Lima

Have now, am I right?

Yes

Ungoverned supersoldiers is still a thing, no uprising can be crowned with success

Is it necessary to start a new campaign?

Uprisings cannot succeed The Ottoman Empire, 1903. There were many uprisings in which the Ottomans suffered huge losses, but they all failed.

National territories (or lack thereof) Only 1/3 of France's territory and 10 million people remained... However, the French did not give up and attacked China, successfully And now there are 66 million more Frenchmen! The new French immediately enlisted in the army and and continued the conquest. Well, in general, I wanted to say that this is quite absurd and it would be good to have national territories for every major nation.

Previously, I made posts about how infuriating submarines are and since then a lot of work has been done on them. Notably in terms of their combat power. However, my main complaint about submarines remains the same - they do not fulfill their purpose of hunting the merchant fleet. IRL, If the navy cannot provide enough escort ships and the enemy has many submarines, the merchant fleet will be slaughtered. In this game, this is not the case. You can destroy the entire enemy surface fleet and dispatch hundreds of submarines, but you will not see a significant impact on the enemy merchant fleet. Surface raiders are much more effective (and the most effective raider is your battleship, which sits in the port and causes the captains of enemy merchant ships to have heart attacks). So ideally I would like to see changes regarding submarines in this direction. But if that's not possible, giving players a choice is a great option.

+ illustration Britain has tried to be reborn about ten times already, but every time it happened. The same can be said about all minors and majors.

The Mighty Italian Colonial Empire Just an absurd example of how random attacks on minors/ungoverned work. My government prefers to conquer the desert, but not one of the most important strategic points on Earth, where there is also oil. Edit: Well, you may ask why I didn't take over Egypt when Britain was still there. My landings with positive tonnage failed twice, and then Britain broke up, that's why.

Are there any plans to add the option of choosing a minor country to attack? There are many strategic reasons for this. These guys have oil. Oil is good. I need bases for the navy (Hawaii). The army needs a land border with a large country. You know, it's funny to watch when Germany and the USSR are not at war on the ground, because there are neutral countries between them.

This

It looks like minor nations don't get ships built. Does anyone have the same problem? Cleaning is done according to the instructions.

The problem definitely exists. Mostly ships do constant course corrections and it's not that bad, but sometimes there are some really crazy situations where the ship get very far away from the leader due to strange maneuvers. Division leaders behave normally.

Endless campaign One thing I would like to see in the live version. During my campaigns, I hit the 1950 cap several times and each time I still had room for gameplay ahead. This is especially noticeable with starts from 1930-1940, you just don't have time to really enjoy all these modern hulls. I suggest, upon reaching 1950, to make an alert that there is no planned content in the game further, but you can continue if you wish.

This issue is not ressurected, it has never gone away in my experience.🙃

In this case, this is some very specific problem, because I have never experienced it, and as you can see in the current case (Japan 1940), it also does not exist for me.

There is no bug here. Click on these icons to switch between ship types in a custom battle.

🥖Language is 💀bruh

Rudder is back 😀 common alliance is gone 😀

Will there be any changes for alliance mechanics? Forced alliance gives a really bad gaming experience, it ruins the entire strategic component of the game.

Non-consensual aliiance system In WWII, the US fought with Japan. The US was allied with the USSR. However, the USSR did not fight with Japan until 1945, because the USSR did not want to fight on two fronts. In this game, the USSR would immediately enter into an unnecessary war with Japan. The player must be able to reject the automatic alliance at the start of the war. The current system does not add anything good to the gameplay. Note: Lord Khorne is happy with the current system and asks to leave it as it is. Skulls for the Skull Throne!

YES. Until recently, I've always played without allies. Because I don't want MY forces to deal with THEIR problems. It's not a problem for me to fight against the whole world. Just get these blockheads away from me.

Submarines are insanely strong post#69 It's been a long time since I've lost ships because of the actions of submarines. For each of my capital ship (BB,BC,CA) there are always at least 4 DDs escorts, wherever possible the maximum ASW equipment and sonars are installed (DD,CL,CA). At the same time, my ASW TFs are constantly failing the hunt for submarines. I understand if a strike TF with capital ships will not destroy enemy submarines completely. Safety of capital ships is more important, that's understandable. However, when my specially designated ASW TFs (1-2CLs/10-20DDs) can't destroy a couple of old submarines, it's ridiculous. As a rule, when destroying a submarine, one of the DDs also gets damaged. A typical situation (70% of cases) looks like this: my ASW TF attacks 2-3 submarines, sinks one, the other two are damaged, my destroyer is also lightly damaged. I'm taking the whole TF for repairs, because if I send a destroyer alone, it will probably get into a battle with submarines and be sunk or severely damaged. The reason for this is the low damage to submarines. You know, if there are more than 10 ships with equipment from the end of WW2 above you and they have only one goal - to destroy you, you will definitely die. Obviously, there will be situations when survival is possible (bad weather), but in more than 90% of cases, with complete dominance at sea and large allocated resources (see WW2), submarines have no chance. It may be said that the example from WW2 is not entirely correct, because there is no aviation in the game. Well, I'll make up for it with a huge number of hunter ships. EDIT: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/3788128182680161127/ I guess I don't lose ships because I really like to play in Ultimate Admiral: Destroyers, and having about 1,000 destroyers by the end of the campaign is a rule for me, but if you don't use them in such quantities, there will be big problems.

I can't cancel the emergency alliance (wars are over). Fantastic.

In short, I think that a check like "If the shipyard capacity is close to filling, stop building" exists, because most of the time AI doesn't go crazy with building ships. But perhaps there is another check, such as "If there are not enough ships, build", because of which this happens. This is a big problem, because due to debuffs, the AI does not actually build a fleet.