Nation Gimmicks

[CapnAvont1015]

So while we are waiting for the first core patch to drop I thought it would be a good idea to start talking about Nation gimmicks and see we ideas people have. I'm curious how unique the other Nation are going to be compared to each other. 

For example the United States could be:

• Heavy cruisers are less likely to have torpedo's but have strong artillery.
• US Dreadnoughts are going to be very slow but heavy armor and artillery.
• The US will be great at open water combat but not as great at costal defense.

So what do you guys think of these gimmicks? The third one might make no sense but it's an example. I would love to see what ideas ya'll would have for the Nations and lets hope they'll be added.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

I don't know if I'd call them "gimmicks" since that word has a mostly negative view these days, but it is interesting. However, the biggest question on these would be how do you balance these "gimmicks?" Going to the US Dreadnought example: while the heavy armor and good/heavy guns are somewhat historical in nature, you would have to have another nation that has fast ships with better/heavier guns as their "gimmick" to counteract the US Navy's dreadnoughts. I don't think costal defense will play too much into the game at all, since they said most of the emphasis was going to be on open ocean combat.

Now while this is supposed to be a game where you can choose your own route (so to speak) when it comes to ship building and what technologies to prioritize in research so as to allow you to play the game as historical or as un-historical as you want, I do like the idea of certain nations having SLIGHT advantages in certain areas that are loosely based on that respective navy's historical record/performance. Here are just a few examples of what I would personally be okay with (and not in any particular order or pertaining to any historical period in particular):

US Navy: good artillery stats all-round with weaker torpedo technology since most US Navy ships were gun-focused and not-torpedo focused, good heavy/light cruisers but weak/lackluster battlecruisers, best/first to unlock "All or Nothing" armor scheme (loose historical basis), slightly better radar tech but slightly worse night fighting capabilities, maybe a ship production bonus since there were multiple shipyards on both coasts

Royal Navy: generally well rounded ships across all classes (nothing incredibly stellar but nothing really bad either), slightly better radar tech (the UK was kinda the pioneers of radar tech in WWII), lots of naval bases/ports across the globe but very distant ports can only support a small group/handful of ships, slightly better hull stats for ships due to the UK being an island nation having lots of experience and history building ships, maybe a slight ship production bonus for reasons similar to the US Navy

German Navy: good artillery stats, good destroyers, slightly better pocket battleships/battlecruisers, decent torpedo tech, maybe a ship production debuff since there weren't a whole lot of ship yards in Germany, good radar tech

Japanese Navy: generally weaker all-round artillery stats but good/excellent torpedo tech, good/stealthy destroyers and light cruisers, weaker radar tech but enhanced night fighting capabilities (loose historical basis), well-rounded light/heavy cruisers but kinda meh battlecruisers (the Kongo class were originally battlecruisers, but were later re-defined as battleships and those were basically the only battlecruisers they built)

 

Now obviously, this is just a small sample of ideas (and I tried to include the upside and downside of an idea where possible) and I only did what I call the "Big 4" nations to keep this a bit on the shorter side of things. I also realize that there are any number of things that could turn any one of the above mentioned ideas on it's head--like the fact that while Germany may not have had a lot of shipyards in Germany itself, they had shipyards and ports in the nations that they conquered in WWII. Or what about having ships for your navy built in/by a different nation (like the IJN Kongo being built in Great Britain)?

I also realize that there are a lot of additional questions that go along with all this such as:
Will there be a baseline stat that everything is buffed/debuffed from?
How do/how will night battles work?
How will factors outside of combat (i.e. the diplomacy aspect of the game and/or randomized events such as material shortages) effect any of these ideas?
Despite the best balancing efforts, would this lead to one nation still being overpowered/objectively better?

I know that this is a lot to read and think about so here's the TL;DR

It's a good/interesting idea that has a lot of potential and can really add a layer of depth to your strategy as your specific nation might be better or worse at certain things. And while there is an almost endless list of ideas for buffs/debuffs for any in-game nation (whether historically based, speculative or completely rooted in opinion), it has the potential to be a balancing nightmare and lead to one nation being objectively better in most/all categories...which would make the game zero fun.

 

EDIT: With the campaign being said to have a "historical" and "unhistorical" mode (when it comes to AI ship generation anyways) I feel like maybe a few of these ideas would have a weak leg to stand on, but I ultimately don't think any "gimmicks" will make their way into the game, and I don't really want them to be added either as this game is meant to allow you to build whatever you want, however you want it

Edited August 18, 2021 by HistoricalAccuracyMan

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

I'll repeat what I said in a similar thread we had some time ago:

I'm not a big fan of fixed traits for various nations.

This is supposed to be an alternate reality. Why should the British be locked to always have their ships explode easier? Why should the US always forego torpedoes for more guns? Why should the Japanese always emphasize torpedoes?

What I'd like to have would be those traits in the game but have them "unlocked" by how we play the nation. If I never put torpedoes on anything larger than a CL but emphasize guns, have my nation develop some form of bonus to guns. If I always build CA/BC/BB that go for speed and sacrifices armor, over time have my nation develop some bonus to engine technologies but some malus for armor tech.

 

Now, one could implement those traits for the AI nations, but even then I'd have them randomized. Create, I don't know, 20 or 30 traits and have 2 or 3 randomly assigned to each AI-nation at the start of a new campaign (maybe make an option to have them either "historical" or random), to keep things unpredictable - could also be another angel to bring intelligence into the equation.

[Dirlinger]

2 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

I'll repeat what I said in a similar thread we had some time ago:

I'm not a big fan of fixed traits for various nations.

This is supposed to be an alternate reality. Why should the British be locked to always have their ships explode easier? Why should the US always forego torpedoes for more guns? Why should the Japanese always emphasize torpedoes?

 

Totally agree. Traits are typically (which means not always) added feature to the games to account for lack of possibility for unique design of units by player and to give some flair and differentiate between samey units between different factions (otherwise it just numbers game). In game where we design all ships, granted from fixed prefab parts, this makes no sense.

I understand if they want to add traits to AI factions but I am generally fan of reactive "AI designs" as game progresses which I think makes for more interesting gameplay. So if USA AI is lagging behind the player's gun technology research but has faster ships perhaps it should strap on more torpedoes on its CA ships.