killjoy1941
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by killjoy1941
-
-
That's not what I expected at all. Hopefully it does really well so we can get more DLC content.
-
5 hours ago, o Barão said:
Manor Lords is coming tomorrow, so I am now retired for the next weeks. 😁
I haven't had enough time to confirm for certain the need for the campaign changes you made, but they do generally line up with what I've been seeing.
I'll be going hard on NAR tonight, then it's off to Manor Lords for me as well. I've had that game wishlisted since the first day it hit Steam.
-
1
-
-
I'm just here for the Hawaiian world conquest.
As much as I feel like this is "let's expand the modding possibilities just to see if we can," I'm going to shut up now because it's glorious.
-
2 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Thank you for the screenshots!!
Maybe I was too kind in the recent changes. I am seeing nations at war against 2 or 3 countries and with a positive GDP. Maybe it is impossible to make them go bankrupt now. If that is the case, report to me.
But for now, no more changes to the economy. Have fun! 😉
Oh, god no. Don't make them go bankrupt. Spain is about to collapse, and that means all their territory will fall under the minor nations system, where it's essentially non-interactable and can take up to 30 years to be integrated by someone. Ideally, given the way the game works now, nations would never collapse unless they lose all their ports.
If the majors didn't break up into a bunch of minors I'd be okay with it, but that's not what we have.
-
1
-
-
Okay, this is looking much better. Pre-war:
After a few years:
The diplomatic influence system has been infuriating this game, so I haven't seen any of the new ships yet, but the war economies look adequate. They can probably be tweaked upward a bit (looking at you, Spain), but it's not hurting anything the way it is now.
-
4 minutes ago, o Barão said:
"I'm not sure I see the merit in a tightened economic system if it makes the AI even more fragile than it already is."
You missed that part. I do hope you mean you won't further tighten the economic screws?
As for screenshots, what do you want to see?
-
Finally, I have time for a new campaign:
1890/Normal/USA
It's now 1914, and everyone is at war and has been for about 3-6 years, depending on the nation in question. No nation has a GDP growth above 2.5% (except me), and no one has a fleet larger than 40 ships, except the Soviets at 83, but they're economically f****d anyway with their economy contracting at -2%.
A lot of this reflects the concerns I had about economy changes. It's generally fine during peace, where everyone has a GDP growth between 4% and 7%, but war wrecks everyone. Growth drops to at best 2%, and the weaker nations immediately go negative. Not by much, usually between -0.2% and -0.7%, but once the AIs start losing convoys, they're forced into a contractionary spiral with no end but peace, which is why the AIs all have small fleets.
The strongest nations, Great Britain, Germany, and France, have $67b, $54b, and $50b economies, respectively. The weakest - Italy, Japan, and Austria - have $23b, $18b, and $8b (!) respectively.
I have a $97b economy. I have 50% more economic power than GB. In 1914. They start with damn near a 100% relative lead.
It's far, far easier to outstrip the AI with tight economic constraints than it is with generous economic constraints.
Oh, and I collapsed Spain by taking just her colonies. That was a 1v1 war, and Spain had fought no other wars. In vanilla, on normal difficulty, that's almost impossible to do.
I'm not sure I see the merit in a tightened economic system if it makes the AI even more fragile than it already is. I'd much rather have huge, un-spendable budgets and be able to build whatever I want if it means the AIs can operate large, modern fleets and sustain long wars.
-
10 hours ago, rossi191 said:
i don't think it had anything to do with the British pounding them in the dockyards people seem to forget how much more advanced British guns and armour were at the time and for the Graf Spee to compete with a British 8 inch cruiser it needed to have a gun that could match the range and penetration although the 11 inch couldn't match the fire rate of the 8 inch it made the Graf Spee capable of going up against other cruisers and ships of her size
it was the same for the Yamato her 18.1s were equivalent to the British and American 15/16 inch guns but with a far slower reload rate
That's a thing, but for the Scharnhorst class, they were designed for 15" guns. Hitler overruled the admirals in favor of 11" guns. That's generally attributed to the British reaction to the Deutschlands and their 11" guns, and the fear that anything larger would provoke a British attempt to destroy the ships in the dockyards to force Versailles compliance. As it was, the Scharnhorsts were constructed in deep secrecy until it didn't matter anymore.
-
3 hours ago, o Barão said:
Weird, yes, but if we take into consideration the role they were designed to fulfill, it seems the Germans took the best they could get from the treaty limitations.
Oh, absolutely. It's just that most people seem to think they were purpose-built raiders from the keel up when it was more like, "How the hell are we going to squeeze 11" guns into 10k tons and make it useful?"
The same thing happens with the Scharnhorsts (let's build BBs with 11" guns so the Royal Navy doesn't pound them to dust in the dockyards) and Alaskas (naval conservatism meets the apex of pre-CV cruiser design).
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Pappystein said:
Then Marine Diesels became more efficient mass-wise, and Armor became less important. And this combination of loopholes allows the Graff Spees to exist with 6 11" cannons.
No one else did it because they could build replacement Battleships under the treaty with the bigger guns in a limited way: the Replacement and latter escalator clauses.As well, specifically considering the Deutschlands, their construction was made attractive because of limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Versailles cruisers designed to replace pre-dreadnaughts were always going to be weird.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, havaduck said:
...The Kaislerlanta...
Lol. I nearly called it the Santa Fien, but that would've broken the brains of all the Austrians on the forum and created a black hole in the center of the Earth.
-
2 hours ago, havaduck said:
So lets recap: You want big guns, numerous guns, speed and protection on a cruiser hull and all that early? I'd say, historically speaking, more than 2 of those are fantasy land early game.
I don't really think that's too much of a problem. Aside from your Kaiserlanta (nicely done, btw.), you're not going to be hitting anything with those beyond 2km until you get better towers and Mk2-3 guns and rangefinders. Frankenships are fun, but they're rarely effective. That's always been incentive enough for me to build more historically and conservatively.
-
9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
It was considered but many extra calculation calls for the AI would actually decrease a lot the combat fps. So we have to compromise.
The AI already has a logic to retreat when damaged but many players cry that the AI runs when it tries to play as a human.
EDIT:
We will increase the thresholds and we will see how it goes.
I don't think people get annoyed by the AI doing the smart thing and running so much as having to fight that battle in the first place. If you can't catch them and they're just going to immediately refuse the engagement, why generate the fight at all?
Fortunately, that rarely happens with the mandatory engagements. So the engagements where it is likely to happen, i.e.: smaller fights where the player has a huge advantage in everything but speed, can just be skipped by ending the turn.
-
I can say that the mini-map works flawlessly for me. No crashes, no weird camera changes - zoom, expansion, and drag function as they should.
Edit: Playing as China, so it helps quite a bit.
-
Oh, it's a click-and-drag mini-map too...
I'm so happy right now...
-
58 minutes ago, Pappystein said:
Completely uninstall the game. Manually go into the game folders and delete anything that remains. I had this problem in the 1.4 beta and that was the solution that fixed my issues (some of the files were not up to date but Steam wasn't seeing it I GUESS)
Re install the game and be certain *NOT* to install any mods (this is a beta test and things are changing fast best to not add variables)
Just a quick addition to this - if you right-click the game in Steam, under Properties -> Installed Files, you have the option to "Verify the Integrity of Game Files".
Try that first. It cuts down on your download size and is a fair bit quicker. If that doesn't work, do what Pappystein said.
-
1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Update 7
- [b]*SPECIAL*[/b] Added mini-map window on the campaign world map so that browsing the map is easier and faster, especially when you want to send ships from one side of the map to the other one.
- Finalized the new screen/scout formations behavior.**** yes! Big, big thank you for these two!
-
15 hours ago, o Barão said:
Before it would start with 500 tons/6 months to 4000 tons/24 months.
Now it is 500 tons/6 months to 3000 tons/36 months.
Awww... You mean I can't max out my shipyards by 1916 anymore?
It's too bad I don't have the time to run a long campaign right now - I really want to see the changes. I imagine you've been having fun with all the new parts and hulls, too.
-
59 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
- Fixed accidental torpedo launches towards friendlies when the enemy was far away in the direction of the friendlies.
Really important fix. Every time this happened I caught it only after my battle line had already been hit. It was bad enough that I basically gave up on torpedoes entirely, so it's a big deal.
-
6 hours ago, brothermunro said:
I think certain counties are more likely to do certain things, like Russia becoming communist, but no there's no real influence you can have.
Got it. I appreciate the replys.
-
I have to say, my favorite thing so far is the Qinglanta BB.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, brothermunro said:
As the head of the admiralty you can’t really control who is in charge of the government. However you can deliberately increase unrest, eventually you’ll cause a revolution (or an election) and the government will change. You do not have any control over what you’ll end up with, and if you do it wrong and get kicked out you’ll have a game over.
Right, but I've never gotten anything other than one or two steps left using unrest. It's entirely predictable as I can watch support for parties change from turn to turn. So if I just relentlessly pile on the unrest, I get a revolution with a random outcome? There's no order whatsoever, i.e.: Monarchy -> far left Democracy -> far fight democracy? Is there a way to shift parties rightward, or does that require revolution too?
Politics is by far the most opaque and unintuitive aspect of the game.
-
As the title says.
I know how to move a government from right to left. That requires you to raise unrest to at least 20% or more in time for a party further left to accumulate support before elections. The closer the elections, the more you need to elevate unrest to make it happen.
What I don't understand:
- How to move support right in a democracy or constitutional monarchy.
- How to move from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
- How to move from a constitutional monarchy to a democracy.
- How anything at all regarding pure monarchy works.
Has anyone been able to fill those gaps? I'd like to know, and I suspect so would many other players.
-
3
-
4 hours ago, brothermunro said:
It is on my radar to do, not the way you’re suggesting, but more trying to reign in the budgets and GDP growth (there’s a few things that can be adjusted).
Oh, interesting. I assume you're talking about the government type modifiers? Has anyone figured out how the government changes actually work? I got as far as unrest = leftward (I use this every time I play as Germany or Japan), but I've no idea how revolutions trigger, or how to move a government right.
Also, if you do plan to change the modifiers, it's probably useful to nerf the far left/right GDP penalties and swap the right/center/left GDP bonuses. The first would keep nations getting beat up from collapsing as quickly as they do, and the second just makes way more sense.
NAR BETA 3.0.2 "Major Powers update" for UAD 1.6.0.6 opt x3
in Unofficial Mods
Posted
It's been a while since I posted anything around here, but I just want to thank @o Barão, @MDHansen, and @NathanKell for keeping this going and making what was a hard run for a dev group into something really special.