GrantK

So my latest campaign I decided to pretend it matters how you treat minor allies. I decided to try and support if they are being attacked. And build all ships as asked even suspending own ships to keep shipyard capacity OK. And also make sure latest refit ships are in shipyard as copied refit builds and delete all out of date ships. Nothing but the finest for allies of Japan! And in battle with allies use their ships with care and handle them well. They will be hampered likely by poor tech, so the Japanese fleet will treat them carefully and use them where possible. By chance or what have you, I ended up with 11 minor allies. Then in 1953 I conformed with the wishes of the Diet and Emperor, and in the tradition of the Japanese, unleashed a surprise attack on the all powerful (by GDP, also close to 300 ships) Americans (just modded the file and set tension to -98). So the minor allies of Mexico and Brazil both left. I happened to notice Chile being attacked and promptly rounded the horn with a fleet and destroyed the American ships off the coast of Chile. The American attack was unsuccessful. Also I noticed the attack on Brazil and took the US territories adjacent. However when complete they were no longer my allies. The US took northern Columbia when I was not aware, I took this territory back however there is no mechanism to 'return it' to the Columbians. Details..... like it seems my minor allies will come under attack with the major power I am at war with? The point: It seems possible there is some subtlety in the relations with minor allies. I am not sure I wish to know exactly how it works (thats why I play the game) but I would like to know if it is moderately complex? I note the allies I lost were either for sure attacked by the US or possibly (Mexico). Is it just bone simple, and I am imagining things, or have others noticed 'trends' in gaining and losing these minor allies? And I would like to be able to return their territories.

I found if you have an ongoing invasion there ill be no peace.

I am being a bit repetitious here. Fleet tactics involve going from line ahead to to line abreast, and back again, via 'altogether' simultaneous turns. Like Fighting Steel lo these many years ago. And real life. It is just SO clumsy to have to take for eg a DD division in line ahead, remove all ships from the division, turn them one by one manually toward the enemy, charge in, then launch and retreat. I have tried reassembling the division right as you get them all more or less in line just after retreating but chaos is the usual outcome. Just a micromanage mess. So you end up with this bizarre DD attack where they all 'round the corner', in line, and launch one after another or at weird timings based on when they get a solution because to turn them altogether means dissolving the division, so you just do what 'the line' allows you. Lots and lots of situations where to turn on 'line of bearing' (is the term I believe) is used IRL but in game is not available. Its fleet maneuvers 101 I think. Is there any support for this? Is it within reach of the remaining developer crew? Its not like asking for multiplayer.....

Along with other folk I have been pondering why the AI is pretty easy to beat in battle. Even when their tech is good and equal, and ship designs are fair to good. Someone else suggested that it was due to the constant target switching. Related to this is the (seems outrageous) benefit to 'finding the range'. Suggest tuning the AI target switching loop, and ensuring rationale target selection. An AI BB need not waste its shells on a dodging human destroyer line, that is what the AI light ships are for. And the AI should hang on to a target quite a lot more. Also the 'range found' bonus could be tuned down a fair bit. To be at 34K with a 50% hit rate is pretty outrageous, not conducive to an immersive experience. In a fair game with pretty equal tech and fair ship designs all around, it should just not be possible to sink the entire enemy fleet with zero losses. Or to run a campaign and end up with say 14 total ship losses over 50 years. It would be a shock to fight AI where you just cant get a complete victory, where the odds of hits and so on balance between sides. I admit, I am used to winning by absurd margins all the time. But I could get used to ship losses on an expected regular basis.

Yes they were heavy. Their main belts were nearly submerged for their service life, that was not intended. And the extra weight is what I have read was the cause of not making the 25 knots expected. However I meant something a little different. Nagato as built was 38000 tons full load. 215 m length overall, 29 m beam. 9.1 draught 80000 hp for 26.5 knots Length to beam is 7.4 Warspite as built - 32000 full load. 197 length overall, 27.6 beam, 8.8 draught. 75000 hp for 23.5 knots (or 24 arguably) Length to beam is 7.1. Just the other day I ran into the scharnhorst speed curve, which had a remarkably steady 4 knot increment for each doubling of horsepower between 10 and 30 knots. Ballpark lets use it. You can see even without calculating anything something is a little off. We have a 5% improvement in length to beam. And we have a longer waterline length. Still. We gain 3 knots plus minus for only 5000 hp on a significantly bigger hull. 3 knots more, given 4 knots costing double the horsepower, is somewhere like 75% percent extra power needed, you would think. We got improvements in basic length and beam, so not 75 of course, the Warspite would have a steeper speed curve. But the 3 extra knots needed only 8% more power, not the 30-50 I would have guessed. Lots of assumptions. But somewhere thereabouts? And i didnt check the primary source on Scharnhorst speed curve. Perhaps the Nagato was unusually efficient. Maybe Im not giving due weight to waterline length, and too much to displacement. However Revenge as built did 22 knots on a 7.03 length to beam, 31000 tons, and a 190 waterline length with 40000 hp. So the QEs have to nearly double the horsepower to gain 1.5 or perhaps two knots with mildly better hull parameters (waterline length and length to beam) and a little extra weight, maybe 2k tons or so. And interestingly, the Nagato has exactly double the power of the Revenge and gains 4.5 knots for that doubling, which is vaguely in line with the Scharnhorst speed curve (4 knots for every doubling). It SEEMS as if the Revenge and the Nagato prove ‘the rule’ and the QEs are a bit of an outlier? On the same ratio as Revenge and Nagato they should have made say 25.5? Even overweight. So what I meant was that something in the hull design was bungled, not that they were overweight. You know, like when for a hull and a speed, the bow waves 'frequency' (distance between those angled spreading waves all hulls show with speed) becomes equal to hull length. I read that when that happens, drag goes up sharply and makes further speed practically impossible. Maybe there was something along those lines for the QEs, an error leading to extra drag than expected, given waterline length, displacement, and length to beam ratio, where they should have made 25 knots? Maybe not. Its complex. I did read that it was hoped they would make 26 knots at 30k tons, and that leading up to the first speed trials folks were still hopeful, that the 25 knots had been 'underplayed' and proponents of the fast battleship squadron were hoping they would be equal to the 'conservative' design speed even with the extra weight. They were disappointed. Still, given all, I tend to the view that they were on the draggy side given their hp, WL length, and length to beam. It seems they should have done a little better than it turned out. Also, I just read (in an old thread, but referenced) that it was Valiant as was power limited at Jutland, she only made 23 knots in the run to the north? And got passed by perhaps it was Malaya. I borrowed from a library Roskill's book on the Warspite (years ago), going from memory the speed trials after commissioning were 24.2, and 23.7 after the refit. And when her and was it the Queen Elizabeth? ran to bombard in '43 she held 23.8 knots for 2 hours. 23.5 operational top end seems fair.

Yah agreed. I think the game developers could get traction with more folk if they enabled sliders for accuracy, armor weight and other important stuff to let folk fine tune their gaming experience. Full real so to speak would be a nice option to try out. Its too easy to build a ship without significant compromise, give the hardcore crowd a tough option. And too easy to beat the AI in battle. However we have what we have. Kiev is not the most stable place these days, Im not hoping for very much really.

I agree. I too have commented that gunnery accuracy is very much too high. I guess as a game and secondarily a simulator, people need hits or they dont come back. Who wants to maneuver at range for 2 literal hours and get like 20 hits between 2 fleets? So the gamemakers did the thing. I thought and mentioned that a workaround would be to tone down that 'range found' thing to something much less. Keep it, but really 80% hit chances with fast firing CLs just tears the AI up. And again, the AI never steadies long enough to get there it seems. So the human reaps the benefit.

Yes it is hull dependent. The example assumes the hull does not change. Just shows that when the hull is held steady what hp is needed. The SoDak to Iowa example is how you do it RL. You increase the waterline length, on purpose, you add more motor (as is required), you change hull resistance and power iteratively. So if they slimmed Scharnhorst down and lengthened it, you could have situation where for a given displacement you wouldn't need double the power to increment 4 knots, you need double the power to increment say 5 knots. Its still a pretty steep curve even as you work with the basics of hull design, in this case most important are waterline length and length to beam. And that only gets you so far. Reducing beam has major implications on all sorts of things, roll, final stability, turn rate, resistance to flooding after battle damage, steadiness as a gunnery platform. As the speed reaches higher and higher into the doubling of HP every 4, or maybe at best 6 knots, the tradeoffs become too severe, and the designers just dont do it. So maybe a skinny mildly unstable Scharnhorst with hull optimized for speed might get 5 knots for every doubling of hp instead. So 35 knots, already v fast, doubles again to get to 40. I think engines are in with a shout on something like 25% of displacement typical BB? Maybe its not that high, but still to double engine weight and volume is just an enormous tradeoff?

Something not possible with a hit percent chance approach but would be very immersive would be to have the AI shell splashes reflect an actual targeting error. They keep shooting ahead, they have your speed estimated too high. Wreck their adjustment by what? increasing speed? Same with shorts vs overs. But I think not possible. If they hit or dont hit IS NOT based on a process based thing where the AI struggles to achieve a firing solution based on speed and azimuth. So the developers could never have shell splashes conform with reality. But did they not say something happened in that regard? What you COULD do is say if the enemy hit probability is increasing the shell splashes are tighter to the target. That might be doable? They did SOMETHING on that, I should look. It would be nice to see the brackets getting tight and be able to assume they are 'getting on target'. Or maybe it is best not to know, play a lot, and see if you gain an impression of how it works, if it works? Keep mystery and to some extent immersion alive? So many approaches to this game.......

I THINK I read that once the shell is in the air its hit probability is fixed, so agree. However if you maneuver a lot when they fire they will already be losing the 'enemy ship maneuvering' at the point of firing. I dont dodge salvoes but if I notice I may be sure I am turning hard when they fire. Also I break divisions and smoke ships the AI seems to have a bead on. And have divisions weaving in and out of threat range, that will get them switching. Maybe its just more meta chasing on my part. I dunno. But a real life captain of a DD seeing shell splashes inching closer would likely start throwing his ship around and chasing salvoes? More steadiness on targeting by the AI would I agree go a long way to fixing the disparity in battle management. I too ponder how the AI might fight more effectively, and wish for it.

I should have checked the math duh. You go from 30 to 34 and thats double 160 for 320k hp. Now we go double again to get to a simpler number, 38 knots, so that is 640k hp. Now THAT is one stout power plant. Its a powerplant potentially 4 times as heavy and 4 times as bulky. There is no weight or room left for armor or guns, or much less anyways. We re going to need waterline length, displacement and reduced beam to make it.

Scharnhorst speed curve does exist. To make 37 knots would need 400k hp. So 6 knots between 31 and 37 for a 2.5 times of hp To gain that without radically different engine tech implies say doubling+ of engine weight. If the displacement doesn't go up (its the same hull we are driving to greater speeds) then armor and guns are falling away as we double and more the engine size and weight. Who knows exactly, it is data from a text on German BBs. It is some general idea however, and in the background it is based on the direct empirical measurement that every 4 knots extra speed for the scharnhorst requires you double the horsepower, from 10 to 14, 14 to 18 etc to 26 to 30. Just keep going at double the horsepower for every 4 knots and you get 400k for 37 knots. She did 30 knots on a 160k. I didn't check the math. And it leaves out some other exponential factors related to hull drag which would not have been seen below 30 knots. So perhaps even conservative. Engines are heavy. You take your engines and say times 2.5 on weight and that may be half your armor, half your gun weight. And extra hull volume needed. Compromises, compromises. Iowas used some of the extra displacement for waterline length. And obviously to support the heavier engine plant. So its not like making a SoDak hull go 33 knots. Its taking the SoDak armor and armament and adding 5.5 knots to 'the package'. 40 knots is fast if you need guns and armor too. IRL.

So the SoDaks made 27.5 knots on 45k and 130k hp. To get this armor and armament up to 33 knots for a 5.5 knot improvement needed 210 hp, and a displacement increase of 11k tons. Roughly. So increase hp 70% and displacement up 25%. It all goes up together for the speed, displacement and hp, to keep the same offense and defensive capability. Now the range of 27 to 33 knots is up that exponential curve, but still much less than the higher speed ranges. To get an Iowa to 40 knots would need dilithium reactors on the same weight, or something. Not turbines and oil fired boilers, even with improvements there is a limit, weight of engine and the requirement for waterline length just cant be developed away. Well it can in this game, thats fine. Ships have a power against speed curve which they work out after launch and hope they get right before. An Iowa speed curve may exist, you could roughly extrapolate the needed hp to get that hull and that displacement up to 40 knots. I dunno, 400k+ hp? Dilithium reactors. Anyways, its just a game, isn't that it really? I find that I approach it differently than most folks, long term enjoyment requires immersion, my immersion hinges in considerable part on the extent to which it is a simulator (which it is, somewhat). Where it deviates I dont like going there, I dont like chasing meta to win and then what? We all use 12.9 guns and 2.9s and gotta be picric acid and incendiary HE. OK we squashed the AI, now what? My view. And DEFINITELY not assigning anything to you, just a general observation.

You know, if an Iowa ever hit 35.2 knots under battle load conditions I would be very surprised. I cant recollect the details, but some folk with decent credentials engaged in a long and highly technical and data based discussion of Iowa top speed, the thread went 30 pages or somesuch single spaced with say 50+ links to sources. My honest conclusion having read that and other material over the years, here and there, is that the Iowas had an effective top speed of about 33 knots and given they were rather poor seaboats 32 operationally. The Iowa WAS a bit of a speedboat. The bosses realized they had no BBs capable of keeping up with the carriers and so optimized to get the speed needed. Deck armor was good, however belt armor was both somewhat low quality (it can be argued) and only 12 inch, so while angled has similar side armor to the Hood (also angled). But yes it was a BB, perhaps the best balanced overall BB ever made, particularly given the wonderful main armament and reliable long ranged super efficient powerplant. Compare the South Dakotas to the Iowas, instead of vanguard against Iowa. The Iowas were armed and armored very similarily to the SoDaks, and so the differences are what are required to add 5 knots between 28 to 33. Which with that exponential thing is not at all like going from 35 to 40. The displacement increase is almost all to gain speed and waterline length. When you said somewhere that you can add engine weight with less penalty on a ship than a car or airplane, maybe so. But you pay a substantial weight penalty nonetheless. A battleship builders dictum might be that there is only so much weight available. You have to apportion that weight out between armor guns and engines. If you want to keep guns and armor the same you are going to need a lot of extra displacement (weight) to gain the speed. And the higher the speed range you are adding increments to, the relatively more displacement or weight you will need. So the power to weight and volume required for the engines becomes key, and fairly hard limits even with nuclear power start to approach due to the exponential increase in needed power as you get over 30 knots. Hey my 44 knotter with its raft of 20 24 inch tubes and 15 long ranged rapid firing incendiary 5 inchers, hitting consistently at well over 15 k, thats not a real thing either.

Ive not seen non dodging from AI ever, in my recollection? Only and specifically under cross torps executed so the torps are arriving at similar times. Maybe the AI has been changed? AI has always been clever at avoid torps, and the game does not allow shooting your torps where you want. Why having torp launchers that fire in sequence is handy, the first lot goes off, the target starts maneuvering, the other tubes go off on the new aiming point. If the range is close and you get a heavy swinging in one direction they just cant change direction in time, same with cross torps.