Lastreaumont

A vision a little too cataclysmic I think. I agree that a hit ship that survives to the taken damages should probably need to be decontaminated before repair, but I'm not sure for the others. And the firing ship is not too far away from its target too. It certainly won't fire an ammunation that implies to scuttle it too. Nuclear is dangerous, but not as dangerous as you seem to think about it.

Maybe this is the magic of the last update. ☺️

Sorry, I don't. Maybe there is a problem with Germany. In my current campaign (US, start in 1910, normal difficulty), I'm currently in april 1946, my fleet is composed of 78 ships: 4 BB 29 BC 11 CA 34 DD BB (small super BB built in 1926), all other big ships built after 1935, all refitted 3 months ago. No new provinces since start. I lost Alaska few years ago, thanks to the +250PV/turn bug. Science slide and crew slide at max since start. Transport slide at medium since transports reached 200%. Last month, during peace, with all my ships "Limited" except 1BC + 1CA at sea, the budget balance was +4M$ Now, I'm at war. With all ships in "Defend", except 1BB + 4BC + 1CA + 4DD at sea, the budget balance is +112M$ Question: what kind of engines do you use on your ships?

English isn't my native language. I don't always fully understand. 😉☺️

Sorry, I was too unprecize (I wanted to do it short). I didn't talk about the problem you mentionned with the 1/12th scale B29 that need an internal structure with very different capabilities compared to the one of its big brother at scale 1. I was focused only on the aerodynamic form of the plane, that can be less efficient if scaled too far away from its original size. This is a question of turbulences size according too plane parts sizes if I remember correctly. Sadly I din't remember the source and didn't find it again. Sorry. Starting from this, I assumed that if it can append into fluid dynamics in air, it can also append into fluid dynamics in water. But maybe I'm wrong.

Ok, why not, but this would be less realistic than the current model. According to my knowledge, you can't rescale a plane too much without deteriorating its performances. I assume this is the same for a ship. Another way to see this is you wanna new "Lego" pieces because the actual ones don't satisfy you. 😉

Not everybody. As far as I'm concerned, I don't complain about this. This game gives me some "Lego" pieces and some rules to use them. I take that as it is and look for how to build what I want with that. The game design rules are just a model. All models are false. Because I am not a mechanical, structural, thermodynamic, materials, and electrical engineer specialized in ships design (I probably missed some engineering specialities usefull to fully design a ship), I trust the game developpers about their model choices. I'm not sure that "more realistic" always rimates with "more fun".

I remember previous versions where torpedoes were fully efficient. It was not my best remembrances. 😉

I know, but radar is so much usefull. I stopped counting the battles where I can't find the ennemy because I only know it is somewhere in the NE, especially since the AI learnt again fleeing can be a good option to survive. Idem for sonar. Torpedoes still stay the worst threat for my ships. And, bonus, we have at the same time what we need to change our DD into efficient submarine hunters. Conclusion: the research penalty seems not to be big enough, (and also hard to evaluate because not clearly displayed on research screen). Or maybe the problem is ships with 1910 tech everywhere except in radar/sonar/main guns seem to outclass regular 1925 ships without efforts.

According to the shapes of ships, I think you have your chances. ☺️

I remember @Nick Thomadis asked to check if flaws frequency decreased through time and with construction technologies. I don't know if the decrease rate is the one expected, but it works. In my current campaign, the number of ships with flaws is less around 1933 than at the beginning, near 1910, for SOTA ships and for low tech ships. I tested it for both types of ships designs because if I continue to hunt the flaws on my BB, BC, and CA, I don't care on my DD and CL, because their 1st mission is to provide ASW score and recon score to my fleets, not to be the most efficient war machines.

There is not only ships speed that can go to infinity and beyond, VP can do this too. 😄 EDIT: few turns later, I made peace with Russia and gain Infinite funds in war reparations. Now I'll be able to build the fleet I dreamed. 😄

If the flaws were added per class, I think I'll create some classes with identical design, enough to be sure to have at least one without flaws, build one ship of each to see which one is without flaws, use this one and scrap/delete the others. As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to have ships without flaws, so I will look for a way to have them, no matter how the flaws are added.

This is ok with a ratio around 1 flawless ship for 3 built. But when it goes near 1 flawless ship for 10 built, my budget will show its limits too soon. This is why I looked for a solution to go back to the 1 for 3 ratio.

Oh, I think I found a good place to post my update of the anti flaws tricks. The 1st simple trick found was to build more ships than you want, around 3 times more. But in my current campaign, I discovered this is not enough: I built 6 new BB to have 1 or 2 without flaws and all of them had flaws. So I did some tests and please find below my new trick to reduce the number of ships built with flaws. 1) Design the ship of your dreams, with all the state of the art (SOTA) features you want. 2) Copy this design and downgrade the most of the refitable features you can to their lowest/oldest option. (don't care about the performances of this design, you never use it as is) 3) Build this design. According to my test, twice more ships than you want could be ok, but if you're unlucky like me, I recommand to stay at 3 times more for now. 4) At the end of the construction time, clean all the ships with flaws 5) At the end of the commissionning, you can refit all the ships to upgrade them with all the features you removed before, and the new ones you discovered during the construction time. 6) Enjoy your nice ships without flaws To reduce the probability these ships go to mission between the end of the build and the start of the refit, I recommand, before the end of construction time, to select all of them in the list plus one ship ready to battle, set this ship to "Defend" to force is state to all the selected ships, and select this alone to set it back to its previous state. I did my test on a campaign started with Japan in 1910. I designed a BC around 1922. I built 12 of the SOTA designs and 12 of the downgraded design. At the end of construction time, I had: - 1 SOTA design ship without flaws. - 6 downgraded design ships without flaws. Based on this result, I think my method is efficient. And now the speculation conclusion. If the developpers introduced the flaws mechanic to force the players not to build SOTA ships, and increase the balance between AI designs choices and players designs choices, I think this is not a good way, because now we are in front of a rebound effect: the players still have SOTA designs but without flaws, and the AI still has its designs, but with flaws.

Actually, my R&D policy is quite simple: At start: - R&D funds slider to max - Focus on Radar until radar 1 is discovered. - Focus on Sonar until sonar 2 is discovered. - Focus on big guns until 12''Mk5 and 15''Mk3 are discovered. When a focus becomes available: - Focus on cruisers until last battle cruiser hull is discovered. I'll be please if future R&D system evolutions break this policy and force me to think a little more about it.

I'd like to refit a cruiser (to add the radar I just discovered). I lick the refit button and, without doing any manual change, the refit time start to 16 months (the build time of the cruiser). The only change I noticed is the auto update of the main guns. I sent a bug report for this. Edit: with some tries, it looks like the build time is added to the refit time.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with the idea of not having the final word on my nation diplomacy. I think there is something interesting to experiment not to be the omnipotent ruler of your faction. But (there is always a "but") we need a nation management by the AI without bugs and some special actions (with costs) to try to influence or force the actions of our governement. Example: possibility to engage foreign forces in peace time to create a diplomatic incident that could start a war (with a cost in unrest/prestige that could cost us our job if our unrest/prestige is too low to try this)

Small add to the good summary of HistoricalAccuracyMan, to show another personnal approach: I remain faithful to 12'' longer, but with a "doped" version: increased to 12.8'' (325mm), longest barrels, super heavy shells, Caped HE and max Caped AP. I only go bigger in the late 20s, when mark3 of 15'' or 16'' become available. At this time, my BC are divided into 2 groups: - Big hulls with same guns as BB, which are like fast small BB. - Small hulls with 12.8'' guns, which are like heavy boosted CA. For small ships, I don't really have advices because I didn't often use them before update 1.09 and now I still investigate for good designs.

The 1.09 update notes says: If, like me, you don't like ships with flaws, you can use the trick shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3POCCCDY9UI

Mod ideas to add with the others: - No flaws option. - All flaws correction refit.

About travels from one harbor to another. Il a ship goes from one harbor to another and this ship is selected to participate to a mission in the area of her destination just after reaching it (same month), please change her "go back harbor after mission" to the destination port before the mission. Example: 1BC with 2DD travel from Saint Denis to Saigon. They reach Saigon and the BC is called to participate to a mission against the Chinese near Taiwan, with 2 CL from Fort Bayard. At the end of the mission, the 2CL go back to Fort Bayard (OK), the 2DD are in Saigon (OK), and the BC is back to Saint Denis (WTF?!). About refuelling. What are the reasons that justify the refuelling (fuel only, not ammo) of a ship can be up to 4 months long in 1920? Even the famous french big strikes don't paralyse the country for a so long time. Lack of transports? My transport capacity is just 199%.

About obsolete hulls but not so obsolete from my point of view, according to how I'd to use them. On previous version, I didn't use DD and CL because they were to weak to resist against ennemy fire. But now submarines and mines come. So I need escort ships specialized in mines and submarine hunting. I started a campaign with France, in 1910. I used Destroyer I hull, lowest size, to build a nice cheap quick DD specialized against Submarines and mines, and also good scout. Time is going and this hull becomes obsolete. Ok, I took the smallest available hull to build a successor for this nice little DD. But impossible to build a better escort DD. The refited version of the old one has same ASW score as the new one, but with a better recon score, for less than half the cost. Why should I build a more expensive and less efficient new model? For now it's too late, but for my next campaign, I know I'll have to build lot of these small DD, probably mothballing the majority of them, to be sure I'll have enough of them until the end of the campaign, when their hull will become obsolete.

Normal amount. Heavy shells. Even with increased or reduced amount, I don't see what a negative percentage could mean. Did they fire more ammunitions than they had? ☺️

One of my ships returned to harbor with a negative percentage of ammunition. I don't understand the concept. What does "-44%" of ammo mean? (The percentage is stored in a signed byte and there was an overflow somewhere in the calculation?)