StrikerDanger
-
Posts
55 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by StrikerDanger
-
-
8 hours ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:
1) You initialy think that you've lost one of the task forces, but it is infact UNDERNEATH THE OTHER.
2) One wastes a turn repositioning the two task forces
Right-click on the two stacked task forces. That's allowed me to deal with ships/groups that I have stacked on top of one another.
-
5
-
-
@o Barão can the English File from the regular mods be used with the Economy Experiment file?
-
I've got a minor QOL issue with one of the towers on the new Italian CL hulls. The Minimal Tower(Enhanced) attached barbette placement anchor is too far forward, resulting in a gun barbette that overhangs the edge of the tower. This was tested using the new six-inch Italian gun model on both the Large Fast Cruiser and Advanced Fast Cruiser hulls, both of which have the same tower option.
.thumb.png.e1fb7328653fd58997546b40a058ef30.png)
.thumb.png.0b20100236be3cf7f61c24cfc9e2bfff.png)
-
If there's going to be an economy nerf, I'd balance it against ship costs. Top-of-the-line warships in 1940 (for example) shouldn't be pushing the billion (and usually much higher) figure mark. Slashing economy growth numbers by a flat percentage across the board, as well as ship costs, could be a good thing. But as I've no idea how you'd go about balancing this nerf, other than a quaint idea, I don't have much more to say... other than the frankly absurd amounts of money any nation can rack up.
-
1
-
-
Are we going to see model updates for some current hulls, or is it strictly new hulls to flesh out the roster before models overhaul?
All in all, really looking forward to 1.5 (Yes, US 6in-47 gun housings!)
-
Enjoy your holiday, Baron! Thanks for all that you do!
-
1
-
-
@o Barão I found a small typo. It's nothing major, but I felt it should be pointed out.
.png.56f062c77aa39b0ccd9d37dacbfb5fa1.png)
-
1
-
-
In terms of this, the bow shape has a good chunk to deal with designed speed too. The QEs used the old ram-bow type design, whereas Nagato and Mutsu used the newer overhanging bow style (I don't know the term for it). There's also just about a 6-year gap between the launch of Warspite and Nagato, which, for Capital ships, is quite a decent chunk of time (You go from HMS Dreadnought to Warspite in a little over seven years)
-
Is it possible that we'll ever get the option to enable/disable submarines for Campaign (maybe in the settings menu, or as an extra option on the Campaign setup page?). As it stands, they're still busting ASW fleets.
-
1
-
-
I have no idea if I'm the only one experiencing this, but I cannot, under any circumstances cancel an alliance with another nation. I'd like to have a chance to recover my nation's economy, but my ally (The USA) has been in a state of perpetual war since ~1896. And despite my efforts to want to cancel the alliance, the button is always grayed out.
-
On 11/30/2023 at 1:05 PM, jw62 said:
The long campaign seems smoother, but if you don't smack Britain continually their economy just goes on a blitz, you have to keep hammering them until half of their territories revolt or they become a game monster with a GDP exponentially leaping ahead and research as well. Can make for a good long term enemy if you "Farm" them right
I've noticed this in the past. It's either Britain or France, or both, that go off and earn +10% GDP per year. Even if they come out of war a loser, they jump right back up to 12-15% GDP growth. It's a bit insane.
-
6 hours ago, brothermunro said:
I didn’t have any issues - my campaign seemed to load and play normally for about 2 years in game time
The only issue I think you'd see transitioning between the base game and the new NAR is potential overweight penalties depending on your Propellant/Bursting charge. Outside of that, there really isn't much that it should have issues with.
Minus updating a couple of old designs, it works really smoothly.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, 418ImATeapot said:
There needs to be some way to force a battle or at least force your fleet to move past another fleet. This AH fleet has been blocking my fleet for a year or more. Yes I could sail all the way around Africa, but I shouldn't have to. There has been no battle generated, between these two fleets.
There needs to be some way to force either a fight or to allow your ships to sail past the other fleet.I've got this same problem. Italy has a BB and a DD in the Suez, and suddenly I can't sail my fleets through the Suez? it's absolutely ridiculous that I can't sail a 16-fleet formation down the Suez, engage those ships and open the passage back up(They don't even control it, but by sheer virtue of their vessels being there, I can't go through it, effectively cutting my capability to move in half)
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Lima said:
Ungoverned territories still have 0 army
Looks like a standard soviet army invasion to me.
-
10 hours ago, Lima said:
Just another outstanding example of AI's cowardice. I had a little more ships (DDs to defend against subs), but the enemy had 4 modern BBs against 2 of my old BCs (1920s design). I mean, yes, these BBs were garbage, but the AI could at least try to fight, and not RUN without looking back.
I don't understand why the AI refuses to stand and fight the player, especially on a peer-on-peer engagement, or even one where they have an on-paper/ numbers advantage. It makes hunting them down and sinking them annoying with anything less than a 30+ knot, radar-equipped CA or bigger(depending on the enemy target). It would be nice to see the AI fight a little more aggressively in general.
-
3
-
-
USA Dreadnought II has a casemate bug. Starboard casemate 2, below the superstructure, has an action zone that clips into the inside of the hull. The spot doesn't seem to matter what size of casemate is used, they all mirror the portside casemate. Not a major bug, but an annoying one, since I have no idea if the casemate will work correctly or if I'm just wasting tonnage.
.thumb.png.c7887f33886dcc8f243ed924e5a611e9.png)
-
USA Dreadnought II has a bugged casemate placement (Starboard side, 2nd slot below superstructure placements). I don't know if it's actually bugged bugged, but the rotation icon suggests that it will rotate into the hull, making it useless. No idea if it's from NAR's changes - though I doubt it - or if it's like this even in an un-modded game.
A minor thing, but I thought it worth mentioning (I don't actually know where to send modded game bug reports)
.thumb.png.0a4d4f5828ce33f35bffa6a1a98a663c.png)
-
22 minutes ago, o Barão said:
I need 10 historical propellants and 10 historical explosives
Doesn't this one get a little easier since some of the historical propellants and explosives are already in-game (IE Cordite, Dunnite)?
-
38 minutes ago, brothermunro said:
can be a little weird but it’s also possible for tension to increase because an enemy fleet is close to one of your allies (including I think minor allies) - essentially your people are getting angry at other powers warmongering
This seems to make the most sense. Because, just now (after updating the game) I had a double tension increase with Italy, one off the west coast of NA and the other in the North Atlantic. This system makes zero sense. There is no "Would you like to join an allied nation in a war against X" It's purely "X is angry at you and demands exuberant amounts of money or war". It's ridiculous. I'm currently at war with Germany, Russia and Italy. Spain was apart of it, but they've collapsed after being transport hunted and colonial invaded into obscurity.
-
On 11/9/2023 at 9:58 AM, casperwieik said:
200% transport capacity once, and it then goes down again due to transport losses you are only able to get about 0.30% per month on full boost
Its cost also increases like crazy too. It gets prohibitive pretty quickly.
-
I'm noticing severe tension increases in areas where I don't have a) territories or b) ships (I'm playing as Japan, all of my ships are in the Pacific, East Asia Sea or the Yellow Sea). I'm getting a 15.0 tension increase vs the Spanish in the Atlantic (Where I've sent exactly nothing nor do I have territory there) and up in the Arctic Sea vs Russia/Soviet Union (Again, where I have no ships).
I think the recent patch broke this (Haven't downloaded the optimized as of writing this), but I don't know what's regressed the system back to 1.1/1.2 days in terms of tensions increasing.
-
11 hours ago, flashmozzzgg said:
the cost of ships with turbines was sharply raised and now the AI is building a CA with 16kts
This is extremely prevalent. The cost to build a 50,000-ton battleship (Bismarck, in this case) shouldn't be pushing 1 billion dollars with appropriate modifications for historical accuracy (Making it Turbo-Electric skyrocket its cost beyond a billion easily). I think, that instead of increasing ship costs, reducing the economy to balance it would be more appropriate (You can have an economy pushing 150-200 billion by 1905). I prefer a 300-400 million cost Bismarck and a reduced economy over the current state of the in-game economy for the campaign.
I'm sure other players have seen similar figures for comparable designs for different nations.
-
On 11/5/2023 at 6:09 PM, Anthropoid said:
An ACTUALLY STABLE CL!?!
There's more. You can make an actually stable and accurate HMS Hood! No more 30+ foreweight offset!
-
I've noticed this too. It's prevalent during the first couple decades of a new campaign (1890 start). The sheer amount of AI fleets or small groups of ships (5 or fewer) that end up in a low-fuel state is insane.
-
1
-
.png.6347837808129af0e64d55ae469badfe.png)
.png.67f38987b07b4a6d435aa8eb75faee36.png)
.png.56f062c77aa39b0ccd9d37dacbfb5fa1.png)
.png.86ecbde96914c2a53e20fd6b840af9a8.png)
.png.8fd210a2f62e592ad602d148b54b8d51.png)
>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.6)
in General Discussions
Posted
I have honestly zero idea. I discovered it one day, forgot about it for a couple of weeks and then rediscovered it again. H haven't seen anyone mention it here at all, so I figured it was common knowledge lol.