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.

Yeah, I've been seeing this one too, but it isn't as often as the locked rotation thing. Though something I have noticed though, the locked rotation thing usually happens on earlier ships (pre-1920s) where turrets/launchers are close together--like when I put two 5 inch guns back to back on the front of a DD to try and cram more firepower on it. The front most gun will always track the target, but the one directly behind it will only track for a few salvoes...then lock up and do nothing. If it is a more "modern" design where you can realistically/easily do AB-XY/AB-X gun layouts or when the guns/torpedo launchers are more spread out, it seems to happen less frequently. I don't know if the proximity of turrets to each other is potentially causing this, but in the ship designer when I place them down I always manually check and see if the guns are clear/have a clear rotation arc and won't interfere with other guns/towers/funnels. (Unrelated...but I love your videos!)

I'm still getting the "locked turret rotation bug" in the latest version. All guns can rotate without issue at the start of a battle, but some ships will randomly get turrets that lock on a specific bearing and just don't rotate no matter what I do. It's particularly annoying to deal with when half your ship's firepower is stuck pointing to port while the target is on the starboard side. Even if I maneuver my ship to point the "locked" guns at the target...they still don't fire. They are just locked for the duration of the battle, and it happens with torpedo launchers too. Resetting auto-targeting does nothing Manually selecting targets does nothing Switching firemodes between off, save, normal and aggressive does nothing Aggressive/sporadic maneuvering trying to force guns to rotate and track targets does nothing It's kinda annoying that we are still dealing with this tbh. Idk if anyone else is still experiencing this, but it has cost me a few ships because the turrets/torpedo launchers won't rotate or haven't been rotating (unbeknownst to me) so I can't take advantage of that golden opportunity to launch a torpedo salvo or catch an enemy broadside...but the enemy takes advantage of my guns refusing to do anything and either blows my DDs out of the water (literally) or rakes the ever-loving hell out of my bigger ships. It happens randomly, and there is no way to fix it/correct it in battle.

Me personally, I like to start in either 1900 or 1920 because in 1900 everyone is still more or less on equal footing when it comes to tech/hulls. I like the 20s because that's when things start getting interesting, and you finally get access to more "modern" cruisers and not those semi-armored/armored cruiser hulls. Really the only detriment to me that keeps me from starting more "early" campaigns is the fact that the earlier you start, the more ships the AI nations keep which in turn will inevitably turn into a sort of "pseudo doomstack" as I call it. For instance, I started a US Campaign in 1890. I took the "neutralist" route to try and grow my economy and tech as fast as possible to try and outclass the enemy and it worked for several years. Well, now here we are in 1920, three wars later, and the Royal Navy now has a fleet that numbers 587 ships...36 of which are still torpedo boats from the late 1890s/early 1900s (they have lots of other museum pieces too). But...even though there is now a limit to the number of crew members you can command in a task force, the Royal Navy can still throw a "pseudo doomstack" at me because all these pre 1910 designs have such low crew counts that they can literally out number me 2:1 easily (in one case it was over 3:1) because they have so many ships that they just don't retire...and it isn't easy nor is it fun to try and sink hordes of torpedo boats zipping around at 30+ knots with a dreadnought sporting 14 inch mk 2 guns. Kinda got off topic a bit there, but that's the trade-off I have to deal with: I like early starts as much as the next person, but if you don't exist in a constant state of war with everyone (or at least your main adversary) for the duration of the campaign and therefore keeping their numbers down and basically forcing them to upgrade their navy...you will wind up like me in a situation where my 86 ship navy is fighting navies that are 587, 234, and 186 ships strong...all at once. TL;DR I like starting in 1920 or earlier...but it's not fun fighting wars against multiple nations that, combined, can outnumber you 10:1 easily just because they refuse to scrap their museum pieces/obsolete ships from 20 years ago.

Two more things I would like to suggest (if they haven't been addressed/discussed already): 1) US oil production Comparing numbers and dates when it comes to US oil production during the game's timeline...the US should be producing oil like crazy, especially in California and Texas starting fairly early on. 2) If the "two turret" aiming system is still around, would you consider changing it or getting rid of that system? (This isn't a bug, as the devs have stated that this was the way it was. If the "two turret" aiming system has been changed, then the rest of this post is null/void) My ship's effectiveness shouldn't be hampered/negatively effected just because half my main battery is in triple turrets (that can both track the target) and the other half is in twin turrets (of which just one turret can't quite bear on the target, but that means that the other twin turret may as well be shooting blind). This is why I have completely stopped doing anything like a USS Nevada/USS Pensacola build because half the main battery inevitably winds up being all but useless/inaccurate for no good reason. You actively sabotage yourself by mixing the number of guns per turret. As I said in a post I made a while ago on this subject...I've got a hard time picturing somebody onboard the USS Nevada during WWII telling the Captain, "The triple turrets have got the range and are blazing away sir! But the front dual turret may as well be firing blind, because the rear dual turret can't bear on the target!" I'm sorry...but that isn't how that would've worked, it just isn't. They either had the range and all guns (which were all 14"/45 caliber guns, firing the same shells, with the same propellant) that could bear on target would open up, or they didn't have the range. If you change the barrel length or diameter of a particular gun, it applies to all guns of that size. There isn't an option to adjust only the triple 14 inchers or only the twin 5 inch secondary guns. It doesn't matter whether you have all twin turrets, if you have a single, dual, triple and quad turret, or any combination of gun barrels...as long as the guns are the same base size...all guns barrels receive the length and bore changes. All guns of the same size fire the same shells, with the same propellant, same bursting charge, same muzzle velocity. So in practice, that means there shouldn't be any discernable difference between a turret with two barrels and turret with three...and yet, here in UAD there is, for some reason. There shouldn't be an arbitrary difference between the accuracy/effectiveness of a twin turret vs the accuracy/effectiveness of a triple turret mounted on the same ship. If they are firing the same exact shells out of the exact same barrels, why is one turret not "accurate" just because it has one more/one less barrel, or it's counterpart on the rear of the ship can't bear on the target? The issue with "side guns vs centerline guns" having separate targeting data was changed so that all guns of same caliber and number of barrels were grouped together, regardless of whether or not they were centerline or wing turrets. Now, why don't you just group the guns together by the size? I realize that there is a lot irl that went into how accurate a gun would be depending on where it was mounted, and I'm also not ignorant of the fact that certain ships/nations would install a delayed firing device in triple turrets that would delay the firing of the middle barrel just enough to where the muzzle blast of the other guns wouldn't effect the flight path of the shell fired from the middle gun. If you want to implement this in game, maybe you could put in a "delayed firing device" in the tech tree somewhere that enhances accuracy for triple/quadruple guns. TL;DR Oil production in the US should probably be higher than it is. And I don't care how you slice it: a 14" gun is a 14" gun--regardless of how many gun barrels are sticking out of the turret face. If the guns are exactly the same (which they are in UAD), you shouldn't have two different sets of targeting/accuracy data. If you can't set a unique/individual barrel length, bore size, propellant, bursting charge, weight and shell type for each individual gun/gun barrel...why are we still dealing with the problems/issues from a "two turret" aiming system?

On the topic of task force improvement, I would like to refer to a post I made a while back proposing a change to how task forces are created and utilized. Also on the subject of task forces, why not add a new "hunt" or "intercept" option? So that way, when we send a task force of battleships and cruisers to intercept or counter an enemy task force of battleships and cruisers...they don't wind up engaging a convoy while our task force of 3 CLs and 3 DDs are stuck engaging them. I think it would be pretty simple: select your ships/task force, select the new "hunt/intercept" option...and the game then prompts you to select an enemy task force for your ships to prioritize. Of course, there would still be a chance that they run into a different task force...but your ships that were set to "hunt/intercept" would prioritize attacking the enemy task force you selected, and therefore might cut down on the number of "Welp...hope my 4 DDs can win against 2 BBs, 2 BCs, 4 CAs, 3 CLs and 5 DDs" type situations. Task force cycling would be nice for task forces that are in close proximity/right on top of each other...and that has been brought up by multiple people. Now, onto the subject of hulls. I am glad to see that USS Texas/USS New York and some desperately needed cruiser hulls are already planned on being added. I just hope we can stretch out this so called "Atlanta variant" to be long enough so we can make a proper Brooklyn class cruiser (correct gun and tower models included, especially considering what a major change in US cruiser design the Brooklyns and St. Louis sub-class represented). But as far as new US hulls/gun models go, I would personally like to see: More early US dreadnoughts like USS Florida and USS Wyoming, maybe even the Nevada Class...at least that way our only options wouldn't be South Carolina, Bigger South Carolina, and that weird Dreadnought III that doesn't match any US Design I know of. One or two sets of proper "Standard Type" battleship towers. I feel like a proper set of Colorado Class towers is almost a "must have" considering the Colorado Class-along with the Nagato, Mutsu, Nelson and Rodney-were the only ones that were allowed to have 16 inch guns before WWII started. The rest of the Standard Type ships were basically just copies of the preceding class with a few differences here and there...so some towers that can emulate a Tennessee/New Mexico class would be nice too. I realize that the US Navy wasn't big on battlecruisers...but I feel like the Lexington class should have it's own dedicated hull and towers seeing as how two were built, but converted into carriers. Maybe a second main tower design for Modern US Battleships that looks like the superstructure of the USS North Carolina. Would give us just a little bit of extra variety (I say the main tower because the rear half of the North Carolina's superstructure is very similar to the Iowa's, so the Iowa rear tower would work fine). Other nations have two sets of superstructures to choose from...why not the US? (I'm specifically referencing the Bismarck and Scharnhorst-esque towers for Germany along with the Pagoda towers and Yamato style towers for Japan). Some changes to the US inter-war (Mk 2 I believe) guns that are in the 10-13 inch range. The US Navy didn't use turrets that look like the Italian Navy's Zara class. The default/generic gun models (like the Mk 1/2/3 16 inchers or like the Mk 2 14 inchers) actually fit the aesthetic of a standard type quite well. The scout cruiser and the towers it has available (or maybe a set of new towers) might be able to replicate the Omaha class of light cruisers if the main towers were allowed to hold 6 inch casemates like the Omaha's did. Maybe something that more closely resembles a Baltimore class heavy cruiser. Depending on how this new "C Class" cruiser hull turns out and whether or not the Heavy Cruiser I hull gets changed to where that gray box of wasted space in the middle is either removed/made to where we can mount stuff on it...I might be able to "grin and bear it" when it comes to having baby Iowas for CAs Some more destroyer designs (hulls AND towers). From early/WWI-era flush decker designs like the Clemson Class, to inter-war/modern designs like the Sims, Fletcher or Gearing classes. Make the 2 inch guns available in a quad-barreled configuration for the US. Or even better...just give the US access to the French 2 inch gun models that look like the Bofors guns so that way we can have that added layer of realism/historical availability with being able to place twin or quad mount Bofors on our 1930s-1940s US (and maybe British) ships. Or if you don't want to do that, why not make a 2 inch gun model that resembles the 28mm (1.1 inch) quad barreled "Chicago Piano" AA guns that the US started out with? Please? Lastly...for the love of all that is Holy...do something about that Heavy Cruiser I hull (available in 1919) that has that huge gray square of wasted space that we can't put anything on. I don't know if that "C Class" cruiser you guys mentioned is for the US Navy, or if it is going to be a generic hull for all nations, but I would hope that it is a proper Northampton/Pensacola/New Orleans class hull and towers. Because that first Modern Heavy Cruiser I hull with that huge gray area that we can't mount funnels or guns on...is just objectively bad, from a fore/aft weight balancing perspective anyways. As I am not as familiar with the naval designs of other nations, I won't go too deep into those...but there are a few right off the top of my head that I think should be included. Such as a proper Takao class, Agano class, Leander class, Southampton/Town/Edinburgh class.

Ok, let me sum up what I posted in a different way: anything that is advocating for "100% accurate models" (or what I call "rivet counting") at this point in UAD's lifetime is, in my opinion, wasted breath. It is obvious that UAD won't ever get there. I would almost bet that nothing going forward--as far as hulls, towers, funnels and guns are concerned--will be the "correct historical size." And while I can appreciate the fact that people are willing to go down to the literal mm just to show that UAD's scaling on some things is wack...honestly, what point does it make now? No sense debating about what the devs should've/shouldn't've done. Yes, I realize that 418000 gun models is completely ridiculous and that nobody would use that many...what I was getting at with that point was that if the devs, moving forward, decided to go back and rescale the models to "correct" size or "100% historically accurate" size, they would then have to model each variation of diameter and length. Unless they just resized the base gun model to "100% historically accurate size," but then you are still left with the issue of "what do we do about bore increases or barrel length? Just stretch the model? Go back to the scaling idea? Should we only give them a small list of historical options to choose from...which then takes away from the 'free form' intentions of the ship designer?" While I agree that some models should be more historically accurate, as I tend to get obsessed over details myself, and that there should be more models in-game that are historical designs (particularly cruisers), I don't see how "100% accurate models for all historical guns, towers and funnels" from the start would have resulted in thousands of different ships. There's only so many ways/so many ships you can build with those parts before it just becomes "That's an Iowa, that's a Montana, that's a Georgia--which is basically just an Iowa with twin 18" guns, and that's an Ohio--which is basically just a Montana with twin 18" guns." Or how about "That's a Bismarck, that's a Bismarck with torpedoes, and that's an H-39...which is basically just a Bismarck with guns that are 1 inch bigger." Then we get into the whole situation of "this nation never used 11 inch guns...what's the 'accurate size' for this thing that never existed? Should we just guess, use other nations as a basis, or go back to the oh-so-dreaded scaling method?" What then, when/if you have no historical basis to go off of? This is all just a long-winded way of saying: the scaling issue will (likely) never get fixed, because this is supposed to be a "sandbox" or "free form designer" style of game...not a "historical simulation" or "realism simulator." Unless the player in question is somebody who is willing to pull out a ruler or the equivalent of Drachinifel from YouTube...most players are going to just build a ship that resembles or looks like what they know/like/recognize/want and be happy. They aren't going to care that the barbettes aren't as wide as the should be, or that the barrels are only X inches apart when they should be Y inches apart. You bring up good/valid points, some I even agree with, and I am not trying to prove you wrong on any of them or "win an internet argument." I just still don't understand why some people are still getting upset with/hung up on the scaling. If it was something like a Bismarck 15" turret being the size of HMS Dreadnought's 12" turrets I could see people's gripe, and I'd be right there with them. But the models aren't wildly out of proportion and they aren't "un-believable" either.

Well, here is something else to consider if you really want to compare WoWs to UAD (which I don't think is a fair comparison in any stretch of the imagination): With World of Warships...you basically have what I am going to call a "static" model, or a model that you can't change in any way/shape/form. The only way the model changes is if you unlock/mount/demount modules (i.e. swap out guns, torpedo launchers, a new hull design). That's a simple "on/off" scenario. Whether you use the 406mm or the 420mm guns on the Friedrich der Grosse...you get that respective model: you can't change anything about it. Not barrel length, not diameter, no anything else (hence why I'm calling it a "static" model). It's like that with all models in that game: module X is being used, so model X is displayed. If module Y is being used, then model Y will be displayed. Not to mention, since the player can't change anything about said models...they only have to make one of each, and can achieve "rivet counting" accuracy by simply going to a museum or museum ship and taking as many pictures as they want or 3D scans of said ship/gun/superstructure/etc. With UAD...it's not so "simple." Since each player is given the ability to change most things about any given model, they can't take the approach Wargaming can. Will there be scaling issues and things that aren't 1:1 scale? Yes. Why? Because why make 10 unique models for every single mark and size of gun? That would be 50 models for a single gun: 5 marks x 10 possible gun sizes (from X.0 inch to X.9 inch) = 50 models per gun. Then...multiply that by 20 since you can go up to 20 inch guns...and you arrive at 1000 models just for the generic gun models. And that is before you factor in any special/unique models that each nation might get, any barrel length changes (though if you did...that would be 10 models of any mark gun x 40 different lengths (from +/- 20%) to give you 400 different models for a single gun), and the fact that you can downscale 2 inch guns to 1.1 inch guns...so now think about how many models somebody would have to make or you would have to search through just because you want a 16.7 inch 59 caliber gun that matches the look of Bismarck's turrets...but is still "correctly sized," even though no such weapon likely existed so nobody knows what the "correct size" of such a weapon would be. (I would like to point out that I'm not saying any of this to try and make an excuse for being lazy or not putting in a lot of effort...but why make/search through hundreds of different 16 inch guns when I can just place one down and then manually enter +15% barrel length and +0.5 inch size?) Hulls are in the same boat (no pun intended). While the hulls have 3 default sizes (based around the displacement you choose for that specific hull and whether or not it is in the lower, mid or upper range of the available tonnage), each hull can (at most) go to +/- 10% on beam and draught in both directions. Now, if you'll think and remember: each one of those percentage marks is broken up into an additional 10 marks (which is why you can set your beam to something like 3.2% or -8.1%) and iirc, at each X.X% mark...your hull gets wider/narrower or taller/shorter depending on what you are changing. That would be 4800 possible widths and heights (40 possible values x 2 directions x 3 hull lengths) for a single hull...now think about how many hulls there are in the game and how many different models that would be--assuming everything I just said was correct about when/where/what percentage your hull size changes/the model updates, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Torpedo launchers would probably be the easiest to "remodel" if the devs really wanted to, since they would have the smallest number of models (8 torp sizes x 5 marks of launchers = 40 models). The approach the devs are taking of scaling models based on how we change gun size/barrel length makes it much easier/simple for them so they don't have to have thousands of different models because us players want a "correctly sized" or "historically recreated" ship that never existed, with guns that never existed unless on paper. Just take a single starting model, and then scale it up as we increase barrel length or gun size. Then, once you hit the next uniform gun size, swap to a new model and repeat the process. I'm fairly certain this game was never marketed as, nor was it ever meant to be, "World of Warships but you get to build the ships." From day one, and going by all the "advertisements" and promotional material I've seen...this was marketed as more of a sandbox type naval combat game where you could design ships the way you wanted (for the most part), whether you wanted to try and recreate your favorite historical ships or go for completely original designs of your own. Here is an attempt to clarify/show how I got some of those numbers and my math above; 5 marks of guns (Mk 1, Mk 2, Mk 3, Mk 4, Mk 5) 10 different gun sizes (10.0", 10.1", 10.2", 10.3", 10.4", 10.5", 10.6", 10.7", 10.8", 10.9") At max, 40 different barrel lengths (-20% shorter, 20% longer....20 short options + 20 long options = 40 length options) Now, using a 10" gun as an example: 5 marks (Mk1-Mk5) multiplied by 10 gun sizes (10.0" to 10.9") multiplied by 40 barrel lengths (-20% to +20%) results in a staggering 2000 gun models just for the entire 10 inch gun family of a SINGLE nation. That number drops to 400 models if you only look at a single mark of gun (i.e. you only look at 10" Mark 3s). Now, take that 2000 models per gun, per nation, and multiply it by the number of default gun sizes...which is 19 (2 inch through 20 inch, excluding downsized 2 inchers). 2000 X 19 = 38000 gun models for every gun, for a SINGLE nation. Finally, multiply that 38000 gun models by 11 playable nations...and you get a whopping 418,000 gun models just so every nation can have a unique, "correctly scaled/sized" gun model for every possible combination of gun diameter and barrel length. For the Hull Section's numbers: 3 different lengths (depending on deplacement) 40 different beams (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments) 40 different draughts (-10% to +10%, divided into smaller 0.1% increments) 3 X 40 X 40 = 4800 different hull models for a single hull...now think about how many hulls are in the game. So no....I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. They are based on, or taken directly from, what we already have available in-game. They might be a little off due to whether or not the models update at every X.X% or every X.5%, but they are close. But...you get the point: if the devs made a model for every possible combination of beam, draught, displacement or gun diameter and barrel length...that would be a LOT of damn models. TL;DR Since this game is FAR from "rivet counting" levels of accuracy and the fact that this wasn't supposed to be a WoWs clone...the scaling issue, to me anyways, is a moot point. If you want a highly detailed, historically accurate, "that gun is the correct size" naval combat game...you would probably be better off playing WoWs or War Thunder Naval Forces. It makes no sense for the devs to try and create an individual/unique model for every possible combination we can think of. If you want to see what I attempted to explain for yourself...load up the ship designer in a custom battle and just play around with beam, draught, displacement, gun diameter and barrel length and watch where the models change/update.

How about more hulls/towers/guns for something that ISN'T older than the Washington Naval Treaty of the 1920s? While I do like seeing the earlier hulls (1890-1910s) get some love or some new counterparts, we need more designs (especially cruiser designs) after 1920. I know I just keep bringing it up...but seriously: look at how many different cruiser designs Japan has (starting at, say, 1918 and then going forward) and then compare that number to the number of cruiser designs that other nations get. I'm going back to the US Navy again as an example (because that's the nation that I play the most as): starting at the year 1919--depending on your research priorities and whether or not you are in a custom battle--the US Navy gets access to the "Modern Light Cruiser" hull. You wanna know what the problem with that is? From that point on (so, quite literally for 20 years or more if your campaign goes all the way to 1950 or whatever the limit is) that is the ONLY CL design the US Navy has access to unless you take others as a war prize. The only difference is increasing displacement and the same generic towers (that multiple nations get that, as far as I know, don't match any design I've ever known to exist) go from "Advanced Tower I" to "Advanced Tower V" or whatever. At least the CAs are a little bit better off. But still, you are locked to only 3 designs: generic treaty looking cruiser that is kind of a balancing nightmare and has the big gray square of wasted and unusable space, upscaled "Modern Light Cruiser," or a downscaled battleship. Now, I don't know about you...but I'm pretty sure that nobody would look at an Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina and a Baltimore side by side and say "Clearly they're from the same ship class!" The only thing they share is an AB-X gun arrangement with each turret having three gun barrels. Once you get to the mid-late 1930s, the Brooklyn Class of cruisers were introduced (to counter the Japanese Mogami class of cruisers...which are already in game). From the Brooklyns further development, you start seeing other ships like the Clevelands and Atlantas spring up in the late 30s/early 40s. From the Clevelands, you get USS Wichita and the Baltimores, which eventually lead to the Des Moines class (even though they were post-WWII cruisers, but you get where I'm going). And yet, with all these options, not one of the aforementioned cruisers is in game for the US Navy to use--you can try to argue the case for the Baltimore, but I don't care how you slice it: if it uses the Iowa's towers and Iowa's guns...it's just a downsized Iowa...plain and simple. I realize that for the Atlanta class it would take a very specific superstructure model to support their ABC-XYZ triple superfiring design with two additional wing turrets AND torpedo launchers. And I realize that most of the treaty cruisers (Northampton, Pensacola, New Orleans) look the same so the same towers/hull can be used...but that hull with the big gray box of unusable space is kind of a waste (I've already stated my issues with that particular hull in a previous post, so I won't get too deep into it here), either let us put something ON/IN that big gray space amidships...or get rid of it. Destroyers are in the same exact boat. Name me one US Destroyer in WWII that used those towers. I will patiently wait. There is no Gearing, no Farragut, no Sims, no Mahan and--possibly the saddest of all--no Fletcher (arguably the most famous and well known US destroyer of the war, with 175+ being made). Even if you look at pre-WWII designs...I don't think you can recreate a Clemson class destroyer or any other "flush deckers." The US Navy isn't unique in that issue. Last time I checked, it was the French and British as well. At least the Germans, Russians and Spain get two different designs even though one of them is basically an up-scaled destroyer (it's been a while since I took a deep/full look at which ships have what hulls in what year but I think this statement is still correct). This one is just me getting nitpicky...but an Iowa class's superstructure doesn't look the same as a North Carolina's. It would be nice to have more than one BB tower design to use for the US Navy (the rear tower for the Iowa is strangely similar to that of a North Carolina so that one would be fine). Y'know...kinda like how the Germans have either the Bismarck towers or a Gneisenau-esque set of towers. Or how the Japanese have a variety of Pagoda towers (both front and rear) to choose from. Devs, please...some variety would be nice. I'm not a fan of tagging/mentioning the devs as I know they are busy enough...but @Nick Thomadis, are there any plans at all--either in the near or distant future--to release some additional hulls/towers/guns for some more ships like the ones I mentioned above? And not just for the US Navy either, but for multiple nations?

First off, I'm pretty sure it isn't a bug, since the refit feature has been around for some time now. Secondly, if it WAS a bug in the refit system...I'm pretty sure the devs would have fixed it (or at least mentioned it) by now given how long the refit feature has been around and how many people have expressed their frustration with it. Since they haven't said anything about fixing it or changing it...it was probably intended to be that way. Thirdly, if it ISN'T a bug and the devs MADE it that way for whatever reason...I would absolutely love to see anyone find a fix for this so-called "bug" outside of editing the game code themselves and potentially screwing up the game because they tried to be an "armchair developer" and now they can't play the game or they just introduced countless new bugs/issues themselves. Fourthly, it doesn't matter what we report as a "fix" for a bug...the devs will fix a bug how they want, and then ask for feedback to see if anything needs improved/tweaked/fixed again. I don't think anybody but the devs have the answer as to why the "too far from previous position" message/error is something we have to deal with in the refit process. We, as players and testers, can only offer guesses or speculations. My guess is this: they made it that way for a reason. What reason? Idk...your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they're trying to prevent us making such an extensive refit that the time for the refit is the same as building a new ship...idk. If you want an answer...ask the devs for one. Otherwise, please...feel free to post your potential fixes, ideas and suggestions...maybe the devs will see them, maybe they won't. If you have a problem with the "too far away from previous position" thing during a ship refit...join the club, you aren't the only one. But it doesn't seem like anything is going to change anytime soon.

I like this idea. I would say that the pool of recruits for this marine force should either come directly from it's own "crew pool," or make it to where we have one "total pool" and then split that between "crew pool" and "marine infantry pool." (After all, the US Marines are technically a department of the US Navy). The basis/context (for those that are concerned about it) is already there when you look at examples, from WWII anyways, such as: the US Marines and US Navy Frog men, Russian Naval Infantry, Kriegsmarine Infantry, and I'm sure the British/Royal Navy had some version of Naval Infantry (or, if you want to be general about it, you could just call them "specialized" infantry in-game). These group's effectiveness in-game would be directly influenced by crew training and any research regarding crew training. Or, if this idea of a "marine infantry" won't be added...maybe we can go the tech tree route. We would have the "amphibious invasion" or "naval invasion" (whichever you/the devs prefer to call it) branch and it could have the headings "tactics," "communication," "support," and "defense." Similar to how the shipbuilding branch has Destroyer Design, Cruiser Design, Hull Construction, and Hull Design. Tactics-different strategies/tactics/general training that your troops learn that can increase your chances of successful invasions Communication-develop better comms equipment for troops so they can communicate with each other and the supporting ships better/easier, increasing success chances Support-things like gunfire support, landing of additional troops and more supplies to keep the invasion going, eventually special troops (like US Marines) Defense-helps you develop things that will repel an enemy invasion force like costal/pre-sighted artillery, mines on the beaches, underwater obstacles, partisan/civilian readiness training, etc Here's just a small sampling of some more specific items under each of these headings (in no particular order or time-era): Tactics Communication Support Defense Suppressive Fire Flags/Signal Lamps Small Caliber Gunfire Support Defensive Trench Network Diversion Tactics Morse Code Transmitter Large Caliber Gunfire Support Fortifications Advanced Training I One-way radios Specialized Infantry I Costal Artillery Leap-Frog Advance Forward Command Post Logistics/Resupply Landings I Underwater Obstacles I Advanced Training II Two-way radios Specialized Infantry II Pre-sighted artillery I Night Landings Improved radio cables Trauma Center I Landmines I Mass Attack I Portable Radios Advanced Recon Pre-sighted artillery II **Pre-sighted artillery I would be small stuff like mortars and gradually work it's way up in size, Underwater Obstacles I would be like those wooden posts you see in D-Day photos, and subsequent upgrades would be things like steel hedgehogs and underwater mines** Again, just a small sampling of possible ideas in no particular order, but if you don't want to directly manage the fleet and the troops hitting the beaches...this allows you to at least try and increase your success chances in a naval invasion.