|
Post by krankey on Mar 31, 2018 5:03:12 GMT -6
RtW has an auto-design option, which fills out the whole ship from tonnage and armour to the superstructure doodle. I like how it draws a superstructure and places the funnels, it's much more detailed than I care to do by hand. Can we have that feature separate from the auto-design ship button? So the player can design the ship, and the player can place the funnels and draw the superstructure lines, or the player can have either one (or both) of those done automatically. This, on the right here. See how it looks nice? Do that for me.And while we're at it, can we also have an auto-generated side-view? The little lineart-ish graphic on the ship's profile(?). This thing. Usually you have to place all the turrets and the masts and the superstructure elements and the details and all that by hand. I like pretty ships, but I also really do not care enough to hand-draw them when they're going to be obsolete in a few years anyway. For simplifications sake, you could tie the auto-doodle and the auto-detailing together for visual cohesion. So, intended workflow for the player is make a ship with this speed and that armour and those guns, fiddle the design to make it all fit, then hand it over to the computer and say "Okay, now make this pretty." Sounds good to auto design the picture based on auto developed ship graphic on the design screen. I can see the difficulties of the Ai trying to match any structures the player draws by hand though. Perhaps if you don't draw anything manually the AI could have some presets it uses based on ship type and main turret positions. Number of funnels could be a "Choose number of funnels" button and the AI can cope with auto placing them without having them built through a turret. On a personal note I would like to see a method of selecting the style of main and secondary turrets (6" secondary turret graphic in game is broken btw in RTW) The game has a couple of styles it auto populates but to my knowledge there is no method for the player to choose the one you would rather display ? I like the big clunky round turrets for early game, (French?) but the more oblong shape (British?) for the later game designs.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Mar 31, 2018 15:23:26 GMT -6
Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Right now RtW has a set of maybe a half-dozen designs based off historical configurations that are automatically selected. For example, if you select class B or BB in year 1905, auto-design gives you HMS Dreadnought; same stats, same layout, same look, while an autodesigned WW1-era German battleship gives you one of the crossfiring meme turret designs. RtW2 could expand on that by having both top-down lines and side-view coloured art, and probably have 2-3 visuals per country per class per era (pre-dread, 1900s, WW1, interwar, WW2, postwar).
I really like the angular American turret style myself, but the boxy German style is also quite nice. Being able to select visual styles would be quite nice, especially if you could change styles as time goes on. So you start with the round old turrets, the you select the krautboxes for your WW1-era ships, and then you select the american angles for WW2-era ships.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 1, 2018 1:03:59 GMT -6
tbh I suspect the current player base would be happy to put together some very good images for various layouts and ship classes/types. Sufficient to populate any combination of basic ship graphics.
NWS could even run a competition where players submit designs for each class and turret config and let the players get on with it... For glory or prizes I think the players would soon have this cracked. What say you NWS ?
(We assume this will actually be a feature of RTW2 )
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 1, 2018 2:27:10 GMT -6
Any chance we could be allowed to put 12” recoiled rifles on our destroyers like the Soviets did pre-ww2?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 1, 2018 14:32:30 GMT -6
Any chance we could be allowed to put 12” recoiled rifles on our destroyers like the Soviets did pre-ww2? Considering that: (A) The Soviets only mounted the gun on a single test bed DD & it was considered a failure, and (B) they executed the designer of the weapon in question for 'poor designs', and (C) all the recoiless rifles he designed were destroyed. we might not consider that particular example promoting a viable weapon system for use in ship-to-ship battles
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 1, 2018 15:26:25 GMT -6
One thing I'd like to see is the capability for nations to have the introduction dates for techs modified as a special characteristic: The earliest possible date for B turret makes sense for Britain or Germany, but given that the US only ever built dreadnoughts with all turrets centerline, I don't think it really makes sense for the US to get X turret before B turret. If the early US dreadnoughts had had three instead of four turrets, I'd think an ABY configuration more likely than an AXY configuration. Or for a four-turret design with superfiring turrets on one end but not the other, I'd expect ABWY rather than ACXY.
Or maybe it's just that I'm an all-forward maniac and would like to be able to do a 2x2 AB predreadnought every few games as the US.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Apr 1, 2018 18:28:06 GMT -6
tbh I suspect the current player base would be happy to put together some very good images for various layouts and ship classes/types. Sufficient to populate any combination of basic ship graphics. NWS could even run a competition where players submit designs for each class and turret config and let the players get on with it... For glory or prizes I think the players would soon have this cracked. What say you NWS ? (We assume this will actually be a feature of RTW2 ) That would probably be a fun way to demo the game. Give us access to the ship designer, hold a number of design competitions (weekly?), and put the winners in the game as auto-design templates.
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 2, 2018 0:53:57 GMT -6
Now that April 1st is over for me, I can actually get back to serious suggestions.
So what about additional controls regarding both the recovery and scuttling of heavily damaged ships? Say, HMAS Canberra might’ve been salvageable, but was scuttled according to an order to get the ships to move again. USS Hornet was scuttled because they couldnt tow her away from the Japanese in time. By choosing to get the survivors off a nearly-sunk ship early instead of letting the enemy finish off the ship and rescue survivors, you may get a few more points than you would otherwise.
Using other ships to assist in damage control and towing was done, and doing so may allow a few more of your ships to survive. Although, to be fair, it also went wrong a lot.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Apr 2, 2018 3:25:29 GMT -6
When a ship was burning, other ships (esp. destroyers) often pulled alongside to render assistance with firefighting and evacuation. I know the American ships actually had these soapy-water hoses they'd use to spray the burning fuel/oil/paint off. In terms of feature, would it be possible for a ship to assist another ship with damage control, in a manner similar to the existing "Retrieve survivors from wrecked ship" activity?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 2, 2018 16:44:08 GMT -6
When a ship was burning, other ships (esp. destroyers) often pulled alongside to render assistance with firefighting and evacuation. I know the American ships actually had these soapy-water hoses they'd use to spray the burning fuel/oil/paint off. In terms of feature, would it be possible for a ship to assist another ship with damage control, in a manner similar to the existing "Retrieve survivors from wrecked ship" activity? Fire fighting foams aren't designed to wash oil and fuel off, they are actually designed to coat the existing pools with a layer of foam that prevents the formation of vapors and separates the fuel/oil from the oxygen in the air preventing or stopping combustion.** We were trained not to spray AFFF hoses directly at the oil because you didn't want to wash the oil away you wanted it to stay in one place so you could get a good thick covering on top of it. There is slight cooling effect as well. The AFFF that the navy uses now was invented in the 1960s. Not sure what the navy used before that although the concept was invented by a Russian engineer and chemist in 1902 so it was certainly around during both games' time frames. Practical and historical lessons aside this would be a nice feature to have if the coding isn't too difficult to implement. Hopefully like you mentioned, the routines wouldn't be too different from the pick up survivors AI. It would certainly come in handy when the game introduces carriers and their stores of weapons and avgas. If I recall, most of the carriers that were lost were lost to fires after being struck by torpedoes/bombs/shells rather than a loss of buoyancy caused by flooding. **[Edit - I should point out this was the philosophy for fighting flammable liquid fires on or inside a ship. The air force may or probably uses a different type of fire fighting foam for combatting airplane fires and the philosophy of use may be different since one of their priorities is getting in and rescuing the aircrew. Same with the Airedales on a carrier combating a fire around a crashed aircraft.]
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 2, 2018 22:47:40 GMT -6
**[Edit - I should point out this was the philosophy for fighting flammable liquid fires on or inside a ship. The air force may or probably uses a different type of fire fighting foam for combatting airplane fires and the philosophy of use may be different since one of their priorities is getting in and rescuing the aircrew. Same with the Airedales on a carrier combating a fire around a crashed aircraft.] I wouldn't expect it to be much different. I'd think that rescuing aircrew and passengers from a crashed aircraft is a priority for firefighters on land and especially on a carrier in much the same way that rescuing seamen trapped by a fire in a compartment is a priority for shipboard firefighters - if you can do it without unduly hazarding anything or anyone else, great, but bringing the fire under control before things get worse is more important than saving a few lives, especially if the aircraft was carrying something, or is burning near something, that could rupture or explode and make things far worse. Modern bombs are generally safer than those that blew up on the Forrestal, but you still don't want them exposed to high temperatures any longer than necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Apr 3, 2018 8:15:11 GMT -6
if not 12" on destroyers, how about 8", USS Hull had a mounted 8" cannon for awhile
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 3, 2018 9:05:57 GMT -6
USS Hull is way too late for the game. And the original statement I made was more of a joke than anything. I wouldn't've suggested it any other day of the year.
|
|
|
Post by krankey on Apr 4, 2018 1:23:21 GMT -6
Railguns ?
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 4, 2018 7:03:22 GMT -6
So one thought I had was could RTW 2 not penalize your points for using Rear Admiral's or Captain's mode in battles where you only control a single ship, or in battles where you don't make use of their abilities?
|
|