|
Post by alpha2518 on May 31, 2021 10:12:23 GMT -6
Another small QoL improvement suggestion, can we get a better understanding of when it comes to grabbing a region for ourselves before say, Japan or Russia, or whoever gets some possession the factors influencing success and failure as opposed to it being...a complete mystery. Same for rebellions, both crushing and supporting them. Though as for the later, perhaps giving a few thousand marines to play with to start with to send where we need them to go to maintain order, resist invasions etc. And this should fit perfectly with the game as marines are naval infantry.
|
|
|
Post by 12345465 on Jun 1, 2021 12:08:56 GMT -6
Please Jesus, give us this mod and give us it yesterday. Can't wait for it. Is it still 100% happening?
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jun 1, 2021 12:28:19 GMT -6
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. I would 2nd both ideas.
I definitely agree with: "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." might need some serious play-testing / game balancing. Conceptually this could sense as larger increases in budget, players can then put down additional ships / subs / AC or speed up construction using the funds.
Ship building technology changed in a number of ways that both decreased ship costs and construction times as well as improving the finished product. Others increased costs and time due to additional QC checks and having to redo sections, such as x-raying welds. Having a ship construction tech line / tree makes a lot of sense to me. I really think some bonuses past the mid 1920's for large orders should come into play; great example is the assembly line construction of German U-Boats during 1943-1945. My thoughts can be found at: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5445/production-tech-bonuses and an idea on their implementation at: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5672/expanded-engine-reliability-implications.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 2, 2021 10:04:10 GMT -6
Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions everyone!
|
|
|
Post by corvus on Jun 2, 2021 15:18:21 GMT -6
It could be interesting to add a few more types of ammunition, at least for the smaller guns. Things like Starshells (give the ability for temporary AOE visibilty buffs at night but take up space that would otherwise be used for combat ammo) or incendiaries (all but guaranteed fires when hitting the right target, like a ship's superstructure or a land installation, but all but useless otherwise).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 16:00:33 GMT -6
Bars indicating: Expected strength of the Army (example, France/Germany/USSR/USA has a powerful army) Or for example; "Japanese Navy thinks Japanese Army victory is impossible against USSR" How well war is going
leader makes more sensible decisions: If you are completely destroying the AI, the leader enthusiastically cheers you on instead of backstabbing you.
Option to give triple points in peace deals. (ie, government collapse is 30 points) Right now, you need to repeatedly absolutely annihilate other countries to have significant economic gains.
Braver RTW1-like AI that fights you like a man
More firepower/displacement --> more explosive ship Death to the turret farms, glory to the Richelieu clones.
|
|
|
Post by alpha2518 on Jun 2, 2021 17:11:25 GMT -6
It could be interesting to add a few more types of ammunition, at least for the smaller guns. Things like Starshells (give the ability for temporary AOE visibilty buffs at night but take up space that would otherwise be used for combat ammo) or incendiaries (all but guaranteed fires when hitting the right target, like a ship's superstructure or a land installation, but all but useless otherwise). Someone give this man a medal as I can't believe we missed this as a suggestion. But I must also add your suggestion. Night Fighting should also make fighting under flares more effective. But also spotlights too. The Japanese during the Battle for Guadalcanal did use spotlights and searchlights to illuminate targets for other IJN ships to engage and destroy and this was done to great effect to even where the ships being targeted were visually blinded from engaging their targets.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 3, 2021 7:02:50 GMT -6
Looking at the Navy minister role, we could expand upon the background of the "colony module" a bit:
- Allow us to provide a "marine" complement to ships in the design screen (like with mines today), those would then form a "marines deployed in seazone" number that should be visible in the seazone rider and affect things like invasions, occupations of opportunity and repression of rebellions - Include a policy option for "infantry training for petty officers" that would generate a 20% "marine" number from a warship's crew if it is fitted for colony service (only 10% without that policy) and come with a (small) maintenance hit. The German Navy had this as a policy for a long time, with every naval petty officer needing to qualify as an infantry platoon leader in addition to other training, with the roots of this policy going back to lessons learnt from the Boxer rebellion and even earlier - If we get a helicopter carrying AV the "marine slider" option above could easily allow us to generate LPD/LHD
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Jun 3, 2021 15:00:50 GMT -6
This is a relatively small thing, but maybe adding oil sprayed coal to the tech tree? I.e as a middle ground between pure coal and oil engines that you could push for without access to oil (As its still mostly coal you're burning). This would be less of an engine, and rather just a tech upgrade.
|
|
|
Post by tidusffx1997 on Jun 4, 2021 0:33:16 GMT -6
Looking at the Navy minister role, we could expand upon the background of the "colony module" a bit: - Allow us to provide a "marine" complement to ships in the design screen (like with mines today), those would then form a "marines deployed in seazone" number that should be visible in the seazone rider and affect things like invasions, occupations of opportunity and repression of rebellions - Include a policy option for "infantry training for petty officers" that would generate a 20% "marine" number from a warship's crew if it is fitted for colony service (only 10% without that policy) and come with a (small) maintenance hit. The German Navy had this as a policy for a long time, with every naval petty officer needing to qualify as an infantry platoon leader in addition to other training, with the roots of this policy going back to lessons learnt from the Boxer rebellion and even earlier - If we get a helicopter carrying AV the "marine slider" option above could easily allow us to generate LPD/LHD love this idea as a suggestion we could get the option to design invasion craft which we have to build and use for invasions (the landing craft giving a improved invasion success chance) as a follow on to the marine idea also I would love to see the removal the Light cruiser size limits since historically they only got those sizes limits from the washignton and london naval treaties
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 4, 2021 4:48:55 GMT -6
I'd like treaties to be more common so that designing ships is more challenging. Better AI designs are also a must as currently the AI's battleships past 1920 or so are either too thinly armoured and have only 16'' guns, despite their nation researching 18-inchers or even 20-inchers, or said battleships are nonexistent as the AI doesn't rebuild their battlefleet when thy lose it after a point.
|
|
|
Post by gurudennis on Jun 4, 2021 12:12:23 GMT -6
I'd like treaties to be more common so that designing ships is more challenging. Better AI designs are also a must as currently the AI's battleships past 1920 or so are either too thinly armoured and have only 16'' guns, despite their nation researching 18-inchers or even 20-inchers, or said battleships are nonexistent as the AI doesn't rebuild their battlefleet when thy lose it after a point. A way to initiate limitation treaties, perhaps? Historically, political Admiralty leadership was deeply involved in this type of policy-making, so it wouldn't break the immersion of role-play in the game, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Jun 4, 2021 13:18:18 GMT -6
I'd like treaties to be more common so that designing ships is more challenging. Better AI designs are also a must as currently the AI's battleships past 1920 or so are either too thinly armoured and have only 16'' guns, despite their nation researching 18-inchers or even 20-inchers, or said battleships are nonexistent as the AI doesn't rebuild their battlefleet when thy lose it after a point. A way to initiate limitation treaties, perhaps? Historically, political Admiralty leadership was deeply involved in this type of policy-making, so it wouldn't break the immersion of role-play in the game, I feel. You could probably do something like that via an event chain - instead of the game randomizing the treaty you get when negotiations take place, it'd go through a process where the player can suggest what area they want to limit, what those limits are, etc. and they can push for stronger or weaker limitations relative to what other navies want in exchange for changes to prestige, tension, etc.. For example, a British player may try to push for limits on cruiser tonnage, since they can build a lot of 6000 ton FS CLs. Meanwhile, someone else (say, the Japanese) might have a lot of 10,000 ton CAs under construction, and thus the game decides to throw a "Japan opposes our proposed treaty" event, giving the player the options of acceding to the Japanese demands for a higher limit, suggesting an alternative to appease the Japanese (e.g., allowing construction to continue on some of their treaty-violating ships), or holding firm on our position (with the risk of increased tension or treaty negotiations failing to produce results, but an increase in prestige if the treaty works out). The alternative could also happen, where the AI submits demands, and the player can go along with it, request some concessions, or refuse, and with long enough negotiations, possibly flipping from one to the other before a treaty is signed. That'd fit with the current game design, while also allowing for historically accurate naval influence on treaties, adding a fun diplomacy minigame, and giving increased player control.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 5, 2021 1:09:15 GMT -6
I have the impression that by going in this direction we lose sight of the naval wargame and become involved in something like a "Diplomacy" game played by the AI with itself.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Jun 5, 2021 10:53:30 GMT -6
That's true, but this really highlights how RtW is really two games wrapped up in one - there's the "naval wargame" you play after accepting a battle and act as a rear admiral etc., and the diplomacy/budgeting/ship design game where you play as first sea lord whenever you're not in battle. My thought regarding treaties isn't a significant departure from what's already present in the latter half - for example, there's currently an event for sub limitation treaties that's much the same. You get the choice of agreeing to the proposed treaty, which bans submarines, proposing the signing of a different treaty (which is randomized), or saying that it is unacceptable. The turn events are not part of the naval wargame and instead part of a diplomacy game, but I would argue that the game is much improved by their addition.
Edit: somewhat ironically, the most recent post in this forum aside from this one at the time I posted is about an auto-resolver so that people can focus on the other parts of the game instead of the "naval wargame". Clearly, there's a great deal of diversity in terms of what people want out of the game.
|
|