Suribachi

Life has been kicking me while I am down so I have not had much chance to play. Feedback so far: 1. Addition of Shipbuilding Capacity on Map View and Ship Design screens for Campaign == 10/10 fantastic addition 2. Tension popup includes areas where relations are being affected in a scroll-able list == 10/10 fantastic addition 3. Lack of feature proposed feature is not good 4. Campaign loading is much faster and UI feels snapper and more responsive somehow.

The issue is that the vertical hull damage view needs some minor changes. The biggest being that there is no layering. This means that if the deck underneath a turret is damaged, the green stripes will overlap the turret making it difficult to see if the turret itself is damaged without also consulting the horizontal damage view and doing some mental mapping. If the view was built in a way where the components were always on top of the deck so it is easier to see, that would be a terrific step in the right direction without having to change anything else. But while we are at it: What if we combine all of the elements together? Layered as "always underneath" of components (Hull/Deck in this case means the blank hull in the ship designer without anything attached by the player yet) No coloring: No damage Green Stripe: Hull/Deck light damage Yellow Stripe: Hull/Deck moderate damage Red: Stripe: Hull/Deck heavy damage / destroyed section Layered as "always on top" of deck elements (Component here means anything that the player adds to the blank hull in the builder including all weapons, towers and funnels) Dark Green with Light Green Outline: Component light damage Dark Yellow with Light Yellow Outline: Component moderate damage Dark Red with Light Red Outline: Component Heavy damage Black with Dark Red Outline: Component Destroyed Just a passing thought to try and make use of an insomniac night so I am sure I missed something.

True. This is why I usually start my 1890 USA playthroughs with about 4 CA's on Limited with crew training low, then just let the economy do it's thing. Yeah, some years will pass with not much going on, but usually by 1897-ish, I have about 100k tons worth of ships to take the Caribbean from Spain. From there, I decide if I want to push into Africa or recover more so I can take the Philippines later. By 1910, I usually have a foothold in East Asia (if not Japan outright), Africa and South America.

From my experience, your mileage my vary, training set to 50% or 60% is enough to keep veteran crews without deteriorating for years even if you are at peace and the ship is set to Limited. Typically, a crew that has never seen combat can only be trained up to Trained. So once every ship in your fleet is at least Trained, you can drop the training to 50% or 60% and they will stay there from what I have seen. What I usually do: Bunch of new vessels or war coming? Training to 100%. Maintaining during peacetime? Training to 50%. Saving money during tough times? Training to 40%. Training is the first thing to go in my budget down to a minimum of 40% before I start sacrificing Transport cap. Tech is never dropped from 100% for my playthroughs.

I suggested a while back that if two major powers go to war that the minor nations that are allied with said powers would be dragged in as well and become legitimate military targets for naval and land invasions. Time will tell if this implemented one way or another. Additionally, tension definitely should raise if a fleet of a major power parks outside of a minor's port for a while since the allied power should come by and do a show of force, increasing the tension.

Dang! You mean I won't be able to prepare my dinner anymore while I wait for the campaign to load? Oh well, small price to pay.

I have always thought that the tech level reporting would need a change in how it is presented since the game only seems to report the tech level vs time not the other nations. When comparing against nations, you would need a Most Advanced, followed by maybe 1 or 2 Advanced, then 3 Averages, then 1 or 2 Behind, then finally a Most Behind. This would at least tell the player at a glance if their nation is keeping up with their peers or the leaders. Bonus Points if the Tech Tree screen showed the same thing for each category so you can see if you need to put a priority into a tech that is lagging behind. I recognize that this is probably not something the modders would be able to influence, but I can dream.

What I usually do is start a dummy campaign on 1930 or 1940. Then I go into the tech tree to highlight the researched techs, it should tell you what tech it was. As an example, I know that once Heavy Cruisers start to get around the 17,500 ton mark, modern cruisers are not far away for the USA.

Not saying it is everything, but a large part of the army's performance is GDP and Naval tonnage vs territory/population. GDP is self explanatory, army budget is a percentage of GDP, same as naval budget. Next is the navy. I have noticed that when the navy is larger and more powerful, the army logistics, and their effectiveness, skyrockets. Unfortunately, I am not sure if it is number of ships, tonnage, power projection or a combination of the three that does it.

Update on this since something was bothering me about it. Went into a custom battle to test that specific mount out. The casemate on the starboard (right) side of the ship is firing THROUGH the hull to the enemy on the PORT (left) side of the ship. The firing angle as shown in my image is correct and needs to be addressed. Please note, both visually and functionally, the port (left) side casemate is working as intended. Also I incorrectly called that the starboard casemate seemed to be rotated 90 degrees from where it should be. I was incorrect, it is rotated 180 degrees from where it should be. @Nick Thomadis I rarely ping direct, but this issue has so long prevented me from building on this hull that I would like to see some action on the issue. I know you guys have a lot on your plates, but this seems like a very simple fix to me, like someone forgot a "-" or something.

Yes, I am aware that it has existed for some time. However, I think it should still be addressed

USA Dreadnought II hull. Casemate firing arc seems to be rotated 90 degrees from what it should be. All other firing locations appear correct. Replication notes: Year 1908 in campaign.

Very curious to know if the funnel system can be overhauled to include the option of boiler orientation. Meaning that we can choose if the boilers are aft of the funnel (a ⅃ looking at the ship from the starboard side), fore of the funnel (an L looking at the ship from the starboard side), or directly the funnel under like they are now (basically a ꓕ ). Being that boilers and engines are a large part of the ships balance, this could help alleviate some of that issue and open up some design options.

Might want to check and see if the images you are using are too big. For example, I have a Max total size limit of 62.96 KB for any file attachments. It is not uncommon to use a third party image hosting site, like Imgur for example, to upload the image to before posting the link on your forum post. EDIT: Found your topic I think lol. Nice work. I need to figure out how to do that with images.

Agreed. Basically, what I have been trying to say. I just get tired of loading into a battle, putting the time multiplier on x10 then eventually x30 depending on the enemy's speed compared to mine, before finally waiting for the enemy to get too far away before having to end the battle having never sighted the enemy, firing upon the enemy or being fired upon. I agree wholeheartedly with you on this point. Unfortunately, I do not believe I have a workable solution for this that everyone can agree with so I cannot comment on it too much as the game exists currently. If it were different, say if we were allowed to pick and chose which elements of the greater fleet to use before the battle, that would be a different discussion I believe.