|
Post by khorne8 on May 13, 2024 10:47:13 GMT -6
Yes...and I would add to this intelligence. That is most key. All of those reports you get? Add them automatically to the almanac as "confirmed" specs. Yes, outstanding suggestion, ashamed I didn't think of it. Assuming the next game uses similar technology, doctrine, and spending mechanisms, I'd love to see intelligence and counterintelligence tech lines, doctrines, and spending choices. Technical breakthroughs like Enigma and then the mathematics and computers to break it would be fun, and very much in scope for a naval game. And it would further differentiate the nations: the unique accomplishments of Soviet human espionage could be modeled, for example, whereas the British should definitely have a national advantage at signals intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on May 23, 2024 20:42:47 GMT -6
If there's anything that is truly awfully covered, it is littoral combat and MTBs. The early game doesn't have its torpedo boats and torpedo rams, the mid and late game has MTBs, but all they do is prance like 20 kilometers from base and do nothing. Land airbases can't be controlled by the player either, and littoral vessels don't count in terms of raiding
Sure, MTBs probably don't matter 500 kilometers off the coast, but they should be involved in the strategic picture, denying invasions, raiding and counter-raiding, sinking submarines, doing some coastal raids and port strikes, etc etc. Land-based planes and MTBs should also kill each other from time to time, allowing them to port strike if the enemy gets weak enough, and should be in control of the player during battles. And MTBs should be done more like planes, not limited to two squadrons per possession. This will actually give meaning to the lives of land-based planes and MTBs.
|
|
|
Post by buttons on May 31, 2024 8:56:52 GMT -6
I'm still hoping for a weapon design system, somewhat akin to the aircraft design system but with more options. I think weapon/aircraft design should remain vague unless the game specifically wants to move away from “Chief of the Navy” specific role. Still weapon design would be nice, instead of just a caliber and quality for guns or just size for missiles could have design principles for weapons. Eg. Range: Higher velocity guns and missiles with bigger fuel tanks Damage: Bigger shell/warhead Weight: Weight of the overall weapon system Rate of Fire: Lighter/smaller shells and superior/more developed loading/autoloading systems It would still be abstracted but would allow you to design a specific gun/missile system. If the game decides to abandon the formality of the “Chief of the Navy” role we could go more in depth so for aircraft number of engines and specific weapon systems, maybe with warnings like “our engineers tell us such a design is unfeasible with current technology” so you don’t accidentally design a complete piece of crap. So for a fighter/dive bomber you could say for example Engine Number: 1, 2, 3, 4 Engine Power: (Essentially top speed and rate of climb) Offensive Weapons: eg. 8 .50 cals, 2 20mm cannons, 4 .50 cals, 4 20mm cannons, 2 30mm cannons Defensive Weapons: eg. 2 .50 cals Ordnance: eg. 5000 lbs Wing Size: (Essentially maneuverability and climb) Range: (Abstracted) The abstracted areas would be held to less strictly so if your carrier fighter is overarmed with a huge engine it will have bad maneuverability and a tiny range even if you set those high as well, or it might have a powerful engine but the design team sacrificed some of that power so it could have a workable range and weight.
|
|
|
Post by forget83 on Jun 4, 2024 8:58:27 GMT -6
My dream direction for RTW would be to expand more on the Management and Procurement side of the game.
Expand the air procurement system for not just weapons as some suggest but also the engine. So before you can finalized a design, you need to have/commissioned an engine design and then manufacture enough of said engine for your various ships. These engines and weapons can be treated as a reusable resource where for example: Your 14-in battleship project got canceled so you take the gun you already built for the project to use as coastal defense. Or your cruiser that ran aground has a bunch of old engines which can be repurpose for the dozen wartime minesweeper you need to built right away.
Add the ability directly buy equipment instead of the current abstraction and auto manufacture. So you need to pay money to procure all the planes, guns and engines and not just have them automatically be part of other system or just pump out without limit like with aircraft. Heck, make manufacturability into its own stats like for example: You have the option of choosing Super Fighter FX that cost $$$ to make and can be built with a rate of 12 A/C per month or go with Budget Fighter Mk.25b that cost $ and be built at 28 A/C per month or even order both. This can even be use to add flavor to each country by limiting how each manufacture their weapon like by having Private vs State-owned manufacturer or having the ability to have all manufacturer built the same design vs only able to have each manufacturer make their own stuff.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jun 5, 2024 7:02:28 GMT -6
My dream direction for RTW would be to expand more on the Management and Procurement side of the game. Expand the air procurement system for not just weapons as some suggest but also the engine. So before you can finalized a design, you need to have/commissioned an engine design and then manufacture enough of said engine for your various ships. These engines and weapons can be treated as a reusable resource where for example: Your 14-in battleship project got canceled so you take the gun you already built for the project to use as coastal defense. Or your cruiser that ran aground has a bunch of old engines which can be repurpose for the dozen wartime minesweeper you need to built right away. Add the ability directly buy equipment instead of the current abstraction and auto manufacture. So you need to pay money to procure all the planes, guns and engines and not just have them automatically be part of other system or just pump out without limit like with aircraft. Heck, make manufacturability into its own stats like for example: You have the option of choosing Super Fighter FX that cost $$$ to make and can be built with a rate of 12 A/C per month or go with Budget Fighter Mk.25b that cost $ and be built at 28 A/C per month or even order both. This can even be use to add flavor to each country by limiting how each manufacture their weapon like by having Private vs State-owned manufacturer or having the ability to have all manufacturer built the same design vs only able to have each manufacturer make their own stuff. Sounds interesting but overwhelming too.
|
|
|
Post by zulu354 on Jun 7, 2024 15:58:14 GMT -6
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.
Just this. I'd be happy to build a legacy fleet for my own, be it an original one or just a one I want. Make it toggable, like the 1900 start. I don't see the point in restricting the players in this case.
And please add different armour types like harvey, krupp, etc. I could imagine it would give a whole new dimension to the game.
|
|
|
Post by expendable on Jun 9, 2024 9:38:23 GMT -6
Destroyer armor, you can strap destroyers to a capital ship to exploit their advantage in HP & Damage modifiers to make an indestructible warship
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 19, 2024 1:22:26 GMT -6
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. Smaller countries might want to buy weapons for bigger ones.
This is truer in later years, as military technology has got more expensive.
Buying a weapon system isn't just a commercial transaction, it also creates bonds of self-interest between the buyer and the seller, and is often integrated with one being a security provider for the other. I expect many people here watch Perun on YouTube. It would be nice if there was a game that dealt fairly accurately with the issues involved in weapons procurement and development, military alliances, diplomacy, geopolitics, etc.
Re calibers, there's a lot to be gained on standardising on a few calibers. E.g in WW2 compare the USA's 5" gun with the RN's 4.o0, 4.5, 4.7 and 5.25 calibers.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 19, 2024 1:29:48 GMT -6
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.
It would be best, IMO, to start off with a clean sheet of paper on that one.
There could be a starting period of 1946 and an end of 2024. There should be a choice of political system -- either the actual cold war or a randomised series of alliances. Since there haven't actually been many big naval battles in this time period, it would make sense for the game to have more big wars than reality did.
If one is having a game about naval procurement, it really needs to be linked with air force and army procurement since often they use the same weapons.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Jun 19, 2024 1:55:25 GMT -6
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. Currently in game the player can have this inflicted on them if they lose a war, but can not inflict such punishment on the AI when victorious. Had it happen to me a while ago in a Japan game nws-online.proboards.com/post/105717
I feel that game engines should, as far as possible, treat AI players and human players the same. It feels like cheating when AI players can go things I can't. if you want to compensate for the AI being stupid, give it more resources.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 19, 2024 9:10:53 GMT -6
Currently in game the player can have this inflicted on them if they lose a war, but can not inflict such punishment on the AI when victorious. Had it happen to me a while ago in a Japan game nws-online.proboards.com/post/105717
I feel that game engines should, as far as possible, treat AI players and human players the same. It feels like cheating when AI players can go things I can't. if you want to compensate for the AI being stupid, give it more resources.
It bothers me much more when the AI can't do things I can. For instance (when last I checked, which was some time ago) they have no officers, and they never set ammo doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 19, 2024 9:17:52 GMT -6
If RTW4 happens, I hope it's redone from the ground up in a modern game engine such as Unity. This means they would have to hire a developer or two, though, and I don't know if that's happening.
Currently RTW3 is way over-engineered. It's incredibly ambitious and creative, but also bug-ridden and a lot of its features don't work in a sensible way (like the submarines and mines, for instance). Just adding more features is not a way to go, given this situation.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Jun 21, 2024 12:41:04 GMT -6
If RTW4 happens, I hope it's redone from the ground up in a modern game engine such as Unity. This means they would have to hire a developer or two, though, and I don't know if that's happening. Currently RTW3 is way over-engineered. It's incredibly ambitious and creative, but also bug-ridden and a lot of its features don't work in a sensible way (like the submarines and mines, for instance). Just adding more features is not a way to go, given this situation. Unity means you get UA:D...and we see how that's going....I hope any future games keep things essentially "spread-sheety." The graphics as is as sufficient enough for our purposes.
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 21, 2024 13:14:15 GMT -6
If RTW4 happens, I hope it's redone from the ground up in a modern game engine such as Unity. This means they would have to hire a developer or two, though, and I don't know if that's happening. Currently RTW3 is way over-engineered. It's incredibly ambitious and creative, but also bug-ridden and a lot of its features don't work in a sensible way (like the submarines and mines, for instance). Just adding more features is not a way to go, given this situation. Unity means you get UA:D...and we see how that's going....I hope any future games keep things essentially "spread-sheety." The graphics as is as sufficient enough for our purposes. That's just not true. You can make a spreadsheet game in Unity.
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on Jun 21, 2024 14:11:16 GMT -6
Unity means you get UA:D...and we see how that's going....I hope any future games keep things essentially "spread-sheety." The graphics as is as sufficient enough for our purposes. That's just not true. You can make a spreadsheet game in Unity. I didn't say you can't, but I thought you were saying to use Unity to introduce 3D graphics a-la UA:D. Their focus on that is a detriment to their gameplay. Ultimately I don't know what engine would best work for a future RTW title. Unity is a bit overused, jack-of-all-trade. It can be made, eventually, to do just about anything, but it's not a master of much.
|
|