ijp8834

This, I have noticed that the AI would rather choose to shoot at a retreating destroyer well out of torpedo range than a battleship right next to it that is blowing holes in it's side.

Noticed the same thing here running DIP. Was in a long battle and it wasn't until very shortly before the enemy Battlecruiser was sunk that it was identified. This was a long duel.

@Nick ThomadisThe Targeting Control Towers on the French Advanced Escort Cruiser are like 10x too expensive. They are 200 million, but you build the ship out it is only 400 million total ship. That means that about 50% of the price for the entire cruiser is just the main tower.

I also have had Germany and "The Britain" collapse very early in my 1910 campaign (both before 1920). I think the very high costs for active fleets is part of it, also for some reason, I notice on the first turn of a war I might get a boost in naval funds, but that disappears the next turn and now I am very negative.

So for some reason I think there might be some economy issues, but I am not sure if its the mod or the newest update. I moved 2 battlefleets from defend out to sea and it was like an 80 MILLION difference.

Thanks for the prompt updates, can't wait to try RC8 with the mod tonight.

The Turrets are indeed the correct shape. Here is her in real life (ignore the scaffolding), posting for a layout view: And here is my... Close enough recreation in game. Yes, the secondary battery is different, but that does not effect main battery placement at all. Note that this is the smallest length hull either that either 45 cal (historical guns) will fit on, or the longer 50s I used for a range boost.

Hi brothermunro! I have finally had time to play around with the mod. Doing an American campaign to check out the new American cruiser hulls. I noticed that it was extremely hard to build a USS Texas/ NY class Battleship in the mod at it's factual displacement (of 28400ish tons full load). The guns actually don't fit on the hull at that length, and I had to increase the hull to a 34000 ton hull to fit out the ship anyways. Part of this might be the MK2 guns, which have no range at 45 caliber. With all that said, is it possible to change when the hull size changes on specific models? And if not, can the US Battleship IV be modified on an individual basis to build a historical NY Class on the minimum hull size and tonnage needed to fit the guns? If you would like I can also relay other hulls where I notice that this is an issue as I continue through the campaign, and in other campaigns when I get to them.

Any chance we can get a US Tillman Type (not any of the super insane Tillmans, but something like Vermont from WOWS?)

@Nick Thomadis I was brainstorming fixes for some of the AI clowncar ships we see all to often, and it hit me. Most AI ships are clowncars because of one or 2 specific reasons. 1) Unoptimized use of the hull, or 2) mixed main caliber guns. Unfortunately I cannot suggest anything for 1, however for 2, is there a possible way to have the AI prioritize barrel count of same caliber guns? I have noticed the AI can be quite formidable when you give it a good design, so a good focus on AI prioritization in ship building could help it in building challenging ships to fight (campaigns are best when I win by strategy, not by curb stomping terrible AI designs).

THIS Devs. We told you through the entire beta. Every third post in the Beta thread was about this. You ignored it every single time. Battlecruisers are useless. You cannot build historic ships now because of the horrendous, and flat out terrible decision to limit armor. I should not have to download a mod to enjoy a game. Now I do. I've supported this game since pre-steam as many of those on the forums have. No one, in all those years has asked for this. Fix your game. BALANCE is a critical part of game design. This is a balance bug and should be reported as such until it is fixed.

I think a good solution to this would be an option to turn off research for AI countries, just giving them techs for the year in question in January of that year. This could be a toggleable option so if players prefer to play without it, they could leave it off.

Yea there is no reason whatsoever that a turret in that position should be limited to a firing arc as bad as that.

Still nothing to address the obscenely low armor limits for Battlecruisers?

Part of the problem is that the 8 inch guns were not a separate turret, but rather part of the same turret, so they were trained with the main battery. I could see this wrecking havoc on the game.

@Nick Thomadis Feedback on some hulls after the latest patch. The British Battlecruiser V hull seems to have several issues. Only the first tower option fits on the hull at all at standard width, and you need to increase the beam by 8.1 percent to fit any of the other towers. All secondary towers are missing the second funnel spot. By all aspects of it's design it seems to be HMS Hood, but can only have 8.3 inches of armor applied to the main belt. HMS Hood had 12 inches. Really, this issue is present on basically every Battlecruiser hull the Brits have access to, their belt allowance is WAY too thin. I get that we want to have Battlecruisers distinct from Battleships, but by the end of WWI, the British were designing Battlecruisers that were closer to Fast Battleships than the Invincible style Battlecruisers (See Hood and the G3s). We can always under armor our ships if we want to follow a lighter armor doctrine, but cannot go above the hard limit. British 2 inch guns of MK3+ do not seem to fit on any mounts made for them on the Heavy Cruiser 1 hull. The base model for even the single guns is WAY too big. Like the Heavy Cruiser 1, Light Cruiser IV is very, very hard to place secondary guns on, and for some reason the depth charge racks interfere with the rear turret firing arcs (I know this happens on DDs of many nations as well, and it's incredibly unrealistic in both scenarios. You can physically see the guns are well higher than the depth charge racks, even when placed on the deck). The Dreadnought IV, V, and VI, which I am pretty sure are based off the Orion, King George V and Iron Duke Classes do not have a proper rear tower (with no mast). The existing towers would be close enough if they did not have the super tall masts, heck, the compact tower that you can get on the Dreadnought VII would be close enough. I will update this post as I play a bit more and notice any issues with hulls I build on. EDIT: I am still seeing major, borderline unplayable delays when loading a new turn, with the game getting stuck on Building New Ships constantly. I am unable to report this time as the settings button seems not to work when turns are loading like it used to. EDIT 2: The large light cruiser hull is pretty dang awesome. EDIT 3: The fact that we still CANNOT choose to not upgrade turrets when refitting is really sad. This has been requested since the Refit feature was added. Either that or let us skip some techs in the research tree all together like every other strategy game. I know it's probably a little bit harder than it seems to add either of those features but its quite upsetting to have a perfectly capable Battleship that either is hopelessly outclassed due to weaker rangefinders/lack of radar/low armor tech, or has to go through a major rebuild just to adjust a few techs because the new guns don't fit. Part of the problem here is that 1 gun and 2 gun turrets are the same size as 3 gun turrets. This is not the case in reality. If ALL of the 2 gun turrets from a given nation fit on the same footprint without having to do major edits to the ship design, this would not be a problem. I could deal with the ugly late game guns. Here is an illustration of a Nevada Class Battleship that had mixed turrets of similar designs. As you can see, the 2 gun turrets in the super-firing positions are not the same size, rather they are quite a bit smaller in length and width. Another example is the King George V class Battleship. The Quad 14s are significantly larger than the twin 14 as shown below.

Ok, got a few playing hours in and I have to say, other than the cursed building new ships freeze, it's pretty good. BUT My only real complaint is that Armor limits are WAY too restrictive. I do not understand why this cannot be implemented as a soft limit, like speed. What is even more insane, is there is a hard armor limit, but there is also sometimes a soft limit well below that hard limit, so the systems to implement that exist, but just are not being used for some reason? Limitations on player design are bad decisions 100% of the time. Please either implement a soft limit at the current armor hard limits, or revert armor back to how it was before this beta, which did have limits, but the limits were based on the reality of the best armored ships of a certain type. Just because the British didn't armor their first gen Battlecruisers in reality does not me no one could. The Germans did, and I don't see why British hull designers (AKA US, THE PLAYER) could not figure out how to protect their battle cruisers better if that was their design goal. What is more telling is the game already drifts from reality with what hulls are available. If the game wanted to be realistic, you would only get 1 Battlecruiser hull for the entire game when playing as the US, instead of the several that exist in the game. This game is not trying to perfectly emulate history, but to allow players to have a set of tools to design and build ships according to their own doctrine. Please don't take away player freedom like that, it makes the game duller and less interesting overall.

Started a new campaign, was going well for about a year, then got 2 turns in a row where it was stuck on building new ships. First turn I had to exit to the menu and load back in. The second turn, the game crashed completely. Submitted a bug report for the first one, but obviously could not for the second one. What's weird is that it seems to actually be just stuck on the screen doing something, as when I load back in the game loads into the month that was loading when it froze.

I don't think the new hull armor limits thing is a very fun thing. It really hinders players designing their own ships how they want them to. If a system like that stays, we should be able to go over the recommended maximum with cost and weight penalties, similar to how speed works.

THIS!!!! Please don't make me get rid of perfectly good ships because their new guns are WAY too big!!!

Please make it so autoresolve port strike missions in invasions mean that port capacity is not reduced, or make it so the reduction is reversed as soon as the port is taken. I am trying to take the port for a reason.

It does not work on the most recent update yet.

This is hands down my biggest issue with the game as of now... Come on, either make sure all guns fit in the same spots, or let us retain older guns that do fit.

This would be awesome if we could get a Standard Displacement stat. Right now the game goes off Deep Load displacement, Standard is considerably lower. The New Orleans Class Cruiser, for example had a Standard Displacement of 9950 tons, but a full load displacement over 12000 tons. The North Carolina Class had a Standard Displacement of 36600 tons and a full load north of 44000 tons. It's a very significant difference. Even if it's just a percentage based estimate, it would be cool the have that stat.

Please allow us to mark designs as not for Export. I will gladly make some cruisers for my minor allies, but maybe I don't want to export my big 10 inch heavies, and would rather export a 8 inch heavy that is well balanced. Maybe I would like to design a lighter battleship that does not take up as much ship building capacity as my large Super Battleships, and would rather minors buy the lighter ships. This could be as simple as a check mark. Checked is allow export, and the default. This also prevents degradation in relations due to denying them asking for the same ship I do not want to sell six turns in a row.