TAKTCOM

Nope. Campaign isn't feature. This is the main game mode. Yes, I stopped playing for this reason. Some mission I didn’t even run once. I mean, I'm not a big fan "Here we go again". If I were, I was probably playing a skyrmish until I died of old age. However, I would like to test the real changes in the gameplay. For example: - obvious problem is the armor model. Armor scheme...well, it does not exist. You can select any sort of scheme, but it does not affect the actual placement of the armor. For example, you can choose AoN, but still have lot armor in extended deck/belt, what is the opposite of an AoN idea. But that is not the main problem. Main problem it's that you can put armor on every inch of your ship. Just compare the two pictures below. Yes, even one of the most advanced battleships has turned into “deaf, blind and impotent” mainly from the fire of 8 and 6 inch cruiser shells. And in the game ... well, yes, these 9 inch cruisers just sheeps in slaughter. Although flooding and flash fire helps with shell invulnerability, but the problem "armor bricks" still there.And this is just one of the problems that affects all game aspects .

Depends on the country. I doubt that China or Spain at the beginning of the company will be able to contain a lot of battleships. For first company I think to take something simple , like the United States and see how game works. Obviously, black powder, iron plates, standard shells and natural boilers must be left as quickly as possible. Obviously, without FCS you will have't hits. Of course, turbines. Everything else ... Depends on too many factors. For example, does the game will display war Jeune École vs traditionalists? Yes, and probably the player will not have so much choice that he can build. No, fine, but what is the size of the naval budget? Again, too many factors. However, I would like to try the cruisers war. This doctrine never worked in reality, I wonder how it will be in the game.

The topic is probably out of date. Since it was created before Alpha-6 Diesel engines rebalanced to reflect better their bonuses. Diesel engines will be more important in campaign, but now can be useful in missions too, offering more reliable and cost-effective power plants.

The developers are three guys. If "devs will spend more time speaking with the community" then the game will be ready not in next year, but in the next appearance of Jesus Christ. Sorry, but I paid for the game, not cool stories about the game.

Devs say, that the current system is better.

Well...no. Russian pre-dreadnoughts overloaded form three reasons: - coal, provisions and water overload by order of the high command (Tsushima); - upgrades of ship project, made in the shipbuilding process. Also bad quality; - mistakes in the development of ship requirements .

Italy, of course. Their shipbuilders built interesting vessels. Russia on the other hand... yes, the Russian Empire built the first true armored cruisers. But our battleships? nothing special. In my opinion, these was typical ships of their era. Destroyers... well, before Novik was built, in Russia there was there wasn’t so much worth mentioning. May be, except that guys They were classified in the Russian Navy as "torpedo cruisers", but with their displacement in ~700 t, 19,6 kn speed, 13mm armor and armament from half a dozen 37-47mm guns plus seven torpedo tubes, it was obviously an early version of the destroyer. As for China... to the beginning first Sino-Japanese War all of their battleships and cruisers were bought either in Germany or in England. I'm not sure that the game really needs a corvette and a gunboat. The fleet of Spain at the end of the 19th century, of course, is something funny. These guys really loved the cruisers without armor. However, they have some medium armored cruisers, so why not. Yes, and this archaic battleship.

Oh, we'll surely get moar hulls and turrets. The question is how many of them will be something new, and how many of them will be another copy-paste However, there are not many left. Most of the WW2 ships are covered, the main holes are in pre dreadnought cruiser classes. Like french multi-turrets raiders or some Elswick cruisers maybe some russian BB-size raiders Yes, this was achieved by qualitative fire control system, radar and a dual-purpose guns. Still, their torpedo weapons were not weak. Everyone hoped that a cheap destroyer with a pinch of luck could sink an expensive cruiser, or even a very expensive battleship.

Soviet Leningrad-class, UK S/T-class and nazi type 1936A have 8x533mm torpedo tubes, french Mogador and famous Fletchers have even more - 10 tubes at each. So no, the idea of using torpedoes as the main weapon for destroyers was not exclusive to Japan. And yes, there is nothing bad in torpedo attack. In my opinion, 178 mm and 180 mm is not a big difference. What upsets me more is the inability to do something like Furutaka. Displacement less then 10k and 8'' guns just don't fit in relevant shipbuilder.

Yeah, remake simplified armor system into some more realistic, for example. Or are these terrible divisions. Dear God, this is the first game in my experience where I do not combined units into groups, but instead split groups into single units

I still prefer to wait and get a quality product than a piece of trash right now. Of course, the waiting is disappointing, but at least, not so many questionable decisions in the gameplay and the designer of ships at the moment. We can say that developers are moving in the right direction, but they are doing it slowly. Well, this is more than you can say about most game developers.

I did not expect the separation of crew and officers. This game is becoming more intriguing. Thanks for the news. Rather like that. Although if you want a real historical confrontation at sea in 1890in large format, it is Great Britain versus France: the first naval force versus the second naval force. Probably Research&Development.

You point: reducing torpedoes ammunition will make the game better My point: TB&DD gameplay is already difficult and this changes will make it unplayable. I see no reason to continue the discussion. Let the developers release new patch and we'll see what happens next. I apologize if I was rude, my patience sometimes fails me. This seems to be one of these cases.

I understand that you hate the torpedoes and their carriers. But if you had ever tried a mission like you would know that the destroyer gameplay is not a piece of cake. Largely due to the lack of player control over the aiming of torpedoes and bugs. When launched, torpedoes can disappear, or explode your own ship. AI doesn’t shoot them at the right moment and shoots at the wrong time. All this is terribly annoying. If you have spare torpedoes, you can try again. If not ... No one will play them. And I don’t understand why the destroyer 45+kts is worse or better than a cruiser 45+kts.

Why didn’t you write first that you just hate torpedoes? This is the answer to all my questions. And no, IJN admiral were not "overjoyed". This 6,71% hits was one of the reasons why the Japanese lost war. ...The night attack force was to launch an intricately coordinated long-range salvo of 130 torpedoes from 11 different groups using half their ready torpedoes. This salvo was designed to converge upon and hit 10 American capital ships with 20 weapons (a rate of ~15%)... ...IJN hit 30 enemy ships with 44 Type 93, 1 Type 8 and 2 Type 6 torpedoes in these battles, sinking 18. The average hit rate was 6.71%, far below the required 15%... ...To answer the question posed by this article; the IJN did not achieve the necessary hit rate or efficiency in action to make the Decisive Battle strategy a success, had that course been pursued. Even the world's best surface torpedomen were not good enough to bring the Decisive Battle to fruition for the IJN. All they could do was make it costly, and die fighting. There were no "tens of thousands at any given time, increasing as time went on". You are mistaken 10 times . And this is why most battleships in ww1 was lost by from artillery fire and in ww2 from air strikes. But whatever.