|
Post by seawolf on Apr 7, 2021 1:05:10 GMT -6
There seems to be two problems with SAMS: 1) Aircraft tactics do not change as they become more common. For example the Royal Navy expected Buccaneer bombers to approach target below the radar horizon and use toss bombing (and possibly nuclear bombs) to defeat the USSR's Sverdlov light cruisers.
2) SAM launchers seem to have high rates of fire, unlimited magazines and no limits on engagement altitude, angle etc. I haven't seen anywhere a description of how SAMs work in gamebut they seem to be available to defend against every attacking unit of planes, even those just a minute apart.
SAM sytems, and the reactions to their presence, are being worked on in the Expansion so expect some improvements with regards to those aspects. I found out today that the first "Missile" launched from a carrier aircraft was actually from a flight of F6Fs off USS Boxer, 28 August 1952
|
|
ilyusin28
New Member
I'm Japanese,so I can't write English well.
Posts: 35
|
Post by ilyusin28 on Apr 7, 2021 6:55:44 GMT -6
What I want. 1: Toughen up the dreadnought requirements. It's impossible to call a battleship with only three main guns a dreadnought. 2: Extensive modification of warships under construction I want to recreate the Shinano. 3: Further liberalization of construction I want to recreate the three scenic ships (Matsushima, Itsukushima, Hashidate) and the first Fuso.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Apr 7, 2021 16:46:19 GMT -6
What I want. 1: Toughen up the dreadnought requirements. It's impossible to call a battleship with only three main guns a dreadnought. 2: Extensive modification of warships under construction I want to recreate the Shinano. 3: Further liberalization of construction I want to recreate the three scenic ships (Matsushima, Itsukushima, Hashidate) and the first Fuso. So, on the one hand you want to toughen up requirements, and on the other you want to loosen them up? Make your mind up
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 7, 2021 18:55:33 GMT -6
I want to recreate the three scenic ships (Matsushima, Itsukushima, Hashidate) It is possible to build CLs along the lines of Matsushima in the currently-released version of RTW2; I believe it has been possible to do so since RTW1
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Apr 7, 2021 19:56:00 GMT -6
I want to recreate the three scenic ships (Matsushima, Itsukushima, Hashidate) It is possible to build CLs along the lines of Matsushima in the currently-released version of RTW2; I believe it has been possible to do so since RTW1 How? I just tried and it threw an error.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 7, 2021 20:09:03 GMT -6
It is possible to build CLs along the lines of Matsushima in the currently-released version of RTW2; I believe it has been possible to do so since RTW1 How? I just tried and it threw an error.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Apr 7, 2021 21:02:19 GMT -6
Admittedly, mine is using sci-fi future tech, but still. EDIT: I worked it out. It only works with protected cruisers, not light cruisers. Because f*** the future, right?
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 7, 2021 21:08:03 GMT -6
You have to use the Protected Cruiser armor scheme if you're going to put guns heavier than 6" onto a CL.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Apr 8, 2021 1:51:04 GMT -6
Is there a limit to how many templates can be added? I'm asking because I was wondering if the team is open to the possibility of allowing the community to assist in creating and testing new battles/templates that can be added to the game officially. I know messing with some myself that creating each individual mission can be time consuming and having more variety to the battles, especially in regards to differing locations, will go a long way to improving the game experience imo. I'm not talking about new mission types or anything, but stuff like a second bombardment mission with a bombardment target location in a different location or a second coastal raid mission with a different focused area for the raid. Is this something that could be feasible? Short answer...yes, we are open to community involvement in mission template building.
Long answer: Fredrik will need to do some work on the game/mission editor to allow for this, so it will be a bit before things are ready - at such time I will make an announcement and set things up for it.
1. How is it possible to collaborate in producing these templates? Is there anything like a scenario editor? 2. I propose to introduce some features present in SAI and, in particular: a) emergency activation of some forces already available in port (e.g. I lost two BCs a few miles from El Ferrol where, presumably, the entire Spanish fleet was at anchor), b) possibility to choose the start time of the bombardment and coastal raid missions in order to be able to arrive in the target area, for example, at the first light of dawn. 3. Introduce some features of Fighting Steel and in particular the use of star shells and visualization of smoke screens. Both could differ, as in historical reality, depending on the level of research.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 8, 2021 9:32:21 GMT -6
There is an in-house mission template editor, but it needs additional work on it to be more 'user-friendly' (plus lots of additional documentation) before it can be released to the public as part of this community mission-making project. The idea is that we would have a dedicated thread wherein players can use the mission editor to create additional mission templates for RTW2 and submit them to the thread for testing and potential inclusion in the game. A 'mission template' is used by the game to generate actual missions during game-play, and directly affects how that type of mission is created, setup and activated during the game.
Some of your other items are or have been discussed, but at this point I cannot say if any/some will be included as work is still progressing on the Expansion.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by palpatine on Apr 8, 2021 10:11:13 GMT -6
Another idea for a small "quality of life" suggestion : the option for countries with several home areas to choose where new ships are commissionned.
|
|
|
Post by howdyrocket on Apr 9, 2021 13:04:14 GMT -6
Hate to post again about one of the same things, but is there any chance the force-end date can be shifted down to 1980 or maybe even 1990? It would be a shame to have a lot of new techs for the 60s period then barely get any time to play with them. Not to mention this would leave room for further technology and weapons.
|
|
|
Post by chuckborris on Apr 9, 2021 14:59:13 GMT -6
Hi, I hope this expansion will include : - AI War : to decrease AI fleet tonage over time and to make the player more active in managing tension. - AI auto battle : If i dont want to make a battle, i want the AI to take care of it. If it is simplified or if it's a 5 real time minutes to simulate it, i dont know care as i just want to choose which battle i play without being penalize by avoiding other ones. - Modification of the traits of a country over time (good or bad traits). Countries change over 80 years. - Creation of fleet battle group to choose which ships go to battle together. If it's too complicated, new battle roles to limit ships participation to patrol/trade protection/raiding (only small engagements) or main fleet (big battles) If possible : a way to limit the number of ships built at the same moment (especially big ones). It would make planification more important and it would force the players to "always" build ship instead of waiting for the best design and mass build new ships. If shipyards are identifed, it could add a strategic layer to strike these to prevent ship construction. #3 - yes, that'd be awesome. oddly enough i see RTW as a fleet centered grand strategy game. so i would like to see more impact from fleet actions on economy and such. more elaborate trade warfare would be nice as well
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 9, 2021 15:00:47 GMT -6
How do you plan to tackle the development of rapid fire cannons ? It is quite evident you take theoretical rof values with VERY big skepticism to say it at least It is well known that several large autocannons and cannons could achieve rates of fire without human loading above 60 rounds per minute for 2 inch guns + while we are currently limited to 4 rounds per minute for all gun sizes An example of this is the British 3"/70 Mark 6 which had a rate of fire of 90 rpm and was designed in 1950 and entered service in 1958 Gun can be seen here www.geocities.ws/Pentagon/Quarters/6693/images/terranova.jpgDo you plan to fix the rate of fire cap or will it remain? Also how will you handle extremely high rate of fire VT fuzed autocannons which are also radar guided leading to extremely high effectiveness at 5km or closer range.
|
|
|
Post by corvus on Apr 9, 2021 17:47:53 GMT -6
BTW, can we get a rough estimate when the expansion could get released? Or is it too early to say?
|
|