jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 6, 2021 15:44:07 GMT -6
Steam and Iron's Campaign Expansions had an excellent strategic system complete with squadron organization and basing. You couldn't create new squadrons (aside from a minelayer force), but you at least had control over organization and what forces were used for a given mission. I can understand wanting to simulate the reality that ideal force compositions and squadron organizations were not always possible, but I can't believe that this requires the continued use of a system where the player has almost no input in force deployments and allocations aside from moving ships to different sea zones or putting them into RF/MB. Back in 2019, I suggested using the Fleet Exercises force creator to at least allow players to set up their forces for a mission as a compromise option: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3625/proposal-player-generated-divisionsI'd like more strategic control over forces, primarily the creation of player defined squadrons and task forces and a bit more input into what actually gets deployed (as opposed to none). You can design whether you want 78 or 79 light AA guns on your BB, but you have no say in how the raiding squadron should look like. But Im sure that by using some serious mental gymnastics this may also be twisted as a "realistic feature". It's probably more just allocation of resources honestly. From what I can tell most of the patches up to this point have been about getting aircraft working to where they want them to. Now they're working on getting missiles to where they want them to. Those were the listed added features for RTW 2 vs RTW 1. So they've been focusing on getting them up to spec. Back in RTW 1 it was probably the same thing. They had to focus on the tactical layer or whatever and maybe had time constraints or whatever the case may be. Regardless it "worked" and so they probably haven't seen much reason to expand on it for the time being. It's not amazing and everyone wants it replaced or upgraded but they made the choice to include aircraft and missiles in the sequel so yeah they gotta get that done. Maybe with this DLC or in a future game they'll do better with it. It was brought up in a thread about what's next after RTW.
|
|
Salty
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Salty on Feb 13, 2021 21:43:37 GMT -6
I will continue to support RTW2 and the developers and understand they have some serious opportunity cost decisions, but I've taken a long break trying to play serious campaigns because of the Battle Generator. I just have fun with RTW2 from time to time and tinker around with ship design seeing how quickly I can get fired, when the urge hits to play some. I figure the developers will eventually get around to fixing the Battle Generator, best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 14, 2021 2:28:39 GMT -6
Given the issues with how the mission generator works, the constant AI running away even when it has superior forces, the lack of any value from crossing the enemy's T and - however fair and balanced the code may be - the undeniable superiority of AI over human torpedo attacks in the first two decades, I think that instead of a DLC for missiles the game needs a re-examination of basic principles.
I've been playing a lot lately (testing out a Byzantium mod) and I just CTRL-ALT-DEL'd out of what feels like my twelfth mission in a row, so I am cranky and I apologize if I am being rude. But I feel like I own the team and can pick the players, have no say-so in what positions they take on gameday or what formations and plays they set up in, and then get handed the whistle and told 'go coach'. Oh, and the other team gets some magic thing called a torpedo while mine, for whatever reason, don't get fired or the enemy gets to dodge them unless he's completely, absolutely, perfectly motionless - then they just miss.
In the last mission, the French put their battle fleet in the Adriatic (!) and at first came right at me to within a few thousand yards. They suffered no hits as I crossed their T but somehow shot me up pretty well, so that's all that gunnery training and fire control research wasted. I had raised the flag for a torpedo attack but my DDs of course did nothing - the entire French battleline a few thousand yards away? No need to waste torpedoes. So that's torpedo training and torpedo and light forces research wasted. Then the French ran - north (!) - and when I crossed their T again in a night action I took torpedo hits and got shot up while my ships as usual refused to return fire.
CTRL-ALT-DEL - another two hours wasted - and I'm going to take a while off to cool down.
Guys, the Emperor needs new clothes, not a missile launcher. Adding aircraft really just made the original flaws stand out in higher relief. So I'm with salty - I'm going to take some time off and maybe play a little bit with the ship designer when I feel like it.
Best of luck.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 14, 2021 3:45:28 GMT -6
Given the issues with how the mission generator works, the constant AI running away even when it has superior forces, the lack of any value from crossing the enemy's T On the one hand, I don't think T-crossing was as valuable in the dreadnought era as it's made out to have been, at least in daylight action. Jellicoe accomplished very little in crossing the enemy's T at Jutland *twice*. In fact, he *lost* the battle, though that wasn't really his fault, the point being that even crossing the enemy's T twice, he couldn't salvage things. On the other, I've had the AI completely melt down and lose all force cohesion so many times in game, when its T was crossed, that I can't agree that T crossing has no value in game Torpedoes are definitely frustratingly difficult to make use of in the first five or ten years, but I find it easy to make them just as hard to use for the AI as they are for me. By the 1910s, though, I find them quite effective. That said there *does* seem to be a bug where friendly ships on the disengaged side of the firing ship can block shots, and I *really* want an indication for blocked shots of which ship blocks the shot and how, so such things can be debugged. I do agree that there are rough edges on the game that should be smoothed out before missiles go further. I've had games where I was too slow with fire control upgrades, or where an enemy simply out-researched me in fire control (particularly when playing poorer nations), and that can definitely bite you in the butt. And, particularly in the early game, main-caliber hits are few and far between, and that means statistical variation can bite you in the butt, too. Night actions are dangerous, and the beginnings of night actions especially so, because one side typically identifies the other well before the other side identifies the first. So even with good positioning, you can get clobbered. When I make contact at night, I generally raise the flotilla attack flag and have my lead division turn together to break contact. If all goes well, my DDs will maintain contact with the enemy while my main force retreats, and then I'll keep my main force out of sight of the enemy until I see an opportunity to cross the T of a ship or formation that my DDs have identified and engaged. I treat any ship that has me in-arc for torpedoes as having already launched (really, the devs could make this kind I'd knife-work a lot more interesting by having the AI build ships with submerged fore-and-aft tubes. As it is, I know that I'm completely safe from torpedoes if the enemy is bow our stern on to me). And yeah, every once in a while I get impatient and try and use my battle line to maintain contact, and then I eat a few fish.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Feb 14, 2021 10:20:12 GMT -6
We definitely need some kind of control over it for sure. I completely understand the random element needs to be there as a handicap to the human player who would otherwise have too many advantages if they got to custom pick every fight and operation. But like something as simple as my experience from the other day where I'm going to war with Germany as England in the early dreadnaught era. I had a large number of dreadnaughts and more modern semi dreadnaughts that should have made up the bulk of my fighting forces and yet not enough to enforce a blockade on their own. The only way for me to establish a blockade was to unmothball a bunch of predreads from the start of the game. That shouldn't be such a big issue. Those ships can be used for various blockade tasks and if they get called into a battle against a blockade runner or minor skirmish then that makes at least some sense but they have no purpose whatsoever in my main battle line. Yet somehow I'd find them comprising nearly half of my battle line in a fleet engagement when I had MORE than enough actual dreadnaughts, battlecruisers, more modern semi dreads, and even modern armored cruisers I would have preferred to stand in the line over those older pre dreads. I understand we need the random element but stripping the human player of any and all means of influencing it is a huge issue with the game that I hope they can find a way to fix as it would be the biggest step towards making this game a genuine masterpiece in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 14, 2021 14:18:00 GMT -6
rimbecano - please understand that I have been studying naval history since 1974. That doesn't make me an expert or a faultless admiral but I think it does permit me some level of understanding of the issues and I don;t go into them lightly. Crossing the T did permit Jellicoe to out-shoot the High Seas Fleet rather one-sidedly. There is a reason that the German battle-line turned away - they were getting shot to pieces without being able to make an effective reply. You can look up the shell hits the British scored in those few moments, and you can ponder why Scheer was willing to sacrifice his battlecruisers to get out of his position. I refer you to admirals Togo, Jellicoe and Oldendorf for three as to the value of crossing the T, and I suspect that if it was not a clearly superior tactical position they would not have worked to achieve it. I trust the opinion of the professionals whose lives depended on their acumen: crossing the T should be a tremendous tactical advantage. Certainly I do not expect, when crossing the enemy's T, to be outshot at four or five hits to one, yet this is what I see in actions from DDs to battleships. My empirical evidence is that the AI scores torpedo hits and dodges aside from my torpedoes. I've gone into detail on other occasions as to why I think this happens and I won't repeat it here, but the effect is that the human player cannot use torpedoes against anything but a stationary target in the first fifteen to twenty years of the game. The AI's ability to instantaneously and perfectly communicate orders and wheel its ships about like a flock of birds is part of the problem, as is its absolute insistence on maintaining positional advantage while constantly steaming at absolute top speed. I prioritize fire control from turn one, always. I select the gunnery training doctrine, always. I did not place my ships in reserve because the war with France began early - it is only 1905 now and the war is in its second year. My crew quality is good. My ships were built in Britain, and 5 of them are semi-dreadnoughts while the French have none. Fire control is not obviously a problem, nor am I unaware of the effects of position, course changes, smoke, weather and wind. My gunnery should be equal to or better than the French - not worse. Night actions seem to be disproportionately dangerous for the human player. The AI will fire and human-controlled ships cannot return fire until a later turn. That looks like a rules-and-code problem to me. My point is that raising the flotilla flag doesn't seem to do much in the early decades and there's no action I can take to remedy it. Either I have to go to each flotilla separately and put it on independent and assign a target (in which case it will usually wander off and not attack) or have it torpedo my own ships, or - most of the time - see them watch passively as the enemy sails up and sails away. I agree that being in the arc of any AI ship that can launch a torpedo is dangerous; an AI-controlled ship that is in the arc of my ships is not in danger because my ships will not fire torpedoes. But when ships pop up unexpectedly in conditions of low visibility, shouldn't it be surprising for both sides? Or shouldn't there be something I can do to create a doctrine to handle it? (Yes I know there is a night fighting doctrine but I 've tried it and I can't see it helps much.) Instead, I go from seeing no-one on one turn to seeing and being mugged by an enemy the next and then seeing no-one again. And it happens over and over, so it is a rules-and-code issue, I think linked to the sequence of how orders are issued and processed... but I've heard a lot of players bemoan not fighting at night because the odds are so tilted against you, and I'm coming to agree with that. I've been playing RtW for years. And it's had the exact same issues... for years.
|
|
|
Post by andy3536 on Feb 14, 2021 14:28:23 GMT -6
Just gone through 2 carrier battles as GB vs France & Italy and in both scenarios weather wouldn't allow use of aircraft.... It stands to reason, that there could only be carrier battles when weather allowed for that... Right?
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 15, 2021 22:12:18 GMT -6
rimbecano - please understand that I have been studying naval history since 1974. That doesn't make me an expert or a faultless admiral but I think it does permit me some level of understanding of the issues and I don;t go into them lightly. Crossing the T did permit Jellicoe to out-shoot the High Seas Fleet rather one-sidedly. There is a reason that the German battle-line turned away - they were getting shot to pieces without being able to make an effective reply. You can look up the shell hits the British scored in those few moments, and you can ponder why Scheer was willing to sacrifice his battlecruisers to get out of his position. I refer you to admirals Togo, Jellicoe and Oldendorf for three as to the value of crossing the T, and I suspect that if it was not a clearly superior tactical position they would not have worked to achieve it. I trust the opinion of the professionals whose lives depended on their acumen: crossing the T should be a tremendous tactical advantage. Certainly I do not expect, when crossing the enemy's T, to be outshot at four or five hits to one, yet this is what I see in actions from DDs to battleships. My empirical evidence is that the AI scores torpedo hits and dodges aside from my torpedoes. I've gone into detail on other occasions as to why I think this happens and I won't repeat it here, but the effect is that the human player cannot use torpedoes against anything but a stationary target in the first fifteen to twenty years of the game. The AI's ability to instantaneously and perfectly communicate orders and wheel its ships about like a flock of birds is part of the problem, as is its absolute insistence on maintaining positional advantage while constantly steaming at absolute top speed. I prioritize fire control from turn one, always. I select the gunnery training doctrine, always. I did not place my ships in reserve because the war with France began early - it is only 1905 now and the war is in its second year. My crew quality is good. My ships were built in Britain, and 5 of them are semi-dreadnoughts while the French have none. Fire control is not obviously a problem, nor am I unaware of the effects of position, course changes, smoke, weather and wind. My gunnery should be equal to or better than the French - not worse. Night actions seem to be disproportionately dangerous for the human player. The AI will fire and human-controlled ships cannot return fire until a later turn. That looks like a rules-and-code problem to me. My point is that raising the flotilla flag doesn't seem to do much in the early decades and there's no action I can take to remedy it. Either I have to go to each flotilla separately and put it on independent and assign a target (in which case it will usually wander off and not attack) or have it torpedo my own ships, or - most of the time - see them watch passively as the enemy sails up and sails away. I agree that being in the arc of any AI ship that can launch a torpedo is dangerous; an AI-controlled ship that is in the arc of my ships is not in danger because my ships will not fire torpedoes. But when ships pop up unexpectedly in conditions of low visibility, shouldn't it be surprising for both sides? Or shouldn't there be something I can do to create a doctrine to handle it? (Yes I know there is a night fighting doctrine but I 've tried it and I can't see it helps much.) Instead, I go from seeing no-one on one turn to seeing and being mugged by an enemy the next and then seeing no-one again. And it happens over and over, so it is a rules-and-code issue, I think linked to the sequence of how orders are issued and processed... but I've heard a lot of players bemoan not fighting at night because the odds are so tilted against you, and I'm coming to agree with that. I've been playing RtW for years. And it's had the exact same issues... for years. I understand why crossing the T is so valuable, gives you more guns to shoot and less for the enemy. Interestingly though I've seen gunnery studies that show it actually makes ships harder to hit since shell dispersion is more of a horizontal ellipse and not a vertical one. More guns offsets that very well. Something to consider though in RTW at least is how easy it is to just turn away. Ive gotten my T crossed and I just turn away, I cross the enemy's T and the same thing happens. There are times when the enemy won't react to you crossing their T but at least in my experience that's when it's not a huge threat. A single battleship or cruisers rather than a full battle line. I've had good success with night battles. I've also been badly mauled. Ive traded evenly. All depends really, I do best at night when I'm very cautious. Don't engage at night with battleships that's just bad. Use destroyers and cruisers. It's all about how you play it and what you use. Something to consider is how hard night fighting actually is. If a ship is taking fire from another ship within visual distance than yeah they should probably return fire and sometimes they dont here. But otherwise it is hard to see at night lol. I've never been on the ocean at night but I did serve in the army and patrolling at night was something. I'd see nothing sometimes unless the moon and stars were out. We have the benefit of knowing where all our ships are and knowing that the enemy ships are indeed enemy ships cuz it's a game. But when my ships can't identify the enemy I kinda understand, I know its an enemy but it's fair that it's setup that they don't.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Feb 18, 2021 15:00:16 GMT -6
Interestingly though I've seen gunnery studies that show it actually makes ships harder to hit since shell dispersion is more of a horizontal ellipse and not a vertical one. That's incorrect. World of Warships aside, in the real world the factors that make a shell land short or long are far more varied and influential than the factors that contribute to horizontal dispersion. Thus, patterns could easily be several hundreds yard long, but only 50 to 100 yards across. The real issue (especially in the early years of the dreadnought era) is that crossing a formation's T results in a very high rate of change of range. That increases the difficulty in finding a good fire control solution exponentially.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 21, 2021 18:50:29 GMT -6
Interestingly though I've seen gunnery studies that show it actually makes ships harder to hit since shell dispersion is more of a horizontal ellipse and not a vertical one. That's incorrect. World of Warships aside, in the real world the factors that make a shell land short or long are far more varied and influential than the factors that contribute to horizontal dispersion. Thus, patterns could easily be several hundreds yard long, but only 50 to 100 yards across. The real issue (especially in the early years of the dreadnought era) is that crossing a formation's T results in a very high rate of change of range. That increases the difficulty in finding a good fire control solution exponentially. It has been awhile since I saw whatever it is I'm thinking of so I'm remembering it wrong
|
|
|
Post by director on Feb 24, 2021 13:09:24 GMT -6
The most critical element of naval gunnery is finding, predicting and keeping the range. If you are shooting at an oncoming column, range-finding is quite simple: if you shoot down that column, then within very broad parameters of range you are going to hit something. By contrast, the column has less than 1/2 of its guns available to return fire. It will find that range is very important, since a slight error means the shell will land short or over the line of ships.
Again, you'd be hard-pressed to find an admiral of the steam age who wouldn't work hard to cross the T, or to prevent the enemy from doing it to him. The professionals are very often right, and for the same reason that submarines have so few accidents - the person responsible for sealing the hatch is inside the sub.
At Jutland, the first crossing of the T occurs at around 18:30. Only about 10 battleships of the Grand Fleet could open fire; Iron Duke alone scored 7 hits on the leading German ship Konig and the British took no hits in return. Scheer ordered a risky manuever to avoid total destruction and, because of low visibility, escaped.
In the second crossing of the T, Colossus took two 11" shells and the Germans received 14-15", 9-13.5" and 14-12", while Scheer was willing to sacrifice his fastest ships to keep his fleet from being destroyed. This contrasts to the runs to the South and North, where German and British ships traded roughly equal numbers of hits (although not equivalent damage). The conclusion I draw is that crossing the T is highly advantageous, and the force on the cap of the T should handily outshoot the force making up the vertical bar.
|
|
|
Post by wstriker on Feb 24, 2021 13:23:08 GMT -6
Warning! This is a rant and there will be colorful language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ok, I get that the Battle Generator (BG) has a serious random element to it, to simulate ships not being available when needed, divisions wandering into each other by accident/coincidence and so on, but what I am seeing in my latest game is such a load of BS I'm about to rage-quit the game for good. Situation: I'm playing Germany, super large fleet, 50% research-rate. I haven't build CL, because, quite frankly, before above-surface TT become available and before I need them to boost my AAA capability, they are simply a waste of money. I have converted the few CA I had left to CVLs when I could do it. This gave me quite a bit of funds to play with, so I now have 17 BB and 11 BC. The intend was to have the BC perform all the missions normally taken on by regular cruisers and, as was the original friggin mission of BCs, to hunt down enemy light and heavy cruisers. I have been in a war with Communist Russia for 16 months now (1930/31). The Russian Navy is but a shadow of it's former self (Fleet engagement in the first month killed half their BB and 80% of their BC) I have 17 BB, 11 BC, 2 CV, 4 CVL, 175 DD Russia has 6 BB, 6 BC, 1 CVL, 9 CA, 8 CL, 20 DD For the last 12 months I have gotten 7 cruiser engagements and 3 coastal raids in Northern Europe (the Russians declined every other kind of battle), where my _entire_ fleet is stationed (all foreign station duty is taken care of by KE) Guess what ships I'm given by the BG! Yes, 2 DD (once I got 2 KE) and that's it. I didn't get a _single_ engagement where my BC took part. Now, I'm supposed to be the head of the navy. If I don't authorize pairs of DDs to go out on raiding missions, then they don't go out on raiding missions, period! If I order a raiding mission and specify that a BC division is to be sent, then there will be a bloody BC division send and not a pair of f-ing DDs!Could a group of DDs stumble into a Russian cruiser division in the Baltic? Sure, every once in a while, but not every f-ing month!I do not want the exit from Kronstadt and Peterhof (the only ports into the Baltic Russia still has) patrolled by small DD divisions, I want to send my BBs and BCs to do that, because that's what I tell my Admirals and Commodores to do and anyone who can't comply with those orders will find his a$$ demoted and scrubbing decks faster than he can say: "But, but..." And before anyone tells me that the head of state might interfere, sure, then he can have my head. But as long as I am the head of the navy, that navy will bloody well do as I tell it to!So how about you let me tell the BG what ships are to undertake what kind of mission and if the required type of ship isn't available, then that mission will not take place! I mean, let's assume that all the German BC were occupied with other duties and/or being in the yards in December 1914 and thus not being available for the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby on December 16th. Would the Imperial Germany Navy have send a pair of CL or a hand full of DDs instead? Because that's exactly what the BG is doing and it's beyond ridiculous! Ok, I'm done and I'm feeling (a little) better now. I see your Federated Suns banner there. I've had a long break from this game myself. How often are there any new patches? I haven't seen one in quite awhile.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Feb 24, 2021 23:28:32 GMT -6
You mean BATTLETECH by Harebrained? I don't think there has been a new patch in, like ages.
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 25, 2021 2:36:45 GMT -6
The most critical element of naval gunnery is finding, predicting and keeping the range. If you are shooting at an oncoming column, range-finding is quite simple: if you shoot down that column, then within very broad parameters of range you are going to hit something. By contrast, the column has less than 1/2 of its guns available to return fire. It will find that range is very important, since a slight error means the shell will land short or over the line of ships. Again, you'd be hard-pressed to find an admiral of the steam age who wouldn't work hard to cross the T, or to prevent the enemy from doing it to him. The professionals are very often right, and for the same reason that submarines have so few accidents - the person responsible for sealing the hatch is inside the sub. At Jutland, the first crossing of the T occurs at around 18:30. Only about 10 battleships of the Grand Fleet could open fire; Iron Duke alone scored 7 hits on the leading German ship Konig and the British took no hits in return. Scheer ordered a risky manuever to avoid total destruction and, because of low visibility, escaped. In the second crossing of the T, Colossus took two 11" shells and the Germans received 14-15", 9-13.5" and 14-12", while Scheer was willing to sacrifice his fastest ships to keep his fleet from being destroyed. This contrasts to the runs to the South and North, where German and British ships traded roughly equal numbers of hits (although not equivalent damage). The conclusion I draw is that crossing the T is highly advantageous, and the force on the cap of the T should handily outshoot the force making up the vertical bar. I was going to type a very long mail, but people probably wouldn't be interested. Anyway, fully agree with this comment - but also, the comment from abclark is correct - crossing the T results in the crossing formation having to compensate for a high rate of range change. Imagine a series of triangles and moving ellipses, combined with the fact that you probably have no idea where your previous shot landed. However, the law of averages still dictates that your side is more likely to make hits than the enemy, purely based on number of guns that bear, and the relatively higher mass of enemy metal in the way of your shells.
|
|