Dave P.

Longer barrels tend to flex during firing, causing "barrel whip" - this actually will decrease accuracy IRL. Also, "barrel droop" is a thing. Googling finds a lot of discussions for these as they apply to human-sized firearms, but the principles apply to naval guns too. I don't know if this was the intent of the patch or not, but it sounds like they are either trying to account that, or they're just nerfing longer guns for gameplay reasons. *shrug* AFAIK the Italian issue was more to do with QC on the shells. (Weight variations.) ------------------------- Anyway, I noticed my turrets floating in the air. That's neat. (13.5" MkIII on a Standard Barbette, Dreadnought I hull, playing as Austria-Hungary.)

After the latest update, the popup that appears when you hover the cursor over diplomatic/event choices sometimes fails to appear for some of the choices (usually the top one.) Sometimes it appears eventually (after a few seconds), and sometimes it never does.

When attacking a territory as part of an alliance, the first attacking power gets "dibs" on the province once it's invaded. Would be nice if there was a way to fiddle with this - trading technology or money to your ally in exchange for the province maybe. Similarly, if you're trying to avoid a war with somebody, maybe there could be a way to do diplomacy - like, propose trading colonies and cash with each other, and if there's enough of an imbalance in the AIs favor, you can reset your relationship to 0 or something.

This may be an exploit? Even before you have RDF or Radar, if you don't know where the enemy is, you can tell your ships to retreat and they will set a course 180 degrees from the nearest enemy. Then set the course manually again in the opposite direction and you will whammo right into the nearest baddie.

When your enemy has task forces out in the world killing your transports, you need to deploy forces to those regions to hunt them down. You kill them, they stop sinking transports.

Finally (last post I promise) it would be a nice QOL thing if there was a "retire now" option in campaign. Clicking through those last couple years worth of turns after you've defeated your enemies and seen them driven before you is pretty boring. Especially with the AI still trying to design ships it can't afford to build.

The integrated Barbette in the superstructures for many of the modern german BBs and BCs have a problem fitting quad and even triple turrets for sizes that I would otherwise think are pretty appropriate for the era/size/role. (Or it can fit them, but the firing arcs are restricted to the point of being useless.) Modern BC with Modern Tower III can't fit Quads bigger than a 10": Hybrid BC with Modern Tower X can't fit Quads bigger than 12": Can't fit a triple 16" either. Modern BB II w/ Modern Tower III can fit a triple 18", but not a quad 16": As a practical matter, I don't find this too limiting, except that my preferred Large Cruiser (BC) design w/ 4x Quad 12" (as a cheap late-game BC you can field in stupid-high numbers) is kinda hard to build from German parts unless I use the smallest towers, resulting in a sighting and fire control penalty, as well as looks only a mother could love: I've been running into this since quad turrets were introduced, assuming it's just a hitbox/collision thing. Wondering if it's an oversight, since the British/US BB superstructures with integrated superfiring barbettes are generally more capacious? Also, since several of the german hulls don't get a superstructure design that doesn't have the integrated barbette, it makes it hard to turn those hulls into properly dakka-equipped vessels. (And forget about doing an all-forward design.)

Would also be nice if we had the option to deploy damaged ships. At least if they have less than a certain amount of damage. I'd be happy to do so with some kind of disadvantage. (Morale, unrest, higher maintenance costs, whatever.) I mean, I can have ships with 50% damage that haven't been sent home yet, so they're in the fleet and fighting, but if a ship with much less damage than that hits a port, it's stuck there until its fully repaired? Seems wrong.

I would like to know how the autoresolve logic works. Towards the end of a war, after I've wiped out most of the opposing navy, their ships seem to ridiculously outperform in autoresolve vs. battling it out. More than once I've had a "meeting" of 6+ BBs plus escorts vs. an enemy CL and a couple of destroyers, and autoresolve will have them heavily damage or destroy half my fleet. But if I actually run a similar battle myself, their ships will either run away or be destroyed outside of their own weapons range. When you're bumping into 2-3 of these sorts of mini-battles per turn it gets kinda boring. But the alternative is losing large numbers of capital ships to a handful of destroyers. I'm also curious why, when my ships run into a bunch of unescorted transports in a convoy or port battle, the autoresolve will let some percentage (usually a majority) of the transports get away, even when I have more ships, all faster, than there are transports? Shouldn't it be trivial for my fleet to bag them all? I don't expect perfection, and I realize the RNG is a thing. But maybe the autoresolve could weight things based on the current victory points or ratio of tonnage sunk? The best predictor of future performance is past results.

Just wanted to provide some evidence of the Radar Phantoms I complained about earlier in case nobody believed me.

One bug I've been noticing for a while is that when an enemy ship sinks when I can't see it, I'll get a notification that the ship sinks, but the green target blip on the screen keeps appearing, and the ship keeps registering on RDF/Radar as a target. Happens a lot on convoy missions, since the TRs are so clustered together, and have lower visibility than warships, you can accidentally blow one up with a stray shot before you can see it.

Still would really, really like "attack move" option for routing which forces a direct route to the destination regardless of enemy fleet presence/influence areas and engages anything that gets in the way.

It’s just how the ai designs certain ships. If you check their armor values they’re usually made from construction paper.

I know this is a minor thing, but when you have a bunch of ships with number-names in a list, is it in any way possible to adjust the sorting method used so that V-100 comes AFTER V-99? Because right now it's doing the typical purely-alphabetical string sorting thing that's like: V-1 V-10 V-100 V-11 V-1528 V-19 V-2 V-2450 V-35 etc. I know that's just a problem with sorting strings, but it would be nice if irritated other people as much as it irritates me.

I think the "The press think you need more of [ship type]" random events should be rethought. Maybe government type should be a factor. And maybe if you have more than a certain number of [ship type] the event should just be disabled? Like, yeah, ok, I have 150+ cruisers, but, like, Walter Cronkite thinks I need one more? No way. And he can convince the government of this? If I had like 12 maybe. Or if I had a large percentage of the force down for repairs. And I'm assuming, because of the unrest penalty, that the population in general doesn't support the spending. Which is weird because you'd think the government would only be on board if the population was OK with it (at least in an elected system.) But public support is key here - see also the "We Want Eight" campaign for a historical example. A big "naval prestige" hit for taking the money would make more sense, IMO. (Look at those lame-o naval officers begging for money because they can't advocate for themselves.) IMO, in peacetime, if I've got numerical/tech superiority and stuff over our international rivals, I should have the press trying to cut the naval budget. Ding me for not having enough ships mothballed or have political events that cut the crew pool, penalties should be unrest and prestige losses then. Or maybe if I have a land border with a country that I have a negative relationship with, the army should be trying to undermine me? Some events related to that would be... historically accurate at least. Annoying, but accurate.