If Rule the Waves 4 happens, what new content do you think will be added?

[perfectpastrami]

Personally, i think it would have to go into the 2020s, as, to my knowledge, there just wasn't that much innovation that could add significant content in a fourth game without going into the modern day. What features do i think would be included?

1: Stealth

This should be the big one. The first stealth aircraft emerged in the 1980s. Now, i personally think that, at least at first, stealth bombers should be PROHIBITIVELY expensive, for several reasons. Number one, you don't want the player placing stealth bombers on every little airfield they have and just destroy everything while noone is even remotely in a position to stop them. Number two, early stealth aircraft were incredibly expensive to operate. There is a reason why, even though stealth technology has been around for decades, only two countries are operating domestically built stealth planes (The Su-57 is NOT a stealth fighter, and it's not in operational service, either, there's a grand total of, what, 20?). It's still one of the blingiest capabilities a military can have. I also think that stealth bombers should need a certain size of airbase to operate from. The B-2 actually needs a specialized hangar to prevent the deterioration of its RAM coating, so you couldn't just operate it out of anywhere. As time goes on, stealth planes would obviously get cheaper, and some of the restrictions get lifted, until eventually, stealth fighters become a thing (Actually, MBB experimented with a stealth fighter all the way back in the 80s, but the concept never made it past the wind tunnel). And while, thus far, stealthy missiles are few and far between, they exist, so that is something that would also be included.

2: Drones

Drones are another big technology that arose in this time. While you could argue that a missile is little more than a high end kamikaze drone, drones have numerous use cases, from recon to attack roles. Early on, they would just be recon systems, but later down the line, you might see everything from a long range hunter killer drone to something along the lines of a Shahed drone, which is probably gonna do little against a carrier group, but might be enough to deter smaller targets.

3: Near Future tech and miscellaneous
In this category, i would mainly put two things: VTOLs and lasers. 

Laser technology isn't quite at the point of being anti-surface weapons yet, but you definitely can shoot missiles or drones down with it. And in an enviornment where everything packs more and more missiles, you better figure out a way to destroy them before they do so against you.

VTOL technology is an interesting case. While VTOLs are pretty niche systems, they do have their uses. It certainly fills the gap between a helicopter carrier (which already exist in the game) and an all out flat top carrier.

Other potential features include: Ballistic and hypersonic AShMs (i have my opinions on those, but i won't delve into them here, sufficed to say it's a widespread discussion right now), adding minor nations to the game (and the diplomacy that goes long with it), and probably a third obvious thing i can't think of right now.

[terminatorhi]

You could also go the other way, and have it start in the 1860s with the very first iron-clads. Starting fleets are wooden steamers that are immediately obsolete, so everyone starts on relatively even footing as you all race to build out your ironclad fleets. You can have the progression of wooden-backed ironclads and monitors, to broadside and iron-hulled ironclads, to center-battery iron clads, etc. Lots of tech advancement in that period that saw Warrior obsolete in less than a decade after her launch. Ram-bows and ramming can be an actual tactic for Battle of Lissa shenanigans.

Additionally, an 1860 start would allow for a bunch of interesting starts. You'd have a built in American Civil War scenario if you don't want a powerhouse America (probably need a toggle though or maybe a scripted option to conquer the CSA if the USA wins the war so you can start in 1860 without a permanently divided America), meanwhile Japan and Prussia would start with almost no fleets at all and have to build up largely from scratch. Spain, France, and Russia would have relatively stronger starts while Britain would have to work to maintain its edge as ironclad tech resets the fleets.

Actually, building on the conquering the CSA point...fleshing out some civil war mechanics could be fun as well. If you had a method to end civil wars with a reunified country at the end, you could not only have the American Civil War, but you could start with the Boshin War in Japan as well. There are some others I could think of like Spanish, Russian, or Chinese civil wars but navies don't factor much in those...but who's to say they couldn't? A system in place for civil wars could open up some potentially interesting scenarios.

[Nicholas]

Eh, I wouldn't mind an 1880s start so long as they expand the manual build option to include other start dates. If Collingwood is going to be listed amongst the first battleship name then give me an 1880 start date so I can build half a dozen Admiral class ironclads as IRL.

[wlbjork]

I'm still hoping for a weapon design system, somewhat akin to the aircraft design system but with more options.

For example, barrel length. At the start of the game, you're limited to short barrels. After unlocking a tech (Smokeless Powder), you can build medium length barrels. A second tech (Improved Weapon Building Methods) allows long barrels.

Each parameter has a different effect on the weapon. For example, a short barrelled gun is lighter and faster firing, but loses range and accuracy.

Can also add things like thin walled barrels (lighter, but higher maintenance) and thick walled barrels (heavier, less maintenance), light and heavy breeches (light breeches weigh less but more likely to jam vs heavy breeches) and so on.

[perfectpastrami]

I do like the idea of a weapon design system. For instance, it would give more justification for a fleet caliber. As it stands, the best thing to do is to just slap the highest performance cannon that you can reasonably fit onto a ship. If you had a weapon designer, before you can do that, you would first need to design the entire cannon, then the ammo for it, and then of course, produce the entire thing. Sure, you can probably afford it when you're 1940s US, but other nations might wanna consider having a few standardized calibers rather than using whatever cannon has the best stats.

[Burningapple3]

I expect to see technology from about 1970 to 1990.

VLS, Phased Array Radar, and Aegis System; fleet position acquisition from space by reconnaissance satellites; guided artillery shells fired from the Advanced Gun System; and more.

AMC and DD could also accommodate VTOL aircraft.

In addition, powerful CIWS such as Phalanx and Goalkeeper may also emerge.

It is fun just to think of the various technologies if they were to appear.

[srndacful]

As tempting as going forward from 1970's sounds, there are other games that cover that period better (and far more successfully) than Rule the Waves.
IMHO, instead of butting heads with the already-entrenched enemy with decades of experience - not to mention a game engine that is far more suitable for the era, while fredrik and co. would have to develop it from scratch - I suggest RtW sticks to what it does best, and the only era left to it to expand into is backwards - not forwards. 

So, I hereby cast my vote for the RtW4 to spread to the ironclad period (1860 - 1890).

Note: yeah, at that point we might also spread into the Age of Sail, but seriously, the technological advancement there was basically snail-paced at best, so I'd definitely stop there.

[raymart999]

Apr 20, 2024 9:07:01 GMT -6 srndacful said:

As tempting as going forward from 1970's sounds, there are other games that cover that period better (and far more successfully) than Rule the Waves.
IMHO, instead of butting heads with the already-entrenched enemy with decades of experience - not to mention a game engine that is far more suitable for the era, while fredrik and co. would have to develop it from scratch - I suggest RtW sticks to what it does best, and the only era left to it to expand into is backwards - not forwards. 

So, I hereby cast my vote for the RtW4 to spread to the ironclad period (1860 - 1890).

Note: yeah, at that point we might also spread into the Age of Sail, but seriously, the technological advancement there was basically snail-paced at best, so I'd definitely stop there.

Still though, it would be nice if the RtW game could atleast extend up to the 2000s so we can atleast get more fleshed out super carriers and VLS launch tubes with multipurpose missiles like the SM-2 for our endgame fleets.

[srndacful]

Apr 20, 2024 9:43:05 GMT -6 raymart999 said:

Apr 20, 2024 9:07:01 GMT -6 srndacful said:

As tempting as going forward from 1970's sounds, there are other games that cover that period better (and far more successfully) than Rule the Waves.
IMHO, instead of butting heads with the already-entrenched enemy with decades of experience - not to mention a game engine that is far more suitable for the era, while fredrik and co. would have to develop it from scratch - I suggest RtW sticks to what it does best, and the only era left to it to expand into is backwards - not forwards. 

So, I hereby cast my vote for the RtW4 to spread to the ironclad period (1860 - 1890).

Note: yeah, at that point we might also spread into the Age of Sail, but seriously, the technological advancement there was basically snail-paced at best, so I'd definitely stop there.

Still though, it would be nice if the RtW game could atleast extend up to the 2000s so we can atleast get more fleshed out super carriers and VLS launch tubes with multipurpose missiles like the SM-2 for our endgame fleets.

Yes it would - but, again, IMHO the dev would have an easier time modifying the current engine for pre-1890's than implementing whole new mechanics for post-1970's just to deliver a 2nd-rate Harpoon-like clone. Sure, it might even be 1st-rate clone - but it'll still be trailing behind instead of blazing it's own path. 
Again - just my 2 cents ... 

[perfectpastrami]

Apr 20, 2024 9:07:01 GMT -6 srndacful said:

As tempting as going forward from 1970's sounds, there are other games that cover that period better (and far more successfully) than Rule the Waves.
IMHO, instead of butting heads with the already-entrenched enemy with decades of experience - not to mention a game engine that is far more suitable for the era, while fredrik and co. would have to develop it from scratch - I suggest RtW sticks to what it does best, and the only era left to it to expand into is backwards - not forwards. 

So, I hereby cast my vote for the RtW4 to spread to the ironclad period (1860 - 1890).

Note: yeah, at that point we might also spread into the Age of Sail, but seriously, the technological advancement there was basically snail-paced at best, so I'd definitely stop there.

And which games would that be, if i may ask?

[pratapon51]

Battlecarrier support, nuclear power DLC, space war total conversion expansion pack.

[raymart999]

Honestly, I would love more fleshed out technologies even to the end of the cold war like VLS, but at the same time I took would love to design Ironclads and even those sailing warships like the Bismarck-class corvettes from Germany, wonder how the devs and the game engine would run Monitors (BM?) though, both the coastal and ocean going monitors.

[thegirlwithoutaname]

-1870s/80s start date: Even at the 1890 start date it feels like you barely have any time to play with pre-dreadnaughts. Going before that point of time would mean the need for full implication of wooden ships, which imo seems like a good amount of extra dev time for something you would immediately drop, and that era of navel combat can lack in the dynamism of later ships (see- boring empire total war ship battles). As well, it allows the same suite of nations as currently in the game, with German unification in 1871 and Japanese modernization completing in 1869

-"Soft" 1980-90s end date expansion: At 1970 it feels like missiles and jet aircraft are just really hitting their stride and maturity when you suddenly get cut off. I say "soft" because there is a lot of stuff that would need to be implemented to make a "full" end date expansion, and by that time the game really starts to slog (a problem a lot of strategy games face in their end games)

-Better strategic layer ai: As it is now, allies seem less like proper alliances and more a "yeah, ill maaaaaaybe join". Its frustrating that the enemy having allies means they almost immediately join and then call in their allies and their allies and end up with you ganked while you ally either doesn't join or just keeps their entire fleet in their home waters. As well, ai wars usually end with them sinking a handful of each others cruisers, maybe a single BB or BC at most, resulting in the ai getting to build up their fleets more freely while you have to actually deal with real losses for your wars.

-Expanded strategic layer: I'm not asking to make RTW4 into a full grand strategy game, but it feels like with the pitiful war rewards you get (even if the harsher peace deals option helps a bit) aren't really worth it in comparison to the risk it places on my precious fleet. It feels frustrating that no matter how well you do, no matter how many navies you crush, every world economy history will look very similar game to game. Yeah I know that you can't exactly march a battleship to capture a city, but in a game that plays up the role of the navy so much while playing down the role of the army it would be nice to be able to get a larger slice of rewards for taking on other countries. Would make smaller nations more interesting too, David and Goliath is more interesting when Goliath doesn't immediately get back up. Plus, Russia should get substantially stronger starting in the 30s so it can pose an actual rivalry to the US rather than just festering down in mid tier.

-Some UI improvements: I don't agree with people saying this game should have a full gui, imo it works better with just the simple spreadsheet showing everything you need to know right clear in one place, but certain things like air bases reeeeeally need some work done. It is so painful to move aircraft around when you have a large list of airbases with complex and hard to remember names. The fact you have to exit out of that menu to look around on the map to match the port names with the locations on the map makes it a lot worse. The lack of tool-tips in certain places and, worse, lack of information in the manual, are also rather annoying.

-Customizable submarines: While the amount of decisions to make in terms of submarines is a lot lesser than for surface ships, it would still be a nice thing to have. Plus, maybe a buff? They feel pitifully weak as is.

-Ability to prevent hostile fleets from leaving regions and vice versa: I have vast naval supremacy, radar airbases full of searchplanes and nobody realized that the ENTIRE French fleet decided to up and leave the Mediterranean? On a gameplay front, you should be able to tie down an enemy fleet to stop things like them being able to foil your invasions by moving all their ships into a different region, and then being able to go back to their original region just as soon as you arrive, like wack-a-mole.

-Maybe a proper logistics system?: Something that would incentivize you to standardize your fleet at certain calibers. The British didn't do this in the first half of the 20th century and were left with a right mess. As well, maybe having a stockpile of planes that can be allocated to specific air groups, allowing for better replenishment, or having to make decisions like emptying one carrier of planes so you could have a full carrier, rather than two half full carriers. Trying to do anything like that in game as is is just frustrating.

-Expanded plane requisition: This is a slippery slope of falling headfirst into a whole plane customization system, which would not fit the game nor be immersive, but being able to set out speed and range and bomb load specifications fully, rather than just picking from two options and hoping for the best. I still would want the current contract bidding system in, just let me specify that when I pick "speed" and "range", that means I want a plane with higher speed and range than my current decade old one.

-Improvements to ship pathfinding near land: As it is, it is incredubly buggy. Ships will refuse to turn, or get stuck on the edges of land and port exclusion zones. Spalato is a great example of this. There is an inlet to the north (4329N 01611E) that ships will bizarrely refuse to turn into, and if they do get into it they will be stuck slamming against the shore until you wrangle them out. Or, the waters south of Kalamata, wherein I once got my entire fleet stuck because my flagship refused to turn out of it and actively fought me when I tried. Basically any interactions with land will go something like this.

-Better AI ship design mid to late game: I find the AI vastly underutilize SAMs for decades after their invention, and that combined with their small amounts of CAP can result in their fleets getting absolutely smashed. You can wipe out entire peer strength and tech fleets with almost 0 losses because the ai just doesn't fight back. They will eventually, but it leaves a few decades where you can just crush anything any anyone. 629 planes on 6 carriers vs 584 on 5 carriers and 5 cvls shouldn't result in me wiping basically their entire fleet out for the cost of 52 planes (21 of which to operational). They will also continue to not build jet enabled carriers decades after its available and still utilize some propeller planes well into the jet age. They are also really slow on the draw with radar and SSMs, as well as phasing out BBs and BCs. They will continue building BCs basically as long as you play. Im looking at a save file at 1982 and most nations still have hundreds of thousands of tons worth of BCs, from as early as 1960 and as late as... being currently built. They will generally over arm and armor their ships well after the point where hey should be focusing mostly on missiles.

-Plane balance rework: Light jet fighters are absolutely useless post heavy fighter. They have worse or the same stats in all areas (including speed) when compared to heavy jet fighters, plus they aren't night operational. They should act as quick response interceptors, not an AI folly. As well, they always seem to be better off the bat than ordinary fighters, despite early light jets supposedly having worse range. Fighters should be a viable alternitive well into the 1950s, as seen by the relative competitiveness of the Corsair vs Mig-15s during the Korean War.

Thats what I can think of for now. A few of these could probs just be added into RTW3, but whatever.

[raymart999]

Apr 21, 2024 4:57:53 GMT -6 thegirlwithoutaname said:

-1870s/80s start date: Even at the 1890 start date it feels like you barely have any time to play with pre-dreadnaughts. Going before that point of time would mean the need for full implication of wooden ships, which imo seems like a good amount of extra dev time for something you would immediately drop, and that era of navel combat can lack in the dynamism of later ships (see- boring empire total war ship battles). As well, it allows the same suite of nations as currently in the game, with German unification in 1871 and Japanese modernization completing in 1869

-"Soft" 1980-90s end date expansion: At 1970 it feels like missiles and jet aircraft are just really hitting their stride and maturity when you suddenly get cut off. I say "soft" because there is a lot of stuff that would need to be implemented to make a "full" end date expansion, and by that time the game really starts to slog (a problem a lot of strategy games face in their end games)

-Better strategic layer ai: As it is now, allies seem less like proper alliances and more a "yeah, ill maaaaaaybe join". Its frustrating that the enemy having allies means they almost immediately join and then call in their allies and their allies and end up with you ganked while you ally either doesn't join or just keeps their entire fleet in their home waters. As well, ai wars usually end with them sinking a handful of each others cruisers, maybe a single BB or BC at most, resulting in the ai getting to build up their fleets more freely while you have to actually deal with real losses for your wars.

-Expanded strategic layer: I'm not asking to make RTW4 into a full grand strategy game, but it feels like with the pitiful war rewards you get (even if the harsher peace deals option helps a bit) aren't really worth it in comparison to the risk it places on my precious fleet. It feels frustrating that no matter how well you do, no matter how many navies you crush, every world economy history will look very similar game to game. Yeah I know that you can't exactly march a battleship to capture a city, but in a game that plays up the role of the navy so much while playing down the role of the army it would be nice to be able to get a larger slice of rewards for taking on other countries. Would make smaller nations more interesting too, David and Goliath is more interesting when Goliath doesn't immediately get back up. Plus, Russia should get substantially stronger starting in the 30s so it can pose an actual rivalry to the US rather than just festering down in mid tier.

-Some UI improvements: I don't agree with people saying this game should have a full gui, imo it works better with just the simple spreadsheet showing everything you need to know right clear in one place, but certain things like air bases reeeeeally need some work done. It is so painful to move aircraft around when you have a large list of airbases with complex and hard to remember names. The fact you have to exit out of that menu to look around on the map to match the port names with the locations on the map makes it a lot worse. The lack of tool-tips in certain places and, worse, lack of information in the manual, are also rather annoying.

-Customizable submarines: While the amount of decisions to make in terms of submarines is a lot lesser than for surface ships, it would still be a nice thing to have. Plus, maybe a buff? They feel pitifully weak as is.

-Ability to prevent hostile fleets from leaving regions and vice versa: I have vast naval supremacy, radar airbases full of searchplanes and nobody realized that the ENTIRE French fleet decided to up and leave the Mediterranean? On a gameplay front, you should be able to tie down an enemy fleet to stop things like them being able to foil your invasions by moving all their ships into a different region, and then being able to go back to their original region just as soon as you arrive, like wack-a-mole.

-Maybe a proper logistics system?: Something that would incentivize you to standardize your fleet at certain calibers. The British didn't do this in the first half of the 20th century and were left with a right mess. As well, maybe having a stockpile of planes that can be allocated to specific air groups, allowing for better replenishment, or having to make decisions like emptying one carrier of planes so you could have a full carrier, rather than two half full carriers. Trying to do anything like that in game as is is just frustrating.

-Expanded plane requisition: This is a slippery slope of falling headfirst into a whole plane customization system, which would not fit the game nor be immersive, but being able to set out speed and range and bomb load specifications fully, rather than just picking from two options and hoping for the best. I still would want the current contract bidding system in, just let me specify that when I pick "speed" and "range", that means I want a plane with higher speed and range than my current decade old one.

-Improvements to ship pathfinding near land: As it is, it is incredubly buggy. Ships will refuse to turn, or get stuck on the edges of land and port exclusion zones. Spalato is a great example of this. There is an inlet to the north (4329N 01611E) that ships will bizarrely refuse to turn into, and if they do get into it they will be stuck slamming against the shore until you wrangle them out. Or, the waters south of Kalamata, wherein I once got my entire fleet stuck because my flagship refused to turn out of it and actively fought me when I tried. Basically any interactions with land will go something like this.

-Better AI ship design mid to late game: I find the AI vastly underutilize SAMs for decades after their invention, and that combined with their small amounts of CAP can result in their fleets getting absolutely smashed. You can wipe out entire peer strength and tech fleets with almost 0 losses because the ai just doesn't fight back. They will eventually, but it leaves a few decades where you can just crush anything any anyone. 629 planes on 6 carriers vs 584 on 5 carriers and 5 cvls shouldn't result in me wiping basically their entire fleet out for the cost of 52 planes (21 of which to operational). They will also continue to not build jet enabled carriers decades after its available and still utilize some propeller planes well into the jet age. They are also really slow on the draw with radar and SSMs, as well as phasing out BBs and BCs. They will continue building BCs basically as long as you play. Im looking at a save file at 1982 and most nations still have hundreds of thousands of tons worth of BCs, from as early as 1960 and as late as... being currently built. They will generally over arm and armor their ships well after the point where hey should be focusing mostly on missiles.

-Plane balance rework: Light jet fighters are absolutely useless post heavy fighter. They have worse or the same stats in all areas (including speed) when compared to heavy jet fighters, plus they aren't night operational. They should act as quick response interceptors, not an AI folly. As well, they always seem to be better off the bat than ordinary fighters, despite early light jets supposedly having worse range. Fighters should be a viable alternitive well into the 1950s, as seen by the relative competitiveness of the Corsair vs Mig-15s during the Korean War.

Thats what I can think of for now. A few of these could probs just be added into RTW3, but whatever.

To add on your AI wars point: it would be nice if AI can push a treaty against enemy AI nations they defeat, with player also having that option, like get massive points lead against the enemy you can push for a treaty that restricts that nation for an amount of time, like not letting them build a capital ship above a certain tonnage, just like the international treaties/treaty of Versailles.

Of course you would need a REALLY massive victory points lead against an enemy to even get to enforce a treaty on them, along with the treaty only having to last for atleast a decade or two until the enemy AI can rebuild once again (legally if they don't start a war and void the treaty within the time limit), but it's just so annoying to beat a enemy fleet to the stone ago only to see them build back up to a naval power in half a decade.

[wlbjork]

Apr 21, 2024 4:57:53 GMT -6 thegirlwithoutaname said:

-Maybe a proper logistics system?: Something that would incentivize you to standardize your fleet at certain calibers. The British didn't do this in the first half of the 20th century and were left with a right mess. As well, maybe having a stockpile of planes that can be allocated to specific air groups, allowing for better replenishment, or having to make decisions like emptying one carrier of planes so you could have a full carrier, rather than two half full carriers. Trying to do anything like that in game as is is just frustrating.

That's because Britain didn't standardise on calibre, but on shell weight. Each increase in calibre roughly represented a doubling of shell weight over the previous weapon.

* 3 pounder (47mm)

*6 pounder (57mm)

*12 pounder (3")

*25 pounder (4")

*50 pounder (4.7")

*100 pounder (6")

*200 pounder (7.5")

*380 pounder (9.2")

*850 pounder (12")

*1,250 pounder (13.5")

*1,938 pounder (15")