|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 21:03:23 GMT -6
@fredrik Regarding #2, someone suggested that because I have more ships in a theater off the shore of my enemy, that they enter some special blockade mode that affects how many ships become available for action. If this is true, then this information is possibly an explanation for the large-sized lopsided battles I've had as the UK against the US, despite having brought superior numbers. If this is true, I suggest making the creation of a blockade an event that the game requests you to explicitly trigger/approve of. Also, if so, please explain how that mechanic alters my force composition in battles. Why would I want to bring larger forces off the US east coast, but then spread then out to occupy enemy ports, thereby diluting my numbers advantage, if the enemy can sortie as larger battle groups and whittle my forces down incrementally. This isn't always a problem, depending on what nation you are playing and what nation you are playing against, but in my instance, it makes it very hard to fight. Are my UK base capacities in the eastern NA coast preventing all of my ships from being pulled into a fleet engagement due to not having enough base support capacity? Note, I received no such message in-game to indicate as such when moving them into the theater, but I did not do the math to break down my fleet size vs. available support infrastructure. I've most egregiously encountered the mine field/gun range issue on coastal bombardment as the UK fighting against the US east coast. I don't recall whether the CL had 5" or 6" guns, but either way, I couldn't bring my guns to bear against the fortifications. I definitely have been saddled with more than the half cost of building ships before despite selecting that option, while taking into account ships already under construction, if memory serves correctly. However, I may be somewhat mistaken and instead not be remembering that already in construction vessels were the increase thing that confused me. However, that seems unlikely since I was already aware of this dynamic when I last noticed this happening. Let me take this opportunity to suggest that perhaps your mechanism in this instance should also count ships already under construction. This would be a fortunate coincidence when the stars align. In regards to blowing up a ship not resulting in a loss, it was as Austria-Hungary fighting against Italy, if memory serves me. I was offered the chance to blow up a B at anchor shortly before I wanted to go to war, so I took the chance. They had, I think, 4 Bs in comparison to my 2, and so I was very eager to reduce the odds greatly, only to find that despite the report of success, they lost no B. Regarding #11, please do rethink that. It doesn't matter to me if the ship already slows down some already if it isn't slow enough to keep the ship from sinking due to high speed flooding. I'm sure your team knows what speeds are best for this. In my experience, 6-8 knots is usually very sufficient. A competent captain would obviously seek a balance between the best speed to get out of gunfire range while also keeping the ship afloat. The key point is, the captain would be obviously and ultimately be doing everything possible to save the crew and the ship. The captain would be getting flooding reports if he was going too quickly. I lose many capitol ships to this. Maybe others want their ships to run away as fast as possible, but I structure my combat to buy the detached ships space and time in the hopes that they are no longer the focus of enemy fire, thereby affording them time to get away at safe speeds. As it stands now, I will keep them in the formation since a detached battleship that escaped enemy fire only to sink from flooding is the worst of both worlds since it detracts from my battle line strength for no appreciable gain. The mechanic might as well be unofficially labeled the "noob trap" as it is now. In general, I will look at the bug report subforum and see if I have enough info to make worthwhile bug reports in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 22:04:12 GMT -6
Yeah. And? I'm confused on what your point is too It's neither unrealistic, nor - depending on the exact mission - unbalanced, which tends to be the two big complaints about this style of game. Expendable, I guess 2" and 3" guns - which both have a pen of 0 in game - are not included in the graph? On that assumption, yes, it does indeed appear that 8", 15" and 16" guns get a boost in penetration compared to others whilst 10" and 17"+ guns are effectively nerfed - at 5k range. Have you run a check at other range bands to see if there is a consistent trend? There should be, as penetration is, AFAIK, run on some form of algorithm but confirmation is always good. Of course, balancing that is the fact that the game is shoehorning in several generations of guns into just 3 whilst not altering shell weight or other characteristics - however, there is a very small team on the programming side and they don't have the capacity to model everything down to the last molecule (although the joke among fans is that that is the goal of Dwarf Fortress ). If it wasn't already clear, my issue with the formation of battle sizes mostly has to do with larger actions I am trying to precipitate not including the available forces I want them to be constituted by. I'm not complaining about the occasional 1v1 or 1v2 CA/CL encounters primarily, although you could very reasonably argue that an admiral very well might only send out his cruisers into a known hostile-occuppied battle area as part of a squadron. Several stronger Kriegsmarine ships were hounded to death by smaller RN ships in this manner due to strength in numbers. The point is, a decision was made by both navies on whether and how to accompany ships. The only choice this game gives you, if it does that at all, is whether to fight or run. Experienced commanders wouldn't move a bunch of ships into a theater without some sort of operational strategy besides "let's just hope that we have enough ships close by based on random chance."
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 22:23:22 GMT -6
Hard agree I think the biggest problem is the fact the devs have the game so closed which means almost no proper modding support. On top of that if you want to know how part of the game works the devs usually dont answer. The only way we get info is when the devs suddenly and for an unexplained reason decide to reveal facts in a random thread about how the game works and how penalties work. Reminds me of when i posted a picture of my yamto and one of the devs replied (not exact quote but i cant remember it right now) out of absolutely nowhere. If that dev had not said anything at all we would have absolutely no idea about said penalty. There was made a document for RTW 1 where random developer comments on mechanics to explain how some of the game worked. (link here these should still mostly apply to RTW 2) nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1221/fredricks-tidbits-clarifications-extra-infoIm working on making a similair thing for RTW 2 but its alot of work to go through all the dev replies to find these small tidbits. Interesting, was it clarified if this mixed caliber penalty applied to japanese BBs only from a given caliber size, or to all BBs, or to all Japanese BBs, or some derivative thereof? This goes back to what you were saying about the problem with hidden penalties and mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 23:17:07 GMT -6
Nothing personal, but when you are playing against the US, that argument doesn't hold water. It is VERY hard to outproduce the US Navy. If you want any hope of winning, you need decisive battles where you can throw everything at the wall and make something stick while you have the chance. They have created a dynamic that artificially helps the AI to the point that you are very unlikely to win against an opponent that can outproduce you if they limit battles to when they aren't disadvantaged. I don't have that ability as the player, but the strongest AI nation who can outproduce anyone else gets this? It's ridiculous. Why bother playing UK then if your main competitor is always able to neuter your fleet campaigns by choosing how many ships they want to fight against. I've fought and won against larger opponents. I've won against the US while playing as the confederates and Japan and the UK. I've won as Italy fighting against the UK and France at the same time (hardest war I've ever fought actually but super fun) and as the UK by itself at it's prime. Just because it limits the battles so they aren't outrageously one sided doesn't mean you can't win. Numbers comes in very handy during successive battles btw. That hardest war I fought as Italy was hard because there was a year of constant invasion battles and fleet/carrier battles. Every battle ships would get damaged or sunk leaving me with less ships for the next battle which made it harder to avoid more ships getting damaged and sunk. It was a death spiral that I thankfully avoided by eventually doing the same thing to the AI, damaging enough ships that they couldn't launch another invasion or fleet battle. Numbers would have helped a lot there. I'm confused on what you're arguing though. You want AI nations that outnumber you to bring their full power to bear against you? Cuz you'd lose, everyone would lose and that's not fun. Losing is fun yes but not like that. I find your skepticism to be quite curious after I read your response in this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5648/battlegenerator-me-offHe comments about force composition making it so that the enemy, disadvantaged numerically and qualitatively, gets to choose stupid engagements that only benefit the AI, time after time, that are wholly against the logical course of action that the player would be pursuing. This is the core of my biggest issue, and a common one at that apparently. You'll note that the AI suffers no apparent game-ending repercussions for denying to take part in battles, so they could afford to deny battle whenever it doesn't suit them. Players lose commander points when they do that. The question then becomes when and how do the algorithms force the AI into battle. But all that is irrelevant if the AI gets to create these ridiculous battle scenarios time after time.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 14, 2021 23:35:24 GMT -6
I've fought and won against larger opponents. I've won against the US while playing as the confederates and Japan and the UK. I've won as Italy fighting against the UK and France at the same time (hardest war I've ever fought actually but super fun) and as the UK by itself at it's prime. Just because it limits the battles so they aren't outrageously one sided doesn't mean you can't win. Numbers comes in very handy during successive battles btw. That hardest war I fought as Italy was hard because there was a year of constant invasion battles and fleet/carrier battles. Every battle ships would get damaged or sunk leaving me with less ships for the next battle which made it harder to avoid more ships getting damaged and sunk. It was a death spiral that I thankfully avoided by eventually doing the same thing to the AI, damaging enough ships that they couldn't launch another invasion or fleet battle. Numbers would have helped a lot there. I'm confused on what you're arguing though. You want AI nations that outnumber you to bring their full power to bear against you? Cuz you'd lose, everyone would lose and that's not fun. Losing is fun yes but not like that. I find your skepticism to be quite curious after I read your response in this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5648/battlegenerator-me-offHe comments about force composition making it so that the enemy, disadvantaged numerically and qualitatively, gets to choose stupid engagements that only benefit the AI, time after time, that are wholly against the logical course of action that the player would be pursuing. This is the core of my biggest issue, and a common one at that apparently. You'll note that the AI suffers no apparent game-ending repercussions for denying to take part in battles, so they could afford to deny battle whenever it doesn't suit them. Players lose commander points when they do that. The question then becomes when and how do the algorithms force the AI into battle. The AI loses points the same way you do. Watch them decline a battle and see how the war score changes. The AI's decision making, by the way, is not determined by which ships are assigned to that specific battle, but rather, their intelligence on which of your ships and the numbers of your aircraft in any region relative to their own
|
|
|
Post by dougalachi on Mar 14, 2021 23:43:26 GMT -6
I find your skepticism to be quite curious after I read your response in this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5648/battlegenerator-me-offHe comments about force composition making it so that the enemy, disadvantaged numerically and qualitatively, gets to choose stupid engagements that only benefit the AI, time after time, that are wholly against the logical course of action that the player would be pursuing. This is the core of my biggest issue, and a common one at that apparently. You'll note that the AI suffers no apparent game-ending repercussions for denying to take part in battles, so they could afford to deny battle whenever it doesn't suit them. Players lose commander points when they do that. The question then becomes when and how do the algorithms force the AI into battle. The AI loses points the same way you do. Watch them decline a battle and see how the war score changes. The AI's decision making, by the way, is not determined by which ships are assigned to that specific battle, but rather, their intelligence on which of your ships and the numbers of your aircraft in any region relative to their own I know the enemy loses victory points for declining battles. I was talking about how the AI doesn't lose just because an admiral might get booted. That is a dynamic you have to be worried about when things start to turn. Eventually you may have to accept battles or lose enough reputation to lose the game. The enemy can always sue for peace and the game goes on. Your comment about line of battle intelligence is another thing that is opaque for me. Does my expenditure on espionage directly relate to my intelligence accuracy on lines of battle? My impression was it only referred to warship production intelligence or the occasional chance to heighten tensions via scandals. Edit: I've never seen a notification of an admiral getting booted. Where would I see this? Moreover, how much emphasis does the AI put on maintaining the career of their ranking AI admiral?
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Mar 14, 2021 23:49:34 GMT -6
The AI loses points the same way you do. Watch them decline a battle and see how the war score changes. The AI's decision making, by the way, is not determined by which ships are assigned to that specific battle, but rather, their intelligence on which of your ships and the numbers of your aircraft in any region relative to their own I know the enemy loses victory points for declining battles. I was talking about how the AI doesn't lose just because an admiral might get booted. That is a dynamic you have to be worried about when things start to turn. Eventually you may have to accept battles or lose enough reputation to lose the game. The enemy can always sue for peace and the game goes on. Your comment about like of battle intelligence is another thing that is opaque for me. Does my expenditure on espionage directly relate to my intelligence accuracy on lines of battle? My impression was it only referred to warship production intelligence or the occasional chance to heighten tensions via scandals. AI Admirals actually can get booted, not sure how it affects the war though. And yes AFAIK intelligence does affect how accurate predictions of enemy strength in the strategic map are. It also affects raider interceptions, and a few other things I don't recall at the moment
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Mar 15, 2021 1:52:41 GMT -6
Hard agree I think the biggest problem is the fact the devs have the game so closed which means almost no proper modding support. On top of that if you want to know how part of the game works the devs usually dont answer. The only way we get info is when the devs suddenly and for an unexplained reason decide to reveal facts in a random thread about how the game works and how penalties work. Reminds me of when i posted a picture of my yamto and one of the devs replied (not exact quote but i cant remember it right now) out of absolutely nowhere. If that dev had not said anything at all we would have absolutely no idea about said penalty. There was made a document for RTW 1 where random developer comments on mechanics to explain how some of the game worked. (link here these should still mostly apply to RTW 2) nws-online.proboards.com/thread/1221/fredricks-tidbits-clarifications-extra-infoIm working on making a similair thing for RTW 2 but its alot of work to go through all the dev replies to find these small tidbits. Interesting, was it clarified if this mixed caliber penalty applied to japanese BBs only from a given caliber size, or to all BBs, or to all Japanese BBs, or some derivative thereof? This goes back to what you were saying about the problem with hidden penalties and mechanics. If I am correct: whenver theres more than one DP battery on one ship, all DP batterries (possibly except the largest one mounted) get the penalty to effectiveness. Nation or ship type doesn't matter, only the DP battery count. Example: having a DP secondary is fine. Having both DP secondary and DP tertiary gives a penalty. I am also pretty sure that there is a point where a tertiary DP is still worth it, as the number of guns, even with the penalty, results in higher HAA score than having jsut the secondary, though it depends on specifics of used calibers, I think.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Mar 15, 2021 9:50:27 GMT -6
If I am correct: whenver theres more than one DP battery on one ship, all DP batterries (possibly except the largest one mounted) get the penalty to effectiveness. Nation or ship type doesn't matter, only the DP battery count. Example: having a DP secondary is fine. Having both DP secondary and DP tertiary gives a penalty. I am also pretty sure that there is a point where a tertiary DP is still worth it, as the number of guns, even with the penalty, results in higher HAA score than having jsut the secondary, though it depends on specifics of used calibers, I think. Oooh, so _this_ is why adding a pair or four 3" DP guns actually lowered my HAA rating. I was really scratching my head over that one when I tried to figure out if adding more AA directors or some tertiary DP guns would be better.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Mar 15, 2021 15:44:05 GMT -6
I've fought and won against larger opponents. I've won against the US while playing as the confederates and Japan and the UK. I've won as Italy fighting against the UK and France at the same time (hardest war I've ever fought actually but super fun) and as the UK by itself at it's prime. Just because it limits the battles so they aren't outrageously one sided doesn't mean you can't win. Numbers comes in very handy during successive battles btw. That hardest war I fought as Italy was hard because there was a year of constant invasion battles and fleet/carrier battles. Every battle ships would get damaged or sunk leaving me with less ships for the next battle which made it harder to avoid more ships getting damaged and sunk. It was a death spiral that I thankfully avoided by eventually doing the same thing to the AI, damaging enough ships that they couldn't launch another invasion or fleet battle. Numbers would have helped a lot there. I'm confused on what you're arguing though. You want AI nations that outnumber you to bring their full power to bear against you? Cuz you'd lose, everyone would lose and that's not fun. Losing is fun yes but not like that. I find your skepticism to be quite curious after I read your response in this thread: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/5648/battlegenerator-me-offHe comments about force composition making it so that the enemy, disadvantaged numerically and qualitatively, gets to choose stupid engagements that only benefit the AI, time after time, that are wholly against the logical course of action that the player would be pursuing. This is the core of my biggest issue, and a common one at that apparently. You'll note that the AI suffers no apparent game-ending repercussions for denying to take part in battles, so they could afford to deny battle whenever it doesn't suit them. Players lose commander points when they do that. The question then becomes when and how do the algorithms force the AI into battle. But all that is irrelevant if the AI gets to create these ridiculous battle scenarios time after time. In that thread I agree that the lack of operational control makes battles meaningless. But I'm fine with the game generating battles that are more even despite a numbers disparity if it's not gonna give operational control. Makes the game harder for the player in an otherwise fairly easy game most of the time due to AI derpiness. I rarely play as large countries like Britain, the US, or Germany cuz that's boring to me, easy as hell to win, so I'm usually outnumbered and the game giving me a slight break is nice. Still usually outnumbered just not impossibly so. If they gave us operational control then that would change potentially depending on how they set it up. With the comments and suggestions I made in that thread it largely wouldn't change actually. But if they set up a kind of mini-strategy game(which I would love) then what shows up would be dependent on you and you alone. Which is good but if they don't have operational control than I'm fine with them balancing battles. Honestly, who likes curbstomping the enemy, or being curbstomped repeatedly. It's a smart decision to have it the way it is, not the lack of operational control just the balancing numbers in battles. Especially when even with even battles it's pretty simple to absolutely wreck the enemy. I've never seen any posts on the discord I'm on of ppl losing massively. I've lost ships, quite a few in fact but I've never really suffered a huge defeat. Whereas outnumbered I've destroyed the entirety of the US predread fleet as the confederates, the British fleet as the French, the French as the Italians, the Russians and French as the Japanese, the British as the US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2021 15:54:41 GMT -6
Oh I never get tired of these "open letters". I'm not going to play 'Devil's Advocate' I'm just going to explain why you're wrong. Given the fact you signed up for the forum, posted three times, then disappeared the very next day leads me to believe you won't see this reply, but here goes.
I don't respond to such manner of communication due to the nature of your attitude. It doesn't warrant a thoughtful response. Except you did respond, and your response was to tell me you weren't going to respond. How thoughtful. Thank you for the consideration due the time I put into writing that post. Shall I complain about the nature of your attitude now? Is that how this works? I must admit I have no mind for forum drama. The administration simply reminded us to be polite, which given the fact I made no insults nor referred to your lack of character in any derogatory way still falls within the forum rules whatever the 'nature of my attitude'. If they desire to correct my behavior they can do so directly, they have tools for this purpose. I would still like to hear about these 'glaringly false' statements I made, given I multi-quoted you directly and answered your statements to the best of my ability given my extensive experience with the game and the way it functions. I have completed fifteen campaigns in Rule The Waves, and have been victorious in thirteen of them. I'm simply trying to share my extensive knowledge of how to win this game.
|
|