Shaftoe

@Nick Thomadis I don't have much time on my hands to test the rest of all supposedly "fixed" missions now, but I believe what I saw allows me to make the following conclusions, which could help you to properly balance Naval Academy scenarios to make them actually enjoyable learning experience for starting players: 1. Fix the AI. Despite your claims to the contrary, it keeps retreating - and it's doing so very quickly. Lost a single light cruisers? RUN! Lost a single battleship (out of entire squadron)? RUN! - that's the AI's logic which we observe. This kind of decision making on AI's part simply won't do, if players are expected to actually destroy the enemy, and not just rout them out. So, make the AI less prone to giving up and fleeing, and ensure that it won't run away, if scenario doesn't allow it. This is such a crucial point that I hope it will be fixed by the next update to Naval Academy. 2. Increase mission time across the board. Right now, scenarios tend to end too quickly - even despite changes you've already made. Naval warfare is quite slow. Give people time to think and execute their maneuvers, to finish protracted battles. You know, losing an hour long game due to an unrealistic technicality, when enemies are almost dead is not fun at all. It's not an encouragement to keep trying - it's a disappointment, a signal that the goddamn thing is simply not fair and doesn't deserve any more time. This is not the kind of reactions you want your training scenarios to yield, is it? 3. Increase amount of funds given to players by default (even without bonus) in missions where they're supposed to prevail against overwhelming odds. Missions like "US Super Battleship" or "Defeat the Full Fleet". Maybe veteran players can do it without spending the whole amount of cash, but this is Naval ACADEMY - it's supposed to be a fun learning experience first, and a challenging singleplayer scenario second (that's what we need custom battles and campaign for). So, when it comes to crazy scenarios, make sure up-and-coming admirals have enough funds to try some really expensive toys. P. S. I hope you will consider implementing these 3 advices. While my approach may appear to be rather... blunt, I think it'll help you to solve the problem sooner, thus freeing more time to finalize the much-awaited campaign without further distractions.

@Nick Thomadis Again, AI still retreats - after losing only 1 battleship! Strangely, funds allocated to player in that mission (if technoloy boost is selected) no longer allow to build such ships as Montana-class BB, or similar battleships - although it was possible before. Now it needs ~6.000-15.000$ more than before. This mission is supposed to give players ultimate freedom in building an American super battleship, so I suppose extra funds are necessary to realize even most bold designs. Plus, the task of wiping out an entire battleship division, supported by a destroyer squadron, is a really hard one - at least for an average player, who's supposed to learn from Naval Academy - not quit it in frustration. Thus, if player chooses to build 1 super battleship, then they go for technology bonus. If several weaker battleships - for more funds bonus. Recommendations: 1. Add extra 15.000$ to funds, if player has chosen technology boost (strongly recommended). 2. Add extra 30.000$ to funds, if player has chosen more money boost (desirable).

@Nick Thomadis AI still retreats (both BB and remaining cruiser are fleeing). It happened after loss of just 1 enemy cruiser. I can confirm that it is indeed a persistent behavior pattern for the AI. This is not just a battle maneuver - all enemies are retreating, contrary to description of changes in the opening post. Because of this, I STILL didn't have enough time to kill enemy BB. Recommendations: 1. Add +15 minutes to mission time (as an extra contingency); 2. Ensure that AI will actually NEVER retreat (as a fix) 3. Give player's cruisers some forward-mounted torpedoes (as an alternative way to finish enemy BB, if player's own BB's shells ran out).

@Nick Thomadis Still facing two enemy Monitors in Virginia mission. I am also not sure if the time has actually anged (those +15 minutes). Recommendations: 1. Remove the secound enemy minotor (fix); 2. Add +30 minutes (as an extra contingency - to prevent frustrating fails from happening too often in the future).

Finally! Fixes for Naval Academy! Could it be that dumb luck is no longer the most important deciding factor?!

I shall express my reaction to this with one word:

As a Russian, I have no objections to that.

You're welcome.

Perfect length to beam ratio:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Sure, let's bring a thing that killed battleships into a battleship game. I don't see any problems with that.

While that would certainly be a neat feature, it's hardly worth prioritizing in the near future.

Logistics better not be too complicated. I think player should have a "logistics officer", which could be leveled up with earned experience points in order to improve supply and fleet cap.

Some day this thread may reach 20 pages. Just think about it...

People in this thread seem to treat the government and the military as two completely different entities. This is wrong. Military, and thus the Navy, is merely a branch of larger government (i.e. state), with its own field of expertise and operations. Head of state will not listen to ministers of education, justice and healthcare for an advice on naval or otherwise military matters. While people like minister of finance and minister of defence may have a say in naval affairs, historically Naval officials were the ones promoting/opposing participation in treaties, such as the Washington Treaty. Normally, navies are directly engaged in policy making, when it concerns them. And you must agree - not involving them would have been stupid. You see, coding a complicated system of international (and internal) policies has to be very time-consuming, and at that it falls outside of the scope of this game, therefore a simpler and easier-to-control system is needed: it should be up to the player to affect signing of any treaty concerning naval restrictions or spending, although in bad situations players should not always be able to get preferable political solution. However, if the system were to be completely outside player's control (as if the minister of education decided whether to sign a naval treaty or not), then it would be nothing more than a questionable and frustrating design choice on the devs' part. Ultimately, you may agree or disagree with that approach, but this is a game, and finest examples of gaming industry (particularly strategy games) demonstrated time and again that more control is better than less.

Player should be able to decide whether or not they want to sign any treaty. And each treaty must have its own page, with PROs and CONs clearly laid out.

Good bye.

While I agree that the game should allow far more creative freedom, so we can build historical vessels such as the Nelson-class BB, I cannot agree with the idea of having 18" on a light cruiser (unless it is some sort of 1st April scenario). Realism and design feasibility often walk hand in hand, so there are serious practical reasons why some unorthodox ship designs simply wouldn't work. "Strategy should govern the type of ship to be designed. Ship design, as dictated by strategy, should govern tactics. Tactics should govern details of armaments." -J. A. Fisher, 1904

This exaggeration is not exactly accurate. It depends on specifics of a vessel in question.

What devs should do is make in-game learning materials (aka "manual" or "tutorials") very easy to access, so even the (proverbial) blind will quickly find them. I suggest placing "Manual" button in main menu, right above "Naval Academy", and secondary relatively LARGE button that will be seen in-game or during ship construction phase somewhere on the top.

Use these two things: google and common sense. Should help a lot.

Sadly, many Naval Academy missions are very poorly balanced, most often not giving the player enough time, or allowing enemy fleet to escape barely having enough surviving units to deny victory. So in NA scenarious luck is too much of a factor. In fact, sometimes it is the most important decisive factor. And these issues remain unaddressed, now for a very long time...

There is still this annoying bug, obstructing placement of DD turrets.

I already reported that bug. It's pretty annoying. But there is a workaround: hold LShift and move your lower turret a little forward - should solve the problem. Also, US DDs 5" twin mounts and triple mounts are essentially multi-barreled version of a turret which, IIRC historically only had 1 barrel. But the game has realistic USN 5" twin turrets (similar to those on USS Sumner and USS Gearing), and in my opinion - they should be used instead.

No, it can't be placed farther back on DLs. But it can be placed in front.