Ribba

Is there any way to modify the save game file and the relations between nations? I'm at war, as I've been for a long time, against the British, French and the Spanish. But now that Italy has been resuscitated for N'th time, the next turn brings them at war with me, GB, France and Spain. So I'm forced into an alliance with those nation to fight the might Italian Navy, with their five ships and 5 million GDP (in 1932). As mention, I've been at war against France and especially GB for a very long time, on and off of course since alliances changes regularly. But I don't want to lose all my VP against GB (almost 80k), France (almost 55k) and Spain (only 14k) again. I've had an extra save game so that I could reload if something horrible went wrong with the game, but every time reload the game and enter the next turn, I drag into an alliance. Sometimes I remain at war with France, but I always dragged into an alliance with GB, losing all my VPs. So I've decided that if I cannot stop the alliance, I'm gonna end my 200 hours campaign. The forced alliances has become a game breaking bug for my part.

If it's realism your after, you should sit on the bridge or in the conning tower of your flag ship, not using free look with birds eyes view. Or even more realistically. You should sit in your office and read battle reports to get see how the battles went. But as everybody knows, this a game. And not a very realistic one either, as almost every other game made. Because as most other games who tries to give a realistic vibe to the player, they sacrifice realism for the UI, game mechanics and so on, to make the game more playable. And having tracer is an important part of the UI. It tells the player a lot about how and what the enemy is targeting, and as so, the player can react accordingly. And I already know that you don't like the look of the tracers, and I respect your right to have your own opinion. But other than that, your opinion of the topic is of zero importance to me when it comes to my own opinion of the topic. I think it looks good, and I'm glad it's in the game both from an esthetic perspective as well as the UI aspect. That said, I welcome an option to turn it on/off. But if or when such a feature arrives, I will leave it on.

I hope it's not removed, since it looks good and gives the player better situational awareness on which of the players ships the AI have targeted. But if it's something that is performance draining, it should be an option to turn it on/off.

I don't know if it's a bug or it's by design. I've also had enemies that had surrendered due to high losses, but I've never gotten a ship. And if it's by design, it's not that implausible either if we put on our realistic glasses. Those ships are highly damaged, with probably fires raging and maybe flooding. The remaining original crew is most likely abandoning the ship, meaning that nobody are fight those fires or trying to stop the flooding unless you put your own crew onboard that ship. And that would be a huge risk for your crew. If the ship is burning to much, you wouldn't be able to put your crew onboard. So the ship had to burn out to such degree that the ship would nothing more then a burnt out hulk of little value. And if you crew are put onboard, your fleet is at risk against submarine attacks and so on, while your crew are working to save the ship. Then you have to get the ship back home. It's ok if you're near a friendly port, but quit a problem if you far from such a port. And you would also allocate resources to tow this ship to safety. So in most cases, it wouldn't be practical to save ship. In WW2, USS Hornet was such an incident. It got heavily damaged, and the US tried to scuttle the ship to avoid it becoming a war trophy, but they had to retreat before they managed to scuttle the aircraft carrier. So it was still afloat when the Japanese arrived, but they sank it rather then trying to save it. But it would be cool if we, in the game, could get some ships this way. Not all, since that it's probably unlikely that such ships are worth saving. But sometimes, with some RNG, a surrendered ship is saved and kept as a war trophy. Or for instance we get the option if we want to try to save the ship with a text based mini game or something.

And that's fair enough. But since we, as the Admiralty, Minister of the Navy or what ever, earn prestige, that prestige should be a currency we should be allowed to use in such cases. For instance, if the government want to one thing, but you as a player want do something else, you should be able persuade you government to your views, by sacrificing some of your prestige. That's good gameplay.

The diplomacy has completely lost track now. Almost every month new alliances are made, making all VP gained on enemies lost and suddenly becoming allied with former enemies that I've fought for years. As of now, I'm allied with the British (which was my main enemy for years), almost at war with AH (-95) and France (-99), all of whom I were at war with last month, and at war with the rest of the world. The reason for the change is that Spain declared war on me. So of course, I allied up with my main rivals.

Get those damn guns to work. It's been plaguing the game for ages and still the bug is in this game. This should've been fixed two years ago. I'm so tired of having guns that don't shoot for no apparent reasons.

Some adjustments to the mission "creator" would be welcome. Today, in the campaign, it always seems like the game tries to balance the mission so that the player is the underdog, or at best, approximately on a similar level by tonnage. I think this is very wrong in so many ways, since it is disregarding the strategic picture. For instance, I've basically beaten the British now, and they have only some ships here and there. We are still at war, but even if I have 4 times as many active ships as them, and most of my ships are more advanced then their ships, the missions never seems correspond to that advantage. And it gets even worse, since I've kept almost my whole Atlantic Fleet at home, having about 200 ships on the East Coast, Caribbean and the Mexico Gulf. The modern ships are on Sea Control, but I do have some older ships, which I've kept for sentimental values, In being in some ports. So when the British sends one 24000 tons BB to the Caribbean, none of my modern ships are "allowed" to attack the old British battleships. It's always my museum ships that have to do the fighting, and they are completely outclassed by the old battleship. Basically, I cannot fight that battleship, leaving the British ship to do what ever it want. So please make the mission creator represent the strategic map, with the pieces that are on the map, and disregard the balancing thing the creator does now. If I'm outnumbering the enemy, give me a numerical advantage (and not balancing it by tonnage). If I'm outclassing their ships with much more modern ships, let me first use my modern ships first and not the museum pieces. If it's the other way around, let the AI have their benefits. Only when both parties have similarly, but significantly, numbers of ships in an area, there should be some balancing. And, to avoid the run away problem that has plagued this game for a long time, solve this in the mission window. Don't waste our times by forcing us to enter the tactical battle map. In the mission window, you can already give us the information that the enemy is trying to run away, and we should then get an option if we want to pursuit the enemies or to disengaged. If you chose to pursuit the enemy fleet who tries to run away, and you have ships that are faster then their slowest ship, you would automatically manage to catch them. And only now the tactical battle starts, with your ship almost at engagement range. But you will only be able to attack at first with the ships that are faster then their slowest ship. The rest of your fleet would have to start the battle way back. And it should also be the same thing if they are chasing you.

I'm so tired of being forced into alliances I don't want to be a part of. I'm so tired of those "allies" forcing peace treaties on to me in wars they isn't even actively participate in. And I'm so tired not being able to dissolve those alliances because: A: Because my country refuses to dissolve an alliance. B: Because even if the odd chance that my country does accept to dissolve an alliance with one of the alliance partners, I'm dragged right back into an alliance with that said "partner", because some of my other unwanted alliance partners declare war with a third party. I'm playing as the US 1890 campaign, and have just entered 1923. I allied with over half the world now, UK, France, Spain, Italy and China. Germany is dissolved. So the only countries left to "play" with, are Russia, Japan and AH. Russia and AH have been basically a non-treat for the last 20 years, which have left only Japan as an adversary, which greatest strength is that my "allies" always ends up making peace treaties with Japan on my behalf, so I've never been able to put a finishing blow to them. So, as mentioned, I'm in 1923. I cannot finish off those enemies I can fight, Russia, AH and Japan, who are basically all a non-treat to me since they barely have any ships left and are probably at least a decade behind me technologically. I cannot fight those countries that are actually could pose a challenge, France and especially UK, two countries that are on a similarly tech-level and have a slightly bigger fleet then me. Because they are my unwanted allies that I cannot break away from. So now, the game has basically become a ship designer/refit simulator rather the grand naval war game.

You're right, it's nothing wrong about giving the player complete control of the country. But being the head of the admiralty fits the narrative of this game a lot better then the player being the head of state. Because this may explain a lot of things that this game doesn't have implemented. Things that aren't implemented by intention since this is not a grand strategy game in the style of Paradox's titles where you actually control the country/empire of your choosing. So it gives a more immersive experience if narrative of the game is closely linked towards the game mechanics of the game.

I don't need this to be a realistic diplomatic simulator, but I do want to have some control with who I'm gonna fight and who I don't want to fight. So some diplomatic options would need to be implemented in the game for me to be really happy with this game. And then, to make the game more immersive, the narrative has to feel plausible. So you do not necessarily have to change much to the game mechanic to make a story feel more realistic, you can do it you formulate yourself. For instance, when a ship has too many casualties, they surrender. Nothing wrong with that, but in the cases that they do surrender and the enemy is 30 seconds having their last ship being sunk, the story suddenly feels unrealistic. But if you phrase the sentence to that your captain order the crew to abandon the ship due to massive losses and damage to the ship, the story suddenly is much more plausible again. And you do that without changing any game mechanic. So I would be satisficed having a light hearted in the game, but the narrative have to be well written. And all options for the player don't necessarily have to be an option for the AI. For instance, false flag operations for an AI is not something I feel should be implemented in the game, since it would probably give the player a less feel of control of the game if friendly nations suddenly launch a false flag operation against you. Edit: Also, if another nation do want to go to war against me against my wishes, I want it feel that it's plausible and that there is an agenda behind it to why they are doing it. I don't want them to go to war just because the are angry at me. So if an enemy are going for long lasting war, they should have an agenda for why they entered this war. If the only went to war because of high tension, a peace treaty should be rather easy to get, especially if they are democratic countries.

Lot of good ideas here, which I like to explore a bit more. 1. I think it would be extremely difficult for the head of the admiralty to persuade the leaders of the government to attack a friendly country. At best, you could over time lower the standing between the countries. But if you could do false flag operation against that country, then it could be more plausible for you to persuade your government to declare war against a now former friendly country. So For instance, you could spend a little naval prestige to lower the relations with a friendly country, but you could also conduct a said false flag operation, which cost a lot of money, but with no cost of naval prestige. If your false flag operation is not exposed as a false flag operation, that is. Because it should always be a risk of someone finding out the truth, maybe the risk is evaluated by how much money you have spent on the operation. And if the truth gets out, you lose a lot of naval prestige. If you have enough prestige left to keep your job, you'll still get your war, except that it's the country that you launched the false flag operation at, who will declare war. Also, all friendly and neutral countries towards that said country will increase tension towards your country, meaning you may end up in a bigger war then you intended to. 2. Maybe also offer tech or giving away ships to improve relations? 3. and 4. Nothing to add here. 5. Not only adding spies, but also adding intelligence branches into the game. With added fog of war on the strategic map, intelligence will be a vital part of collecting information about where enemy fleets are and what their intendent mission is. 6. This should come as an expense towards your naval prestige, since you're the head of the admiralty and are likely insulting other countries outside the normal diplomatic channels. 7. White peace should also be an option. But I would prefer if the devs are prioritizing on fixing the game as it is now, rather then add new features like this. Even if this is something a would like to see in the game in the future.

Isn't there simulated such a feature in the game? Maybe I remember wrongly, since I've stopped playing this game now and I don't bother to check if I remember correctly (I'm waiting for an update that makes this game playable again before I'll start up the game again), but I recall that if you leave your fleet standing still for one turn, the ships are refueled and/or ammo is restocked.

Listen, you can build an SUV based on any ordinary car of a similar size, simply because an SUV, barring a few exceptions, are based on ordinary cars. But that was not my point. My point was that there is a huge different between a battleship design and a cruiser design (especially CL), just like it is between a open racer vs a family car. And it's not only about about length and width, but the whole internal ship is fundamentally different. The battleship is designed from scratch to have an internal structure that can hold big armor plates, huge turrets and so on. A light cruiser isn't designed this way. You cannot take a light cruiser design and add massive amounts of armor plates or put huge turrets on top of the ship, because the ship would simply break up under the sheer weight of all those extra armor and armament. So, if you have that light cruiser design and wish to put a lot of armor and armament on, you have to reinforce the internal structure of that ship, which means increasing the base weight of the hull. And if you use the same dimensions, you will have less buoyancy left to use on adding armor and armament. So the only way to increase buoyancy, it's to make the ship bigger. And that is something you probably had to anyway, since increase the size for the guns also would require bigger space for shells and propellant. Especially since you are designing this ship to be a cruiser, with the intended mission to be at cruising around at, it would be nice to have more then a couple of rounds laying around in the magazine. And the extra weight would also require the ship to carry more fuel to carry out it's mission, which again means adding more weight and require more space. And all this means, if you don't want to sacrifice speed, you have to add bigger engines. And bigger engines and bigger magazines requires more space. So either you kick out the crew or make them sleep on the deck, or you have to make this ship bigger. Which, if you want a cruiser design, mostly increase length wise. That means your armor scheme also have to be increased so it can cover the extra length the engine rooms, boiler rooms and magazines, which means adding even more weight. Of course you can make the ship wider, but then you end up with a design more reminiscence of a battleship, not a light cruiser. So no. If it was possible to build a light cruiser with heavy armor and huge armament, and still keep good speed, maneuverability and a long cruising range, it would have been done. Because all the great nations wanted such a ship, but they were never able to build such a ship. Simply, it wasn't possible. There was, and still is, always compromises to be made, and you cannot have the best of both worlds. Either you go for an efficient ship with good speed and maneuverability (light cruiser), but carries less firepower and armor, or you go for massive firepower and armor, but get less speed and maneuverability and worse efficiency (battleship). Or you may do a compromise and sacrificing both firepower, armor, speed and maneuverability and go for a BC or a CA. But you will never get one perfect design. And this is where the big luxury SUV vs an F1 car comes in to play. Both a big SUV and a formula one car have about the same footprint, about 11 square meters. But since they are designed for two completely different tasks, you would be foolish to use the base of one design to try to make a better version of the other design. It's better to use the design of the formula one car if you want a race car, and the design of the SUV if you want a large family car. The same with these ships. Regarding the game stats, with predetermined stats for the different hulls, the are mostly logical. Battleships are usually more sturdy, so the can take a bigger beating. They are also usually more stable so they are a better gun platform, but the compromise is that they are also often less efficient and maneuverable. And the other hull types also have mostly logical stats that represents how the intended design of the hull is meant to be used. Basically. If you want a ship with cruiser-like properties, you'll choose a cruiser. If you want a ship with more battleship properties, you choose a battleship hull. So I think these stats is a good way to show which types of mission the different hull designs are well/less suited for. Again, this could also have been sorted by using dynamic stats, where the player chances values in all different ways and the stats reacts accordingly, letting the player make ships customizable completely to their own design. And I'm not against it, but it would give the game a less historic feel then it have today. Especially if the players would get totally free reigns. Then, if we exaggerate a bit, you could end up meeting a 90000 ton ship based on a torpedo boat design. I don't personally see the appeal in that. Also, if the player get to much customizability, how would the AI handle ship design?

I agree that ships class is defined are to a big degree decided by it missions. But in this game, we do have specific hulls available to us, and those are following the class restrictions. And those classes gives indications on how hull specific bonuses/penalties are defined. So both in this game, and realistically, a light cruiser hull is a hull designed based on the expected missions the ship would conduct. This means that a light cruiser hull, which isn't designed to carry as big a load as an battleship would, would simply not have the internal strength to carry so much load as a similarly sized battleship. That's why a light cruiser hull is much, much lighter then a similar sized battleship hull. Also, the hull form of an cruiser is different from a battleship, since the cruiser would have a longer length to width ratio. So choosing a specific hull, you have already made the most important statement on which type of mission parameters your ship is meant to perform. To put it another way, if you want to design a big luxury SUV, you wouldn't base it on a formula one chassis. So if you look at the game as it is now, and you were allowed to throw as much armor and big armament on a light cruiser hull as you want, with only the tonnage as a limit, your build would have been allowed much more armor and much more heavier armament then a similarly sized battleship would have been allowed. And your ship would also be able to sail much faster and having a longer cruising range. And on top of that, it would also been more stealthy. Basically, it would be an ridiculous exploit for players to have. Of course you could have had a more dynamic way of calculating the stats of a hull. For instance, if you increase the armor or armament of a ship, the hulls base weight is automatically increased in a way to simulate that the internal hull strength has to be increased. And this way the limitations of a hulls armament and armor are calculated, and it's up to the player to balance it.