Tammuz

I do agree that small guns in general seem pretty weak even vs lightly or unarmored targets. with that being said, no small guns shouldnt be able to be used en masse to defeat armor. the ADVANTAGE of the smaller ships historically, which hopefully will come out in the campaign version of the game, is cost: so taking the Iowa vs Fletcher example: 1 Iowa class battleship costs as much to build as 16.66667 fletcher class destroyers. Also takes much longer to build, can only be built at a big ship yard, etc. Which probably explains why the USA only ended up building 4 Iowa class BBs compared to 175 fletcher class DDs If anything, they need to add the major historical drawback to torpedo deck-mounts and thats torpedo ammo detonations.

nah, this game gets into WW2 and even already includes yamato designs and radar which is great with that being said, if they introduce quads, I would limit quads to the calibers they were actually built and used in on ships: 14 inches on the king george V class 13in on Dunkerque class and 15in on the Richelieu class I wouldn't want to see something that never actually existed be introduced (16in+ quads)

keep them, but yes putting enemy into full retreat should GENERALLY be a victory condition no navy wins a war by running away to harbor all the time yes letting your opponents biggest boats get away CAN very well be a victory if you wind up bottling them up in a harbor: see Battle of Jutland

Agree with OP. can score hit after hit with 5 inch guns vs a torpedo boat and do nearly no damage to it. secondary guns in general need a looking at. as a reminder: 5in guns were the primary guns on many destroyers and light cruisers in WW2. 8in gun was what defined a heavy cruiser. now while these “smaller” caliber weapons should be defeated by the armor of a battleship, they should be able to blow a torpedo boat out of the water when they actually land hits.