Heet

v1.4: Research in the campaign currently REQUIRES focus in Big Guns 95% of the time due to the size of that research tree, and the apparent randomness. You can spend years waiting on a specific gun caliber upgrade (i.e., 16" mk. III) while the research tree happily backfills 9"-11" guns, or 19" mk. I guns which are useless to you. I've been asking for this for a while, but basically we should split the gun research into more categories, and re-balance the research times for each tech. The goal being to give the player more direct control over the research path they want to take. For example, if you want to focus on heavy cruisers, you research medium caliber guns. You can CHOOSE to push for super battleships, or completely ignore them. Small: 2 to 6 inch guns Medium: 7 to 11 inch guns Large: 12 to 16 inch guns Super: 17 to 20 inch guns, only accessible once 16" mk II are researched.

4 Cruisers vs. 6 Super BBs: Lol, GG. All sunk due to excessive fire.

For the next patches, I would love to see some fundamental changes to the campaign. You will notice that many of these changes are similar to how Hoi4 manages naval control. Say what you like about that game, but the campaign setup for naval zones works well and reasonably emulates the decisions the admiralty would need to make during a global conflict (supply line protection, resource management, sea control , fuel rationing, etc). If I had one wish I would take Hoi4's campaign map (including fleet control, research, resource management, etc) and fuse it with UA:D's ship designer and battle screen. Some suggestions to get us there: Create Scenario campaigns in addition to the freeform campaign with set start dates, war goals, and consistent end dates. Let me relive WWI, WWII from the admiralty's perspective. Politics are VERY restrictive currently. Even with the various options, it still feels as though the player is just "bucking the current," and you can't really influence politics due to the high rate of failures, and restrictions. Give us more direct control in the freeform campaign. Permit the creation of dedicated task forces and allow the user to specify rules for how they are permitted to go to sea (i.e. - can they deploy without some screens, or does the whole fleet need to go out together)? Change the map style to sea "zones" similar to how Hoi4 works. Task forces can be assigned to various roles within a zone or connecting series of zones. The effectiveness of their coverage is based on the quantity ships and task forces in a particular zone, and is influenced by the zone's size and by technology (reconnaissance, spotting, etc). Ship range influences the zones they can occupy and how effective they are in those zones. Create dedicated jobs for each fleet. I.e. - minelaying, minesweeping, ASW/patrol, convoy raiding, convoy escort, sea control, strike force (only deploys when a comparable task force is spotted in the zone), etc. Change the merchant marine/transport function to ships which must be built and count towards the shipbuilding maximum every month. Allow the player to select which zones convoys/merchants may sail through (and whether they should force a passage if the zone is dangerous or poorly controlled). This will naturally lead to losses which must be replenished, and will influence the supplies coming into the nation which will influence the course of a conflict. Create rationing and supply lines for fuel and precious resources. If you start creating all oil-fired ships, then the player has to maintain supply lines to oil-rich countries. Various task force roles are more fuel intensive (i.e. - sea control is more intensive than strike force), and if fuel runs low, the player must choose how to manage the dwindling resources.

Bumped, I like these changes.

It's been addressed in the latest beta version. 1.9.3 still has the bug, but if you enable the beta version on Steam that will solve this particular issue. Ship damage is consistent from the end of one battle to the beginning of the next.

I have experienced this as well. Also when telling a ship to focus fire on an enemy. FPS drops until I deselect that particular ship.

This is working as intended. There's a cut-off point on every hull where adding 0.1 knot will blow up the cost and the weight. There's a couple of "soft-breaks" where you'll see cost increases with 0.1 knot increase (I believe it's 32.4 to 32.5 knots on the German Modern BB-1), and then there's a "hard-break" like what you have there where any additional speed is basically impossible without making huge sacrifices.

Big Guns tech tree is still too large, requiring a research focus from day one until eternity. Please either split this tech tree, or merge some of the guns sizes (i.e., merge 15/16-inch guns, etc). Auto-resolve results are still extremely random. When fighting a battle manually, much higher victory chances are assured. This is FINE for major engagements, but we shouldn't have to manually fight every little encounter (i.e., 5 modern ships vs. 2 older destroyers). Also recommend auto-resolving options for fleet behavior, such as: Attempt to withdraw/evade (better chance of minimal damage on both sides), particularly if your fleet is faster. Delay Enemy (screens engage enemy fleet, then attempt to withdraw. Gives capital ships a head start, better chance for them to evade if they are reasonably fast. Screens will take losses). Stand-off attack (better chance for enemy to retreat, but far less chance of capital ship damage from screens). Balanced attack Aggressive attack (little chance of enemy escape, but much higher chance for capital ships take torpedo damage). Submarine engagments should have similar options: Attempt to Evade (i.e., sub encounters 3 enemy destroyers, just evade them if possible, don't even try to fire). This extremely realistic as subs are able to spot enemy fleets from further away. Stand-off Attack (i.e., subs launch a long-range spread, then attempt to evade. Minimal losses on both sides). Aggressive strike on Capital Ships (subs attempt to close-in and kill capital ships. Screens can prevent this. Higher chance of sub losses, but the enemy will also have a higher chance of capital ship damage). Fleets attempting to withdraw after a battle can get intercepted turn after turn and never move. Please fix. Transport battles still end when warships are sunk. Would love to see work/progress on multiplayer custom battles. Host sets the era, ship types, and budget for each side. Each side gets to pick a research focus when designing their fleet. Would love to see scenario campaigns (i.e. WWI, WWII, ahistorical campaigns, etc). Give the player a few years head start to reconfigure the fleet, then end the campaign on or around historical dates.

Agreed on all of the points. I think the funnel placement influencing the machinery location is reasonable as they haven't truly created a below-deck design, so I wouldn't change that aspect. However, one thing that would really help would be to loosen the restrictions on tower and gun placement on flat-top hulls. Currently, they locations are so restrictive that you often either have to place the towers too far forward or too far aft. Just loosening the restrictions on the tower placement would be a major help. Also, a lot of older ships tend to have very poor balancing, this just needs to be looked at so that the armor can be balanced. Pitch and roll also seems to be overly sensitive.

More auto-resolve BS. 3 modern dreadnoughts + a bunch of screens vs. 1 CL + 1 DD. Somehow 2 BBs and multiple screens are heavily damaged. Nice. I really shouldn't have to fight every little stupid battle in a campaign.

Confirmed that minimal damage to ships is amplified in subsequent battles. A single CA had like 5-10% damage, no engine damage or flooding at the end of a battle, next battle it's at 50% health with engine damage.

Feedback so far: AI still creates "death stacks" when deploying fleets. Option to withdraw from these battles is often greyed out, even when your ships are newer and faster. Ships will end a battle with minimal damage. On the next battle they will somehow have major damage. Not clear why this is happening, they are operating near an enemy port, so mines are possible; although the fleet should have sufficient minesweeping capability. Auto-resolve is still finicky. Larger/faster fleets vs. smaller/slower fleets will often result in only minimal damage, even though when played manually it is possible to easily sink everything. Speed seems to be at a minimal value when auto-resolving, even though it should allow your fleets to run down and completely destroy enemies. Large Guns research slot is still too big. When playing a campaign you always need to prioritize it. Would prefer to see some of these gun technologies combined (ie - 15/16 inch guns would research at the same time), and/or break up gun categories into more slots such as small (2"-6"), medium (7"-11"), large (12"-16"), and super (17"+) research categories. USA dreadnoughts are extremely front-heavy, and difficult to balance:\

I really like this idea. Would be fun. Tbh, the ability to export and import ship designs should be in the game already. I would like to be able to save my favorite designs rather than starting from scratch each time. I think the consensus from those who responded seems to be they would prefer "True" historical campaigns with historical ships and fleets. I think a semi-sandbox mode would also be fun, allowing you a few years to research techs, then build-up or rebuild the fleet to your liking.

Right now, it's working as intended I believe; however, I do agree 100% that there needs to be some changes made. The problem SEEMS to be that the game uses a single Accuracy stat and a single Aiming stat. I'm not 100% sure on this, just my observations. The problem is that when you're dealing with a small, fast, maneuvering target, the aiming stat takes a nosedive; which in turn makes your accuracy very poor, causing shells to go wild all over the place. As-is, it's a balance issue since one good hit on a DD with a large caliber gun will either kill it outright or disable it (which makes killing it much easier), but it is REALLY annoying to see your shots going wild at a target 1 km away (it's RIGHT THERE, just SHOOT IT ALREADY!) I would suggest the game designers look at a couple of ways to improve this to make it more realistic: Remove Aiming Speed stat and introduce two stats: Range-Estimation: Improved with crew skill, rangefinders, towers, etc. Greatly improved with Radar fire control. Easier on larger targets. Reduced somewhat by targets maneuvering. Improved with each salvo fired successively at a target. Easier at close range. Harder at night or foggy/cloudy weather. Tracking: Improved with rangefinders, radar, etc. Greatly improved with crew skill and turret rotation techs. Harder on small, fast-moving targets. Reduced by target maneuvering. Improved with each salvo fired successively at a target. Harder with long, heavy guns, easier with short, quick-firing guns. Harder at night or foggy/cloudy weather. Remove Accuracy stat and replace with Precision, which reduces the Dispersion of a gun: how much each shell will disperse from the point of aim. Decreased Precision with multiple barrel turrets, and improved with turret techs. Improved Precision with gun techs. Greatly improved Precision with a new stat: Muzzle Velocity Consistency (see below). Improved Precision with hull form, pitch, roll, etc: more stable shooting platform = better dispersion. Precision reduced by sea state, and wind conditions. Remove Long Range Accuracy stat. The following statistics will effect long range vs. short range precision: Shell Aerodynamics, and Shell Weight will improve long range precision: As a projectile moves from supersonic to subsonic, it hits it's own shockwave and destabilizes. Heavier, and more aerodynamic shells will maintain supersonic flight longer, and pass through transonic more easily. When a shell is fired at a range where it spends more time in subsonic flight, it's Dispersion will increase significantly. Shell Weight and Muzzle Velocity: Lighter shells will be more precise at close range, and heavier shells will be more precise at longer ranges. Lighter shells fire at a higher Muzzle Velocity, but lose that velocity more quickly. Heavier shells fire at a slower Muzzle Velocity, but retain their velocity for longer as they are more aerodynamic. Barrell length and shell technology will improve muzzle velocity and velocity retention. Improved shell technology will lead to aerodynamic breakthroughs, causing them to retain their velocity longer. Barrel length will increase Muzzle Velocity. Explosives tech (and explosive selection) will increase Muzzle Velocity. Muzzle Velocity Consistency greatly increases Precision: The more consistently the shell leaves the muzzle, the better we can estimate it's point of impact. More advanced powders burn more consistently. Improved somewhat with crew skill: crews load and pack powder more consistently. Introduce Reduced, Standard, or Super powder charges in combat. This does exactly what you'd think: Reduced powder charge means better Muzzle Velocity Consistency, greatly increasing precision but lowering muzzle velocity. Use for close range targets with light armor where you don't need the velocity or penetration, and want precision. You also get a bonus to fire resistance since you're loading less powder at a time into each gun. The opposite is true for super powder charges. You'll get better penetration and muzzle velocity from your guns, but at the expense of Muzzle Velocity Consistency. Shells are more likely to go wild, and your flash fire chance increases somewhat as more powder is in transit.

I do enjoy the "open" or "sandbox" campaigns that we currently have. I would be a very fun and challenging experience to have "Historical" or "Scenario" campaigns. Three suggestions: Historical WWI: Start the game in 1909, ends around 1918 with some randomness. Alliances are pre-determined, and allied entry into the war are more or less historically timed. You get to choose a nation, and an initial set of technology (like in the scenarios, you can choose between various tech focuses, additional funds, etc to start with). War starts AROUND August 1914 (with some randomness), so you have ~5 years to research critical technologies and build up the fleet to your liking. Option to have the fleets be more or less historical at war outbreak (subs would be substituted for now) OR a toggle option to let the AI build the fleet. Historical WWII: Start the game in 1934, ends around 1945 with some randomness. Alliances are pre-determined, and allied entry into the war are more or less historically timed. You get to choose an initial set of technology (like in the scenarios, you can choose between various tech focuses, additional funds, etc to start with). Historical treaty limitations and escalator clauses. Historical cheaters on the treaty (Italy can build slightly larger ships than permitted, Germany can more or less ignore the treaties after 1937). Option to have the fleets be more or less historical at war outbreak (subs would be substituted for now) OR a toggle option to let the AI build the fleet. Ahistorical 1930: The Washington Naval Treaty never occurred. The former allied powers continue the battleship arms race, eyeing each other suspiciously. In 1929 (or thereabouts) President Herbert Hoover takes the United States off the gold standard to combat the growing depression, infuriating the world's banking center: Britain. As tensions rise, Britain places high tariffs on American goods and vilifies the reckless president, attempt to cut the United States out of the world market. Hoover instructs the navy to enforce free passage of the seas, The Anglo-American War has begun! Starts in 1925, ends in ~1935 (somewhat random), war breaks out in ~1930. No treaty limitations. America and Britain will be adversaries. France is neutral and can be influenced by campaign events. One side or the other must maintain control of the Atlantic to permit the movement and landing of troop transports to defeat the other side, otherwise the war ends in a draw. Option for historical or AI created fleets at the beginning. Options for various tech boosts to affect starting technologies, or economy boost to help GDP.