|
Post by rimbecano on Apr 20, 2018 14:53:11 GMT -6
A cosmetic proposal: When generating ship side views, allow the player to select from a drop down list of camouflage measures used by historical navies to paint the ship. Perhaps less historically, allow the player to select camouflage measures instead of solid colors for top-down views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2018 15:39:05 GMT -6
That woudĺd be perfect
|
|
|
Post by Noname117 on Apr 25, 2018 8:01:28 GMT -6
I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to change how the post battle flooding works, where the game continues to simulate several hours after the battle ends to see what ships would and wouldn't sink. The big change it should take into account is how near the nearest port is, and it should simulate damaged ships entering said port. Because right now ships which shouldn't be lost are being lost due to this mechanic. So yeah, it would probably be good to figure out a way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Apr 25, 2018 12:55:57 GMT -6
I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to change how the post battle flooding works, where the game continues to simulate several hours after the battle ends to see what ships would and wouldn't sink. The big change it should take into account is how near the nearest port is, and it should simulate damaged ships entering said port. Because right now ships which shouldn't be lost are being lost due to this mechanic. So yeah, it would probably be good to figure out a way to do that. That might be a good idea. We'll consider it.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 25, 2018 16:43:43 GMT -6
I'd like to be able to use B and X turret before developing three or more centerline turrets, if I develop superfiring turrets before getting at least 3 centerline turrets.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Apr 26, 2018 17:08:17 GMT -6
I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to change how the post battle flooding works, where the game continues to simulate several hours after the battle ends to see what ships would and wouldn't sink. The big change it should take into account is how near the nearest port is, and it should simulate damaged ships entering said port. Because right now ships which shouldn't be lost are being lost due to this mechanic. So yeah, it would probably be good to figure out a way to do that. That might be a good idea. We'll consider it. There is also the obverse, when battles occur very far from the nearest base/port it might take too long (days at reduced speed) to reach a friendly port. In that case there could be different outcomes, e.g. ship reaches an allied port (longer repair time), gets beached in "friendly/own waters" (salvage dialog with huge one-up cost and very long repair time), gets interned in a neutral port or sinks, respectively is scuttled, since it is too far from support.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 26, 2018 23:23:56 GMT -6
Would be in RtW2 more actions per month? As fleets can project power on large areas the simultaneous actions in different theatres become usual.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Apr 27, 2018 4:07:31 GMT -6
I would like to see some sort of "squad editor", where you can build squads or give different tasks to different shipclasses.
For example:
I would like to build DD-flottilas with 5+ DDs and 1 leader (CL or heavy DD with better gunpower and a bit armour)- like Japan did it in WW2. There you have the opportunity for smaller navies to use your lighter navyparts for some smaller but hard hitting raids and gain VP.
Or I hate it if there are different BC-classes in my scoutforce, when they have different speed. I would like to give the older BCs the opportunity to earn VP via cruiser battles or use them as interceptors against raiders (only doable in your colonies in 2nd line waters) and the newest and best BCs I would like to use as my scoutinggroup in fleet battles or other encounters. The same with CA- I had one game with Japan were I had 2 classes of BCs and 2 classes of CA and in 2 fleet battles my scouting group consisted of 1 older, slower BC and 2 screening CA, while the newest BCs were somewhere in port and their crews picked their noses.
Or in the very likely case we can build carriers, I would like to build some airdefence CVL for the 2nd line (only a smaller airgroup of fighters, perhaps with fighter-bombers). Especially for smaller navies this is very existential. You have the opportunity to build 1 or maybe 2 CVL and than the matchmaker throws them into hardcore frontline modus against an enemy fleet and they are nearly lost. And even with highest speed you can´t outrun enemy bombers. So there should be the capability to avoid such bigger encounters.
And than there should be some opportunity to "self locate" your forts in any strategic position where you have some usefullness of them. In the most cases the randomly located forts don´t have any effect on the game. The funniest position for an 8" fort, I have in my current game with Italy- it covers the harbour of Messina that is protected by its minefield so there is never going to be the chance any enemy ship will come into gunrange! Imagine I spend my budget on some 11" or 12" guns. I know heavy forts are no way effective in RtW1 (unless you rescript the gamefiles), but I would like to see some sort of effectivity in RtW2.
And most of all, I would love to see a more detailed shipdesign menue, especially the way the armourschemes are explained in the game. In general I am firm in historical shipdesigns and I can adapt this to the game. But for gamereasons I would like to min-max my shipdesigns especially in terms of armour to give them the best imunityzone against a designated enemy ship. But in this case I have to know how AoN or a turtleback ingame definitely works and how I can influence the protectionscheme in lowering beltarmour in favour for the turtleback and deck or vice versa. At the moment I have to guess (although my Japanese 10" belt, 4" deck BCs with a turtleback were brutal hard opponents for their enemy counterparts even in the 40s against 15" and 16" guns) how this works. Perhaps there could be the possibility to chose between more armourschemes- e.g. decapping belts and decks and/or low or high main armour decks and so on. In WW1 there were even differences between British and German turtlebacks- I would like to chose between them, if I want to.
Other things like radarspotting or other advanced technology compared to RtW1, we have to wait if and how they come into the game. But things like nukes are not necessary in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Apr 29, 2018 8:12:55 GMT -6
I had a recent cruiser action scenario that was decently sized. Couple of capital ships on each side with a handful of light cruiser and destroyers each. I took the logs for each ship using the method aeson demonstrated for the Details page in the Results window and stitched them together in an Excel file and separated the time and log entries into different columns. I also added a column that put the ship's name by each entry and color coded friend and foe to help keep track of which ship made which report. Then I sorted by time and got an integrated, sometimes minute by minute account of what happened. Here's what it looks like? Here's the full file for those who want to see it. Scenario Reconstruction.xls (102 KB) It's certainly not perfect and I'm no programmer or Excel wizard. For example, the first four entries are for two events. Two shots fired and two hits received. Except instead of Shot-Hit, Shot-Hit it's listed as Shot, Shot, Hit and Hit so they are a little disjointed. But overall it's not bad. It also looks like some reports that are in the General Log aren't in the individual ships' logs like contacts seen and lost and identifications. For instance reviewing the page I first didn't understand why Atlanta was using HE against Champion when I don't have HE in my doctrine for shooting at CL's at all for any caliber of gun or range. It's not until you review the General Log that you see that Atlanta originally classified Champion as an unidentified BB (The scenario started at night if the times didn't make it obvious) that it makes sense that Atlanta was initially using HE. I didn't add the general log because it would have added a lot of redundancy that probably would have had to be manually weeded out. So, if it was feasible within time and budget constraints and it was possible to write a script that automatically made an equivalent to what I just did, it would be really nice to have something like this available to understand what happened and to perhaps write an AAR for those that are interested in doing that. The only other concern I could see off of the top beyond time, budget and technical feasibility would be that it's generally more data than a commander would have available immediately after a battle, especially regarding the enemy and might be immersion breaking.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 29, 2018 9:52:49 GMT -6
Very nice bcoopactual. It's amazing how a little formatting and color make this material much more accessible. I think that the RTW community would be able to generate a script to create a similar master log after each battle if Fredrik simply pushed all of these various logs out to a text file somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Apr 29, 2018 10:33:04 GMT -6
Very nice bcoopactual . It's amazing how a little formatting and color make this material much more accessible. I think that the RTW community would be able to generate a script to create a similar master log after each battle if Fredrik simply pushed all of these various logs out to a text file somewhere. I'm pretty sure that RTWGame#.sac has the logs for all the ships in it, and it's essentially just a txt file with a funny extension. Edit: Corrected file name.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 29, 2018 12:27:05 GMT -6
Very nice bcoopactual . It's amazing how a little formatting and color make this material much more accessible. I think that the RTW community would be able to generate a script to create a similar master log after each battle if Fredrik simply pushed all of these various logs out to a text file somewhere. I'm pretty sure that RTWGame#.sac has the logs for all the ships in it, and it's essentially just a txt file with a funny extension. Edit: Corrected file name. So what are all you programmy types waiting for. Get er done!
|
|
|
Post by cuirasspolisher on May 1, 2018 19:21:52 GMT -6
One minor gripe I have with the game is the way sighting works. Once a friendly ship loses sight of an enemy ship, it completely "forgets" it exists. If, thirty seconds later, the same friendly ship sights an enemy in the same position, it takes just as long to designate as hostile as the first sighting. This is unrealistic and can be quite aggravating in night battles, especially when engaging shore batteries (how do you lose track of something that can't move?). I suggest RTW2 apply a temporary flag to enemy ships when they are sighted. If a friendly ship loses sight but reacquires it before the flag expires, the target identification period would be shortened.
|
|