|
Post by srndacful on Apr 22, 2024 7:05:49 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. And which games would that be, if i may ask? Currently? Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations But, IMHO, good ol' Harpoon, as well. Oh, and - yes, I do know those are purely tactical-level games with no strategic nor shipbuilding aspect available - *but* their scenario-creation capabilities are so good, you can (conceivably) create a campaign all on your own. So, basically, (and IMHO) bolting the RtW campaign system to an old Harpoon game would be a better use of dev's resources than turning the RtW's tactical system into a Harpoon-style game. Although, I'm not really an expert, here. If you ask me, Fredrik should stick to what works best (and what this game is excellent at) - and maybe, in the meantime, slowly working on a Harpoon-style tactical system for the RtW5 (if he wants to - and which I'd recommend)
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 22, 2024 6:18:50 GMT -6
A shipbuilding logistics system. The AI in particular can build a bizarre mix of ships with twin, triple and quad turrets, using 14, 15 and 16" guns. There should be a real significant cost to constantly building new designs in small quantities rather than using standardised designs and parts. Some ideas: - the ship designer should include modules like a 15" twin turret. First design to use this has to pay for the turret design. Next design to use this can reuse the existing design at minimal cost. - building ships should become cheaper with each ship of the same class, maybe dropping fast from ship 1 to ship 2, then slowly reducing for 3, 4, 5 and then maybe flatlining. - introducing oil firing should be expensive, but then later keeping coal fired ships should be expensive. Perhaps best modelled in terms of maintenance costs of ships This! There's an old saying that goes: Amateurs study tactics - Professionals study logistics. And all the logistics of this game is boiled down to maintenance cost and base capacity. Now, I'm all for KISS principle - but I'd sure like to expand on it - if only just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 22, 2024 6:07:50 GMT -6
Countries don't seek out alliance offers, it comes to them as random events that happen once every ten years or so. So the event is not "pact to contain Z's aggression", it is a "pact just because they felt like it". This makes sense in the current iteration of the game. And thus, it would literally be impossible for Spain to enlist British or German help if France attacked. OK - I did not know that, and it does throw my idea completely into the water. Still, my other 3 points remain standing: 1. (no.2 in the original list) Army-funded Naval invasions of the Enemy's colonies - again, only if there's no suitable land front-line available. Obviously, you'd get prior notice, so you can gain naval superiority in the area, and then actually escort/protect the landing transports (as per usual) to the landing site. 2. Army troops (and material) convoys to the front lines that need guarding from the enemy raiders. Perhaps add a higher VP penalty if they get sunk as our troops start to lose more and the like. 3. Army Air Force - an airfield with some fighters and bombers (no seaplanes or patrols or recon) at major ports, outside the player control and acting more like additional port defence than anything else - but still capable of punching the enemy if gets too close. Naturally, this would apply to the enemy, as well, but hey - you get the gist. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 20, 2024 10:38:42 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. 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 ...
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 20, 2024 9:07:01 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.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 14, 2024 22:38:33 GMT -6
See how you are scrambling to find increasingly bizarre ways to balance this, ways that aren't even in the game? There is no game mechanic that makes everyone gang up on Germany if Germany decides to increase tensions with one nation. You also say that AI nations can get friends to help, which is a completely different paradigm from the chance event alliances the game gives us. In addition, if you do manage to have Germany fight everyone, but they only alienate everyone through the army, then what fun is the whole naval side then? In addition, you have powers that are doubly disadvantaged by this proposal: Spain, China, and the like. Imagine playing these countries and you get into a war anyways, and, since it is hard to obtain allies, you get swiped off from the map without even getting a chance to play. The original diplomatic system already takes a bit of control away from the player, but now you are asking to completely divorce player decisions and ability from their outcomes. How awful of game design. Such an idea just asks for problems, and fundamentally changes what players come to play the game for. And it would take a number of patchwork systems and hotfixes to even get started working, and even then not nearly like the original game OK - once again, I'm failing to see how I'm "scrambling to find" those "increasingly bizarre ways to balance it". You do realise that Germany and Austria (and probably China and Russia, as well) had most of their military budget invested in the Army instead of the Navy, don't you? As opposed to, say, Great Britain, which had most of it's budget invested in the Navy? It would be interesting - just as a demonstration - to create a mod giving you nations' Army budgets instead of Navy's - just so you can see the difference. As for ganging up - in every game of RtW3 I played so far, I've had the "Nations X and Y sign a pact to contain Nation Z's aggression" at least once. If that isn't it - I don't know what is. And increase (or decrease) of tensions already has a "nation A's historical enmity with nation B" as a reason, which, along with an 'enemy of my enemy' philosophy and with AI alliances and wars firing off quite regularly enough already - is why I don't think there would be much changes at all. The diplomatic system would, simply, now take into account Army strength, as well as Navy's, when calculating how 'scary' a nation is. I imagine it wouldn't take much for, say, Spain to enlist British (or German) help if attacked by France ... would you? I'm not proposing for the Army operations to be run by the player (just any naval support of them - if required) - to the contrary: since it would be running in the background, a simple (invisible) Army budget (for the invasions and Air Force) - along with the (AI-run) Air Force - would be all that's needed. I have no idea how Invasion resolution is actually done - I'd have to leave that one to @fredrik - but I'd say what I'm suggesting wouldn't be that hard to implement. KISS in any case is my motto.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Apr 8, 2024 22:35:30 GMT -6
Ok, tendravina & blarglol - now I'm curious: what mission creep are you guys talking about? I wasn't proposing any new missions - just more of the old ones: Naval Invasions, Convoy Defence/Attack and Coastal Bombardment. 'cuz, IMHO, more missions => more engagements => more fun ... right? Also, yeah - it would mean that Germany becomes OP and everybody should s#it their pants and gang up on it - or get rekt piecemeal. Austria would now become a major threat to Italy - unless Italy gets a friend to help (like, say, France or even Germany) - which is, once again, historically accurate. And yes, USA would totally capture Canada - which, IMHO, is the only reason the Brits wouldn't want to fight them (like they currently like to do all of the freakin' time) Any Russo-Austrian wars could be resolved in a normal amount of time - since, currently, any war between them is so hard to fight it's insane. In any case, the diplomacy and alliances would be much more crucial in this new paradigm - not to mention that some countries would get a new lease on life. Edit: Oh, and yeah, automatic loss can occur only when your Home Area(s) falls, and you have no allies: if you do have them, then your government is in exile, your ships escape, and you can continue fighting. But all the ships that you were building are now in enemy's hands, and you can only build new ones in your ally's shipyards - also, your budget is slashed, your ships are based in your ally's ports, you can kiss your planes goodbye (unless you have more than one Home Area, that is) and have to use your allies' - and your missile stockpile now comes from your ally, too. So, not fun, but also not the end.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 21, 2023 9:36:16 GMT -6
Okay - I seem to remember something, but I failed to take the screenshot and now I can't post it as proof - but, I seem to remember that MTB's have submerged Torpedo Tubes - which, if I remember it right, can't fire at speeds above 25 knots - and MTB's have a top speed of 40 knots.
So ... they're basically incapable of ever using their torpedoes - which are, let's face it, their only weapon. Could someone verify this for me, please? I currently have no save files in this era, so I can't do it myself ... sorry.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 20, 2023 23:42:25 GMT -6
I played two games of Italy, built MTBS both, and I didn't SEE it once I build them (and see them in battles near my coast) all the time - but yeah, they're really ineffective. Also, AI, in general, is much too afraid to launch torps early on (before torpedo salvoes are an option) - basically they'll only launch them at immobile (sinking) targets. So, yeah: low on numbers and low on aggression = 0 effect. And they're supposed to be the 1890's equivalent of 1930's torpedo bombers ... really dissapointing.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 3, 2023 9:52:29 GMT -6
OK, just to provide an example of what I mean:
Say we have 3 BB Divs: (each with 4 BB's + 2 CL & 2x6 DD Screen) 1st Div: BB's @ 35000 tons, CL's @ 6200 tons and DD's @ 2500 tons = 182,400 tons 2nd Div: BB's @ 30000 tons, CL's @ 5000 tons and DD's @ 2000 tons = 154,000 tons 3rd Div: BB's @ 25000 tons, CL's @ 4000 tons and DD's @ 1500 tons = 126,000 tons
Next, we need 310,000 tons for a battleship encounter: 1. we start at the top and work towards the bottom: 1st Div alone is not enough - we need 2nd as well. 2. we now have 336,400 tons in 1st and 2nd Div - 26,400 tons more than required: we are now looking for the greatest tonnage we can remove without going over this amount 3. 1st BB Div's DD Div has 15000 tons total - greatest tonnage (but still smaller than the excess) available - removing it would leave us with 321,400 tons - 11,400 more than required: and the hunt begins again 4. 2nd BB Div's CL Div has 10000 tons total - again, biggest tonnage available, that's still smaller than excess - removing it leaves us with 311,400 tons - only 1,400 tons more than required - but we have nothing we can remove to make it smaller.
Now, yeah, this had us removing entire Divisions - but if the requirement was, say, 300,000 tons, instead, you could just remove one of the 1st Div's BB's and that'd be it. Alternately, if the requirement was, say, 330,000 tons, we'd just remove a single 1st Div's CL.
Just something to chew over. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jul 3, 2023 9:16:32 GMT -6
Wow ... just wow.
I mean - yeah, I've been seeing stuff like this from the beginning (and - hey - don't listen to those guys, okay: putting your worst ships at the front is an excellent idea - leaves the better ones intact and able to maul the enemy as he spends his ammo on the useless cannon fodder) but the game was new, ship's graphics were nice, the officers were interesting (in a totally non-homosexual kind of way) and I wasn't paying much attention.
Enter the carrier age, however, and the cracks began to show. Now, don't get me wrong: I adore C3I (that's chaos, confusion, cowardice and incompetence, folks - duck those other guys) - show me a CL that's just been torpedoed by her own DD screen that's running away from an enemy battleship (read: KE) that just appeared 2000 yards away on a clear night, and I'm a happy guy.
Still, even with meticulously planned deployments, the C3I reigned (again: not a major problem - used to it from RtW2) - and there were some some posts on this forum about KE's leading Carriers and 2 DD's as main force, and I grew suspicious. So, as a test, I've deliberately removed all the Core and Support connections between the Major divisions (BX, BC, CV and CA) leaving only CL and DD divisions connected (to Majors through Screen role) - and in the next battle (which, fortunately, turned up to be Fleet) I saw the results: wow ... just wow.
A couple of things popped up, though: 1. First Major divisions in each force (BX and CV) had their CL and DD divisions attached correctly: i.e. just like I set them up - everything else, however ... chaos ... beautiful chaos - total and absolute disregard for any orders I've given in the division editor. 2. AI likes to set up the divisions in numbered order - all BX, CV and CL divisions were set up in a nice, neat line from 1st on up - no matter the 'order' on the division editor I assumed thus far - pay attention, everyone. 3. unlike RtW2, AI sets up insane orders like: 2nd and 4th CV Divs supporting 12th DD Div (that is currently Screening 1st CV Div as it's supposed to) and 6th CL Div Screening 4th CL Div Screening 3rd CL Div Screening 2nd CL Div (yes, those are four (4) CL Divs Screening each other) - so, it's new and isn't set up correctly, yet. (meaning: it's a bug even the dev hasn't figured out yet) 4. looks like divisions were 'placed' into the OOB by order of 'rank': first BB's, then CV's, then CA's, then CL's and finally DD's. 5. only DD Div's have been dismembered - all other types of divisions are moved in one piece (might have been a fluke, but still ...) 6. wow ... that's a lot of things
So, it's my strong suspicion (suspicion being the operative word here - since it's the only thing I have) that battle OOB creator is working on a "fill'er up" mode: i.e. he gets the parameters (like: tonnage required) - and then throws Div's and ships into OOB until he meets them (i.e. enough tonnage is in) not caring at all for the division's orders or (possibly) composition.
Therefore, I'd like to propose (for the developer's consideration) that battle OOB creator sub-program adopts a "cut'er down" mode: I.e. takes as many Independent Major (BX, BC, CV and CA only) Divisions (and - most importantly - their subordinates (and their subordinates - and their subordinates' subordinates, and their ... well, you get the picture)) it takes to get above the parameters (i.e. tonnage required) and then start removing ships (or, if necessary, entire Divs) to get to the required parameter.
This would not only preserve the force structure (a win for me) as neatly as possible, but also (possibly) provide a simple (and easy) way to implement it (a win for you) into the game.
Something to think about, anyway. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 23, 2023 22:56:32 GMT -6
As the title says, this is my pitch for the introduction of a (major) component in any national political (and war-making) endeavour: the Army. Naturally, this Army should be AI-run, operating completely independently of the Navy (except when it comes to tension and attacking targets, of course (more on that later)) and, usually, being a bitter rival for the funding provided by the nation's ruler. Also naturally, this is a game centered around the naval battles, so I'm advocating a 'as-minor-modifications-as-possible' approach: nothing major (or fancy) - using mostly what's already provided - and just enough to get the job done. And, after all, let's be honest, here: the Navy cannot win wars by itself - you'll always need boots on the ground to actually end things.
This addition would provide a couple of basic bonuses to the RtW experience:
More Invasions: There are 3 things at play here: 1. Using the current 'invasion' mechanism (and expanding it a bit to include land borders) to enable the neighbouring nations to invade over land (i.e.no Navy assistance necessary = automatic success) - this would simulate the land war waged since the beginning of time. 2. Providing funding for the actual naval invasions (if there are no convenient - friendly - land borders to cross) of the enemy nation's colonies - or even mainland. This would more accurately simulate most of the (for example) US's conflicts up until now - Spanish war of 1898 and Island hopping of WW2 spring immediately to mind - not to mention the Japan's or Britain's ones. 3. Making the 'Home Areas' invade-able gives you a chance to end the war completely in your favour by conquering the enemy's nation. Naturally, this would be quite upsetting to the Admirals (that we are) but, unfortunately, history is full of such examples, so ... yeah.
Army Air Force: More airfields - and planes on them - than you can shake your stick at. On the other hand, you control none of them, and (at best) they'll provide CAP to your ports (and airfields) - and maybe go and raid the enemy's ports (and nearby ships). In any case, this might be an interesting opportunity to provide us (the Admirals) with a dilemma: - Independent Air Force: where we can build ships only (including carriers) but we have no control over aircraft on them. - Partial (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control only the planes on our ships - but not on land. - Full (Army/Navy) Air Force: where we can design, buy and control our (Navy) planes - both on land, and on the sea. Army planes' design and deployment would, naturally, be controlled by the AI - with heavy emphasis on attacking land targets and providing CAP. Also, we might actually get to see a Heavy Bomber in action ... so: pretty please?
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 19, 2023 10:02:49 GMT -6
I'm not sure what Aurora's sandpapering means... Huh - I really expected that someone (anyone) will get the reference. Oh, well - anyway: Aurora is space 4X game with an emphasis on (lots of) spreadsheets, (space)ship design (and associated research) and deployment - as well as logistics. Naturally, missiles (and their development, design, production and distribution - yes, all those parts are required) are a big part of the game, and you can make them in all shapes and sizes for all kinds of purposes (just like everything else in the game) - the game is basically an open sandbox (and that's why we love it - excessive micromanagement notwithstanding). There are no fixed 'types' of missiles, but 2 main uses for them are: anti-ship (ASM) and anti-missile (AMM - think SAM here) missiles. ASM's are (usually) the main ship-killers since their (relatively) massive warhead can punch a large hole in the ship's armour (think AP here) and do some real damage to the interior. But first they have to get past the AMM's (and CIWS-analog) screen and that's not guaranteed. (any that do get through are likely to cause a lot of damage) However, there is another way to get at ships: AMM's themselves. Sure, they have a tiny warhead (just enough to kill a missile) - but there's a lot of them - and enemy AMM's won't get them as much (if at all - the other side will, most likely, be firing at your own ships) - so there will be plenty of hits for you to remove the enemy armour layer by layer (because damage to armour is being tracked) until you finally reach the vulnerable interior. This process has been described as akin to a carpenter removing rough spots on a chunk of wood using sandpaper in order to get that smooth wooden surface he needs.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 17, 2023 8:53:04 GMT -6
LOL! Good to know Aurora's 'sandpapering' is viable here, too.
|
|
|
Post by srndacful on Jun 16, 2023 22:40:58 GMT -6
The game's cruise speed behaves like a fleet manuever speed. Where the fleet has a "battle speed" that all ships can do a fair distance at. Best econimical speeds even into WW2 were at 10 - 12 knots. Wave resistance sill having squared and cubed functions, sharp turning curves, as you speed up. And also, I suppose, to blarglol and arminpfano, too: You also have to remember that different ships have different economical speeds - just like they each have their own (different) maximum speed. And since warships rarely (if ever) travel alone, the main problem here is finding the economical speed of an entire formation of various ships.
|
|