|
|
Post by thesovietonion on May 18, 2022 20:04:57 GMT -6
RTW1 survived without air power. RTW3 will survive without nuclear engines  . |
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on May 18, 2022 20:21:04 GMT -6
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.
I mean if the dev said he doesn't want to do it, I don't understand why some people try and force it. Just seems like a way to have everything fall apart. But on the subject of nuclear propulsion separate from implementation or not. Given how water neutralizes radiation or at least is a very good shield of radiation to my admittedly low knowledge of the subject. Outside of combat damage and maybe the effects on the crew depending on how messed up the carrier is in combat. If it sinks and is covered by a few hundred feet of water given how most of the combat in the rule the waves series takes place. Would it not just be neutralized by the several hundred feet of sea water now in the carrier and surrounding it? Or I guess nuclear cruiser or battleship depending upon the admiral's taste if not the consequences of the battle at sea. |
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 18, 2022 20:40:00 GMT -6
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.
I mean if the dev said he doesn't want to do it, I don't understand why some people try and force it. Just seems like a way to have everything fall apart. But on the subject of nuclear propulsion separate from implementation or not. Given how water neutralizes radiation or at least is a very good shield of radiation to my admittedly low knowledge of the subject. Outside of combat damage and maybe the effects on the crew depending on how messed up the carrier is in combat. If it sinks and is covered by a few hundred feet of water given how most of the combat in the rule the waves series takes place. Would it not just be neutralized by the several hundred feet of sea water now in the carrier and surrounding it? Or I guess nuclear cruiser or battleship depending upon the admiral's taste if not the consequences of the battle at sea. Those are exactly the kind of fine details that would need to be decided upon, and if there is ever a submarine DLC where nuclear power would have to be considered, that's the time to make all those judgements and start pulling on the thousand threads, not now. But as for the meat of your question, look how much of the Fukoshima area is off limits. I'm not sure we can easily say we could figure out how multiple reactors being violently destroyed might affect a simulation environment, and a couple of 2 ton Heavy SSMs spreading a reactor core over several hundred yards seems rather more complex than a nuclear sub sinking and never being heard from again. However, knowing this forum, I'm sure there's folks who might guess better than I. |
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on May 18, 2022 23:14:42 GMT -6
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. 🤪 Ok, First things first, I agree with you. It would be nice to see an expansion of the submarine game, and I absolutely hope to see it one day, some time in the distant future. Now that that's out of the way; your being offended by my comment is ridiculous. Number one, it was a joke. Number two, it was, technically, correct. Number three, the point stands. The game's focus is, and always has been, on surface warships. I (and, I suspect, most of the people on the forum) would rather see the main parts of the game improved and refined and expanded on first. |
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on May 18, 2022 23:28:13 GMT -6
All this talk about RTW3 is all very well and good, but the real thing I and many others want to know is...when can we expect RTW8: Galleons to Star Dreadnaughts to be released?
With the best 2D graphics known to mankind and the ability to play for over 800 years(1500-2300ish), I reallllyyyy need this game to come out soon so I can quit my job and play it full-time.
P.S. Is the rumored "Space Battleship Yamato" special event for Japan a real thing, or I am just being mislead by people?
|
|
|
|
Post by rufusshinra on May 19, 2022 0:40:24 GMT -6
All this talk about RTW3 is all very well and good, but the real thing I and many others want to know is...when can we expect RTW8: Galleons to Star Dreadnaughts to be released? With the best 2D graphics known to mankind and the ability to play for over 800 years(1500-2300ish), I reallllyyyy need this game to come out soon so I can quit my job and play it full-time. P.S. Is the rumored "Space Battleship Yamato" special event for Japan a real thing, or I am just being mislead by people? Give the developers a bit of time to properly finish the RTW 7 DLC feature about treecat mascots' psychology and the Iserlohn Fortress configuration. |
|
|
|
Post by director on May 19, 2022 1:16:39 GMT -6
I could say, "Write something of comparable complexity and length and then respond to people who don't think your work is detailed or expansive enough..."
But I'm just going to say this:
1) The developers have been clear about what is coming and, now, when it will be released. They have kept the careful promises they have made.
2) So far, polite requests have gotten serious consideration. Sometimes we've gotten a yes, sometimes a no... and sometimes it's taken a while...
BUT we have gotten answers, no doubletalk, there's been no backing up on things that were promised and they've dealt fairly, ethically and in good faith.
SO the TLDR is, if you are disappointed that this game is not what you want then you are free to buy it, or not, and write your own - or not.
Opening a polite discussion COULD perhaps get you somewhere in a future release.
|
|
|
|
Post by incredibleincompetence on May 19, 2022 5:45:17 GMT -6
All this talk about RTW3 is all very well and good, but the real thing I and many others want to know is...when can we expect RTW8: Galleons to Star Dreadnaughts to be released? With the best 2D graphics known to mankind and the ability to play for over 800 years(1500-2300ish), I reallllyyyy need this game to come out soon so I can quit my job and play it full-time. P.S. Is the rumored "Space Battleship Yamato" special event for Japan a real thing, or I am just being mislead by people? Since the next few centuries are so uncertain, I think that we just have to wait a bit to make sure there's historical accuracy. Can't wait for it though. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 19, 2022 9:02:51 GMT -6
Actually Fredrik and I have long mused about a sorta "WW2 in Space" type of game, but honestly we have no solid plans for such....well, yet anyway....lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 19, 2022 10:54:32 GMT -6
Actually Fredrik and I have long mused about a sorta "WW2 in Space" type of game, but honestly we have no solid plans for such....well, yet anyway....lol. Oh good grief William, you have no idea what you've done! LOL |
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on May 19, 2022 10:57:55 GMT -6
Actually Fredrik and I have long mused about a sorta "WW2 in Space" type of game, but honestly we have no solid plans for such....well, yet anyway....lol. Well, I hope it happens someday, because I really want take the old fast battleships HMS Warspite and Hindustan (Such a weird name eh?) out to smack some German proton-torpedo boats over the frozen wastes of the ice moon Narvik VII. |
|
|
|
Post by cogsandspigots on May 19, 2022 11:27:47 GMT -6
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.
If Kirov had gotten hit instead of Moskva, then we’d have the answers to those questions. |
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on May 19, 2022 11:33:11 GMT -6
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.
If Kirov had gotten hit instead of Moskva, then we’d have the answers to those questions. No doubt, only I suspect that the general public would not be privy to that information. |
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on May 19, 2022 17:17:48 GMT -6
Greetings to my Fellow Naval Combat Aficionados,Firstly - my apologies for the delay in this announcement; it has been a trying last few months for NWS since Christopher left us, but we have recovered and have been moving forward in good order. With that out of the way, let us get down to what you have been waiting for - news and/or updates! 1. After *lots* of discussion between Fredrik and myself, and including feedback from our wonderful NWS Beta Team members, we have decided that the upcoming release should be a standalone game, namely "Rule the Waves 3: Ironclads to Missile Cruisers". We have worked on this project for ~ 2.5 years now; with the amount of changes and additions, not to mention improvements in many many areas, we realized a short while back that the work has gone well beyond a simple expansion/dlc...we somehow passed 'feature creep' and entered the realm of what I like to call 'feature bloat' at some point in the past it would appear :-) The previously released 'Expansion Catalog', while it showed much of what was included at its release, will likely become somewhat outdated as additional work is done for the final game release - more details of this will be coming out in our marketing campaign later on. The exact price point for the RTW3 game has not yet been decided, but it will fall close to our (NWS) typical price range for our new games, somewhere in the 35-45 range is my best guess right now - the exact price will be set/announced later on. We do plan to put the game on sale at a *reduced price* for the first week or so of the release, which will effectively give anyone who wishes to take advantage of it a good price break. 2. Release date: The game will be released in OCTOBER of this (2022) year. THIS IS A SOLID RELEASE WINDOW. This release window gives us some additional time to 'finetune' the game, and a chance to add even more new features and useful changes as well in the meantime! 3. STEAM: Yes, we plan on a Steam release at the same time as the game is released to the store!!! The initial sale price (that I mentioned above) should also apply on Steam as well as on the store. Below is just a sample of the updated ship graphics for RTW3, courtesy of our talented Beta Team member John Smith (jwsmith26 ):<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> My word, disappear for a couple of days, come back and there's much excitement This is great news from my angle - and it being converted to a full game sounds quite appropriate given how much work has gone into it. Steam inclusion also sounds great (I'm happy enough with stand-alone installs, but Steam does make it much easier/more straightforward - plus it will make it much, much easier to get the game to a wider audience). The most exciting bit, of course, is a solid release date - woo! As ever, I'll understand if it's delayed, but I suspect given the care to not announce a release date until some degree of confidence was available means there's only a few months now and we'll be able to get our RtW3 on - which makes me very happy indeed And those ship models look excellent Cannot wait! |
|
|
|
Post by director on May 20, 2022 2:11:33 GMT -6
No, no - We settled that. I proposed using RtW as the bones for a strategic space game and I was told it could never happen. So that's it. Final. Finito. Done deal.
Once you make a decision on anything, you are never allowed to change it in any way - you know that. All first choices are correct and written in stone for the ages to see, right?
LOL. So there I was - again - out in front and waiting for the rest of you to catch up - LOL. I'll have to remember to be wrong sometime, just to keep my hand in. LOL.
Does anyone remember a book... can't remember the author (maybe David Drake?)... subject was colonists on a water-world settling affairs by combat with radio-controlled battleships. Wild, weird, wacky idea but it did make for some amazing naval battles LOL.
I also support the decision to 'grow' from a DLC to a new version of the game. And getting it on Steam will, I think, be a good choice for the long run. As Fry said, "JUST TAKE MY MONEY!"
|
|
. 
_(edited)_Screenshot_(739).png?width=180&height=180&fit=bounds)
)
