CharlieChap

Campaign Feedback:- I don't still have the NAR campaign that I started using the new NAR economy setting. However here are a few details from a stock beta campaign using many of your parameters. ( governmentMod, Increased Dock costs, reduced Naval war budget (1.5) although not your increased upkeep values. ). I think the data is still relevant. Spring 1890 start to 1907 , Legendary (using a complete set of 'historical' shared designs for all nations at start. More later) Spain Navy:- 4BB (2 very old, all pre-dreads). 6CA, 12 CL, 19 DD, 17TB. (120000 Tons total), Current Naval Budget 890 million. Tech level is very behind. My CL's are still from 1890 and I have to set fleet to limited or defend except in specific regions of expected conflict and be very careful. May be able to build an Espana type BB if I am very careful in the next few years. This is good, its pretty close to historical isn't it. Austria Hungary has 11BB, 25 CA, 8CL, 5DD & 6 TB's (28000 Tons total). Current Naval Budget 4.9 Billion. Technology level is average. UK has 14BB, 18CA, 21 CL's,39DD, 24 TB (690000 Tons total). Current Naval Budget 10 Billion. Technology level is Very advanced. No Nations have collapsed or dissolved although Russia has had its revolution (as it always seems to a few years after whatever campaign start date.) Shared Designs. I know that you said that its too early because of probable major changes but I find it really difficult not to use them because the ai designs can be so hit or miss. Here are 400ish shared designs of ships upto around 1915. These should generate completely shared design fleets for 1900 or 1910 starts. (there is some randomization because of randomized start techs but you should get about 95% shared, its the DD's and TB's shared designs that are more hit & miss. I will do a complete 1890 (its nearly there now) start but they only just got that working in official beta so its not relevant yet anyhow. These are all based on historical ships and are not necessarily good designs. Firstly I tried to make them look roughly correct, then I used data for guns, speed, armour thicknesses, range. There are a few hyptheticals too (denoted by (cc), eg if I did not create US or Spanish BC's for a 1910 start the ai would just create something instead so it was better to include a what if that is similar to something actual. Anyhow hope these are interesting or useful for people. https://ufile.io/qen2s887 Note about shared Designs in the campaign currently:- The problem is that after a few years the ai upgrades these ships and so when you encounter them you often find that your lovely historical BB now has 3 4" inch guns in ln place of its forward 12" gun... no deck armour or belt and 18" on the stern Belt. Upgraded shared designs may actually be even worse than stock autogenerated ships as a result. It would be really good if the ai did not upgrade shared designs really or had a different logic. I have been experimenting with the following settings in Params to try and limit the amount of replacement parts in ai refits (I don't know if there is anything that can be done to prevent armour redistribution ?):- ai_refit_base,0.3,"Choose whether to create an updated design based on existing designs, or create a new one and build.",,,,,,, ai_refit_simple,0.9,Сhoice between updating only technical characteristics of the ship and replacing parts.,,,,,,, Long post, hope its either interesting or useful.

Its like pulling teeth isn't it Lucky. Fortunately its very easy to change:- Find the section in Params-resources headed #,,Constructor Stability,,,,,,, (about line 746) Cut & paste all 15 following lines from NAR and copy them over the stock values. This should give you a maximum inbalance longitudinaly of 3%. Its a lot better anyhow. (note:- the offset mechanic is a terrible mechanic isn't it. It makes many historical designs totally untenable plus the AI completely ignores it so that many ai ships are completely useless.)

Have been trying out your BETA v5.0.4 N.A.R. o Barao Really good. This is completely circumstantial and I suspect that there may never be perfect settings because each nation plays differently, and also, each one of us also has different expectations of what level of difficulty is historical or even 'difficult'. Played through about 15 years of NAR as Spain from 1900 on Legendary difficulty. (and also about 15 year of the new beta but using your GovernmentMod settings and relevent param edits for increased port expansion costs ( this is great edit, hopefully it slows down ai port expansion a little also ?). It Rocks. All nations navies are smaller but seem better proportioned and balanced. Have so little money can only build a few ships as Spain and have to sell ships to allies and be really economical with the fleet. Wars have been much smaller ( 2 vs US) and the small encounters really have a lot more meaning to them. Will try another nation or two but think you are definitely doing a lot right with these changes. p.s thanks for everything you have done, really enjoy your work.

Just bought the game and like some aspects. Very clear and crisp order system with the arrows and nice graphics for the Unity engine. Its got a lot of potential to be a fast fun playing strategic overview game of Gettysburg. Possibly even a game that one could play against non-wargamers. There is of course another game that covers this battle. Scourge of war: Gettysburg. That covers this is tremendous detail, has a very complicated supply system and the most complex command & FOW system of any PC game I have ever encountered, and is way beyond mainstream in complexity (they use it as a training aid at WestPoint). Its a good 'game' for those that want tactical detail and realism. But its complexity means that it is barely a 'game' but more of a history lesson.... Engagements can take 10-20 minutes of musketry exchanges between regiments for results and to play the entire battle would probably take about 3 days !. Perfect General can be a lot more fun at the fast paced Strategic level that it appears to aim for. Giving a very good overview of the whole battle (which is not realistic ....confusion and Fog Of War meant that the Commanders had far less idea of what was going on, ( search for and look at the vagueness of Lee's orders for an idea .) but it makes for a fun 'game'. I don't think this is negative, different games about similar subjects are good but they should not try to do the same thing, if people want ultra detail and realism, they should look at the above title, it does what it does well, to try to make Perfect general:Gettysburg do what SOW:Gettysburg already does would really detract from Perfect general, which has a lot that is good about it. Squishband's post is a good one. Perfect General:Gettysburg with the Unity engine has the potentail to be a very good game, but the limitation of the Unity engine mean that too much attempt to go into detail and make it a 'simulation' would wreck it.