Aceituna

Well no if you take a look at Custom Battle designer there Is the oldest dreadnought hull in-game still available in 1940 while you can put any modern part at her.

From what i read recently: Ship designer Is not priority. (Right now campaing is priority) In Future there Will be more new hulls, you asked about Defflinger-i think that devs already promised to add german battlecruisers. There Will be even more parts for ship designer. (They didn't say anything specific about this) About those refits: Yes refits Are planned to add for campaing. But we don't know how it will work yet. There was a long discussion about it some time ago.

It's probably too early to discuss this but I think that such a treaty would depend on the amount of victory points that was gained during war (so for example such a treaty might be possible only if US navy was decisively defeated and their economy crippled by naval blockade) This point is not really clear in the blog. It says: Victory points are measured during wartime and when one side gains an overwhelming balance of points, then a peace treaty is signed that can result in war reparations, exchange of provinces, ceding of ships or naval treaties that limit naval construction programmes So I think that such a treaty might be possible even in 1v1 war. But it also mentioned Washington naval treaty as an example even ,,international'' treaties will be possible . But we will see. Well i would say that they worked very well in both world wars. If we take Kaiserliche marine and Kriegsmarine as examples: ww1: 12,850,815 tons sunk by uboots ww2:14.1 million tons GRT While Kaiserliche marine had 351 total operational uboots and Kriegsmarine had 1 162 of them. So we could even say that they were doing better in 1ww. Sure BB's are much better for fleet engagements. While BC's are much better for trade interdiction. About those cruisers: This is actually the reason why is BC best option for raider. When i try these simulations I usually give the convoy strong protection that contains CA's CL's and DD's and if I use CA or CL as raider it can't beat such a escort. But when I use BC, such a escort is never really a threat unless it gets too close. (Because of torpedo attack)

About the problem with US too close: It's probably too early to make so detailed plans but in the blog about campaing there is mentioned that naval treaties may occure. So if player would play as Spain and then defeat US he might be able to force US to limit size of their fleet through such a treaty which might prevent their comeback. About subs: According to blog: subs will be expensive to research but their building will be quite cheap. And we don't know if they come early or late. Spain already had electric-powered submarine in 1890 so maybe Spain will start with one sub. Or maybe they will become available since karosene-powered subs or even diesel-electrics. I asked this question some time ago on forum but there was no reply. I made quite a lot of tests with building raiders in custom battles to discover which type is the best for such a role. It came out that if you want to build vessel that has: very long range, armor strong enough to avoid sinking by armed transports and fast enough to avoid engagements with enemy BB's then BC is by far the best choice. Mines also didn't come to my mind but of course they might have a big role (especially if you are on budget) but on the blog is written that they will be automatically occuring around enemy shores so they probably can't be used for defence of own shore.

Well Spain will probably be the first nation i will play as (at least if it will be playable in the first campaing version) because to me it seems really challenging. About those territories that should be hold: I think that this dependes on where you want to expand. I would personally prefer totally reverse approach (prefer Cuba over other territories) because I would like to put restoring of the spanish sphere of influence in Southern America as my main goal(mainly because of oil in Venezuela) but this would totally depend on the outcome of American-Spanish war. Ship types: This mainly depends on your personal naval doctrine. For example i am big fan of commerce raiders and submarine warfare. So i'll probably build some BC's and big submarine fleetwhile try to avoid regular battles with enemy fleet and building battleships will be at the end of list of my preferences. And for coastal defence i'll probably choose combination of torpedo boats and naval forts (if they will be in game) coastal defence battleships just always seemed to me like waste of money but it's probably just me.

Well that's debatable but if we assume that this is true. Than again in-game this is not relevant because research advance will be kind of random so they can become op way sooner than in reality. (this also answeres quote below) Okey i don't remember saying this and I am lazy to look for that. But if I said that (which is possible) than catapult doesn't need 10-20 years skip to become available in 1920. In fact it was already used in 1920's and it existed even sooner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult) I honestly don't see anything ridiculous about that. Of course war means more funding for research but i would be careful with the statement that every research receives more funding. Some research are prioritized over others. Some receives way bigger funding than during peace while others (that doesn't seem that important for war effort) receives less funding or are even stopped in favor of those that seem more important. Also there is a huge benefit in funding research that works on improving inventions that are already working than invest in totally new invantions. Because if you support improving something that you already use than you can be sure that you will use this improved version but if you invest in something totally new then it's risky because after long research and funds you sacrifice for this it might prove yourself totally useless. (PAC for example) I didn't say that theiractions weren't important. There were also other conflicts that proved planes very important (like spanish civil war) but those were all planes used in land combat. There wasn't any conflict naval planes could prove themselves important. (yes naval planes were used in second sino-japanese war but they were used the same way as land-based planes while carriers worked like any other airfield based on land) Yes I want to limit their numbers but it wasn't point of that post. I know he didn't wan't to say that they were invented in 30's. As you said: he said that airplanes became dangerous in 30's/40's which again if we assume that this is true than it is not relevant in this game because of random research advance.

I was always talking only about numbers of cv's. Never about their research. And carriers should be op because they really were op. Well i've never said anything about 10-20 years. And i think that the carrier spam doesn't require anymore comments because everything was already said. Again i never said any specific number of years. Difference between radar and cv's: the first practical radar was produced during/just before ww2 where it immidiately proved itself important So the research immidiately receiver huge support. And there Is no unhistorical event we could possibly speed up research of it. While naval planes were known long before ww2 And this war was the one that gave them Chance to prove themselves important. And if this war would come sooner than they would sooner prove their importance. And their research would sooner receive more funds And attention. (That is a not a plausible assumption and no reason to limit CV's around it.) I didn't talk about limitating cv's here. As I said before i don't want to limit their research. This Is not what the post was about. I wrote there reasons why carriers should be available before 30's.

Well you said that planes weren't real thread for warships back then. So i thought that you wanted to say that it's reason for not having them in-game. (which i think Is not truth because altrought that there Is still use for them) I honestly don't understant what you want to say here and to which part of my previous comment this referes. I don't assume anything like that. I assumed that naval planes would get better sooner if there is a war that would cause more effort to improve them. (which i just think it truth) but if we talk about game that doesn't strictly follow history. Than we just have to assume. And also if you take a look at official blog there's written that technological progress Will be kind of random while we can influence it. So we might get certain technologies before they really became available.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Type_184 i don't understant why you mention only dive bombers. If you follow this link you would discover that first air-dropped torpedo was used in 1915. While of course for armed ship it would be easy to shoot down. I just don't see any problem with using really week planes. Some players would find a usage for them for sure. Who says we would Attack warships with them? (we might use them the same way as SMS Wolf did) Also I am of course aware that there were some contflicts where planes took place but those weren't naval planes so it didn't directly leave to their improvement. And of course this is just a claim. Campaing Will differ from reality. So we can't count on historical facts. In which case what else than assume can se do?

As I mentioned before in this discussion: First successes of carriers happened during ww2 not because older planes weren't good enough but because they simply didn't get chance to achieve some success before (because there wasn't any war before then). If there would be such a war they might gain first achievements way sooner. In this case there would be more effort and experiences to improve naval planes. I think it would be nice if carriers would become available in 1913-1914 (Ark Royal) starting with really old and poor planes and then there would be normal reseach progress.

It's probably going to be june. The announcement of campaing is promised for this week.

Well it would make sense to get this penalty for everything besides generic desings. So there would have to be some maximus amount of certain parts (the same way there is minimus amount required) but it would probably make the game boring. And it would kind of destroy the most popular thing in this game (design your own ship). Well I wrote about spam below this. Simply ridiculous amount of carriers compared to other capital ships. I think that the cv's are the only ship type that this penalty would work for. Because other ship types are just kind of self-limitating in this way. If you would build for example only battleships while you don't build any screens. It would be serious penalty because your fleet would be extremely vulnerable against enemy torpedo vessels. So I think that only cv's need this limitation because if you build only one type of ship (besides cv's) game will not become any easier for you. But if you build only carriers you would have to build very few small vessels to keep enemy torpedo crafts in distance from carriers while everything bigger than destroyer would be destroyed by carriers planes. And i think that building carriers the same way US did during ww2 would't be problem for two reasons: 1. During ww2 it became clear that carriers are the strongest naval unit. So it wouldn't be controversial to build a lot of them. 2. I think that the way they built carriers doesn't really fulfill the definition of spam. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_World_War_II) scroll down a bit there is written how much vessels of each ship type were built. Altrough they built a lot of carriers. They still built bunch of other ships. As I said before any other ship is kind of self-limiting and spam of any other ship type doesn't give you advantage over enemy. As I said first: experimenting is not problem. Only spam is. %- Carriers are the only ship that makes sence to limit. Because as I said before every other ship type is self-limiting in the spam question because once carriers become available there would be no reason to build any other capital ships. So half of the campaing would become Ultimate Admiral: Carriers. Here is what limiting carriers (only carriers) would do for game enjoyment: Game wouldn't become utterly easy. If the player doesn't build any battleship. Well he will have a big disadvantage in battle. So there is no need to limit him through some special mechanic because again carriers are the only ship type that is not self-limiting. Well of course this is not sure but if there is such a war it would mean increased funding for both planes and ship research so even planes might get better way sooner. Anyway this will be simulated in campaing. Because if war breaks out, navy will receive more funds and if we also give priority to carrier and naval planes reseach they will get better earlier than they really did.

Maybe I just didn't write it clear enough. I didn't really want to say that you just get fired if you build too much carriers. But it would be just another factor for prestige. Maybe (when i think about it again) it wouldn't have to directly affect your prestige. But rather make you ,,unpopular'' which would be a penalty that would affect how much prestige you loose for other events. (for example if you would be unpopular than after every battle you lose, the drop of prestige would be bigger than it would be normally. And if you say that nobody was fired for experimenting with cv's than ok but we don't talk about experimenting with them. It would be ok if you would do this the same way it was in history (build few carriers while also building some other capital ships). We talk about real carrier spam here which is not the same thing as experimenting with them. In history (before ww2) most people didn't see carriers as something ,,game changing'' and it was usually meant for reconnaissance while battleships were still viewed as the strongest naval unit. So if some chief of admiralty would start to build nothing else but carriers (before they bacame considered the most important ship type) and sacrificing all funds for that (which might happen here) than i honestly think that he really might be forced to go to retirement. It would be important to make difference between spam and reasonable building. So there might be a limit of how much % of tonnage of your fleet might consist out of carriers. And also when you say that carriers became affective during 30's than this would be relevant if this game strictly followes historical events. They became affective in 30's and 40's because it's the time when they got a chance to prove themselves affective. But if there would be a war including carriers earlier they would become more affective way sooner because there would be bigger effort to improve them (both ships and planes) earlier.

Yes it would be nice to have an option for on/off carriers. Especially for players that just want to enjoy battleships (as you said:Personaly I would like to fight with BBs face to face.) But if there are carriers later in-game I suppose it would also mean adding land-based planes and maybeeven ship catapults (which i would really like to have) so if there's an option to disable carriers, should it also mean disabling land-based planes and catapults? Maybe that it might be more ,,detailed'' like have possibility to on/of any of these things (for example: disable carriers and keep catapults and land airfields) And one more thing: There was an idea in the steam discussions some time ago. That if there are carriers in-game, all people would just play normally until carriers would become available and than just spam them. So the game might become extremely easy in the later stages. So I brought up this idea that would avoid carriers spam while remain historically accurate (kind of) that might be suitable for players that want carriers in-game and don't want it so easy: Before ww2 carriers weren't really viewed as affective as they really were (because of more ,,traditionalist'' naval officers which favored battleships. And in the game labs blog, there is written that there will be your personal prestige that will go lower or higher based on your abilities and merit. This brought me to this idea: If you would start building carriers your prestige might drop significantly (because of these traditionalist naval officers and goverment officials) which might lead to your dismissal (as described in the blog)

I read quite a few books about carriers And planes usage against naval targets And i can Tell you that problem Is not that cv's Are op. Problem Is that people just don't understant that they just have to be OP. If you would read something about cv's you would Discover that cv's in wows Are actually extremely useless compared to reality. Carriers being ,,op'' Is the Reason why battleships aren't used in combat anymore.

Honestly, campaing is the only thing i expected from alpha 7 that's why it kind of makes me nervous how much new stuff is promised for alpha 7 besides campaing.

Well it would probably be nice to have more frequent updates. But: 1. you should be disappointed because of that. If you take a look at steam page of this game there is written that they'll try to release one update per month so I think it's unreasonable to want more frequent updates 2. Each update was followed by hotfix (at least i think all of them) that were mostly focusing on removing bugs caused by the update. I think it woul'd be really time consuming if they would release like three updates a month and repair bugs after each new release.

This was posted on saturday. So when they said in a week it means until next next saturday (30.5) at least as I understand it. Or next week and it was written last week so it should mean this week, no?

We should get some during this week (devs promised that they will make an announcement this week). Hopefully!

Devs said that they will make an announcement during this week. It's probably going to be released in June (since they said that they plan to fullfill they promise to release the game on steam in first half of 2020)

I am not an expert (i am more into subs) but aren't monitors traditionally usually used for shore bombardment? I mean defending shores was more torpedo boat thing. I really never heard of using monitors the way you propose. Please let me know if there's some example of it. Altrough it would make sense to use them as substitude to naval forts if we will not be able to build them in campaing.

So I suppose that you say that if ASW works similar way as submarines than we won't be able to desing subs because we are not able to put ASW on our ships in designer. Is that correct? If I understand yout comment correctly then this is not what the text says. There is written that they will act similarly in-game. Specifically: that the ,,score'' of both subs and ships with ASW equipment will be auto-calculated. But they talk only about the way these vessels fight. They don't talk about the way they are designed.

Maybe I am just blind but I just don't see that written here: Submarine and Anti-Submarine Warfare Submarines will have a special function in the campaign. Expensive to research, submarines sacrifice funds that could be spend on other warship technologies. However, once they become available, each campaign turn you will have the power to sink enemy merchant or military ships without any opposition, unless the opponent has sufficient Anti-Submarine-Warfare(ASW) technologies. You control submarines by deploying them on the map and choosing their rules of engagement. During wartime, their effect is calculated per turn according to the strategic situation on the map. Similarly, the ASW ability of your ships is auto-calculated according to the amount of destroyers, depth charge equipment, submarine mines, torpedo nets and several other technologies currently researched. Submarines can open Pandora's Box for the side that chooses an unrestricted warfare policy. An accidental sinking of a neutral ship may drag other nations into a war against you.

I have two questions about this topic: 1. May you tell me where is this written, please? 2. This is what is written on the page: Your naval strength will play a crucial role in all those events, but most importantly in military engagements, since the control of the seas may cripple your opponent via naval blockades, secure your army’s supply lines and open up opportunities for naval invasions. No land battles for sure. But landings will happen (but I suppose you wont have controle over land forces) so I am curious how this will be made since marines were under controle of navy. Maybe in this game the actual landings will be simply done by the army but then comes another question: will player tell army to land somewhere while player will try to maintain control over the sea region or will player get a task from goverment/army to maintain controle over the sea region?

I honestly don't see any problem in being hyped about the announcement. Since I think the waiting for campaing Will be much easier after the announcement because we Will know for how much longer we Will have to wait for it.