HopefullAdmiral0786

WOW! A very big THANKYOU to StrikerDanger. I've just tried it with a task force that moved (all by itself I may add) under another - and it works! I am forever indebted!

Campaign Map - Task Force Overlay. I have a question for the community and dev's, which has bugged me for some time. In the campaign map, I notice that all to often, when one is about to launch an invasion, sometimes the Task Forces seem to have the habit of sitting ontop of each other. As much as I try to provide adequate space between the two different task forces, the game has a habit of making a slight move location to 'super-impose' two seperate task forces and despite careful movement of the mouse, and stacked them ontop of each other. So for example, take task force A, consisting of ten ships, is super imposed onto Task Force B, consisting of ten ships. However, when one mouses over to the location of the two Task Forces, one does not see 20 ships, but just 10 ships, presumably highlighting the task force on top of the stack. The only way I have found to do move seperate the Task Forces, is to highlight the map where the two task forces have congealed, click the move function, move what is one of the two task forces to another very seperate and distinct location and next turn move the second task force to a distinctly differing part of the sea. This is not helped by the fact that prior to launching an invasion, one never seams to know the location of the exact sphere of the invasion area for a territory. This is annoying from two aspects. 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 It is only a small point but an irritant at that. Any thoughts of recoding the game in this aspect that might assist task force placement?

Hi All, I have a question, which I may have an answer to, but it would be great if the forum experts and dev's could confirm for me. I decided to take on a challenge and play as Spain from 1890. My first war is with Russia (or rather now as the Soviet Union) and I've been trying to launch an invasion of 1) The Soviet territories around the Black Sea and 2) The Soviet territories in the Far East. However, despite me positioning a sizable task force next to either the Russian provinces around the Back Sea or Russian Far East - the invade option is ALWAYS 'greyed out'. At first I thought that this was a bug, but now I am wondering if one is to launch an invasion of an enemy territory, one needs an uninterupted clear route, with no enemy ships in between, between my territory and the intended invasion destination. Thus allowing ones troop transports to be able to reach the invasion destination un molested. Is this the case? I appologise if this is an obvious question I should have been aware of, but I couldn't find any quidance or reference on this. I look forward to your comments. Kind regards...

Hi All, A small point, but one that I think would be good to add. I accidentally, scrapped some BBs by mistake (I meant to scrap older ones, but my finger slipped). As BBs take such a long time to build, I was rather gutted that this does not appear to be reversable. Is there any chance of adding a function that allows reversing. After all, in real life, if a ship was taken to the scrapped yard and the relevant admiralty decided to change their mind, it could be reversed and after a time, rebuilt. I'd appreciate any feed back.

Hi All and the Dev's, Firstly may I begin in making a big thankyou to the Dev's for their tireless improvements to the game. Many of the recent improvements have been great, especially the in-set map to enhance jumping directly to the desired location, rather than have to scroll around and often pressing to go east, only to bump into the barrier that exists in the central pacific. However, I have noticed something that has existed for a while, but is particularly happening to me in my current campaign. My Campaign I'm playing as Germany and at war with France. My aim is focused upon grabbing the French Indo-Chinese colonies from them, whilst keeping them at bay in Europe. My strategy I have arranged my navy into 5 fleets (2 in North Sea, 1 in Mediteranean, and 2 in Far East/Indo-Pacific region). Each fleet consists of circa 5 BB's, 1 fast-BC, 5 CA's, 5 CL's and 10 DD's, together with circa 150 Ocean Going 3 Submartines located at various 'on-route' chocke points like the red sea, around the Cape or Indonesia/Java Sea to catch French ships on-route to the far East waters. The far east Fleets are carrying out invasions of the various French colonies in Indo-China region. My two issues: 1) I have noticed that the AI rather than gather their ships into major fleets, and then send them to the far east and thus engage my fleets in substantive naval battles, tends to send small task forces of 1-3 ships at a time. 2) The upshot of this, is I never get major naval battle occuring. All I get is what I call as "chasing engagements". This is where I have to chase down one or two ships which appear and then run away from my 26+ strong fleets instantly. 3) At which case I have to send in my fast destroyers and the fast BC (40 knots plus) to chase them down and destroy them. This has now occured in now in my past 15 engagements! 4) Would it not be more logical, and more fun, for the AI to assemble a substanticve fleet in home waters and then send it to the far-east, rather than 'drip-feed' these few ships each time? 5) In addition, I have made sure that I have the best fleet money can buy, especially in my destroyers, which are 5,800+ tons. 6) However, when I lose these DDs in engagements after they have chased down a single BB, CA or CL with perhaps 2-3 DD's, because my DD's are of a high tonnage, they count substantially in the Victory points score. So if I lose 5 DD's out of 10, destroying a BB and 2 CA's for example, which in the real world, is still a resounding victory, my Victory Points score is multpiple times worse than my opponent. 7) Consequently, so far my VP score is 77,263 vs French at 118,317. Most of which is as a result of losing a number of expensive DD's, but despite me having sunk countless BB's, CA's etc. 😎 Thus if only I could face the French in substantive force, so that they would fight in a major engagement and not automatically run away, would I begin to see my superior fleet get the upper hand. 9) As it stands, I have yet to see my BB's fire a shot, as despite them all being 30 knotters, they are not fast enough to catch an enemy who constant runs-away! Perhaps something to ponder in the AI's 'logic-bank' and I'd appreciate your thoughts.

A couple of issues that has been bugging me for a while, which I would appreciate some feedback on and/or the devs have a look at. 1) During the campaign, and several battles into the war, naturally one's fleet becomes damaged and it is prudent to place the entire fleet into port to make repairs. In order to make sure no ships venure out against orders or my expressed permission, if possible, I place the entire fleet from 'Sea Patrol' to 'In being' in an attempt to stop any ships venturing to see, without the protection of the enire fleet. However, I have found that: a) This fails to stop the odd ship going to sea (and consequently against orders etc)' and getting involved in a sea action. b) When a ship is under reparir, it is NOT POSSIBLE to change the instruction from 'Sea Control' to 'In Being'. Hence as soon as the repair is completed, off they go again, all by themselves, to sea. Hence, it is tediously difficult to get the entire fleet up to 100% repair, BEFORE they venture out to sea. If this happened in real life during WW1, the Grand Fleet would have picked-off the German High Seas fleet one-by-one! I have entered a 'Bug Report' about this. 2) On another matter, I have also found that sometimes during a battle, if a ship is damaged (say to 20%+) one or more ships have an annyoing habit of of going around in circles in line-ahead formation, even though there is NO INDICATION or rudder damage. Despite clicking on the lead ship to get back in line and/or set them to go in one consistent direction, or changing the formation from line ahead parallel formation, they continue to circle each other. The only way about is to abort the battle and risk the consequences. Clicking the 'avoid' on or off has no impact on this issue. If anyone has any feedback or thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated.

Well to answer that particular question it happens when one is drawn into an invasion of of a minor power. I do tend to arrange my navy into several 'fleets' (or mega Task forces). On this latest occassion, playing as Germany, I began in 1890 and by the 1930s I had 6 fleets of circa 40-50 ships each. These were located across the world as fleets in strategic locations (Home Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Far East Fleet, African Fleet etc) as dictated by my Empire. Subject to my previous successes early in the campaign, my entire navy had grown to circa 300+ ships. Each 'fleet' consists of around 5 BBs, 8 CA's 14 CL's 22 DD's. The usual precursor to the 'mega-battle' is for when the game prompts a challenge from a minor power, you react positively and therefore have to arrange sufficient tonnage of ships to answer the invasion challenge, often in several task forces or fleets simaltaneously by positioning them in the 'invasion zone' (in my latest case, I was Germany invading Norway). After one turn, the minor power sends out it's entire fleet, which it seems to have accumilated since the start of the campaign and the mega battle commences! On these occassions, the minor power contains many obselete ships, as it does not appear to update their fleets as frequently as an active human player does, and they appear not to scrap obselete models often. Their fleets simply get bigger and bigger as the campaign progresses, especially if you begin the campaign in 1890. To handle such a battle, I tend to draw my fleets into several 'line ahead formations' with the DD's closest to the enemy as a screen and torpedo delivery line, followed by the CL's in the next line, the CA's in the 3rd line and the BB's in the final line (hopefully out of torpedo range). I tend not to use the builts in-game behaviours like 'screening my capital ships' but rather I tend to concentrate on keeping the lines intact and parallel to the enemy to deliver a broadside and adapt the speed to maintain the four line-ahead formations. In these bigger battles I simply let the AI choose the target and concentrate on keeping the 4 lines intact at the same cruising speed to optimise hit ratio's. These 'mega-battles' have happened to me previously on a number of occassions, for example when I was playing Japan and India got annoyed and I had to send my fleet into the invasion location to 'sort them out' and also the Ottomans got annoyed with the me as playing as the Italians. I tend to experience at least a couple across a single campaign. But this has been by far the biggest single fleet engagement that I have experienced! I do recall it happening to Brother Munro a couple of times and was featured in a number of his campaign video's on You Tube. It is not that I do not enjoy battles of this size, it is just I wished I had more control on my fleet, rather than battling the software to provide an sembalance of of control given the massive stuttering and slow frame rate. Because if I get it wrong and lose control, I'd risk losing a very substantial part of my global navy! I also notice that a few destroyers seem to race across the battle field out of control at 'warp speed' (I estimate at 400-500 knots) most likely when they are hit and fall out from the front of the line-ahead formation. But at least the main body of the fleet and the bigger ships behave, albeit in a very 'stuttering fashion'. I hope this helps.

Hi Everyone and Merry Christmas, This is a question for the Dev's and Community alike. I've just had a 'mega battle' with a minor power in the 1930s which pitted circa 100 of my ships against 100 of theirs and it goes without saying I had to be incredibly careful in managing my fleet with a MASSIVE drop in frame rate and the game severly stuttering until I managed to sink all the opposition. My question is about as to whether a faster GPU would have aleviated this massive slow down? Now it is not that I have a pedestrian rig (CPU= AMD Ryzen 9 3900x 12 core, GPU RTX 3080, 128GB of Ram, M.2 SSD) and I understand the game only utilizes only one core of the CPU, but I was wondering if I upgraded to an RTX 4080 would this alleviate such a potentially catastrophic slow down? If anyone has any views, answers etc, it would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Admirals, I've just popped out from a campaign to ask a question and/or make a suggestion for a minor improvement. For some time, it has bugged me that, without warning, whilst in a battle the angle of the camera view or say the "tilt" or the camera view changes so that no matter how high one goes, you loose sight of the enemy, even whilst their ships are in range. In Total War camera this is called the "tilt" so that alter the camera angle to see long distance etc. I cannot find this on the battle controls anywhere (unless I've missed it, if so please let me know). Is it possible, if this is missing, to add it on? As I'm sure you can appreciate, it does have a massive impact on ones ability to target whilst in battle, if one is deciding to aim at a specific target like a battleship on its last legs, in order to boost ones VP score. I'd appreciate some feedback if I've missed this command option, or a response from the devs, if this can be added. Below is the screen grab of the battle map commands I've found (together with my own custom key settings). Many thanks.

A cry for help!!! Further to my last post about the economy rebalance introduced recently, well it just does not work! Playing as Japan, as one can see from the attached, I have conquered or control 49 provinces, a large number of oil producing provinces, cut my reseach and recruitment to zero, made peace with Russia (finally after she collapsed) only have an active fleet of 21 ships and building as many ships as I can for minor nations to gain revenue, set my transport capacity at maximum to grow the economy and I still cannot make ends meet and about to go bankrupt the next turn! Is it me or am I missing something? The game was working and the economy was balanced until the recent changes and now appears impossible to play! It is ironic that with the new changes, I might enjoy the extended game to 1965, but on this evidence, I have no chance of making it out of the 1930s!

Hi Chap's Something else I have noticed with the latest update (and quite possibly those which came previously) is how FEW Victory Points are allocated to LAND CONQUEST. Now I appreciate that this is basically a Naval Wargame, however, it does strike me as 'odd' that despite massive land conquests, the VP is relatively low. Take this as an example, in the latest war, playing as Japan, I have conquered from Russia - Manchuria, Russia Far East, North Sakhalin, South Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Eastern Sirberia, Northern Russia and Mongolia! However, I have only managed to accumalate 7,910 victory points! I suspect the reason is that I have had few if any naval engagements (Russia has very few fleet assets, and those that they have are in the West). It strikes me that if Russia had sent a sizable fleet to the seas around Japan, or I had engaged what fleet they had when invading Northern Russia towards the west and sunk a few BB's etc, I would have been awared tens of thousands of Victory Points. Consequently, when Russia decides to sue for peace, I will only be granted a MINOR VICTORY, despite having conquered a vast land mass (albeit filled with wilderness) and reduced Russia to its European possessions west of the Urals! Indeed I would have continued my conquests but I ran out of areas of Russian that I could invade from the sea easily (indeed initiating land to land conquests would be a realistic addition). Perhaps, the dev's could also have a look at this. However, I still would like to thank you for a great game!

I tend to agree with this comment. Even playing as Japan, I am finding it very difficult, since the new economic changes, to maintain a fleet beyond 20-30 or so ships and often totally outclassed in terms of GDP and naval budget by the likes of even Spain or China, and have no chance of competing against GB, USA or France. Even though I have managed to conquer most of China, much of the Pacific Islands, Alaska, Panama and much of Central America, I am still struggling to substain a decent fleet, DESPITE all of these conquests and revenue from the new acquisitions. On another matter (and I know I have mentioned this previously, but will raise it again) it would be great if one could initiate action against a minor power, rather tha wait for it to happen. Beside these issues, in general I am enjoying the games development and 'hats off' to the developers whgo have provided hours of entertainment.

Dear All, Since my last posting, I have ran a number of campaigns and am currently engage as Germany starting in 1930. I am in full admiration for all of you who have tirelessly engaged in constructive feedback for the latest Beta 1.4 feedback, with lots of great comments and useful suggestions. I apologise if this suggestion may come rather late in the process, or has been mentioned already, but one aspect of the game that I feel would really add some 'spice' to the game, would the ability to declare war and initiate an invasion, upon a minor power. At the moment, one appears only to be able to initiate a war, (using increased tension option in the diplomatice screen, and/or place a large fleet off their coast) and then hope that the major power will get so annoyed, that they issue a diplomatic ultimatum message that ends up in a war. However, in my view it would be great if one could initiate a conflict with a minor power, expand ones empire with a number of similar conquests, and then face a major power accordingly. For example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declaring war on Serbia, which inturn resulted in WW1. Two decades later Germany initiating Anschluss as a covert invasion of Ausria, then Sudetenland, followed by the Czech Republic and then Poland, which of course resulted in Britain and France declaring war. Similar examples can be found with Japan and Korea in the late 1890-1900s etc. Whilst I appreciate that in UAD, one plays as 'head of the nation's admiralty', and not head of state, however, at the moment, it only appears that one has to jump into a major power conflict without consuming the minor powers first, which is not always the way that history works, unless I am missing something witihin the game mechanic? Now I appreciate that this might entail a substantial modification of the game engine, but it would be far more enjoyable, not to say realistic. I look forward to any comments, and once again, I am in full admiration for all of you who are making constructive suggestions in improving the game.

Oh I forgot to add, my game is saved on an NVMe SSD drive, so this should provide maximim speed to load and start a new campaign etc.

Dear All, As a newby, I've now played through a couple of campaigns. Initially, my campaigns started in 1890, but then I felt like trying a more recent campaign start date like 1930. Whilst a shorter campaign game, I would take advantage of newer tech from the beginning of the campaign. However, I have found that the loading a NEW campaign to start at this later date (as mentioned above 1930) takes considerably longer (half an hour plus in some circumstances). The countdown clock at the bottom right of the screen still starts in 1880 or so and counts through the years until it reaches 1930, which does take considerable time. Now it is not that I have a slow PC (CPU - AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 core, Asus Crosshair Hero VIII motherboard, 128gb RAM DDR4 3000mhz, NVidia RTX 3080 GPU) so can someone kindly explain why iy is slower to commence the later start date campaigns? I would have thought that the tech and hull designs required for later start dates would have been pre-loaded in the game software? I apologies if this topic has already been covered in a previous post, but I'd appreciate some kind feedback from the community or the developers. Kind regards