Pappystein

So POTENTIAL BUG... Playing as Japan starting in a 1910 career... it is 1914, Each year from 1910 I have had the "Country X is a terrorist" event, Every time I select YES Nothing happens... In every case it has bee Thailand

I know this mod can't directly impact this, but it would be awesome if we could keep the Turret "bustle and shell" as we upgrade the technology. EG how the Royal Navy 15" turrets are the same basic mark from pre World War I when they first entered production, right up until Vanguards scrapping... But at the point Vanguard was scrapped it was a completely different beast performance wise (better barrels, better interal linkages etc and a greater arc of fire...) It would solve a lot of problems (but would require "Groups" of Art assets I guess so more work for the artists

So downloaded the mod for the first time yesterday.... Have been randomly keeping track of this since initially posted. Looks to be a great mod. Been playing as Spanish (New Career for the mod) I too am a bit taken aback at the -20 "Daylight" modifier... on a Clear Cloudless sunny day. But Beyond that...I have only found one point of concern. I Unlocked the Dreadnoughts today: I have 2x Superimposed turrets technology unlocked but only 3 on the Center-line still? Seems like the tech there may be a bit out of order (I would expect 4x CL turrets to unlock at the same time as 2x Superimposed, or before the 2x Superimposed. Beyond these two I guess quibbles/concerns. I am extremely impressed with how you are handling this mod. Your design decisions have made the game harder to win at but easier to PLAY. I don't have scenarios, often, where the AI just flees against an inferior force like the Core game does. It has been fun to play and even though I have gone to war only 2 time thus far, it HASN'T been boring like core game can be. Just when things seem to be going slow I get an event that makes me think and strategize. something I can't say about any of the many un-modded careers I have played in this game. Of course those are listed as things that have been fixed over the last few repair/hotfix patches. But with this mod I have finally EXPERIENCED it Thanks for making the mod and thanks for posting! I am really enjoying playing with this.

My 2 campaigns that I was alternatly running prior to V1.3.9.rx2 bugged out. If this is an old campaign the bug could still be in force. My new started in V1.3.9.RX2 campaign does not seem to have any issues so.... Shurg

Partially that is RNG, Partially that is how you choose your event answers (I always go for lowest Unrest) Yes I was profitable but I stayed out of war in general while slowly building alliances from 1900 to 1922. Intentionally As soon as I ramped up ship production for my War footing and got near 200 ships I was in the red every month and had to scale back research FWIW you should for most nations prior to the 1940s be able to build 400+ ship fleets without major issues. It is all about staying out of war long enough to build that superiority... something the US has a decided advantage in doing just because they are Literally the only real "power" in the western hemisphere Yes, that means I did not participate in "WWI (1909), WWII (1913) or WWIII (1919)

Something you have to take into consideration is that those formulas are APROXIMATE and not EXACT. They are precise, but not Accurate. That is to say, you may calculate that Projectile X will penetrate through 9" of Grade B Face hardened Armor... But that does not mean it will... or Won't It just means it SHOULD. Basically you have a +/- fudge factor involved with every shot that you can not know... until you shoot. While I am a little dismayed at some of the RNG shots... Knowing the fact that there IS no way to ACCURATELY calculate penetration and knowing RNG tends to clump, I feel it is OK to have a lot of non penetrations or a lot of Overpenetrations when you are not expecting them. That being said the whole 8" 12" whatever the third magic caliber issue is vexing... I stay 12.5" on most of my ships (and tend to end my campaigns before getting to 1940) Sorry once you get to the high side of the 0.x barrel size you are sometimes overly penalized at most calibers... EG 4.7" vs 5" in my experience (but I haven't played 1.1 LIVE yet... just RC3,4 and 5.

I cant answer every part of your question... But the ships Mass went up when you moved the gun because you lengthend the Citadel significantly... the Citadel runs from the MAin gun forward across the engine room to the main gun aft. When you had the turret next to the funnel you had no citadel armor (belt armor) in front of it. Now you have a lot more belt at 9" to cover. Weather the tonnage for such a change is correct, I don't know.

So I am attacking from British Somalialand... Why not Itallian Somaliland as well.. Italian Somaliland is 100% surrounded by either the target or my land.... I posted this as a bug but is is more a food for thought for improving the land campaign.

The British losses were due to shock transmitted through the hull to the magazines and spontaneous detonation of the propellant from the shock. It was an un-intended design feature of the powder (stable when new, after time with heat breaks down into something akin to nitroglycerin AKA highly volatile and easy to explode)... Not the training of the crews that caused most of the Battlecruiser losses. They were lost because their chemists were less than good at testing their products over time, and the ships didn't have Air Conditioning. Patch notes said it was because the manual rudder was CAUSING some of the Formation Bugs/collisions and it would re-appear in a future update once the formation bugs have been reduced/solved. (my understanding)

I have found, Reacently in two new campaigns that I have fought that since HF2 new careers haven't had this issue... But I have also seen the Enemy isn't building Speedsters anymore and when they realize they can't outrun me they come to me to fight... so within 5 minutes of game start I am at the merge if you will. My PRE HF2 carrers are all as you describe however. Oh if it helps I choose NON Historical (since my ships won't be historical...) IDK but I though I would include that! ------------------------------ also that may not matter. Many bugs seem to be almost "system dependant" EG I have never had issues that many others have had... but I have had issues that no one else seems to report atleast in the forums. So who knows!

no you are exactly correct. That was what I was trying to say

That is a partial fallacy. You CAN re-scale a plane or boat pretty easily. You CAN'T re-scale their medium of travel (water, air) and THAT is where issues arrive. EG if you built a 1/12th scale B-29 Bomber the internal structure would have to be much stronger and much lighter than a simple re-scale. THAT is where the issues lie. So in effect, a re-scale is not related to the original ship/plane at all except in looks (yes I am looking at you F/A-18E/F Super NOT a Hornet) HOWEVER Re-scaling a ship designed for stability and structural strength down from say BB to Destroyer size as a @Urst suggested means you have a slow to accelerate and un-maneuverable destroyer that is an exceptional gun platform. Scaling a destroyer up to a BB means you have a very UNSTABLE gun platform that is not super strong but has all the go fast juice and can turn much more effectively than any other Battleship and might be more maneuverable than either an Armored or Heavy Cruiser. Hence the classes. I think the crux of the problem is the forced obsolescence of specific hulls, and to a lesser extent the max tonnage limitation on a hull design. Forcing the AI to abandon old tech is a good thing for the AI (or it will always choose the old tech because cheaper) Forcing the player to do so I think is actually a huge issue. We humans can choose better what things to compromise and what things to go "all in" on. For example, I will take mediocre armor if I can get good speed, and amazing range-finding for my big guns. I mean I am running 28-30kt Battleships in 1917 right now! Mind you it was blind stupid luck that allowed me to get such a jump on tech... One small war within the first 20 years of an 1890 game for me.

Likely a simulation of "Turnover" Old crew retire/die and quit over you cutting their funds. But yes it might be too abrupt

A bit of followup. I too am on latest version. I do not see many of the issues other complain about but I still have to fight doomstacks of enemy ships (new and pre-existing campaign) In every case the doomstack has been less than 60 ships but it still has been 60 ships. So No longer am I seeing 300 ship TGs... just 60ship ones

Heck, Allowing new production Torpedo boats... and the delivery of new ships to ANY port under control at time of completion (as part of it's commissioning process) would go a long way to solving this problem. Torpedo boats don't die with the birth of the Torpedo boat destroyer... rather they evolve into 4 distinct types of ships. The modern MAS/PT/Farmile type Torpedo boat which is literally a boat with a couple (4) torpedoes and maybe a couple guns. The Same group of hulls produced GUN boats... and then the Germans and Japanese both built larger types of Torpedo Boats .

RIP USS Kentucky Class Biggest QOL bug in game at the moment as far as I am concerned... You upgrade your ship and you are FORCED to upgrade the turrets.... Those 13.5/50s got BIG

Refesh your steam install. This sounds like a file might be corrupt in your game. *total WAG*

Yep, my only way of getting formations to "form up" correctly is to maneuver side to side at below maximum speed

While I agree that tin cans should be at least MOSTLY destroyed by a big torpedo hit. I can't agree with much of the premises of this post. However it is a well written post, based on more historical fact that many posts that raise concerns about this or that in the game. Your post however forgets that this game makes everything quite abstract... to ALLOW the customization we DO have. If you want a HYPER Accurate game, you are better off playing Computer Harpoon3 or Command Modern Operations. Sure both are strategy games vs this Tac-Strategy game... and are much less LEGO-able but both offer some ways to edit platforms. Some of your concerns are valid... But others are specific to the history of one or two nations (the whole contact/magnetic fuse failure thing.) Most of the changes you seek would require an entirely new damage model to replace the existing one in the game. The fact of the matter is, the game designers for good or bad decided to make Torpedoes a lower fidelity than guns... If they were the same detail as guns, in my opinion, the the minutia for Torpedoes would outweigh that for gunfire combat. That means the developers would have to spend a HUGE ammount of time "bringing to Torpedoes up to scratch" Between the two, the gun and the torpedo, we have much more quantitative and qualitative data on gun vs armor combat. Torpedo combat is much more SUBJECTIVE data instead of quantitative. That means a lot of the data is more anecdotal "Eye of the beholder" and "Blind stupid luck" data rather than empirical repeatable data. There are just too many variables that have to align correctly in the syrup known as the OCEAN for a Torpedo's damage to be able to be quantitatively measured. Air quality matters for guns but no where near as much as water quality does for torpedoes. Also the whole point of magnetic explosive fuse was for influence explosions below big ships... something you obliquely reference... but you forgot to mention needing another button added to "Run deep" But this also introduces yet another reason the damage model would need to be replaced.

I am not seeing this issue... I currently have MK III 8.5"/45 cannons on my Heavy cruiser fleet and I am sinking enemy Battleships with gunfire alone. (I am technologically Advanced compared to the enemy so that means they have Harvey or Krupp I armor.) I tend to sink them at long range. So plunging fire and higher % of Deck penetrations. My main Battle Line is equipped with Mk IV 13.5"/55. Which tend to kill enemy ships at closer ranges than the 8.5"ers do. (Longer barrel = more Side shots than deck shots) My entire fleet is currently in a modernization program to modern Cruisers (US) Sadly I am stuck on the old early Dreadnought hull due to the US restrictions... Entire battlefleet goal is to recycle to 28+kts speed ATM. My new Light Cruiser 30kt Scout Cruiser II boats are commissioning right now.. and my 28Kt (Modern I HEavy Cruiser) boats start to commission in 5 months with 4 boats every month for 6 months at which time my entire fleet of 23kt Armored Cruisers will be scrapped. My destroyer force had to choose between 34kt and 5" guns (I went 31kt and 5"ers) I say this not to brag, but rather to point out, if you are facing off against 40kt enemy Light Cruisers you sound BEHIND the technology curve. Your whole problem could be one of aiming. After all if you can't hit them you can't penetrate them. I have noticed that a ***PERCIEVED*** issue is that the more accurate your aiming vs the speed of the enemy ship ***SEEMS*** to increase the penetration damage. Or to be clear, the slower the enemy and the higher my Rangefinder abilities (in my case Stereo IV Rangeclock, Dewey Tables and RadioDirectionFinding vs sub 26kt enemy ships) I SEEM to have a lot of big penetration hits. When the enemy is going fast I SEEM to not penetrate at all. Those enemy destroyers took a lot of hits. Fact of the matter here is that is a FALSE perception. You hit the faster ship less so you *THINK* you penetrate it less... alternatively you hit the slower ship more often thus you THINK you are penetrating it more often. In both cases it is a function of your aiming, not the quality of the gun you are using. Which leads me to.... I guess what I am saying is what I say about a completely different game. "Floaties LIE Read the damn logs." In this case the Floaties being the various in game damage presentations that fly by quick in fasted paced combat. On the subject of that other game I have been saying that since 2018... And I have had access to real logs showing what is going on since 2018-2019 (Prior to that I sounded much like you "Game be Cheating/Bugged") I have spent a tiny bit of time trying to find a readable battle log that covers every shot like in the other game I mention above. It might require a mod maker to create a mod to see them however (They are not in the Save file location nor the core game files... that I could see.) Because seeing a fast scrolling battle log in game does not tell you EVERYTHING... and too many assumptions are being made by the community that a real combat log would clear up. I freely admit I am making my own assumptions when I say this, and thus ***I COULD BE WRONG***.

It has been stated over and over that Victory Points have issues... when you see this immediately post a bug (CTRL-J) *BUT* VP also are modified by what the mission orders are it seems (badly mind you) TL:DR, Don't Bother looking at the Penetration values as anything more than a way to compare which cannon is best for your boat... The numbers are not going to "seem" accurate in the real world... but a gun with 20" penetration will do better at cracking any armor than a gun with 16" of penetration. =============================================================== *the more complete story* Unless you are running Heavy shells and NO BARREL LENGTH (we are talking sub 20 caliber which is nearly impossible at the point of the game you seem to be in given the 140% armor the AI has.) you are hitting the sides of the ship and not the deck. So no you are not going to penetrate the deck. But to quote many a COB "That is all fine and dandy, but this here is the REAL NAVY" The Penetration number is something that represents a "tested value" It isn't ALWAYS correct and it isn't ALWAYS applicable. Angle of Impact, Velocity of impact, Quality of Armor, and actually ship motions ALL affect the amount of penetration (or if penetration is even possible. In a laboratory all of those are for the most part controllable. But in the real world (or the game in this case) None of those are controllable by you, the player that fired the gun with 20" of penetration. Hope that is helpful Also if you really want to learn about advanced armor penetration, Get the data right from the expert (well via intermediaries) http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php

Err, have been for a while? Since the first 1.09 beta atleast I know I lost an armored cruiser to one :*(

The results, Win Draw, Loss are based on the mission's orders. If you are ordered to destroy ALL enemy ships and only heavily damage them then it is either a draw or a loss. This is the reason why Convoys need to stay around even if we accidentally destroy all their escorts first!

Had hoped this was fixed... But invisible weapons and uptakes etc.... Yay

At a granular level I do not think this is a bad thing. At a "Time does not make sense level" you are exactly right. If the turns were smaller periods... and you started in 1890, you would literally spend weeks or months IRL depending on play time, to get to 1940 let alone 1950 with a map this big. I think because of that One month at a time makes sense. But the Time in the game DOES NOT MAKE SENSE... so from that aspect sure your idea has merit.... But for casual players I think switching to this would be a big determent and turn-off.