GDFKTT

So it sounds like almost definitely I'm wasting my time and resources keeping old cheap hulls around, even when outfitting them with upgraded mines and asw kits. THANKS!

I'm tired of my ASW and mine pickets getting roped into engagements they should realisticly never have sought and taking unncessary attrition because they're usually my older slower vessels. Just don't understand exactly how to make the op range and mission focus selection mechanics work like I want (if it's even possible at all) Question 1: Is a "minimum cost" vessel like a 850ton DD equipped with Mines, Sweeper Gear, and ASW but configured for minimum op range and Defense mission focus to avoid actual battles effective AT ALL in ASW patrolling/cleaning/mining the adjacent sea zone? Question 2: Is there a better op range setting and mission focus (Sea Control?) combination configuration to do this?

Alright I last asked this on the Steam Discussion in 2023 in February. Time for an update relative to V1.5 in 2024: What nation in your opinion is now the most difficult nation to play in the campaign on max difficulty? Explanation of your reasoning is appreciated Popular 2023 responses: Spain (early game weakness), China (weak land campaigning), Russia (wide fleet dispersion), AH (Russian land war threat) Common request for additional challenge: Play as Ottomans

I understand that the torpedo boats needed a nerf, but the 1890 gun accuracy has been increased so much they're practically useless outside of running down convoy freighters. It's almost impossible to run a squadron of anything less than five or six boats at 31 knts in against a single BB or CA opponent and survive, making them a completely cost ineffective option. I'd recommend a solution where a 3"QF unlock in the tech tree serves as the catalyst (As it did historically) to start to change the paradigm but until then gives the TBs a brief but enjoyable reign as the terror they were before naval gunnery improvements caught up with them. I don't have a problem with the damage model updates to TBs that make them floating Ronson lighters - that portion is almost perfect imho.

Naval Academy Bug Reports - related to the latest patch. 1. Meet the US Battleships - AI made 3 attempts over about 10 minutes as part of battle loading screen to build a US escorting destroyer model and apparently failed? Battle finally started and US Battleships were missing their entire flotilla of escorting destroyers. 2. Hurry Up - After battle started the attacking German BC and CA and their escorts almost immediately retreated instead of engaging the transports allowing the player's battlecruiser rushing to intercept as they were supposed to. This happened repeatedly utilizing a battlecruiser design with a top speed of 34 knots which should be more than sufficient... Player unable to meet mission requirement of destroy at least 75% of enemies. More to come as I continue my playthrough in the new patch.

Thanks for the wonderful work on Core patch 5 and the subsequent hotfixes. Highly impressed with the stepped up communication I see. I know some of these new features are going to continue to need monitoring and tweaking as you move forward but if you continue down this path, I think the game has a very green future on the steam store.

I understand why from a game perspecitve they allow in-combat torpedo reloads. From a simulation standpoint I hate it and to see total reloads available drastically nerfed before release. Some of the NA missions right now are just stupid with amount of torpedo spam you have to bait out of the AI before you can close to effective gun range.

I've seen a lot of discussion here about the current way that rudders hard over and speed are affecting accuracy angainst smaller ships disproportionately and how to (for game purposes) most accurately model the effect of evasive tactics without giving them too much combat weight. I want to provide Fighting Steel as an example of a game that I think elegantly handled this mechanic (to be fair I think actually Fighting Steel Project modded it in later after the developer abandoned it). There was an "evasive manuevers" checkbox for each ship. If you clicked it, although you could not see it in 3d combat it was assumed that the ship was undertaking slight jukes to it's course left and right for the purpose of evading incoming fire. If it was checked, the ship recieved an accuracy penalty as well as a fire evasion bonus. When the box was unchecked, the ship slowly came off of the "evasive" condition and the modifiers reverted to normal. This prevented abusive micromanagement of the mechanic in between salvos. Smaller ships I think got a slightly larger bonus and respective penalty as they were less stable but more manueverable platforms and took longer to come off the evasive condition. Speed as far as I know did not play into that part of the evasion formula, rather it was covered in a different part of the overall accuracy calculations for the guns. Something UAD might want to look at and consider. Having to / even being able to micro juke and jive every ship to abuse the rudder hard over condition I think is a bad design decision.

For the most part, the new soundtracks are nice but there is ONE - just ONE....ARRGH! I don't know which track it is (the name of the piece itself) but every time it plays I'm magically transported from the bridge of my flagship in the heat of a valiant sea battle back into 1990s Chicago. Suddenly I'm watching Dr. Richard Kimbal (Harrison Ford) running from the Chicago police and a team of Federal marshals led by Tommy Lee Jones while trying to find the one armed man who killed his wife and framed him for the murder. Yes indeed, the main theme from The Fugative is now in this game. The developer may or may not be aware of this or maybe it's a sort of haha Easter Egg from a dev but I thought it was worth reporting as much as a personal gripe as well as a chuckle item for the rest of you who may not have realized it and will now be similarly affected as you are made aware or else just think it's funny it was troubling enough that I reported it here. it IS good dramatic music... I do like it as music (it fits my general taste for classical music)... It just breaks my immersion in this context.

Agree with the above post, adding a slider to control the width of the ship to some variable degree should allow a captain to make decisions about overcoming funding/tonnage restrictions or meeting technological minimums in armor or weaponry loadouts at the cost of seakeeping/increased roll (accuracy penalties + potential speed drops + maneuver penalties)

I was attempting to use the ship designer to somewhat accurately model the IJN Fuso and or Ise class battleships in their original 1914-1917 configuration and ran into an issue. The designer set for 30,000 tons specifies a ~214 meter hull which should be ample room to construct the 6 x 2 x 14" gun setup of either class on the Dreadnought II base. It's the only hull that works in this time period and visually it appears perfectly suited to the task. However, in actuality, the base model Dreadnought II does not have a weather deck / casemate of sufficient length to hold the main armament of the battleship. The maximum allowed distance between the front and rear towers with the requirements of placing a funnel at a specific lock in point as well as two 14" turrets in between is insufficient to build the correct layout. Moreover, because of the tower configuration placement limitations (rear tower too far forward) and in regards to a centerline barbette only being able to be placed forward as opposed mid or aft, the design cannot be balanced in the game to remove a severe foreheavy condition and retain a correct gun configuration. If the attachment points for towers and barbettes will not be loosened up in future designer builds, I'm requesting that the base hull have the casemate length extended slightly so this iconic Japanese 6 x 2 x 14" gun setup can be realized in game. Update: I just tried redoing it as a pagoda build to model the 1930-33 refits and the same issues still exists. In fact, excacerbated due to pagoda front tower weight.

Thanks. I am working on a project to put every refit version of every major warship with a keel laid from 1910 through 1945 into the game as a playable option. So for now I will just stick to the spreadsheets and keep gethering data.

Just want to check - is there a way to save and reuse ships in custom battles? I'm not seeing it. I see a way to save designs for scenarios but I don't want to waste time doing historical based designs within each scenario yet if then I can't carry the builds over to custom battles.