|
Post by palpatine on Sept 16, 2021 12:10:33 GMT -6
would the netherlands be in the expansion aswell? They should be, at least for a Japanese player.
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Sept 16, 2021 15:20:38 GMT -6
Funnily enough, if Hainan Rebels it gets the Chinese Qing flag even if they don't exist in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Sept 17, 2021 20:45:17 GMT -6
Aren't China and Spain already in the game as optional nations?? They are, but, afaik, only as playable nations, i.e. you can play _as_ Spain or China but not _against_ them. You can mod them in, of course, but that means removing another nation.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Sept 18, 2021 18:04:46 GMT -6
Shipyards! It's been said multiple times but give us actual shipyards. Rather than just dock size give us like certain number of slipways, and those slipways have a certain size. And also maybe a location. That would give a great reason to invade certain locations if they have shipyards we could use. I mean countries use their home regions for shipbuilding sure but I'm also of the opinion that home areas should be conquerable. Perhaps only if you're facist or communist. At the very least home areas should be broken up into smaller areas. Just my opinion though. Oh, with shipyards being physical maybe we could bombard them in battles, like we do with forts. Maybe sometimes they could be those bombardment in support of land combat thing. Regardless number of slipways and slipway size is vastly better than just abstract dock yard size You should be more attentive, shipyard build capacity is already in the closed beta of the DLC as "leaked" by garrisonchisholm:
Oh cool! I missed that. Very nice. As usual with the strategic layer of RTW I feel like it's not enough detail, a huge blanket number is cool but numbers of slipways is what I really want. And I disagree that it's a lot of work for little gain. It would help to limit nations and just imagine you managed to bombard the UK's shipyards so they couldn't build any new BB's for a few years? I think that'd be cool. Shipyards have historically been pretty important targets
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Sept 20, 2021 1:58:23 GMT -6
Extreme range
Does anybody build extreme range ships? They do not seem good value for money
A 1900 medium range 9000 CA will cost 35000 but it will need to increase displacement up to 12500tm if we want it to have extreme range and its price tag will be over 45000 (30% higher). The smaller the ship the bigger the price increase: a medium range 3400tm CL will need to go up to 6400tm to have extreme range and its price tag will go up from 12500 to 22750 (80% more expensive!)
And what do we get out of it? as per RTW2 manual, large range ships will perform better than others as raiders and raider hunters. I guess extreme range ships will perform marginally better than large range ships? But is this enough to justify the extra expenditure?
I would suggest, to add a new feature to extreme range ships to make them more interesting: they will be able to move 2 areas per turn. That's it, it will be a more strategic rapid action force. It does not make sense that extreme range ships will take the same time to reach a far away destination as medium range battleships, which need to go into port for coaling much often. I think the game would be more acurate and open new posibilities for us. Long range cruisers did reach far away stations far faster than other warships, not because of their cruising speed but because they did not need to waste time going into ports so often to refuel
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Sept 20, 2021 13:37:09 GMT -6
Extreme range Does anybody build extreme range ships? They do not seem good value for money A 1900 medium range 9000 CA will cost 35000 but it will need to increase displacement up to 12500tm if we want it to have extreme range and its price tag will be over 45000 (30% higher). The smaller the ship the bigger the price increase: a medium range 3400tm CL will need to go up to 6400tm to have extreme range and its price tag will go up from 12500 to 22750 (80% more expensive!) And what do we get out of it? as per RTW2 manual, large range ships will perform better than others as raiders and raider hunters. I guess extreme range ships will perform marginally better than large range ships? But is this enough to justify the extra expenditure? I would suggest, to add a new feature to extreme range ships to make them more interesting: they will be able to move 2 areas per turn. That's it, it will be a more strategic rapid action force. It does not make sense that extreme range ships will take the same time to reach a far away destination as medium range battleships, which need to go into port for coaling much often. I think the game would be more acurate and open new posibilities for us. Long range cruisers did reach far away stations far faster than other warships, not because of their cruising speed but because they did not need to waste time going into ports so often to refuel It's not practical for coal-fired ships, but diesel and maybe some oil burners are fine.
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Sept 21, 2021 1:42:38 GMT -6
Yes, I think the manual mentions somewhere about using diesel only with long and extreme range ships
What I wanted to say is that, even if it was not practical and very expensive, still it was done: about 1900 cruisers like the Powerful class, Rurik, Jeanne d'Arc, Carlos V, Columbia... mostly big cruisers acting as raiders or hunter raiders, but also 2nd class battleships like Centurion and Renown, kind of rapid reaction force to defend far off colonies. I was thinking on the later when I proposed that extreme range ships be able to move 2 areas per turn. That would be more realistic and would open new posibilities for us. I still think ships with longer range (ie longer endurance) should get to far off places faster than other ships because they do not have to get into ports so often -or never at all- before reaching their destination. That was historically the case and I think it could also be good for the game because it would give us another reason to build them. At the moment we really don't. What's the purpose of having an option (to build extreme range ships) if in practical terms most of us never do?
|
|
|
Post by legion0047 on Sept 21, 2021 5:34:34 GMT -6
Long range is worth it, extreme isn't even with max level diesel. Being able to move 2 areas per turn would definitely be enough to make extreme range worth it.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 21, 2021 9:19:47 GMT -6
Extreme range Does anybody build extreme range ships? They do not seem good value for money A 1900 medium range 9000 CA will cost 35000 but it will need to increase displacement up to 12500tm if we want it to have extreme range and its price tag will be over 45000 (30% higher). The smaller the ship the bigger the price increase: a medium range 3400tm CL will need to go up to 6400tm to have extreme range and its price tag will go up from 12500 to 22750 (80% more expensive!) And what do we get out of it? as per RTW2 manual, large range ships will perform better than others as raiders and raider hunters. I guess extreme range ships will perform marginally better than large range ships? But is this enough to justify the extra expenditure? I would suggest, to add a new feature to extreme range ships to make them more interesting: they will be able to move 2 areas per turn. That's it, it will be a more strategic rapid action force. It does not make sense that extreme range ships will take the same time to reach a far away destination as medium range battleships, which need to go into port for coaling much often. I think the game would be more acurate and open new posibilities for us. Long range cruisers did reach far away stations far faster than other warships, not because of their cruising speed but because they did not need to waste time going into ports so often to refuel Interesting suggestion - thanks.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Sept 22, 2021 7:23:34 GMT -6
Is there any idea to simulate wolf pack attacks on convoys? I would see them as partially surface actions against opponents hardly visible or identifiable, when immersed, only thanks to the ASDIC. The outcome of some such battles should affect the course of the war, especially against adversaries who are dependent on merchant traffic, such as the UK and Japan, or who have many overseas colonies.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Sept 22, 2021 9:42:47 GMT -6
Is there any idea to simulate wolf pack attacks on convoys? I would see them as partially surface actions against opponents hardly visible or identifiable, when immersed, only thanks to the ASDIC. The outcome of some such battles should affect the course of the war, especially against adversaries who are dependent on merchant traffic, such as the UK and Japan, or who have many overseas colonies. Given the abstraction of submarines, I'd imagine wolf packs would only appear in the game as a bonus to submarine effectiveness against merchants.
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Sept 22, 2021 11:15:37 GMT -6
Well, the devs promised to revamp submarine operations in the expansion, so, given the fact that SSGs aren't abstracted away very well, we might even get subs that are controllable on the tactical map.
|
|
|
Post by halseyincarnate on Sept 24, 2021 21:30:28 GMT -6
One idea I've been thinking about for the expansion is the ability to have multiple types of active aircraft of the same category. Particularly for fighters I think it would be cool to have some of your squadrons were equipped with planes that were designed as short range interceptors meant for fleet defense while another squadron was equipped with long range escort fighters who's primary task was to escort airstrikes. Currently you can make an old design not obsolete but I don't know of a way to equip a squadron with an older model of aircraft (if there is and I just missed it please let me know).
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Sept 24, 2021 22:05:40 GMT -6
One idea I've been thinking about for the expansion is the ability to have multiple types of active aircraft of the same category. Particularly for fighters I think it would be cool to have some of your squadrons were equipped with planes that were designed as short range interceptors meant for fleet defense while another squadron was equipped with long range escort fighters who's primary task was to escort airstrikes. Currently you can make an old design not obsolete but I don't know of a way to equip a squadron with an older model of aircraft (if there is and I just missed it please let me know). The only way I know of to equip a squadron with older aircraft is to not develop newer aircraft, though I assume that's not what you mean. Yeah, this has been a problem since release, and has been brought up before. Hopefully, if it isn't fixed in the DLC, it will be in the not-too-distant future.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Sept 25, 2021 1:47:46 GMT -6
While I'm not going to look my old posts up, I "lobbied" for individually handled aircraft models instead of the broad categories ever since the first devblogs surfaced detailing the current system back in the day before the game's launch even. As such, on paper, I'm with you. At the same tiiiime, admittedly and on the other hand, the current system, while does not give the player the straightforward ability to keep say, differently tuned fighters in service at the same time and on deliberately selected stations, it does simplify a/c acquisition and makes it dirt cheap arguably to a ridiculous degree. One can argue that it's a different issue altogether, but honestly, if I could just keep three different kind of fighters in service for 400 a pop and after just a couple months of development (and producing three models I can select freely from!) and manufacturing, the RL differences would be a lot more apparent. One just thinks about how the RN struggled to even keep it's own aerial assets, let alone being able to churn out a new kind of very specific type for any particular task at will. Again, "as a gamer", absolutely! Gimme' full control. ...but yeah, there is a flipside to the coin.
|
|