SiWi

"um no he didn't he used him as an example, litterally read his post" "its obvious hes talking about yamamoto in terms of an example". You know what. If you have finish the discussion with yourself whenever OP uses Yamamoto as example (spoiler warning, he does), you can come back to me. Also it would be quite clear that if there are "generic" admirals then they also could/should be "none" generic, perhaps "legendary admirals". Like the one he literally names in the first paragraph.

its funny that you deiced what this thread is about given that the OP mentioned explicit Yamamoto. is almost as if the history of modern naval combat is incomplete without CV's.

you lack of faith is disturbing. seriously. late war technology had almost turned the tide between BB's and CV's again because radio guides AA fuses were killing planes left right and center. He was the captain of the Akagi (1928/1929 October 1933, he leads the first carrier division. later he because the head of naval aviation. Yeah sorry but he was a big supporter for naval aviation and one of the reason that Japan had a strong CV arm and not just BB's. Seriously. His whole carrier wouldn't exist ingame, without CV's. If you don't do CV's, don't do him.

and the fact that the game didn't update before starting didn't make you suspicious?

well this announced the changes, it isn't live yet...

but doesn't this rather highlight why CV's in game would be important? You want to play as Yamamoto, but doesn't give him what was actually his strong suit? then why did you wrote: ? Anyway. The problem with this is that it kinda robs the campaign of the sandbox character. If Japan always does XY then playing against it is always the same. Perhaps there could be 2 campaign modes? One where all feature are geared to a more historcial run (events, Ai ship designs ect.) and one where everything goes.

China: breath of the Dragon: HE makes 10% more damage (I admit its a bit cartoon but it does sound nice or not?)

aha. Sorry, I can't help and feel that is BS. I mean sure he was quality over quantity, but he had a quite clear focus on naval aviation. A fitting bonus for him would be for CV and planes. A BB bonus would just be a substitute.

judging by the blog and how RTW does things, it does look like they plan to have something like that. Mind you I hope that don't copy RTW 100% in terms of the UK, since there ships could have a random flaw that made them blow up. While I understand for what that is suppose to stand in, the flaws of UK ships were not "random". The RN made some bad policy decisions which backfired badly. It wasn't randomly. Anyway: Italy: I could see a TP and Destroyer bonus and maybe a accuracy bonus for BB's. Russia: TR ships spot TP miles away and even if there aren't any. Spain: maybe a bonus base on the legacy of the Spanish armada (the big one)? Or a cruiser bonus? For Japan: its all about that oxcy torpedo, not electric, all about that oxcy torpedo not electric...

Frist off: I read "River Admirals" first... that would be a very different topic. 2nd I would like to nitpick the example... was Admiral Yamamoto really a BB advocate? wasn't he more of a carrier guy? (which makes including someone like him ironic...) Otherwise... I read a lot to like here. I mean I would like enemy fleets to have some sort of logic to them and not just be random. Otherwise it will feels as if 20 different navies, with wildly different philosophies, will fight you, even if its all suppose to be XY.

I hope they reverse this decision. I don't want to lose my ships to "random air encounter" with "random AA performance". Not would I want to lose a CV build by myself in a "auto resolve", because the game claims that a enemy BB has found it.

my understanding base on what the shipbuilder says is, that you can deploy out of range, but take damage for it (not enough maintenance ect.)

Sails do open up a cant of worms thou... wind mechanics. Right now the game can mostly ignore wind directions, because Warspite, Bismarck, Iwoa, Yamato and so on did not care for wind directions. These ships would. And if that is worth it in context of this game? A new component for the engine to take care off, just that the most obsolete vessels are in?

Personal I think there is a less resources intensive compromise. The starting fleets at the start of the game or the fleets of minor nations, could contain a number of those ships base on a couple of hulls.

I feel that for subs, it would be enough to "tip in" the end results of the design. Aka if I want 10k km range and that and that speed with that many toprs how expensive will it be? Given the fact that you don't see them in combat.

well... I wouldn't mind for sure. I mean I do report bugs "dutifully" and think I'm not alone. And while a good running campaign would be preferred, if it works better then lets say "pacific storm" I would be happy. Problem of course is that it could be running worse then PS at the moment and is really really not playable.

I think it goes back to the problem I once mentioned: they don't want to sauer they reputation on steam with a early campaign version that gives the game a reputation as "broken".

well better hear it late then never. Can't be help and the circumstances are signification enough to explain it.

hopefully not prophetic

well I don't know riot but if the update and more importantly the campaign doesn't come in june, I would like to hear it before hand.

I think retrofits will be important but also that the first campaign round will be missing them. And that will REALLY hurt, once radar generation 2 hits. Because all of my custom games suggest that radar 2 is such a game changer that a ship without it doesn't need to bother to show up. In fact, scrapping your navy and rebuild it with it is perhaps necessary, unless the ship is torpedo base.

well in submarine films or videos at the time of WW2, you quite often see a book with black silhouettes of ships. I also know that Drachenfiels in his video about Taff 33 notes that the Japanse Admiral didn't have identification charts for Escort carriers.

there is no roadmap but they did make the promise that the steam version of the game would have the campaign in its first version and it would be release in the first half of 2020

if only in reality people could wish always everything what makes life for their toys dangerous instead of improving them...

*laughs in Zulu and Ethiopia* Of course nothing it does sound like a interesting system thou I hope we get the option to have a completely random campaign and one that roughly act on historical lines (similar how HOI4 does). I do hope thou that the player can't not 100% sure when war breaks out or not because a lot of strategic problems are base on the question: "who we are going to fight?" I mean that they get something base on their history, even thou it doesn't really make 100% sense in the era the games plays. Like: Experience Mercant Protector, 10%+ whatever on Mission to protect Transtports. This would be roughly base on them having to fight off pirates and privateers. Doesn't make too much sense maybe in terms of what they actually did in the real timeline but I don't really know what else they would get. Strategic games often give you bonus base on the perception of a nation/people. In Civ you get bonus on the navy as England even before boats are a thing. Hence I think that they could get something which maybe doesn't make 100% sense, but is helpful gameplay wise. The problem I see with this approach is twofold: 1 I assume that because of smaller budgets they will lack behind in technology, which means that you may simply don't have the parts to make better ships then the competition. 2 Building fewer ships mean that chance punished you harder then it could otherwise. If you build 1 ship with lets say 16 inch armour instead of 2 with 12 inch armour you still can get one shoted by a lucks hit (or torpedo hit). Combine with the technology gap and I see potential danger. There is also the problem that one "super ship" can be super at one place only. 2 good ships can be good at 2 places at the same time.