|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 11, 2015 3:13:29 GMT -6
It seems that the player really doesn't have any choice about fleet construction. Started a game with the idea that light cruisers are patrol/scouts for the battleline. Not wanting armoured cruisers, I didn't build any. I kept getting hammered on prestige b/c I didn't have armoured cruisers. At the same time, Italy had a similar event because it didn't have enough battleships. And then I was told to build 14 destroyers or else. B/c my prestige was low for refusing to build CA's, I was told build 'em or be fired. Not in those words, but that's basically it.
I realise that there would be pressure from the navy league etc, but it does seem that the player has to build a very specific fleet to avoid being fired. I'm thinking that if the fleet doctrine envisaged means that certain type of ship are not build, then so be it. The firing should occur if the doctrine proves to be faulty, not for refusing to be straitjacketed by the game's ideal ship mixture.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 11, 2015 3:35:10 GMT -6
As you point out, these mechanisms are to simulate pressure from the politicians, navy league etc. Real admirals couldn't build exactly what they wanted. I wouldn't say that the player hasn't any choice, but he is subject to some constraints on navy composition. In most situations it should be possible to work around these without taking a too severe prestige hit, but it might be that it can be too restrictive in some cases.
To avoid these requests, what you need to do is making sure you are not the nation with the least tonnage in the relevant ship type. Furthermore, the smaller nations are much less subject to these pressures.
It is also partly a balancing mechanism. Playing Great Britain for example, you hardly need to fear a war, you can clobber almost anyone, while playing a small nation like Austria, it is a real nail biter when the tension bars start to go up. But being large brings other pressures, and that's what the game tries to simulate.
We will be following up this and if it turns out it is too much of a straitjacket, we can modify it. Thanks for the feedback!
Edit: I should perhaps add that when war breaks out, armoured cruisers will be very handy for protecting your trade and hunting down enemy raiders. There will be a fair amount of cruiser actions and raider interceptions. So the navy league or the press is not totally wrong about this.
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jul 11, 2015 11:37:21 GMT -6
If you don't build CAs you get a lot of bad outcomes in cruiser actions in early years wars. Having loads of faster CLs won't keep the enemy CAs off your convoys etc. Also in early years, as a larger power, large CAs with 4x10" guns, a secondary battery of 6" or 7" guns, 6" belt and 24 knots can be fun to play. They are expensive, but will beat anything smaller and most of the cruisers you encounter will be slower. A squadron of them can also turn the head of the enemy line. Think of them as pre-dreadnought BCs.
|
|