Illya von Einzbern

I do agree with Absolute0CA. Historical values on guns would be lovely how ever i would like to extend that to also fit ship classifications. No more CLs with 9" guns. Ship with 20.3cm guns were considered CAs for it's gun caliber. No more BCs with 16" guns. Other thing i find slightly disturbing is that some BCs have more armor than BBs and greater speed along side with big guns and loads of big guns..... I thought BCs were high speed lightly armored semi big gun platforms and not BB replacements. These are some things i have been noticing when playing the naval academy. AI ships are quite random and not really following the proper parameters of said class they try to be. Honestly the best BC i have seen is the 18" one I wondered how the kek it penned my 20" belt armors like hot knife thru butter . Surprising? yes but man that was just silly

The AP penetration fix has some what mixed results. Both me and the opposing BB managed to spend all ammo and we were both left with 25 to 20% integrity. The guns we used were 15" guns and the armor belts were 20.1" (my ship) and opponents 23". (TNT blasters) At long range the battle was pretty much shatter party. Funel and super structure dmg. Close range were the guns said they could go thru 25".... that did not happen even when in full broadside. Not to mention that you can no longer 5x the time in a slug fest is not so fun. After 1 and half hours later we both had no ammo left (almost fell a sleep while waiting) and we were circling each other. Guns failed to pen HE did nothing, shatters, bounces, damaging same spot over and over again with minimal results.... I don't know about the shell balance here. It feels bit wonky. Gun reload modules and current fire speeds are good +1 for that. Please return the 5x time when in close combat. I don't really want to wait ages for a slug fest to end and i will accept any scrutiny for my wish AP pen and HE pen is bit wonky and does not really support historical gun set ups. 8" CA 14" to 15" BBs and other historical gun sets are obsolete when there are bigger guns available in naval academy. To be fair i don't see it necessary nor mandatory to equip 18" guns on BC just in case the other ships armor belt is 23" and you need HE that ignores armor (AP too ). The CA rant is for the mission convoy escort. I tried to build Prinze Eugen (close enough) to escort the convoy and boy... 8" guns are now pointless. Pens in close range is massively suicidal against BC with 16" guns.... (remember the BC with 18" guns just in case you need to pen ships??) Not sure is this intentional but in order to have some what of fair fight when going against tougher tonnage is to have biggest guns you can find and fit. In this patch the meta is guns.... Bring out as many guns and preferred the biggest guns you can fit with extra ammo capacity. Perhaps mission scaling is the issue here but man this ain't good at the moment.

Carrier doctrine till 1941 was harasser and scout. in 1942 carriers became offensive tool. Carriers did not see the end of battleships (Missouri served among jet carriers) What carriers did teach is don't build ships that are slow and cumbersome. Missouri's AA was more than adequate to fend of jet planes after retro fit.... so much for the end of battleships. What carriers are is end of silly gigantus biggus ship builds and to more smart build with AA taken in. Unlike Japanese ships which had so horrendous AA that you would have not fended of a biplane with broken engine before it strafes the deck clean (which actually did happen in china coz DD AA was just 12x 25mm AA guns) Offensive carriers (1942 doctrine) literally is the end of silly builds (what they closed the silly walks ministry!?!?) Quite a few ships had to have some of the secondary batteries removed for proper AA configurations and dual purpose secondaries became precious as diamonds. There is absolutely no point in the carrier phobia. (i understand that WoWs has traumatized you but this is not WoWs. Trust these guys i am quite positive that carries won't mess up anything else than your ministry of silly walks. Now have any one seen my 24x 18" ship!?! )

I see really any reason for this CV will make BBs obsolete. IJN had exceptionally bad AA 25mm guns with small ammo capacity, no radar tracking and Type 3 ammo was considered as fireworks (white phosphor does not burn metal planes). USN BBs and cruisers had 40mm Bofors with massively better fire rate with better ammo capacity, radar assisted AAA guns for blockading and ton of small machine guns for proximity coverage. Kamikaze and air attacks towards USN ships became suicidal and futile due to tech advantage of USN (no pun intended). If we only look at the ships that got sank due to carriers. They all have in common the fact that they were never expected to defend them self against plane attacks. (Repulsor, pre dreads and old cruisers). After the attack on Pearl harbor carriers were reevaluated and considered to have potential in offensive role. USN also adopted this approach after the incident. Before the attack carriers were never considered to be used mainly offensively. Main purpose was to spot the enemy and allow the fleet to have the upper hand in ship engagement. Reason why sword fish and sea gladiators were a thing in Royal navy carriers before pearl. They were more than enough to provide intel and help scuttling enemy ships. Next argument would be attack on Bismarck and how CVs are not OP. Well the carrier never sank Bismark only harassed it. If the carrier wanted to sink Bismarck it should have sent more planes and attack more often. This would have made the whole task force chasing Bismarck pointless. In game this sudden change in carrier doctrine should occur 1941 December and continue from that point onward. How to counter this. Retrofit AA mounts to your ships and improve fire control and radars as well build your own carriers to escort your own fleets. Simple really no need for this massive CV OP plox remove. I do hope this short sited view on the carriers would simply stop as they are not so OP as thought and some what easy to counter. Hollywood might have tough that one CV dominates the world (might lord ring :D) but in reality CVs were more of humble spotter and skirmisher before Yamamoto thought outside the box. Even then the USN was more than capable show middle finger the planes as well were the Royal navy after some technological upgrades and retrofitting. IJN DD losses due to carriers?? IJN DD losses were due to silly planning and had nothing to do with CVs being OP. 4 DDs with 25mm AA and mere 15 rounds per magazine.... need more to say? (these AA guns were very popular in IJN sadly) Crying CV op coz no effort putted to AA defense is like telling enemy to make stuff that even a infant can break bare handed 😐 Many of the ships machine guns were more than effective against torpedo boats (example PT-109) And these were considered more than a threat for a battleship on mass than carrier (before the pearl incident). After all machine gun is more than capable to hit small target than 155mm casement gun... needles to say it but to use 13" gun on a PT is a overkill and good luck hitting something so small. Shortly the whole wall 1. CV are not OP due to their role before December 1941 2. Retrofit AA to your old ship designs (historically accurate action) 3. Build own CVs and have the combat air patrol cover your fleet (historically accurate action) 4. Focus on air radars and fire control to show middle finger to planes (USN Historically accurate action) 5. BBs simply wont become obsolete only low tech ones and even then it will not be long before ship AA becomes sufficient (Historically accurate sadly IJN didn't get the memo) 6. CV OP plox remove cry is silly and unreasonable not to mention immersion breaking and historically inaccurate to not have carriers. Source for AA: Type 96 25mm AA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_96_25_mm_AT/AA_Gun Bofors 40 mm AA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun Oerlikon 20mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_20_mm_cannon Type 3 ammo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell) List of various AAs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_anti-aircraft_guns Stource for Carriers roles and development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_aircraft_carrier Carrier effectiveness in combat https://ethw.org/Aircraft_Carriers_in_World_War_II Planes too weak please buff https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

I can see coastal guns in the campaign. It would be logical to add these. Naval landings? Now i am hyped

20km range and for full 40 min.... With the big guns and normal ammo count.... how did you not run out of ammo?

I find the secondaries bit too over ratted. It is cool to spam ton of 2" gun shells but if we check how many secondaries ships really had and the amount we use in the game. Boosting their accuracy would make the main guns obsolete against lightly armored ships. (RIP my glorious 10x 8" triple turrets and casement). The accuracy as it is now is some what okay. With the mission where you can choose the improved secondary battery accuracy gives 13% hit chance at 4km witch is quite good for mk1 eyeball aiming system. If there is tech that gives them more computer guidance or own range finding equipment (mark 2,3?) then the accuracy boost would be justifiable. (we don't really know what campaign has in regarding secondaries). For naval academy the secondaries are more or less nice fireworks and small danger. (type 3 shell description?). Naval academy is naval academy and secondaries there kinda cool but pointless (i have seen these 2" monstrosities that makes warhammer 40K orcs jealous). In naval academy i use very few secondaries and fast firing decent caliber guns. Taking the biggest does not necessarily mean the best but taking the inadequate guns is bad as well.

I think we can have CVs and control for combat air patrols. Once target(s) is acquired CV will automatically choose a target. Depending on the pilots training/experience they will select optimal target and hit with X % depending in the training and experience. Pilot experience can behave like brigade experience in ultimate general. More pilots dead more damage to experience and strike effectiveness. CVs would require 2 different exp counters. 1 for the plane maintenance crew and 1 for pilots. Strike planes attack orders should be controllable like we have for torps and guns (None, Save, Normal, Aggressive). This would reflect the attack pattern. Safe will attack ships that posses minimal risk, normal medium risk and aggressive the most valuable target regardless of personal safety. (might be tad bit hard to implement) Strike planes and combat air patrol squads and size? Strike plane squad sizes should be some what adjustable minimum of 3 planes for combat air patrol and up to max 12 planes. strike planes from minimum of 6 to 12. Naturally the number of squads and planes in said squads depends in the carriers hangar size and plane tech. (ultimate generals army composition system would work here) Flight leaders like brigade commanders from ultimate general? I see no reason why not to have these. Would give small bonuses to the squadrons performance. Why control combat air patrols? They serve 3 purposes. 1 to scout and provide vision (target identification depends on skill). 2 Defend the fleet or carrier from air strikes, escort strike planes. Air combat and damage planes? Planes that engage in air combat and suffers damage will try to return to carrier of possible after combat (if possible may disengage middle of air combat and may get shot down if enemy fighters has superiority). Strike planes will also try to break formation if damage too badly unless they are set on aggressive mode. If return to carrier is not possible and the plane makes a landing in water there is a X% chance pilot is recovered after battle. What else will CVs bring to ship construct? Not only would you need to think were you put the silly amount of 2" guns you now need to balance between gun numbers and AA layout. The increase of air threat as time passes would work hand in hand with real evolution of naval combat. +Pros and -Cons +Many of the required menu tabs exists and should be usable by the studio from ultimate general +Immersion and loyalty to realism +More tactics and flexibility +RNG can be used for pilot recovery +Balancing - AA effects and gun sounds would require more computer power but that can be optimized. -Complexity to model air combat -I have no idea how complex in reality it would be to implement these carriers -Balancing

Mission that would simulate campaign behavior. Design a DD, CL, CA, BC, BB in campaign manner with massive fund pool. So you can balance out modern BBs and not so modern CA,CL and DDs or go with balanced so on and so fort. (i have no clue how you need to balance your funds in the campaign when building ships) Something that would prepare the player for the campaign and have the player use the created fleet against enemy fleet with random composition of DD,CL,CA,BC,BB