Long list of issues (Please read)

[Nick Thomadis]

Please use this thread to report your latest issues you constantly reported and were not addressed, patch after patch.

[madham82]

Target speed penalty should removed in favor or a penalty utilizing the rate of change in speed/bearing of the targeted ship. This will mean ships will have to be maneuvering to avoid fire, not sailing in straight lines at flank speed while being practically invulnerable. Can go into more details if needed.  

Edited July 20, 2020 by madham82

[Wurstsalat]

Corrct mirror mode in design screen. Right now mirring guns is not possible correctly. If i rotate a gun the mirrored one wont be rotated correctly.

[Memo_collector]

Realistic Penetration Values

This has been mentioned multiple times before and I think it's important to reiterate because so much of the naval doctrine concerning this period is premised on the capabilities and limitations of naval gunnery of the time period. Therefore, it is imperative to get naval gunnery correctly if the game hopes to have historical authenticity. One aspect of naval gunnery that's clearly different from historical data is in the penetration value of the guns in the game. Let me demonstrate this with the penetration value of Mark 5 406 mm gun in the game:

The relevant modifiers to penetration are Tube Powder (+10.5% penetration, -5% muzzle velocity), and Superheavy Shells (+12.5% penetration, -10% muzzle velocity). The penetration values in the game are listed in equivalent thickness in iron.

Compare this to performance of 406 mm/50 Mark 7 guns on Iowa, which is the closest analog to the gun in the game:

Muzzle Velocity: 762 m/s

Shell Weight: 1525 kg (1225 kg Projectile + 300 kg propellant)

Penetration Belt/Deck in equivalent thickness, Striking Velocity, Angle of Fall:

1000 m: 1521mm/NA, 746 m/s, 0.5 degrees

2500 m: 1459 mm/NA, 722 m/s, 1.3 degrees

5000 m: 1356 mm/NA, 684 m/s, 2.8 degrees

7500 m: 1258 mm/NA, 647 m/s, 4.5 degrees

10000 m: 1164 mm/NA, 613 m/s, 6.5 degrees

12500 m: 1075 mm/NA, 581 m/s, 8.8 degrees

15000 m: 990 mm/153 mm, 553 m/s, 11.4 degrees

17500 m: 910 mm/167 mm, 528 m/s, 14.3 degrees

20000 m: 835 mm/184 mm, 506 m/s, 17.7 degrees

22500 m: 771 mm/206 mm, 490 m/s, 21.2 degrees

25000 m: 726 mm/231 mm, 477 m/s, 25.1 degrees

27500 m: 690 mm/268 mm, 470 m/s, 29.2 degrees

30000 m: 660 mm/351 mm, 467 m/s, 33.5 degrees

Calculations are based on my own formula, which produces results similar to Nathan Okun's Facehard program for face-hardened armour, and approximates USN Empirical Formula for homogeneous armour. I did not list deck penetration values for angle of fall < 10 degrees because the penetration under such a circumstance is usually impossible (shell ricochets).

Using above values, historical immunity zone for Iowa class battleship can be reconstructed: Armour quality of USN during WW2 corresponds to about Krupp III (1.9 multiplier) for Class A face-hardened armour and Krupp IV (2.0 multiplier) for Class B/STS homogeneous armour. Given that the belt armour of Iowa class ships were 307 mm Class A and inclined 19 degrees from vertical, and that the deck armour was 121 mm Class B laminated onto 32 mm STS (~equivalent to 143 mm Class B) this provides these ships with zone of immunity from their own guns from 23 km - 28 km.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Memo_collector

[Cptbarney]

Various design issues, ranging from slots (especially slots on the hood model, US Iowa model, japanese supercruiser model and some other models) being unable to be used creating weird gaps or design flaws, this is also noticible in ships with slots that have large windowed areas as well.

Hull length slider needs a scroll function as trying to drag the hull can be really fiddly. Oh and some hulls most notiably german ones i've noticed their guns being able to fire through the hull (lol) despite the barrels being shoved into the superstructure.

Some nations still don't have their unique turret designs for bigger turrets (Britain and german spring to mind). And maybe lower calibers, but im not entirely sure about that.

Older Dreadnought hulls have their casemates open, if they aren't filled with guns, having them closed off would be a good way to solve it.

Also rangefinders don't turn with guns not sure if this is an issue or just something that hasn't been implemented yet.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

Something I've noticed kinda goes along with the point CptBarney made about the "slots" to mount things.

I've noticed that on the US Super Battleship Hull (the one that goes to 109,000 tons), if you go for anything above 102,000 tons of displacement, the options for your ship design become very awkward or unworkable. For 102,000 tons or less, you can create pretty good ships and still have a workable and aesthetically pleasing design. If you go ABOVE 102,000 tons (yes, even at 102,100 tons) it starts to be come very weird/unpleasant to work with. That mainly comes down to the options you have as far as superstructure placement goes. If you choose to put the primary and secondary tower together, it turns the ship into a design that is reminiscent of early Tillman Class Battleship designs with 3 turrets on the rear and two on the front. Or if you split the superstructure apart, you can get away with a 6 turret design (two fore, two wing turrets amidships, and two aft) depending on what caliber guns you choose, but then it becomes nearly impossible to balance the fore/aft weight offset...not to mention looking awkward as all get out. This isn't the only hull that does it either, there are a few others that have weird superstructure placements slots/points as well. This is why I think so long as your primary and secondary towers are mounted along the center-line of your ship, you should be allowed to place them anywhere on your ship so long as it isn't too far towards the bow or stern.

[madham82]

I'm probably putting words in Nick's mouth, but I saw the point of this tread to be about bugs/problems with the game that haven't been fixed in previous patches. So we need to leave out "features" suggestions like adding X hull, Y guns, Z visual improvement. Those are probably best for another thread. @Nick Thomadis can you clarify before this thread gets full of I want quad turrets and such? (Which I want too of course lol). 

[Aceituna]

It would be beautiful if centerline and side main guns of the same caliber would be gathered into one battery.   

I don't know if it's just me but it just feels wrong when centerline and side main guns fire separately instead of full salvos.

[Hellstrike]

7 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

It would be beautiful if centerline and side main guns of the same caliber would be gathered into one battery.   

I don't know if it's just me but it just feels wrong when centerline and side main guns fire separately instead of full salvos.

Likewise, twin and triple guns of the same type. If you try to recreate a 2-3-3-2 or 3-2-2-3 arrangement (or something like the De Ruyter's 2-1-2-2), you will be stuck with seperate batteries for bracketing purposes. And I get that the game balances more barrels with reduced accuracy, but for finding the range it should not matter.

[Xenol]

Barbettes that can actually be placed anywhere instead of 2 or three randomly specific places. 

[disc]

I would echo what others have described above. I enumerated some of these issues in a post some time ago.

Of those requests I have seen, I would say that more flexible barbette placement is the most popular.

 

 

I would say that the most pressing battle issue is the simple armor and damage model. It has curious knock-on effects. I think it is partially responsible for some of the dissatisfaction with gunnery modeling. Basically ships are covered top to bottom with armor. Certainly there were many ships with this arrangement, but the "all or nothing" idea is not possible. There are problems with the sheer thickness of armor possible -- it tends to the unrealistic. The system handles torpedo hits in strange ways. Notably, torpedo belts are currently not ablative, so they can absorb many hits without degradation. I think others have discussed the oddness of water pumping, too.

There are a number of possible solutions to this, and I hope to see ideas from others. I think a rework of compartments, citadel length, and armor coverage are the keys.

[Hangar18]

2 hours ago, madham82 said:

I'm probably putting words in Nick's mouth, but I saw the point of this tread to be about bugs/problems with the game that haven't been fixed in previous patches. So we need to leave out "features" suggestions like adding X hull, Y guns, Z visual improvement. Those are probably best for another thread. @Nick Thomadis can you clarify before this thread gets full of I want quad turrets and such? (Which I want too of course lol). 

This needs clarified 

 

1. Ships getting stuck going in circles. This has been an issue for a long time, and it's a pretty meaningful bug.
2. The text error that causes extra space in the tool tip between 12.5km and 15km. Also please make gun tool tips appear higher so when they expand, they have room to expand down towards the bottom of the screen, rather than expanding up, jarring the tip upwards whenever a new line is added. (gap in text depicted below below)
3. Armor model, we need an actual armor model. This is a massive influence on the game.
4. Snap points can stay, but they should not be mandatory. you should be able to place barbettes, and towers free from snap points. Defining limits is important, but the limit should not be a few spots we have no control over. We've asked for this feature since the start.
5. Target speed penalty needs to be removed in general. But it's been discussed that only changes in speed and direction should cause a penalty
6. Propellent/explosive filler separation never occurred, but was promised.
7. Save design feature for custom battles. Honestly there should be an entire menu option that leads to your designs that you can favorite.
8. USN tower snap points that should be able to mount 5" mounts can't. I don't see this as a balance issue, but for gameplay freedom, and historical accuracy, the Iowa tower set should have the option to mount 5" guns on hulls other than just battleships. I can only assume it's a bug atm.

 

(notice the large gap between 12.5km and 15km)

 

2 hours ago, Aceituna said:

It would be beautiful if centerline and side main guns of the same caliber would be gathered into one battery.   

I don't know if it's just me but it just feels wrong when centerline and side main guns fire separately instead of full salvos.

2 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

Likewise, twin and triple guns of the same type. If you try to recreate a 2-3-3-2 or 3-2-2-3 arrangement (or something like the De Ruyter's 2-1-2-2), you will be stuck with seperate batteries for bracketing purposes. And I get that the game balances more barrels with reduced accuracy, but for finding the range it should not matter.

A KSP approach where you can group certain guns would be elegant IMO

8 hours ago, Memo_collector said:

Realistic Penetration Values

The values will probably never reflect IRL because the guns in game are abstract. They can ball park performance, and judging by your post, the longer distance values are off and do need adjusting, but we shouldn't expect 1:1. If IRL values were copied, then one gun would just reign supreme, leaving very little variety.

[1MajorKoenig]

- splitting up superstructure parts into smaller modules 

- remove the fixed points for placing items in the ship designer - allow more freedom in placing 

- allow placement of machinery and funnels 

- allow more parts for each nation 

 

 

[TotalRampage]

The turret tracking Bug I posted about here ai turret tracking/ clipping through ships. 

 

[AdmER]

The promo, who made me buy this game at the time, let me thing you can build/module your ship, currently there is not much you can do beside following those fixed point.

So, 1st issues is to adress the ship designer and made it more flexible, in the way it was advertise.

2nd, give us the capacity to save and build more than 1 ship, custom battle are offen repetitive and could be way better only by building the entire fleet.

If you play any custom battle 1890 -1910 with TB/DD agains anything else like BB/CA/CL you will sink them all wiithout any troubles with your torpedos. Small guns served nothing, the un-precision at 2km and less is a mess you will see shell at very close range go anywhere and never it!

3rd Completly change the speed penalities and manoeuvering penalities.

4th Re-visite the damaged models of secondaries guns. If thoses navys at the time used 2-3-4-5 inch, they should have been for something, with some precision and capacity to do somes reel damages! Maybe it is like the the speed penalities, but it serve nothing to have gun under 8 inch in the current status of the game.

This is so a great game, and I really look forrward for the next patch, but it this current status, those 4 issues made it un-playable for me.

 

[Proteus]

Visibility could do with looking at so destroyers and light cruisers don't pop out of nowhere.

AI doing weird things to the formation when lead ship gets damaged.

Too many flash fires.

The weather doesn't match the weather report.

I've also noticed ai ships with large turning radius turn sharper than they should.

Some ships have guns under water or pointing to the sky when firing during a turn.

Helmsmen have too large a rum ration.

 

To be honest I think the campaign will change our designs from speed boats with guns and charging tactics when we see how long and how much repairs are gonna be, a battleship in dry dock is as useful as one lying on the seabed. Managing our fleets and engagements will be so much more important that personally I think the campaign is far more important to get right quicker.

[Spitfire109]

Armor is currently broken, or not as realistic as it should be. Distinction should be made on the citadels and armor layouts too. Currently its far too easy to give BBs and CAs ridiculous amounts of armor on the prows making them immune to smaller ships. and the ships 'belt' appears to cover its entire side hull instead of just the main belt line. And upgrading from say Krupp 1 to Krupp 3 is a no brainer, even if its expensive because now you're just immune to anything below 10 inch guns.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 7/20/2020 at 8:38 PM, madham82 said:

Target speed penalty should removed in favor or a penalty utilizing the rate of change in speed/bearing of the targeted ship. This will mean ships will have to be maneuvering to avoid fire, not sailing in straight lines at flank speed while being practically invulnerable. Can go into more details if needed.  

Target bearing/speed is already a calculated factor during aiming. It is just not reflected in the accuracy window with all the complex details behind it. The accuracy speed due to speed is an additional factor, which is also realistic, because -unarguably- it is different to aim at targets that are slow or stationary than targets which are moving at high speed. We are going to offer a different balance with reduction of this "Accuracy penalty due to speed" and even more dynamic aiming mechanics (which use speed/bearing differences between our ship and target)

On 7/21/2020 at 8:53 PM, TotalRampage said:

The turret tracking Bug I posted about here ai turret tracking/ clipping through ships. 

On 7/22/2020 at 4:08 PM, Proteus said:

AI doing weird things to the formation when lead ship gets damaged.

On 7/22/2020 at 4:08 PM, Proteus said:

The weather doesn't match the weather report.

On 7/22/2020 at 4:08 PM, Proteus said:

Some ships have guns under water or pointing to the sky when firing during a turn.

18 hours ago, Spitfire109 said:

Distinction should be made on the citadels and armor layouts too.

On 7/20/2020 at 8:58 PM, Wurstsalat said:

Corrct mirror mode in design screen. Right now mirring guns is not possible correctly. If i rotate a gun the mirrored one wont be rotated correctly.

All the above are already prioritized to fix. We will be able to start doing so, when our new programmer will be ready to work on the project, but still campaign will be our main priority,  so all those fixes are going to be addressed gradually, according to our workload.
 

On 7/20/2020 at 10:46 PM, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

Something I've noticed kinda goes along with the point CptBarney made about the "slots" to mount things.

I've noticed that on the US Super Battleship Hull (the one that goes to 109,000 tons), if you go for anything above 102,000 tons of displacement, the options for your ship design become very awkward or unworkable. For 102,000 tons or less, you can create pretty good ships and still have a workable and aesthetically pleasing design. If you go ABOVE 102,000 tons (yes, even at 102,100 tons) it starts to be come very weird/unpleasant to work with. That mainly comes down to the options you have as far as superstructure placement goes. If you choose to put the primary and secondary tower together, it turns the ship into a design that is reminiscent of early Tillman Class Battleship designs with 3 turrets on the rear and two on the front. Or if you split the superstructure apart, you can get away with a 6 turret design (two fore, two wing turrets amidships, and two aft) depending on what caliber guns you choose, but then it becomes nearly impossible to balance the fore/aft weight offset...not to mention looking awkward as all get out. This isn't the only hull that does it either, there are a few others that have weird superstructure placements slots/points as well. This is why I think so long as your primary and secondary towers are mounted along the center-line of your ship, you should be allowed to place them anywhere on your ship so long as it isn't too far towards the bow or stern.

We will check if it is possible to add more mount points, so that less gaps are created when the hull is fully elongated. 

On 7/20/2020 at 10:58 PM, madham82 said:

I'm probably putting words in Nick's mouth, but I saw the point of this tread to be about bugs/problems with the game that haven't been fixed in previous patches. So we need to leave out "features" suggestions like adding X hull, Y guns, Z visual improvement. Those are probably best for another thread. @Nick Thomadis can you clarify before this thread gets full of I want quad turrets and such? (Which I want too of course lol). 

Indeed, we need reports about major, game-breaking issues in this thread.

On 7/20/2020 at 11:03 PM, Aceituna said:

It would be beautiful if centerline and side main guns of the same caliber would be gathered into one battery.   

I don't know if it's just me but it just feels wrong when centerline and side main guns fire separately instead of full salvos.

Known issue, in our to-do list.

On 7/20/2020 at 11:13 PM, Hellstrike said:

Likewise, twin and triple guns of the same type. If you try to recreate a 2-3-3-2 or 3-2-2-3 arrangement (or something like the De Ruyter's 2-1-2-2), you will be stuck with seperate batteries for bracketing purposes. And I get that the game balances more barrels with reduced accuracy, but for finding the range it should not matter.

Related to the above. Main guns of the same caliber need to be grouped more efficiently.

On 7/21/2020 at 12:26 AM, Xenol said:

Barbettes that can actually be placed anywhere instead of 2 or three randomly specific places. 

This can only be addressed with increased barbette slots to hulls, and less restrictive mount points. It is something that is requested many times, yet, we will be able to improve only by additional slots in logical places, for the time being. If, for example, players would like to have barbettes in the top foremost of a ship, which in reality would be impossible, then this cannot be done.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

Ships getting stuck going in circles. This has been an issue for a long time, and it's a pretty meaningful bug.

Ships need desperate fixes in their evasion logic = one of our most important tasks in our priority list.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

The text error that causes extra space in the tool tip between 12.5km and 15km. Also please make gun tool tips appear higher so when they expand, they have room to expand down towards the bottom of the screen, rather than expanding up, jarring the tip upwards whenever a new line is added. (gap in text depicted below below)

Very minor, since UI is still a work in progress. But we thank you for the report. 

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

Snap points can stay, but they should not be mandatory. you should be able to place barbettes, and towers free from snap points. Defining limits is important, but the limit should not be a few spots we have no control over. We've asked for this feature since the start.

We will check if we can improve further the mount point logic for ships. Already, player can override slots with the ctrl-button for guns, and we will try to expand this functionality.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

Propellent/explosive filler separation never occurred, but was promised.

Yes, this is promised and already planned for a next update. I will later create a separate thread to ask, all of you players, about the details you would wish to include in this separation. At the moment is not so simple to make this separation, because it would greatly unbalance ballistics, damage and other ship components. We might leave this change to happen after Steam release.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

Save design feature for custom battles. Honestly there should be an entire menu option that leads to your designs that you can favorite.

Yes, also a widely requested feature, we will try to do, but now, we cannot promise a specific date for this much wanted function.

On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 AM, Hangar18 said:

USN tower snap points that should be able to mount 5" mounts can't.

USN battleships based on the Iowa hull can surely host 5'' secondary guns, and even larger. Can you share an image with the problem you anticipate?

[Nick Thomadis]

On 7/22/2020 at 1:49 AM, AdmER said:

The promo, who made me buy this game at the time, let me thing you can build/module your ship, currently there is not much you can do beside following those fixed point.

So, 1st issues is to adress the ship designer and made it more flexible, in the way it was advertise.

2nd, give us the capacity to save and build more than 1 ship, custom battle are offen repetitive and could be way better only by building the entire fleet.

If you play any custom battle 1890 -1910 with TB/DD agains anything else like BB/CA/CL you will sink them all wiithout any troubles with your torpedos. Small guns served nothing, the un-precision at 2km and less is a mess you will see shell at very close range go anywhere and never it!

3rd Completly change the speed penalities and manoeuvering penalities.

4th Re-visite the damaged models of secondaries guns. If thoses navys at the time used 2-3-4-5 inch, they should have been for something, with some precision and capacity to do somes reel damages! Maybe it is like the the speed penalities, but it serve nothing to have gun under 8 inch in the current status of the game.

This is so a great game, and I really look forrward for the next patch, but it this current status, those 4 issues made it un-playable for me.

 

1) Already replied above about mount points.
2) In our to-do list, as replied above.
3) Replied above.
4) There is a thought to make secondary guns fire in less frequent salvos but be a little stronger. We will check to improve.

[Nick Thomadis]

About Armor, in general, we want to make it more complex. As we develop the game, we will present gradual improvements on this very important aspect of the game. Since the technology logic that will work for campaign is currently in process, and armor evolution is a big part of the technology, we cannot give specific details on how it will work as a further enhancement (Citadel, more armor zones etc.).

Armor penetration tables, will be more readable if we give the ability to switch armor values from "wrought iron" to more advanced armor types. It is in our list of future improvements.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 7/22/2020 at 4:08 PM, Proteus said:

I've also noticed ai ships with large turning radius turn sharper than they should.

This is something that should not happen. AI and player ships do not have separate logic. If possible, present an image with proof on that matter, to help us out.

[akd]

On 7/23/2020 at 11:08 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

We will check if it is possible to add more mount points, so that less gaps are created when the hull is fully elongated. 

I know you touched on this a bit already, but please don’t use fixed points with arbitrary spacing in between (at least for player).  Use a line or zone system.  Incredibly frustrating to have a design concept defeated by the inability to place a part in between two fixed points.  Or allow holding CTRL for freedom for superstructure, funnels and barbettes, as is allowed currently with turrets.  Also, fixed-sized barbette system is terrible and will just lead to constant calls for more and more variety of barbettes to make functional or good-looking designs.  Would be much better to have barbettes integrated into all turret models, with option to raise turret above deck exposing more or less of barbette over deck (up to a limit of double super-imposed for the turret type).  The final major designer issue is single, double and triple turrets of a given caliber all having the same placement restrictions (for example, the US 14”/50 triple turret and 16”/45 double turret were basically the same size and weight and could be used interchangeably in design studies).  I think combined, that covers the most fundamental problems with the ship designer.

Edited July 25, 2020 by akd

[Reaper Jack]

49 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

About Armor, in general, we want to make it more complex. As we develop the game, we will present gradual improvements on this very important aspect of the game. Since the technology logic that will work for campaign is currently in process, and armor evolution is a big part of the technology, we cannot give specific details on how it will work as a further enhancement (Citadel, more armor zones etc.).

Armor penetration tables, will be more readable if we give the ability to switch armor values from "wrought iron" to more advanced armor types. It is in our list of future improvements.

One of the biggest problem with armor in game right now is it weighs barely a quarter of what it did historically. 

For example, the Algerie class has a belt armor of 110mm at a weight of about 1500 tons (and is around Krupp III equivalent) whereas 110mm of Krupp III belt armor in game weighs significantly less on an in game Heavy Cruiser, to the extent where you could slap multiple extra main battery guns on board to make up that deficit. This is imo the main reason AI ships tend to have so many guns. Armor simply does not weigh enough. This is also why in game Heavy Cruisers of even 12k tons can magically have belt armors of the same level as a Battleship. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Reaper Jack

[madham82]

20 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Target bearing/speed is already a calculated factor during aiming. It is just not reflected in the accuracy window with all the complex details behind it. The accuracy speed due to speed is an additional factor, which is also realistic, because -unarguably- it is different to aim at targets that are slow or stationary than targets which are moving at high speed. We are going to offer a different balance with reduction of this "Accuracy penalty due to speed" and even more dynamic aiming mechanics (which use speed/bearing differences between our ship and target)

Speed is just a variable like range, as long as it is known the value does not change the accuracy of the firing solution. A DD doing 40kts is no harder to hit than one doing 20kts. The speed only the moves the aim point ahead of the ship, so a faster ship has an aim point farther ahead than a slower one. That's it, there's no other factor to take into account. Think the issue is you are thinking about making these calculations in your head (like a sniper), but these firing solutions are computerized. Speed could be accounted for with no guesswork, the real factor was actually determining speed accurately. Hence why the penalty should reflect only when a ship's speed is not known precisely (something not in the game I've seen), or the ship is changing speed quickly to throw off the calculations. 

With that said, if you are planning changes we will wait and see how they play out and tweak from there.

Edited July 24, 2020 by madham82

[akd]

On 7/23/2020 at 11:08 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Yes, this is promised and already planned for a next update. I will later create a separate thread to ask, all of you players, about the details you would wish to include in this separation. At the moment is not so simple to make this separation, because it would greatly unbalance ballistics, damage and other ship components. We might leave this change to happen after Steam release.

You might want to consider rethinking this entirely, as it is not really an element of ship design, but a separate area of development and tactical choice.  Other than shell size (shell length mostly, as weight could vary greatly based on internal shell design), the various aspects of the design of ammunition were mostly independent from the ship design itself.  It doesn’t really make sense to bake the design of ammunition (other than shell size, as above) into a ship’s basic design, especially when you start looking at it in a campaign context rather than the very gamey situation of designing a ship for a single scenario.

But regardless, mixing propellant choice (which really wasn’t much of choice, nations tending to simply use the best propellants they had access to) and explosive fillers is confusing, as has been noted.  I would think it would make more sense to simply tie propellants to national technological development level (year-based for single scenarios, unlocks in tech tree for campaign) and instead just give players choices regarding internal shell design like fuzing, explosive fill, filler ratios, etc. that had trade-offs and advantages in different circumstances.

Edited October 11, 2020 by akd