Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.3)


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello everyone,

This is a quick add-on patch including prompt improvements and fixes after your first feedback about the v1.5 plus some minor UI enhancements.
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4139442565109677742 

Great additions here!

One question, and I might be daft; how does this work? (- Added a new feature when issuing a home port for your new ships. Now you can favorite some ports with the right click button to find them easily.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remove the 30cm fore and aft belt armors (!!!) and also you can reduce the fore/aft deck and it should show logical increase of weight.

 

4 hours ago, ramenhenry said:

Nah mate this is not about that. Outside belt armor should not effect internal citadel armor the way it does regardless if I even have a citadel tech which I don't in this case. I shouldn't get negative displacement for making my citadel bigger or in this case the entire length of the ship.

For some reason in the coding y'all have some weird link for aft forward armor ratioed in with main belt armor to cause bigger citadels to eventually have negative displacement. I am recommending you have citadel displacement completely seperate from main belt, aft forwad belt calculations. 

 

Here are even more examples of this, this being a Spanish Dreanought hull 1 1905 shared design situatin and the other Japanese to also show that this is game wide.

20240312021503_1.jpg

20240312021446_1.jpg

20240312022708_1.jpg

20240312022656_1.jpg

20240312021233_1.jpg

20240312021214_1.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2024 at 6:46 PM, Knobby said:

What's up with tech progression? In most my recent USA campaign I'm the second largest economy in the world and have always had the tech slider on 100%, yet I'm falling behind.

I have been having this exact same issue. Playing as USA, second largest economy, 3 worst tech despite always investing 100%. Yet at the same time Britain, which I decimated basically (Even took Wales) is still on Very Advanced and growing its world leading economy despite being reduced to Ireland and England (Scotland broke free).

 

Some other old issues I really, REALLY want fixed are the transport investment becoming downright unusable after getting 200%, losing some and then only gaining 0.68% on a full slider when I'm back to 158% after a war.

And ships that carry main battery on both the centerline and on the sides still get a weird accuracy bonus for centerline guns, like in this example of a British semi-dreadnought. 

20240311205721_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2024 at 7:27 PM, brothermunro said:

There’s your problem then, when you assign a priority it lowers all your other research, leaving all three assigned all the time is very inefficient and is probably what is causing you to be behind in tech.

Just like Knobby said this never was a problem before. I could easily use all 3 priorities and get to Very Advanced as almost any nation that isn't China before 1900 on an 1890 start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Remove the 30cm fore and aft belt armors (!!!) and also you can reduce the fore/aft deck and it should show logical increase of weight.

 

 

Even if I do the problem is still evident! The ratio is crossed when I have a 30cm to 15cm ratio ! If I expand my citadel I get free displacement !

20240312100717_1.jpg

20240312100701_1.jpg

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, o Barão said:

ai_difficulty_normal_income_multiplier,1,modifier of AI GDP in Normal Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_hard_income_multiplier,1.25,modifier of AI GDP in Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_legendary_income_multiplier,1.5,modifier of AI GDP in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_hard_tech_multiplier,1.25,modifier of AI tech n Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_legendary_tech_multiplier,1.33,modifier of AI tech in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,

From "params" file

The AI gets a 25% tech research bonus in the hard difficulty and as @brothermunro mentioned, there are penalties by using the priorities to focus on specific techs. Add all together and that will explain why you are falling behind.

 

1 hour ago, brothermunro said:

A lot of the research options had their research increased in 1.5, this also affects the AI mind, but will slow down tech progress overall compared to the historical unlock years

Well, I suppose that explains it. But I feel the entire tech tree and progression speed but especially progression order of certain lines needs a fresh look.

Getting 2 superimposed guns tech while still stuck on max 3 centerline guns makes no sense at all.

Big gun progression has bugged me since the very start. Getting some reasonable mark guns in anything above 13 inch pretty much requires you to have big gun on priority at least 80% if the time if not more. 

The same with getting usable triple turrets. The turret mechanism line has so many barrel length techs shoved in it takes forever to get to improved triples. Oh and when you finally get semi-auto reloading you are so near the end of the tree you get the auto and auto-2 almost immediately after.

Cruiser hull, seems to take forever to slowly climb up the tonnage, staying on the same 2 or 3 hull types (just slightly larger / heavier) waaaay to long, before finally getting something resembling 'dreadnought-style' cruiser (you know, with more than 2 centerline turrets for CA and not so focused on side guns for CL). And then the more modern hulls follow so fast after that you hardly even get to use hulls before they go obsolete. (note that this is without priority)

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Knobby said:

 

Cruiser hull, seems to take forever to slowly climb up the tonnage, staying on the same 2 or 3 hull types (just slightly larger / heavier) waaaay to long, before finally getting something resembling 'dreadnought-style' cruiser (you know, with more than 2 centerline turrets for CA and not so focused on side guns for CL). And then the more modern hulls follow so fast after that you hardly even get to use hulls before they go obsolete. (note that this is without priority)

 

I am not sure if this is actually using an exploit, but you can do this as soon as you unlock a cruiser hull with a decent sized flush deck area.

 

Austro hungarian armored cruiser 4 hull with 6 x 2   7" aka antique-show Juneau class. Nice Pitch and Roll too.  (I forgot 2 anti-TB-guns in the aft mast, damn!)

C7pevUj.jpeg

 

An 3 x 2  8" Schnitzel-Nelson but with more 4" to compensate. (I dont have 8" Mark 2 yet and for that matter 2x superimposed gun tech)

k0khvZO.jpeg

 

Same ship but this time with a armored cruiser vibe and 2 x 2  9" and a supporting 4 " battery wich is probably more reasonable for the time period. Dreadnought hull is a few away with the research for that at ~20 % I think.

hv2ty2C.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Knobby said:

but that's my whole point, it takes forever to get a flush deck cruiser!

 

Not an issue. Austro hungaria literally starts with this hull. I used starting components and litterally threw togehter this hull.

mtC1kvr.jpeg

 

There are some compromises, but I think no one expects an ship you probalby can build at the start to be a full on battle cruiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

might not be an issue for AH but most other nations do not have this luxury, and have to deal with the same crappy pre dreadnought style cruiser hulls (that are carbon copies in most nations as well. BORING)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knobby said:

might not be an issue for AH but most other nations do not have this luxury, and have to deal with the same crappy pre dreadnought style cruiser hulls (that are carbon copies in most nations as well. BORING)

 

Can you give me a nation, it dont know them all by heart but usually you can jury rig

something within the first 10 years.

 

Thats a light cruiser 2 hull with early components (obviously I dont have mark 1 5" anymore) on a 3.400 ts displacement with a 3 " compound belt, 5 x 1 5" main battery an a supporting 3,5 " secondary battery with a torpedo complement and speed and range suitable for the first years/war.

qBMqoOD.jpeg

 

I usually dont build those, because its a little immersion breaking to build a what feels like a Danae in the 1890s ....... unless its for the lulz because I feel like it.

 

5 hours ago, Knobby said:

Cruiser hull, seems to take forever to slowly climb up the tonnage, staying on the same 2 or 3 hull types (just slightly larger / heavier) waaaay to long, before finally getting something resembling 'dreadnought-style' cruiser (you know, with more than 2 centerline turrets for CA and not so focused on side guns for CL). And then the more modern hulls follow so fast after that you hardly even get to use hulls before they go obsolete. (note that this is without priority)

 

I am not a native speaker but a dreadnought style cruiser is literally a Battlecruiser. Taking Gen 1 british BC: You take a armored cruiser hull, slap battleship guns on it, give it enough armor to withstand contemporary armored cruisers guns (with they are expected to hunt)  and nothing more, and then make them fast enough to hunt said cruisers. German battlecruisers were expected to stand in the battle line, hence more armor. Japan -> see british. USA > none/see british for Lexington/Alaskas are WWII. etc.  It doesnt make sense to have these ships appear before dreadnought battleships. Its also why then nobody built armored cruisers anymore (broadly speaking) which coudnt stand up to battlecruiser or battleships ........ or run away from them.

 

A modern heavy cruiser is something different and still looks very WW1 like in the 1920s:  6 x 1  7,9".

h97705.jpg

And they can outrun those early Battlecruisers. Hell, even 28 knts Deutschlands could outrun enough of the old BCs (except Hood, Repulse, etc).

However these very modern for the time cruiser were ...... shit. If you want speed and firepower you quickly ran out displacement for protection.

2560px-Duquesne.svg.png

Thats a rather modern (for that time) 1920s fast french heavy cruiser execpt ..... is has hello kittyall armor! At 30 mm (in places and nothing everywhere else!) even a destroyer can magazine this POS at battle range. Pensacolas, Furotaka etc while better armored than this, nobody would say they were well protected. In Fighting Steel I often had my IJN heavy cruisers with 0-1 turrets left because of that garbage 25 mm  armor  ...  splinter catcher  ...  parasol canvas on the turrets.

 

So lets recap: You want big guns, numerous guns, speed and protection on a cruiser hull and all that early? I'd say, historically speaking, more than 2 of those are fantasy land early game.

 

Edited by havaduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, havaduck said:

So lets recap: You want big guns, numerous guns, speed and protection on a cruiser hull and all that early? I'd say, historically speaking, more than 2 of those are fantasy land early game.

I don't really think that's too much of a problem. Aside from your Kaiserlanta (nicely done, btw.), you're not going to be hitting anything with those beyond 2km until you get better towers and Mk2-3 guns and rangefinders. Frankenships are fun, but they're rarely effective. That's always been incentive enough for me to build more historically and conservatively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 

I've been playing the latest version and I really like the updates to the formations, especially the screening formations. 

Not only are there less chaos in the formations, they now also move to engage the enemy almost without my input. 

I've been playing as the US from the very earliest campaign start and all screening ships, in particular my DD's are actively engaging the hostiles and does it well. They are not only able to move ahead with limited amounts of collisions, they actually hunt and take down big and small ships as an independent formation! So I'm very happy with this update.

20240313012457_1.thumb.jpg.4013d44abdd8b3fc219cfa7df7f27a0b.jpg

An example of screening DD's in the 1910's aggressively charging a couple of BB, scoring multiple torpedo hits. Except for choosing screening, save torpedoes and individually choosing which DD to torpedo which BB I barely had to do anything to instigate this pincer move. Instead I could focus on bringing my own BB's guns to bear and pick of the remaining ships from a distance. 

The only two things I can think of to improve this great improvement both touch on the same idea of at least having two distinct statuses for the formations.

1. To make a clearer distinction between Screening and Scouting. and / or
2. To create new status toggles to select how defensive or aggressive the formation should be. 

Maybe I've missed something or have misunderstood the difference, but to me it feels like the scouts should be in the very front of the task force, to actively look and hunt for hostiles, while the screeners should stay behind to protect your main taskforce. Currently I don't see any clear difference between the different modes of operations. They both seem as eager to engage the enemy and does it well without my inputs.

That is why I think the current mode in this version should be designated as the aggressive or scouting mode of operations, and that there should be a second more defensive screening mode to give the player more control of how they'd like to engage or defend themselves from the enemy. 

Keep up the good work and I'm looking forward to new updates. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to >>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.0.2)
5 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

I don't really think that's too much of a problem. Aside from your Kaiserlanta (nicely done, btw.), you're not going to be hitting anything with those beyond 2km until you get better towers and Mk2-3 guns and rangefinders. Frankenships are fun, but they're rarely effective. That's always been incentive enough for me to build more historically and conservatively.

 

I agree. You need to have some tech + rangefinder to get even any value out of battleship. Otherwise a light/heavy cruiser equipded with tripple-magic*1) 2,9" and torpedoes are way better in suvivability/cost/firepower. Or a throwayway 200 ts TB that sinks said BB. I am usually very conservative until I just play around a little in the designer altough I rarely build ships if I dont like them because they are immersion breaking or otherwise.

 

*1) 2,9" guns + max barrel lenght are triple magic because: Fistly they profit immensly from the stattboost of going 2,9 " and the barrell lenght. Second: They get updated first. 8 " guns are single magic but get updated last and that sucks. Thirdly: At the beginning of the game a 2,9 " Inch gun is generally enough to devastate anything including cruisers with high RoF and Magic accuracy from points 1+2. Battleship get burned down because nose fuze and Gun Cotton are basically instantly available.

 

________

 

Running away is still a huge issue. The battle generator will creat seemingly even or at least acceptable fights. And beeing the human player I can usually destroy even vastly stronger fleet. The AI however just runs and this time I will ilustrate that its not kiting me at its effective gunrange.

Let check the circumstances: Both cruiser are kinde equal. From my experience cost is what the game is looking for, and tonnage. This particualy cruiser is extremly overweight and thus particulary expensive but its not leagues apart.  I have way better armor but their 6", 5", and close 4" guns can easly hurt me. They have shit armor and all my guns can do somehting. So sure, the AI could try to kite (witch is not the same as running)

However, its defending a convoy and its slower than my raider, so it technically cant get away unless the game out-bores me to quit the battle early or it scores some damage to slow me down.

0OKAGue.jpeg

 

After meerly just an 1h and 10 minutes mostly spend on limited fast forward between 5x and 10x and thus more like 20!!!! Minutes real time, I finally find the running AI, which didnt yet spot me but ofc ran away, altough it technically cant because its slower.

A9ri74I.jpeg

Aftter precisly 1h 10 min it finally spots me. No manuevering still just keeps running.

acjQ1bA.jpeg

The ship was completely undamaged too, altough my chasing cruiser just landed a hit .....

BVOj2SQ.jpeg

 

 

 

So please can we put the myth to rest that the AI is trying to keep at effective gun range when it runs straight from beginning on escort missions, form fights it cant technically escape by just pointing its ass at the problem in hopes of frustrating the player enough (because no one will be willing to stare regularly for 30 minutes at an empty screen at 5x speed to sink 1 cruiser) till he quits.

 

 

Edited by havaduck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, havaduck said:

 

Can you give me a nation, it dont know them all by heart but usually you can jury rig

something within the first 10 years.

Britain, US, I think Germany as well. 

Thats a light cruiser 2 hull with early components (obviously I dont have mark 1 5" anymore) on a 3.400 ts displacement with a 3 " compound belt, 5 x 1 5" main battery an a supporting 3,5 " secondary battery with a torpedo complement and speed and range suitable for the first years/war.

qBMqoOD.jpeg

I can't use barbettes on ANY of these hulls, including the one you show.

I usually dont build those, because its a little immersion breaking to build a what feels like a Danae in the 1890s ....... unless its for the lulz because I feel like it.

 

 

I am not a native speaker but a dreadnought style cruiser is literally a Battlecruiser. Taking Gen 1 british BC: You take a armored cruiser hull, slap battleship guns on it, give it enough armor to withstand contemporary armored cruisers guns (with they are expected to hunt)  and nothing more, and then make them fast enough to hunt said cruisers. German battlecruisers were expected to stand in the battle line, hence more armor. Japan -> see british. USA > none/see british for Lexington/Alaskas are WWII. etc.  It doesnt make sense to have these ships appear before dreadnought battleships. Its also why then nobody built armored cruisers anymore (broadly speaking) which coudnt stand up to battlecruiser or battleships ........ or run away from them.

No I do not mean a battlecruiser. What I mean is a cruiser that can have a uniform main battery of more than two turrets (for CA) usually by using barbettes for superimposed turrets but I'll take even a flush-decked CA without barbettes that can have more than 2 bloody turrets. Most CA hulls are literally a scaled-down pre-dreadnought hull, with a hardcoded 'superstructure' that can take nothing but towers, funnels and if you are lucky some casemate guns, and only room for a single turret fore or aft. Or, for CL i'd love to have a flushed deck hull earlier and not have to deal forever with those that are so focused on side guns. 

[...]

So lets recap: You want big guns, numerous guns, speed and protection on a cruiser hull and all that early? I'd say, historically speaking, more than 2 of those are fantasy land early game.

I have no clue where you got that idea. Don't put words in my mouth. What I want is true variety in hulls. Not just the same 2-3 Ca and 1-2 CL hulls (also the same bloody hulls for 3 or more nations even) for god knows how long, that can either fit only 2 turrets and 0 barbettes, forcing me to make that same old ship 10 hello kittying times just with slightly increased displacement and techs. Forcing my hand with hardcoded superstructures or fore and aft decks. While my dreadnoughts give me much more options to play with. What I want is options. Sure, make it a trade-off so you cannot have speed AND firepower And protection, nobody is asking for that.

In short I guess I can summarize with: give me flush-decked cruisers so I can design ships in the shipdesigner, instead of coloring within the lines we have now for god knows how long in the tech tree.

I responded within the quote, expand it tor read my comments.

19 hours ago, havaduck said:

 

Not an issue. Austro hungaria literally starts with this hull. I used starting components and litterally threw togehter this hull.

mtC1kvr.jpeg

 

There are some compromises, but I think no one expects an ship you probalby can build at the start to be a full on battle cruiser.

Haven't played AH, but that hull is a literal carbon-copy for many nations (which is part of my argument, that's boring) but i cannpt use barbettes on it. no clue how you are managing it.

Edited by Knobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Knobby said:

I responded within the quote, expand it tor read my comments.

Haven't played AH, but that hull is a literal carbon-copy for many nations (which is part of my argument, that's boring) but i cannpt use barbettes on it. no clue how you are managing it.

just to illustrate: USA, 1909 and 2x superimposed large gun tech. and yet no possibility of adding any barbette on this hull...

Perhaps you are playing a modded game and forgot or did not realize forcing barbettes on all hulls is one of the modifications? Vanille for sure cannot do it...

20240313211750_1.jpg

Edited by Knobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, ok its a new pic now, makes sense.

1 hour ago, Knobby said:

just to illustrate: USA, 1909 and 2x superimposed large gun tech. and yet no possibility of adding any barbette on this hull...

Perhaps you are playing a modded game and forgot or did not realize forcing barbettes on all hulls is one of the modifications? Vanille for sure cannot do it...

20240313211750_1.jpg

 

 

5 x 2  8" Broadside. Same as IJN Myoko, laid down 1924 .........

soNOoMt.jpeg

 

The game is not modded. Only thing I run is Re-Shade from O'Baro (sorry for butchering your name mate).

I dont know of any way to proof that. However I did send (and post, obviously) this asking whether thats a exploit and not intended or just some mild cheese. If it was modded and I was therefore wasting the devs and  Nick Tomadis time, I fully expect to be called out on that. So maybe that can substitute as proof.

 

3 hours ago, Knobby said:

Britain, US, I think Germany as well. 

>>>> I tried the US. You simply have to be immaginative. I immediately saw potential right from the get go and even more as hulls just kept popping in.

A light cruiser, unfortunately I didnt take the right immage and the design no longer exists, but its easy to ballance the remaining 7 % offset. 

6 x 1  5"Broadside, fast, enough fuel to go without a port on patrol, torpedoes. Cant mount 2ndaries aside from cassemate because 1890.

NTGz6LN.jpeg

I did the torpedo cruiser one because that the most difficult one. I saw light cruiser 1 +2 huls and semi armored cl - thats instant win. Ofc this being the torp cruiser, which is not exactly meant to be a gun platform, the roll is shit.

_______

How about a heavy cruiser I hear you asking? I raise you this ...... not a beauty, infact half the leathality is how ugly it is, but would look at pitch and roll!

Its got a 4 x 2 6" broadside + 7 x 1  4" 2ndaries, torpedoes allaround, 3,3" compound belt, fast, acceptable range. Not even overly expensive all things considered.

nOhD9No.jpeg

_____________

I can't use barbettes on ANY of these hulls, including the one you show.

>>>>> Just click on them them. The thing is large barbettes are limited, but those are for 9" and up (roughly speaking). However neither barbetes nor main guns are limeted. Strictly speaking for a heavy cruiser a 4" guns IS a main gun and you can have as many as you want/can fit. Same is true for those barbettes.

Therefore only the fear of divine retribution can keep you from building something this hideous and you can have superfiring TB right from the get go.

ARVPqcI.jpeg

____________

No I do not mean a battlecruiser. What I mean is a cruiser that can have a uniform main battery of more than two turrets (for CA) usually by using barbettes for superimposed turrets but I'll take even a flush-decked CA without barbettes that can have more than 2 bloody turrets. Most CA hulls are literally a scaled-down pre-dreadnought hull, with a hardcoded 'superstructure' that can take nothing but towers, funnels and if you are lucky some casemate guns, and only room for a single turret fore or aft. Or, for CL i'd love to have a flushed deck hull earlier and not have to deal forever with those that are so focused on side guns. 

The thing is, the game tries to not replicate but emulate actual reality in a entertaining way. Ofc you can cheese ist and that is fine because the game should be fun ....... however there are good reasons these ships didnt exist earlier. Have you seen early steam expansion machines or double/tripple expansion machinses? They are hello kittying huge! and tall as hell! Dont even get started on the boilers. Differences in size, fuel consumption and steam preasure are gigantic. It like comparing a early biplane to a jet and saing both fly.

 

2880px-Nassau_class_main_weapon.svg.png

 

2880px-Kaiser_class_battleship_main_weap

2880px-K%C3%B6nig_class_battleship_main_

 

2 of the above german battleships have steam turbines ... the Nassaus dont, and its obvious. One of the reasons for dreadnoughts wing turrets was Fischer insisting on chasing firepower .........  The South Carolinas als had expansion engines, and alls that space in the middle betwing the superfiring pairs? yeah thats them.

__________

 

What you want actually existed much earlier ..... but wasnt oceangoing: Flush deck, 3 heavy double turrets. The Monitors represent this in the naval academy.

2880px-USS_Roanoke_1855_Ironclad.jpg

Or in the case of this lovely thin with 2 double turrets WAS ocean going in the sense it went litterly INTO all of the ocean and now sits firmly amidst all that water on the bottom of said ocean.

hms_captain__1869_print_by_sfreeman421_d

 

But lets sai you have your guns, you get them somehow onto your ship togehter with your machinery and you dont drown in the process. HOW DO YOU AIM?

If you go for less numerous but heavier style compared to loads of small QF guns ins a battery, you cannot just eyebal. They had already guns that could theoretically reach out several kms, but  just 2 km was considered insanely long ranges (as it beyond this at the start of the game). The IJN at Tsushima had a few Barr and Stroud ... thats 1905. Not exactly the start of the game.

 

In short the game does a good job of representing the circumstances and technologies of the time period(s) while not being overy complicating or beating you to death with technical manuals.

__________

I have no clue where you got that idea. Don't put words in my mouth. What I want is true variety in hulls. Not just the same 2-3 Ca and 1-2 CL hulls (also the same bloody hulls for 3 or more nations even) for god knows how long, that can either fit only 2 turrets and 0 barbettes, forcing me to make that same old ship 10 hello kittying times just with slightly increased displacement and techs. Forcing my hand with hardcoded superstructures or fore and aft decks. While my dreadnoughts give me much more options to play with. What I want is options. Sure, make it a trade-off so you cannot have speed AND firepower And protection, nobody is asking for that.

In short I guess I can summarize with: give me flush-decked cruisers so I can design ships in the shipdesigner, instead of coloring within the lines we have now for god knows how long in the tech tree.

Like I outlined above, you cant in that time period. It doesnt make sense. More hulls are ofc welcome and the devs are constantly making new hulls, so no complaint there. However if you just dont like this earlier time period then I guess just pick a later one. The game lets you pick in 10 year increments. I honestly dont understand the problem. Also ofc hulls are similar. Mikasa is, historically!, basically a reskinned Formidable.

Also in english there is the term Predreadnought and then before that Ironclad. In German there is Einheitslinienschiffe which emphasises the point that given similar circumstances, technologies and goals, ships stats and looks were very, very similar. Therefore things like american cage masts or french/russian tumbleholm hulls are so striking and reconisable.

 

Last look at these two: Laid down in the same year. Not the same country, not even the same class. You can even recognise elements from the game

Schiffsmodell.jpg

 

drake.gif

 

Again, historically!, Emden built a fake funnel to look like a british light cruisers. I think I need to rest my case here.

 

 

Edited by havaduck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway I came here with an issue completely different.

 

I had entered an Alliance with germany in anticipation of a war with france. After taking some colonial possesions and Corsica, the French had launched their great offensive on southern Germany and I was in the perfect position to take Southern Spain, which I forced to collapses (and only Re-Emerged recently as 1 province Northern Spain). Basically just as planed and engineered.

 

The Situation: France has roughly 740k soldiers as per:

HOqzDZ0.jpeg

640 k of which are in Northern France as per:

zGbn1UX.jpeg

And only 1600!!! Soldiers are in Southern Spain. Also please do note that their fleet sits firmly on the bottom and their merchant fleet is constantly getting anhilated.  In the 3 adjecent provinces are another 10k soldiers as combined as garrison.

yBPHs80.jpeg

 

So I call heavily BS and Bug on this. The Game literally demands a 107 Tons! of Ships per Soldier in garrison. This is asinine and has to be a bug. They could just literally deploy the armed crew as Marines and overrun that shitty garrision, let alone a full landing supported by the fleets guns.

uN0WXtH.jpeg

 

And no,

300-300-2115716-1024-768.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0

doesnt count as Leonidas never had to deal with quick firing naval heavy atrillery guns.

 

Edited by havaduck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havaduck said:

Ah, ok its a new pic now, makes sense.

5 x 2  8" Broadside. Same as IJN Myoko, laid down 1924 .........

soNOoMt.jpeg

 

The game is not modded. Only thing I run is Re-Shade from O'Baro (sorry for butchering your name mate).

I dont know of any way to proof that. However I did send (and post, obviously) this asking whether thats a exploit and not intended or just some mild cheese. If it was modded and I was therefore wasting the devs and  Nick Tomadis time, I fully expect to be called out on that. So maybe that can substitute as proof.

don't know what to say, I cannot add barbettes to any of these hulls... You can see them greyed out on my screenshot... WTH is going on?

Edited by Knobby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Knobby said:

don't know what to say, I cannot add barbettes to any of these hulls... You can see them greyed out on my screenshot... WTH is going on?

Just tried this myself in a custom battle as the US for 1924. 

Using the Armored Cruiser IV hull, even though the barbette options are greyed out, it will allow you to select some of them once you click it.  In my case, I was able to use a "Wide Barbette (Very Small)" in the middle without adjusting the beam or draught sliders to mount 8" or smaller guns there. 

Adjusting the beam slider allows me to use all the barbette types up to "Dual Barbette for Medium Guns II" in the middle of the hull, again with 8" or smaller guns.

EDIT:  This works for me in both vanilla and with the DIP mod on.

Edited by Suribachi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FML!

OmWckJj.jpeg

Not only did that army of 16 hundreds win against a fleet of several TEN THOUSANDS in the fleet alone, no they also double their garrison doing it. Like god damn, according to this game Japan could have easily held their islands and Guadalcanal all the way to Iwo Jima was a doomed campaign.

duSgvTQ.jpeg

 

Related:

 

Probably less dramatic but honestly still pissed.^^

 

Edited by havaduck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, havaduck said:

So I call heavily BS and Bug on this. The Game literally demands a 107 Tons! of Ships per Soldier in garrison. This is asinine and has to be a bug. They could just literally deploy the armed crew as Marines and overrun that shitty garrision, let alone a full landing supported by the fleets guns.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but invasions are based on the harbor tonnage available in a province, and NOT on garrison size. You need at minimum to out-tonnage the tonnage of the provinces harbors, and after that either pop or eco size also give some negative effects. Garrison size, as far as I have experienced, has hardly any influence in a succesful invasion.

For example, it will basically always be easier to take Wales, Northwest England or the middle English province then it is Southeast Spain, because those provinces only have 1 port each that in an early game do not go beyond 20k tonnage, despite them being industrial powerhouses and therefore extremely valuable targets for an invasion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...