Some Things I would like to see in 1.11 and/or beyond

[Suribachi]

As we know, patch 1.1 went live, which means there is not going to be much in the way of features being released, at least for a while.  This will give the developers a chance to rest before their next major crunch towards new features and improvements in the future 1.11 or whatever they call it or even further down the road.  So to give the developers some ideas of what I personally would like to see in game so they have time to work on them and polish them before we test them again.

I will be abundantly clear here, I do not expect all or even a majority of this list in the next version of the game.  Just stating my opinion on what I think the game needs going forward.


Here are a few that immediately come to mind:

Features:  
1. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40596-cycle-between-fleetsports-that-are-on-top-of-each-other/  -- this one pretty much explains itself.  Being able to select the task force that is underneath another to be able to send them in different directions on the same turn is necessary, whether to send to different ports after a war, for resupply or just to split the task force to do 2 different missions.

2.  https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40746-marineamphibious-force/  -- Marine/Amphibious Force.  With the introduction of Land Attacks in 1.1, many players feel as if they are along for the ride in their campaigns.  Good for a sim, not good for a casual experience.  I propose a small marine force that we can use during naval invasions that gives a buff to the chances of success.  Similar to buffing port strikes through Naval bombardment.  Hats off to @HistoricalAccuracyMan on this one, his post is far more in depth than could ever hope to write out myself.

3. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40752-campaign-camera-focusing-on-home-province/ -- The campaign map point of view, or camera, should focus in on the player's nation on the world map whenever loading in cold from the main menu, after a battle or from the ship designer.  I play as Japan a lot and having to scroll every time from the Atlantic Ocean over to Japan so I can manage my task forces in local waters is very tedious.  Having the game do this automatically or giving the player a hot key on the keyboard to do this would be amazing.  Something like "Press 'H' to view Home Province".

4. Wrap Around World Map -- Having campaigns where the Pacific Ocean is your primary theatre of war (Japan, China, USA) is a pain when you need to scroll from one side of the map to the other all the time.  Having the map be able to be continuous so the Pacific Ocean can be viewed all at once is necessary to me.

5. Battle Weather -- It is time that the weather conditions in battle are better represented in game.  A lot of the confusion over accuracy and spotting in the player base has to do with not knowing about the weather conditions and how it is affecting things.  If weather is shown, the players can know that they are not spotting a ship until they are is due to the weather.  If this cannot be done graphically right now, at least putting the conditions on the pre-battle screen where it shows X number of ships vs X number of ships is a must.

6.  Ballast -- In ship building, some designs that are historical are not the best idea for gameplay reasons as they are inherently unbalanced, usually to Fore or Aft.  Being able to add ballast tech, kind of like Barbette or Torp Protection, that can eliminate X% of weight offset possibly at the cost of engine efficiency or something else would be a plus.  However, this is likely to cause issues in the AI designer that is already plagued with inefficiency.  As a result, I do not want to see this until the AI is better and faster at creating designs.

7. Being able to see what the Government is thinking -- Many a player's frustrations come from the fact that the government is a black box, we have zero idea if they want to continue the war or not.  In the player's eyes, they do not know if their actions or choices matter.  As an example, if the player can see on the Politics tab, or else where, that the government is a parliament made up of 123 government types and which way they are leaning, it can help the player know if a war might be about to end or not.  Additionally, seeing what actions swing the government to either pro-war or anti-war stances are a must.  Captured a province with natural resources?  Might swing pro-war.  Lost a fleet or failed to defend a province?  Might swing anti-war.  To explain the player being able to see this information, it would be like us going to the parliament, using my previous example, and making our case for fighting to the end or pushing for peace (the popup we already have) and seeing how the government types react.  The only difference here is that we can see the outcome of the choice even if we do not have full control over it.

8.  Setting Naming Themes for ship classes --  Personally, I would like see a hull number either somewhere on the ship, in the ships name, or both (toggle in the settings perhaps).  Something like (BB-63) USS New Jersey would be good.  Just a preference thing as I am better with numbers than names.  Also, be able to have the game recognize themes or patterns to a ship class name or give us a preset to chose from.  For example, if I design a destroyer that is a minelaying vessel not meant to see combat, I would want the naming scheme ML-1, ML-2 etc.  The reasoning behind this would be to assist players in recognizing different ship classes outside of the fleet tab like when moving ships across the map.  No use in sending your older CAs to counter a fleet of newer ships right?

9. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40689-research-tab-ui-suggestion/  -- The tech tree UI needs a bit of cleaning up.  It gets pretty tedious having to scroll to the bottom to see what is being worked on, especially for Cruiser Hulls, Shells and Explosives.  Also being able to see the years of already completed tech will help you see if you are behind or ahead in that category.  Hats off to @MDHansen for his amazing MS Paint skills btw!


Improvements:
Not necessarily new features, just improvements of what is already there.

1.  Creating minefields in distant waters -- Since mines were introduced, players do not actually have visual feedback if their minelayers are doing anything when away from port.  Being able to tell a minelayer to specifically create a minefield at the mouth of a canal or shipping lane would allow them to deny an enemy passage to an area or risk losses.  Use wisely though, it would be a shame to sink a neutral ship and bring another country into a war that you may already be losing.

2. See a nations transport capacity -- Can be explained by having spies giving you information.  On the politics tab, we can see a guess of how many transports a nation has, much like our own 0-200% under the Finances tab.  However, this would only provide a range instead of an exact number, something like 130-160%.  Just so we know if us hunting transports is actually doing anything.

3. Setting behavior for Submarines -- Since it seems that subs are here to stay, I would like to see us be able to tell the subs which targets to prioritize, Enemy Task Forces or Enemy Transports.  After all, I do not want my older, non-stealthy subs to try and sink warships that have ASW abilities.  Instead, I want those to hunt transports so they can still contribute to the war effort without becoming fish food.

4. Game needs to be able to run in the background -- Pretty self explanatory.  The game needs a Borderless Window mode, allowing the player to click off the game and the game continues to process turns, battles etc while the player is interacting with another program, like the forums!

5. Provinces in some UI elements need more information -- Especially in war concessions screen or choosing a port for a new ship to be built, provinces need to list the body of water they are closest to or are a part of.  This will have geographically challenged players know where the province is on the map without having to google it.


I think I will stop here for now.  One, because I cannot think of much more given the present state of the game and two, because I do not want the developers overloaded with feature creep that would delay the next evolutions of the game too far.  Some features may have a mixed reception, but like I said at the beginning, these are some things that I personally would like to see in the game.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Suribachi
Added improvement point 4 and 5

[madham82]

All great ideas to me. The wrap around map especially.

[anonusername]

I think there needs to be less randomness to the diplomatic aspects of the game in general. AI nations should avoid fighting multiple wars at once and not declare war immediately after finishing the previous one. They should also be more proactive in annexing minor nations to short up their port capacity prior to declaring war.

For the player nation, there should be an option to encourage a naval invasion of a strategically important minor nation. e.g. The Germans should be able to invade the low countries to gain an advantage in port capacity vs. the British, the US should be able to invade Hawaii in preparation for a war vs. the Japanese, etc.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

How about more hulls/towers/guns for something that ISN'T older than the Washington Naval Treaty of the 1920s? While I do like seeing the earlier hulls (1890-1910s) get some love or some new counterparts, we need more designs (especially cruiser designs) after 1920. I know I just keep bringing it up...but seriously: look at how many different cruiser designs Japan has (starting at, say, 1918 and then going forward) and then compare that number to the number of cruiser designs that other nations get.

I'm going back to the US Navy again as an example (because that's the nation that I play the most as): starting at the year 1919--depending on your research priorities and whether or not you are in a custom battle--the US Navy gets access to the "Modern Light Cruiser" hull. You wanna know what the problem with that is? From that point on (so, quite literally for 20 years or more if your campaign goes all the way to 1950 or whatever the limit is) that is the ONLY CL design the US Navy has access to unless you take others as a war prize. The only difference is increasing displacement and the same generic towers (that multiple nations get that, as far as I know, don't match any design I've ever known to exist) go from "Advanced Tower I" to "Advanced Tower V" or whatever.

At least the CAs are a little bit better off. But still, you are locked to only 3 designs: generic treaty looking cruiser that is kind of a balancing nightmare and has the big gray square of wasted and unusable space, upscaled "Modern Light Cruiser," or a downscaled battleship. Now, I don't know about you...but I'm pretty sure that nobody would look at an Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina and a Baltimore side by side and say "Clearly they're from the same ship class!" The only thing they share is an AB-X gun arrangement with each turret having three gun barrels.

Once you get to the mid-late 1930s, the Brooklyn Class of cruisers were introduced (to counter the Japanese Mogami class of cruisers...which are already in game). From the Brooklyns further development, you start seeing other ships like the Clevelands and Atlantas spring up in the late 30s/early 40s. From the Clevelands, you get USS Wichita and the Baltimores, which eventually lead to the Des Moines class (even though they were post-WWII cruisers, but you get where I'm going). And yet, with all these options, not one of the aforementioned cruisers is in game for the US Navy to use--you can try to argue the case for the Baltimore, but I don't care how you slice it: if it uses the Iowa's towers and Iowa's guns...it's just a downsized Iowa...plain and simple. I realize that for the Atlanta class it would take a very specific superstructure model to support their ABC-XYZ triple superfiring design with two additional wing turrets AND torpedo launchers. And I realize that most of the treaty cruisers (Northampton, Pensacola, New Orleans) look the same so the same towers/hull can be used...but that hull with the big gray box of unusable space is kind of a waste (I've already stated my issues with that particular hull in a previous post, so I won't get too deep into it here), either let us put something ON/IN that big gray space amidships...or get rid of it.

Destroyers are in the same exact boat. Name me one US Destroyer in WWII that used those towers. I will patiently wait. There is no Gearing, no Farragut, no Sims, no Mahan and--possibly the saddest of all--no Fletcher (arguably the most famous and well known US destroyer of the war, with 175+ being made). Even if you look at pre-WWII designs...I don't think you can recreate a Clemson class destroyer or any other "flush deckers."

The US Navy isn't unique in that issue. Last time I checked, it was the French and British as well. At least the Germans, Russians and Spain get two different designs even though one of them is basically an up-scaled destroyer (it's been a while since I took a deep/full look at which ships have what hulls in what year but I think this statement is still correct).

This one is just me getting nitpicky...but an Iowa class's superstructure doesn't look the same as a North Carolina's. It would be nice to have more than one BB tower design to use for the US Navy (the rear tower for the Iowa is strangely similar to that of a North Carolina so that one would be fine). Y'know...kinda like how the Germans have either the Bismarck towers or a Gneisenau-esque set of towers. Or how the Japanese have a variety of Pagoda towers (both front and rear) to choose from.

Devs, please...some variety would be nice. I'm not a fan of tagging/mentioning the devs as I know they are busy enough...but @Nick Thomadis, are there any plans at all--either in the near or distant future--to release some additional hulls/towers/guns for some more ships like the ones I mentioned above? And not just for the US Navy either, but for multiple nations?

[Suribachi]

7 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

How about more hulls/towers/guns for something that ISN'T older than the Washington Naval Treaty of the 1920s? While I do like seeing the earlier hulls (1890-1910s) get some love or some new counterparts, we need more designs (especially cruiser designs) after 1920. I know I just keep bringing it up...but seriously: look at how many different cruiser designs Japan has (starting at, say, 1918 and then going forward) and then compare that number to the number of cruiser designs that other nations get.

I'm going back to the US Navy again as an example (because that's the nation that I play the most as): starting at the year 1919--depending on your research priorities and whether or not you are in a custom battle--the US Navy gets access to the "Modern Light Cruiser" hull. You wanna know what the problem with that is? From that point on (so, quite literally for 20 years or more if your campaign goes all the way to 1950 or whatever the limit is) that is the ONLY CL design the US Navy has access to unless you take others as a war prize. The only difference is increasing displacement and the same generic towers (that multiple nations get that, as far as I know, don't match any design I've ever known to exist) go from "Advanced Tower I" to "Advanced Tower V" or whatever.

At least the CAs are a little bit better off. But still, you are locked to only 3 designs: generic treaty looking cruiser that is kind of a balancing nightmare and has the big gray square of wasted and unusable space, upscaled "Modern Light Cruiser," or a downscaled battleship. Now, I don't know about you...but I'm pretty sure that nobody would look at an Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina and a Baltimore side by side and say "Clearly they're from the same ship class!" The only thing they share is an AB-X gun arrangement with each turret having three gun barrels.

Once you get to the mid-late 1930s, the Brooklyn Class of cruisers were introduced (to counter the Japanese Mogami class of cruisers...which are already in game). From the Brooklyns further development, you start seeing other ships like the Clevelands and Atlantas spring up in the late 30s/early 40s. From the Clevelands, you get USS Wichita and the Baltimores, which eventually lead to the Des Moines class (even though they were post-WWII cruisers, but you get where I'm going). And yet, with all these options, not one of the aforementioned cruisers is in game for the US Navy to use--you can try to argue the case for the Baltimore, but I don't care how you slice it: if it uses the Iowa's towers and Iowa's guns...it's just a downsized Iowa...plain and simple. I realize that for the Atlanta class it would take a very specific superstructure model to support their ABC-XYZ triple superfiring design with two additional wing turrets AND torpedo launchers. And I realize that most of the treaty cruisers (Northampton, Pensacola, New Orleans) look the same so the same towers/hull can be used...but that hull with the big gray box of unusable space is kind of a waste (I've already stated my issues with that particular hull in a previous post, so I won't get too deep into it here), either let us put something ON/IN that big gray space amidships...or get rid of it.

Destroyers are in the same exact boat. Name me one US Destroyer in WWII that used those towers. I will patiently wait. There is no Gearing, no Farragut, no Sims, no Mahan and--possibly the saddest of all--no Fletcher (arguably the most famous and well known US destroyer of the war, with 175+ being made). Even if you look at pre-WWII designs...I don't think you can recreate a Clemson class destroyer or any other "flush deckers."

The US Navy isn't unique in that issue. Last time I checked, it was the French and British as well. At least the Germans, Russians and Spain get two different designs even though one of them is basically an up-scaled destroyer (it's been a while since I took a deep/full look at which ships have what hulls in what year but I think this statement is still correct).

This one is just me getting nitpicky...but an Iowa class's superstructure doesn't look the same as a North Carolina's. It would be nice to have more than one BB tower design to use for the US Navy (the rear tower for the Iowa is strangely similar to that of a North Carolina so that one would be fine). Y'know...kinda like how the Germans have either the Bismarck towers or a Gneisenau-esque set of towers. Or how the Japanese have a variety of Pagoda towers (both front and rear) to choose from.

Devs, please...some variety would be nice. I'm not a fan of tagging/mentioning the devs as I know they are busy enough...but @Nick Thomadis, are there any plans at all--either in the near or distant future--to release some additional hulls/towers/guns for some more ships like the ones I mentioned above? And not just for the US Navy either, but for multiple nations?

I like the idea of more hulls and towers for the US as well.  I want to build a USS Atlanta or Cleveland but that is not quite possible with the current options. 

The reason I did not include hulls in my list is because, to me, hulls are more content than features.  That said, by no means is the above list exhaustive.

[Abuse_Claws]

One thing I would very much like is being able to actually use Naval Prestige. So far it seems pretty irrelevant, as at some point in the campaign I usually end up with like 1500 NP, and then what?

Events that decrease naval prestige can't spend this bulk in all the 60 years of the campaign (this even if I just stop fighting wars, and otherwise it might get even higher)

And I believe NP might be a very useful tool for influencing government policy or even type (right now the only way of influencing government type I see would be to purposefully raise Unrest until a revolution happens)

Possible mechanics:

- Enforce/Veto decision. For RNG-resolved events like brokering peace and invasions against minor nations make it possible to ensure a certain outcome for a certain amount of NP

- Endorse party. This is pretty self-explanatory: throw your weight behind a certain party for the next election. Possibly with a few different options or even a slider to decide how much NP are you willing to spend on that to get the desired outcome

- Coup. Plain and simple: spend a massive amount of NP (possibly tied to current unrest) to overthrow the government and install a government type of player's choice

- Treaties. Use your influence to introduce international treaties and 'convince' other nations to sign them. This may include London-type naval treaties limiting certain ship types to specific tonnage and gun caliber, treaties against using mines, sinking transports, attacking minor nations etc. (Edit: also free/blocked strait passage) Breaking a treaty would greatly increase tensions with all other participants and unrest within the country

Edited January 21, 2023 by Abuse_Claws

[Suribachi]

44 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

One thing I would very much like is being able to actually use Naval Prestige. So far it seems pretty irrelevant, as at some point in the campaign I usually end up with like 1500 NP, and then what?

Events that decrease naval prestige can't spend this bulk in all the 60 years of the campaign (this even if I just stop fighting wars, and otherwise it might get even higher)

And I believe NP might be a very useful tool for influencing government policy or even type (right now the only way of influencing government type I see would be to purposefully raise Unrest until a revolution happens)

Possible mechanics:

- Enforce/Veto decision. For RNG-resolved events like brokering peace and invasions against minor nations make it possible to ensure a certain outcome for a certain amount of NP

- Endorse party. This is pretty self-explanatory: throw your weight behind a certain party for the next election. Possibly with a few different options or even a slider to decide how much NP are you willing to spend on that to get the desired outcome

- Coup. Plain and simple: spend a massive amount of NP (possibly tied to current unrest) to overthrow the government and install a government type of player's choice

- Treaties. Use your influence to introduce international treaties and 'convince' other nations to sign them. This may include London-type naval treaties limiting certain ship types to specific tonnage and gun caliber, treaties against using mines, sinking transports, attacking minor nations etc. (Edit: also free/blocked strait passage) Breaking a treaty would greatly increase tensions with all other participants and unrest within the country

I really like this idea.  An actual incentive to get Naval Prestige beyond keeping the campaign going.

[TiagoStein]

15 hours ago, madham82 said:

All great ideas to me. The wrap around map especially.

That can  be specially  anoying to make if they did not made their system internally work from polar coordinates from the start although. Several algorithms of distance and path have problems otherwise.

[anonusername]

12 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

That can  be specially  anoying to make if they did not made their system internally work from polar coordinates from the start although. Several algorithms of distance and path have problems otherwise.

You and the AI can already sail fleets through the pacific normally, the UI just doesn't properly reflect this. You can actually make all your calculations work when pretending the earth is rectangle (albeit with distortions based on the projection) by making sure all the calculations use modular arithmetic.

[TiagoStein]

9 hours ago, anonusername said:

You and the AI can already sail fleets through the pacific normally, the UI just doesn't properly reflect this. You can actually make all your calculations work when pretending the earth is rectangle (albeit with distortions based on the projection) by making sure all the calculations use modular arithmetic.

As I said..   some algorithms do not work using modulare aritmetic because the function is not continuous. Certain algorithms for direction and math taking need the function to be continuos on its derivative.

[anonusername]

6 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

As I said..   some algorithms do not work using modulare aritmetic because the function is not continuous. Certain algorithms for direction and math taking need the function to be continuos on its derivative.

Can't this be solved by using the fact that most derivatives of a modular function will have 2 sided limits at all discontinuities? I didn't think that discontinuities with a 2 sided limit mattered much for applied mathematics, although certainly much more annoying to write FORTRAN code for. e.g. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=limit+x+->+2+of+d%2Fdx+x^2+mod+4

[gsg957]

I would like if they added division management, what I mean about this is that instead of selecting ships to form task forces being able to create divisions in port and assign them to task forces would be a lot better. I like to play with really big navies. my biggest issue is when I play battles with a large taskforce the divisions mixed different classes of the same ship, for example in one battle it mixed a fast battleship with some dreadnoughts in a division and having to transfer create or disband divisions on every match is tiring. I think creating divisions would be a nice add since when you jump on a battle with a task force all the divisions exist to your liking and then you don't have mixes of fast and slow ships on the same division.

Divisions should be created in ports or in taskforce screen. They can receive any class of ship as long as they are the same type (battleships only battleships, destroyers only destroyers, etc.) division can be transfer to taskforces but you will have to wait until they reach the task force. divisions are loaded in to battle as assign (I think this will also decrease the loading time since the game will only have to place the divisions and not creating them from 0, I am no expert so please let me know) last two things are important, a screen with active taskforces and divisions to keep tabs on them. finally adding filters to the fleet and design screen since like I said I like to play with huge navies having filters would make the game easier for me since I can keep track better of the fleet and the designs will be also good since I also make a lot of designs.

 

[Skeksis]

Officers and Commanders.  

I would like to see them featured. Sometimes you want to put names to your taskforce and ships, to know them by assigned Commander. It would add another layer of interaction for taskforces and the game. The game does miss a ‘personal’ level or human connection, named Officers and Commanders would fill that gap.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Skeksis

[Suribachi]

43 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Officers and Commanders.  

I would like to see them featured. Sometimes you want to put names to your taskforce and ships, to know them by assigned Commander. It would add another layer of interaction for taskforces and the game. The game does miss a ‘personal’ level or human connection, named Officers and Commanders would fill that gap.

I was thinking about this too.  Not just leading the task force but maybe even as granular as a division commander getting experience.  That way, its not just "oh, this ship is doing the heavy lifting"  it becomes "this division under Cmdr Such and Such is my go to unit"