|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 21, 2021 12:04:31 GMT -6
As mentioned in my original posting I will not get into what may or may not be added (above that which has already been announced), but suffice it to say that we certainly do look at and consider players input/requests/'wish lists' (especially the more oft-requested ones), but what else might be implemented will depend upon our (somewhat limited being a small company) resources and what we consider as feasible.
I will make announcements (in a separate sticked/locked thread) when additional features are added, along with some basic explanation of said features/changes as we go.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 21, 2021 12:12:41 GMT -6
This indeed will be a 'paid' expansion - we have not yet set a price since we have not yet added every feature that it will likely contain. We began preliminary work on the Expansion roughly a year ago, and with the core game having matured we are able to focus more and more on the Expansion, so progress on it has been accelerating as time goes by. I cannot at this time give a release window, but I do feel comfortable saying it should be out sometime this year.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Feb 21, 2021 15:45:47 GMT -6
Much excitement - can't wait  Love how the expansion goes in both directions as well  I'm optimistic about a fair bit here. The persistent ship history will be a nice addition but I really like the idea of an 1890 start date. Especially once seawolf inevitably puts out his historical ship mods to go along with it. It'll be fun to have more time in the pre-dreadnaught era without necessarily having to edit tech speed to do it and 1890 feels a reasonable place to start from. Night air operations seems like a positive too! My curiosity stems to what you mean with refurbishing submarine operations. I'm hopeful that means a more dynamic system for building and using submarines but it's unclear. In addition to the new submarine type, the submarine system has been modestly expanded to allow movement of subs, with penalties based on distance from base and type of submarine. I will admit that I seldom used or even bothered to build submarines in RTW2, but the ability to move them and concentrate them in critical areas or move them out of areas where they are being excessively lost has transformed the system for me. In many ways its the same system but now it's a lot more fun to engage with. The ASW system has also been expanded in some respects, making the interplay of submarine versus escorts more interesting. Just a thought in this regard - this may well not be an issue, but just mentioning it just in case - it would be good if 'submarine whack-a-mole' could be avoided - ie, if the AI or a player moves subs one turn to another area, they get a free turn running amok, then their opponent moves their ASW craft their the next turn, but the submarines move again, and so on. Some kind of system that has the "TP assigned escorts" continue to be allocated automatically, and then has fleet ASW assessed by fleet ASW capability maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 21, 2021 17:41:05 GMT -6
Well, I am interested in how missile technology is evolved and operations are handled. It could be interesting, especially on aircraft.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 21, 2021 19:00:43 GMT -6
More operational control and maybe more interaction with minor nations would be really cool. Being able to build ships for them, or other majors, being able to invade them at the cost of maybe starting a major war. Things like that. 1890 start is cool. More sub stuff is cool although I wish designing them would be a thing, not sure how much could be done with that though. Would tactical sub gameplay be interesting? Top down sub gameplay? I don't expect it but I'm just wondering.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkenzebra on Feb 21, 2021 21:08:38 GMT -6
I know this is just me liking to see how far I can push this game, but why not ironclads versus missile cruisers?
Just a thought
|
|
bd88
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by bd88 on Feb 22, 2021 0:15:23 GMT -6
As mentioned in my original posting I will not get into what may or may not be added (above that which has already been announced), but suffice it to say that we certainly do look at and consider players input/requests/'wish lists' ( especially the more oft-requested ones), but what else might be implemented will depend upon our (somewhat limited being a small company) resources and what we consider as feasible. I will make announcements (in a separate sticked/locked thread) when additional features are added, along with some basic explanation of said features/changes as we go. Thanks! Exciting news about the DLC! :-) In the spirit of this quoted comment, please consider the following: 1. Adding required base capacity per ship and strategic point value per ship to the ship detail screen and ship designer. Overseas basing and fleet design is an un-fun game of continuous trial and error otherwise.
2. Uncoupling armor scheme (AoN vs tapered belt) from layout (flat deck vs sloped deck/turtleback). More choices means more tradeoffs and more compelling decisions in ship design.
3. Revisiting the in-game effects of AoN armor, for example by making them virtually impervious to fatal flooding in the absence of a penetrating hit to the citadel at the expense of more probability of a mission kill. There's plenty of good debate to be had on the relative merits of historical AoN schemes, but AoN is basically a strictly worse design under the current meta as the scheme can be sunk easily with flooding damage to the unarmored ends. Min-maxers will always min-max, but it would be great to have more variety in the ideal min-max, depending on circumstances.
4. Incorporate more ship designs for the AI to use, especially for high-tonnage BBs and CVs. Some of the mods for more BBs/CVs add a lot of depth to the game and it would be great to see some of that get integrated.
5. Don't change the task force randomization! It adds such curveballs to the game and is one of the core mechanics behind replayability. I love this feature even when it gives me a terrible situation to fight out. 6. Please, please let us designate preferred divisions if we want to, though. It's fine if they don't always work, randomness happens, but I want to be able to design ships to work together (i.e. with roles in mind) and then tell the fleet to have them actually work together as much as possible. This should also make strategic fleet movements a lot more manageable. 7. AI wars!
I'm looking forward to whatever you all ship. Good luck with development! |
|
|
|
Post by talbot797 on Feb 22, 2021 4:31:33 GMT -6
Great news, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by babylon218 on Feb 22, 2021 5:05:28 GMT -6
Really excited for this. One thing I'm curious about though, with regard to late game. If the guided missile system is being expanded, that would seem to remove (as far as I can tell, anyway) the main obstacle to playing beyond the 1950s. If this is the case, might it be feasible to add a start date for 1940 or 1950 to let those players who want to get straight to playing with missiles do so, even if it means a relatively short campaign?
Also, with angled flight decks being properly integrated, can we assume that some autogenerated superstructure designs are going to be introduced (e.g. Kitty Hawk, Victorious/Hermes rebuilds, CVA, etc.)?
|
|
|
|
Post by benjaminmangnus on Feb 22, 2021 9:25:09 GMT -6
Hype! Earlier start date is something Ive wanted for a long time. Need me some proper French Floating Hotels.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Feb 22, 2021 10:21:31 GMT -6
I have but one thing to beg for.
Please, please, please uncouple the requirements for BC (speed), universal availability of oil and the AI's build schemes from the date of the game and instead link it to technologies.
The first nation got steam turbines? BCs have to be faster to qualify as BCs now.
The first nation unlocked oil burning? 10(15, 20?) years later oil becomes universally available.
Because, as it is currently, having access to oil in a game with 50% or less research rate is completely useless, the AI builds ridiculous BC/BB with BCs having less armor than CAs and BBs with BC armor at best, because it tries to match the speed requirements for those ships.
Basically, anything that changes due to date of the game should be linked to researched technologies instead
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Feb 22, 2021 10:21:57 GMT -6
Really excited for this. One thing I'm curious about though, with regard to late game. If the guided missile system is being expanded, that would seem to remove (as far as I can tell, anyway) the main obstacle to playing beyond the 1950s. If this is the case, might it be feasible to add a start date for 1940 or 1950 to let those players who want to get straight to playing with missiles do so, even if it means a relatively short campaign? Also, with angled flight decks being properly integrated, can we assume that some autogenerated superstructure designs are going to be introduced (e.g. Kitty Hawk, Victorious/Hermes rebuilds, CVA, etc.)? The Expansion is designed to be fully playable up through the year 1970, with tech and other items added/scaled up until that year. |
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Feb 22, 2021 11:32:22 GMT -6
I'm very curious about the 1890 start and the name of the dlc. It says ironclads and in 1890 ironclads were still in use. Over the course of the 1890s they very quickly were replaced by pre-dreadnoughts but they were still around at least for some of the 1890s. Ironclads were incredibly varied just like various predreads. I'm just curious if there are any plans to represent late ironclads from the 1870s or 1880s in the legacy fleet design or if it will just be like how it is now with predreads and the only difference is we use them longer. I'd very much like ironclads to be represented in some way but if you do itd be nice if they were represented well so maybe not. Of course resources are limited so makes sense if you dont include them.
If you were to somehow to do this ironclads would then basically replace predreads as the ship type that is only around for a few years which I think is the opposite of this. But it would be very cool to have central batteries and barbettes. Huge muzzle loaders and whatnot. I don't know exactly what would be different about ironclads. Weapon arrangements varied and numbers varied as well. Smoothbore vs rifled, muzzle loading vs breachloading. Weapon sizes were crazy. quality varied. in the 1870s British muzzle loaders were better than german and french breachloaders for instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by herrtom on Feb 22, 2021 13:18:09 GMT -6
I'm curious with the ship histories, would that include an ability to revisit battle AARs that the ship took part in? I mean being able to go back and look at manoeuvres and fires like in the post-battle screen, but as the ship's history. I think that would also be useful in seeing exactly what the ship did in that battle in its history.
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on Feb 22, 2021 14:27:57 GMT -6
Since helicopters will be added and AV's can be built as helicopter carriers, will there be other uses for helicopter carriers other than as an ASW platform?
|
|
Love how the expansion goes in both directions as well 
