|
Post by legion0047 on Jun 23, 2021 10:22:39 GMT -6
Any chance that the Black Sea's fleet gets added to Russia? I.e give them home region in the Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by 12345465 on Jun 25, 2021 5:00:50 GMT -6
Like. I am shocked that no ne has made a mod with aircraft/missiles removed yet Delete aircraft research from Data/ResearchAreas2.dat and then delete all AI CV/CVL ship design from Data/IDes. Now you have aircraft free gameplay Fantastic sir, thank you
|
|
kayo
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by kayo on Jun 25, 2021 11:19:12 GMT -6
Could there be an additional crew training focus of damage control?
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 29, 2021 3:59:45 GMT -6
I second this. All current special training will become obsolete in the missile age, with the possible exception of night fighting. Maybe special training topics could be unlocked by techs, with ASW, damage control and elite pilot training being unlocked with technologies?
|
|
alert
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by alert on Jun 29, 2021 10:27:47 GMT -6
Great news about the expansion. I've sunk hundreds of hours into this game.
I'd really like to see direct control over land-based airbases, using the same interface as carriers. This could be a doctrine, game option, or difficulty setting - offset by increased maintenance costs or reduced VP. I understand this might affect balance and there are reasons it's currently abstracted, but it would be great to get a chance to properly explore the potential of land based air. In particular, there doesn't seem to be much point in making dedicated long-range fighters to help with CAS, and mediterranean battles can sometimes feel quite random and "spammy". A lot of interesting toys, like guided bombs, can also feel quite random in their effects. I'd gladly trade a significant cost increase for the ability to directly control my airbases.
|
|
RvT (Dickie)
Junior Member
RtW2 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@RvTWarGames
Posts: 54
|
Post by RvT (Dickie) on Jul 1, 2021 22:26:38 GMT -6
If you are still taking requests for tweaks, I'd like to see the length of time taken to repair ships lengthened and more clearly associated to the number of damage points they received.
Ideally this should have a colonial modifier if they had to put into a non home area port. And the ships moved out of the active fleet list and placed in under construction. Perhaps with a shorter working up period afterwards.
The game is wonderfully realistic in so many aspects, but in this one players get off lightly by having their ships return after only a month or two.
Keep up the great work.
Dickie
|
|
|
Post by ameriz on Jul 1, 2021 23:37:49 GMT -6
This might have been asked before, but will the expansion include some sort of way to create groups of ships, such as a destroyer division? It would be a nice quality of life feature and easier to get an overview of your fleet, the possible groups could also be limited by doctrine, for added realism.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Jul 8, 2021 8:38:10 GMT -6
TYPES OF ARMOUR in a 1890 start From 1890 to 1900 there is a huge unparalleled increase on armour strength. In 1890 most armoured warships used wrought iron. While most recent ships and new construction were using mild steel or compound armour. In less than 10 years we would see ships being built using nickel steel, then Harvey and finally Krupp armour Regardless of names, the fact is that in 10 years what needed 24 inch of wrought iron or 18 in of compound, could by 1900 be done with just 9 in of Krupp. What this means is that ship designers in 1890 had very difficult choices to make: battleships being built in 1890 still had as main protection a very short, narrow but thick and heavy armour belt and little more. But by 1900 ships were using a much stronger armour so they could use less thickness for the same result. And being lighter, it could also be applied in a more comprehensive way in other areas of the ship. Of course RTW2 does not take into account these 1890 limitations and we can start making extensive use of armour from day one. That is OK because in 1900, when RTW2 starts, Krupp is ready available. But if we decide to start in 1890 I think it would be a pity not to let the player enjoy the big limitations on armour protection in 1890 and the design choices we have to make (belts were always narrow because of the enormous weight -18 to 24 in thickness- but for example the French preferred a long belt, leaving the guns badly protected; while the British preferred a short belt leaving the ends unarmoured but with the guns better protected. The bold Italians in the Italia class wanted a faster battleship, thought it was of not use to have a thin belt and made their ships without any armoured belt at all...) . I would suggest To show in the ship construction window what kind of armour the ship is using. If, for example, we know we are using compound armour, then we may have to accept that we need an 18 or 20 in belt to make it worth it, and we'll have to make choices accordingly
Of course I do not know how the RTW2 program is written but For the AI to be able to properly assess -for example- the damage of an impact during a battle, it is necessary to have a homogeneous armour value (it is not the same 18 in of iron that 18 in of cemented Krupp) One way of doing this would be by the AI multiplying the thickness of the armour by a given factor depending of the type of armour. For example: using early Krupp as reference = 1 Type 1. Wrought Iron = 0.35 Krupp Type 2. Compound or mild steel = 0.45 Krupp Type 3. Nickel steel = 0.5 Krupp Type 4. Harvey = 0.8 Krupp Type 5. Early Krupp = 1 So, for example an 18 in compound belt would have a value of 8.1 Krupp; or a 10 in Harvey would be 8.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Jul 9, 2021 6:50:43 GMT -6
1890s battle: guns and aiming aids (or lack of them)
First I want to say sorry. My previous entry about armour was far too long. When I start writing I cannot easily stop. What I wanted to say is that it would give a new dimension to our ship designs if in 1890 we are expected to use very thick armour, like 18 inch or so (like if it were compound) because of the designing choices we would be forced to make (weight control, armour extension…) I think that would make designing ships more challenging and enjoyable. At the same time, developers should reflect the very fast advances in armour from 1890 to 1900. So the armour in a ship from 1900 (Krupp) will be twice as strong or more than the armour from an 1890 ship (compound). I do not think in RTW2 an 18 inch is ever inferior to a later 9 in armour, so that would need changing.
So now, what do I think it should be the challenge for the developers for a 1890s fleet battle? RTW2 is obviously fine tuned to sea battles from early 20th century. But the late 19C period is a bit different and I think it would be very interesting if we try to make the game to replicate its characteristics in the game. As it was at the time: very low ROF for the big guns and bad aiming aids, which produced a very bad accuracy. Hence, fleets would try to improve the hits fighting at short distances (2000 yards at Yalu River). That close range in turn would make the 5 and 6 in secondary guns to have an important role in battle (to hit the enemy ship repeatedly in the unarmoured areas and maybe set it on fire or partially disable it, to be finished off by the big guns and torpedoes)
The progressive improvement of aiming aids and the introduction of fire control would lead to a change of paradigm to an "all big gun" by 1905/10, more like RTW2.
In short, if we start in 1890 I think it is wrong to be able to build advanced pre-dreadnoughts from day one. Also it would be a missing opportunity to make the game more varied, enjoyable and better.
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Jul 9, 2021 18:15:03 GMT -6
I do not think in RTW2 an 18 inch is ever inferior to a later 9 in armour, so that would need changing. That close range in turn would make the 5 and 6 in secondary guns to have an important role in battle (to hit the enemy ship repeatedly in the unarmoured areas and maybe set it on fire or partially disable it, to be finished off by the big guns and torpedoes) A much greater impact of Harvey and Krupp armor is in the list of current changes.
The is already pretty much the case as the absolute garbage ROF, Range and Accuracy on larger guns makes Pre-Dread Designs actually useful. Like, pre-dreads aren't bad designs, it's just that they stuck with the paradigm for too long and produced some subpar ships as a result.
|
|
davidlondon
New Member
All models are wrong, but some are useful - George Box
Posts: 38
|
Post by davidlondon on Jul 10, 2021 6:19:59 GMT -6
Interface improvement
On the Ship Design screen: 1) Currently the scroll buttons after Gun quality are disabled. Can I suggest we either remove them, or make them work? I wpuld preferr the latter so we want to improve gun quality we can via the scroll buttons without the silly changing the gun caliber/ revert to original caliber/ answer the pop-up question 'Do you want to install better quality guns?' routine. 2) On the Additional armament tab - When changing Anti Aircraft armament the weights change but the costs do not (stays at zero). When building, the costs do change the Final cost at bottom left. Similarly, when rebuilding, the costs don't change, nor do they affect the Rebuild cost on the left, but they do affect the Total figure below it. Assuming this is a bug can this be sorted please. If it is not a bug can it be made cleare what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by ludovic on Jul 10, 2021 7:43:49 GMT -6
I definitely agree with: "I would suggest that being blockaded or heavily raided should cause severe shipbuilding delays,". I think that movement restrictions and the abstract hardship malus and shipbuilding delays would be an overly harsh effect just for being 90% of your opponent's nationally-adjusted strength. Maybe if there were two levels of blockade, where the first level would produce only a small hardship penalty and a small shipbuilding delay, less delay than the effect of being a good or bad shipbuilding nation. Then, at around 150% adjusted strength level, the full blockade effects kicking in with the movement restriction, and the complete hardship penalty and full shipbuilding delay around equal to the effects of being a good or bad shipbuilding nation, would seem pretty fair.
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Jul 11, 2021 16:26:24 GMT -6
Apropos guns, would it be able to A: Show the ROF of the guns during design when you click on the details button and B: Adjust calibers of guns alongside their bore?
|
|
|
Post by redmabuse on Jul 12, 2021 6:09:58 GMT -6
Maybe if there were two levels of blockade, where the first level would produce only a small hardship penalty and a small shipbuilding delay, less delay than the effect of being a good or bad shipbuilding nation. When you are at it: Why not use very different national penalties and bonuses to being blockaded? For example, Germany is quite easy to blockade (due to it's limited access to the North Sea), but it will take at least a year (better two), before the blockade get's effective (since as a landlocked country German is prepared to import most needs by rail). On the other hand, Great Britain cannot be blockaded easily (there should be a lot of convoy battles, though!), but once it gets blockaded the effects should be very painful very soon. Score the VP bonuses for a blockade normally (the 200VP hit is quite harmless, in the long run it *could* make a difference, though), but Effects on Unrest and shipbuilding capabilities should hit later (or earlier).
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jul 12, 2021 11:02:08 GMT -6
I definitely agree with: "I would suggest that being blockaded or heavily raided should cause severe shipbuilding delays,". I think that movement restrictions and the abstract hardship malus and shipbuilding delays would be an overly harsh effect just for being 90% of your opponent's nationally-adjusted strength. Maybe if there were two levels of blockade, where the first level would produce only a small hardship penalty and a small shipbuilding delay, less delay than the effect of being a good or bad shipbuilding nation. Then, at around 150% adjusted strength level, the full blockade effects kicking in with the movement restriction, and the complete hardship penalty and full shipbuilding delay around equal to the effects of being a good or bad shipbuilding nation, would seem pretty fair. I like the multiple blockade idea. I also totally agree with redmabuse on the suggestion to have more individual blockade affects as well... In reality the USA will not have food shortages due to a navy blockade while, GB and Japan most certainly will and it could occur in short order as well.
Understood on the over penalization. Honestly, I think the whole blockade mechanic is a bit off... The "correction / weighting factors" are decent, but how does the USA start getting food shortages due to a navy blockade within a few months of it being enacted let alone at all??? As such please understand, I am not disagreeing with you; just explaining my thought process. Play testing / balancing / modifications to the mechanics would of course be needed.
For a decent number of countries, Japan and Italy spring to mind, their infrastructure is more water based than land based until the 1960's. They are very likely to ship major ship components rather than send them via train. By the mid 1910's-20's immediate onsite production (guns, boilers, armor, etc) was frowned upon due to limitations of usable real-estate (workers and factory) / power / and concerns with disasters like fire / floods / hurricanes / munitions explosion etc. totally destroying your production capability. When major concerns exist about the security of coastal shipping, the call is usually to ship after dark or in a convoy both of which slows down the transfer of good and increases risks. The post war USAF bombing reports from WWII, support this view... Going from memory Japanese coast shipping was severally curtailed with steel production being hit particularly hard as their bridges couldn't support much weight & steel / iron is very heavy; so it was taking a lot of small shipments which used energy they didn't have along bridges that were being attacked. Their was an example for Germany that a ferry was sunk via plane and the road / rail system over the river was then severely overloaded such that some shipments (large items that were too wide or heavy to fit on the bridges) were still stranded on the wrong side of the river several months after the ferry was sunk.
Just FYI - an interesting water based infrastructure example is in the USA with NASA's shipping rockets to Cape Canaveral.
The other thought that could apply across to all countries on an equal basis; was that with a naval blockade, fuel shortages along with the lack of freedom to train your inexperienced / new crews become limiting factors to ships joining the fleet (increased construction / fitting out time in game). You can't send a cruiser out to train without sending a sizeable escort (increased fuel use along with a higher chance of being detected) / sweeping mines / and otherwise paving the way. This inability to train was a significant hurdle for the High Seas fleet in WWI along with the Japanese and Italians in WWII.
|
|