is them retiring old ships. If they have wars among them in which I am not involved, suddenly there will be times in which my relative strength will be higher.
Probably, it would even be enough with having wars with semi-random (but oriented to plausability/realism) losses of ships, not simulated by battles.
The alliance politics don't even need to be too complicated, it can have the same level of complexity we have now, but simply, among AI powers and automated so we don't see more detail than needed.
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 19, 2021 7:16:56 GMT -6
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. Why do you say this? I mean, it's not necessarily true. That's only true if you are allied to one of the war participants, and it's essentially the same as you being declared a war, that is something that you can't always control.
For me, the most immediate benefit of AI wars, it's that now the only attrition that other navies have is them retiring old ships. If they have wars among them in which I am not involved, suddenly there will be times in which my relative strength will be higher.
Probably, it would even be enough with having wars with semi-random (but oriented to plausability/realism) losses of ships, not simulated by battles.
The alliance politics don't even need to be too complicated, it can have the same level of complexity we have now, but simply, among AI powers and automated so we don't see more detail than needed.
Having seen many responses since I originally wrote this nearly three weeks ago, there are a couple of things I'd say. First, that the discussion around AI wars is based on a fairly limited view of what's actually in it, and based more around people's assumptions of what will be in at a minimum, and their imaginations of what they'd ideally like to see. Second, that the reason many people are extremely keen to see AI wars, is that the assumed functionality they think will be delivered, will fix some of their frustrations with the underlying core of the game. Like you mention attrition of ships in other navies - to me, that's core game functionality, not specifically associated with AI wars. So my final point on this, tying it back to the thread, is that the purist's interpretation of "DLC" being downloadable content, would imply additional scenarios, etc, without changing the basic version of the game. All of my original points were made using this interpretation - simply put, that based on my study of the game config files, I couldn't see a way of addressing, in DLC, some issues that I thought would likely need a version upgrade. So while I greatly enjoy discussing functionality, and I have learned a lot about shortcomings others see in the game that are very insightful, I've always taken a purist's view on the concept of DLC. I know that other players have mentioned an AI wars mod - but I haven't had sufficient time to look at it and understand what parameters are changed, and what the likely end result is to gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 19, 2021 10:34:14 GMT -6
I personally would prefer to call it an 'expansion', not a DLC; the reason being that it will add new/expanded functionality to the existing game. Any bug-fixes will be rolled out to both the expansion and to the core game. I am consulting with Fredrik W to see if we are ready to release an announcement for this, so expect something official soonish. Thanks for your patience!
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on Feb 19, 2021 17:05:25 GMT -6
I personally would prefer to call it an 'expansion', not a DLC; the reason being that it will add new/expanded functionality to the existing game. Any bug-fixes will be rolled out to both the expansion and to the core game. I am consulting with Fredrik W to see if we are ready to release an announcement for this, so expect something official soonish. Thanks for your patience! Thank You For the info! Sitting here for months waiting to see if there has been an update after one or two a month for ages was rather tense. I cant wait to see whatever you guys come up with! I will no doubt enjoy it and buy it.
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 20, 2021 3:03:32 GMT -6
I personally would prefer to call it an 'expansion', not a DLC; the reason being that it will add new/expanded functionality to the existing game. Any bug-fixes will be rolled out to both the expansion and to the core game. I am consulting with Fredrik W to see if we are ready to release an announcement for this, so expect something official soonish. Thanks for your patience! Nice clarification, thanks!
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Feb 20, 2021 17:57:41 GMT -6
I'm anxious for the next update. It's been awhile.
The expansion can wait.
|
|
|
Post by bshaftoe on Mar 25, 2021 9:14:38 GMT -6
Having seen many responses since I originally wrote this nearly three weeks ago, there are a couple of things I'd say. First, that the discussion around AI wars is based on a fairly limited view of what's actually in it, and based more around people's assumptions of what will be in at a minimum, and their imaginations of what they'd ideally like to see. Second, that the reason many people are extremely keen to see AI wars, is that the assumed functionality they think will be delivered, will fix some of their frustrations with the underlying core of the game. Like you mention attrition of ships in other navies - to me, that's core game functionality, not specifically associated with AI wars. So my final point on this, tying it back to the thread, is that the purist's interpretation of "DLC" being downloadable content, would imply additional scenarios, etc, without changing the basic version of the game. All of my original points were made using this interpretation - simply put, that based on my study of the game config files, I couldn't see a way of addressing, in DLC, some issues that I thought would likely need a version upgrade. So while I greatly enjoy discussing functionality, and I have learned a lot about shortcomings others see in the game that are very insightful, I've always taken a purist's view on the concept of DLC. I know that other players have mentioned an AI wars mod - but I haven't had sufficient time to look at it and understand what parameters are changed, and what the likely end result is to gameplay.
For me, AI wars can be something as simple as an event telling you there's war between A and B, and additional events explaining to you how supposedly (some fog of war) country A lost x ships in a battle and B lost y ships. After some turns, you can receive an event saying A and B agreed to a peace with z conditions, and that's all.
Now, it's true that this not trivial or easy. If the ships sunk or damaged are determined randomly, then this is worse than having no AI wars at all. It requires a certain logic to determine an, if not realistic, plausible amount of ships sunk and damaged. It also needs to compute the list of peace agreement terms so that it's plausible, and designing this logic and writing it is probably difficult.
But this can be done in an iterative way. A basic version first just hitting the most basic elements, and refine it later complicating the model generating AI battles and determining results, or including your participation in the war somehow.
Anyway, for me this is important, because it will bring a lot of life to the world, it will make you feel like the admiral in an otherwise alive world. The attrition to other navies is also good, of course.
My two cents.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Mar 25, 2021 22:24:39 GMT -6
Having seen many responses since I originally wrote this nearly three weeks ago, there are a couple of things I'd say. First, that the discussion around AI wars is based on a fairly limited view of what's actually in it, and based more around people's assumptions of what will be in at a minimum, and their imaginations of what they'd ideally like to see. Second, that the reason many people are extremely keen to see AI wars, is that the assumed functionality they think will be delivered, will fix some of their frustrations with the underlying core of the game. Like you mention attrition of ships in other navies - to me, that's core game functionality, not specifically associated with AI wars. So my final point on this, tying it back to the thread, is that the purist's interpretation of "DLC" being downloadable content, would imply additional scenarios, etc, without changing the basic version of the game. All of my original points were made using this interpretation - simply put, that based on my study of the game config files, I couldn't see a way of addressing, in DLC, some issues that I thought would likely need a version upgrade. So while I greatly enjoy discussing functionality, and I have learned a lot about shortcomings others see in the game that are very insightful, I've always taken a purist's view on the concept of DLC. I know that other players have mentioned an AI wars mod - but I haven't had sufficient time to look at it and understand what parameters are changed, and what the likely end result is to gameplay.
For me, AI wars can be something as simple as an event telling you there's war between A and B, and additional events explaining to you how supposedly (some fog of war) country A lost x ships in a battle and B lost y ships. After some turns, you can receive an event saying A and B agreed to a peace with z conditions, and that's all.
Now, it's true that this not trivial or easy. If the ships sunk or damaged are determined randomly, then this is worse than having no AI wars at all. It requires a certain logic to determine an, if not realistic, plausible amount of ships sunk and damaged. It also needs to compute the list of peace agreement terms so that it's plausible, and designing this logic and writing it is probably difficult.
But this can be done in an iterative way. A basic version first just hitting the most basic elements, and refine it later complicating the model generating AI battles and determining results, or including your participation in the war somehow.
Anyway, for me this is important, because it will bring a lot of life to the world, it will make you feel like the admiral in an otherwise alive world. The attrition to other navies is also good, of course.
My two cents. Well, the mechanics for what kind of engagement each month pop up, what ships take part and so on are all in place. Just use the same mechanics for the AI nations and determine the outcome of the fight similar to how outcomes of raider-intercepts can be automatically determined, if you don't want to fight that out yourself. As for peace conditions, those mechanics are also kinda there already. The game determines how many negotiation points you get and if you are allied to other nations and win a war, those other nations will grab colonies from the loser of the war. So just use _those_ mechanics. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement (hell, I know absolutely nothing about programming), all I'm saying that all the mechanics are already in the game.
|
|
|
Post by bshaftoe on Mar 26, 2021 3:55:14 GMT -6
Well, the mechanics for what kind of engagement each month pop up, what ships take part and so on are all in place. Just use the same mechanics for the AI nations and determine the outcome of the fight similar to how outcomes of raider-intercepts can be automatically determined, if you don't want to fight that out yourself. As for peace conditions, those mechanics are also kinda there already. The game determines how many negotiation points you get and if you are allied to other nations and win a war, those other nations will grab colonies from the loser of the war. So just use _those_ mechanics. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement (hell, I know absolutely nothing about programming), all I'm saying that all the mechanics are already in the game. Probably, although maybe they are not suitable for some technical reason for the AI, so that's the reason I didn't mention them.
|
|