Abuse_Claws

Yeah, but when fighting on two fronts I expect that not to be the case. Also, I've successfully lost the second invasion now, and after almost reaching 700,000, the current number of soviet troops in Ukraine is 320,912 for some reason. Are losses due to Naval Invasions calculated only after they end?

The year is 1896. USSR launches a land invasion against AH (edit: which is me) from Ukraine to Hungary, which I try to counter by launching a naval invasion against Ukraine... And then I notice that there are over 400,000 troops stationed in Ukraine. Okay, a bit overkill from my point of view, but sure. 6 months pass, I lose the naval invasion, but I immediately launch a new one to keep the pressure on USSR and make them stay away from Hungary. And my troops seem to be doing a fine job, there are only 294,000 soldiers left in Ukraine... except are there? Three months into my second invasion, I decide to check on the operation, only to find that there are currently 632,408 soviet troops in Ukraine, which for comparison is more than entire French and German mainland armies combined. No other province on the map comes even close. What? Why? How? Edit: it keeps growing! Next turn it's already 651,865 soviet soldiers in Ukraine. Is this a commie zombie apocalypse or what?

One thing I would very much like is being able to actually use Naval Prestige. So far it seems pretty irrelevant, as at some point in the campaign I usually end up with like 1500 NP, and then what? Events that decrease naval prestige can't spend this bulk in all the 60 years of the campaign (this even if I just stop fighting wars, and otherwise it might get even higher) And I believe NP might be a very useful tool for influencing government policy or even type (right now the only way of influencing government type I see would be to purposefully raise Unrest until a revolution happens) Possible mechanics: - Enforce/Veto decision. For RNG-resolved events like brokering peace and invasions against minor nations make it possible to ensure a certain outcome for a certain amount of NP - Endorse party. This is pretty self-explanatory: throw your weight behind a certain party for the next election. Possibly with a few different options or even a slider to decide how much NP are you willing to spend on that to get the desired outcome - Coup. Plain and simple: spend a massive amount of NP (possibly tied to current unrest) to overthrow the government and install a government type of player's choice - Treaties. Use your influence to introduce international treaties and 'convince' other nations to sign them. This may include London-type naval treaties limiting certain ship types to specific tonnage and gun caliber, treaties against using mines, sinking transports, attacking minor nations etc. (Edit: also free/blocked strait passage) Breaking a treaty would greatly increase tensions with all other participants and unrest within the country

Ah, the random damage between battles 0% structural is greeeeat https://imgur.com/2iKJunJ

The AI seems to have very little regard for weight offset (or at least it used to), that's one of the reasons Another one is it doesn't seem to invest enough in crew training and there's also a vicious circle: AI loses a lot of ships=> AI crews can't survive long enough to get experience => AI can't hit anything and therefore keeps losing ships Also I'm not sure AI always selects the best available rangefinder I'd love to see the AI design better and more powerful ships, but that seems to be an uphill battle for the devs. While they are working on that, I would prefer the AI to have no more ships than it can effectively control (which seems to be about a dozen I'd say) even if it means limiting the player to 3-5 ships in battle to make fights more challenging. Maybe even make special random events like 'massive battles', which would pop up on the map and require a certain tonnage, like naval invasions do now. That way epic battles would still happen, but not that often and the player would have the opportunity to skip them (maybe at the cost of some VPs or naval prestige, idk)

True to some extent However, AI can't handle a large number of ships either, and usually they end up in a giant blob virtually unable to move. Quite often, 1-3 well-designed BBs with enough ammo can easily take out a giant doomstack, while fewer ships that AI actually is able to control would at least try and torp-rush my BBs

The year is 1903. This is about 1/3 of IJN in a single TF. I would say this is a doomstack, although certainly much less terrible than what we used to see before the TF limit. I'd say we need either stricter TF limits, or an actual limit on number of ships in a TF

I think managing actual troops, their gear and tactics is a bit much for a naval strategy game. However, landing crafts are a part of every Navy and definitely under control of the admiral. I would very much like a 'Landing Crafts' tab similar to the 'Submarines' tab, along with a matching tech tree: Hulls: troop capacity, operational range, speed, mine resistance Armament (Guns & ASW equipment) Landing tactics: fire support efficiency (including not just LCs, but also fleet ships), max number of LCs in a fleet group LC groups could be attached to regular TFs or moved independently. If intercepted by an enemy TF or subs, a 'Protect convoy' (if there are any actual fleet ships protecting the LCs) or 'Submarine defence' mission would be initiated, and those would actually have high stakes for the player, as the success of the invasion is very much dependent on how many troops actually make it to the landing zone Also, LCs could take part in port strikes, where a small number of troops could be deployed to sabotage port infrastructure and provide intel for naval gunners, thus greatly improving damage to the port

I think the devs answer was that dissolved nations would break up into minor nations and have a chance of reuniting or something That would be a good solution from my point of view, yet sadly it's still not implemented. Would love to see it introduced at some point in 1.1

For me, they don't leave, at least after I've built quite a few ships for them already, but the fact that Persia and Chile now have a few BBs each (not even counting smaller stuff), what little port capacity they have is exceeded by at least 300% AND THEY STILL WANT MORE is puzzling to say the least

And, I might add, is there a way to PREVENT an invasion against a minor nation? During my campaign for China my government decided to invade Korea, which basically forced me into a war against US, Britain and Japan simultaneously due to a sharp relationship drop I would like at least a vote in such matters (like the player gets to advise the government on whether to make peace), and maybe even a veto option which would cost some amount of naval prestige

Okay, between guns changing targets sometimes literally every second and "I think my spaceship knows which way to go" random zigzagging this version is sadly unplayable for me. Hopefully those issues are resolved in the next hotfix update.

One thing I would love to see is some alternative towers for modern light (and some heavy) cruisers. Because there's pretty much the same hull and tower set for almost all nations, and I can't say I'm a huge fan of those towers (which are also used for some modern heavy cruiser hulls, like Russian Modern Heavy Cruiser I and II iirc) I don't even necessarily mean adding new towers, just giving those hulls access to more already existing tower types (although new tower designs are always welcome as well)

The Flying Dutchman consuming a cruiser whole.Behold, the Flying Dutchman I have no idea what is going on here Edit: it does not have a collision box, my ships just go right through it Edit 2: Another day, another battle. The Flying Dutchman strikes again! Edit 3: Oh no, it's in the Ship Designer now! Run! The Flying Dutchman consuming a cruiser whole.

How did I fight a 1 month long war against the Brits before even starting the campaign? Edit: also France is left completely out of the "Wars fought" screen, even though unlike Britain I actually did fight France

Yeah, it will do damage on airburst, especially if you hit a tight formation of lighter ships, but I'm not sure how cost-effective it would be. With 1940-50 tech nuclear shells won't come cheap

Ah, Spanish ships confidently sailing through the Northwest Passage to the ancient Spanish land of Alaska I love this game xD

From my point of view it should be among the top priorities for 1.10 Certainly above adding features like Minor Nations and whatnot. It's plain and simple: if the enemy ships are not competitive, the campaign is much less interesting to play. If you can go into a 1v3 (hell, 1v10 sometimes) battle and expect to win easily just because enemy ships are bad... What's the point? Sure, you can increase difficulty or choose a poorer nation giving the enemy more ships, but more bad ships ain't gonna make any difference, it would be more of a grind than a challenge.

Depends on the implementation. I would say guided missiles would ruin the game more, as they would basically allow for very high accuracy at very long ranges, making conventional artillery obsolete almost immediately. But suppose you can have like 5-10 nuclear shells on a super battleship instead of 1/2 of your entire ammo complement (because of necessary added weight of radiation shielding and high cost), with high chance for quite catastrophic ammo detonation and the accuracy of, well, a regular shell. Trying to fire them at range with low accuracy would be a waste, trying to get close for a guaranteed hit is quite a risk (if you are fighting against an enemy battleship. Using shells that cost like a cruiser each to kill anything less than super BBs would be a waste). So it would be a high-risk high-reward mechanic when used in battles, with conventional shells possibly being just more effective overall. Same goes for nuclear torps. But for port strikes that would add a real opportunity to effectively put whole ports out of service for quite a while, which would incentivise actually trying to get to the enemy ports and protect your own

At last! A while ago (actually, it was in the 1.09 beta feedback thread) I posted about this bug where auto-generated names of TBs and DDs (and even submarines, as it later turned out) made their way to the ship name pool. And I joked about one day seeing a BB with a DD/TB name. Well, the day has come!

IDK if that's the case. In my playthrough initially Britain had the highest growth rate IIRC, followed by Germany and US, while mine was down in the shitter. Now, however, Spain and US have basically switched places, with Britain and Germany still being way ahead

Interesting. You seem to have way more realistic values than I do. What difficulty are you on and what type of AI did you set? Mine are normal and random respectively

Yet if the doomstack issue is solved and AI actually tries to keep its fleet at least semi-modern (in my campaign in 1943 some countries still have TBs in service for crying out loud, and their tech is "Very Advanced"), the increased GDP would be a good thing I think, as it would speed up research (which is currently, at least in my campaign, way behind schedule for some branches in all countries), allow for larger fleets of modern ships and more room for experiments with different designs.

So I'm looking at my Spanish campaign that I play since 1.09 beta. So far it goes from 1890 to 1943, and I'm beginning to wonder: is the GDP we have in-game correct both from historical and gameplay standpoint? Warning: I'm no economist and may be majorly wrong about pretty much anything here, so if you spot an error please bring it up in the comments. Note: I use point for decimals and coma for thousands. The first question that comes up is: what are in-game dollars? Seriously, what does one in-game dollar mean compared to IRL dollars? From a fast google search or two, usually 1990 international dollars are used for historical GDP values, which are basically the equivalent of a 1990 US dollar. So let's try and convert in-game money to those. Iowa-class battleships cost the US government about 100 million 1940 US dollars, which (if the online inflation calculator I used is corect) would be 934 million 1990 US dollars or international dollars. My in-game Rosa-class BBs have 82.4 thousand tonnes of displacement (compared to Iowa's 58.4) and have 4x3x16" guns compared to Iowa's 3x3x16", both have 33kn top speed. So we could roughly estimate my ship to be 1 1/3 of Iowa's cost, which would bring it to about 1,245.3 million international dollars. In-game Rosa costs 516 million dollars, which would suggest a course of 2.413 international dollars for an in-game dollar. Let's double-check this estimate: A Fletcher-class DD IRL cost 6 mil, convert to international bucks - we get 56 mil, divide by 2.413 and we get 23.2 mil in-game dollars per ship. When I tried to design a sorta-Fletcher class in-game, it cost 29 mil per ship, which is close enough (1.931 vs 2.413 conversion we had before). Since this is not a scientific paper, I'm inclined to take the average and go with it: 2.172 international 1990-s dollars for 1 in-game dollar. So, what the in-game GDP should look like in 1943? Note: I'm disqualifying Austria-Hungary (as it didn't exist IRL at the time) and China (as in my campaign it dissolved decades ago) Note 2: I'm using numbers from "Military production during World War II" Wiki page Note 3: all figures in billions of in-game dollars, converted from international dollars using the coefficient of 2.172 USA IRL had a total GDP 379.4 compared to 42.9 in my campaign Germany (without occupied lands): 196.1 vs 89 in my campaign Britain (without dominions): 291.5 vs 94.7 in my campaign Russia (USSR?): 140.4 vs 26.6 France: 73.2 vs 41.9 Italy: 73.7 vs 18.7 Japan: 118.3 vs 12.9 Spain (it's not in the Wiki article, so I used the numbers from this paper): 66.3 vs 75.4 What we see is for all countries except the player country the number is way too low, and considering that raising GDP was my top priority AND in-game there is no Spanish civil war, that IRL had an enormous negative impact on Spanish economy, we can say that for Spain it's too low as well. What are the reasons? Wars. Excessive, never-ending wars. Austria-Hungary in particular is willing to pick a fight with everyone at once while having only two dozen DDs left in their navy. The issue of wars being too frequent in 1.09 is so often brought up that I won't discuss it any further here Wars having a weird impact on the economy. For example, if I'm only at war with AH, an empire with less than half my GDP and only a bunch of destroyers left in their fleet, why is my GDP tanking? It's not like they have any chance of disrupting my trade or sank any of my transports. And on the flipside, *their* economy should be in shambles, as they are at war with half of the world and have no way of defending their convoys. And yet their economy is shrinking at about the same rate as mine AI priorities. The AI needs to prioritize GDP growth more, plain and simple. Unrest having no impact on GDP. Countries with low unrest should recieve a GDP bonus, while those with high unrest should get penalized, especially if they come to a point of an actual revolution. The GDP and its growth rate possibly just straight-up being too low from the start ??? I would say that it's something that does need fixing, although the prospective of AI having more money for their doomstacks... Yikes.

A couple of known bugs while I'm at it While designing a ship, if you change boiler type and then set engine type to diesel or gas turbines, while "boilers" component is disabled, the selected boiler type still impacts smoke interference and funnel capacity. When making peace with one country, all missions generated for this turn are removed, even those that are not against that country