|
Post by wlbjork on May 25, 2021 1:04:21 GMT -6
Just a small QoL suggestion for the expansion that will also make sense as the timeline expands. Please fix the calculations for aircraft maintenance costs and and maintenance costs for ships and tonnage. As we expand into the cold war era it worth noting that some nations, the USA and USSR maintained quite extensive and sizeable fleets. Yet as the game is currently modeled it would be impossible for those nations or anyone else to be able to maintain a fleet of the size that these superpowers built. This can be fixed by making ships both cheaper to build and maintain and by fixing the tonnage calculatins were others have pointed out with carriers for example, being unable to have historical hanger armor thickness. The reason we don't get the fleet sizes is that we don't get the budgets. The actual costs of building ships is pretty close to real life, not so sure how the maintenance costs work out. Agree that tonnage still needs looking at, especially armour and possibly engines.
|
|
|
Post by iratvsmaximvs on May 25, 2021 7:03:24 GMT -6
Hi, I suppose somebody suggested it, but it would be nice to have an in-game penetration table of bombs and HE/SAP ammo - perhaps accessible after paying for testing?
|
|
|
Post by goodwin315 on May 27, 2021 6:27:14 GMT -6
Its not really relevant to the expansion in particular but if a nation is using a the same turret layout they've used before. e.g. same gun size/quality/number, same armor thickness front/top. would it be possible to implement a cost reduction and or a reduction to the time taken to design the ship. looking at the royal navy's double 12 inch turrets and the kreigsmarines triple 11 inch as examples.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on May 27, 2021 14:55:05 GMT -6
Hi, I suppose somebody suggested it, but it would be nice to have an in-game penetration table of bombs and HE/SAP ammo - perhaps accessible after paying for testing? I'll second this - it would also be interesting having some charts with different armor levels that the technicians (techs) anticipate the projectiles being used against.
Also some data / charts on anticipated enemy values vs the player's opposing values (armor vs gun) would be appreciated as this would represent tech / spook opinions. However, the simplest way might be to allow the player to select what ammo / bomb / torp and armor tech levels he wants to compare; if a tech isn't discovered by the player than it can't be selected for comparison... If both cases - tech opinion vs. player selected charts - I would expect a significant degree of fog of war; like the US misunderstanding Japanese torpedoes in WWII or the British use of inferior AP shells (fuses / lyddite) in WWI.
On a related note for fog of war, when looking at other nation's planes, the fields will have firm numbers or be left blank. As a general principle, in real life, the spooks and techs will look at the general technology level of a nation and assign a likely value range; if a more concrete range hasn't been observed. Having a range of possible values populating the fields would sooth my mind and establish fog of war... It would help in-game immersion on my end.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2021 13:25:16 GMT -6
Hi, I suppose somebody suggested it, but it would be nice to have an in-game penetration table of bombs and HE/SAP ammo - perhaps accessible after paying for testing? I'll second this - it would also be interesting having some charts with different armor levels that the technicians (techs) anticipate the projectiles being used against.
Also some data / charts on anticipated enemy values vs the player's opposing values (armor vs gun) would be appreciated as this would represent tech / spook opinions. However, the simplest way might be to allow the player to select what ammo / bomb / torp and armor tech levels he wants to compare; if a tech isn't discovered by the player than it can't be selected for comparison... If both cases - tech opinion vs. player selected charts - I would expect a significant degree of fog of war; like the US misunderstanding Japanese torpedoes in WWII or the British use of inferior AP shells (fuses / lyddite) in WWI.
On a related note for fog of war, when looking at other nation's planes, the fields will have firm numbers or be left blank. As a general principle, in real life, the spooks and techs will look at the general technology level of a nation and assign a likely value range; if a more concrete range hasn't been observed. Having a range of possible values populating the fields would sooth my mind and establish fog of war... It would help in-game immersion on my end.
I third this it would make it a lot more manageable regarding the level of armor you need to put on your ships where right now its a bit of a guessing game
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 28, 2021 13:27:23 GMT -6
Its not really relevant to the expansion in particular but if a nation is using a the same turret layout they've used before. e.g. same gun size/quality/number, same armor thickness front/top. would it be possible to implement a cost reduction and or a reduction to the time taken to design the ship. looking at the royal navy's double 12 inch turrets and the kreigsmarines triple 11 inch as examples. Having the same armament over several generations of ships streamline the production lines thus reducing both the cost of those guns (in construction cost) and design cost Especially since guns are very long lead items for ships (this also gives further advantage to having larger guns at an earlier time so you dont have to switch production lines) +1
|
|
ap817
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by ap817 on May 28, 2021 15:04:45 GMT -6
New dev update pls?
Need that sweet, sweet hit of hopium.
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on May 28, 2021 19:20:32 GMT -6
Its not really relevant to the expansion in particular but if a nation is using a the same turret layout they've used before. e.g. same gun size/quality/number, same armor thickness front/top. would it be possible to implement a cost reduction and or a reduction to the time taken to design the ship. looking at the royal navy's double 12 inch turrets and the kreigsmarines triple 11 inch as examples. Having the same armament over several generations of ships streamline the production lines thus reducing both the cost of those guns (in construction cost) and design cost Especially since guns are very long lead items for ships (this also gives further advantage to having larger guns at an earlier time so you dont have to switch production lines) +1 Maybe ship construction decrease times to simulate war production if a war has been going on for more than 12 months?
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on May 29, 2021 11:47:51 GMT -6
Having the same armament over several generations of ships streamline the production lines thus reducing both the cost of those guns (in construction cost) and design cost Especially since guns are very long lead items for ships (this also gives further advantage to having larger guns at an earlier time so you dont have to switch production lines) +1 Maybe ship construction decrease times to simulate war production if a war has been going on for more than 12 months? That already happens sometimes. "Shipyard experience decreases construction time by one month." More often though wars causes delays with wartime shortages
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on May 29, 2021 16:45:02 GMT -6
Just a small QoL suggestion for the expansion that will also make sense as the timeline expands. Please fix the calculations for aircraft maintenance costs and and maintenance costs for ships and tonnage. As we expand into the cold war era it worth noting that some nations, the USA and USSR maintained quite extensive and sizeable fleets. Yet as the game is currently modeled it would be impossible for those nations or anyone else to be able to maintain a fleet of the size that these superpowers built. This can be fixed by making ships both cheaper to build and maintain and by fixing the tonnage calculatins were others have pointed out with carriers for example, being unable to have historical hanger armor thickness. The reason we don't get the fleet sizes is that we don't get the budgets. The actual costs of building ships is pretty close to real life, not so sure how the maintenance costs work out. Agree that tonnage still needs looking at, especially armour and possibly engines. My understanding was it was both being too costly and underfunded in the game. The latter I forgot to mention, but if that's the issue...give us the bigger budgets then.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on May 29, 2021 17:38:22 GMT -6
More often though wars causes delays with wartime shortages This is actually a great idea. Oftentimes, wars in RTW2 "simmer" without massive losses on either side, and what you get then is a massive wartime increase in naval strength that is disproportionate to the nation's potential peacetime capabilities. It doesn't always work that way IRL (Germany WWI, Britain WWII) but sometimes does (USA WWII). I would suggest that being blockaded or heavily raided should cause severe shipbuilding delays, while fighting in a global conflict or fighting against an opponent that declared a total war should speed up shipbuilding in heavily industrialized nations. Another effect I'd like to see modeled is the fact that inherently faster shipbuilding practices (modular building, early adoption of welding, electric lighting for night shifts etc.) cause ships to be more expensive. This could be a fitting national flavor for the USA at its extreme, but every nation falls somewhere on the natural speed vs price continuum. It's been shown that interwar and WWII shipbuilding in the US was about 1.5x to 2x as expensive as that in Britain (due to vastly more man hours spent as well as higher labor costs per hour), but also nearly proportionately faster in most cases. Everyone knows about the Liberty ships, but similar trends affected most other programs.
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on May 30, 2021 4:57:31 GMT -6
More often though wars causes delays with wartime shortages Another effect I'd like to see modeled is the fact that inherently faster shipbuilding practices (modular building, early adoption of welding, electric lighting for night shifts etc.) cause ships to be more expensive. This could be a fitting national flavor for the USA at its extreme, but every nation falls somewhere on the natural speed vs price continuum. It's been shown that interwar and WWII shipbuilding in the US was about 1.5x to 2x as expensive as that in Britain (due to vastly more man hours spent as well as higher labor costs per hour), but also nearly proportionately faster in most cases. Everyone knows about the Liberty ships, but similar trends affected most other programs. out of curiosity, is right-clicking on a ship being built and selecting 'accelerate construction' the same as what you are suggesting? i don't use it, but it does offer faster building speed for more cost
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on May 30, 2021 15:04:07 GMT -6
The reason we don't get the fleet sizes is that we don't get the budgets. The actual costs of building ships is pretty close to real life, not so sure how the maintenance costs work out. Agree that tonnage still needs looking at, especially armour and possibly engines. My understanding was it was both being too costly and underfunded in the game. The latter I forgot to mention, but if that's the issue...give us the bigger budgets then. We already had one budget expansion in the form of the Super-Large fleet size. Further, having used SeaWolf's 'Historic Fleets' save game mod, I can also say it's flipping unwieldly trying to manage your foreign station requirements when playing as the UK.
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on May 30, 2021 21:37:45 GMT -6
My understanding was it was both being too costly and underfunded in the game. The latter I forgot to mention, but if that's the issue...give us the bigger budgets then. We already had one budget expansion in the form of the Super-Large fleet size. Further, having used SeaWolf's 'Historic Fleets' save game mod, I can also say it's flipping unwieldly trying to manage your foreign station requirements when playing as the UK. And yet we still can't have our historically large fleets which as we expanded into the Cold War Era with thousands of aircraft and hundreds of ships, we still can't even manage that now in the present timeline of the game.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on May 30, 2021 22:06:27 GMT -6
out of curiosity, is right-clicking on a ship being built and selecting 'accelerate construction' the same as what you are suggesting? i don't use it, but it does offer faster building speed for more cost That option has a relatively limited impact, both in terms of cost and speed. I'm talking about a national modifier that has a more drastic effect and can change over time, perhaps trending towards more expensive and faster construction as the game progresses or under certain other circumstances (the original comment goes into a bit more detail). Interwar US destroyers took almost a year to build, Fletchers took 6 months tops despite being a lot more sophisticated. The game doesn't quite reflect this today. I would also make the "accelerate construction" option more impactful, to your earlier point. HMS Dreadnought would be the poster child for the kind of crazy one-off accelerated build that can't be replicated in RTWII today.
|
|