JaM

Problem with this formulae is, that sometimes, certain countries might not have sizeable navy.. so getting to 10000 VP id quite problematic.. Also, sometimes, its very hard to blockade them because they have ports on all oceans (russia for example) I think there should be some bonus to VP value, based on number of ships country has. some dynamic value, where value of the ship is increased in small navies, and values of ships is smaller for huge navies.. after all, historically speaking - if small nation loses a CL its a sizeable bigger problem for them to replace it, than losing a BB for Great Britain..

Well, That should be something they should fix as first..

Yeah, i think if you move through their zone of control, there should be always battle following.. AI can always decide to run, but force them do so on the battlefield.

Game is quite less responsive now with latest patch.. Clicking on research priorities results in 1sec delay, turns seems to take a lot longer with AI ship building or mission generating in the background..

These are technicalities of the ship design, i'm talking about gun ballistics. Muzzle velocity simply allows you to hit moving target easier, because time it takes for shell to fly to a distance is shorter for faster shells, therefore any particular aiming mistakes are less pronounced with faster shells.. Its practically same thing with Tank on Tank combat - high muzzle velocity means that at certain distances fire control system is not as impactful as it is at long distances.. typically, 1200m is seen as "boresight range" - distance at which any particular aiming errors don't play as much role, as projectile will hit within 1 second and if gunner fires with target in sight, there is a high probability he will hit. At longer ranges fire control system is required to properly adjust for distance, as gun dispersion plays bigger role, and getting the target distance right is a lot more important. (and mind you, tanks are a lot smaller than ships, so it would be a lot easier to hit enemy ship at 1000m than it is with tanks |assuming calm weather of course)

I think Short range accuracy is very bad in the game right now. Heavy guns are more accurate at short ranges than medium ones, which makes them ideal at killing fast small ships. Destroyers in particular have a huge problem surviving close to enemy BBs, but not because of secondary battery, but because of main guns, which just doesnt make sense. In real world, short range (1000-2000m) accuracy against moving target is more of a function of Muzzle speed than gun dispersion. High muzzle speed compensates for enemy movement better, as you hit target as it gets in your sights - If shell has speed of 1000m/s and you are firing at 1000m distance, then shell will hit the target in approx 1s (slightly more, but lets use this approximation for simplicity), so aiming errors are compensated by it.. As range gets longer, muzzle speed plays less and less role in accuracy formulae, up to be almost irrelevant, while gun dispersion plays major or dominant role at firing at longer distances (5-10km+) Right now, 12inch guns despite having muzzle speed around 500-600m/s have 90%+ accuracy at 1000m.. while 5inch guns with 1000m/s (lengthened barrels) are at best at 40-50%.. If anything, this should be the other way around.. Make muzzle velocity important for accuracy at 1000-2000m, and keep accuracy important for ranges above 3000m.. Short range accuracy was the main goal of secondary weapons on ships, yet currently, main battery does this just fine.. Right now, im often having better accuracy with secondary guns at longer range than main guns due to rate of fire and fast range acquisition, while Main guns are more effective at short range due to their crazy short range accuracy.. It really should be the other way around...

Minor UI thing, but sometimes Ship model (corner) is too big so it obscures damage percentages:

What exactly is going on here? why i have these attachment slots outside of ship hull?? Its US Heavy Cruiser I

Is smoke reducing torpedo spotting? one thing that is quite strange now, is AI smoking the area completely to hide themselves, but then it is still able to dodge torpedoes.. And I'm not playing late game stuff with sonars, but early game around 1900-1910.. during those times, visual spotting was the only way how to spot them, so i would assume using smoke screen would make it harder..

Same fleet took Gibraltar just fine.. had option to start invasion without any issues there... but cant do the same with Cyprus or Malta..

I have a fleet near enemy island, yet there is no chance to initiate invasion. Why?

While generating new campaign, game gets stuck May 1886.. seen this multiple times in the past, but due to fact its during campaign generation, i was unable to generate bug report..

I'm at war with russia, but at peace with China, Germany and Spain.. yet, all of these are present as defending force fighting me.. why?

SUGGESTION - i think supply of OIL should also depend on status of trade fleet. As Oil could be bought from others and then transported home. Controlling Oil resource should be still important, but at the other side, If country has plenty of TRs, it should get a bit of a bonus to its oil input that way.. It would also made losing TRs more problematic even for countries with Oil available from colonies as having healthy trade fleet would be even more important.

What's the purpose of this?? Two research topic back to back with no benefit whatsoever.. (Japan) Not really "Dreadnought improvements" if it doesn't provide any...

hmm, yeah, i always play 1890 campaign.. this particular battle was happening in 1915 and AI was using quite old designs. Btw, what about allowing player to "retire early" from the game? I like early game, but this forces me to play very long campaigns to see end result.. i would prefer having option to end it on my terms after let say 30 years instead of just deleting the save once i dont like to continue.. You could just add a popup after 30 years, which would ask if you want to continue, so player could chose either to keep playing or retire and see the campaign results.

Well yes, but in both those impact angle is 50 degrees, which means, armor LOS is against such projectile is more - for 50 degrees impact angle, armor resistance is 1.31, which means if that armor is 100mm thick, it will resist as if it was 131mm thick. Main problem to simulate is the ballistic impact of large blunt projectiles against armor. For example, in WW2, soviet tanks preferred to use large caliber guns (IS2 used 122mm gun) which had relatively smaller penetration, but due to shear size of the projectile, they were able to defeat armor they should be not able to by calculation - why? because size of shell plays role - if caliber is bigger than strike plate, let say 122mm shell hits 80mm armor sloped at 60 degree which gives 160 LOS thickness, this shell clearly overmatches the armor, and will be able to defeat it, even if paper kinetic energy shows penetration just 140mm.. So in case of 16 inch shell, of course it will overmatch the 11inch armor, because it is just too big to be impacted by the strike angle. But that's just theory. Question is, how to implement it into a game, which does things quite differently and uses multiple armor multipliers that adjust armor resistance, while it doesn't have any vertical angle calculations, but instead, tries to calculate impact by "reducing penetration". Of course, its quite hard to come with best solution within hardcoded calculation system, and i understand your frustration. Personally, i like early game more than late game, I usually quit playing campaigns past 1920..

If i recall correctly, they did decrease deck pen for longer barrels/high muzzle velocity due to trajectory of the projectile being flatter, therefore projectile impact angle would make base armor have a lot more LOS - impact angle of 60 degree increases armor 2x, impact angle 70 degrees increases it almost 4x.. so higher is the muzzle velocity, less likely is the penetration of the deck armor. Game simulates horizontal angling, but not vertical, so this is the way how to simulate it to some degree

sorry, no save (got overwritten by other battles, would be easier if game kept multiple saves somewhere). Anyway when i witness it again, i'll post it.

My point is, that longer barrel would have higher muzzle speed and therefore better accuracy over short distances, not the long ones. at long distances, where you fire "indirectly" dispersion of the gun plays much higher role than muzzle velocity. Gun with muzzle speed of 800-900m/s will hit enemy object at 1000m a lot easier than similar gun with 500-600m/s, as movement of enemy object doesn't play as big role. not the other way around. Its quite similar to tank combat - low velocity guns were used with infantry support guns, and these were commonly firing at 4-5km using indirect fire, while long barreled guns, were optimized for 1-2km engagements, where they could hit even moving targets. Muzzle velocity main advantage is in flat trajectory and "projectile flight time to target" which is important when you engage moving objects while you are moving. At shorter distances dispersion doesnt present as huge problem as it does at longer range - for example 88mm L56 gun had dispersion in tests 35cm at 1000m. (ww2 stats) at 2km it would be 65-70cm, etc.. yet due to muzzle velocity around 800m/s, this gun was effective against enemy tanks up to 1200m, beyond that range, it became less and less effective as its dispersion would mean it could completely miss the target. Similarly, short 75mm L24 with muzzle velocity just 385m/s had dispersion of 25cm at 1000m, 50cm at 2km. so in long range shooting against stationary targets, it was quite decent weapon and was used for infantry support, lobing HE shells at long distances. At longer distances, its the fire control system that calculates the shell dropoff, so it doesnt play that much role, instead, shell dispersion plays main role. (i'm using this example as lots of naval guns were actually converted into tank guns during WW2) So, In your example at 20km, i would argue that short barreled gun of latest tier would have superior accuracy at that distance than long barreled gun 1 tier below, as gun dispersion at that distance plays much more important role, and muzzle velocity loses its importance at such extreme ranges. Simply put - flat trajectory of high muzzle speed shells is only beneficial at short distances, not long distances. Vanilla game is completely wrong altogether, as accuracy bonuses for short range are just ridiculously high. Your reduced accuracy is a lot better, just the relation between muzzle speed and short range accuracy seems to be reversed. Also, i think it would kinda solve your "rate of fire" dilemma, as it would be more beneficial to use long barrels for short range, therefore rate of fire would go down, which would make game handle it a bit better.

I think accuracy of big guns at short distance (1-2km) is a bit too high.. Short range shooting should be more dependent on muzzle speed of projectile, while heavy main guns usually have relatively low muzzle velocity, which is not an issue for long range engagements. There should be a clear distinction between direct and indirect fire, where direct fire should depends more on projectile muzzle speed, while indirect should be oriented towards gun dispersion. This way, shortening the barrels would not be the best course of action always (as it is right now), and there would be clear benefit having longer barrel guns even of smaller caliber - right now, all that tech is currently completely useless, and not worth pursuing, especially because ammo type doesn't have such drastic impact on accuracy.

2 Ships (DD,CA) vs AI CA, 30+ DDs and 30+ TBs.. guess what? they are running away... now the fun part - i chased them down, sank 42 ships, CA included, but lost both my ships so i lost the battle.. i cant fathom why AI is always running... its like their top priority.. If anything, this should be reversed, and AI should only run away if he is hopelessly outmatched, while TBs should never run.. those should just go straight up BANZAI! against enemy ships... SUGGESTION - create a special AI rule for TBs and DDs, where they will be always aggressive, as long as they have torpedos ready to fire. When they are out of torpedos, or are reloading, they can run away, but immediately once torpedos are online, they should go berserk again..

Weakest part of this game is definitely UI ( i have no idea what the enemy force is... because power projection window shows over it)

Impossible to shift power projection in South Philippine Sea. No matter what fleet i send there, power projection wont get shown.

I only had battle against 120 TBs.. and i dont describe it as fun... it was a stutter mess