>>>v1.4 Feedback<<< (1.4.1.1 Opt x2 latest version)

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, flashmozzzgg said:

Submariners were limited to several sunken battleships and single cruisers without protection. The task of submarines is to sink convoys, not the player's fleets.

That is in my opinion the main issue with subs in this game. Most players don't understand what they could do. Your statement is wrong, simple as that. The advantage the warships had against subs was the superior cruising speed, nothing more. Convoys were slow, so the subs captain could outrun them in the open far away and plot a course to intercept. Dive, attack, evade and repeat the process. Against a TF cruising in high speed, impossible.  But if they were unlucky to be traveling a path where is an enemy sub, they would be attacked. Capital ships are valuable targets to be neglected.

Do you think Barham was sailing alone without an escort? How about Taiho or Shinano? Carrier Wasp? About the attack against the carrier Wasp, the Japanese commander was so lucky that the remaining torpedoes that miss the carrier would score a hit on the NC and a destroyer.

There are many situations like that in WWII.

 

[Seleukos of Olympia]

28 minutes ago, o Barão said:

That is in my opinion the main issue with subs in this game. Most players don't understand what they could do. Your statement is wrong, simple as that. The advantage the warships had against subs was the superior cruising speed, nothing more. Convoys were slow, so the subs captain could outrun them in the open far away and plot a course to intercept. Dive, attack, evade and repeat the process. Against a TF cruising in high speed, impossible.  But if they were unlucky to be traveling a path where is an enemy sub, they would be attacked. Capital ships are valuable targets to be neglected.

Do you think Barham was sailing alone without an escort? How about Taiho or Shinano? Carrier Wasp? About the attack against the carrier Wasp, the Japanese commander was so lucky that the remaining torpedoes that miss the carrier would score a hit on the NC and a destroyer.

There are many situations like that in WWII.

 

"The only time a submarine beat the Royal Navy's destroyer screen". Ironically, the very next year a German submarine would sink the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle, on its way to Malta, when it was surrounded by no less than 32 destroyers and other escorts. These things happened. They just didn't happen every month. And the submarines, in those two cases at least, were 1940 models, so much newer than the capital ships they sunk.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Seleukos of Olympia

[flashmozzzgg]

23 minutes ago, o Barão said:

That is in my opinion the main issue with subs in this game. Most players don't understand what they could do.

My opinion is that the main problem with submarines in this game is that you have no control over the battle with them. And that's why the current balance is such a disappointment. 

In UAD it doesn't matter how many DD there are and how well armed they are. In one case you will sink the submarine, and in the other you will not sink it. 50/50 (rather, even 80/20 in favor of submarines).

Any other fight can be played and if you lose, it's only your fault. A strategic or tactical mistake. But this is your mistake. In the case of submarines, what is the game punishing me for? Because I moved a TF to Kronstadt? Good. Give me a tool to fight the submarines. Oh, I have it and it's called DD! But they are useless.

33 minutes ago, o Barão said:

The advantage the warships had against subs was the superior cruising speed, nothing more.

You select the wrong reference point. Yes, we can count the dead capital ships from the actions of submarines. But what percentage will it be of the total tonnage sunk? Will we even get 10%?

40 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Convoys were slow, so the subs captain could outrun them in the open far away and plot a course to intercept. Dive, attack, evade and repeat the process. Against a TF cruising in high speed, impossible.  But if they were unlucky to be traveling a path where is an enemy sub, they would be attacked. Capital ships are valuable targets to be neglected.

During the Second World War, the Kriegsmarine's combat losses amounted to 766 submarines: in 1939 - 9, in 1940 - 24, in 1941 - 35, in 1942 - 86, in 1943 - 242, in 1944 - 250 and in 1945 - 120 units. 

We see a clear correlation that when the problem of submarines was realized and measures were taken, submarines stopped demonstrating such effectiveness. There is no such tool in the game. The game does not feel the development of anti-submarine warfare in any way. They're just useless, lol.

47 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Do you think Barham was sailing alone without an escort? How about Taiho or Shinano? Carrier Wasp? About the attack against the carrier Wasp, the Japanese commander was so lucky that the remaining torpedoes that miss the carrier would score a hit on the NC and a destroyer.

There are many situations like that in WWII.

WW1 and WW2 submarines were a tool for fighting transports and naval blockade without the use of a large fleet. They have never fought purposefully against linear forces (except for the raid on Scapa-Flow). Chance meetings, yes. But their main task is the destruction of transports.

The game is called "dreadnoughts". Big guns. "All-big-gun". 

But an uncontrolled element in the form of submarines has been introduced into the game, which prevents you from enjoying the big guns and at the same time the tool for fighting them is completely useless.

[Panzergraf]

Submarine balance was almost opposite in 1.3.9.x than it is currently. Subs could still sink or damage capital ships, now and then, but generally if you had enough escorts the subs would not get away with it.

Which caused another problem; the AI just shooting itself in the foot by building lots and lots of submarines...
In my last campaign pre 1.4, at one point the Chinese navy had 300 submarines. Years later, when China dissolved, they were down to ~50 remaining subs (and they had been building more during this long war). The cost to my navy for sinking several hundred submarines? One (1!) light cruiser.

I would like the option to disable subs for this reason too. Either they are too powerful, and it almost feels like something is bugged when you can't sink them, or they are almost useless and yet another way for the AI to shoot itself in the foot (and the AI has plenty of ways to do that already)

I will say though, that in the latest version of the game I have not yet seen the AI build way too many submarines, like the AI would often do pre-1.4, and they just keep a number that relative to the rest of their navy makes sense.
So kudos for that.

[flashmozzzgg]

31 minutes ago, Panzergraf said:

but generally if you had enough escorts the subs would not get away with it.
 

Your words sound like a joke.

In 1.4, the battle played out in 90% of cases ends with the inscription "no submarines detected" and the damage /sinking of one of your ships. The screenshots below show a group with an escort. Only without the battlecruiser, because it was sunk, lol.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, flashmozzzgg said:

In UAD it doesn't matter how many DD there are and how well armed they are. In one case you will sink the submarine, and in the other you will not sink it.

So, the same thing as WWII. Ok.

1 hour ago, flashmozzzgg said:

 

Give me a tool to fight the submarines. Oh, I have it and it's called DD! But they are useless.

 

Oh really? Ok play a campaign against subs without DDs. If they are useless there is no point in spending money on them right? Tell me after how it worked the game for you.

1 hour ago, flashmozzzgg said:

You select the wrong reference point. Yes, we can count the dead capital ships from the actions of submarines. But what percentage will it be of the total tonnage sunk? Will we even get 10%?

I don't understand your point, really. Are you trying to say I am right, when I mentioned the convoys were more vulnerable because they were slow? Ok thanks I guess.

1 hour ago, flashmozzzgg said:

During the Second World War, the Kriegsmarine's combat losses amounted to 766 submarines: in 1939 - 9, in 1940 - 24, in 1941 - 35, in 1942 - 86, in 1943 - 242, in 1944 - 250 and in 1945 - 120 units. 

We see a clear correlation that when the problem of submarines was realized and measures were taken, submarines stopped demonstrating such effectiveness. There is no such tool in the game. The game does not feel the development of anti-submarine warfare in any way. They're just useless, lol.

You are ignoring the major factor here. Air power. The moment the Allied forces managed to close the Atlantic gap with planes, there was no more place to hide. Half of the U-boats were lost this way. There is no air power to threaten your ships, and the same applies to subs.

1 hour ago, flashmozzzgg said:

WW1 and WW2 submarines were a tool for fighting transports and naval blockade without the use of a large fleet. They have never fought purposefully against linear forces (except for the raid on Scapa-Flow).

Wrong again. Every time they could be useful in depleting the enemy forces before the major battle, they were used. Normal thing to do, since is a great weapon for the job. Germans did that and failed in Jutland. If I am not mistaken, the entire American sub concept before WWII was to use them with the fleets, to go ahead of the main fleet, scout, report and sink as many as possible. And they did that in all major battles, same as Japan. I think all nations used them in that role when the situation arises.

 

So yeah, same thing. Wrong expectation about how subs operate leads to disappointment with the game. Nothing new.

Edited December 3, 2023 by o Barão

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Okay then, how many DDs do I need to sink three SSs? I have 15 DDs on 3 SSCs with 100 ASW each and they aren't damaging the SSs.

[Panzergraf]

56 minutes ago, flashmozzzgg said:

Your words sound like a joke.

In 1.4, the battle played out in 90% of cases ends with the inscription "no submarines detected" and the damage /sinking of one of your ships. The screenshots below show a group with an escort. Only without the battlecruiser, because it was sunk, lol.

I'm saying that's what happened in 1.3.9, unlike what is happening now in 1.4

Also, one more annoying thing about submarines;
If I for example have a large task force, and I move it to hopefully engage a large enemy task force (to get an actual battle, which is what the game is all about), and then my own task force encounters a submarine, I will not get to fight the enemy task force that turn.

It's like the game saying "Nope! You don't get to actually play. Here, click the RNG autoresolve button instead."

[Lima]

First, let's talk about the scenario of submarines attacking TF with capital ships

IRL, you couldn't confidently send submarines to fight warships because:

1. They didn't have enough speed to intercept groups of warships.
2. It is very difficult to make a stealth and effective torpedo attack.
3. In case of detection, it will be very difficult for the submarine to escape from the angry escort ships.

Therefore, the submarines were used in a different way. You could expect success if:

1. The enemy is distracted, for example, participating in a surface/air battle. 
2. The enemy is not expecting a submarine attack.
3. The enemy doesn't have sufficient ASW (equipment, crew trainig and ships) so the submarine can act more aggressively (as an example, US subs vs IJN).

The first two points can never be completely eliminated, but during the war, crews will become more aware of the threat of submarines, the command develops procedures that should counter this threat, and ideally you will have more ships that can be allocated to ASW. The results of this process can be observed in the form of hundreds of uboats at the bottom of the Atlantic.

Now, what's going on in the game:

1. A group of subs generates a battle with a surface TF very easily (what is cruise speed).
2. Most of the time, the group of subs will not be detected.
3. Even in case of detection, the subs have a great chance of survival.

All this means that you can confidently send submarines to fight warships. You can expect them to do damage and survive. It's crazy, but it's the way it is.

Now let's talk about the submarine hunting scenario

IRL - Aircraft carriers took a big part in this. But we don't have them. However, detecting submarines is not a problem anyway, and in open combat surface warships are quite capable of destroying submarines.

Well, I'm sending a group of light cruisers and destroyers to hunt for submarines. They are here to destroy submarines. They are not distracted, they have the best ASW equipment and trained crews. This should give a result. And...This gives a slightly better result, but in general they are also not capable of confidently destroying submarines. 

To make this situation even funnier, as a rule, my ASW equipment is technologically superior to the submarines it is used against. The ocean-going submarines of the 1920s were extremely noisy and they should be easy to detect with Sonar III.

The problem is in the big picture. It is such that submarines constantly fight with warships and no amount of ASW equipment, numbers and training are able to effectively stop them, how did it happen IRL. It would not be a problem for me if I sometimes lost warships from successful submarine attacks. This is a problem when it happens all the time and I can't effectively counter it.

In 8 years of active war with submarines, I lost around three dozen DDs with 2600 ASW (I stopped counting after 20, but I think it's about right), these are the very ships that were supposed to hunt submarines.

[flashmozzzgg]

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

So, the same thing as WWII. Ok.

700 submarines sunk by the Kriegsmarine send greetings to you.

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Tell me after how it worked the game for you.

You won't believe it! I came to this topic to tell about my impressions of the game. 

And even though I didn't take a screenshot of every battle conducted with submarines, but 2 wars in the period since 1920 + give me every right to say that destroyers are completely useless in the fight against submarines.

At the moment (1928) I have 127 destroyers (not counting those killed by submarines) with Sonar 3 and depth charges 4 and out of a 20+ battles with submarines, I have sunk only 1! While they sent several battlecruisers and cruisers to the bottom, and I stopped counting the dead destroyers. I tried experimenting and refitted CL, adding depth charges to them and including them in a group of submarine hunters (about 30 destroyers), but this only led to the death of CL as well. 

So my campaign for Germany is completely ruined. The Russian surface fleet has been destroyed, but there are unsinkable submarines at the ports and I cannot land in any port without risking the loss of the entire fleet from submarines.

And it's not fun at all.

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I don't understand your point, really. Are you trying to say I am right, when I mentioned the convoys were more vulnerable because they were slow? Ok thanks I guess.

I said that submarines did not fight purposefully with linear forces. And the tonnage of the sunk ships says exactly that.

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You are ignoring the major factor here. Air power. The moment the Allied forces managed to close the Atlantic gap with planes, there was no more place to hide. Half of the U-boats were lost this way. There is no air power to threaten your ships, and the same applies to subs.

We are discussing a game where in the 1940s battleships with 20" main guns dominated the seas. Of course, in this case, I exclude aviation from the anti-submarine equation! But I'll say it again. This is a game about surface fleet. If I want to play in a SS simulator, I'll go to Silent Hunter. 

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Wrong again. Every time they could be useful in depleting the enemy forces before the major battle, they were used. Normal thing to do, since is a great weapon for the job. Germans did that and failed in Jutland. If I am not mistaken, the entire American sub concept before WWII was to use them with the fleets, to go ahead of the main fleet, scout, report and sink as many as possible. And they did that in all major battles, same as Japan. I think all nations used them in that role when the situation arises.

And in real life there were aircraft carriers, can you imagine?!

I'll say it again. I consider the situation and write feedback solely from the point of view of the gameplay and the feeling of it. My claim is only one thing. What I see after 200+ hours of playing is that submarines are a toxic and bad gameplay element. This is a completely uncontrollable element that destroys the atmosphere of the game about the surface fleet.

I fully recognize their right to chance encounters with BB, sinking convoys, reconnaissance and other functions that were in reality. But in reality, the submarines did not prevent the Allies from landing in Normandy. But in UAD it happens.

 

The fight against submarines must have some kind of recipe. So that when I came to the forum and said "I can't sink submarines" I could get the answer "build destroyers". And not "well, yes, it's roulette, but that's how it was in reality." In real life, we didn't have battleships with 20" main guns, lol. And therefore, if I send 120 modern destroyers to 10 submarines, I will be able to sink them and not lose a destroyer after each automatic battle without any result.

Edited December 3, 2023 by flashmozzzgg

[flashmozzzgg]

12 minutes ago, Panzergraf said:

I'm saying that's what happened in 1.3.9, unlike what is happening now in 1.4

Apologize. I misunderstood you. 

[o Barão]

12 minutes ago, Lima said:

1. They didn't have enough speed to intercept groups of warships.
2. It is very difficult to make a stealth and effective torpedo attack.
3. In case of detection, it will be very difficult for the submarine to escape from the angry escort ships.

 1 In fact you could, by sending them in waves to form a big line in the ocean to cover a wide area. The Japanese sub that sunk the Wasp was part of a group covering a line east of Guadalcanal. It is not a question to intercept, since that is impossible due to speed factor, but to be in the path of the enemy fleet. Spread your subs to cover a wide area in a line formation where you expect them will come, and you increase your chances one of them to be in the right spot to attack.

2 IRL it was easier. The reason being the speed. The sonar man will have many difficulties to hear the sub with the ship's engines at high power to maintain a speed 20 knots+. In a convoy travelling at 9 knots, it seems much more difficult for a sub to slip away undetected, but they did anyway, so.

3 No difference. If detected by the enemy attacking a convoy or TF, the threat by destroyers is the same, and that didn't stop them before. Some were lucky and evade, others got sunk. Same thing.

[Lima]

1 minute ago, o Barão said:

 1 In fact you could, by sending them in waves to form a big line in the ocean to cover a wide area. The Japanese sub that sunk the Wasp was part of a group covering a line east of Guadalcanal. It is not a question to intercept, since that is impossible due to speed factor, but to be in the path of the enemy fleet. Spread your subs to cover a wide area in a line formation where you expect them will come, and you increase your chances one of them to be in the right spot to attack.

2 IRL it was easier. The reason being the speed. The sonar man will have many difficulties to hear the sub with the ship's engines at high power to maintain a speed 20 knots+. In a convoy travelling at 9 knots, it seems much more difficult for a sub to slip away undetected, but they did anyway, so.

3 No difference. If detected by the enemy attacking a convoy or TF, the threat by destroyers is the same, and that didn't stop them before. Some were lucky and evade, others got sunk. Same thing.

1. Ah, a good example. IRL, you are not sure that submarines will be able to attack warships, you compensate for this by using a large number of submarines (and this will not necessarily work).

Whereas in the game you send *one* submarine group which easily generates a battle. Imagine that each of these Japanese submarines has found a target.

2.  Speed, yes. In the case of an attack on a moving group of warships, you have little time to make decisions and calculations and you definitely don't want the enemy to detect you. This has a serious impact on accuracy.

3. It depends on the number of escort ships in the convoy. If we turn to WW2 (again), sometimes there were very few of them, they simply couldn't afford to hunt for submarines. In a group of warships, the chance that you would be chased was on average higher.

[Lima]

Examples of ASW ships

I've said a lot that DDs have problems with submarines, I think it's worth showing what I use. This is my special ASW DD, she has 2600 ASW, which is only 600 more than my standard DD. It is possible to create a ship with 2800 ASW, but I wanted her to be able to do something in a surface battle. As mentioned above, these DDs have suffered huge losses from subs, while they very rarely deal damage in response. And I am talking about their use in special ASW groups of 1-2CL 2-6DD.

After the DDs repeatedly failed, I began to use a separate groups of 6500 ASW CLs, but by the end of the 1940s even they stopped destroying submarines. Then I made this abomination of a "ship" with 7700 ASW, but even she cannot save the situation.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Even funnier:

 

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

Even funnier:

 

A-H have a lot of subs. I suspect that to happen when the AI fails to design a ship. I am guessing here. I prefer not to comment about this here, since this area is about the devs updates.

[Darth Khyron]

Uhm...can anyone explain this?
I was invading central russia via the baltic sea and used four battlegroups to do so, covered by two additional submarine groups narby and an antisubmarine force further away. During the invasion, a russian battleship along with two destroyers sailed from St.Petersburg and slipped through all of my task groups.
I managed to capture Central Russia while the enemy was virtually in the center of my groups.
The next turn, they are outside in the baltic and block all groups, including the submarines, from leaving.
Okay, I am having trouble comprehending why one BB and two DDs can block 12 BBs, 6 BCs, 12 CA, 12 CL and 36 DDs from escaping, but, well...surely we can sink them in the next round.

Buuuut...no battle pops up. Not with the fast ASW group, not with a battle group and not with the submarines.
Why is that? It seems the only way to escape is to make peace?

 

[Aldaris]

Yeah, that sucks. Same issue frequently pops up in the red sea and near Gibraltar. Small enemy task force blocks all movement, and the player is unable to engage them, to force the passage.

There REALLY should be a way to specifically click on an enemy task force to try and force a battle with them. If they don't move (or don't move far) there's a fight. If they move, do a comparison of range and speed and see if the players force could have caught up. If yes, battle. If not, fair, they got away, but the way is free.

That's stil not ideal, because it still costs you a turn to force the passage, but it's better than being stuck, minutely moving your task forces around in the hopes that the game will finally realize that yes, there's an enemy force RIGHT THERE that's been sitting there for 5 turns.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Aldaris

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Aldaris said:

Yeah, that sucks. Same issue frequently pops up in the red sea and near Gibraltar. Small enemy task force blocks all movement, and the player is unable to engage them, to force the passage.

There REALLY should be a way to specifically click on an enemy task force to try and force a battle with them. If they don't move (or don't move far) there's a fight. If they move, do a comparison of range and speed and see if the players force could have caught up. If yes, battle. If not, fair, they got away, but the way is free.

That's stil not ideal, because it still costs you a turn to force the passage, but it's better than being stuck, minutely moving your task forces around in the hopes that the game will finally realize that yes, there's an enemy force RIGHT THERE that's been sitting there for 5 turns.

It’s really weird bc I remember in older versions you would easily get task force fights if you force your fleets close to one another. It doesn’t happen now. 

[Darth Khyron]

hm...so, another campaign finished. It was very frustrating.
Yes, the enemy is now acting much more intelligent, that is mostly a plus. I have the feeling that they phase in and out of existence (I see them, they vanish at once. Another is seen, vanishes. Another is seen, vanishes, even at short range, but that may be me). The AI still uses speedboats and it is not a rare occassion that you will face enemy battlecruisers with 42+ knots.
Ah, yes...the torpedo spammers are back. Often, battles devolve into a wild zigzagging, because the AI again prefers torpedo dancers. There are heavy cruisers with six single six-inch guns and 42 torpedo tubes. Why dancers? Because they fire their starboard torpedoes, turn to fire their underwater starbord torpedes, turn to fire their front torpedoes, turn to fire their port torpedoes, turn to fire their port unterwater torpedoes, turn to fire their rear torpedoes.
I wanted to prevent this by building shared designs. But I have yet to face a single one of them, even after a dozen campaigns.

But these battles are not common. In the beginning, yes, battlelines (if you can afford them) will slug it out against each other. But once submarines become a thing, the AI will produce more and more of these. Why? Because they are the most effctive weapon in the game, especially for smaller nations.

Also...friendly fire is still very much a thing. I cannot count the times my ships have been torpedoed and often sunk by my own destroyers, especially those on "escort" orders or on "AI".

So, most "battles" that pop up are submarine battles, which are auto-resolved. ASW ships before 1930 are somewhat effective, but the best counter against enemy submarines are...submarines. I have found that my submarine cruisers and fleet submarines are much more effective against other submarines, especially after 1930ish.
ASW escorts are still neccessary, if only as shield to be sunk instead of a capital ship...of which I ceased to produce any after a while. I kept upgrading my existing ones, but I only built heavy and light cruisers (the former only for invasion pusposes, as they are the largest ship to carry depth-charges) and destroyers...and lots and lots of submarines to flood the oceans with. When an enemy battleship does pop up, I send swarms of subs against it until it is sunk.
The "Shinano"-moments are occuring far too often. "Yes, finally my 100+ kton superbattleship is active and will wreak havoc. So, I shall escort her with 2 heavy and 6 light cruisers and umpteen destroyers, so surely...BAM! Well...okay. Now...hm...her sistership is also ready. And now I have more escorts for her, so surely...BAM! oh...well...two other are under construction...they will make...uh...a good fleet in being."
Since the game seems to prefer "balanced" battles (which I find to be nonsense, why do I produce big ships anyway?), surface battles are mostly convoy defense against raiders, the occassional light cruiser against light cruiser and sometimes even heavy cruiser against heavy cruisers. The only battle where I face enemy battlecruisers or battleships is when I raid enemy convoys. Two of my light cruisers against a BB or BC. Very balanced indeed (and yes, I have CAs close by, but these are not generated).

So...with capital ships mostly rendered obsolete, perhaps reconsider the effectiveness of submarines?

And...yes, I am ranting. I do, because I like the game still. Otherwise I would not play it anymore. But I want to play a game that is fun and not frustrating in the end.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Darth Khyron

[jingojango]

Along with the things others have already mentioned. I think there are two important issues that still need to be addressed. To start, the new diplomacy mechanics (where if an allied nation is at war with another nation, you get negative relation with that nation each turn) make it incredibly unfun to play, because at a certain point I'm stuck trying (and failing) to fight the last few subs and light cruisers blocking me from invading the last port of a nation that I've already made peace with half a dozen times in the past 4 years. There needs to be some way to break alliances during a war, or otherwise force your allies to make peace so you don't get dragged right back in.

 

Second, and by far the most important IMO is optimization. I'm playing on a very good PC, my CPU utilization never goes above 10%, RAM and GPU utilization is similarly low most of the time. That said, the game is unbearably slow, to the point that for every hour or so of actual gameplay I get out of this game, there's about 30-45 minutes of loading screens, even for things as simple as *opening* the save menu...not even saving the game! Just opening the LIST OF SAVES (of which there are TWO). I honestly can't understand how people manage to actually finish a campaign with how horrendous the loading times for EVERYTHING is. I've tried restarting my computer, verifying the game files, even reinstalling the game...nothing has helped.

[Seleukos of Olympia]

It's also been my experience that submarines are weirdly efficient at countering enemy submarines, at least in a game I've been playing with a 1930 start. Is it realistic? No. Is it practical? Eh, I guess.

[Fun Police]

In my current japan game i've reached 1940. I've built a couple monster super battleships, and I'm looking for a big fight. USA and france both have absurd GDP, and USA had about 20 BBs last time I checked, along with pretty much all of south America. Surely they have big ships? Nope, they seem to have scrapped them all and built a submarine fleet. I don't mind subs that much if their intended purpose is to punish people for getting greedy and not building escorts, that's fine. I actually really like cruiser duels. But please let me have an occasional big gun fights. It's kind of frustrating when my reward for getting to the late game is autoresolve submarine attacks. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Fun Police

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all,

Here is another optimization update. Enjoy!
Minor Update v1.4.0.9
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/3891736341248109949 

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Can we have task force battles just like the previous version? For example, we could put our task force next to an opponent task force and it would directly generate a battle.