spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Jun 10, 2021 18:03:06 GMT -6
Anyone have any ideas for the next DLC they'd like to share: Major: -new GUIs for alliances and technology procurement -selling ships to other nations Minor/bugfixes: -the French fascist flag issue I reported in a post a long time ago -diversified pictures for events as discussed elsewhere -more possessions like the Azores, south american countries, etc...
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jun 11, 2021 1:09:13 GMT -6
Make one's investment in land-based aviation more profitable. I have seen in a recent game half a dozen enemy raiding cruisers sailing in sea spaces, theoretically dominated by my land based aviation, with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Jun 11, 2021 8:31:27 GMT -6
My best idea would be not to think about second DLC. The order of business should be: 1. Finish the DLC 1a. Implement things that are in the game but never got implemented (deck park, for example) 2. Fix things that get broken by DLC 3. Fix things that have been broken for ages 4. Fix things that get broken while fixing other things And only once game is in a good place with regards to that, consider DLC 2 or RTW3. That's my idea of good development plan at least.
And since the first DLC isn't even out, thinking about second is getting too far ahead of ourselves, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Jun 11, 2021 9:39:28 GMT -6
My best idea would be not to think about second DLC. The order of business should be: 1. Finish the DLC 1a. Implement things that are in the game but never got implemented (deck park, for example) 2. Fix things that get broken by DLC 3. Fix things that have been broken for ages 4. Fix things that get broken while fixing other things And only once game is in a good place with regards to that, consider DLC 2 or RTW3. That's my idea of good development plan at least.
And since the first DLC isn't even out, thinking about second is getting too far ahead of ourselves, isn't it?
I agree. Rushing will only result in a game full of bugs and half-finished content. Better to take things one step at a time. Honestly, I personally think that even this first DLC is premature, given the amount of issues currently in the game. (If anyone from NWS is reading this, that was a hint )
|
|
spacenerd4
Full Member
Appreciating our feline friends
Posts: 164
|
Post by spacenerd4 on Jun 11, 2021 10:39:53 GMT -6
My best idea would be not to think about second DLC. The order of business should be: 1. Finish the DLC 1a. Implement things that are in the game but never got implemented (deck park, for example) 2. Fix things that get broken by DLC 3. Fix things that have been broken for ages 4. Fix things that get broken while fixing other things And only once game is in a good place with regards to that, consider DLC 2 or RTW3. That's my idea of good development plan at least.
And since the first DLC isn't even out, thinking about second is getting too far ahead of ourselves, isn't it?
With regards to 3, I only noticed the naming issue for the French fascist flag a year or so ago but it was probably there from the start
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 11, 2021 11:05:23 GMT -6
Make one's investment in land-based aviation more profitable. I have seen in a recent game half a dozen enemy raiding cruisers sailing in sea spaces, theoretically dominated by my land based aviation, with impunity. I would actually like to see passive and land based defences overhauled entirely. - Get to select location for fortifications
- More interactive mine warfare
- Land based aircraft overhaul
Largely unrelated to this but I would like to see treaties overhauled
- Total tonnage limits by type (eg. 150,000 tons for BBs and BCs)
- Multiple limits for different ship types (eg. a single treaty can say Carriers max out at 25kt, BBs and BCs at 35kt and 16" guns, and CAs ay 15kt and 8" guns)
- Treaties are unbalanced in allowed tonnage (eg. Britain might be allowed 300kt for capital ships, US is allowed 250kt, Germany and France 200kt, Japan and Russia 150kt, Austria and Italy 100kt, and everyone else 80kt)
- Limits on numbers of smaller or non-designable vessels like submarines
- If treaties expire they may be renewed or modified and renewed
So an entire treaty might be - Total BB+BC tonnage limits of 300kt, 250kt, 200kt, 200kt, 150kt, 150kt, and 100kt for Britain, America, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, and Italy respectively.
- BBs and BCs have a maximum tonnage of 35kt and a maximum armament of 16"
- Carriers have a maximum tonnage of 25kt and no nation may have more than four fleet carriers
- CAs have a maximum tonnage of 12kt and a maximum armament of 8" guns
- CLs have a maximum tonnage of 8kt and a maximum armament of 6" guns
- No nation may have more than 20 submarines
- Treaty is in effect for 10 years
The treaty then might after 10 years be modified to allow for larger ships or end up having major players pull out of the renewal and it falls apart
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Jun 11, 2021 13:29:53 GMT -6
Make one's investment in land-based aviation more profitable. I have seen in a recent game half a dozen enemy raiding cruisers sailing in sea spaces, theoretically dominated by my land based aviation, with impunity. I would actually like to see passive and land based defences overhauled entirely. - Get to select location for fortifications
- More interactive mine warfare
- Land based aircraft overhaul
Largely unrelated to this but I would like to see treaties overhauled
- Total tonnage limits by type (eg. 150,000 tons for BBs and BCs)
- Multiple limits for different ship types (eg. a single treaty can say Carriers max out at 25kt, BBs and BCs at 35kt and 16" guns, and CAs ay 15kt and 8" guns)
- Treaties are unbalanced in allowed tonnage (eg. Britain might be allowed 300kt for capital ships, US is allowed 250kt, Germany and France 200kt, Japan and Russia 150kt, Austria and Italy 100kt, and everyone else 80kt)
- Limits on numbers of smaller or non-designable vessels like submarines
- If treaties expire they may be renewed or modified and renewed
So an entire treaty might be - Total BB+BC tonnage limits of 300kt, 250kt, 200kt, 200kt, 150kt, 150kt, and 100kt for Britain, America, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, and Italy respectively.
- BBs and BCs have a maximum tonnage of 35kt and a maximum armament of 16"
- Carriers have a maximum tonnage of 25kt and no nation may have more than four fleet carriers
- CAs have a maximum tonnage of 12kt and a maximum armament of 8" guns
- CLs have a maximum tonnage of 8kt and a maximum armament of 6" guns
- No nation may have more than 20 submarines
- Treaty is in effect for 10 years
The treaty then might after 10 years be modified to allow for larger ships or end up having major players pull out of the renewal and it falls apart
Generally agree with von and buttons; especially on the complete overhaul of fortifications, mine warfare and land-based aviation.
Tonnage allowances by country are warranted. Maybe doing the tonnage %'s based on budget would work... Play testing / balancing the tonnages could take a lot of work; maybe even taking into account foreign territory needs and or what ship design techs a country has - England and Germany can build much better ships than Italy or Russia in the 10's or 20's. Likewise England with a large empire needs more station keeping ships than Italy or AH; but if the English empire is lost due to revolt or foriegn empires than its needs are reduced. As such, I really wouldn't go with hard coded tonnage %'s... A decent empire / budget example is that I'm playing Japan right now with a 1900 start and I have the third largest budget, about 600k in the early 50's. Territories in the Indian, South Africa and East Africa zones due to wars with France and Germany. USA's budget barely exceeds 1 million and England is about 700K (as England is getting the navy preeminence budget event at least once every 2 turns). Germany is down around 480K, France, Italy and Russia are mid 300K.
Regarding treaties: I would think about adding something like; all nations are able to circumvent treaty displacement limits by x% if tensions exceed a certain level, or have an event in which treaties may be randomly cast off by politicians / new hawk government if tensions exceed a certain level for a specified time period.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Jun 11, 2021 13:53:40 GMT -6
Generally agree with von and buttons; especially on the complete overhaul of fortifications, mine warfare and land-based aviation.
Tonnage allowances by country are warranted. Maybe doing the tonnage %'s based on budget would work... Play testing / balancing the tonnages could take a lot of work; maybe even taking into account foreign territory needs and or what ship design techs a country has - England and Germany can build much better ships than Italy or Russia in the 10's or 20's. Likewise England with a large empire needs more station keeping ships than Italy or AH; but if the English empire is lost due to revolt or foriegn empires than its needs are reduced. As such, I really wouldn't go with hard coded tonnage %'s... A decent empire / budget example is that I'm playing Japan right now with a 1900 start and I have the third largest budget, about 600k in the early 50's. Territories in the Indian, South Africa and East Africa zones due to wars with France and Germany. USA's budget barely exceeds 1 million and England is about 700K (as England is getting the navy preeminence budget event at least once every 2 turns). Germany is down around 480K, France, Italy and Russia are mid 300K.
Regarding treaties: I would think about adding something like; all nations are able to circumvent treaty displacement limits by x% if tensions exceed a certain level, or have an event in which treaties may be randomly cast off by politicians / new hawk government if tensions exceed a certain level for a specified time period.
I do like the idea of treaties being discarded before they expire. Some event like "A senior hawkish politician approaches you about the naval treaty suggesting that with your support they could manage to convince the current government to disavow the treaty." If you accept tensions rise and all parties have a chance to drop the treaty (democracies have a 50% chance, other nations 90%, nobody keeps the treaty unless at least two more nations continue to follow it). If you refuse you take a small prestige hit (cowardice or not supporting the nationalist/popular agenda).
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Jun 12, 2021 1:33:32 GMT -6
My best idea would be not to think about second DLC. The order of business should be: 1. Finish the DLC 1a. Implement things that are in the game but never got implemented (deck park, for example) 2. Fix things that get broken by DLC 3. Fix things that have been broken for ages 4. Fix things that get broken while fixing other things And only once game is in a good place with regards to that, consider DLC 2 or RTW3. That's my idea of good development plan at least.
And since the first DLC isn't even out, thinking about second is getting too far ahead of ourselves, isn't it?
With regards to 3, I only noticed the naming issue for the French fascist flag a year or so ago but it was probably there from the start There are a few, what comes to my mind the most - because I keep running into it - is the seaplane limit on non-AVs present since around 1.21. So this would likely be an example of a bug thats been there for some time and one that got introduced by accident in one of the updates (which happens, but these should also get fixed before focusing on new stuff).
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Jun 12, 2021 17:19:44 GMT -6
I would like to see a more in depth treaty system and ship refit including conversions and changes made under construction instead of building an entirely new class. I might make a separate thread about this last part later.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 18, 2021 8:00:24 GMT -6
My best idea would be not to think about second DLC. The order of business should be: 1. Finish the DLC 1a. Implement things that are in the game but never got implemented (deck park, for example) 2. Fix things that get broken by DLC 3. Fix things that have been broken for ages 4. Fix things that get broken while fixing other things And only once game is in a good place with regards to that, consider DLC 2 or RTW3. That's my idea of good development plan at least.
And since the first DLC isn't even out, thinking about second is getting too far ahead of ourselves, isn't it?
This and then while we are at it 5. Tweak AI to act more realistically (not less likely to abandon ships and so on) and perhaps add an aggresiveness slider which you can change before starting a game that would determine how aggresive AI captains are in naval battles 6. Tweak or correct things which are unhistorical or make them moddable (ship spotting range, torpedo performance, AA performance, and a giant list of other things which would have great benefit from looking at historical sources and changing the game values to be more historical.) 7. Add in missing features which leave gaps and or make the currently implemented things unrealistic/wrong/impossible 8. Fix the longstanding bugs/mistakes in the game which have already been fixed with mods (HP/Ton bugs still exist in the ship designer and so on) but not implemented in the game 9. when all of the above is done introduce a gun customization tool like with aircraft so you can make guns how you see fit (aka high velocity or high rate of fire and other tradeoffs) to make your nations ship guns more specialized and thus bring more national characteristics into naval combat
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Jul 21, 2021 8:12:03 GMT -6
Hmmm... it'd be nice to see AI improvements, a few more types of units/battles (e.g. monitors) etc.
What I'd most like is pushing the simulation backwards in time to the 1870s though. It'd require an entirely new ship-building interface (allowing selecting the type, as well as size, of gun; selecting from more types of armour etc.) and a very simplistic modelling of sails (reaching vs. downwind speed boost dependent on area and sail type). I think it'd be fascinating though.
|
|
|
Post by winkysmith on Jul 23, 2021 0:32:57 GMT -6
avimimus I know you... you’re on the IL-2 forums, aren’t you? Sorry everyone for getting off topic.
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Jul 25, 2021 9:23:57 GMT -6
avimimus I know you... you’re on the IL-2 forums, aren’t you? Sorry everyone for getting off topic. Yes indeed (since 2000 actually). I'm still a bit surprised to be recognised (I hope I don't represent an undesirable element showing up here). Are you also on the Flight sim forums (same handle or a different one)? Generally I've found that WWI simmers are more laid back than WWII, and modern era (Jet simmers) are the worst. Helisimmers are an odd bunch. I'm not too sure about naval wargamers yet I'd started posting more here but someone got overly pedantic about floatplane tenders (when I suggested that in the 1910s-1920s they were considered for offensive use and raiding), and then overly pedantic about the definition of Battlecruisers (which overlooked the evolution of heavy cruiser designs and classifications in favour of focussing on Fisher alone... so it kind-of scared me off a bit Anyway - my take on RTWII (and wishlist - a perpetual bad habit of mine it seems) can be found here: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3917/combined-review-feedback-bug-wishlist There is a noticeable focus on aircraft. I actually started assembling some data to send to the RTWII devs but I decided it'd be mainly a distraction for them. It seems appropriate to link to the thread though considering this is a thread on idea for future DLC!
|
|
|
Post by winkysmith on Jul 27, 2021 1:46:40 GMT -6
avimimus I know you... you’re on the IL-2 forums, aren’t you? Sorry everyone for getting off topic. Yes indeed (since 2000 actually). I'm still a bit surprised to be recognised (I hope I don't represent an undesirable element showing up here). Are you also on the Flight sim forums (same handle or a different one)? Generally I've found that WWI simmers are more laid back than WWII, and modern era (Jet simmers) are the worst. Helisimmers are an odd bunch. I'm not too sure about naval wargamers yet I'd started posting more here but someone got overly pedantic about floatplane tenders (when I suggested that in the 1910s-1920s they were considered for offensive use and raiding), and then overly pedantic about the definition of Battlecruisers (which overlooked the evolution of heavy cruiser designs and classifications in favour of focussing on Fisher alone... so it kind-of scared me off a bit Anyway - my take on RTWII (and wishlist - a perpetual bad habit of mine it seems) can be found here: nws-online.proboards.com/thread/3917/combined-review-feedback-bug-wishlist There is a noticeable focus on aircraft. I actually started assembling some data to send to the RTWII devs but I decided it'd be mainly a distraction for them. It seems appropriate to link to the thread though considering this is a thread on idea for future DLC! Haha. No, you don’t represent anything like an undesirable element! To answer your question, yes, I’m on the IL-2 Great Battles forums quite a bit. I’m only an amateur, though, as I only joined about a year ago. I myself am not sure about the community here yet, as I found your name while scrolling through these forums for the first time. I think, from what you have said, that I might refrain from posting on these forums, to prevent a clash of opinions! I had a read of your wishlist/bug post, and it is very well compiled! I hope that the devs perhaps have a read of it, they might decide to act on it if they do. I’ll probably see you around at some point!
|
|