>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[o Barão]

@Skeksis "There is no way to counter the enemy logically or based on info/intelligence"

Maybe this could will be improved with ship movement in the future and a report/trade route mechanic.

 

A implementation of a dynamic trade route lines in the map representing where is the most influx. 

- The player would need to send ships to those lines route to have a better chance in intercepting convoys.

- Dynamic because the trade route would change route depending to what ports are friendly and open to  that nation.

A reporting mechanic informing the player when a great fleet movement was spotted leaving an port. This could be based on spies / other ships reports/ radio messages intercepted.  Not to be common.  More an abstract mechanic and not something complex like investing money in the tab to increase the spies performance since we are only the navy admiral. Maybe could be interesting.

Edited December 3, 2021 by o Barão

[JaM]

One thing - i think there should be an option to scuttle the ship and save the crew (lifeboats)..  these fights were not always waged till the bitter end, and crew would abandon the ship if situation was dire.. plus, it is kind of a strange if every single men from such ship dies and nobody can be saved..

[Cptbarney]

Oh and refits, they need to be a thing as well.

[ColonelHenry]

1 minute ago, JaM said:

One thing - i think there should be an option to scuttle the ship and save the crew (lifeboats)..  these fights were not always waged till the bitter end, and crew would abandon the ship if situation was dire.. plus, it is kind of a strange if every single men from such ship dies and nobody can be saved..

I mean this is the solution to the problem of ships tanking hundred of shots and still floating. Technically and physically speaking, if every single defense mechanism worked as intended, the ship could stay afloat for quite some time. However, I'm pretty sure in real life, ships that were severely damaged would either beach themselves or scuttle to avoid enemy capture. Did fighting to the bitter end happened? Yes. But more often than not, these last acts of defiance did not result in the enemy ship taking multiple accurate and damaging hits that happen every single battle in this game.

Please, if the damage model is not going to be updated any time soon, add crew morale for the love of god, it is way easier to do. There is already ships surrendering and crew capture mechanics in UA:AoS, maybe you guys can look at how to implement such system in this game?

[T_the_ferret]

All there is about crew moral is sometime i lose control of my DDs for no reason and i can't figure out why

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

I mean this is the solution to the problem of ships tanking hundred of shots and still floating. Technically and physically speaking, if every single defense mechanism worked as intended, the ship could stay afloat for quite some time. However, I'm pretty sure in real life, ships that were severely damaged would either beach themselves or scuttle to avoid enemy capture. Did fighting to the bitter end happened? Yes. But more often than not, these last acts of defiance did not result in the enemy ship taking multiple accurate and damaging hits that happen every single battle in this game.

Please, if the damage model is not going to be updated any time soon, add crew morale for the love of god, it is way easier to do. There is already ships surrendering and crew capture mechanics in UA:AoS, maybe you guys can look at how to implement such system in this game?

Yeah we need, the current meshes to be able to deform and buckle when struck by powerful rounds and also armour degeneration as i doubt the same section of armour can keep its composure after being hit by multiple 14inch+ rounds.

Plus we need an internal damage model of each model and also compartments as well (engines, magazines, crew quarters, etc.) 

[T_the_ferret]

God what we need is AI being fixed, more small ships and more old ships

I'm dying for gunboats and late torpedo boats to be added

[Grandpa Canuck]

I am enjoying the campaign so far. Glad you quickly made addition of moving ships between ports.

1) I understand a lot is still to be added, but hope you can add a comparison chart that can be accessed while building a new ship. Often I want to tweak or update from a prior model of the same class and hull design after getting a new technology and would love to see a ship-new design comparison as I alter items on the design. All I'd like is a full list of data for the ship being designed, as it is on the right hand side of the screen while designing with a second older design able to be chosen and numbers displayed beside the new design numbers... A 2 column chart so to speak where you can choose the design stats to be displayed in the second column beside the current build. 

2) I also would like to be able to copy a old design and apply new tech to it. Right now all you can do is add in changes as it was available at time of design, so with new tech each design has to start from scratch.

 

Can't wait to see the new features added. Hope you can share some insight as to items that could be added in the coming months.  Little things like info on subs or even the WIP tech tree.

Thanks in advance for considering my suggestions.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

Ok, so after sinking a few hours (more than I am happy to admit but nowhere close to finishing everything), here are my observations, critique and suggestions.

Be aware that most of this has already been mentioned - think of it as increasing the signal-strength.

Let me also preface the below wall of text with the statement that not all is bad. In fact, there is a lot of good and a metric f-ton of potential for the campaign (I wouldn't have spend the hours playing otherwise). I'm not gonna list all that is good in this post, since this is meant as constructive critique and suggestions on how to improve things (though come to think about it, it might actually be a good idea to do so in another post, just to assure you that you are on the right path)

 

1. Research: 

a) The priority system is complete bonkers. If I use all 3 free priorities, I am almost back to where the three prioritized technologies were before and research in everything else is slowed to a crawl.

Either have the "free" priorities not affect any other technology or just go with the RTW2 system (for those who don't know, you can put every research area on high, normal or low priority. This affects how your global research-points are distributed meaning that putting everything on High will have the exact same effect as putting everything on Low. If you want to actually improve some research, you have at least to keep some on normal, preferably to put some on Low (personally, I go with "put one on Low for every one I put on High").

b) Research is really, really slow. Now this might be just for this first iteration of the campaign but for the final campaign, the research times should probably be reduced quite a bit.

c) Random state of research at game's start. I don't like this. One time I have one or two, maybe even three important technologies less than a year from finishing, the next time there is nothing useful for almost three years. At least in the 1890 start, have a fixed start. Sure, various countries can have advantages, like the British might start with some engine tech halfway researched while the Germans might have some armor techs half finished, but don't randomize it (I was really tempted to just start a new campaign when the "nothing to research for three years" thing popped up)

 

2. Battles:

a) Why do I know what the enemy force consists of before I make contact in the first place? I mean, I get that the player is supposed to make an educated decision to accept a battle or not, but how about some uncertainty? Have Naval Intelligence tell me there are supposed to be two CL and maybe some TBs, only to find out that the CL are actually CA and there is a BB accompanying them.

b) AI running away: Holy $/%§! I never realized the British where such pussies (yeah, I only played as Germany so far).

I appreciate the AI's "live to fight another day" attitude when it's outnumbered and outgunned, but this is ridiculous. 

I have yet to encounter a duel (CA vs. CA or BB vs. BB) where they didn't run from the first second. I'm pretty sure any Captain/Admiral in the Royal Navy displaying such cowardice would be sacked in not time.

BTW, how does the AI even know what they are facing before making contact (see point a)

Also, if the AI's mission is to attack one of my convoys, shouldn't it at least try to, I don't know, attack the convoy? And if the AI is to protect it's own convoy, how about trying to delay/distract the raiders long enough for the convoy to escape?

c) Torpedo aiming: So I'm closing on a (insert ship-class of choice), my torpedo launchers are set to not fire, because the AI is grade-A stupid and would launch with a firing solution that is about as solid as water. I get to close range off the broadside of the enemy and he is starting to turn away, anticipating my torpedo attack. I give the crew permission to launch and even though the target has been turning for at least 15 seconds, the crew doesn't take that fact into consideration in the slightest but launch the torps where the target would be if it went on in a straight line. The Lieutenant grabs the megaphone and starts yelling: "What the hell are you doing, you bloody idiots!? Didn't you see he has been turning for like half a minute?"

I don't have an easy solution for this since I don't think manual torpedo (or anything, really) aiming is in the cards. Improving the prediction of target movement too much and torpedoes will become the no. 1 killer (which they kind of are in the early campaigns already) but with as it is right now is just unacceptable (perhaps link predictions to the crew quality?)

 

3. Fleet management:

a) How come the ships that return from a mission are distributed over random ports? Shouldn't they return to the port they started from?

Just sayin'

b) Naming/Renaming ships - when I create the Städte (City) class CL, I'd like for them to be named after, I don't know, cities?

c) Refitting ships - just make it available (I am aware that this is something that will very likely be in the full campaign, just mentioning it for the unlikely case it isn't planned for)

d) Improved munitions - same as above. I researched the 15" torpedo with better range and speed. Probably shouldn't even need a refit, just swap out the old torps for the new ones (see note at c) )

e) Why do I get a much larger fleet when I have the game auto-generate the starting fleet than when I build it myself?

 

4) UI/QOL/bugs stuff

a) A pop-up message when my shipyard expansion finishes would be really nice

b) The check-box "Add Crew" doesn't seem to be saved, so I have to click it every single turn.

c) I'll put this here because I'd like to think of this as a bug (it probably isn't but should be considered one, IMO).

I friggin love my TBs. They are the bane of the Royal Navy. Taking hit after hit, flooding to less than 20% buoyancy, losing both engines and then repairing up and pumping out all the water, ready to go at (almost) full speed again. Seriously, the amount of punishment those little guys can take is utterly ridiculous.

d) Convoy Missions: Um, my mission is to sink transports but I'm not awarded VP for doing so? What? (I consider this a bug, which is why it's here)

Also, why does the mission end when I sink the convoy's escort even though I haven't sunk a single transport yet?

 

All right, that's it for now - yeah, got a wee bit longer than I anticipated, lol.

 

[akd]

3 hours ago, JaM said:

One thing - i think there should be an option to scuttle the ship and save the crew (lifeboats)..  these fights were not always waged till the bitter end, and crew would abandon the ship if situation was dire.. plus, it is kind of a strange if every single men from such ship dies and nobody can be saved..

Rescueing crew would be a better task for torpedo boats / small destroyers than the silly multiple torpedo reloads, particularly in a campaign context.

[admiralsnackbar]

27 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah we need, the current meshes to be able to deform and buckle when struck by powerful rounds and also armour degeneration as i doubt the same section of armour can keep its composure after being hit by multiple 14inch+ rounds.

Plus we need an internal damage model of each model and also compartments as well (engines, magazines, crew quarters, etc.) 

I don't want to offer to the devs a solution that involves a great deal of internal modeling, since honestly any change in the damage model of the game is a forlorn hope. 

I'm not a coder so what I'm describing is something think is something within the ability of the developers to code:

1. Any area of the ship immediately below a turret is a magazine space (I know a magazine is typically below the waterline, if you can assign it to be only the lower part of the ship then do so but otherwise this is better than nothing)
2. Any area midships that isn't magazine space is engine space (Again I would imagine that engine space would vary depending on the size of the engine relative to the ship. Start from the simplest, easiest to code thing first.)
3.  Your ship's citadel protects the magazine and engine spaces, it's size being proportional to the sum of the engine and magazine space. (In the simplest version this would limit the citadel to be no smaller then the size of the midships assuming the turrets fit midships
4.  Citadel protection is expressed both as a type and as a thickness of armor. The type of citadel affects the effective armor thickness at different ranges. You do not have 'Citadel I-V' you have, for example, 'turtleback' and then select a thickness. 
5.  If a shell hits an area and penetrates the deck or belt, and it hits an area that is covered by the citadel, is checks if it still has enough energy to penetrate the citadel. If it fails to penetrate the citadel it detonates causing internal damage that weakens the hull but doesn't threaten the engines or magazines. 

Shell/ Ship Damage:

1. Express all damage from shells and torpedoes as pounds of TNT equivalent. 
2. Allow shells above a certain size (and torpedoes generally) to have a radius of damage proportional to the TNT equivalent. 
3. Shells and torpedoes can theoretically damage all compartments within their radius, but actual radius gets reduced by the hull strength and number of bulkheads. A torpedo boat or freighter should theoretically have little if any radius reduction. 
4. Ship health is expressed as it's total displacement.
5. Torpedo defense systems are based on resisting certain pounds of TNT, i.e rated against "500 pound warhead", but can only protect the midship. People will ask for different styles of torpedo defense systems but that's never going to happen. It should be easy for players to select a torpedo in the drydock, scale it's size and tech level to see what it's damage is (say, "1000") and then select a torpedo defense system that will reduce torpedo damage by that much. 

Flooding:

1. A ship's health from flooding is expressed in terms of tons (of reserve bouyancy) which should be proportional it's total displacement plus any unused weight. 
2. See my poorly drawn picture. The ship health icon should show both the port (red) and starboard (yellow) sections of the ship. I notice that when a ship takes significant damage on one side or another it tends to list to that side, I am hoping that's not just a visual. 
3. A ship sinks from flooding if it loses its total reserve buoyancy or if the reserve bouyancy in either the front, rear, port, or starboard sections is too low. An example of a severe list to port would show 'blue' filling up in the red sections of my poorly drawn example. The ability to implement counterflooding between adjacent slices would be nice but isn't mandatory. 
4. Flooding begins when a ship section below the waterline takes damage, higher levels of compartmentalization reduces not only the likelihood that an explosion will carry through to other ship compartments but it limits the extent of flooding generated from any one hit. Increased levels of structural damage will reduce this protection, a fully destroyed compartment is one that  should not be capable of pumping out water or stopping it from flooding the entire compartment. Higher damage levels in adjacent compartments increase the likelihood of the flooding carrying through to those compartments as well. 
   
   So in my system a larger shell will cause more flooding (assuming it hits the right spot), but the maximum level of compartmentalization might limit the impact of a single shell to flood, at most, 10% of that compartment, but if compartment is at 90% health, the 10% becomes 18% (90% protected reduced to 90% is 81% protected) Since more shells lodged in a compartment equals more damage, hitting a ship at or below the waterline repeatedly will still cause more flooding but not at a linear rate. 
    
5. At a certain point depending on the remaining reserve buoyancy in the front, stern, port, or starboard, the ship checks the damage state of the 'upper' compartments. The torpedo defense system for those compartments stops working as that section of the ship is too low in the water for it to be of relevance. Also the level of damage in the upper compartments begins to factor in and flooding can occur for said compartment. 

 

But again I personally don't think the above will be implemented. UAD has had an issue of high explosive shells over penning small ships. It's less common now but still occurs. I won't ascribe this to malice or incompetence on the part of UAD devs, if the base code makes it that difficult to simply tell HE shells that they can NEVER overpenetration then what i'm suggesting is pure fantasy. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello again admirals,

A new update is ready for you to play. Please update your game clients.

Hotfix Update v96 (3/12/2021)
- Fixed issue with wars ending too soon in late years of the campaign, due to very large VP given to the winner. VP now scales properly according to the technology era.
- Campaign mission generation should create more balanced missions, so that AI will not be prone to withdraw from them.
- Reduced the repair costs for ships in campaign, as they could overwhelm the economy of player and AI.
- Fixed AI issue making it too defensive in campaign.
- Auto-Design further optimization.
- Fixed bug that caused "Rebuild" to erase previous designs.
- Fixed bug with Battle Icons appearing too small in 4K monitors.
- Fixed small bugs related with the mission list of campaign.
- Fixed Torpedo Protection V stats not applying correctly to the component.
- Fixed major errors in crew losses calculations in battle stats.
- Fixed a minor error for a German Destroyer tower.
- Stalled ships issue due to evasion logic should happen less often (known bug we will fix better in future updates).
- Other minor bug fixes.
- Hulls that cannot be used due to low shipyard size are now viewable.

[aradragoon]

14 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello again admirals,

A new update is ready for you to play. Please update your game clients.

Hotfix Update v96 (3/12/2021)
- Fixed issue with wars ending too soon in late years of the campaign, due to very large VP given to the winner. VP now scales properly according to the technology era.
- Campaign mission generation should create more balanced missions, so that AI will not be prone to withdraw from them.
- Reduced the repair costs for ships in campaign, as they could overwhelm the economy of player and AI.
- Fixed AI issue making it too defensive in campaign.
- Auto-Design further optimization.
- Fixed bug that caused "Rebuild" to erase previous designs.
- Fixed bug with Battle Icons appearing too small in 4K monitors.
- Fixed small bugs related with the mission list of campaign.
- Fixed Torpedo Protection V stats not applying correctly to the component.
- Fixed major errors in crew losses calculations in battle stats.
- Fixed a minor error for a German Destroyer tower.
- Stalled ships issue due to evasion logic should happen less often (known bug we will fix better in future updates).
- Other minor bug fixes.
- Hulls that cannot be used due to low shipyard size are now viewable.

Any chance of fixes for small ships coming?

1890 campaign seems to have TB's be insanely strong. (Watched TB's take over 4k damage from secondaries of 4 CL's nearby and that was after taking a torpedo.)

1900's campaign I have noticed DD's are just ridiculous. I have literally had DD's take *8* 18in. torps and not sink... it took a 9th to get the job done and these were spread on the mid and front.... Also I tested this numerous times with the same results. Unless there is just some behind the scenes AI buffs which, IMO, shouldn't be there.

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, aradragoon said:

1890 campaign seems to have TB's be insanely strong. (Watched TB's take over 4k damage from secondaries of 4 CL's nearby and that was after taking a torpedo.)

Flooding spread will be improved in next patches, so any related issue will be fixed.

[T_the_ferret]

Talking about torpedoes, when is the flooding chance for hull bottom gonna be implemented anyway?

Edited December 3, 2021 by T_the_ferret
Misremembered which module had unimplemented stats

[akd]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

If a shell hits an area and penetrates the deck or belt, and it hits an area that is covered by the citadel, is checks if it still has enough energy to penetrate the citadel. If it fails to penetrate the citadel it detonates causing internal damage that weakens the hull but doesn't threaten the engines or magazines.

The deck and belt armor are part of the citadel, so this doesn't quite make sense. Of course you could have complex arrangements with multiple decks of different armor thicknesses, or plates behind the the exterior belt armor, but at its core the citadel is formed by the primary belt and deck armor.  What is crucially missing in the game is:

• actually different armor arrangements, especially protected cruiser scheme that was of huge importance in 1890.
• bulkhead armor settings to set the thickness of the fore and aft ends of the citadel, making all or nothing armoring possible.

[Iuvenalis]

8 minutes ago, akd said:

The deck and belt armor are part of the citadel, so this doesn't quite make sense.

You're both correct and incorrect. Unfortunately, armor arrangements beyond the original 1860's central battery "iron box" grow increasingly complex, often with multiple layers of belt, deck and bulkhead armor. The below post from the World of Warships reddit illustrates the point. Also here's an image of Nagato's armor scheme. Below that is HMS Inflexible (1876) which has a simpler armor scheme.

With Inflexible, penetrating the main armor belt amidships would likely be a "citadel hit". With the others you can see that it is entirely possible to penetrate the main armor belt without actually getting the shell near anything important. So you're correct in that the main belt is part of the citadel protection scheme, but there are a lot of variables in terms of the armor scheme, the shell trajectory, and the shell itself.

I saw "unfortunately" above because this is a game and I think it would be a sort of rabbit hole you don't want to go down as a developer to try to account for all the different types of armor schemes and other variables. I will admit, I found myself in the 1890 campaign thinking "I know! I'll make some cheap protected cruisers!" only to realize that, no, the damage model would just turn them into floating targets.

 

[Skeksis]

8 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Skeksis "There is no way to counter the enemy logically or based on info/intelligence"

Maybe this could will be improved with ship movement in the future and a report/trade route mechanic.

 

A implementation of a dynamic trade route lines in the map representing where is the most influx. 

- The player would need to send ships to those lines route to have a better chance in intercepting convoys.

- Dynamic because the trade route would change route depending to what ports are friendly and open to  that nation.

A reporting mechanic informing the player when a great fleet movement was spotted leaving an port. This could be based on spies / other ships reports/ radio messages intercepted.  Not to be common.  More an abstract mechanic and not something complex like investing money in the tab to increase the spies performance since we are only the navy admiral. Maybe could be interesting.

Simplest version is RTW2 'min required tonnage' but our game is much more improved with multiple 'sea areas' per region and their corresponding ports. It's brand new integration. The battle generator seems to (or should) create battles where ships are deployed but I haven't really track it properly.

I think Dev's could be open to suggestions on this one, if they haven't already got a plan. For development in the new year, could be worth to brainstorm alittle.

For spy networks we'll need the ability to re-read intelligence/reports, a list and its own tab. This would work extremely well and be the most realistic application, better than RTW2. 

Report e.g.

• Enemy trade tonnage in North Atlantic estimated at 20.000tt - deploy ships to 'in control' for possible convoy attack.
• HMS Dreadnought spotted anchored at Scapa Flow - deploy ships 'in control' for possible attack.
• Fishman spots 5 enemy ships in the North Atlantic - deploy ships 'in being' for possible defense. And/or 'in control' to hunt down enemy force (i.e. max chance for engagement).
• Etc.

Though I guess it would have to tie in with the battle generator and if the battle generator does work per sea area and not just regional. The game should keep some sort of tally of where ships are per area, if so then it could generate reports base on that.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cptbarney]

@admiralsnackbar yeah you can just use internal meshes to do all of that to represent the innards of a mesh or at least the most important parts of it. so they can start off as basic primitive then increase in complexity and looks, then add whatever code is necessary for it to perform.

Basically think warthunder, but with more of a lean towards simulation.

[Robert Steel]

Okay, very first impressions: the victory conditions and evaluation of a battle needs lots of work. These strict "yes or no" conditions are just silly.

First battle: large convoy. Sink all enemy transports.

So, I sank 10 of the 12 transports, with light damage of the warships of both sides, and of course, I was defeated for not fulfilling the criteria.

It means the enemy got 7 VP for losing 83% of his transports... does it sound right?

[Nick Thomadis]

12 minutes ago, Robert Steel said:

It means the enemy got 7 VP for losing 83% of his transports... does it sound right?

Victory points are used in the campaign but the interface is not showing them in battle result. It is a work in progress UI, which we will fix.

[Cptbarney]

I think the victory and defeat parts it should be divided into Flawless victory, Near flawless victory, Great victory, Major victory, Minor victory, Stalemate, Minor defeat, Major defeat, Devastating loss, Near total defeat, Total defeat. With different VP points, objectives and whatever else needed to get one of these. Should make it more accurate than the current system at least.

[o Barão]

"For spy networks we'll need the ability to re-read intelligence/reports, a list and its own tab. This would work extremely well and be the most realistic application, better than RTW2. "

No need to be a tab since what is important is notify the player of possible important encounters in the beginning of a new turn. Also i don't expect the player to be bombarded with multiple intelligence reports each turn but only a few at most to keep the flow with the game pace. Could be a simple message log in lower left corner with a number icon so the player could read in an instance if there are important messages to read or not.

"Report e.g.

• Enemy trade tonnage in North Atlantic estimated at 20.000tt - deploy ships to 'in control' for possible convoy attack.
• HMS Dreadnought spotted anchored at Scapa Flow - deploy ships 'in control' for possible attack.
• Fishman spots 5 enemy ships in the North Atlantic - deploy ships 'in being' for possible defense. And/or 'in control' to hunt down enemy force (i.e. max chance for engagement).

Etc."

Yeah, something like that would good.

@Skeksis

[o Barão]

12 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I think the victory and defeat parts it should be divided into Flawless victory, Near flawless victory, Great victory, Major victory, Minor victory, Stalemate, Minor defeat, Major defeat, Devastating loss, Near total defeat, Total defeat. With different VP points, objectives and whatever else needed to get one of these. Should make it more accurate than the current system at least.

Doesn't work. In fact is the opposite.

Imagine you have a flawless victory in a battle against 1 dd. You sunk the enemy dd.

Now you have a minor victory in a huge battle, Jutland style, where many ships where sunk but you managed to sink more tonnage than the enemy.  So is your flawless victory against a lonely DD scoring more points?

The VP system is much more accurate leaving no margin for errors. It just needs a few tweaks to make it clear to the player.

Edited December 3, 2021 by o Barão

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

Also, can we talk about transports?

In my last battle (convoy attack) in my recently started Germany 1890 campaign, I had two of my CL engaging a convoy of 6 TR, guarded by 2 CL. I locate the TRs first and engage them. Each one displaces 10,400 tons, has maximum bulkheads and is armed with 4 x 4" and 2 x 3" guns.

As soon as the first TR gets a visual on me, shells from everywhere begin to land around my ships, because that one TR obviously acts as spotter for the other merchantmen - Looks like the British Merchant Navy has developed networked targeting systems for their freighters * [rolls eyes]

Well, there goes my plan of staying out of sight of the other ones and taking them down one by one.

After sinking four of the TR, the escorts show up. Of course, my CL are shot to hell by now (one is down to 60% structural, the other is perma flooded, both are down to 18 knots from 22), so I have to withdraw.

This is NOT a singular incident!

In my experience, about half the transports I encounter are armed (some quite heavily with the best armed having 7 x 4" guns, which is almost as much armament as an early WW1 German CL) quite a few have a displacement of above 10,000 tons and I don't think I have seen any below 5,000 tons and quite a few also had many or even maximum bulkheads.

So, here are the issues:

1. The vast, vast majority of merchantmen up to WW2 were small, I mean really small as in: Below 1000 tons.

2. The vast majority of merchantmen up to WW2 were not armed (I'm not talking merchant cruisers or Q-ships)

3. No merchantman had lots and lots of bulkheads. A merchantman's job is to deliver cargo from point A to point B as cheap as possible (you know, those guys owning them wanted to make money).

For this, the ships need to have as much cargo space as possible and loading/unloading has to be as easy and fast as possible. Lots and lots of bulkheads kind of get in the way with both.

The game might want to reflect that.

So here are my suggestions:

1. Freighter size: Have the average TR size be 1000 tons (+/- 100% weighted towards the average bell-curve style) per campaign decade. So the average displacement would be 1000 tons in 1890 and 3000 tons in 1910 (still a bit large for the latter, but better than now)

2. Freighter armament:

-Only 20% of TR can have guns.

-Restrict the gun caliber according to the date. Early on (1890 and maybe 1900 only 2" guns, 1910 and 1920 3", 1930 4" and finally 5" guns)

-Restrict the number of guns. 4(?) at the most, I'd guess.

3. Bulkheads: TRs can have minimum or few bulkheads - and that's it.

 

 

 

*Note: This is true for warships as well but it is especially infuriating with TR