ideas for rtw4 or for mods

[czert2]

economy

first, i will love to have more control over state economy (and displaying various states of it). as of now, there isnt much of profit from deciding to get money cut in favor of building more railroads, budget increase from it is small, and doest look it will pay of in long term.
so some indication of how well state econom is doing (and will be affceted by this) will be great, with states of economy like - bankrupt, poor, ok, expanding, booming...etc.

same goes for eduation, some states start with poor education, some with excelent, with no posibility to change it during gameplay, yet it have great effects gameplay wise. will love posibity to influence it (read accept budget cuts to improve education and speed of inventing new tech)

and as subsection of state economy we will have steel production, and i dont care much if it will be shown in toones or it will be abstract like minimal, enough, exporting,importing, world leader in export...etc.
since i realy hate when i refit/build many ships only to see that ship xxxx construction was delayed because lack of steel, and can do nothing about it.

and as budget wise, game is geared imo into way that player allways most profit - booth short and long term - by allways selection options which will give him bigest budget increase.

and i will love if there is posibility to expand shipyard capacity, since now you cant do it, preventing some historical build ups.
yes, i know you can increase max ship displacement which increase shipyard capacity, but once you hit 100 000, you cant increase your shipyard capacity anymore, you did hit ceiling.

now lets move to diplomacy.

i will love if player will have more control on diplomacy, with posibility to sugest some things to goverment , like invade colony xxxx (to secure oil, strategic bases...ect) which can be rejected.

same goes for increasing/decreasing relationsphip with xxxxx state.

posibility to manualy start buy/sell/gift technology to state xxxx

technology

well, these are ideas just how to make battleship yamato posible in game, no idea if make it universal of just japan only

first is technology which will give us posibility to reduce weight of deck armor. with current technology/concept it is imposible to recreate yamato in its idea - to be armed with 3x3 18in guns and be imune to them over certain range, even with 100 000 tons limit.

second technology is simple too - it will allow us to centerline mounts for secondary guns too.

third will be universal - it will increase ship stability , allow us to mount more things on ship. not only to simulate how many aaa did yamato have in his later refit.

new playable countries

not only for more variety, but more realism too
add these pls - turkey, belgium, netherlands

well, that is all for now.

[EvanJones]

and as budget wise, game is geared imo into way that player always most profit - booth short and long term - by always selection options which will give him biggest budget increase.

You have to beware that creeping peacetime overspending unrest, though. That keeps you in line a bit. (Even the fascists, being pirates, want to live high on the hog on stolen loot, NOT a life under the burden of of Full War Production.) I think it's a function of economy divided by base. So the higher your base, the higher your budget can get without causing too much unrest.

Budget is highly variable, but bounces up and down around a function of your your base resources. By boosting base resources -- RRs, etc., and taking reparations instead of colonies -- you can ramp up your base resources in a big way. It's not immediately obvious, but it's there.

E.g., as Italy, I can blockade and heavily extort Austria Hungary by treaty, definitely rejecting Dalmatia (etc.), which is to be taken by force, not as loot. That way you wind up with Dalmatia (+ prestige from the attendant battles!) AND those 6 points added to your economy, points that you would have spent on taking it. Unlike colonies, those reparations bucks don't fade out, they compound. Italy can easily wind up as #3 economy in the world, or even #2.

(This is not a universal rule. Sometimes you want to grab it all, sometimes you grab just enough for an expansion foothold and the rest in reps, mix and match. Depends on who you are, when it is, and "circumstances", which is one of the huge strengths of this game.)

[czert2]

so taking colonies doesnt increase your base income ? i thought rhat colonies allways increase your basic income (resources), even by minimal amount (1).

[WLRoo]

so taking colonies doesnt increase your base income ? i thought rhat colonies allways increase your basic income (resources), even by minimal amount (1).

Nope, Colonial Income is it's own section to allow for it being high in the early game and low in the mid-late game.

As for the choice of budget increase or invest in railways/highways:

The budget increase only affects your modifier, and will usually get countered within 6 months.

The Investment bonus, on the other hand, adds directly to your base resources and thereby benefits from your twice-yearly (3 times for nations with, I think, GGP) % increases in base resources. I think the same is true of investing in Social Programmes, with the added benefit of cutting Unrest.

[EvanJones]

You get a 200 bump to your base economy for either RRs or highways. As this compounds over time, I take them over the more attractive option in spite of the fact that I am a strictly prestige player. (Also the option to get rid of Caution, no matter WHAT it costs in prestige! You will lose more prestige in the long run if you don't.)

If you reject colonies for the base bump after you win a war, you will have a roaring economy before long . . .

[mrchuck]

Chipping in on this topic, I don't like the way prestige and possessions is working.

As noted in my recent AAR, (Here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6#p5206196, in the entry for September 1922) I think it's highly anachronistic to not make prestige an issue with possessions. For at least half of the period modelled by the game, the colonies were what it was all about. It took two world wars to cure people of this delusion (no land game in RTW, but think about the objectives of Barbarossa and extrapolate. And recall that in WW1 the Germans won the Eastern Front and took Ukraine)

Instead the player is usually given a clear choice between the rational course, to take an economic boost, and the mostly insane one of taking over a territory which likely will cost more than it returns. There are some exceptions to this, with possessions whose strategic value is obvious, but for all the smaller or out of the way ones, why would you bother?

I propose instead that declining to take any possessions offered should be --P, because in the minds of ruling elites and the masses at the time and until quite recently, this is what successful wars were about. Just taking a payoff would have been considered supine, barbarous and dishonourable, and given rise to pointed questions like what was this war for, anyway?

Taking a possession by invasion should be a prestige booster at all times, perhaps in line with its value. With the converse risk of losing P if it gets taken off you again by invasion.

Loss of possessions in peace deals, no need to change that as the P loss is already modelled by VPs and the battles which lead to it. But any you still own, are and remain bargaining chips on the peace tables.

I don't think the game puts the player firmly enough in the mindset of pre-ww2 (and even post, why on earth fight for Indochina?). Instead the game rewards giving colonies independence, which is very much looking at things with 2025 goggles and not 1925, and which I don't think is appropriate even in 1970, if you substitute Cold War terminology for imperialist.

Loss of a possession to an independence movement should always be -P to encourage the player to try to prevent it. For a period ending in 1970, I think this is still appropriate. You tell me if this event from 1975 is + or - prestige for USA:

Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg (56.18 KiB) Viewed 529 times

I remember watching it unfold on the news, and the answer was pretty obvious at the time.

[thedoctorking]

I disagree that picking a bigger budget is always the best choice. I almost always pick the increased economy option when those choices come up, especially in the early game. The issue is, the political system can (almost always will) take that budget increase away from you if tension is low, whereas your economy base is only going to get bigger. Also, a too-large budget results in more population unrest, which could ultimately lead to a revolution while you are at war, imposing terrible peace conditions on you.

BTW, the collapse in revolution peace should only apply to the country that collapsed; other countries on that side should still be able to stay in the fight. Example: Russia in 1917-18.

I agree that there should be something you can do about low education levels - for example, the option that allows you to choose social programs in response to an economic downturn should also increase education level. Maybe there should be a greater range of education levels from abysmal (China and Spain) through a range of mediocre (Italy, Russia), okay (GB, Japan, AH) to excellent (US, Germany). A 1-10 scale like for relations seems appropriate.

I think that the steel production buff/malus is based on historical production levels and geography. Don't know if it changes over time, like with Japan in the 1930s-50s?

[Alan McDonald]

So what role do we have in playing Rule the Waves? Are we the grand admiral of the fleet, or perhaps the political leader of the Navy? In either case, we would have no (Admiral) or limited (politician) decision making ability for education, budget or economy. If I were to make suggestions on improvements, I would suggest possibly adopting a task force system at some point in the 1930's, a spreadsheet to track your ship classes, and possibly expand the logistical aspects of the game by the addition of designing and building logistical, and perhaps amphib vessels.

[mrchuck]

The Strike panel could use some work.

As others have noted, you seem to get the 'Strike landing after dusk' warning regardless of the actual time of day.

The selection list of available targets is a bit of a mess and it would great to be able to sort these by level of confidence or something other than just the name. I don't have a carrier battle open at the moment so I can't remember if you get to use range for sorting. If not, that would be nice.

I always get the 'Co-ordinate strike?' message whether or not I have this tech. Annoying. Should be default once you do (you should be able to change it if you need to get strikes away ASAP) and not shown if you don't.

A 'recall strike' option would be good once you have voice comms, at the risk of giving away your position if not already known. Often there are no viable targets left by the time the flyboys finally get their act together to appear on the scene. Needless to commit strikes if that happens--or indeed, if your carriers unexpectedly have to make a run for it.

Same goes for a 'redirect strike' option. Good grief, 'Carrier Strike' (SSG, great game for its day) had this 30 years ago!

For the record I still believe that the logic of giving possessions independence is 180 degrees from what it should be. There should be a P incentive for the player to hang on to them, and P penalty for losing them them via rebellion or invasion. There should be a P bonus for taking them by invasion.

Think Singapore 1942! Great Britain ---Prestige! Japan +++! As was recognised at the time...

[WLRoo]

The Strike panel could use some work.

As others have noted, you seem to get the 'Strike landing after dusk' warning regardless of the actual time of day.

I find this only happens if you try to launch too large a strike. Once I kept the size of my strikes down I never got the message.

The selection list of available targets is a bit of a mess and it would great to be able to sort these by level of confidence or something other than just the name. I don't have a carrier battle open at the moment so I can't remember if you get to use range for sorting. If not, that would be nice.

I always get the 'Co-ordinate strike?' message whether or not I have this tech. Annoying. Should be default once you do (you should be able to change it if you need to get strikes away ASAP) and not shown if you don't.

The tech is for co-ordinating strikes from multiple carriers - you can still co-ordinate a strike from a single carrier.

A 'recall strike' option would be good once you have voice comms, at the risk of giving away your position if not already known. Often there are no viable targets left by the time the flyboys finally get their act together to appear on the scene. Needless to commit strikes if that happens--or indeed, if your carriers unexpectedly have to make a run for it.

Same goes for a 'redirect strike' option. Good grief, 'Carrier Strike' (SSG, great game for its day) had this 30 years ago!

Probably a bit later than that - whilst voice comms existed during WW2 they were mostly short ranged.

For the record I still believe that the logic of giving possessions independence is 180 degrees from what it should be. There should be a P incentive for the player to hang on to them, and P penalty for losing them them via rebellion or invasion. There should be a P bonus for taking them by invasion.

Think Singapore 1942! Great Britain ---Prestige! Japan +++! As was recognised at the time...

[thedoctorking]

You should also have the ability to end flight operations for a carrier if you need to move them quickly. One of the most annoying features of the carrier game is when you know an enemy ASuW force is steaming towards your carriers and you tell them to move in a particular direction at top speed, but that direction happens to be downwind, so they repeatedly turn back towards the enemy to land planes, launch CAP or search planes, or whatever. You should be able to decide that you are not going to launch or retrieve planes, and if the planes run out of gas, well that's what air/sea rescue is for. You can set them to minimal CAP and no search, but they are still going to retrieve planes that are up already and operate that minimal CAP whether it is safe for them or not. If they are actually under fire from enemy surface ships, they will run, but by that point it is often too late to save them.

And you should also be able to redirect carrier planes to land at nearby land bases, especially at night.

[thedoctorking]

And turning into the wind to land/launch aircraft is not absolutely essential for carriers, even in the old days. This is especially true when winds are low. I've had carriers turning into the nominal wind when wind speed is listed as calm. Maybe planes could land on carriers steaming somewhere other than directly into the wind with a slightly increased chance of a landing accident.

[mrchuck]

You should also have the ability to end flight operations for a carrier if you need to move them quickly. One of the most annoying features of the carrier game is when you know an enemy ASuW force is steaming towards your carriers and you tell them to move in a particular direction at top speed, but that direction happens to be downwind, so they repeatedly turn back towards the enemy to land planes, launch CAP or search planes, or whatever. You should be able to decide that you are not going to launch or retrieve planes, and if the planes run out of gas, well that's what air/sea rescue is for. You can set them to minimal CAP and no search, but they are still going to retrieve planes that are up already and operate that minimal CAP whether it is safe for them or not. If they are actually under fire from enemy surface ships, they will run, but by that point it is often too late to save them.

Strongly agree. A believe I've seen a few accounts of strikes having to ditch for this reason, and be picked up by surface forces (or not...).

And you should also be able to redirect carrier planes to land at nearby land bases, especially at night.

Not so sure about this. Realistic, and the Japanese did this a lot in 1944 (with absolutely no useful result, but that was for other reasons), but could lead to a hell of a mess trying to sort it out with the current air group management. Which leads me to another item...please, can we please have multiple select for 'Auto Add air groups'. And extend the 'Copy Air group' functionality so you don't have to hand craft each base, also with multiple select, so you can design your air group structure the minimum number of times.

Division editor: Once you start expanding your empire into multiple sea areas (Ger, Jap) or if it starts that way (everyone else but esp GB) it is increasingly difficult to keep track of which bits of each division are where, especially as things start to be stuck in the yard for repairs etc and with FS and so on.

I would love to see an option to 're-unite division' or some such wording to move all the scattered bits of a division back to where it's supposed to be, without having to scan an ever-lengthening list of ships to see what is where. Alternatively, it would be nifty if ships under repair were automatically sent to wherever their division was on completion.

This is what naval staffs are for, and it seems not unreasonable to delegate this type of micromanagement to the computer.

Also good would be some functionality to automatically rotate ships in and out of FS after some configurable amount of turns so that essential refits and maintenance are done from time to time. This also becomes increasingly labour intensive as fleets and commitments expand. This is a yet another very boring staff function which is not much fun in the game.

Another thing lacking in the Division Editor is that the Location column isn't populated until you expand the divisions. What I'd like to see here is Location at the top level, and sortable, so you can actually manage area-based fleets properly.

More on invasions: there should be a prestige loss for unsuccessful ones where the invading forces are defeated. Examples:
British: Gallipoli 1915
Italian: Egypt 1940
British: Dieppe 1942 (whatever that actually was, the German press made a meal of wrecked British gear on the beach)
German: Egypt 1942
British: Dodocanese 1943
Allied: Normandy 1944 had the weather stayed bad for another 24 hours resulting in cancellation. In the event, quite the opposite, Eisenhower's fears were not realised.
These were all globally recognised as larger or smaller disasters for the invaders (with the obvious exception of Overlord), at the time.

As the game sits, you only lose money for simply abandoning an invasion force to its fate by withdrawing the fleet if you feel the need to. Most unrealistic.

[thedoctorking]

You can move a division to an area and all ships in that division will try to go there (even if otherwise engaged on FS or what have you).

I agree about the loss of prestige for a failed amphibious invasion. There could also be a type of scenario for evacuations, where you start with transports in the vicinity of the invasion and you have to get them safely out of air range from the enemy's coast or lose even more prestige.

[mrchuck]

Yes! That would be a very interesting new mission type.

[macroeconomics]

I think the next logical step would be to introduce player initiated operational level missions. Right now the player can move (or keep) his ships into an area and if something happens, it happens. Many players complain that much time can pass and nothing happens. By giving the player an additional amount of agency in fleet operations this gameplay issue can be addressed.

Each player initiated mission would require a certain amount of "Planning" points, a new type of resource. Planning points would be received slowly during peacetime and with a low maximum amount capable of being stored. Conducting fleet exercises would grant a one time boost in Planning points. During wartime the rate of planning points received would increase and the maximum amount capable of being stored would increase. The amount of planning points received could be made dependent on the Fleet Tactics research category or on a new research category, "Fleet Operations".

The type of player initiated missions would be varied. Simple ones such as designating a few ships to run a blockade would cost a lower amount of Planning points. More complex missions such as offering Fleet Battle or Invading a province would cost more Planning points. The more ships involved in the mission, the greater the number of Planning points required. Once the Planning points are spent, there'd be a random chance that the mission would not occur due to weather, enemy subs torpedoing a key ship, mechanical breakdowns, etc. The random chance could be made dependent on time of year (for weather), presence of enemy subs (for torpedoing a key ship), etc. If the mission is scrubbed, the player receives half of the amount of Planning points back. He can plan the same mission again for a later date if he spends the full amount of Planning points needed.

If the player initiated mission does occur, then the opposing player (presumably the AI), gets the option to oppose the mission, similar to any other randomly generated encounter.

[thedoctorking]

I really like that idea. This puts the player more in the position of the Chief of Naval Operations, rather than as a tactical commander.