Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
fsp

Things the campaign should have

Recommended Posts

Trying to start a thread for small things the campaign should have, which sometimes easily get overlooked during development and become a PITA later one. This is not supposed to be about discussions if the campaign should be RTS or open world.

I am assuming something similar to RTW2 here and will post some gripes I have:

1) For the love of god no hard-coded end date for the campaign. If I want to continue playing, just let me, even though things might be a little weird with 1940s tech in the 1980s. So what?

2) I am assuming there is some sort of "tech tree"/ research. If possible, research could continue past the 1940s with generic techs that improve certain aspects like guns, engines, ROF, think "future techs" in CIV maybe

3) There really need to be wars and battles between AIs as well. It killled my immersion that there were none of those in RTW.

4) Allow for some asymmetrical battles, those can be a lot of fun. A CL squadron caught by an unescorted BB in transfer, etc.

5) Definitely have the AI run in campaign mode as it did in the last alpha. That was great and very sensible. Cut your losses, run home and live to fight another day when the battle starts going to your disadvantage. That's what most humas would do, it's what the AI should do as well. To spice things up, have the AI charge at you with everything it's got even when losing in 5-10 percent of cases. 

6) Peace negotiations - the UI should be a lot better for this than in RTW, it should also allow you to be more specific about what you want after a war you have won.

7) The government could give you missions during the war, e.g. "Invade this or that coast", "defend that island at all cost" etc., with the results determining how willing your government is to enter peace talks.

😎 Fleet and sea zone management is a PITA in RTW. Please come up with something better.

Thoughts? Additional ideas?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) yes please, i would like the option to play forever, maybe also making the months longer so 2 turns per month or something.

2) yeah, tech after 1940's could become very streamlined till it's mostly just small buffs here and there maybe have saboteurs to downgrade your own tech and others to prevent a stalemate entirely (obviously will need our counter spies or whatever).

3) true, never makes sense why the AI wouldn't fight each other in RTW's or even form alliances against and with each other, could even watch battles fought by the AI and even save them for later viewing lol.

4) yes pls.

5) again i agree with this, AI that just sits there is boring as hell.

6) could even go further with allowing you to make treaties based on a list of options (by list i mean a kinda big list or whatever and the choices limited maybe by your prestiege, wealth and political power?).

7) and even suggest the opposite as well.

havent played much RTW, but seen enough that seems very wonky indeed (nevermind the bloody UI lol).

Mine are...

1. Starting at 1875, since this is when the first dreadnought came along and was built.

2. Months taking 2-3 turns to finish rather than 1 to make games last longer.

3. Neutral nations forming their own alliances and groups with each other.

4. Successful rebellions if given enough time allow themselves to grow into new countries and possibly naval powers or proxies.

5. Have the AI make logical choices in terms of naval building but also surprise the player with interesting choices to keep the game fresh and interesting.

6. World news, so that battles you take place show up with some description making the world seems even more real.

7. Espionage and counter espionage.

8. Back-stabbing and betrayals again makes the game more interesting, you could be allied with someone and they could end up attacking your fleet while engaging an enemy or showcase 'odd' behaviour.

again these are suggestions they dont have to be taken litteral unless enough peeps like them i guess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

1. Starting at 1875, since this is when the first dreadnought came along and was built.

Uhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These kind of suggestions were what I was hoping for, I like all of them. Keep them coming :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd personally rather like the addition of the Netherlands to the campaign, hopefully as a playable country. I reckon it would be an interesting challenge to play a smaller country with a larger empire, considering the split between the actual main Netherlands and the Dutch holdings in the Pacific and Caribbean. 

 

Beyond that, different scenarios/ start dates for the campaign would be rather interesting, as well as options to have prebuilt, historic ships or the option to customize the starting fleet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Peace Negotiations

NO

We are the admiralty.

We do not make peace.

We fight the wars.

Peace making is for the politicians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fsp said:

Trying to start a thread for small things the campaign should have, which sometimes easily get overlooked during development and become a PITA later one. This is not supposed to be about discussions if the campaign should be RTS or open world.

I am assuming something similar to RTW2 here and will post some gripes I have:

1) For the love of god no hard-coded end date for the campaign. If I want to continue playing, just let me, even though things might be a little weird with 1940s tech in the 1980s. So what?

2) I am assuming there is some sort of "tech tree"/ research. If possible, research could continue past the 1940s with generic techs that improve certain aspects like guns, engines, ROF, think "future techs" in CIV maybe

3) There really need to be wars and battles between AIs as well. It killled my immersion that there were none of those in RTW.

4) Allow for some asymmetrical battles, those can be a lot of fun. A CL squadron caught by an unescorted BB in transfer, etc.

5) Definitely have the AI run in campaign mode as it did in the last alpha. That was great and very sensible. Cut your losses, run home and live to fight another day when the battle starts going to your disadvantage. That's what most humas would do, it's what the AI should do as well. To spice things up, have the AI charge at you with everything it's got even when losing in 5-10 percent of cases. 

6) Peace negotiations - the UI should be a lot better for this than in RTW, it should also allow you to be more specific about what you want after a war you have won.

7) The government could give you missions during the war, e.g. "Invade this or that coast", "defend that island at all cost" etc., with the results determining how willing your government is to enter peace talks.

😎 Fleet and sea zone management is a PITA in RTW. Please come up with something better.

Thoughts? Additional ideas?

 

1) Honestly don't care.

2) Again, dont' care. I would actually suspect that the Tech Tree is such that there would be no chance of completing all the Tech within the timeframe.

3) Sure. Why not.

4) Yes absolutely.

5) Yes

6) No. No. No. No. I want to run the Admiralty, not the nation.

7) Kinda. I would prefer a bit softer than missions but I would be okay with missions.

Re: Fleet and Sea Zone managment

Maybe an early Total War kind of situation (placing counters in a seazone)?

Would be problematic with 4) though.

 

 

6 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Mine are...

1. Starting at 1875, since this is when the first dreadnought came along and was built.

2. Months taking 2-3 turns to finish rather than 1 to make games last longer.

3. Neutral nations forming their own alliances and groups with each other.

4. Successful rebellions if given enough time allow themselves to grow into new countries and possibly naval powers or proxies.

5. Have the AI make logical choices in terms of naval building but also surprise the player with interesting choices to keep the game fresh and interesting.

6. World news, so that battles you take place show up with some description making the world seems even more real.

7. Espionage and counter espionage.

8. Back-stabbing and betrayals again makes the game more interesting, you could be allied with someone and they could end up attacking your fleet while engaging an enemy or showcase 'odd' behaviour.

again these are suggestions they dont have to be taken litteral unless enough peeps like them i guess.

1) That would probably bring us into sail ships and I don't know if that would be that great.

2) How far do ships travel in a week?

3) Yes

4) Nah... or maybe. Not a priority

5) "Make the AI good"; agree.

6) Yes, I'd like that.

7) If it does not get too much into the weeds, sure why not.

8 ) maybe, not something I particular care about

 

My thing would maybe allow the Admiralty (us) to push specific policies, for example push the Railroad Berlin-Baghdad as Germany to secure oil supplies, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fsp said:

4) Allow for some asymmetrical battles, those can be a lot of fun. A CL squadron caught by an unescorted BB in transfer, etc.

All the others, exception for the one about peace treaties, I agree with or I don't care (the "I don't care" being the ones about the time limit. I seriously don't care either way because if a game is telling me it's intended to finish at a given date, I'm finishing at that given date. IF someone else wants to go on forever, well...more power to him so yeah, why not giving the option)

The one about peace treaties I'll have to say that I don't like it either. As commander of the fleet you'd be at best given an advisory spot on the political decisions of a nation, including peace treaties. But you'd have no real say at all. In many cases peace treaty conditions actually were pretty much imposed even on victors (see the japanese on the Russo-Japanese war). So no, I don't think that giving you far too much power in the in and outs of peace treaties is a sensible idea for the game.

 

11 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

1. Starting at 1875, since this is when the first dreadnought came along and was built.

2. Months taking 2-3 turns to finish rather than 1 to make games last longer.

3. Neutral nations forming their own alliances and groups with each other.

4. Successful rebellions if given enough time allow themselves to grow into new countries and possibly naval powers or proxies.

5. Have the AI make logical choices in terms of naval building but also surprise the player with interesting choices to keep the game fresh and interesting.

6. World news, so that battles you take place show up with some description making the world seems even more real.

7. Espionage and counter espionage.

8. Back-stabbing and betrayals again makes the game more interesting, you could be allied with someone and they could end up attacking your fleet while engaging an enemy or showcase 'odd' behaviour.

1- too early. FAR too early. In the mid 70s sail power was still a thing, specially on the longest ranged warships (think armored cruisers of the time, and even some battleships). 

2- might be too granular. Not opposed, not in favor, first I want to see what the campaign looks like and it's dynamics because that'd be a big factor in how long turns should be.

3- only if they make sense. I don't want to see a band of countries just going together because "yippie-yay, alliance". That kind of thing didn't happen in this timeframe, after all. The big powers were behind every alliance at play, and I'd dare say it's what I'd expect out of a game like this too.

4- eh... not sure. I mean, which countries did suffer "rebellions" during this timeframe, that weren't directly linked to the Russo-Japanese's or  WW1's war attrition?. Because out of the blue and in peacetime, those things really didn't happen at all.

5- Depends on what you qualify as "interesting choices"... I mean, almost anything that was viable and practical was tried and tested during this timeframe. I also think that countries tended to err on the side of conservativeness when it came down to spending a huge chunk of their national budget in things as expensive as big warships. So, yeah, can't really say much about this one before totally understanding what do you mean by "interesting designs".

6- well, would be nice as flavor but I'd say that there's a very long list of features that rank far higher on what should be in the game. Also this kind of thing has the danger of being very cool at first. But in your 15th playthrough to read the exactly same news report for the 15th time (just changing the protagonist nations), gets old very fast. Something to accomplish this while being dynamic enough that feels fresh after many playthroughs is probably something far too complex to be worth adding.

7- well, yes, some kind of that would be neat. I think RTW model did it well. Simple enough, not complicated at all, yet still an important part of the game. Again going beyond  that might be a bit too ambitious.

8- uhm...even Italy had the decency to properly declare war to the side they were betraying in both world wars withought backstabbing them in such a way. No self-respecting nation with any aspiration to be seen as having anywhere close to credible diplomatic status would do what you've described there. And had any nation done that, it'd been treated as an international pariah for decades to come. So...yeah. I'm against this one.

Edited by RAMJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

 

1- too early. FAR too early. In the mid 70s sail power was still a thing, specially on the longest ranged warships (think armored cruisers of the time, and even some battleships). 

2- might be too granular. Not opposed, not in favor, first I want to see what the campaign looks like and it's dynamics because that'd be a big factor in how long turns should be.

3- only if they make sense. I don't want to see a band of countries just going together because "yippie-yay, alliance". That kind of thing didn't happen in this timeframe, after all. The big powers were behind every alliance at play, and I'd dare say it's what I'd expect out of a game like this too.

4- eh... not sure. I mean, which countries did suffer "rebellions" during this timeframe, that weren't directly linked to the Russo-Japanese's or  WW1's war attrition?. Because out of the blue and in peacetime, those things really didn't happen at all.

5- Depends on what you qualify as "interesting choices"... I mean, almost anything that was viable and practical was tried and tested during this timeframe. I also think that countries tended to err on the side of conservativeness when it came down to spending a huge chunk of their national budget in things as expensive as big warships. So, yeah, can't really say much about this one before totally understanding what do you mean by "interesting designs".

6- well, would be nice as flavor but I'd say that there's a very long list of features that rank far higher on what should be in the game. Also this kind of thing has the danger of being very cool at first. But in your 15th playthrough to read the exactly same news report for the 15th time (just changing the protagonist nations), gets old very fast. Something to accomplish this while being dynamic enough that feels fresh after many playthroughs is probably something far too complex to be worth adding.

7- well, yes, some kind of that would be neat. I think RTW model did it well. Simple enough, not complicated at all, yet still an important part of the game. Again going beyond  that might be a bit too ambitious.

8- uhm...even Italy had the decency to properly declare war to the side they were betraying in both world wars withought backstabbing them in such a way. No self-respecting nation with any aspiration to be seen as having anywhere close to credible diplomatic status would do what you've described there. And had any nation done that, it'd been treated as an international pariah for decades to come. So...yeah. I'm against this one.

1. Doesnt matter, its about increasing the games longetivity.

2. Im pretty sure its going to be the similar to RTW's and if so the extra turns allows the game to last longer.

3. Doesnt matter much since we aren't playing to recreate history in total accuracy, but to simply be an admiral of a country (with some politcal backing) unless they add a purely historical mode.

4. Again doesnt really matter since we aren't playing a purely historical game mode. Unless they add it in of course but still.

5. I don't know hense the ideas, the AI could produce really good but werid looking ships for example.

6. Well its the start of an idea, i mean this thread purpose is to come up with additional features small and large and then expand upon them, i guess you can have all sorts of news bullitins and also stories that comes up such as diseases, funny events, disasters, competitions, royal events, battles and wars, new tech etc.

7. Well it makes the game more interesting eitherway.

8. Not really, depends if both nations had agreed before hand to do this. This sort of thing is still prevalent today as humans arent exactly known to be the most trustworthy of things. Doesn't even have to be an attacj could just be one nation refusing to back another and then switching sides (again many, many examples of this throughout history.

It would be nice if more people gave ideas out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RAMJB said:

1- too early. FAR too early. In the mid 70s sail power was still a thing, specially on the longest ranged warships (think armored cruisers of the time, and even some battleships). 

From 1870s onwards began the battleship age, so could the game! the suggestion is a valid argument for.

e.g.

CAq11kY.jpg

HMS Devastation, first mastless ship built.

Laid down:          12 November 1869
Launched:           12 July 1871
Commissioned: 19 April 1873

Armament: 
As built
4 × 35 ton 12 in (305 mm) muzzle-loading rifles
From 1890:
4 × BL 10-inch (254 mm) guns, breech-loading
6 × 6-pounder (57 mm) guns
8 × 3-pounder (47 mm) guns
2 × 14-inch (356 mm) torpedo launchers (added 1879)

Armour:
Turrets: 12–14 in (300–360 mm)
Breastworks and hull: 10–12 in (250–300 mm)
Bulkheads: 4–6 in (100–150 mm)

One thing is for sure, awareness of this era is rising, for everyone.
 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lots of mastless battleships in 1875-80. So I see no problem to start the game from 1875-1880

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are missing the point.

The point is not that there were mastless battleships (or warships, in general) in 1870.

The point is that there were still plenty of SAIL ships - which wouldn't be the case in the game unless we ask the developers to add even more things into an already very complicated pot, but throwing them yet another curve ball to put sail ships in aswell...so they can appear in maybe the first 5-10 years of the campaign only. For crying out loud, HMS Captain went down in 1870, navies of the time just didn't have a clue on what shape the future warships would have, yet people seem bent in forcing the game start that early, for no other reason than "why not".

Now wait for a second, stop there and think the ammount of resources needed to properly represent ships of that era. The resources that need to be spent in creating the many weird hulls to represent the VERY MANY different designs that were tried and saw service at that time, only to be obsolete by the time they were launched (let alone completed). From circular battleships to central battery battleships to fore turret battleships, to no-draft monitors... and a long etcetera. If you put the starting date in 1870, all those have to be in the game (and many other oddities that saw service at the time). Which means an insane ammount of resources to represent just ten to twenty years at best. Otherwise, if they're not put in, what's the point of starting the game in 1870 anyway?.

 Again, that means A LOT of resources spent by the devs for almost no real gain. Which makes no sense at all. Nor does a game that theoretically starts in the 70s decade, yet features no sail ships. Which also have to be represented for a credible 1870 starting date. If you're putting them in that's insane work for just 5-10 years of campaign. And if you're not putting them in then why bother starting in 1870 to begin with?.

 


Easy solution: starting date circa 1890, which is more or less the time where the first Royal Sovereigns (the class that pretty much cemented the shape of the pre-dreadnought) appeared, where the ship classes across nations found a more or less stable status that lasted until the Dreadnought Revolution, and where  warships using sails were FAR less common (though they still existed) so they don't need to be in the game. A lot more standarization, far less complexity to represent that period in-game with far less resources needed.

 



At this stage and at this rate, someone is going to end up asking for 1850 and building Warrior and Gloire. Which, don't get me wrong, I'd love to too. It'd be cool. But cool doesn't justify delaying the rest of the game to a standstill, which is what it'd be required to pull the early game just by 10 years to 1880 (let alone 20 to 1870).

So let's be pragmatic here, do we want a lot of resources redirected to represent only 10-20 years of campaign, only for it to be put in 1870 because "it's cool reasons"? .

Or isn't it a lot more sensible to put the startup date in 1890, making life FAR simpler to the devs at the time of making the features of the game work, and let them focus on things from that point onwards?
 

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many players who loves pre-dreadnoughts, like me. I know that this game is about dreadnoughts. But in the ship building history the pre-dreadnoughts were also prominent. So they are also important. If the campaign start from 1890 we have only 16 years to enjoy this era. This is not a long period of time. If we start the campaing from 1880 now we will have 26 years. Then England will build the first Dreadnought. Will it need a lot of resaurces? Well yes, but if we are patient enough, i think it is worth it. 

Oh and i almost forgot a thing. There aren't many games out there where you can play with old pre-dreadnoughst, so this would be a great marketing for UA:D

Please take these facts into consideration. 

 

Edited by Marshall99
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I think there are many players who loves pre-dreadnoughts, like me. I know that this game is about dreadnoughts. But in the ship building history the pre-dreadnoughts were also prominent. So they are also important. If the campaign start from 1890 we have only 16 years to enjoy this era. This is not a long period of time. If we start the campaing from 1880 now we will have 26 years. Then England will build the first Dreadnought. Will it need a lot of resaurces? Well yes, but if we are patient enough, i think it is worth it. 

Oh and i almost forgot a thing. There aren't many games out there where you can play with old pre-dreadnoughst, so this would be a great marketing for UA:D

Please take these facts into consideration. 

 

True hense why i want the game to start at 1875, as this is when more and more pre-dreadnoughts (we really need a new name for that class) so that we can enjoy the period longer. Im not sure how the campaign will go whether it will be like age of sail or more like rule the waves (would prefer the latter for more creative freedom), but regardless would be nice to start of around the time pre-dreadies started to popup and become more popular.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love the fact that this game already starts in 1890 and not in 1900 (like RTW), giving us some time with pre-dreads. 

However, I am not so sure how much I loved the pre-dead battles I have had so far, they have such a hard time hitting enemy ships and this also seems very realistic. 

While I would appreciate an earlier start in general, I agree that it makes no sense to have one if this means the team has to work on making another generation of ships playable in game.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, fsp said:

I absolutely love the fact that this game already starts in 1890 and not in 1900 (like RTW), giving us some time with pre-dreads. 

However, I am not so sure how much I loved the pre-dead battles I have had so far, they have such a hard time hitting enemy ships and this also seems very realistic. 

While I would appreciate an earlier start in general, I agree that it makes no sense to have one if this means the team has to work on making another generation of ships playable in game.

I mean you could solve that just by makign adjustable from 1875-1900 and too be honest, i dont really mind if they don't add anymore special hulls down on those timelines since we wouldn't be in that time period long enough to justify the expense and time it takes to keep adding new shipmodels plus making them and designing them due to how bloody small the dev team is atm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you couldn't.

1890 to 1940 can use the same mechanics for ships.

Propulsion, armor, guns, it is all one evolution.

Prior to 1890 (arguable even after 1890 though much less) you would need a completely new way of designing ships... or have standarized cut-outs.

A HUGE drain in terms of resources that won't go to better models, better ships, a better game altogether... instead of one good game we'll have one and half games that are way less than what they could have been.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SmoCro said:

No, you couldn't.

1890 to 1940 can use the same mechanics for ships.

Propulsion, armor, guns, it is all one evolution.

Prior to 1890 (arguable even after 1890 though much less) you would need a completely new way of designing ships... or have standarized cut-outs.

A HUGE drain in terms of resources that won't go to better models, better ships, a better game altogether... instead of one good game we'll have one and half games that are way less than what they could have been.

Yes you can.

And also turret ships were a part of the evolution process from turret ship > pre-dreadnought > dreadnought and so on.

The two most promenant examples being HMS Devastation (1871) and HMS Thunderer.

And no it wouldn't be overhauling the gun system would a huge drain on resources, your litterally making two new ship models.

jesus people really need to calm down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

The two most promenant examples being HMS Devastation (1871) and HMS Thunderer.

 

17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

your litterally making two new ship models.



Until someone comes wanting Caio Duilio.

And then we get someone who demands Redoubtable.

Next in line is someone asking for Tegethoff. 'cuz if the french and the italians get one, the austrians should too.

Don't forget the russians, someone's bound to ask for Petr Veliky

Oh what about the spanish?. I want Pelayo in there.

The chinese echelon ships too. I mean they were of the era right?. Add them to the list.

Germans you say?. Let's put Preussen in that list. Oh! don't forget the masts and sails!
 

You'll note I'm naming ONE ship per nation, and that I haven't even named them all nations. 



"two new ship models". yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Yes you can.

And also turret ships were a part of the evolution process from turret ship > pre-dreadnought > dreadnought and so on.

The two most promenant examples being HMS Devastation (1871) and HMS Thunderer.

And no it wouldn't be overhauling the gun system would a huge drain on resources, your litterally making two new ship models.

jesus people really need to calm down.

And the every navy of every nation in 1875 will be completely populated with these two ships or minor variations on them at game start?  That will be a lame set of "legacy fleets."  (In fact, even the 1890 start runs up pretty hard against this problem already).

Edited by akd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, akd said:

And the every navy of every nation in 1875 will be completely populated with these two ships or minor variations on them at game start?  That will be a lame set of "legacy fleets."  (In fact, even the 1890 start runs up pretty hard against this problem already).

Yep 1890 is already pushing things. Germany for example doesn't have any pre-dreadnoughts until 1893 historically, and she's one of the major naval powers of the era, so think about the position Spain, China, Russia and a late 19th Century Japan will have. 

IIRC, only Britain and France had modern (for the time) capital ships in 1890 with some of the other powers beginning to build them or having them on the design table. 

-Edit- 

Nope, even Britain did not have a true pre dread until 1892. We're looking at oversized, mixed battery super ironclads before that. 

Edited by Reaper Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan' first battleship was the old Chinese ironclad Zhenyuan, which was renamed Chin Yen. It was built in Germany for China 1882-1884 and taken by Japan in 1895. By German standards it probably qualified as an "armoured frigate," although that distinction is a little pedantic.

After that, Japan's next battleship was the Fuji, built for them in the UK 1894-1897. This was a pre-Dreadnought of classic design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one question for the campaign:

will t be possible to upgrade your older designs?

I mean it shouldbe impossible to change aour main guns on an old dreadnought BB.

But you should be able to send an lets say 1912 dreadnought to the docks in the late1930's to get the latest fire control system and maybe add some secondaries or AA guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Karlchen said:

I have one question for the campaign:

will t be possible to upgrade your older designs?

I mean it shouldbe impossible to change aour main guns on an old dreadnought BB.

But you should be able to send an lets say 1912 dreadnought to the docks in the late1930's to get the latest fire control system and maybe add some secondaries or AA guns.

Modernizations were a lot more extensive than that generally. Sure, some ships would only receive some more AA, some new fire control if they were lucky. But others went through extensive and massive rebuilds. Take a look at the Andrea Dorias or the Kongos for example, the Italian ships had their gun size increased (though the guns themselves were not replaced, but some were removed) and their entire silhouette restructured along with massive hydrodynamic and machinery rebuilds, as well as armor. While the Kongos received one of the largest engine reworks in history, again had their entire machinery and superstructure rebuilt, and also had several armor improvements. 

I have no doubt that they will be included in game, it's basically a must for a 50-60 year campaign run.

Edited by Reaper Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...