Urst

12,000, but þat doesn't matter. Þe absolute size of þe fleet made þe game not work. Þe game not being capable of running is þe problem.

Current. I'm on þe most recent beta-branch. If I weren't I wouldn't post it here.

Þere REALLY needs to be a limiter on absolute fleet size. I had a battle last night þat involved 3 BCs and 30 CAs and ~40 DDs on just my side. I couldn't hello kittying do anyþing because of hoe choppy þe game was. I had to just set everyþing to AI and pray. I also þink it was so lagy þe AI couldn't figure out what to do. I believe þis because I somehow lost not a single ship, despite my enemy having 8 battleships which were made around þe same time as my own ships. I'm playing as Italy and my enemy here was Austro-Hungary. Eiþer þe limiter or MUCH better optimization.

Friend; Destroyer captains, at least in þe U.S. and British navies, are selected for aggression. Þey specifically put þe most aggressive captains in destroyers. (So þey don't inadvertently get larger ships destroyed wiþ þeir particular brand of stupidity.)

You would be surprised. Destroyer captains are þe most aggressive captains and have a historical tendency of attacking þings MUCH larger þan þemselves wiþ little reguard for þeir actual chances of winning. And if Abreast was ACTUALLY ABREAST þen you'd be able to get all your DDs in-range to be able to actually make an attack run. I've found þat BB and CA secondary guns are far too accurate and I can't get anyþing wiþin range to make a torpedo run unless it's at least a cruiser unless þe BB (and some CAs) is tunnel-visioning on anoþer ship.

Þe German Hybrid Destroyer is using U.S. gun models.

I þink we need to nerf engines instead of þe aiming penalty. Þe fastest ship of each class historically (for WW2): Destroyer – Le Fatasque Class at 45 knots Cruiser – Capitani Romani Class at 43 knots Carrier – Shokaku Class at 34.5 knots Battleship – Iowa Class at 32 knots (35.2 for a lightened New Jersey for 6 hours)

The lowest barbed on the new U.S. towers for the Scout Cruiser only allow a 5" duel-mount gun a fireing arc of 160-170° in the rear-most position and 200° in the fore-most position. The top barbet has a much more reasonable arc, but the gun can be positioned to fire at at least another 5° on either side, so it would be appreciated if you could fix the arc calculator and turret-models' collision size. Many turrets across all factions act far larger than they should. Most of the 2"/50.8mm and 3"/76.2mm guns are fine, but 4"/101.6mm and larger are where the problems are. Already reported in-game.

It is impossible to give a ship a Triple Expansion steam engine in 1910, meaning I cannot build Texas for Shared designs. Kindly remove þe block on obsolete equipment and just put it in a sub-folder or someþing if you're trying to avoid cluttering þe screen. Additionally: I cannot mount 14" guns on her, which were her armament as designed. Finally: Þe scale of þe turrets is impossibly large and þe barrels far too long. It is impossible to create Texas on Dreadnought II hull at BB-35 Texas' closest approximate lengþ possible in-game. (578'3" at 26,000 tons, which is at least 1000 tons less þan her standard load and 2300 less þan her full load.) Don't try to argue "Þis isn't supposed to be a 1:1 historically accurate ship building game." You gave us a ship builder and supposedly historical hulls, turrets, etc. You should've designed þe game like þe oþer Ultimate Admiral/General games if you want to dodge þat complaint.

I've just finished watching Italy fail for þe þird time to reform despite having 3:1 KD every single round of þeir attempts.

I am once again requesting þat we be allowed to build "obsolete" hulls. I want my coastal defense ships wiþ 1940s equipment on þem to be replaceable!

Skill issue. My GDP as Germany is 53 and þe only two larger are þe British at 56 and þe U.S. at 63. (As of 1906) Try conquering more of Africa. Oh, wait, we're not allowed to even suggest þat þe army should consider looking at invading anywhere! Let us, as Admiral, suggest to þe army's leadership þat þey should try to invade certain places, giving a bonus to þe chance if a naval invasion of þe province would be possible.

I honestly would like it more if we got combat reports instead. Þe Radio Commander Vietnam game is amazing.

As long as jets don't get added, and being þat þe game stops at 1950 it'd be reasonable for þem to not be, AAA batteries will still be enough to defeat planes. I believe þey should've just done what was done for þe oþer two "Ultimate -" games and did a WW1 British naval campaign and noþing like what we've got. Game starts in 1914 or wiþ þe launching of HMS Dreadnought, and ends in 1918.

Because "aircraft are too hard" Despite at least 2/3rds of þe games timeline having aircraft and aircraft carriers.

Þe values in-game are against "Iron" armor from 1890 and þese never get updated to þe most common armor from when you're looking at þe penetration table. You need to look at your actual þickness and multiply it by þe percentile modifier of your particular type of armor to figure out where it is on þe table. Þis should all be done automatically, but it isn't.

The sea-ways between you and them are blockaded, I'm pretty sure. I've never had that happen when I'm at peace.

Your naval capacity should already be in the game, but it's not listed as a single factor. It's a combination of fuel availability, crew pool, dock-space, and funding for ship maintenance and repairs and paying the crews. The issue is that the navies that we should be able to make are far too large for the game to handle. The engine itself can't hold up, I think. Remember that, at her height in 1945, the USN had 99 aircraft carriers, 8 fast battleships, and 10 prewar battleship, along with ~1,100 other combat ships of over 1,000 tons displacement. The British had 1,400 combat ships in 1939.

Sounds good to me. I say do it. It's not like the game's actually done in the first place.

I am once again requesting the ability to use "obsolete" tech. If I can't use Picric Acid I then it's not worth it. Not because it's good, but because I want to maximize HE damage and fire-chance. I am also requesting that you cease the silliness of having separate tech-lines for getting larger guns and maximum hull weights. Let me put 6" main-gun casemate guns onto my heavy cruiser so that I can make the U.S.S. St. Louis in 1900, if not earlier. If I can build a 20,000 ton battleship then I can build a 12,000 ton armored cruiser or a 10,000 ton light cruiser or a 1,000 ton torpedo boat or destroyer. Ships weren't limited in scale based on tech for the smaller ones. They were just only as large as they needed to be. Ships get larger as the amount of shit stuffed into them increases. If you cut Radar from modern ships then the scale of the ships would drop by as much as 20% because of all of the computers that they need to have on-board and the stations for being able to USE those radars. They don't get larger because they "figure out how to make a bigger type of ship" It has 100% nothing to do with shipbuilding tech. Battleships at at the largest because they need to be able to fit their huge guns and their armor. Armored Cruisers are smaller because they don't need nearly as big of a gun, but have better engines and worse armor I say that the weight limit slider needs to be removed entirely and replaced by a beam-drought-length set of sliders. Your big shipyards can build maximum capacity, but your medium and smaller shipyards can't. They're limited to up to 3/4s, and 2/5ths of your absolute maximum, respectively. Change the weight limit techs to be size-related instead, and let the ships be whatever weight they end up being, with a listed "maximum optimal" weight based on the length, beam, and drought. The maximal size is a combination of building up your maximum shipyard size and techs to make larger and larger ships. This also allows some hulls to be deleted that're just "This hull but bigger." Does this mean a dramatic overhaul? Yes, probably. I believe it to be 100% worth it, even if it pushes the game back by 2 years. I'll Fvcking buy it again if I have to.

Wet storage of munitions is accomplished with OIL not water. The intention is to prevent oxygen from being able to get to the spark, thus preventing a detonation. If the detonation still occurs, the oil compresses, dampening the explosion.

Easily patched hole isn't hyperbole. It's quite easy to take a 24" spare plate, which those DDs had in abundance, and patch the holes those shells made. If it weren't the case then they'd have sunk from just those holes alone. A combination of wet-storage, armored charge transport capsules, multi-compartment sealed storage areas, and well-trained, careful, handling render the chances of an actual magazine detonation as close to zero as is physically possible. Assuming that everyone does as they're supposed to.

It is quite possible IRL. Proper storage and handling can prevent any chance of a flashfire OR ammo detonation, despite a shell detonating inside the powder magazine.

Point #2 is how armor piercing actually works IRL Observe: Taffy 3, surviving 18" shells with destroyers because the Yamato loaded AP thinking that they were cruisers, and the shells just "harmlessly" passed through the ship, making easily patched holes. Same for all of the cruisers that were with Yamato off Sumar.

I'd also like it if the Flaws stopped being listed once they're fixed by refits.