SiWi

given that you only use them passviely aka automatic designing them seems probably less important to the devs since you don't see them in action.

I would suggest a "don't shoot at this target" button, reason for is this: sometimes you see enemy ships which are already doomed and don't need any more of your firepower and hence I would like to order my ships to not attack it anymore.

Yeah it should but what if UK joins a war or declares one while you are in the business of fighting another? And the army will probably take a while. It is really hard to tell thou how these things work indetail and so many things depend on them. True, but I don't assume the Ai to be completely passive (maybe wrongly?) and Italy and A-H would themselves act, and so would france. We also don't know how much you actually could get out of lets say controlling Greece and if that is enough to turn the tides.

That will maybe be in the first version of the campaign, I just can't Imaging that it would be its end goal thou. I mean if I only have to fight, when I chose how can I really lose? Thou I don't play RTW or RTW 2 and maybe there it is the case noone does something unless the player starts it? Well my Spain naval knowledge is either centuries before aka "the armada" (not a really helpful name if you speak Spanish I would think) or base on what Drachinfiel told about the Spanish navy in the Spanish American war. Thou maybe the dev give traits base on "legend". Otherwise, they had the smallest Dreadknought class and 3 of them and nothing else in terms of BB's. So maybe a bonus for cruiser? I mean TP is something I rather would give to Italy, base on WW2. Political speaking, well you have a civil war coming... So huge naval budgets don't look likely indeed.

well there is certainly an Argument to have, that they are probably the weakest (long term) potential enemy that spain has. Thou I would still be cautious about going onto the offensive, given the context that they (italy A-H) don#t need to splitt forces. And I assume that spain will always be able to past Gibraltar, otherwise the whole thing gets more complicated if spain fleet could be cut in half.

Well the mediterranean would be a possible area of expansion, given that you don't really need to expose the homeland to build up forces for that. It is however the problem that you maybe get very vulnerable if attack by other powers. Austria and Italy also have the advantage over you, that they only have the Mediterranean to worry about, so I wouldn't underestimate them.

it would be understandable, given the situation and the size of the task, but I do think that if they know that they should tell us soon. And sure, if its gets July or August then so be it. But if its get later then that... well you probably knew you wouldn't make it relative early. No harm in telling us before just we assume it "has" to come. I mean I check this forum just to see if there are final news on the matter...

Personally, I could accept if the campaign wouldn't come in this month... BUT they would have to tell it pretty much now. "If they came hey guys tomorrow comes the next patch, campaign at the end of the year", I would be angry.

welcome to the world of the RN in real life

I wanted to post it myself, but yes: would go very well with a treaty system. After all, what is a treaty that you can't break and what is breaking a treaty, if no one can know it (or simply know it automatically). Of course both features are rather complex and will be missing early versions of the campaign but I think they both would be great. Finding out that for example Japan has broken the treaty (random example ^^), could trigger "Escalation clauses" that allow for bigger ships and bigger guns ect. Finding out and being right would gain prestige, accusing someone to break limits they didn't should diminish it. Meaning one would chose carefully if your intel is good enough to accuse someone.

I doubt that you can force the US into a treaty limting they fleet enough to be safe, since the technology gab will probably eat you. I also assume that those are more general speaking limiting displacement, aka everone doesn't build 37K + displacement and so on, not just one nation. Other wise one can easily elimate one fleet "forever". Well they were kinda ready in WW1, thou only really worked well in WW2, which would be quite late in game. That does sound plausible thou I wonder what you do when enemy fleet directly attack you own TP or ports or whatever. I can't quite see the BC be too helpful there. And big navies could probably have alot of crusiers to defend their convoys, but we will see. I read that differently: every nation, including yours, deploys mines in wartime.

Personal I was first thinking Germany (I'm German so I'm a bit bias) but now tend to think USA or UK, since I first want to learn "the ropes" of the campaign. My Problem with Cuba is that the US is too close to comfort, and while you maybe have a chance to win a war against them early, I don't think you will have a chance when they should come back in the 20 or 30s. And given all the other possible wars you can be in, I don't see how one can have enough forces there, even thou a return of the Spanish empire in Latin america looks attractive. Subs sound like a type which are expensive and come in late in the game, hence I'm not sure how much use they will be. BC could be an alternative to BB's, to give one access to big guns but I'm skeptical if they aren't too valuable to attacks. Perhaps building them fast enough to always chose the engagement would be the key. One factor I forgot are mines: they could be really be your friend when in the defense.

well the promise was that the steam version would have it and that is suppose to come "in the first half of 2020" meaning unless they announce a delay, it should be june.

Hi, Given that the campaign is hopefully less then a month away, I was starting to think about which nation to play first. I was reading this interesting Article (linked by @DougToss I believe) talking about the different nations situations in RTW: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2016/05/a-brief-consideration-of-various-strategic-problems-in-rule-the-waves/ There are however some Nations missing there, which are announced for UAD (https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes), namely China and Spain. So I though that maybe we can take a look together at the 2 or at least the one in this thread name: Spain. Economy and Research: While we obviously don't have exact numbers for the game, I think it will be save to assume that your budget won't match any of the greater powers and research wise you will lack behind. The Game starts at 1890 and this is what the world looks like: As one can see, Spain has quite a few Possessions still around the world. In Africa, the Caribbean and Philippians. I would argue that is terrible. Because it means that you can end up fighting EVERYONE, even Japan, Austria and Italy. Hell historical speaking, they fought the US in 1898, merely 8 years after the game starts. And I think it is save to say, that they have not the budget to fight off at all fronts. So what should one do? Well first I would suggest to make a choice what to keep and what to lose: The Homeland must be defend so that is a given. Africa: while maybe not as important, it has the decency of being close to the homeland and hence can profit alot from the fleet station there. The Caribbean (aka Cuba): while I assume that those a quite valuable provinces, I think I would "let them go". Because not only are France and Britain there, which are dangerous and but even worse the USA is near. France and UK dance on many other parties as well and hence will hopefully not be too concerned with attack you (at least once AI nations can fight each other in the game). But with the US you have potential enemy there with almost nothing else to do, then kicking you. I mean in theory they could take on France and UK but I think that is rather unlikely. And unlike France and Uk, who probably will have the best fleets elsewhere, the US will have probably half of its best ship on the east coast. And even with relative short ranges, they can probably deploy most of it against you. Meaning you will face the BB's there while its not very likely you yourself have many BB's there. So... my advice would be: abandon them. I don't think you have a chance in hell to hold them, if the US comes knocking. Even if "only" France or Uk comes knocking, you will be in trouble. Sure I mean in theory if you remain strong there you would have a chance to expand there but I find this unlikely. Philippians: probably also a good province to have economy wise. Now Philippians has partly the same problems that the Caribbean have: almost everyone is in reach to fight you. Yet in this case, I think one can hold on to them. Unlike the Caribbean, Indonesia is have a better situation when it comes to enemies. Sure both Japan and China are relative close with there homelands. UK strong in the area as well, even Germany there and Russia not compeltly out of reach either. But unlike the USA in the Caribbean, all of those power could have better things to do, then fighting you. Also they will probably not deploy they best fleets against you. This should give you are fighting chance to hold them off. Now I want to talk about what kind of ships will probably make sense, starting with the categories of 1890: BB: I don't imaging you having the money to have too many BB's, so you may want to be careful to what build with them and what for. Given that your homeland can be targeted by at least 5 other great powers (Germany, France, UK, Italy and Austria Hungary), I think one needs a powerful force in spain itself to defend the home land. For that purpose a group of coastal defense BB#s may be the best solution. Being short range and maybe slower, gives you extra displacement to add in raw fighting power (guns or armor) compensation lack of technology, at least a bit. Now when that is done (and of course updated once in a while) and you still have something left, you maybe can have middle or even long range BB's to fight/guard in one of your possessions far from home, but I don't see you having the money as spain to have too many BB's (historical they had 3). So I think other ship types will have to place the burden there. Heavy (armored) Cruisers: I think these will be your most important ships. You can realistically have a numbers of them and still give them a good range, that they can fight overseas, while you perhaps mange to make them dangerous to even older enemy BB's. So while you maybe want a heavier version for the homeland, I think you could build them with longer ranges and better speed to sever as main defense force, for your oversea areas. Perhaps you leave it at one version (at the time) so you have a force to react to crisis. This shiptype is the best bet you have to fight off enemies at the far east or west and maybe even go into the offensive yourself. light Cruisers: Probably good for long distance patrols and perhaps also more destined to defend your territories abroad. When you mange a good Torpedo armament (I think that they should take priority in research, given that they can equalize the score somewhat even difficult to use). TB (later DD's): I'm really torn on those. Testing today suggest that you can destroy enemy BB's, even with better tech (they were 1905, I was 1900) and hence could be a great equalizer and defense force.Otherwise, early torpedoes are terrible and they will take loses against pretty much any ship type. There is also the question, how you can deploy them overseas. Can they travel the distance from spain to Cuba? If yes, they may be a way to fight off the US in Cuba or defend your other possessions relative cheaply. If not, then they probably a way to safeguard spain from its many enemies. Relative cheap to build and replaceable, they could fight of France, Italian or whoever else comes, BBs and crusier and land the lucky hits which turn the tide. BC: Probably not a great idea to build glass cannons. you won't be able to replace loses easily and while they maybe give you firepower needed, I feel that you can't afford to risk a "jutland" and see half of 3 year budgets blow up in 2-3 minutes or thou. Those are anyhow my thoughts about Spain, what are yours?

On the ammunition side again: I just remember that in theory you could use different explosive on all ships. If having the right ammunition in store gets simulated even the slighted then that option is a non starter.

that would be quite nice for bigger battles indeed. Its hard to keep formation if you don't realize that your ships are a mess or sailing into one.

I never claimed that you want to limited Research I reject your narrative that CV's would become instantly OP in the game because they would instantly skip a decade or two they needed in the real world to be the danger we know them today. They were not OP in the 1910 and 1920 (or earlier 1930's). Which was the point of the guy you respond to. Then which sense makes your objection that CV would be too OP so ealier in the campaign, unless we limit they numbers? You did claim that a war in the 1920 would have catapult CV development and could in game. That is 10-20 years. Thats ridiculous. You yourself made the argument that more war means more funding, means more research. That would also apply to anything lese, including radar. Assuming that conflicts gets your seal of being important enough since the RAFs actions in the middle east don#t seem to count as war... But you did wanted to limit their numbers before because of "being OP". Also the guy you answered was arguing that the CV's became dangerous during the 30/40s not that they only then were invented. He quite clearly says, that CVs exist before but became dangerous in the 40's.

You are the one that keeps arguing to limit CV's, because you think they would be too op. Not me. I was showing that they wouldn't be. Not quite sure what the later part of your sentence is suppose to mean. Its a reference to your argument that, because we can have war more earlier in the game, you assume that CV's will be 10-20 earlier mature and that CV spam (not any other spam) needs to be limited. But again, you assume technology jumps of 10-20 years before the time. That would be like radar in the 1900's. That is a not a plausible assumption and no reason to limit CV's around it.

I used dive bombing as an example of what was missing in terms of aviation technology. And I didn't object to weak planes. You are the one who assumed that if we have CV in game every one will be building Essex class CV and with plane technology of the 30's/40's, not me. If you assume that why don't reject Subs because you assume they get anti ships missile in the 1910's?

Well my understanding/assumptions is that every port will have a infrastructure value, telling you how much displacement they can take and every dock how large they can build. Mainly because RTW seems to be doing it this way.

sorry but that nothing but a claim. earlier air planes weren't able to threaten warships. Dive bombing didn't exist as tactic and the bombs were too weak to make serious damage. They were able to sink ships which didn't fight back or moved but there is no reason to believe that we would have SBD in 1922, only because there is a new war. In fact it was not as if Air power wasn't used. In the middle east it was to suppress local rebellions. Yet it still took its time to the 30s till planes made serious jumps in abilities.

my guess is that at release the campaign will simply "refill ammo" have for all types. Partly to encourage interesting designs, partly because its technical easier to do. Should they deiced to depict it, one method would be simply the upkeep cost from a fleet. If you introduce new calibers into the fleet, the upkeep cost of bases rises (simulating the problem of having to store more shells). As long a Base is supplied, it would refill all ammo types, without micromanagment. Another method would be to make the player ensure that each ammo type is present in the base he uses, from "hand". Meaning that you maybe only supply your 13inch shells to your home ports, where your most advance units and saving the money in other bases (of course you would run into the problems, once you would need to move them to the other bases because war broke out or the ships got obsolet).

But on what bases? Technically every design is an experiment. If you build a Torpedo Battleship and it gets annihilated do you get the same penalty? And if not, why not? When I say "experimenting" I mean committing numerous hulls and alot of time and money on them. This would not happen if people seriously though they carries would ended because of it. And what would be your definition of "spam"? To you penalize people who skip light crusier and spam heavy cruisers? Or people that "spam" BB's? Or DD's? Seriously on what bases is that "spamming CV's" a offense worthy of punishment. The USA didn't seem to get any for their "spam" during the war. That would be true for our "Torpedo Battleship" as well. Do you want to regulate that as well? or any other design not fitting? Isn't the point of the game to be able to experiment? You can build dreadnought battleship far earlier, thanks to high sight. Why not be able to experiment what happen when CV's were focus earlier? (the flip side is of course that you can take AA more seriously earlier) As for the tonnage %: a more reasonable solution (if awe assume a problem), thou once again I wander: do you have % rules for every category? Or do you penalize one ship category only? And what does forcing players to build % of each category do to the game enjoyment? if a player wants to build only cruisers as a country and no BB's should the game stop him then too? Looking at the plane side of things: probably not. Sure you can always assume some kind of technology jump, because ealier wars would force them, but looking at the real world, a 20's CV wouldn't have planes that cable of doing damage. There were instances were they were used but till the 30s they didn't really have the punch necessary.

Oh don't get me wrong: I want the campaign. It gives context and purpose to the battles which random missions and custom battles lack (which is why I love TW so much). because lets be honest here, both the academy and the custom battles don't teach good ship design. In academey you need to narrowly design a ship to do that role in that battle that it would be hardly universell. In custom you can simply build the biggest and most expensive ship, with short range, and not lose anything. In a campaign things like building time, cost and numbers of ships will change of that. But to getz back to the argument here: the problem is the following: imaging someone who sees the game on steam, never heard of it but thinks it looks fun. He/she buys it. And then goes to the campaign and it is a complete mess. I think there is a chance that that person would write a negative review, perhaps refund the game and so on. All of this could be bad for the Devs, given they make a living out of this. Hence the argument that they want the campaign as stable as possible, to not scare away people of the steam release.

Personal I think the argument that "CV'S can't be in because they make BB's obsolete" irrelevant. If the "holyness" of BB's supremacy would be the main factor, one could ban mines, torpedos as well since BB's can't really defend themself against them. And to be honest, the idea to get dismissed because you build CV's is a bit ridiculous. if we look in the real world, everyone that could wanted to experiment with CV's and no one was fired for it... Omitting them would leave big hole in what design warships was about after the 1930's: given your ship good AA as well as anything else. Right now you basically have little reason to not take the biggest 2ndarries you can get and casemates are pretty equal to other 2nd. With Planes you would get another layer on this: is a gun "dual purpose" or not? This would give smaller guns a better chance and more purpose. The same with light cruisers. They main guns were also often dual purpose and they would get an additional role: AA escort. If someone wants to make a "better Bismarck" shouldn't he/she also have to improves its AA, rather then give it bigger main guns? This layer is missing if planes and CV's are "banned" because people are worried that they precious BB's won't be the top dogs anymore. As for the "how to balance it?", simply: make it like the real world. At the beginning, CV strike abilities were very limited and barely exist. Only in the 30s, the CV as fighting unit really came into being. That would be roughly the last 20 years of the campaign. In other words, investing in CV's is a high risk high reward situations, since they can become powerful later but first require alot of upfront payment. which would be missing if you have to fight earlier, before your CV#s can actually fight. I mean subs seem to work in a similar direction: useless at first but potential powerful later. Its also not if BB's or other ships were helpless. There was a point in WW2 (according to Drachinifel) where without rockets, the balance between BB's and Planes almost had turned again. because radar controlled AA guns became so deadly that torpedo attacks or bombing attack from air where suicide. I mean there are instances where a BB sunk a CV. In fact Yamato, if it and its fleet used the right ammo, had chew through a whole group of escort carriers.