|
|
Post by onearmy on May 25, 2022 23:48:05 GMT -6
It has been a long time since I've checked in. Bit of a mental flashbang; While I am ecstatic about the increased scope of the expansion (now an entirely new game) and the fact that it will also be available on STEAM (You guys won't regret that decision I can promise you that.), however, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Christopher which I have just read about. Glad to hear you guys are still trucking, though. Keep on keeping on.
|
|
f105d
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by f105d on May 26, 2022 0:49:45 GMT -6
If I may ask a question regarding I guess RTW3 now. What will happen with Gun technology? Will there be more techs? Will it grow in fire rate and Precision? Since even in RTW2 even with all the Carriers floating around I still spend most of the time using Battleships/Cruisers and gun fire.
And a second one that I don't know if already answered. Will there be changes in the Air Combat system and things surrounding it? I never seem to outside of the rare occasion find a consistent use for my Fleet Carriers. Or maybe I'm just doing something wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 26, 2022 8:15:22 GMT -6
It has been a long time since I've checked in. Bit of a mental flashbang; While I am ecstatic about the increased scope of the expansion (now an entirely new game) and the fact that it will also be available on STEAM (You guys won't regret that decision I can promise you that.), however, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Christopher which I have just read about. Glad to hear you guys are still trucking, though. Keep on keeping on. Hello - thank you for the kind words - we miss Chris as well...it still seems something like bad dream that you hope you wake up from  . |
|
|
|
Post by rufusshinra on May 27, 2022 2:40:55 GMT -6
If I may ask a question regarding I guess RTW3 now. What will happen with Gun technology? Will there be more techs? Will it grow in fire rate and Precision? Since even in RTW2 even with all the Carriers floating around I still spend most of the time using Battleships/Cruisers and gun fire. And a second one that I don't know if already answered. Will there be changes in the Air Combat system and things surrounding it? I never seem to outside of the rare occasion find a consistent use for my Fleet Carriers. Or maybe I'm just doing something wrong. Kinda seconding the first question. I suppose that modern DP guns will make their appearance from the Fifties onwards, whether we're talking about the OTO 76 mm, the Soviet 130, the French 100, etc., which are very different beasts compared to WW2 armaments.
And I'm definitely not suggesting this with the desire to have a chuckle at bringing a modern ship back in time and seeing its single gun curbstomp entire flights of prop torpedo bombers, no sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on May 27, 2022 13:01:12 GMT -6
I was wondering if with the steam release a multiplayer would be possible for this game? I would really like to pit my fleet against someone elses. To this end, perhaps make a upload function akin to the fleet exercise window and upload by decade/5yr segment so that you can test designs across gameplays/multiplayer. Rather than true MP function this would simulate the encounter and remove netcode requirements. Yeah, a multiplayer battle function, just fighting each other instead of an actual full game would be great. Now that I think of it I actually think that would work better, kinda like the siege maps in Stronghold 1/2 or the battle maps in Total War where you are just playing the battle mode against someone else instead of the full game. |
|
|
|
Post by joekin on May 28, 2022 23:46:31 GMT -6
I'm ready for some floating french hotel ships.
Also, any plans to slow the game down to weekly instead of monthly thing? and are there going to be more historic events?
I heard there are going to be fleet commanders and ship commanders, I think this will be awesome to see where you can start and where they can go to.
Will there be generic pictures of commanders or not? and a separate window for the captains career log and what ships they commanded and their own history?
|
|
|
|
Post by chaosblade on May 30, 2022 8:43:17 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.
Hits to the reactor would be worst if they disabled the coolant, then you have either a meltdown or detonation which leads to a meltdown. The detonation would be the worst but both would cripple or even destroy the ship, similar to a turret detonation destroying the Mutsu while the Iowa remained afloat from a similar injury (I know the Mutsu was sabotage while the Iowa was an accident I just grabbed them for simplicity). The radiation onboard would be largely containable with procedures similar to fire and flooding control. You could implement radiation leaks similar to fire, level x-y (generally its 0-4 with 0 being only background while 4 is full radiation equipment required). The best way to simulate radiation injuries to the crew is after the crew got out of the yards they experience a drop in crew quality as radiation poisoning is a long and painful way to die so they would be fine through the battle but afterword's would succumb, as much as a month later. A reactor isn't capable of detonating like a nuclear weapon, it lacks the high instability required, and ocean water acts as a great insulator as well as being something that would help cool down the fissionable material. It would be the equivalent of pouring lava into water. The radiation danger would not be immensely great for a destroyed or sunk ship, the bigger one would be if the reactor remained active, which really shouldn't be possible if the ship is destroyed. water bound radiation isn't a great danger to shipping lanes or the like, the biggest thing would be local fishing would be impacted and beaches might need to be closed for some time, could be an event to harm stability and to reduce available supplies (not sure how that system works but I assume it has some invisible numbers that are tracked). Please don't think I am arguing to force nuclear propulsion, I would like to see it as it means fuel becomes a none issue for large ships and it negates the storage needed for the ships engines which is an immense amount. These are genuine suggestions for ways to implement it based off of my understanding of reactors and radiation and using in game systems. I still have no idea what would happen from hits to a reactor as its madness to intentionally fire guns at a reactor and core to study how radiation would leak out etc. I am not an expert on nuclear reactors, naval or otherwise, but from what I understand the chance of a nuclear reactor detonating is zero. As for loose of cooling... these are ships, they operate in a natural heatsink. Still, a reactor hit means that the ship was hit so deep inside the armor belt or so close to its keel that it is probably not long for this world. . Radiation might be an issue, but I am not sure if this is "the whole ship is going to glow" and more "you are going to loose most of the engineering crew some time after the battle" (either dead men walking, cancer, or to decon and long term care, assuming they didn't ate a deadly dose) So, that could be handled by the ship loosing veterancy, maybe eating some prestige loss (prestige) It shouldn't be a factor to nearby ships either. The issue with nuclear powered vessels is that they do need a long refuel/refit period, with a hard limit to when to start it (because refueling) and that would need its own coding. I am dissapointed we don't get much detail for subs, given how center stage they've becoming to naval warfare in these latter years, (between reliable guided torpedoes and magnetic exploders, making passive torpedo defenses a thing of the past) of course, if the game would go with such a dlc it would need more depth in the torpedo design and in the sub surface launched missiles (I am talking about harpoon and the like, not polaris, obviously, though having boomers in fleet could be interesting as a game mechanic, but playing around a cold war scenario would and should be its own game) |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on May 30, 2022 12:47:18 GMT -6
Hits to the reactor would be worst if they disabled the coolant, then you have either a meltdown or detonation which leads to a meltdown. The detonation would be the worst but both would cripple or even destroy the ship, similar to a turret detonation destroying the Mutsu while the Iowa remained afloat from a similar injury (I know the Mutsu was sabotage while the Iowa was an accident I just grabbed them for simplicity). The radiation onboard would be largely containable with procedures similar to fire and flooding control. You could implement radiation leaks similar to fire, level x-y (generally its 0-4 with 0 being only background while 4 is full radiation equipment required). The best way to simulate radiation injuries to the crew is after the crew got out of the yards they experience a drop in crew quality as radiation poisoning is a long and painful way to die so they would be fine through the battle but afterword's would succumb, as much as a month later. A reactor isn't capable of detonating like a nuclear weapon, it lacks the high instability required, and ocean water acts as a great insulator as well as being something that would help cool down the fissionable material. It would be the equivalent of pouring lava into water. The radiation danger would not be immensely great for a destroyed or sunk ship, the bigger one would be if the reactor remained active, which really shouldn't be possible if the ship is destroyed. water bound radiation isn't a great danger to shipping lanes or the like, the biggest thing would be local fishing would be impacted and beaches might need to be closed for some time, could be an event to harm stability and to reduce available supplies (not sure how that system works but I assume it has some invisible numbers that are tracked). Please don't think I am arguing to force nuclear propulsion, I would like to see it as it means fuel becomes a none issue for large ships and it negates the storage needed for the ships engines which is an immense amount. These are genuine suggestions for ways to implement it based off of my understanding of reactors and radiation and using in game systems. I still have no idea what would happen from hits to a reactor as its madness to intentionally fire guns at a reactor and core to study how radiation would leak out etc. I am not an expert on nuclear reactors, naval or otherwise, but from what I understand the chance of a nuclear reactor detonating is zero. As for loose of cooling... these are ships, they operate in a natural heatsink. Still, a reactor hit means that the ship was hit so deep inside the armor belt or so close to its keel that it is probably not long for this world. . Radiation might be an issue, but I am not sure if this is "the whole ship is going to glow" and more "you are going to loose most of the engineering crew some time after the battle" (either dead men walking, cancer, or to decon and long term care, assuming they didn't ate a deadly dose) So, that could be handled by the ship loosing veterancy, maybe eating some prestige loss (prestige) It shouldn't be a factor to nearby ships either. The issue with nuclear powered vessels is that they do need a long refuel/refit period, with a hard limit to when to start it (because refueling) and that would need its own coding. I am dissapointed we don't get much detail for subs, given how center stage they've becoming to naval warfare in these latter years, (between reliable guided torpedoes and magnetic exploders, making passive torpedo defenses a thing of the past) of course, if the game would go with such a dlc it would need more depth in the torpedo design and in the sub surface launched missiles (I am talking about harpoon and the like, not polaris, obviously, though having boomers in fleet could be interesting as a game mechanic, but playing around a cold war scenario would and should be its own game) You would be both correct and incorrect. The chance of the core detonating is zero, the reactor itself is a steam turbine and those have the capacity to explode given that nuclear reactors have the ability to heat up far hotter than coal or gas reactors. The coolant system is also a pressurized system and that is what was determined to cause the first explosion at Chernobyl, the coolant sublimated due to the intense heat and the expanding gas over pressurized the system and exploded it. The second explosion possibility I could think of is, as Thunderf00t hypothesized and I believe to be likely to be the second explosion reported in Chernobyl, a liquid metal explosion such as happens with sodium, or is possible with liquid aluminum in casting trays. In the case of a reactor it was likely from the metal casing around the reactor melting and hitting the coolant water. This explains much better, a great and educational watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrAThe issue with loosing coolant would cripple the ship and the reactor would turn to slag, literally. Without coolant flow a nuclear reactor will rapidly melt into essentially lava, and eat its way through almost any metal below it. The radiation would be immense, but so long as the engineering spaces were isolated and radiation protective equipment was donned most would be survivable. |
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on May 31, 2022 3:42:23 GMT -6
I do agree with them as long as they are going realistic we just don't know what battle damage will do to a reactor. I doubt it would explode beyond a steam explosion and depending on the design it may or may not melt down but with missiles or torpedoes all bets are off. all we have are our best educated guesses with very little info to base them off of. Maybe if in a future update they add a option to the game setup to enable them like with aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by dia on May 31, 2022 16:33:42 GMT -6
Will any kind of mod manager be implemented or planned for RtW3?
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2022 18:21:30 GMT -6
Will any kind of mod manager be implemented or planned for RtW3? There is only ONE way to properly do mods for rtw3 since it will be on steam and that is to have a mods folder that mods can be subscribed to on a steam workshop or dropped into the mods folder that will override the original content of the game. A mod manager would also be a nice thing to have, but most steam games already have a simple mod priority list where the last mod in the list will over write any similar files. |
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on May 31, 2022 18:27:14 GMT -6
I am not an expert on nuclear reactors, naval or otherwise, but from what I understand the chance of a nuclear reactor detonating is zero. As for loose of cooling... these are ships, they operate in a natural heatsink. Still, a reactor hit means that the ship was hit so deep inside the armor belt or so close to its keel that it is probably not long for this world. . Radiation might be an issue, but I am not sure if this is "the whole ship is going to glow" and more "you are going to loose most of the engineering crew some time after the battle" (either dead men walking, cancer, or to decon and long term care, assuming they didn't ate a deadly dose) So, that could be handled by the ship loosing veterancy, maybe eating some prestige loss (prestige) It shouldn't be a factor to nearby ships either. The issue with nuclear powered vessels is that they do need a long refuel/refit period, with a hard limit to when to start it (because refueling) and that would need its own coding. I am dissapointed we don't get much detail for subs, given how center stage they've becoming to naval warfare in these latter years, (between reliable guided torpedoes and magnetic exploders, making passive torpedo defenses a thing of the past) of course, if the game would go with such a dlc it would need more depth in the torpedo design and in the sub surface launched missiles (I am talking about harpoon and the like, not polaris, obviously, though having boomers in fleet could be interesting as a game mechanic, but playing around a cold war scenario would and should be its own game) You would be both correct and incorrect. The chance of the core detonating is zero, the reactor itself is a steam turbine and those have the capacity to explode given that nuclear reactors have the ability to heat up far hotter than coal or gas reactors. The coolant system is also a pressurized system and that is what was determined to cause the first explosion at Chernobyl, the coolant sublimated due to the intense heat and the expanding gas over pressurized the system and exploded it. The second explosion possibility I could think of is, as Thunderf00t hypothesized and I believe to be likely to be the second explosion reported in Chernobyl, a liquid metal explosion such as happens with sodium, or is possible with liquid aluminum in casting trays. In the case of a reactor it was likely from the metal casing around the reactor melting and hitting the coolant water. This explains much better, a great and educational watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrAThe issue with loosing coolant would cripple the ship and the reactor would turn to slag, literally. Without coolant flow a nuclear reactor will rapidly melt into essentially lava, and eat its way through almost any metal below it. The radiation would be immense, but so long as the engineering spaces were isolated and radiation protective equipment was donned most would be survivable. It probably won’t be too hard to implement nuclear reactors using mods for rtw3, much like the speed mods we have now. The trick is to associate the mod with an event system that triggers political and economic penalty events once a reactor goes Chernobyl or Fukushima and have a detailed damage system in place to represent reactor damage. If the devs won’t do it, the modding community will. Shouldn’t be too hard. |
|
|
|
Post by poiboat on May 31, 2022 20:10:42 GMT -6
I was wondering if we could potentially be seeing Aircraft cruisers or BBVs at all?
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on May 31, 2022 22:38:29 GMT -6
Late thought but is there any way we could request additional models of an aircraft rather than just new ones? Its expensive and takes a long time to develop entirely new models of aircraft. During real wars oftentimes air forces made due with what they had and just upgraded existing airframes as much as possible. It would be cool to see that in here
|
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 1, 2022 2:59:33 GMT -6
It probably won’t be too hard to implement nuclear reactors using mods for rtw3, much like the speed mods we have now. The trick is to associate the mod with an event system that triggers political and economic penalty events once a reactor goes Chernobyl or Fukushima and have a detailed damage system in place to represent reactor damage. If the devs won’t do it, the modding community will. Shouldn’t be too hard. It really shouldnt be possible for a naval reactor to do that. In any case of meltdown due to coolant failure or destruction they should have access to sufficient cooling, ships can deliberately flood out spaces and if there is a meltdown beginning I have a hard time believing someone wouldn't be smart enough to throw open the fire mains and begin to flood the space magazine style. Sure that would likely kill everyone in the room due to the steam becoming a carrier agent, but by and large, if a shipborne reactor melts down the ship is going to sink from having a giant hole melted through the bottom |
|
.
