|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 15, 2015 21:15:39 GMT -6
No armor on the secondary turrets? Kabooom!! |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 13, 2015 18:07:19 GMT -6
I agree. I think a good implementation would be an alternate game pace that advances weekly rather than monthly per turn. Yes, that would be a start, but for a real "marathon" experience the game also needs to be slowed down in the pace of technology as measured in ship build time so that you get full technology generations out, use tehm in battle and eventually mothball and/or scrap them to make "budget space" for a new generation (two or three "generations" more modern). At the moment the lifetime of a technological generation can be single digit months from state of the art to useful but obsoletes. But the press of the game pace is such that you almost never really reach that "hopelessly obsolete, must scrap" since the replacement time realtive to total game time is too long. That said, changing to weekly turns and keeping the build time in turns as well as the revenue in turns with everything else still taking the same amount of "game months" might work if tension gowth was curbed as well. That could be a workaround for easier implementation. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 13, 2015 7:25:31 GMT -6
This post is about game experience and a way to give us more variability in that to further enhance the long term playability of the game. For this I suggest something which comes with a huge disconnect with "historical" gaming but may enhance the player experience.
At the moment the game does one thing very well, it depicts the frantic nature of the historic "dreadnought race" with unbelievably quick technology progress.
But sometimes I would like to have a more "relaxed" pace, with the speed of the strategic game layer slowed down so that factors like naval treaties, "lucky" draws in R&D etc. have more time to affect the game experience. At the moment the sheer speed of technological development and tension growth mean that some "lucky" R&D draws and naval treaties can have only low effects on the gameplay.
With "4X standard options" like "marathon play" (e.g. 2 or 3 times game length with R&D and Tension growth reduced to 1/2 respective 1/3 but build times staing the same) we could have more diversity in game experience. Of course games in this mode would depart strongly from any simulation of historic reality, but, hey, it's a game...
I want to have distinct "technological generations" in my fleet where there really is a need to mothball/scrap to make "budget space" for new designs. I want naval treaties that really hold for several years respectively hundreds of turns and not just serve as a cut-off for current build projects and are negated when war breaks out some 8-18 months/turns later. I want "width" and "duration" for the technological "stages" of my fleet designs when creativity in ship design really counts, that is more time to "play" with those "strange" designs like cross-deck etc. before technological progress allows the "ideal" configurations.
Since we already have four "game modes" where "budget size" is the variable could we get another four variables like "normal speed, half speed, third speed, quarter speed"? In the last case the game would last 100 years...
Alternatively, if it is easier to program because there are date-related aspects of the game engine, we could have more turns per year, with budget per turn and build times per turn staying the same but research time/effort being "per year" teh same as in "vanilla". Then we would have a slight "disconnect" in that with a turn per week a battleship could be built in half a year but that disconnect would be the same with a dreadnought game lasting 100 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 13, 2015 7:01:00 GMT -6
Those mounts are still "singles" individually. Keep in mind you can add up to 62 casemate guns (14 main, 24 secondary, 24 tertiary) to a design, but only the 14 primary and 14 of the secondary casemate guns will be represented on the game view. So one can assume that, for instance) the additional secondary casemate guns over 14 are "stacked" below or above the others. In the side view additional casemate guns can be manually placed so you can get some graphical representation for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 11, 2015 21:05:14 GMT -6
Are you playing at "Captain" setting and directly controlling the ships? I have never taken on sirvivors with a directly controlled ship or force.
If you have AI controlled DD or CL in Support or Screening forces and then approach the wrecks (or own ships in "sinking state") with your main force you get the option to detach one or more DD/CL to take on survivors. They do so under AI control and rejoin their original force after having taken on the surivors. My record was a single 600 ton DD taking on more than 800 survivors from about half of the RN homefleet...
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 11, 2015 19:20:44 GMT -6
I actually like the escort AI behaviour but have lately switched to "Captain" realism setting to use them more aggressively. I take direct control in lieu of the "flotilla attack" button. But the escorts overall behave very well, more or less (that is more remarkable than perfectly) keeping station, with automatic detachments to escort damaged capital ships that ffall out of the battleline etc. The "Flotilla Attack" also works well with intermediate torpedo technology. Only early on, when range is too short, and very late, when the range in slow setting is very long, the AI does stupid things, i.e. either not closing in enough for an attack or firing at extreme range, even from the non-engaged side, which endangers the own battleline.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 10, 2015 4:24:08 GMT -6
"Turn together" means the ships will not maintain fomation but all turn at the same time. They will only re-enter any formation after "turn together" is deselected. One big difficulty I have with "turn together" is that SPACE is not just the "one turn more" key in tactical battle but also the select/deselect key for the whole interface and after I use the mouse to select "turn together" the "cursor" "hangs" to that flag, the first press of SPACE after then deselects "turn together" and only then the next SPACE press advances the turn. I have to click with the mouse into the speed setting window to set the cursor somewhere else to avoid this. Is there a way to select another key for "one turn more"?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 10, 2015 4:17:20 GMT -6
I had the same happening in some "modded" games. This happens to me when I have a significant lead in dock size and technology. The AI does not seem to check whethter a war is going on when selecting for foreign or domestic build and for what foreign nation to build in to boot.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 3, 2015 6:21:21 GMT -6
Mission trumps formation. Guess your DD's are "Screen". Switch them to "Support".
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 29, 2015 16:56:21 GMT -6
I purchased RTW yesterday and installed it as well as the 1.23 Update. If I exit the game and come back later, I get a Cannot Create file error when the game tries to autosave or I try to save manually. It also has Map errors and loading shop template errors. Once this happens, there is no way to play. One possibility: My OS is on C:, but I installed the game on D:. That is where it says it is trying to save to, and where the game is being run from. I reinstalled the game and was able to start over that way, but the problems reappeared after I exited and came back latter. Has anyone else seen this? I would prefer to avoid installing the game on my OS drive, but would that make a difference? Running a fully update version of Windows 10. Thanks! Tony Sounds like you are not logged in as administrator in your machine. The game works the first time because it is launched tgrough the install program (for which you have to use administrator privileges). When you launch again it is without admin privileges, which could result in the inability to write to disk. Solution: Right click on the .exe, select "run as administrator" Hope my diagnosis is correct and this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 28, 2015 9:21:59 GMT -6
When refitting bulged ships (e.g. the second refit after the one in which the Bulge was applied) the "Bulged" box is ticked. If you then save the rebuld desing and do the rebuilds the speed malus for bulging is applied again, i.e. if a battleship had 22kn speed to begin with, lost 2 in the first refit in which it received the bulge, coming down to 20kn it ends up at 18kn with the next refit.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 24, 2015 10:45:29 GMT -6
Will this also apply to automatically ("AI") generated designs?
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 22, 2015 10:12:21 GMT -6
I had a good experiencce wih dropbox
|
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 21, 2015 2:24:32 GMT -6
The relationship with Russia would be an interesting one due to the shared religion. The Russians tended to regard the Balkans as within their sphere of influence as this area was predominantly Orthodox. How would the relationship be with another Orthodox nation in the area? If the relationship was a friendly one, this could give the Russians access to the Med with interesting possibilities. Russian history would have turned ot vastly different with a surviving Byzantium. OTL their self-image is that of being the successor to Byzantium, they derive and justify much of their seeking religious and regional dominance from that. Their very nation and its institutions as well as internal makeup has been shaped in the conflict with the Muslim nations on its southern border. A surviving Byzantium isolates them from most of that and becomes their adversary instead once their expansion hits the Crimea/Georgia region. End result could be a Russia that becomes Catholic in the 14th or its own flavour of Protestant in the 15-16th century to get a religious emancipation from Byzantium and get religious justifcation for the conflict... |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 18, 2015 2:52:29 GMT -6
Or just get a placenames collection for the relevant country and use it as the "goto" names register when the historical names for that class already in the file are all in use. Doesn't matter ther never was a USS Milltown or that the name USS Arlington has only been used after the period the game covers and for ship types not represented in the game to boot. In the same vein we could see a SMS Buchholz, a HMS Guildford, a IJN Yokosuka or a FS Montpellier... i can do that - i don't see an [MS] list though, do MS use AMC names or something? This was more meant as a suggestion for Frederik, that we need an additional "alternative names" list with generic names that can be used for any class when the names in the dedicated list are all in use. Using placenames (cities, towns) for this is most likely to be easy and stay in "tone". |
|
