TotalRampage

The could be a good idea. We would need like a spy defense level to keep that a secret. Say if you have shit spy defense people can see and force war unless you scrap the ships. But if the ships already built they might sanction you or something.

Ya just giving the player the option is enough. Difficulty in this game is probably going to correlate heavily to how much money the ai vs the player is given. So if someone wants to add a treaty in correlation to a harder difficulty they can. Or maybe they like the difficulty just want to try out a treaty limit so there is no surprises.

Honestly, initially they probably couldn't but later on I don't see why it wouldn't work. Like you said it just adds more replayability. Also maybe the player could make a treaty before the launch of the game. Now that would be awesome

I'd like lower quality fuel to cause more mechanical issues if you choose to use it. Maybe it lowers your in game upkeep costs? But has the downside of more repairs I.e. ship not being propped into a battle scenario and instead being in port for maintenance.

RTW2 has an option to start after ww1 at the beginning of the like 1920's. It could be cool if you could during the campaign instead of starting at the earliest start choose an era like the 20's or 30's and then hit a box with historical limitations. That could let you start with techs maybe you want and also play within limitations if you choose to.

See I had lighter ships burning more fuel because they would move more erratically i.e. burning more fuel in situations such as convoy escorts.

I was assuming at the start of a war a country would try to use the best quality fuel available in this game. That's kinda why I added that blockaded part

Obviously Fuel is going to play a factor in campaign. But how much of a factor can we make it in the design of our ships? @CapnAvont1015 Had a cool Idea so I thought I would make a thread with a couple ideas I had. So obviously at the moment we have a slider bar for ship range. This provides to my understanding just a basic range the a ship type would travel while just taking away from the available tonnage we can work on with the ship. But maybe we can add another feature to the game. My idea would be fuel burn. So a ship could decrease fuel burn by Upgrading funnels to have more/more efficient funnels? Upgrading fuel used from i.e coal to oil Upgrading the physical engines Upgrading the shaft Double/triple bottoms and SPS @Shiki Right now there is an funnel efficiency option my question is does this add to what would be fuel burn on the ship reducing its effective range in game? A ship could increase fuel burn by Having more tonnage Having a ship be off balanced in any direction Types of ship burn fuel faster during wartime? I.e. DD's and CL's would be escorting against subs and maybe driving off would be raiders without queuing a battle Also some ideas that could be added into the game. Say you don't properly deal with a blockade on your country and or a region maybe that could limit the operational range of ships in that theater. Maybe you could then have the option of using a lower quality fuel but could cause more operational failures or could actually be seen in battle as the ships maintaining a slower top speed. Any ideas please comment.

Im making a thread about this right now with some ideas I have!

I like it. Just expanding a bit maybe you could add a different type of boiler system to the ship it adds more fuel efficiency but if you add more weight to the ship or say your ships is not balance correctly and the bow is like 5% over it burns more fuel. It would make people have to be very careful when designing ships that might have plenty of fuel but then they also have to be careful they dont design a ship that would burn to much fuel off.

"we will never add anything bigger than a destroyer". add's in Spee then so many heavies hahah.

Gunna jinx it again barney

So not what I was talking about at all but your poor monitor. You should work on that. My point has been that this game is not simulating actual history which people forget completely. I have never said that it wouldn't simulate actual physics or a form of them just that history in game will develop completely different because of the introduction of technologies earlier or later or lack of technologies and that this game is not a 1:1 simulation of real events because events will happen differently. Again missing the point. By this definition games such as Napoleon total war and the such would be sims because they use real world designs on the ships. Are they actual sims? No they are not. And I have not once complained about physics only that ship design will develop differently in the game than real life. My posts have also not talked about ships bouncing shells at all so I dont know why you would quote me to comment that I have a vague idea of "balance". This games meta will form around what works in the game not what worked historically which is what my point is. Also simulation reality? We are not rolling a dice here. I don't know if you have played the game but it relies a lot of user input more so than a Simulation game such as KSP would. You can't control the environment because they will be procedurally generated but you can definitely determine the tactics used in the game.

Yes but the technology in game will arrive at different times and the tactics in game can be completely different. As i pointed out while yes 18 inch guns might have been the answer for the yamato maybe because of your economic situation in game something else entirely will form. Tactics for example can change due to a game meta, It might be more efficient to build 100 destroyers and use them just because the economy dictates that we can use more destroyers with loads of torpedos because its more cost effective than using a BB. This games meta will form based of what works or not even if it worked historically. Designs were all based off the needs of the moment in real life which can come at different intervals because of the randomised economy and research in this game. I.e. the use of heavy cruisers might not happen because battlecruisers might become a more dominant force in the game because of what they bring to the fight for you vs cost. Also the none introduction of CV;s will also effect design. And again since you updated you response this game can literally not be KSD because KSD is literally a sim, "Kerbal Space Program is a space flight simulation video game developed and published by Squad for Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One". This game as I pointed out relies on flat buffs to technological advances and actually meta tactics that will form. "games not a sim they don't advertise it as such" I.e. more efficient to use BC over CA because no treaties never in place. Or maybe never using 8inch guns because most ships are heavier than historically. This game will form a meta that we have no idea about yet because we haven't played campaign yet.

This game does not have a real basis for "realistic simulation" to take part. We are not designing our own ships from the keel we are putting on turrets, funnels, towers, and adding technological enhancements to our ships. The game provides flat percentage based bonuses to boilers, barbettes, citadel, and shaft to just name a few. So why are we trying to make a game more simulation based when we have equips in the game that provide straight percentage based buffs? We will be making our own ships that could complete go against what historically happened. It doesn't matter how well a specific gun platform worked in history if in the game not using that gun platform saves the user money. We will have a made up economy that varies based off the actions of the user thus making introductions of certain technologies earlier or later in history. We could see 18inch guns become the norm in the meta of the game just because the user has the economy for it even though 16 inch guns probably work just fine as they did historically for the USN. So what will this game be realistically simulating? Yes we have realistic penetration values and damage models currently in the balance and works but what else is supposed to be "Realistically simulated"? That factor has no basis in this game solely due to economic factors in the game . Just because it was used historically doesn't mean it will fit our needs in this game.

Main issues that most people agree on *note its in order of what I believe is most important* Designer needs more features and freedom Balance changes of already implemented features. *which we cannot truly do until we have campaign other than obvious ones like zombie transports and the like* More communication *some people would like it, i've reported bugs and seen them fix it in the next update so im content but other are not so last for me* We are not opposed to realism in fact we love it. But the fact remains this is a game and when people say historically this didn't work or that didn't work well that's true but this is a game. People demand that it accurately simulate real world events and progressions but this game is set in a faux history environment. Where BB's and BC will have an oversized role because of features not being implemented into the game *airpower*. While this game simulates and environment it is not a sim. It has features in the game *The designer namely* that leaves this game out of any supported simulation because the human factor. Humans while playing this game will discover new meta's to the game *meta is what works best within the games environment*. So for example while its nice that maybe treaty cruisers served important roles in ww2 we might NEVER see a treaty cruiser in the game because no treaty was ever made *Faux history*. So development or a new player lead meta in the game will form around specific ingame events that can not be accurately presented in history because every game is literally going to be different. So how it made sense to use 8 inch guns because of the treaty we could completely discover a whole new way to wage cruiser warfare in the game because we might have no limits. So i guess my point is madham we actually aren't simulating the birth of the yamato and how it came to be we will be discovering new things. And I don't see that as a problem and don't see why people do. We are here to literally play out alternate history within the confines of our own naval development and strategy not historical ones Start the thread I like it.

It's not a simulation because we can actively form a meta to the game. I.e. Designing ships to meet specific circumstances or exploit feature's for our benefit. Sims use real world designs that the player uses in a scenario. I dont know of any "Sims" that allow you to change aspects of the vehicle you are using to fit a certain criteria, sims usually make it so the player uses the vehicle within set parameters to the fullest not designing its own. Also this game literally can not be a sim and has never been advertised as a sim just realistic combat which many games offer their take on. This game can simulate designs and how to overcome them but it will never fully simulate actually naval combat how people want because the player controls the design. We are creating ships inside a game run system that historically never existed and we don't have all the values for so it can't properly simulate things that never actually existed. Also my comment on WT was that I liked it not comparing this to that but if I was if someone wants a "Sim" your better playing war thunder naval than this game.

Agreed. I personally love WT realistic because it's actually harder to die though :P. I will say that this game operates in a sort of quazi history realm where you can literally change the course of history. And this game can't really be a sim because we make our own ships essentially. People are going to find meta's and more effective countermeasures in the game against various types of units because we have the opportunity to essentially create hundreds of variants and "test" them in combat. Which might not be historically accurate because maybe it's more cost effective for you to build torpedo boats and charge them into an enemy BB. You might lose 80% of them but when they cost so little in the campaign it could make it a viable tactic. People just don't know what what will happen because well every campaign will be different. Also this game is about battleship battles which historically did not happen often. So knowing exactly might theoretically might happen in a battle between battleships is inconsequential because well there is so many things that could have happened in really life and we will never be able to accurately replicate it in this game. Because this game is not going to be a sim.

Which hulls are you referring to in game? Because historically they got more hydrodynamic is the word I believe. So thinner pointed fronts to cut through the water. You can look at the post 1936ish battleship's all had the standard elongated bow which widened towards the turrets (even the yamato class). And in terms of keeping the same width throughout the ship the historical picture's I posted once it gets past the initial bow so about the first turret it reaches the max width of the ship. Which it would stay for the remainder of the citadel belt. Please see the attached picture which shows approximately the citadel belt (marked in yellow) on a ship in game. Starts thin then increases to max width then once the citadel ends it thins slightly for hydrodynamics.? (still don't know if that's the proper word for it)

slackin barney slackin

I'm going to try to recreate a monster I made in RTW2 with the 20 inch guns. 4x2 front with 4x1 back 20" upgraded Alsace design now that I can. @Cptbarney Or maybe make this...............

Ouch you forgot about me this time.................... Also in other news can't wait! Thanks for the update @Nick Thomadis!

To me DD's are the great equalizer. Just takes one torpedo to set off your whole magazine because you didn't invest in torpedo protection......... memories. 😥

Are you talking of instances where the AI per say "Cheats"? Usually you see in other RTS titles AI will get buffs because well they can't counter a human properly so they might get extra income or stat related buff or the human suffers debuffs. If I had to guess we will probably have a system like that in game but it would probably be correlated to well the difficulty the player sets the AI to whether how hard they cheat or not. I think the Ai might get buffs to ship performance i.e ship range or accuracy in designs but they wouldn't be hidden. There should be a spy system that will be implemented which will allow you to see ship designs of nations you are spy on by chance hence the websites "diplomatic complications". The biggest issue in my opinion would be the AI completely ignoring the money system in game but that's doubtful. I believe they will follow the same cost system as us but may be given more funds to use than they would otherwise have if that country was being played by a player. This system would probably also be influenced by a difficulty rating i.e. on hard mode the AI makes 20% more on top of what the country naturally makes. I don't think we will have "ghost" or randomly generated fleets just do to the fact that naval power in the game could never be properly be calculated and it would be harder for you to win because the AI could fight essentially forever. Just my two cents

agreed