SirTrafalgar

These weren't paper thin; they had 13 inches of Krup IV on the sides and 9 inches on the deck with 13.4 x2 in guns in five turrets plus a whole host of the secondary crap that the Ai likes. The citadel was also exceptionally long. It looked like the AI saved weight by forgoing torpedo protection, engine efficiency, barbets, and bulkheads. They weren't too hard to kill and were trash like many AI designs, but they were constantly running away from my fleets with superior numbers. I couldn't design a ship half as well as the AI design with the same speed. The tonnage requirements for that speed went way over any designs I came up with. Still, I am sure there is a way that the AI managed to make it legally. All of that is beside the point. 44.5 knots seems excessive for a ship designed in the early 1940s, regardless of whether it was a good design. The fastest ship in that time period was the USS Muray, a Gridley class DD that achieved a speed of 42.5 knots during a special speed run. Basically, that ship had positive flaws. (By the way, research that reduces flaw chance also reduces positive flaws. It should have a reduction for negative flaws but also a slight bump for positive flaws.) I am running up against BCs of 40k tons, running two knots faster.

I am in the last ten years of an Italian campaign. I have encountered German BCs that run 44.5 knots and Austrian BCs that hit 42 knots. Most destroyers are running 38 knots from all nations, even the old ones. One of the reasons why I liked playing Italy was that their ships tended to have a slight edge in speed due to better hull forms and higher hull speeds. So, I think speed calculations are off when the AI ships are built. I haven't filed a bug report since I am unsure if this qualifies, but it feels strange. In games lasting more than twenty or thirty years, moving beyond the bordering territories with your armies feels impossible, even with huge disparities in logistics. I have occupied Austria, but even though I am blockading. Austria-Hungry and having the only ships in the Adriatic Sea moving beyond Austria is impossible because I can only get about 20 thousand troops. In contrast, the bordering provinces all have 100k+ troops. My army logistics is 100%, and theirs hovers around 19%. Since Austria-Hungary doesn't have ports outside Croatia, I can't invade even if they are along the coast. Trieste, in Modern-day Italy, near the border of Slovenia, was one of the biggest ports and a constant source of conflict between Italy and Austria-Hungary. At the start of the timeline in our game, it belonged to Austria-Hungary and remained part of the empire until its dissolution, when it moved to Italian possession. It has always seemed odd to me that Trieste wasn't represented in-game as a port belonging to Austria-Hungary. Since it's such a small territory, it could be like Hong Kong or Gibraltar, explaining why Slovenia doesn't have a port. I think it's the only coastal territory that doesn't.

When I have a country with a large colonial footprint I tend not to scrap ships. Instead, I keep older ships around as colonial defense forces. Besides, I think it is a fun challenge to see if I can win one of the final battles at the end of the campaign with one of the first Pre-Dreadnought Battleships I built. Also refitting an "ironclad" battleship so it can go 24knts and have a single eighteen-inch double gun turret is amusing (thanks France) is hilariously fun in 1950. But ya the AI should be keeping their fleets way more modern than ours.

Here is what I have noticed so far. The move to limit armor and the increase in the armor penetration of guns is a great start but now it feels artificially limiting as it did with the hard speed cap. A similar solution could be done with armor. Have each hull have a soft cap that the armor upgrades will go to, for instance, a Heavy Cruiser Hull in 1900 that has a 6-inch belt limit will only get the weight reduction savings from Krup I up to 6 inches after that the first point in armor is equal to .1 inches of regular unmodified armor in weight and then faces an exponential growth in armor weight as each tenth of an inch is added. Super Cruiser hulls, i.e. the large cruisers that aren't battle cruisers but still have the BC tag are all set at a speed of 21 knots for the hull, and yet the floor for battle cruisers is 24 knots. Rather than just lowering or raising the arbitrary floor for ship speeds tied to hulls the floor needs to be removed entirely for all hulls. However, we still need to balance it so that someone doesn't cram a bunch of .5 knot minelaying ships in their ports and while it's not realistic operating and purchase costs should go up if the ship is designed with a speed less than the current limits. That way the team at UAD can lower the cost of those large cruisers pretending to be battlecruisers so they fall in line with other ships. The cost increase should also be exponential. I am open to other ways of balance by removing the speed floor, but money was the thought that occurred to me, and maybe just higher operating costs are all that is needed to reflect the stately pace it takes for the ship to get anywhere in supplies and food along with unreliable engines since the designers skimped out on high-quality engines for the ship. It also occurs to me that very low-speed ships would only really be used as auxiliary ships, which only the wealthiest of navies could maintain large fleets of. Removing hard limits like this would allow us to design proper auxiliary ships, like minelayers and monitors, and to think outside of the box to create a fictional design.

I have been noticing this with battle cruisers specifically. My guns hit less than what the average suggests. If I have six guns in three turrets and a 33% chance to hit at least one gun should hit but instead my main guns get about a 5% hit rate the enemy with smaller caliber guns gets a 20% hit rate with the main battery. This is despite my ships having better tower tech, better range finders, more advanced and .05% offset, and under 20% pitch and roll numbers and their ships having those numbers all over the place. Also more of my shells are blocked while the AI has insane piercing abilities. With other ship types my ships are competitive with theirs.

This right here! Even when collapsed countries re appear they only reappear in one province so its really really easy for them to collapse again just from economics. Once a nation collapses it means that the colonials go to ungoverned territory and then its hard for a major power to even take that territory back. Countries rarely ever become failed states and it would be unthinkable that major powers in the early 20th century would have ever become a failed state. Even after the First World War when the three empires collapsed they either had revolutions and civil war like Russia, or in the case of the Ottoman and Austrian-Hungarian Empires they simply fractured into smaller states each with their own government and never devolved into failed states. Civil wars would be a much more entertaining way of handling countries that go bankrupt but I don't think the game would support having both a Soviet Union and a Russian Empire as majors at the same time. It should be nearly impossible for a major to collapse economically and their should be several warning signs first. Right now all we get is a series of admirals being replaced over and over again and there isn't any sense of the financial turmoil causing political turmoil, which it absolutely would. In two relatively minor wars in my campaigns I had the United Kingdom collapse after just ten years of gameplay. They went through several Admirals and were winning their wars but because their fleets were built up so high and their transport losses were so high (probably because the AI doesn't build sub hunting groups and the tech wasn't there) they collapsed. Even if the submarine warfare of Germany had been successful to starve out the populace of Britain there would have been a revolt followed by an immediate peace treaty in which major concessions would have been given to Germany. In game terms when a country collapses economically the player is punished for doing too well. If a country is at war and collapses economically a peace treaty should be signed and any countries at war with the collapsed countries should get the opportunity to collect territory and ships from the collapsed nation equal to the nation's respective war score. This peace treaty should be the only time core territory is available in treaty negotiations. Each territory and ship should have a value associated with it, if that value exceeds the debt of the nation then it narrowly avoids collapse and continues. However, if the total of the territory and ships does not exceed its debts then the nation becomes a failed state and collapses. The only other option is to dial back submarine effectiveness against transports and to keep AI fleets within the budget of a nation, but this keeps the problem of punishing players for doing well when a nation collapses.

I pointed out the problems with the rebellions in the beta. And made several bug reports. Campaigns still need a lot of work and the rebellion mechanic is one of them. Rebellions by an organized force should always win in un governed territory. Rebellions were far to successful in the previous patch against minors and majors. The Ottomans basically fall apart in the first five years, now they have staying power but they need to get involved in wars too so their collapse makes sense rather than feeling like a scripted event without any historical context. Majors are to easy to collapse again since their economies are way too fragile. A war that destroys their entire fleet, because the AI is incapable of doing things players do to preserve their ships, usually ends up destroying the whole nation, which is historical but not fun for game play. A variation of this is what should happen. A normal treaty should be signed with all territory, ships, and money claimed guaranteed to the victor. If in an Alliance the member who created the highest score makes their claims first (really that should be the way for wars in general) all unclaimed territories go to an un governed status. Then on the next full turn revolts will occur creating new minor or major nations. Campaigns start breaking down at about the 20 year mark. Either your ships just generally outclass whatever the AI puts down that the campaign kind of seems pointless or countries collapse leaving you with limited options to engage with the AI. Loosing China and Russia while playing as Japan usually means being isolated as the Europeans and Americans don't tend to station their whole fleet in the Asian theater and the game just grinds down to a slog while you move your ships way far overseas to take European and American colonies. This makes playing from an 1890 or 1900 start date pointless. Heck anything before 1930 is dubious. What players want is some stability and the ability to play the long campaign if we so choose. Hell I know some people who would enjoy being able to play week to week or bi weekly rather than month to month to really stretch out their campaigns.

In addition to the other overlay anomalies people have mentioned Central Italy doesn't change when taken. Revolts on ungoverned territory never succeed. The whole unrest system needs examining. At first it seemed like unrest caused nations to fall apart to quickly, now 90% of the time they are succeeding so it might be an over correction. A major part of this might be the lack of transparency for the player. We can see the revolt icon in place but we cant see any information with a province in revolt. Revolts seem to happen quickly at about 50% unrest. What if we made it a little harder to generate unrest, but at about 35% to 55% only colonial territories could revolt. From 55% to 100% Core territories. Add a tool tip where it says how much population lives in the colonies vs home territories that lists out what provinces those are. The higher the unrest is means that more of the army in that territory will side with the rebels reducing government forces and a small part of the populace will join them, also dependent on unrest. Finally, organized rebellions (those that can form minor or major nations) in ungoverned territory should always succeed since there is no government there to oppose them. When a revolt is on going, give us a tool tip that shows us the size of the rebellion. Another good tool tip would be to show what a province's chance of rebellion is in the province information tab. Speaking of which a tab listing all our provinces in the politics screen giving us all the information of that we can see when moussing over provinces and their relevant port information ie tonnage and what types of ships are there would be a great QOL change too.

There are some places that it doesn't matter that there are multiple provinces, for instance Korea and Anatolia. Especially since its so hard to interact with minors at this point, so their nations having boarders doesn't make sense beyond creating modern day national boundaries within minor powers. So Korea would be split into north and south only. I am just confused that a minor power like Korea (4) has more providences than the French Hexagon (Mainland France (3)) does. In addition to the inconsistencies in province placement I think many in the community are frustrated by land invasions being out of our control. Another part of the problem is the fact that once core territory is lost it compounds the snowballing effect. I think many of us want a small province on the border with great powers to lessen the snowballing chance and make it hard for the AI or player to gain an insurmountable advantage. I am really pleased that you spit Poland since it gives Germany the needed buffer against the Russians. It does not need to be split further. Belarus does the same thing for Russia giving the two great powers a province that they can afford to lose. Small inconsequential provinces on the boarders with major power, especially in a dense area like Europe would make it possible for territory to shift hands without one side gaining a huge advantage allowing the player to focus on the naval game. Navies should be the tool to break stalemates on the ground because right now it seems that land invasions are far too dynamic. Ideally, ports could only be taken with a naval invasion, thus giving the player more agency in the campaign map, but obviously the system doesn't support that and it doesn't have any accuracy either to any militaries campaign in the Real World.

Love the map colors! This is exactly what I've been wanting and is a huge change for the game. As others have pointed out there are a few provinces that always show up as being owned by other nations regardless of who owns them, like Prussia being owned by Russia. I am very confident you will fix those minor issues. In my game, playing as China, I am two provinces away from Austria-Hungry and I have noticed that the countries colors are remarkably close together. I suspect that Britain and Japan are close together, as well as Russia and the United States. Japan could use white, Austria-Hungry could go orange, and Russia purple. Also I know its difficult but could you please add color blindness support too. The spotting system changes feel good as well. I took a fight on a crystal clear day with three CAs with eight 10in guns against a lone BB with eight 14.4 guns. Prior to these changes my CAs would have wrecked that BB because they could have gotten in close and unloaded with their small arms and burned the ship down or just beaten it to a bloody pulp. This battle the BB saw the CAs and unloaded at range few shots through the deck and I made the valiant and courageous decision to run away. In worse weather conditions I probably would have been able to close and destroy the BB as long as the sea state wasn't too rough and only visibility was impacted. This is a great change! The AI needs to manage their ships better. As I see it there are three distinct phases in the game, Pre-Dreadnought, Dreadnought, and Modern. The AI after loosing a war with the player tends to rebuild its fleet, but that's obviously expensive so the AI cuts costs by cutting research which puts them behind the player, since the player never has a reason to go off 100% of their research, and by building cheaper older designs that are still valid. This snowballs and in a game started in the Pre-Dreadnought era usually sees the AI struggle to get out of the Dreadnought era by 1930, while the player reaches that milestone in 1920. This phenomenon has been noted by youtubers like Stealth17 and so on. Nations, including the player nation, who fall behind on tech need to receive a boost to naval funding as the government realizes that two or more nations have access to Dreadnought I, Modern Battleships & Modern Cruisers, and their nation needs to rapidly catch up. The AI should then prioritize researching these techs. That should at the very least mean that the AI is only four years behind rather than ten years behind the player. Furthermore, if any nation should have their fleet fall below 80% of their pre-war power projection levels the government should again decide to throw money at the problem to pay for a fleet expansion until they reach 80% of the pre-war power projection levels. Both of these injections of cash should come at the cost of GDP growth so that longer term these funds come at a cost. Hopefully, these changes would mean that nations are competitive longer term. The AI also needs to take more steps to save its ships in battle. If a ship is taking a lot of fire it should run away. If it gets flooding damage it should retreat and attempt to stem the flooding. Right now ships charge in no matter what and its what gets the AI absolutely wrecked in fights.

Admiral, you're obviously right! Small ship classes taking part in those battles should at the very least be constantly dealing with flooding issues if they can even sail into those battles at all. With the advances in meteorological studies that came out of WWI specifically and then improved upon in WWII Fleets could tell the optimum time to engage one another if there was a choice because historically it was not advantageous to either side. Right now it doesn't work that way and the AI because of its reliance on torpedo spam and is far more effective in stormy battles. So much so that when I see a storm with bad sea and wind conditions or one of those and at night I run until the timer runs out or the conditions improve. That's not fun gameplay. So we should have techs to make it less likely we fight in stormy weather because of better weather predictions. We also should get a weather report on the battle screen as tech advances letting us know how long until the conditions change and what they may change to. I cannot overstate how important meteorology was and is to warfare. Also it seems like conditions and time changes far to rapidly. Furthermore. why can fights take a couple days if they are long drawn out stern chases? It seems insane because that means that guns aren't firing every minute but rather like over the course of a half hour. Give us a clock too, basically just change the battle timer clock to be a real clock put red over the areas of when we are fighting. That way we know if the battle is taking place at "magic hour" (the time that its still light but the sun has already set then it will get dark within an hour of fighting. If the battle starts at five am it should end at seven if its a two hour timer.

The borders are a great touch, however, it would still be helpful to color the territory within those borders to make it clear who owns the territory. Like make Britain Pink and France Blue for instance. Also France needs the Alsace-Lorraine region as this province changed hands several times throughout history and provides a good buffer between France and Germany. Also other countries should have border regions that frequently changed hands between the major powers. These provinces should be cheap to take in peace negotiations while core provinces should be more prohibitively expensive the closer to the capitol the territory is. Buttons to move the camera to our provinces and task forces. Arrow button on the edge of the map to move to one side or the other . Weather system needs a bit of work beyond the randomizer. When it says overcast its more of a fog rather than being overcast. Some of the weather conditions just seem a bit odd. Also techs to improve the chances of getting good weather in a battle and to see what kind of weather conditions we might face before fighting a battle would be amazing. Rebellions happen way to frequently and once a breakaway region gains its independence its unlikely that they can be re-taken by any power. Countries that have instability at the begging of a campaign should require their involvement in a conflict to tip their citizens into rebellion. High unrest in of itself shouldn't cause rebellions until it reaches a breaking point on a 1-100 scale. Rather anything under 99 should represent slower times to build ships, less dockyard space, chances of strikes furthering limiting time working on a ship, less income from provinces and so on. High unrest should make it hard to win a war, rather than needing to rush into one to placate the people. The Ottomans feel like they collapse just because and not because of their involvement in World War One for instance. Other European nations seem like their provinces break away because of anti colonial influence rather than anything else, which is pretty a typical. Provinces that do breakaway should form an alliance with the power their former country hates the most. Once a region breaks away the player should get a note that says, "XYZ" province gained their independence that has been recognized by "ABC" Our Government wants your opinion, should we waste men and material to regain our lost territory." The Player should then have three options "Let "XYZ"" go, they aren't worth our time" (gives a small relationship boost to all nations, and a large boost to "ABC" power" Let's unleash the dogs of war and teach these traitors a lesson they soon won't forget (WAR with minor Nation, War with ABC nation., War with any Allies of ABC nation relationship decrease, Money loss to pay for invasion army, GDP loss because of sanctions, Naval Budget decreases to pay Army [if you share a land border]) Talk to ABC nation perhaps we can negotiate to regain our territory (random list of demands ranging from money, trade agreements, and even colonial territory) After loosing a war with high unrest regions should break away, your military has proven incapable of winning and the rebels feel embolden. Have a random timer that this runs for. If your fleets or your country's army puts down a revolt then all other regions fall into line after. More interaction with minor nations. Provide ways to influence them if they like us or not. Show their feelings to us. ability to call for land forces, which makes them involved in the conflict and invadable like they were a great power in the conflict. Give them the ability to shut straits down. Give us ways to move to war. International relations need a rework in general. Honestly, we should be focused on our own nation's will to fight others. Meaning that we have to get our people to like other nations more to set up alliances and or hate us when we want to fight others.

Bugs List, watch for Edits for additional Bugs. Edited 18 and beyond Note: none of these are in any particular order of importance 1. Naval Jacks on minors are greyed out as if they were ungoverned territory. 2. Not all minors have flags or naval jacks. 3. In battle, ships falling out of formation move to the enemy rather than away as if they were retreating and rejoining the line. 4. Ungoverned territory doesn't revolt as often as the Ottoman territory, which suggests their unrest is lower. 5. Minors cannot shut down canals for their allies. So If say the controller of the Saini canal was allied with Britain and Britain was at war with Germany, German ships can still pass through the canal. 6. Movement bug on the campaign map. Click a task force for movement, slide the ships over to move and despite being under the tonnage limit the ships may not move because the button is greyed out. Repeat click same spot on map ships may or may not be able to move there. 7. I get the complexities of creating a wrap around map. But what if the edges of the map didn't have to be straight you could cut the Americas in half with bi directional arrows? The arrows suggest movement through the Straight of Magellan and also snap your camera to the other side of the map where the arrow is. Once the Canal zone you can do the same thing. This way the ocean isn't bisected its a landmass. 8. San Juan being part of the US before 1898. 9. Damage not being consistent between battles. Ship gets torpedoed and has a flash fire taking out X turret, an engine and has 95% of structure left then takes no further damage in that battle, but gets intercepted by a new fleet or has the straggle mission. That same ship is now down to 10% of its structure and has all its turrets working but all of its engines out. 10. Victory Points for damage not received in battle. Using the same example above the ship with 10% counts as taking all of that damage in that battle despite never engaging the enemy in the straggle battle. String several battles along like this and its possible to stack VP achieving victory and never engage the enemy. 11. Ships in battle that have been previously damaged have no aiming penalties and speed penalties until they take damage. 12. Mines appearing in ports without minelayers. 13. Mines persist in ports after they change hands. 14. Modern national boundaries that have no bearing in the game appearing on the map rather than adjusting dynamically to show new conquests and in game situations. 15. Minor nations that are allied aren't subject to invasion but their ships appear in our battles? 16. Missions can stack on top of one another so they aren't selectable. 17. Taskforces can be on top of one another but only one task force is selectable. 18. Wars can break out for no reason. In an AH campaign France collapsed because Germany wiped them out then Germany declared war on me despite not being allied to any of my enemies and having a +56 relationship boost. 19. Not exactly a bug but balance, countries snowball way to quickly in Europe France and Italy are very much subject to early elimination. 20. Sometimes Wars don't merge properly when new alliances are forged during a war leading to the victory points screen on the left being out of date. 21. Austria-Hungry Dreadnought research says it gets the Small Battleship I, Small Battleship II, Semi-Dreadnaught, and the Dreadnaught Hull I. Only the Small Battleship I and Dreadnaught I appear.

Here are my suggestions. With the limited amount of time on the project a lot of these are pipe dreams but I think will help add depth others are absolutely necessary. 1. Wrap around map. 2. Map Filters that show ownership, troop strength, local manpower, economics, and port capacity. 3. More borderland regions in Europe that slow the roll of armies for instance Alsace-Lorraine, Rhineland, and so on. Once armies try to invade beyond borderland territory it becomes much much harder to do so. That would mean that core territory would be slower to loose to invasions by the army which we have no control over but not make the map static. Also give Austria Hungry the port of Trieste in the borderland between Austria and Italy. 4. A minor diplomacy menu so we can create events for the minors to respond to and influence them to ally with us, see our relations with them, and ask our government for war. 5. Naval intelligence research and funding slider that allows us to see more things from other nations ranging from their research, ships they are planning, ships built, and so forth. 6. Naval support missions, make us send battleships or ships with certain gun sizes to coastal regions to support ground invasions. 7. National manpower pools, and separate the crew recruiting and training sliders. If we over recruit the army looses that manpower. 8. Army tech levels, base them off our research. Give the army four scores Artillery (based on our gun research) helps with the attack and defensive operations, Tanks (based on our armor research,) helps with breakthrough, Logistics (based on engine research, ie trucks and things supporting invasions)more important on the defense than the attack, and finally Equipment (based on hulls which is to represent the industry of our country trying to keep up with larger production numbers) like artillery is equally important. to both phases. Some nations could have modifiers to offset their huge manpower pools like China and Russia having issues with equipment and logistics. Essentially this is a way to explain why Japan with lets say 250k troops can invade Manchuria with 500k troops. 9. Better tool tips. Explain what modifies what and a short explanation of why. That last part is often missing from the current tool tips. Also all modifiers aren't visible. 10. Control over windows. Minimize them maximize them and so forth. 11. More events, especially ones that play off the army navy rivalry. Will we do what is best for our nation or will we let inter service rivalry get in the way. 12. National themes are events or starting conditions in campaigns to make nations feel different beyond their hulls: Britain should start with its dominions as allies that cannot be broken unless there is a revolution in either country, and should have the option of granting dominion status to colonies forcing them to be allies in the commonwealth. USA getting the Monroe Doctrine allowing it to declare war on non American nations invading minors in the Americas, Philippines from 1900 will start allied with USA but will have its manpower reduced and its economy reduced and the US will have a small manpower reduction. Germany may attempt to gain Austria via Anschluss if the empire breaks (see next) and a random event once per a campaign has an exponentially higher chance of firing (reaching 100% in March of 1938) that Germany offers an ultimatum to Austria to join. Austria-Hungry gets permanent unrest reductions in territories outside of Austria and Hungry to represent its multicultural empire but if Austria-Hungry has a revolt in Austria or Hungry the Empire splits and whichever side Croatia supports in the breakup will be the new major power. France will consider Algeria as core territory in its peace negotiations and if its invaded, but Algeria can revolt forming its own nation making it possible for the Algerian War of Independence to happen way earlier, and as long as France holds Algeria the province will gain a significant boost to its income but have a manpower penalty. Italy can break alliances easier and chose to support the opponents in a war with a former ally. Spain can get some events to peacefully reincorporate parts of its empire in the Americas and Asia, but if the offers are rejected (because the player thinks the cost to much money) war might be declared potentially creating a conflict with the USA or Japan. Japan getting the Co-prosperity sphere, It either gets events to invade whole minor nations in Asia or they can ally with Japan minor nations in the Asian Co-prosperity sphere will send ground troops to support Japan. Allies to Japan in Asia should give oil (if they have it) to Japan in exchange for an economic boost from Japan. The Admiral in Russia should get the option to support the Soviets or the Whites during a revolution, meaning that they can keep playing even if the country revolts. that is assuming they choose the right side in the revolt. The first Russian revolt should have a percentage of a centrist government or a communist government forming. Finally, China, China's whole struggle here is to prevent the other major powers from gobbling up more territory and being able to ferment revolt in non Chinese held territory in China if the other nations unrest is high, however, other nations will get events that will force economic concessions from China or more territory. 13. Minors becoming Major powers, If a Major power is conquered and has no territory it can come back from a Minor power might become a major nation. Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands, and the Ottomans. The one with the lowest unrest and highest economic output is chosen. Additionally events will fire for these nations throughout the game that if the AI chooses correctly they will become a major power, but this will be rare. 14. Playable minor nations. The nations above should be playable, however in their minor nation role they will be severely restricted by only being able to build cruisers and smaller ships on their own, and have limited diplomatic options (Ie you only go to war with who you are allied to and cannot take territory you did not previously own in peace deals), but be able to buy AI generated or shared designs from majors. Players at the start of this campaign will be allowed to choose hull (per class ie CA and CL) and gun types based on other nations. So you could choose Italian CA Hulls and components with say Chinese guns and German CLs. The events to become a major nation should also fire for the player. This will be considered a HARD mode and not advisable for New players. 15. Make deck mounted torpedoes impossible to reload during combat. Give us and the AI the ability to select the number of Torps and their spread we fire in a volley. 16. More save slots, ability to quick save and revert. 17. Give a reward for the nation that builds a Dreadnought first. 18. In the Research menu give us tool tips that show which components fit on which hulls. 19. Troop Transports. Sink these and the enemy looses manpower and supplies for their ground invasions in non core territory. 20. Task Force System. Give us the ability to make task forces, within the limits (which should be a combination of sailors, tonnage, and ship types) within a task force give us the ability to make squadrons. Squadrons start the battle in formation but still remain as part of the squadron if a ship leaves the formation. 21. Captains, Commodores, and Admirals. Admirals get placed on the flagship of a task force and give small bonuses to the whole task force within communication range of the flagship. Commodores, give small bonuses to the squadron if they are in range of the squadron flagship. Captains give bonuses to crew and help them maintain crew training levels. So you might get a ship to Veteran status over a few battles but if you have a bad captain then they might loose Veteran status. Similarly if you have a good captain in charge of a bunch of cadets the amount of experience needed to advance to veteran status is lowered. 22. Reduce unrest for minor nations and make them gain it through events so that the Ottomans don't just start breaking up without ever being in a war. 23. Minors declaring wars upon other minors forcing alliances into wars. 24. Fix big guns above 16in as several You Tubers and modders have commented on. 25. Ability to counter flood to right ships 26. Support for Mods 28. The ability for the AI to take our shared designs and alter them based upon technology levels. 29. Ability to reclassify ships if they become outdated and meet certain requirements notably that you have unlocked the tonnage requirement for that ship. So you design a 15k ton BB in 1890 and you don't want to send it to the scrap yard so you reclassify it as a CA once you research 15K CAs. and so forth. 30. Torpedo boats not going fully obsolete. ie E boats and PT boats from WWII. 31. A Miscellaneous classification that includes Monitors, Corvettes, Cutters, Armed Merchants and the like. So that modders can add them in later. 32. For everyone of your staff to stay safe.

I have played a few campaigns so far each lasted about 20 years before they become unplayable. Campaign 1, I played from 1890-1910 every five years two nations collapsed within a few months apart. The second campaign I noticed the same thing. The third campaign I started after the 18th hotfix. This time I started in 1910, Spain Collapsed in 1915, then Germany a couple months later. Spain came back six years later but is going to take a decade or two to be even competitive again against other AI nations. Germany hasn't come back yet. Then in 1920 Britain collapsed and a few months later Austria-Hungry. At this point there's no competition any more I have the world's largest navy and second largest economy behind the US. None of the countries fell apart militarily they all had economic events that triggered their collapse or huge losses on the high seas. Spain and Austria-Hungry I understood their demise since the AI lost the majority of its fleet and then the country became economically insolvent as it rushed to build replacements for what they had lost. Germany and Britain was expanding by land before they collapsed and did not suffer losses on the battlefield. If I kept playing this campaign China would probably collapse in five but the US would shock me by collapsing shortly after. 1. Un Governed areas need to suffer from more invasions and or rebellions. 2.Make the economies more reliant, one Battle shouldnt end a war and an empire. 3. Before Empires collapse their should be a revolution or at least some government change