flaviohc16

So, i went for the same set of "rules" both with the vanilla mod and the normal one, and overall the difference i would say it's good: US 1890 start, normal difficulty pictures are of 1914, so 24 years of game in both, i deleted Spain , after around 12 years of initial peace to make the economy grow. in the test economy, Japan collapsed due to war very early on against both russia and China, but i was impressed by the fact of how quickly and aggressively we divided all the "ungoverned territories" between the nations that had a navy there, in like 18 months the entire japan was under someone. Now the economy feels way, way more grounded, and the numbers of ship too: both the 2 biggest AI economies have around half of their navy compared to the vanilla mod, and their economy is way smaller (and mine too): vanilla top 2 ai economies and me: ( UK, Germany, USA): 2.7 trillions, 1 trillion, 600billions economies in the test: (same nations): 300 billiions, 260, 190. The game economy, even in normal difficulty, is not snowballing, i have to keep an eye to the economy and can't perma-build ship. Also, i just checked, the numbers of ships by class (excluding dds) for both the UK and Germany, are pretty close to IRL 1914. I would say that it's a very good success!! folder with the pictures of both scenarios, so you can study them ( and one image showing the problem with the Battlecruisers vs dreadnought accademy mission, that i told you a couple of post back) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15oIX4xNe5GHnAoRK6y4qct7slhbsIDJs?usp=sharing

THANK GOD...and the devs!

The problem is that I have only the "after", because i didn t know that it was going to happen. I am playing as US, start in 1890, and I'm in 1910, and i had radar ready to get researched in 89 months, then after 2 months i had it in 130 months. oh, wait, literally now that i was typing i might get what it was: i just got in peace. I'm an idiot. tomorrow i will have both the old and the new campaign in 1914, and i will have screenshot for both

I'm trying the experimental economics mod, but i have noticed that when i got to "very advanced" (relative to the others) the time to research all the technologies went up by 50%, is it normal?

@o Barão do you want us to test it on some set of - difficulty -nation -start year -how long? (10 years, ok.)

i will try it this weekend

There are 2 missions in the academy that are impossible/basically impossible. The 1st one is a battle against cruisers in which you have to build cruisers to defend you transports, the problem is that the battle starts with the ranges too close and the transports get nuked before you can even engage the enemy The 2nd is "dreadnought vs modern cruisers" were you have to build a modernized BB against 2 modern CA and 2 BCs, the problem is that the enemy goes 36+ knots and has 20-25-30% hit rates, that makes impossible to play against, and even when you manage to neutralize them, they run away and you run out of ammo.

This is a great Idea, but then there should be also the ability for the ai to sense "blood in the water", so that if you go all in on tech and transport, other nation will want to wage war at you

This is exactly what I was talking about when talking about nerfing HE power

That's good if so, as it allowed for some game-braking tricks

Just USA instead of EUA, I also have seen some small stuff, but right now I don't remember where. On another note, when I was talking about fire resistance, I meant something like how many sections of the ships need to be on fire at the same time for the ship to be sunken by fire. I feel like small ships with HE spam can overwhelm a capital ships too easily using the fire mechanic, I'm ok instead with disabling it with a lot of hits and killing the crew. Also, about the crew: can we have it killing the ship at 50% of the crew lost instead of 55? And also, why there is so much difference in crew requirements with the sliders? A ship with cramped crew compartments has half the crew of one with spacious crew compartments, but the min crew required also goes up, and this doesn't make sense, it should be that same, and only be additive. I hope I explained myself, especially in the last point.

Can I ask you if it could be possible to increase the fire resistance of the ships? Imho the game feels still too much HE centric, especially considering how many shells just over penetrate, especially against their " proper" targhets ( 16" Superheavy against 15k CAs and 70k BBs)

Yeap, and I noticed that I could do that by mistake 🤣. It really changes how war are fought, with way less of thoose corollary mission that basically permalocked your ships in port

Do you have 100k tons in the sea region? Are you at war?

Can I ask if it is possible to implement the change that I described above? (One month last 2 turns instead of 1)

@o Barão, as I have seen that you liked my comment in the main thread I would ask if you know: How hard would it be to make the change that I asked for? So making every month last 2 turns instead of 1, maybe making an Early-month and a Late-Month? Would that be feasible?

So, in the ultimate admiral subreddit, we were talking about the campaign length, and how to extend it the end date got pushed to 1965 from 1950. I have a better idea that would greatly benefit gameplay with probably minimal work: ( Copy paste from my reddit post) I'm the 1st one who wants longer campaigns for world domination, but having WW2 era ships fighting with guns in the 60s is stupid. A better way to do thing would have been to give us more granularity time wise: every month last 2 turns ( let's call it 1st half and 2nd half of every month). This would have been a gigantic improvement for the game: 1) More granularity for movements: right now ships are stupidly slow, something that somewhat NAR improves 2) better for invasion, as you can have invasion that last less/more for the same tonnage of ports, so that small islands in the Pacific takes for example one 1 month and a half instead of the 3 months that we have now, same for land invasion 3) better for construction , especially in the 1st years of the campaign with small ships, you can have the 200 tons TBs ready in 4 months instead of 6 we have now. 4) we would have a way longer campaign, but it would still end in a more realistic 1950. 5) more gameplay for shorter campaigns. Right now the 10 years campaign are stupidly shorts, you don't have time to manage and conquer what you want. 6) better for managing relationship with others. And imho it would be such an easy conversion to do. What do you think? Devs would be hard to implement?

There is some problems with unlocking the modern cruisers in the USA: at 16k tons you unlock the "heavy cruiser I", then at 17k tons instead of unlocking the "heavy cruiser II" you unlock the "modern heavy cruiser II", but don't have the hull unlocked in the builder

It already does, exactly how you asked for.

Had the same happen to me, I had something like 32 BCS and 48 CAs, it was glorious....and a PowerPoint presentation

Yeap, happened for me in my last 2 campaign, very annoying!

I was never able to do that, both with my ship and the ones that I got as war reparations

It's a bug known forever, the other problem with it is that those shells do massive damage because they don't go into ricochet check and don't count angling/various layers of armor and the armor type ( it's like they are using iron armor), this makes the bug devastating and exploitable

to add to everything that was said above ( your gdp is really,really baad, like terribad): check that your ports aren't at overcapacity, this kills your economy. How can you have an economy this bad when others are 2-300 billions+?

We should have a more dynamic war economy, because right now the best way to win the game ( aka have a bigger gdp) is not to play ( not going to war). We should have something that somewhat follows what happens in land wars, when you are losing badly, you have more conscription and that usually saves you ( but rightfully so destroys your economy). Right now, when in war, we have a flat " double the navy resources-half GDP growth", so +100% money/-50% GDP growth. We should have something different. My idea, just to make an example: During the 1 year of war, everything remains the same, after that, VP gets taken into account ( and they should be over a certain amount, lets say 50k, so you can't game the system by not engaging the enemy), at that point you look at the ratio between you and the enemy, and that changes you economy. TO give some random examples: Up to 1:3 ratio ( let's say you have 60k VP, the enemy has 20K) everything remains the same, aka +100% money/-50% GDP growth From when the ratio become from 1:3 to 1:5 ( so 100k:20k VP) the winning economy gets +66% money/-33% GDP growth, and the losing one gets it reversed +150% money/-66% growth, this is when the winning side it's starting to win and the enemy it's starting to get worried about losing the war, so the winning side it's starting to feel less pain and getting its economy spinning again and reducing the military budget, and the reverse for the losing one From the 1:5 to 1:8 ( 160k:20K)the winning economy gets +50%money/-25% GDP growth, and the losing gets again the reversed +200% money/-75 % gdp growth From 1:8 to 1:12 VP (240k:20k) the wiining economy gets +33% money/ -16.6% GDP growth, losing gets +250% funds/ 83% growth over 1:12 disparity, were basically one side is collapsing, and for the other the war it's just a minor annoyance, it could be: winning side +20% money/-10% gdp growth, and the losing side +300% funds/-90% gdp growth. This could also be done taking into account GDP, and or population, so you don't have the insane situation where the USA is attacking a dying France that now has only small islands and still you get nuked with -50% GDP growt. IMHO this would make everything more dynamic, what do you think?