HistoricalAccuracyMan

Just from what you've described above, I am going to guess you are using far too much budget. If all you can build at the start of your campaign is 2 BBs, 4 BCs and 6 DDs...then you are either building incredibly expensive ships that chew through your available starting budget, or you are using so much money to train your crews and keep your transports full that you don't have enough money to put towards ship building. I am guilty of this as well: usually I can only build about 20 ships because my designs wind up being pretty expensive. It doesn't sound like you are ignoring convoy missions, but if you are...those can tank your budget, economy and unrest (learned that the hard way playing as Germany trying to defend ships in the Pacific most of my ships were in the Atlantic). I don't know how you design your ships, but operational range plays a big part here. If you aren't building ships that have a high operational range, that works against you when it comes to convoy defense missions--you can also set task forces to "protect" mode and that will help you out some too. And if all you are doing is maxing out transport capacity, and then ignoring them or losing them faster than you can blink...that's wasted money you could have used on things like new/more ships, research, or something else. Only other thing I can think of is try building some cruisers with long operational ranges, if you haven't tried that already. As far as the VP's go, I'm not for sure. But if you aren't fighting battles or are being very selective with the ones you fight, you aren't gaining very many VPs. Is there anything else that you could add/tell about these campaigns? Is there a certain strategy you adopt or specific way you play that might factor in? Because, again, going strictly off of what you have above: it sounds like you are spending so much money on crew training and transport capacity that you are actively bleeding yourself dry and therefore leaving yourself no money left over to build more ships or upgrade the ones you do have.

Could you please re-visit the weight offsets on some of the new hulls...the newer US dreadnought hulls in particular (the hulls that allow us to "recreate" USS Texas to be even more specific)? It seems like no matter how much I try, I can't get a decently balanced ship. It always winds up being much heavier on the bow than the stern no matter what I try. It doesn't need to be much of a tweak either...just give it a bit more weight towards the stern and I think it will be fine.

Could the weight distribution/offset values on the US Dreadnought III/IV hulls (the ones that are supposed to allow us to recreate the USS Texas) be tweaked or adjusted? It doesn't matter what I try, I always wind up with a large fore weight offset. Whether I do a "as built" configuration or a refit configuration for the Texas/New York...it always winds up being excessively heavy on the front. I personally think this is mostly due to the fact that the machinery spaces are so far forward because you can only really put the funnels on the raised portion of the hull. Could we maybe get the option to position the machinery spaces ourselves within a certain distance of the funnels? I think that would go a long way to help make ships more balanced

Mass and weight are not the same thing. 100 kg of bricks won't weigh the same as 100 kg of feathers

@Suribachi I will admit, I did not see that part on Iron Plate that mentions "-80% armor weight (Belt, Belt Extended)" and yes I was only changing the armor type, not thickness--but Iron Plate also has a note that says "+7.5% armor weight (all types)." Now, if we assume that only iron plate has that -80% weight reduction to the belt armor (and going by the tool tips in game, it is)...then every armor type would make early ships overweight, since even Modern Armor II only mentions a -50% armor weight (all types). Now I'm wondering, why does only iron plate armor get that special weight reduction while every other armor type doesn't? Why is it that solid iron reduces the belt armor weight, but once you upgrade armor to a stronger AND lighter armor (every other armor has the -XX% armor weight (all types) note on it)...you suddenly lose the belt armor weight savings? That doesn't make sense to me, and I personally think that should be the other way around where Iron Plate is the heaviest regardless and you can only get lighter from there. Idk, it's just weird to me how early ships have to cut a fair bit of armor to save weight while more modern ships seem to have few problems in this area. Maybe it's because early ships have such low displacement that armor weight is a large percent.

No, I'm not wrong. No, I'm not missing something. What I'm about to describe was tested in a custom battle/shared design tab, not the campaign...but that shouldn't matter (this way, the devs and anybody else who is curious can go and check this for themselves and get the exact same situation I am using). The picture below is a direct comparison where all I did was elect different armor types. In 1894, my battleship (Battleship I hull) is 9750 tons, with 97% of that displacement used (no modules that increase armor weight like barbette or citadel have been selected). When I switch the armor from Iron Plate, to any other option available (compound, nickel-steel or harvey), the weight jumps up to as much as 11,607 tons which is 122% displacement. For exact values: Compound: 11607 / 9750 tons (122% displacement) Nickel-Steel: 11375 / 9750 tons (117% displacement) Harvey: 10911 / 9750 tons (112% displacment) Now, directly from the game's description and stats/values for those armor options: Compound: +5% armor cost, +35% armor strength Nickel-Steel: -5% armor weight (all types), +25% armor cost, +40% armor strength Harvey: -15 % armor weight (all types), +50 % armor cost, +50% armor strength Notice how none of those armor types actually increase weight. One doesn't (or at least isn't supposed to) change it at all while two actually lower the weight (or are supposed to lower the weight) of all armor types. So why, then, whenever I choose a stronger and (allegedly) lighter armor type, does my ship suddenly gain almost 2000 tons at worst and about 1200 tons at best? Since this is a custom battle, there shouldn't be any tech bonuses from research that effect the armor weight, and the ship isn't excessively armored (even if it was over-armored, Nickel-Steel and Harvey armor should bring the armor weight down). I am on the latest release (not the beta), I haven't edited save files, I haven't messed with the game code. I am literally just messing around in the ship designer for custom battles. I'm not going to call this a "bug," but there is something definitely wrong here (unless I'm missing something, which I shouldn't be) and this "problem" has been around for a while. Whenever I do a pre 1900 start (or at least until I get Krupp I armor, because starting at Krupp I, all the armor weight modifiers work correctly) I find that you have one of two options when it comes to ship design: make severely under-gunned ships because your armor is (incorrectly) being made heavier, or make your ships glass cannons because you have to skimp on the armor to fit the guns you want. Has anybody else noticed this or experience this with early (pre-Krupp I armor) dates, either in the campaign or custom battles? @Nick Thomadis I know I've said it before about not liking to ping the devs and I don't want to direct message you because you guys are probably busy enough, but seriously: what is wrong here? If the in-game text is actually supposed to read +XX% armor weight instead of what it currently reads, that seems like it's an easy fix (and that also seems like the more likely issue here, if I had to guess). If that is actually how the text is supposed to read, then something is wrong with the code pertaining to the multipliers for armor weight. I hope (and would appreciate) you answering this question, or at least looking into it and seeing if there is anything wrong here. Thank you in advance (I hope...).

Don't know if it anyone else has experienced this, but after this latest update, (playing as Japan) my US and British friends like to repair their ships in my ports and then leave them there. I have several ports that are either at capacity or over capacity, but don't have a single ship of mine in them (in Port Arthur's case...it is over double the capacity and I've only got a single 10000 ton CL there). I realize they were my allies and at the time, my ports were the closest in the war so that's where they went for repairs. 10 months later, all their ships are fully repaired, but haven't sailed back home or to a port their nation actually controls. Has anyone else noticed this? Something to note: this campaign was started about a week before the latest update, and I didn't delete it after the update. Idk if it something caused by not deleting/starting a new campaign.

So, reading the notes for the latest minor update, how exactly are the "number of guns and ROF" factors going to increase/decrease the aiming progress? ROF would only affect your aiming purely down to the faster you fire, the faster you can correct the range. On number of guns, I assume we will still be punished for using USS Nevada style gun layouts unable to use any gun layout that doesn't have the same number of barrels per gun? Or are they talking about the overall total of guns? Anybody got an answer to that one?

I don't know who has been the most vocal about this issue, but I know I certainly have said a lot about it. And with support for the game supposedly ending soon, I would like to hear an official answer on a question that I have been asking for a while now: will the "two-turret aiming system" ever be changed/altered/fixed/replaced? As it stands right now, if your guns don't have the same number of barrels sticking out of the turret face, you may as well be firing blind with some of your guns. Why that is, I truly don't know. If your guns are the same size, but one turret has two barrels, one turret has three barrels and another has 4 barrels...they might as well all be different size guns because they'll each have their own targeting data (essentially: despite all my guns being the exact same size and length, my USS Nevada/USS Pensacola, King George V and Andrea Doria class ships are plagued by bad accuracy simply because some guns have two barrels while others have 3 or 4). There is no good reason for it to still be this way. We cannot set the propellant, bursting charge, shell weight, gun size and barrel length for each individual gun barrel (it applies to all guns of the same size), so a 14" dual turret should be exactly the same as a 14" triple turret, which should be the same as a 14" quadruple or single turret...with the only difference being reload time since it takes longer to load 4 guns than it does two. It doesn't matter how you look at it: a 14 inch gun is a 14 inch gun, regardless of how many barrels are in the turret. They would have the same range, same ballistics, same muzzle velocity, same everything. So why can my 14 inch triples fire "accurately" while my 14 inch duals are stuck trying to find the range just because the rear turret can't quite track the target? If this has actually been fixed/addressed/otherwise spoken on, I must have missed it somewhere. @Nick Thomadis I'm not a big fan of pinging the devs/staff, but please, I just want to know (and I'm sure others would like to know as well): Are designs like USS Nevada, USS Pensacola, HMS King George V and Andrea Doria going to be forever plagued by "bad accuracy" or eternally hindered by the "two-turret system" simply because some guns have X amount of barrels while others have Y number of barrels?

I don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but whenever I try to build a "Modernized" Texas on the new hull they added (so essentially, trying to build the USS Texas as she is right now/her WWII configuration), I get an absurdly high fore weight offset. I don't know if the hull needs to be tweaked or what, but I find that the new hulls that are made after the USS New York/USS Texas are hard to keep balanced at a decent/acceptable level.

Okay, so I've been wondering this for a while now...but is it impossible to completely erase a nation from the map? In my current campaign, the only provinces France has left is Western France and a handful of microscopic islands. I have failed two naval invasions, and both Germany and Italy have failed to conquer Western France. I had at least double the amount of tonnage required both times, and failed. Italy had them outnumbered by roughly 3-to-1 (without counting any allied troops helping them) and got to 67% progress before they ultimately started losing ground and failed. The odds when Germany attacked: 1.87 million Germans plus roughly 75,000 friendlies against roughly 154,000 French Troops with maybe 12,000 friendlies. Germany got to 89%, and then their progress plummeted to 0 and stayed there until they ultimately failed a few turns later. I successfully invaded Southern Spain, then my land army took over Western Spain. After that, I took Morocco. So now, Spain is only left with Northern Spain and a handful of African territories. I have now tried to invade Northern Spain 4 separate times. And on my final attempt, despite me brute-forcing it and moving literally every ship I had thus assembling over 4 million tons in a single invasion fleet (which was roughly 3 times the amount required to even start the invasion, and Spain's navy comprising of 3 CAs and 7 CLs only) it ultimately failed. China is down to 2 provinces...and that's it. Japan can't seem to conquer Central China despite outnumbering them 2 million to 200,000 and I can't conquer Southern China even though my land armies launch a 4-pronged offensive from the territories surrounding Southern China. I personally feel that if there are multiple major land offensives on a single province, the defending forces should be split up some how. It is physically for 750000 troops to be in 4 places at once. Yet, all 4 of my major offensives are met with the same 750000 troop force, thus basically guaranteeing I don't gain any ground because I'm always outnumbered. I personally think that needs to change. If I am fighting 750000 troops as I try and attack from Hong Kong, I shouldn't be fighting that same 750000 troop force as another force attacks from whatever province has Fort Bayard. @Nick Thomadis I am curious to find out an answer to this. Would somebody have to conquer all of the outlying "minor" provinces before conquering the home provinces of a certain nation, or is it not possible to completely remove a nation from the map through invasions/major offensives?

Assuming you mean operational range, it is really up to you to decide "how much is enough?" And even to that point, it kinda depends on what you want your ships to do. If you plan on some sort of Global Domination strategy where you want to have ports all over the globe, you're probably gonna need as much operational range as you can squeeze out of your ships...unless you plan to build ships that only operate in certain areas (i.e. these ships will only operate in the Caribbean, and nowhere else), then I guess you wouldn't need a huge operational range since they wouldn't be moving very far. If you want your Light Cruisers and/or Battlecruisers to be long-range commerce raiders, you generally want to try and maximize your operational range for those ships. If you want a battleship to be more of a costal-defense ship rather than a high-seas powerhouse, you don't need a very large range, since you would generally only operate that ship close to your home territory. Operational Range also impacts mission generation (I believe that the higher your operational range, the better your chances for "favorable" missions is), your power projection/blockades, and your budget as well--since a ship that has a large operational range may not have to refuel at sea when they sail from San Francisco to Tokyo, thus saving you money in the long run, while a ship that has lower operational range may enter a "low fuel" state and require more money (and time) to reach their destination. Long story short: it's really up to you and what you want your ships to do. If you are going to be sending ships around the globe, go with longer range. If you are fine with only controlling the waters around your home territory and nearby provinces, shorten your operational range.

When the guns are placed at their default size of 13.0 inches, does the gun still rotate? Some towers restrict the maximum gun size you can mount on them. If they can rotate before you upsize them 13.5 inches, then I'm fairly certain your only options are to select another tower, or downsize your guns. Yes, it can be quite disappointing and maybe a little ridiculous...but it's what we've got. So long story short, it really isn't a bug. It's just a limitation that we have to work around.

Glad these new hulls are right around the bend. Great work. Can't wait to see what other models (if any) you plan to add. But I have to ask...on those Atlanta type hulls...was that a new quad barreled gun modeled after the 28mm "Chicago Piano" that I saw? If it was...that's pretty neat

Ok, so I don't know if anyone else has a problem with this/thinks this is a problem...but I have found that the AI DOES NOT LIKE to scrap their ships. I'm not specifically talking about the playable nations here, though the major/playable nations don't scrap a whole lot of ships either (which is why I'm currently slaughtering ships built in 1900-1910 with my ships built in 1925 that have 1927/1928 tech). I'm mostly talking about the minor nations that you can become allied with/special trade partners with: Egypt, Mexico, Finland, Sweden, etc. I get that the minor nations are just that: minor nations. They are meant to be a source of extra income through warship sales and oil resources (if they have them), their ports can be used as supply ports, and any ships in their navy can be used in battle to help your side (but even though I'm not allied with Mexico, I can still use their ships in the Caribbean because I'm allied with Japan, who is allied with Mexico...idk, just kinda weird but whatever. Not gonna complain too much about free firepower). Only problem is...once you start getting out of the early 1900s (so like 1900-1910 I'd say), their ports are completely full--depending on the nation and how many ships they order/you sell them--and so then you end up in the 1920s, trying to fight a battle with your "modern" ships and obsolete ships you sold your friends in 1903. In my current campaign (year is 1926), Egypt is still using battleships and cruisers I sold them in 1907. DDs are a different story as they have recently bought some of my latest designs, but that's only because they didn't have the port capacity to hold anything bigger than 3 DDs. Their ships are so slow, they can barely catch transports...luckily my ships are all capable of doing at least 30 knots. And then, if you don't go to war or actively try and get their ships sunk (when they appear in battle), that's an income source that all of a sudden dries up. Not to mention, because those ships are so outdated...they basically just turn into dead weight or contribute nothing. The major nations are no better. Before the UK collapsed in my current campaign, they had 574 ships...47 of which were torpedo boats from 1900. I won't even try and tell you how many other museum pieces they had sailing around, but suffice to say the vast majority of their navy was, at minimum, moderately outdated or in severe need of refit/retirement. France still has 329 ships, and that's because they are still using ships from 1910-1915. My heavy cruisers with 8" guns are ripping their battleships apart while laughing hysterically at the 10.3" French shells that simply bounce off their armor. It's not even a challenge at this point...unless I go into battle with one of my modern CLs and 4 museum pieces from various friendly minor nations that can't do anything but move slow, waste ammo and maybe get a kill if they manage to get a lucky torpedo salvo away. I find myself actively being reckless with/trying to get any "outdated" ships that aren't my own sunk just so I can build my "friends" new ships that won't be a hindrance, on the off chance that I get into another conflict and they feel obliged to lend a hand (victory points for losing ships be damned...I'll earn them back with interest on the next turn when I sink more of the enemy's artifacts without breaking a sweat...ain't like it's that hard). I am outnumbered by a minimum of 3 to 1 against France, and was outnumbered almost 6 to 1 against the UK had they not collapsed and finished building the 86 more ships they had cooking. By all accounts, I should not be able to win since I'm basically outnumbered 9 to 1...but since the UK and France are raiding their museums to fight me and Spain, Germany and Italy (my allies) have nearly 750 combined ships combined ships (along with my 105 and growing)...I'm sitting pretty terrorizing the Pacific and making sure the French stay out of it. I mean, Victory Points are Victory Points, and I'm causing Admirals to retire and countries to revolt like it's going out of style--which is getting me tons of reparations and provinces--but there needs to be something done. Personally, I think there needs to be some sort of check system that checks the build dates/hulls against the ships in service and tech levels. Something like "Oh, nobody has been able to build a TB for 10 years and I've still got 47 of them? Maybe I should replace them with DDs..." or "This BB was cool and all back in 1907...but now it's 1924 and it is horridly obsolete. OH PLAAAAYER! Got any designs for a new BB? We scrapped our old one because we need to stay up with the times." TL;DR I feel like Indiana Jones said it best..."It belongs in a museum!" And that's genuinely how I feel fighting any nation when you start a campaign in the early years. Fighting hordes of museum pieces, with the help of museum pieces, that you sold to your allies 15-20 years ago...isn't exactly challenging, which in turn isn't really all that fun. The major nation AI needs to be scrapping more ships, retrofitting more ships...or some mix of both. For the minor nations you can be "trade partners with," if they can't retrofit their ships...then they need to scrap them after so long and ask for more, or ask the nation who they bought them from to retrofit them for them. Whether its a system of "this hull has been obsolete for X years, let's scrap them" or "this ship is now over X years old, either retrofit or scrap it" or something else...I don't know what would work best, but I feel like something needs to change.