Bry7x7x7

I'm hoping at the start of the campaign being implemented, even just a few elements to see where they want to go with it.

Yes yes, the French are one of a kind, but to me at least, it's what makes them so very fun!

Well, that is pretty much the French line of thinking under the Jeune École (young school) of thinking. May not worked out, but it was the line of think France was going in in what would be the early game of the campaign.

The only way I can see Battleships as we know them making a come back is if A: laser point defense of missiles (and maybe even against aircraft) is made to be very effective, and B: You do something about submarines to make them less deadly. I don't see these happening anytime soon. On top of that I rather dispise the looks of modern war ships quite a bit, so I rather wouldn't want to see what they do to battleships.

But it's not built in though...

They already do

I think we can meet halfway and have it as a toggleable option

1. Yeah, sure, like immersion things 100% 2. Eh. Well, you need 2 main guns and the Flowers had but a single 4 inch gun. That and at 16 knots it's really impractical for the sea battles this game will seem to feature. 3. See response 1 4. Promised features 5. Don't we already have this, least for the challenges and is coming to custom. 6. Sure, make it trackable as well. 7. Already getting there, but more the merrier, though togglable for us that have lower end machines. 8. Sure, more hulls the better. 9. See above at 8 10. Eh, maybe out of the games focus, Maybe destroyers can be a little closer to land but pathing better improve. 11. See 8 12. Seems to be outside of what this game will have. 13. Again, sure, see 1 14. I guess, sure, maybe

The spectacular ones are known as Flash Fires which has the turrets fly off

Fair enough, I suppose if you broke up the map in a "Provencal" or "State" system rather than the base system RTW has to show some border change. Mostly just coastal ones of course but maybe some inland ones that can supply a valuable resource like coal/oil/steel. I guess it also does beg the question how interaction with the branches of the navy and army there is, both on the map and when competing with funding. Say you take every opportunity to squeeze every cent of funding from the army, when at war, you have a harder time gaining victory points as the army struggles to gain victories and all the war effort fall onto you. Where bending over to the army means to have less funds, so less ships and of less quality so sea battles are an uphill struggle and if you're blockaded, that advantage the army has will shrink drastically over time.

I mean, Russia did get swamped by Germany in WW1. Really it would probly be like in RTW with some minor events showing land campaigns. After all, control of the sea is a decisive factor in any war, representative with blockade and the like. And gameplay wise, it would suck to dominate the sea fully yet lose massively with tons of bases gone and funding slashed because of factors completely out of your direct control. At that point, may as well make a full grand strategy game or a really epic scoped one like War in The Pacific

I'm looking forwards to the NC with 3 quad 14 inch turrets

I mean no disrespect to the Kawacki herself, but the British do have a special way of naming their ships that really worked out here.

Honestly for the best that Dreadnought was first, if for no other reason that Dreadnought-battleship just sounds better than "Kawacki-battleship" "Kawacki-like battleship" or "Kawacki-styled battleship." Same really for any other of the nation's dreadnoughts if they would in some alt-timeline be launched first. Be it South Carolina, Nassau, Dante Alighieri, Imperatritsa Mariya, or Courbet. Maybe Tegetthoff has a better ring to it, but the Austrians were behind on that so not really a possibility.

I do like your ideas, but i just got another one that came to me, what if there's some method you can cheat on the treaties, like the Axis powers started to do. Trying to squeeze a few extra thousand tonnes here and there. All at the risk of being found out and causing a spike in tensions.

Now, forgive me if I overlooked various announcements, I don't frequent the forms least not lately but hopefully more now, I was however curious about the upcoming campaign. I already asked about AI Wars but now I was wondering about the possibility of naval treaties and the mechanics behind them. What I want to know and explore are how will they work, and how should they? Will it be simplistic in that "A Convention in Hague has determined that all future ships will be limited to {Random Number} tonnes of displacement and a gun a caliber of no more than {Number} of inches." which yes it works, but this I feel we can develop so much more, by say looking at the treaties of the 1920's. Example: In our timeline, the British had no 16 inch gunned battleship, where the American's had the Colorados and the Japanese had the Nagatos. so they argued that they should have at least a couple and were allowed so. They tuned down the G3 design and made the Nelsons. Also how much player interaction is available? Yes it is most an affair with the politicians but I think the more the player can influence, the better for the enjoyment of the game, like arguing what the nation should have. Another thing is would this mean the ships that don't fit this requirement but are still on the dockyards would be scraped? As above, could one argue that as these ships are only a few months out from completion, that should be finished and it's up to chance for the politicians to make the case? Maybe the chance is based on the nation's current power stance in both ship tonnage, economic power and the span of the empire? Could we even see some more nuance in the terms, like no submarines, or that the total tonnage is limited, perhaps to a percent of the major naval power, like how the Brits had the highest limit, followed by the Americans and Japanese? Maybe you can be allowed a certain number of battleships and heavy cursiers as a minimum? Just some ideas to make treaties more dynamic.

Something I have been thinking about is in similar games, namely Rule the Waves 1&2, wars only exist between the player, AI allies and one or more AI nations. Tensions between nations are only tracked with the player, with an illusion of tensions with nations being from events, being: "You ally {NATION NAME} has reach a boiling point with their enemy {NATION NAME}, what is your course of action?" This only really leaves the world to revolve around your nation of choice with no other wars happening and the AI to build up navies that can only be used on the player. Now, I can understand that simulating a battle between multiple AIs with no player participation can be more than necessary. However RTW1&2 have events to represent a battle between an AI ally and an AI opponent without the player. Just an event reading: "In battle, your ally {NATION NAME} lost {SHIP CLASS AND NAME} and your enemy {NATION} lost {SHIP}" or some variation where the ally lost a ship but not the other or vise versa. Also when a ship intercepts a raider or blockade runner in a one on one, you can choose to auto resolve, ended with one ship sinking the other or the raider/runner out running the interceptor. This seems based one the ships involved, as a battlecruiser will reliably sink an armored or light cruiser, and a faster ship is more capable to escape the battle. Now, the idea for AI wars was demanded enough that a user made mod that tracks tensions between AIs in a separate window and somehow tracks battles with losses, I never got it to work so I can't say how it works, but it leaves me to ask for this game, is it possible that we could see conflicts between the AIs, even in a simplistic fashion? Something that makes the world a bit more 'alive' and 'real' by not being centered on the player?

I would like to see at least catapult launched hydroplanes at the very least. Something that helps on the campaign map, but also to spot those far away fleeing ships and help long range firing accuracy.

At least with the HP system of WoWs, you can damage ships more easily since fire and flooding takes away from the HP of the whole ships, where here it seems the diffent sections have their own HP as structure. This seems to mean that even if you hit and penetrate say the top decks, stern of a fleeing ship, guns, or superstructure but it is already knocked down in the red, any damage done does nothing. It shows a damage number, but the health bar (structural integrity) remains the same. Fires ends up being the only way to damaged them further as it'll spread down, but only if the AI cutted out on bulkheads as it'll be put out too soon. Flooding of course is also its own health bar, not that you'll hit a flooding hit on a fleeing ship anyways.

It's a heck of a good start. My favorite part is the jagged chunks taken out of the turrets, and even pairs well with the reloading animation such as here See the super firing turret here as the guns were interrupted in re-elevating by hits from a salvo and is silenced forevermore. Either solemn or amazing depending your point of view and I adore every bit of it.

My word I love the new damage model in the lastest build Just look at the size of those holes!

I'm ready

I would say I prefer the latter as well since it's probably just easier for developers and I firmly believe a big thing that should be pushed for in the game is more options for the player.

How about we raise this to be dependent on the country picked, or even just a toggleable option?