Post by TheOtherPoster on Mar 10, 2023 10:51:47 GMT -6
RTW is an amazing game series that I enjoy a lot. From designing ships to organise the fleet or all that world of international politics. Wars are fun too but I think they can sometimes become just a (long) series of random battles that in the end can feel a bit tiresome. I think this comes about because of the origins of RTW, that at its core still is a program to design ships with different characteristics and testing them in combat. To that, they added a world map and RTW was born. The timeframe in the original RTW was kept in the late imperialism period, from 1900 to 1930s or so, before shipboard aircraft and aviation in general became widespread and effective. Wars during imperialism could be understood as limited wars where victory would give us new possessions and increase our empire. So having a series of random battles and then winning some territories in the peace treaty made sense. And I think it worked brilliantly.
RTW2, added aviation and extended the game well into the 1940s and 50s. The problem is that in the later part of the game these mechanics of ever increasing our empire started to look outdated. Nobody was doing that after 1940. And with RTW3 coming up soon, we enter the period of decolonisation/independence in full. Maybe a way to deal with this in RTW3 would be for most of our colonies to start gaining independence after 1945 or so but becoming our zones of influence instead. Still a source of wealth to us but maybe less so than before? Also less naval requirements than before.
After wining a war we would incorporate some of the enemy’s zones of influence. In short, as a naval power with a colonial past, we would still keep parts of our old empire -now independent- under our influence. Less taxing for us on FS duties but also adding less wealth to our GDP. If we defeat another naval power, we could take zones of influence from them. Not so different from the actual set up but it would look much better on the map, instead of the French and British empires still going on in 1970.
Anyway, the point I wanted to raise is that RTW is at its core a design-a-ship-and-test-it-in-combat game to which a world map was added. And that’s great, we all have spent great many hours of fun playing it. But it has made wars sometimes look like a series of repetitive random naval battles and a bit tiresome.
I suggested somewhere else to add new messages to make wars more lively, like “Japanese oil convoy from Borneo spotted” or “raider Graff Spee intercepted in the North Atlantic” or “After new intelligence report, High command has ordered an immediate attack on enemy steelworks in Pennsylvania” to explain those crazy daylight shore bombardment missions etc. But beyond that, the main problem is the lack of operational actions by the player during wars: we can set up certain parameters before the war, mainly how do we want our submarines to operate and how many ships we will have on TP. If we happen to be the stronger power, we can also try to keep blockaded the enemy (easy if we are neighbours sharing the same sea area: we just keep our fleet in our home base and the enemy gets blockaded). But after this initial set up, it’s just random battle after random battle thrown at us by the AI until we get enough VPs to end the war.
I think the game would be more complete and more rewarding if we could do more things during wars. My main suggestion to do this with the minimum complication, is to develop the already in place system for setting up invasions.
We could use similar mechanics to set up
1. Long range strikes to shore targets too far for an invasion force or that are located in the enemy home base.
2. Small size long range invasions of far off little islands with small base capacity in the game like Midway.
1. Long range strikes to shore targets. The attacking force –that may include carriers for air strikes- would involve long range and extreme range ships only. If the selected target is in a sea area where we have bases ourselves, we could use all our LR and ER ships in that area (for example a USN attack on Singapore from their bases in the Philippines or a German attack on Yarmouth). If we do not have bases in the same area, then only our ER ships (previously moved to that area) would count. For example, a Japanese air attack on the Panama Canal. The AI would form the opposing enemy fleet exactly as it does now, with some of the ships available in that area plus nearby shore based aircraft.
2. Small far away islands could be also invaded following a similar system. The developers would need to set up a list of potential targets that would apply throughout the whole span of the game. I guess Midway and Malta would be included, also other like Bermuda or Trinidad too. Again, only LR and ER ships would count for the attack. The opposing enemy fleet would be made out of ships they possess in that sea area. They would be at least the ships covering the base capacity of the island itself (not much really) plus some more ships (randomly, sometimes only a few more ships, sometimes a big fleet: maybe the Americans new about our attack on Midway and set up a trap with their own carriers… or maybe this time we’ll catch them by surprise!)
I think this set up would:
1. Improve the game experience during actual wars as they would be much more than just fighting random battles
2. Would give true value to build LR and ER ships (we hardly bother building LR ships and I certainly do not build ER ones at the moment because I don’t find them so much useful for such an extra cost)
3. We would set up coastal defences (not only guns, also shore based aircraft and MTBs) in our key possessions, Singapore, Panama, Gibraltar, Suez… because now they would be at risk of being attacked and some of them like Midway even invaded. That would make for a more historical accurate set up. At the moment, for example, there’s no reason to spend on the defence of Singapore, Panama or Midway, for example, because they are too far to be invaded.
RTW2, added aviation and extended the game well into the 1940s and 50s. The problem is that in the later part of the game these mechanics of ever increasing our empire started to look outdated. Nobody was doing that after 1940. And with RTW3 coming up soon, we enter the period of decolonisation/independence in full. Maybe a way to deal with this in RTW3 would be for most of our colonies to start gaining independence after 1945 or so but becoming our zones of influence instead. Still a source of wealth to us but maybe less so than before? Also less naval requirements than before.
After wining a war we would incorporate some of the enemy’s zones of influence. In short, as a naval power with a colonial past, we would still keep parts of our old empire -now independent- under our influence. Less taxing for us on FS duties but also adding less wealth to our GDP. If we defeat another naval power, we could take zones of influence from them. Not so different from the actual set up but it would look much better on the map, instead of the French and British empires still going on in 1970.
Anyway, the point I wanted to raise is that RTW is at its core a design-a-ship-and-test-it-in-combat game to which a world map was added. And that’s great, we all have spent great many hours of fun playing it. But it has made wars sometimes look like a series of repetitive random naval battles and a bit tiresome.
I suggested somewhere else to add new messages to make wars more lively, like “Japanese oil convoy from Borneo spotted” or “raider Graff Spee intercepted in the North Atlantic” or “After new intelligence report, High command has ordered an immediate attack on enemy steelworks in Pennsylvania” to explain those crazy daylight shore bombardment missions etc. But beyond that, the main problem is the lack of operational actions by the player during wars: we can set up certain parameters before the war, mainly how do we want our submarines to operate and how many ships we will have on TP. If we happen to be the stronger power, we can also try to keep blockaded the enemy (easy if we are neighbours sharing the same sea area: we just keep our fleet in our home base and the enemy gets blockaded). But after this initial set up, it’s just random battle after random battle thrown at us by the AI until we get enough VPs to end the war.
With one exception: invasions. This is the great operational tool we have during wars. Unfortunately, in practice we hardly use it: because of short invasion ranges and big fleet requirements. Range is so small that really we can hardly invade anything at all. Most of the world’s possessions are just too far to be invaded. The Americans cannot even invade Trinidad and expel the British from the Caribbean: it’s too far. The same goes for Bermuda, opposite the American East coast. About the big fleet requirements, I think they make sense if you are going to launch a large all-out invasion of a territory. But the result in the game of all this is that in many wars, we can hardly set up any invasion at all. So very often we end up reduced to just fight battle after battle until the war ends. A bit numbing at times.
I think the game would be more complete and more rewarding if we could do more things during wars. My main suggestion to do this with the minimum complication, is to develop the already in place system for setting up invasions.
We could use similar mechanics to set up
1. Long range strikes to shore targets too far for an invasion force or that are located in the enemy home base.
2. Small size long range invasions of far off little islands with small base capacity in the game like Midway.
1. Long range strikes to shore targets. The attacking force –that may include carriers for air strikes- would involve long range and extreme range ships only. If the selected target is in a sea area where we have bases ourselves, we could use all our LR and ER ships in that area (for example a USN attack on Singapore from their bases in the Philippines or a German attack on Yarmouth). If we do not have bases in the same area, then only our ER ships (previously moved to that area) would count. For example, a Japanese air attack on the Panama Canal. The AI would form the opposing enemy fleet exactly as it does now, with some of the ships available in that area plus nearby shore based aircraft.
2. Small far away islands could be also invaded following a similar system. The developers would need to set up a list of potential targets that would apply throughout the whole span of the game. I guess Midway and Malta would be included, also other like Bermuda or Trinidad too. Again, only LR and ER ships would count for the attack. The opposing enemy fleet would be made out of ships they possess in that sea area. They would be at least the ships covering the base capacity of the island itself (not much really) plus some more ships (randomly, sometimes only a few more ships, sometimes a big fleet: maybe the Americans new about our attack on Midway and set up a trap with their own carriers… or maybe this time we’ll catch them by surprise!)
I think this set up would:
1. Improve the game experience during actual wars as they would be much more than just fighting random battles
2. Would give true value to build LR and ER ships (we hardly bother building LR ships and I certainly do not build ER ones at the moment because I don’t find them so much useful for such an extra cost)
3. We would set up coastal defences (not only guns, also shore based aircraft and MTBs) in our key possessions, Singapore, Panama, Gibraltar, Suez… because now they would be at risk of being attacked and some of them like Midway even invaded. That would make for a more historical accurate set up. At the moment, for example, there’s no reason to spend on the defence of Singapore, Panama or Midway, for example, because they are too far to be invaded.
