Campaign Nation Passives: What do you think they'll be?

[KiltedKey]

My knowledge of this era, despite loving battleships so much, isn't as great as it should be when it comes to naval innovation. I remember reading - correct me if I'm wrong, someone! - that each nation will have small passives to help make their ships slightly more unique, in addition to starting technologies and such. Considering I'm a newbie in this manner, I'd love to know what you all think they will be?

My thoughts are that as long as they aren't game breaking balances - of course - but flavorful enough to tip the scales slightly toward that nations historical fighting style, that would be great. I'd also totally be down for them having negative passives as well to show weak areas. Again, any opinion I'm giving is coming from a perspective of someone who is only a generalist in this area, so please correct me!

[Nereng]

It can be things like easy access to critical resources, such as oil, nikkel or chrome. Or it can be a technological edge, like making better steel or optical instruments. Or it can be things like naval traditions or a large merchant navy or a large ship building industry or arms industry.

 

[Ishtar]

Whatever they are, imo they shouldn't be permanent and be affected by your decisions or random chance throughout the game. Passives to research for example should be flexible by mid and late game to reflect the experiences of the nation and the desires of the admiral, ie make more torpedo runs and get better torpedo technology. 

[HusariuS]

I hope every nations will have both good and bad passives.

For example:

Japan: Inspiring Naval Power - +5% to crew exp gained / Lack of Resources - Increased building time and cost of ships.

And of course you can get rid of them by gaining new territory, increased number of ships, better experienced crews etc.

[SiWi]

I think for Japan we look at torpedo bonus, they were quite found of them.

For germany, maybe an armor bonus, Krupp is german after all, and/or perhaps a bonus submarine development

UK? Navy traditions could mean you have better starting crews, cheaper upkeep or better captains ect.

Russia: your ships spot Torpedoboots even if there aren't any. 

 

I'm sure others can think some for USA; Spain, China ect.

 

[Tankaxe]

USA would be unique as well

Industry leader: the nations economic capacity grows at a faster rate than other countries. +%5 shipbuilding, constant economic growth. +%5 research bonus

And for the negatives

Money pinching government: The government is very reluctant in giving the Navy funding  and prefer to keep it low for other programs. -%15 less funding than normal at low tension (will go away or be reduced when tensions become higher).

Perhaps the negatives can be overcome by going to war multiple times and have an event where Congress recognizes the importance of a navy and removes the money pinching malus.

[Angus MacDuff]

13 minutes ago, SiWi said:

I'm sure others can think some for USA; Spain, China ect.

Countries who had...uninspiring navies, such as Spain and China should not receive bonuses and perhaps should have a permanent negative aspect.  USA could easily have a building bonus.

[SiWi]

3 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Countries who had...uninspiring navies, such as Spain and China should not receive bonuses and perhaps should have a permanent negative aspect.  USA could easily have a building bonus.

I find this a bit harsh to be honest...

yes these countries didn't have a inspiring navy history (in the timeframe) but they might could have had it!

For china maybe the option to buy ships from other nations? historcial be done by all, but perhaps here a unique mechanic for them?

Spain: "spirit of the grand Amarda" bonus for large ship formations?

 

[Tankaxe]

I think it's important to remember that UA:D is already running a bit of alternate history. For an example "what if China was a competent naval power?" That's even stated in the main website

Obviously this wasn't the case IRL the government was too corrupt and incompetent to wield a navy. But in this game is different enough that Spain and China wielding competent Navies isn't such a hard thing to believe.

It seems in UA:D timeline the Spanish and the Chinese were able to be relatively put together with enough competence to wield a navy.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Tankaxe

[Tycondero]

Im against all hardcoded/permanent bonuses and penalties. We should maybe start with some for each country, but also be able to steer every country to adopt an edge in other areas of research/ship designer features if we want to.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Tycondero

[Suztown]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

Russia: your ships spot Torpedoboots even if there aren't any

"Having friendly cargo/supply ships sink within 20nm increases crew morale"

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, SiWi said:

 

Russia: All your ships are better than everyone elses and shells are guided by the hand of stalin himself.

 

 

 

FTFY. 🤪

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

FTFY. 🤪

sorry but "hand of stalin" won't be viable till the 30s.

[disc]

How can national passives go well, I wonder? I think they will only reinforce strange biases and misperceptions.

What do we do about China? In First Sino-Japanese War, they had four basically independent, separate navies. The satraps were infighting and half the nation's armies and ships just didn't show up to fight Japan. After that, they lose the greater part of their naval power; then the country falls into chaos; then the navy recovers slightly in the warlord era; finally Japan shows up again and ruins everything. Hardly a constant picture, so how can we assign constant bonuses and penalties?

Likewise Russia's navy, which radically changed in character between the Russo-Japanese War, WWI, and WWII.

I think passives tied to governments, policies, or alliances makes more sense.

 

 

[Fishyfish]

I think this will depend on two different but important factors. The first and primary being the different campaign start dates, and the second being the nations base difficulty. I can imagine that each nations buffs and debuffs will change depending on when you start playing in order to reflect the historical conditions effecting that nation's navy up until that point in time. Some nations shouldn't even be available to play after a certain time, Austria Hungry for example shouldn't be a chooseable nation for starting a 1930s campaign. 

In 1890 Great Britain should be the easiest nation to play, with the largest naval budget available of any nation. By 1930 Great Britain should be a mid tier difficult nation to play, suffering naval cuts from post WWI treaties. Japan should be a more difficult nation to play in 1890, with limited domestic ship building capabilities but perhaps an easier time buying ships from the British, but should be an easy nation to play by 1930, with good torpedo tech and long range cruising capabilities. The German navy should have mild difficulty in 1890, Germany is a relatively new country but has a new Kaiser with big naval ambitions and perhaps should be able to rapidly expand with hopes of swatting the british out of their place in the sun, Germany should be very hard to play in 1930 reflecting the crippling affects of the Versailles treaty and might not even be able to build battleships at campaign start. Both China and Austria Hungray shouldn't be playable after the 1920s unless you, the player have changed history so much in an earlier campaign start that you're still playing in the 1930s. China should be the hardest nation to play, period, with major corruption effecting their naval cohesion and quality in 1890 untill you the player clear all that out. Further, will Russia change to the Soviet Union and be plagued by leadership and scientist purges from 1920 onward resulting in slower technical progress or decreased leadership capabilities. You're playing and when suddenly you lose because you get arrested by the KGB and purged because you had commanded the Tsars fleets and thus are a white Russian sympathizer. 

 

Anyways, there's a lot of factors to consider, and I'd be disappointed if every nation had the same capabilities and difficulty, but simply different flags and starting ports. 

[Hellstrike]

I don't think that nation passives will be static. Dynamic modifiers (lack of heavy industry -> ongoing industrialisation -> industrialised nation) would be a way to get rid off of a starting malus depending on the player's choices.

For example, if you pick Austria Hungary, you get the choice between an increased budget early on or investing more into infrastructure and therefore getting removing your penality faster. But if you pick the funds, you might be able to defeat Italy in the 1890s and gain a good chunk of land, which increases the industrial capability of your nation. Or you fall behind the curve if your daring plan fails. For Germany, it would be interesting if you could get an "alliance with shade", and then steer the world into alternate history (eg France, Russia, Austria and the US banding together against you). Because that could have implications as well (eg budget cuts for the navy because suddenly, a three front land war is a real danger while the UK takes care of naval matters). But the two biggest industries working together would give you a bonus on research instead, or a cost reduction.

Or alliances with Britain could give a minor power (eg Spain or China) a huge boost to research and quickly remove your starting penalty.

[Cptbarney]

My take will be like this.

1890 - Passive Perks and Traits.

Britain: Glory of the empire - Bonus to invasion success by 10%, Bonus to crew stats by 10%, Bonus to fleet budget by 15%, Reduction in maintenance by 5%.

Germany: Rise of the empire - Bonus to supplies and resources by 15%, Bonus to crew morale by 10%, Bonus to quality by 10%, Bonus to research and random discoveries 10%.

Italy: Dream of an empire - Bonus to crew morale by 15%, Bonus to resources and supplies by 10%, Bonus to random discoveries 10%, Bonus to Diplomacy and treaties 10% (so the ability to ignore them or turn them into your favour).

France: The old Empire - Bonus to Experience 15%, Bonus to invasion success by 15%, Bonus to Fleet finances 10%, Bonus to research 15%.

US: The new empire - Bonus to ship building and costs 15% (so decreases both meaning cheaper ships and built quicker), Bonus to supplies and resources 20%, Bonus to defence of territories 15%, Bonus to fleet budget 15%.

Idk these are just examples not too be taken massively in anyway its more of a template kind of thing, these passive bonus could remain all game or if several, a few or just one major/minor event/s occur then some of these bonus could skyrocket to like 30% or plummet down or be removed entirely or changed entirely.

should make the game more dynamic, replayable and unpredictable as well.

[Hellstrike]

On 11/23/2019 at 2:21 PM, Cptbarney said:

My take will be like this.

1890 - Passive Perks and Traits.

Britain: Glory of the empire - Bonus to invasion success by 10%, Bonus to crew stats by 10%, Bonus to fleet budget by 15%, Reduction in maintenance by 5%.

Germany: Rise of the empire - Bonus to supplies and resources by 15%, Bonus to crew morale by 10%, Bonus to quality by 10%, Bonus to research and random discoveries 10%.

Italy: Dream of an empire - Bonus to crew morale by 15%, Bonus to resources and supplies by 10%, Bonus to random discoveries 10%, Bonus to Diplomacy and treaties 10% (so the ability to ignore them or turn them into your favour).

France: The old Empire - Bonus to Experience 15%, Bonus to invasion success by 15%, Bonus to Fleet finances 10%, Bonus to research 15%.

US: The new empire - Bonus to ship building and costs 15% (so decreases both meaning cheaper ships and built quicker), Bonus to supplies and resources 20%, Bonus to defence of territories 15%, Bonus to fleet budget 15%.

Idk these are just examples not too be taken massively in anyway its more of a template kind of thing, these passive bonus could remain all game or if several, a few or just one major/minor event/s occur then some of these bonus could skyrocket to like 30% or plummet down or be removed entirely or changed entirely.

should make the game more dynamic, replayable and unpredictable as well.

I think that your vision is way too positive. The US should have a big budget penalty unless at war, Italy and Germany had not yet established proper naval industry and traditions and so on. Also, invasion success for Britain is questionable since they had a very small, even if highly professional army which would be massively outnumbered by any continental force. Although how exactly that would factor in depends on how land warfare is simulated (eg just manpower and supply depleting somewhat dependent on your naval performance or if there's more to it).

[Cptbarney]

8 minutes ago, Hellstrike said:

I think that your vision is way too positive. The US should have a big budget penalty unless at war, Italy and Germany had not yet established proper naval industry and traditions and so on. Also, invasion success for Britain is questionable since they had a very small, even if highly professional army which would be massively outnumbered by any continental force. Although how exactly that would factor in depends on how land warfare is simulated (eg just manpower and supply depleting somewhat dependent on your naval performance or if there's more to it).

I never mentioned anything about penalties, just bonus's also it helps to note that this is nothing more than an idea.

Missed opportunity to combine my post with any penalties that you may of had for each nation.

Oh well. I think they are ok for a starting to base bonuses off in general, penalties ill leave that to someone else.

EDIT: Expanded on points and some minor grammar fixing.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Cptbarney

[Zuikaku]

Netherland and Portugal shoul'd be in the game also. This is the time of colonialism. navies were there to protect the colonies and trade routes. Dutch and Portugese had many colonies at the time so they shoul'd be included. Turkey also with the hold on oil rich areas.

[Fishyfish]

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

Netherland and Portugal shoul'd be in the game also. This is the time of colonialism. navies were there to protect the colonies and trade routes. Dutch and Portugese had many colonies at the time so they shoul'd be included. Turkey also with the hold on oil rich areas.

The Netherlands and Portugal are minors on the world scene and despite having colonies to protect they both had navies so small as to fit in my bathtub. The largest Dutch "battleship" weighed a little more than 6000 tons and had 2 9 inch guns. During the scope of the game the Portuguese had a few destroyers and mine layers. As for the ottomans, wwweeeellll. I'd love them personally but I also can't endorse them being in the game. The ottoman empire ceases to exist by 1922. Their navy was a rusting, derelict, antiqued joke from the middle of the 19th century through WWI (With the exception of the German battlecruiser Gaben). Their only domestically built pre dreadnought was laid down in 1892, and never finished. Their only battleships to ever serve with them were the 2 german Brandenburg class pre dreadnoughts that they bought second hand. Heck, during WW1 they still had the center battery ironclad Mesudiye from the 1870s in service, only to have it torpedoed in 1914. I'm sorry lad, but none of these are reasonable navies. Don't get me wrong, there's a special place in my heart for the Ottoman Navy especially but mostly because of how comically backwards it was. 

[Zuikaku]

We shoul'd be able to at least take their overseas then.

[SiWi]

2 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

The Netherlands and Portugal are minors on the world scene and despite having colonies to protect they both had navies so small as to fit in my bathtub. The largest Dutch "battleship" weighed a little more than 6000 tons and had 2 9 inch guns. During the scope of the game the Portuguese had a few destroyers and mine layers. As for the ottomans, wwweeeellll. I'd love them personally but I also can't endorse them being in the game. The ottoman empire ceases to exist by 1922. Their navy was a rusting, derelict, antiqued joke from the middle of the 19th century through WWI (With the exception of the German battlecruiser Gaben). Their only domestically built pre dreadnought was laid down in 1892, and never finished. Their only battleships to ever serve with them were the 2 german Brandenburg class pre dreadnoughts that they bought second hand. Heck, during WW1 they still had the center battery ironclad Mesudiye from the 1870s in service, only to have it torpedoed in 1914. I'm sorry lad, but none of these are reasonable navies. Don't get me wrong, there's a special place in my heart for the Ottoman Navy especially but mostly because of how comically backwards it was. 

personal I think the bigger problem is the question if it is reasonable to assume that a good navy alone would prevent them of losing a war with lets say germany.

otherwise we either need a "free navies" mechanic or you would have to accept that you lose the game even if you do amazing good.

Your other criticisms I think could be applied to china at least.

 

 

Thou I do suspect that maybe we will see one day an expansion or DLC or contend update with the south american navies since they had a an arms race, where sometimes quite good and are interesting "what ifs".

[Fishyfish]

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

We shoul'd be able to at least take their overseas then.

From what I understand, we as the player don't get to make those decisions. If our AI government boss yanks our leash and says "Head of the Admiralty go do the thing or we cut your budget" then, sure we get to go take them. If they don't.. 

 

20 minutes ago, SiWi said:

personal I think the bigger problem is the question if it is reasonable to assume that a good navy alone would prevent them of losing a war with lets say germany.

otherwise we either need a "free navies" mechanic or you would have to accept that you lose the game even if you do amazing good.

Your other criticisms I think could be applied to china at least.

 

 

Thou I do suspect that maybe we will see one day an expansion or DLC or contend update with the south american navies since they had a an arms race, where sometimes quite good and are interesting "what ifs".

The problem with playing as a free navy is that it cuts out a large part of the gameplay, that of designing and building your ships balancing your finances and managing your fleets upkeep. I think it's safe to say that with at least 7 out of the 10 countries playable if you do well enough in a war as Head of the Admiralty, your country probably won't be outright annexed or occupied even if you lose the war thus making a free navy irrelevant, though.. you might still get fired. I don't know. 

And I agree, my criticisms could very well be applied to china and honestly I'm personally very interested in seeing how they make china work in the context of this game as they're kind of an odd ball. Spain and Austro Hungry as well to a lesser degree though I still can only take wild stabs in the dark at these countries and I'm very interested to see how they work out.

The one thing all the countries you can play at have in common is that all had their own proper ocean going battleships during the time span the game is set, as even the chinese Dingyuan class ironclad battleships of 7670 tons with two 12" guns were theoretically bigger and better armed, with better range and sea keeping capabilities than the Dutch coastal defense battleships I was referring to above. Furthermore, excluding china, the 9 other countries in this game are the only countries to have ever built battleships domestically. I would like to see those south american naval arms race eventually, but remember, none of them were built in south america but rather commissioned in Europe. 

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:

From what I understand, we as the player don't get to make those decisions. If our AI government boss yanks our leash and says "Head of the Admiralty go do the thing or we cut your budget" then, sure we get to go take them. If they don't.. 

 

The problem with playing as a free navy is that it cuts out a large part of the gameplay, that of designing and building your ships balancing your finances and managing your fleets upkeep. I think it's safe to say that with at least 7 out of the 10 countries playable if you do well enough in a war as Head of the Admiralty, your country probably won't be outright annexed or occupied even if you lose the war thus making a free navy irrelevant, though.. you might still get fired. I don't know. 

And I agree, my criticisms could very well be applied to china and honestly I'm personally very interested in seeing how they make china work in the context of this game as they're kind of an odd ball. Spain and Austro Hungry as well to a lesser degree though I still can only take wild stabs in the dark at these countries and I'm very interested to see how they work out.

The one thing all the countries you can play at have in common is that all had their own proper ocean going battleships during the time span the game is set, as even the chinese Dingyuan class ironclad battleships of 7670 tons with two 12" guns were theoretically bigger and better armed, with better range and sea keeping capabilities than the Dutch coastal defense battleships I was referring to above. Furthermore, excluding china, the 9 other countries in this game are the only countries to have ever built battleships domestically. I would like to see those south american naval arms race eventually, but remember, none of them were built in south america but rather commissioned in Europe. 

Indeed a "free navy" mechanic would have major problems and is hence unlikely.

 

I don't think that the game cares too much for "commissioned" or build by own yards. While there is a difference in practice I think game wise it will be less.

Like that it will be more expensive using Foreign yards, but you can build outside your own class (quality).

That all south america countries are missing I found a rather obvious plan for a expansion in that direction.

In terms of Gameplay the different starting position alone would be a game changer.