"Ironclads to Missile Cruisers"...RTW2 Expansion News

[t3rm1dor]

Where it is the news of it beccoming a full game? maybe it should be stickied in this forum.

[rufusshinra]

Excellent news for RTW3, and I'm glad to see that you've taken the ambitious route after seeing the amount of content that was becoming possible with the DLC. Thanks a lot for this work, and you can be sure to have my money within minutes of the release.

[hhhhh]

Apologies if its already been asked before but is there any plans to include some sort of ability to invade neutral nations, Norway, Albania, Greece, the Korean peninsular etc. all feel like big juicy targets when playing certain nations. Often feels like an obvious long term goal to capture them, yet there is minimal ability for the player to do so.

[maxnacemit]

Will we get changes to the ship classifications in RtW 3? Increasing the size of destroyers is a step in the right direction, but the current classifications don't take into account:
- The fact that something like a Furutaka or Hawkins is by no means a full-blown CA that stands any chance againist 16000-ton, 10''-armed designs
- The fact that something like a Kynda wouldn't be able to be a CL(because it's unarmoured) or a DD(because it's above 3500 tons). An intermediate frigate classification would be desirable(because a lot of frigates were built post-1950)
- The fact that cruisers in the postwar era perform ASW duties, starting with the Kynda and ending with the Kirovs and Slavas(the latter of which could plausibly be built closer to the end of the game)
- The fact that CAs can be of any size, if they have 10'' guns, and, conversely, a very harsh limit on the displacement of Panzerschiffe.

[umbaretz]

May 18, 2022 13:13:16 GMT -6 maxnacemit said:

- The fact that something like a Kynda wouldn't be able to be a CL(because it's unarmoured) or a DD(because it's above 3500 tons). An intermediate frigate classification would be desirable(because a lot of frigates were built post-1950)

Frigate is generally smaller than a conterporary destroyer.

Also, there was already a thread here about destroyer limitations being too harsh, even for ww2, and especially when compared with another classes.

[Emma de Normandie]

This is absolutely amazing! Having it as RTW3 instead of just a DLC makes so much more sense. Super excited!

[garrisonchisholm]

May 18, 2022 11:29:31 GMT -6 t3rm1dor said:

Where it is the news of it beccoming a full game? maybe it should be stickied in this forum.

nws-online.proboards.com/post/92211

[garrisonchisholm]

May 18, 2022 12:29:24 GMT -6 hhhhh said:

Apologies if its already been asked before but is there any plans to include some sort of ability to invade neutral nations, Norway, Albania, Greece, the Korean peninsular etc. all feel like big juicy targets when playing certain nations. Often feels like an obvious long term goal to capture them, yet there is minimal ability for the player to do so.

Well, the Fleet Admiral wouldn't be making the calls to violate a neutrality.  The mechanisms for gaining control of a neutral are all present in RTW2;

The classic Colonial Grab Event, with player approval & which may work (if I had to guess?) 40% of the time

The Installing a Pro-(player-nation) Regime Event, which always works, and the player gets a Yes/No vote on

The Fascist State Surprise Invasion result when you declare war, which also fires uncommonly (total guess, 25%) but allows you to choose from a set of in-range enemy territories or select neutrals

The Blitzkrieg Event, where-upon at the early stages of a war a fascist state's general staff may ask the player if seizing (for instance) Greece would be desirable

I don't think I'm forgetting any, but someone will remind me if I am.

[seawolf]

May 18, 2022 15:45:35 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

May 18, 2022 12:29:24 GMT -6 hhhhh said:

Apologies if its already been asked before but is there any plans to include some sort of ability to invade neutral nations, Norway, Albania, Greece, the Korean peninsular etc. all feel like big juicy targets when playing certain nations. Often feels like an obvious long term goal to capture them, yet there is minimal ability for the player to do so.

Well, the Fleet Admiral wouldn't be making the calls to violate a neutrality.  The mechanisms for gaining control of a neutral are all present in RTW2;

The classic Colonial Grab Event, with player approval & which may work (if I had to guess?) 40% of the time

The Installing a Pro-(player-nation) Regime Event, which always works, and the player gets a Yes/No vote on

The Fascist State Surprise Invasion result when you declare war, which also fires uncommonly (total guess, 25%) but allows you to choose from a set of in-range enemy territories or select neutrals

The Blitzkrieg Event, where-upon at the early stages of a war a fascist state's general staff may ask the player if seizing (for instance) Greece would be desirable

I don't think I'm forgetting any, but someone will remind me if I am.

I think for Japan especially it might be nice to have an early game special event for taking Korea.  It's annoying in the 1900 start because I feel like I only ever get one half of the Peninsula.

[garrisonchisholm]

May 18, 2022 15:49:56 GMT -6 seawolf said:

May 18, 2022 15:45:35 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

Well, the Fleet Admiral wouldn't be making the calls to violate a neutrality.  The mechanisms for gaining control of a neutral are all present in RTW2;

The classic Colonial Grab Event, with player approval & which may work (if I had to guess?) 40% of the time

The Installing a Pro-(player-nation) Regime Event, which always works, and the player gets a Yes/No vote on

The Fascist State Surprise Invasion result when you declare war, which also fires uncommonly (total guess, 25%) but allows you to choose from a set of in-range enemy territories or select neutrals

The Blitzkrieg Event, where-upon at the early stages of a war a fascist state's general staff may ask the player if seizing (for instance) Greece would be desirable

I don't think I'm forgetting any, but someone will remind me if I am.

I think for Japan especially it might be nice to have an early game special event for taking Korea.  It's annoying in the 1900 start because I feel like I only ever get one half of the Peninsula.

I think you'll like the 1890 start. *says no more*

[indy]

May 17, 2022 19:25:34 GMT -6 Adseria said:

May 17, 2022 18:13:31 GMT -6 indy said:

Wow. That’s, uh, devastating news. I was really looking forward to having multiple submarine types for different roles and how best to equip them. I mean, why would I build nuclear submarines if I’m only in one sea zone? I’d want to build diesel as it would be more cost effective. Refueling and getting spotted when snacking on air should be a thing.

Also I’d want to be able to equip them. You’d want a different type of submarine to be a merchant marine wolfpack hunter and a completely different type to either go after enemy warships or stay as an escort submarine for your fleet.

I can’t describe in words how saddened I am to hear this news. I was really really hoping for a great submarine mini game and it looks like you’re treating them like a side show. So disappointed.

Hate to break it to you, but the game's called "Rule the Waves," not "Rule the Depths." (NWS? 10% cut, Ok?  )

You’re kidding, right?
Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s. The 1st nuclear sub was launched in 1954. This is a sandbox game and there’s zero reason why it can’t be done a little sooner. That could give you more than 16 in game years of nuclear submarine gameplay before rtw3 hardstops in 1970. The nuclear submarine was arguably the most influencing proponent of naval ship design besides the carrier.

To not represent the various capabilities, designs and impact that nuclear submarines had on naval warfare, design, budgets and strategy would be a grave injustice to any serious rule the waves successor. I’m offended by your remark. 🤪

[jwsmith26]

It has been stated many times in this forum that the game will not use any nuclear technology. It is indeed a sandbox game and that is one of the rules that has been set since development began.

[thesovietonion]

May 18, 2022 17:07:25 GMT -6 indy said:

May 17, 2022 19:25:34 GMT -6 Adseria said:

Hate to break it to you, but the game's called "Rule the Waves," not "Rule the Depths." (NWS? 10% cut, Ok?  )

You’re kidding, right?
Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s. The 1st nuclear sub was launched in 1954. This is a sandbox game and there’s zero reason why it can’t be done a little sooner. That could give you more than 16 in game years of nuclear submarine gameplay before rtw3 hardstops in 1970. The nuclear submarine was arguably the most influencing proponent of naval ship design besides the carrier.

To not represent the various capabilities, designs and impact that nuclear submarines had on naval warfare, design, budgets and strategy would be a grave injustice to any serious rule the waves successor. I’m offended by your remark. 🤪

My friend, NWS never said they were going to expand subs. They have a limited team, time and budget. The expansion brochure has been out for a good long while now. The only person to blame for your being disappointed is, frankly, you. Submarines have always been a background layer to RTW. 

There are also nicer ways to request or require about such things, rather than being very negative. 

[indy]

May 18, 2022 17:53:20 GMT -6 jwsmith26 said:

It has been stated many times in this forum that the game will not use any nuclear technology. It is indeed a sandbox game and that is one of the rules that has been set since development began.

So what? The 'rules' you had were back when the game was RTW2 and this whole thing was going to be a DLC. Not anymore! Now it's a whole new game. So do not skimp out on offering Nuclear propulsion. Your game will have 20 years of gameplay whereby one of the most important and game changing technologies aren't being covered. That's not okay. You cannot make an accurate simulation without it, sadly, sorry to tell you. lol

I'm not talking about nuclear weapons. I'm talking only about nuclear power. Huge difference.

[garrisonchisholm]

May 18, 2022 19:16:41 GMT -6 indy said:

May 18, 2022 17:53:20 GMT -6 jwsmith26 said:

It has been stated many times in this forum that the game will not use any nuclear technology. It is indeed a sandbox game and that is one of the rules that has been set since development began.

So what? The 'rules' you had were back when the game was RTW2 and this whole thing was going to be a DLC. Not anymore! Now it's a whole new game. So do not skimp out on offering Nuclear propulsion. Your game will have 20 years of gameplay whereby one of the most important and game changing technologies aren't being covered. That's not okay. You cannot make an accurate simulation without it, sadly, sorry to tell you. lol

I'm not talking about nuclear weapons. I'm talking only about nuclear power. Huge difference.

You open an unneeded door when you start to consider nuclear power.  Let's not even say it is submarines, which sink all the time in a major war, let's keep our conversation to very large warships.  So you have a carrier with a nuclear reactor.  We have a game that strives to model hits as accurately as possible.  Hence we would need to consider all the ramifications of hits that give damage to reactor room.  At what level is the damage unimportant?  At what level would you need to worry about radiation leakage?  How would you govern how the crew was injured?  Which *portions* of the crew are injured?  If the ship blows up, is it near a port?  Is that port then unusable?  For how long?  If I have a carrier task force just off the mouth of Singapore and somehow 4 are sunk, should the economy of that region be affected?  Should a major sea-lane being declared off limits due to radiation not damage the world's economy?  And these are only the first few things off the top of my head.

Fredrik has limited hours, and he does not have an assistant.  Every idea change or tweak we suggest has to be coded by him.  Fredrik decided he did not want to open the nuclear door, and we support him.