Should I purchase this?

[Steel]

I know the review feature exists, but I am kinda on the fence about it. A lot of them mention flaws with battle generation, war reparations being weird, among other things.

I dunno, I just would like to hear what people playing have to say.

[Peenarse]

I've posted a fair amount about some of the absurd battles I was having before I stopped playing this game at 135 hours.

In my last play I started a new campaign as Japan. Within the first year (before any new ships had been built) I was fighting Russia. Our fleets were approximately equal in the local region, but in the generated battles I was being outnumbered 11-to-1, 5-to-1, 13-to-1 consecutively, with the 1 ship I was given having *lower* tonnage than the *lightest* ship on the enemy side. I had plenty of other eligible ships available and ready, but the generator just chose not to include them.

This was an 1890 start so destroyers weren't a thing, which can sometimes account for apparent numerical imbalances. Nope these were all cruisers and battleships.

The worst part, ironically, is that I was actually winning the war. The battle AI is so weak that it was often possible to cheese out a technical victory just by knowing the AI, where truthfully I should have been resoundingly crushed in all instances. Though it still doesn't answer the question of why my prehistoric 3300 ton, 13 knot "battleship" was going off to raid the enemy coast all by itself while the rest of my fleet stayed in port drinking sake. Something to do with "realism" according to the recent devblog...

But no truthfully the reason I stopped playing was because it just became tediously predictable. The game is all about anticipation for things which never actually happen. You might spend literal hours designing the most impressive new flagship for your navy only to have the battle generator flatly refuse to ever include it in a battle, so it just rots in port slowly becoming more and more obsolete. Or the one time it does make an appearance it'll probably be on its own for some daft, inexplicable reason, or given to the AI for it to dutifully sink with its idiotic behaviour, for which YOU will of course be punished.

In a nutshell, you'll spend the whole time playing always looking forward to that one big set-piece battle that will satisfy all the hours you spent designing ships and balancing budget. And that battle will always be "just one more war" away. And then the game will end.

And this is by design. Don't take my word for it, read the devblog. So no, sadly. I'd look elsewhere. I'd love to love this game, but it's the partner who strings you along on endless hopes and promises, whilst never delivering the goods.

[Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia]

I have once had a fight where the AI had a distinct advantage, 3 destroyers vs a single light cruiser, every single other fight where a distinct advantage existed it favoured me and I had numerical and tonnage advantage in the region.

I have had fights where I had five battleships vs 9 of theirs, but 4 33000t Dreadnoughts and a 37000t dread against 1 sub 20000t dread and 8 pre-dreads isn't exactly favouring the AI.

A 3300t Ironclad isn't worth mentioning.

[ulzgoroth]

I won't deny the game has both quirks and janky points, but it's in a class of its own and certainly a favorite for me.

[Skrain]

Originally posted by Steel:

I know the review feature exists, but I am kinda on the fence about it. A lot of them mention flaws with battle generation, war reparations being weird, among other things.

I dunno, I just would like to hear what people playing have to say.

No, this game is not worth the current asking price. There are fundamental flaws that can not be overcome, nor do the devs seem to want to actually bother with changing. Ignore the fanboys, there are better, cheaper, and reasonable naval games for you to try.

I can not stress to you, how flawed the UI/controls/battle generator is currently.

[nauticalpenguin]

As a "fanboy" I would like to say that this game is fairly niche and not for everyone. I personally enjoyed the previous iteration of this game so much that it was a no contest buy for me as IMO there is no other naval sim with this scope and depth of coverage, (trust me, I have looked and this scratches my itch like no else), so long as graphics are not a major selling point for you.

I personally have little grievances with battle generation, although I will absolutely admit there are some outliers where you are left asking what/why/how (some wars seem to favor small force/ cruiser action only?) , but for the most part the battles I have experienced have been fun, challenging and winnable even at a disadvantage, but not too easy (don't forget you can always run away).

War reparations can also be a bit random but for the most part it seems like if you are winning by a good ratio you will get better rewards, for example if you have 10,000 vp and the enemy 1000, it seems you are more likely to get a favorable peace than if you had 100,000 vp and the enemy had say 20,000 (10:1 vs 5:1)
The main thing that causes frustration with this imo is the player is the head of the navy, not head of state, so while you have some influence over war/peace negotiations, the ultimate decision is not up to the player and your choices may be entirely ignored by politicians

I would call the UI/controls dated, but not flawed. it does not take long at all to grasp them, though some look through the manual would be very helpful to a new player

[bthom37]

I've got hundreds of hours in the game. I don't mind the battle generation - yes, sometimes it's wonky, but wonky naval battles certainly happened.

My main complaints are about the missile/plane balance in the endgame. I definitely am happy to have bought the game - I'm hopeful things will continue to improve, and the dev has released a few beta patches that improve things as well. The war reparations issue is one I'm honestly not familiar with? Territories are fairly meaningless because most colonies by the time portrayed in the game weren't hugely rewarding to the home country. They give you better land bases and air bases, kind of like the island hopping campaign of WWII. Pretending that a colony you've suddenly conquered would be a huge source of revenue to the conquerors is ahistorical, to say the least.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Skrain:

Originally posted by Steel:

I know the review feature exists, but I am kinda on the fence about it. A lot of them mention flaws with battle generation, war reparations being weird, among other things.

I dunno, I just would like to hear what people playing have to say.

No, this game is not worth the current asking price. There are fundamental flaws that can not be overcome, nor do the devs seem to want to actually bother with changing. Ignore the fanboys, there are better, cheaper, and reasonable naval games for you to try.

I can not stress to you, how flawed the UI/controls/battle generator is currently.

UI and controls are at worst the same as the previous game. They're not great, but they're serviceable. Battle generator...I dunno, I'm pretty sure I've never actually had it bother me the way it does some complainers.

I'd love to hear about any other game that comes close to doing what RTW3 does, though. I don't believe there are any (UAD being the only thing even trying at all) but it is, after all, a niche field.

[Steel]

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

Originally posted by Skrain:

No, this game is not worth the current asking price. There are fundamental flaws that can not be overcome, nor do the devs seem to want to actually bother with changing. Ignore the fanboys, there are better, cheaper, and reasonable naval games for you to try.

I can not stress to you, how flawed the UI/controls/battle generator is currently.

UI and controls are at worst the same as the previous game. They're not great, but they're serviceable. Battle generator...I dunno, I'm pretty sure I've never actually had it bother me the way it does some complainers.

I'd love to hear about any other game that comes close to doing what RTW3 does, though. I don't believe there are any (UAD being the only thing even trying at all) but it is, after all, a niche field.

That's the draw to me is the level of customization and what-not. Other navel games either are limited by era, like AA Dreadnoughts and don't have stuff like carriers.

This game LOOKS like it has all of that and that's really cool... What about Alt-history stuff? I am aware you don't run your country but can you shape the world by winning or losing?

If Germany wins WW1 I assume WW2 would be different, or China winning the Opium Wars. Does the game follow set events or is it more freeform?

[Skrain]

Replying to Ulzgoroth, cool, a game that came out four years ago, and then its sequel had zero improvement of its UI/Controls, that's a real top tier selling point!

To Steel, no, winning wars doesn't really change history at all. Research is actually all historical based, with some randomness that apparently can't be calculated because the devs don't want to disclose that information. So basically, the top tier powers, will always be that, and there's nothing you can do to change it. An example of this is, nations have home territories, and nothing you can do will change them, or harm them in the long run.

[Beer_Brigade]

For the money I'd say wait. I'm enjoying the game but with so many aspects of the game outside of player control (starting/ending wars, battle generation, negotiations, tech advancing, etc) it is hard to justify the selling price. I'm not sure if divisions make any difference or not to battle generation.

My battle generation has been pretty crazy. 3 KEs vs 1 BC, 1 CL vs Convoy (2B, 3CA, 4CL, 8DD), 2BB vs 8BB, 20DD, Coastal raids with one or two KE.

[ulzgoroth]

Originally posted by Steel:

Originally posted by ulzgoroth:

UI and controls are at worst the same as the previous game. They're not great, but they're serviceable. Battle generator...I dunno, I'm pretty sure I've never actually had it bother me the way it does some complainers.

I'd love to hear about any other game that comes close to doing what RTW3 does, though. I don't believe there are any (UAD being the only thing even trying at all) but it is, after all, a niche field.

That's the draw to me is the level of customization and what-not. Other navel games either are limited by era, like AA Dreadnoughts and don't have stuff like carriers.

This game LOOKS like it has all of that and that's really cool... What about Alt-history stuff? I am aware you don't run your country but can you shape the world by winning or losing?

If Germany wins WW1 I assume WW2 would be different, or China winning the Opium Wars. Does the game follow set events or is it more freeform?

It's not really a historical game at all. There's no WWI, no Opium Wars, none of that. You could say it's more free-form, though to the point that it may not offer much to somebody there for alt-history outside of alt-historical ships.

There might be some quasi-historical leaning in certain events, but big on the quasi. In my recent game, for instance, France became fascist and maybe Russia became communist, not sure. Spain, Italy, and Germany never became fascist, though. Largely just randomness.

You do shape the world some by winning and losing, or by how you win and lose. Social unrest happens under certain circumstances (long wars, blockade stress, and excessively high peacetime military budgets come to mind) and high unrest results in government upheavals. You can drive your enemies, and sometimes your own state, into revolution using this.

Plus you can make non-core territories change hands, but those are mostly low-value as the game progresses. (Except Panama and Egypt, for control over their respective canals.)

[nauticalpenguin]

Originally posted by Skrain:

Replying to Ulzgoroth, cool, a game that came out four years ago, and then its sequel had zero improvement of its UI/Controls, that's a real top tier selling point!

To Steel, no, winning wars doesn't really change history at all. Research is actually all historical based, with some randomness that apparently can't be calculated because the devs don't want to disclose that information. So basically, the top tier powers, will always be that, and there's nothing you can do to change it. An example of this is, nations have home territories, and nothing you can do will change them, or harm them in the long run.

I would like to say that while top tier powers will always be on top compared to lesser AI countries, it is absolutely possible for the player to grow a small nation to compete with and out class most of the powers. I have a game as Austria Hungary from 1890 - 1935 and I have a higher budget then everyone except USA and Great Britain. Also my tech score is tied with Britain and Germany, only being surpassed by the US. It takes decades in-game and you need to focus VPs on economy growth rather than colonies but certainly possible. I mostly play the smaller nations because I find the larger ones a bit annoying to manage in the later years once you have 100+ ships and a few thousand aircraft zipping about

[Silamon]

Originally posted by Skrain:

Replying to Ulzgoroth, cool, a game that came out four years ago, and then its sequel had zero improvement of its UI/Controls, that's a real top tier selling point!

To Steel, no, winning wars doesn't really change history at all. Research is actually all historical based, with some randomness that apparently can't be calculated because the devs don't want to disclose that information. So basically, the top tier powers, will always be that, and there's nothing you can do to change it. An example of this is, nations have home territories, and nothing you can do will change them, or harm them in the long run.

If you bought the game expecting improvements in those areas the only one you have to blame is yourself.

It was *well* documented what the differences were in RTW3 vs rtw2.

But I assume you know this, you just want to throw dirt at the game some more.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by nauticalpenguin:

Originally posted by Skrain:

Replying to Ulzgoroth, cool, a game that came out four years ago, and then its sequel had zero improvement of its UI/Controls, that's a real top tier selling point!

To Steel, no, winning wars doesn't really change history at all. Research is actually all historical based, with some randomness that apparently can't be calculated because the devs don't want to disclose that information. So basically, the top tier powers, will always be that, and there's nothing you can do to change it. An example of this is, nations have home territories, and nothing you can do will change them, or harm them in the long run.

I would like to say that while top tier powers will always be on top compared to lesser AI countries, it is absolutely possible for the player to grow a small nation to compete with and out class most of the powers. I have a game as Austria Hungary from 1890 - 1935 and I have a higher budget then everyone except USA and Great Britain. Also my tech score is tied with Britain and Germany, only being surpassed by the US. It takes decades in-game and you need to focus VPs on economy growth rather than colonies but certainly possible. I mostly play the smaller nations because I find the larger ones a bit annoying to manage in the later years once you have 100+ ships and a few thousand aircraft zipping about

Everybody is talking about that VP for economy trade but what does this mean in particular?

[Lucky]

As for the main question.

I'm in the same situation. But most likely will buy the game today.