|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 13, 2015 12:55:27 GMT -6
Some suggestions for patches: 1: Allow the player to designate a design as obsolete. Make this the trigger for the design dropping of the "build ship" list. Change the "show all designs" to "show obsolete designs". Make it so that showing obsolete designs only shows obsolete designs. 2: Change the way that the "old" designation kicks in. Instead of counting the individual ships age, count the age of the newest ship in the class, then apply it to the whole class. If any are under construction, the designation does not trigger. At the moment you can have a large class, some designated old, and some not. 3: Allow Pre-dreadnoughts to participate in bombardment missions. This was their main role in WW1. 4: If a ship "goes back to base with engine troubles", make it resume it's mission after repairs. Having the number of ships on asw duty drop because ships with engine trouble go to the active fleet instead of resuming asw duty is a little irritating. Call it a QOL improvement. 5: If you answer no to "would you like to add the latest FC to ship under construction", stop it from asking again. That's all for now. If I can nag you about anything else, I will do it pronto. Cheers Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 13, 2015 13:15:19 GMT -6
Some suggestions for patches: 1: Allow the player to designate a design as obsolete. Make this the trigger for the design dropping of the "build ship" list. Change the "show all designs" to "show obsolete designs". Make it so that showing obsolete designs only shows obsolete designs. 2: Change the way that the "old" designation kicks in. Instead of counting the individual ships age, count the age of the newest ship in the class, then apply it to the whole class. If any are under construction, the designation does not trigger. At the moment you can have a large class, some designated old, and some not. 3: Allow Pre-dreadnoughts to participate in bombardment missions. This was their main role in WW1. 4: If a ship "goes back to base with engine troubles", make it resume it's mission after repairs. Having the number of ships on asw duty drop because ships with engine trouble go to the active fleet instead of resuming asw duty is a little irritating. Call it a QOL improvement. 5: If you answer no to "would you like to add the latest FC to ship under construction", stop it from asking again. That's all for now. If I can nag you about anything else, I will do it pronto. Cheers Bruce Thanks for the suggestions! I'll see what will be practicable to add in further versions.
On 3, predreadnoughts will take part in bombardments, IF the mission includes battleships.
|
|
|
Post by eisenengel on Jul 13, 2015 15:39:00 GMT -6
1: Some way to get gun data in a battle would be nice, I've found myself wondering how close I could actually go to the enemy without risking a penetration or how close I would need to get to them to penetrate with my guns. This kind of information should be known to every naval officer involved, but apparently isn't to the commanding admiral.
2: Some way of influencing my fleet's strategy. It seems odd to me that I apparently have the Kaiser's ear when it comes to the budget (within reason) but am completely divorced from strategic planning. Even if it is just an aggressiveness setting (higher aggressiveness = higher chance of bigger battles, unless enemy has very low aggressiveness).
3: Somewhere to quickly look up class restrictions. Nowhere does it say where exactly the cutoff point between B, BC and BB is. I suspect it shifts around during the game, too. CL/CA is very much the same. Maybe alter the design check in the editor to something like this: Displacement below 8,000 tons - OK; Belt Armor more than 2" - OK; Speed at least 20 knots - FAILED.
That's all for now.
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 13, 2015 16:26:45 GMT -6
CL's are between 2,000 and 8,000 tons. Not sure what the lower limit of BC's are, but I couldn't designate a 14,000 ton 22kt ship a BC.
|
|
|
Post by cleveland on Jul 13, 2015 17:39:29 GMT -6
Include the Black Sea as part of the Med? As Italy I had a war with Russia and it was just cruiser warfare. Kinda disappointed the Black Sea Fleet wasn't around for a fleet action. Bribing the Turks to sail through the straits might be a nice event.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 13, 2015 23:37:26 GMT -6
Include the Black Sea as part of the Med? As Italy I had a war with Russia and it was just cruiser warfare. Kinda disappointed the Black Sea Fleet wasn't around for a fleet action. Bribing the Turks to sail through the straits might be a nice event. The Black Sea was considered, but it had too many exceptional circumstances. Basically it was a Russian lake; the Russians couldn't get out an no one else could get in.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 14, 2015 0:03:39 GMT -6
1: Some way to get gun data in a battle would be nice, I've found myself wondering how close I could actually go to the enemy without risking a penetration or how close I would need to get to them to penetrate with my guns. This kind of information should be known to every naval officer involved, but apparently isn't to the commanding admiral.
You might have noticed that gun data for penetration etc is available in the gun research screen by right clicking the gun calibre and selecting "Details", and in the ship design screen, see below. This can be used for calculating immunity zones and similar during construction. It is a good point that it should be available during battles too, I will see if that is possible. Note that this is nominal values that assume 90% hit angle. Penetration in actual battle conditions will often be less. And the data is for your guns and with your current tech. The enemy might very well have been evil enough to develop better guns or AP shells.
Attachment Deleted
2: Some way of influencing my fleet's strategy. It seems odd to me that I apparently have the Kaiser's ear when it comes to the budget (within reason) but am completely divorced from strategic planning. Even if it is just an aggressiveness setting (higher aggressiveness = higher chance of bigger battles, unless enemy has very low aggressiveness). That was brought up during playtesting too. In a sense, you do that by accepting or declining battles, and in where you send your ships, so it is already built in, but maybe not in the same way you mean. 3: Somewhere to quickly look up class restrictions. Nowhere does it say where exactly the cutoff point between B, BC and BB is. I suspect it shifts around during the game, too. CL/CA is very much the same. Maybe alter the design check in the editor to something like this: Displacement below 8,000 tons - OK; Belt Armor more than 2" - OK; Speed at least 20 knots - FAILED. That's all for now. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!
|
|
|
Post by brucesim2003 on Jul 14, 2015 1:27:39 GMT -6
A Couple more suggestions:
1: Vastly reduce the effect of raiders where the enemy has no bases....especially when the raiding nation DOES have bases. If a country is at war, merchants are going to tend to shy away from areas where there is no protection. I'm not saying eliminate the raider effectiveness, just vastly reduce it.
2: Make the bonus techs a freebie rather than a research bonus. At the moment it is impossible to build a Michigan at anything like the time is was historically built. You could make it a timed tech where you automatically get it at a certain date, but I'm thinking a "tech at start" would be easier.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
Post by eisenengel on Jul 14, 2015 2:12:38 GMT -6
That was brought up during playtesting too. In a sense, you do that by accepting or declining battles, and in where you send your ships, so it is already built in, but maybe not in the same way you mean. Declining battles is a "negative" way of doing that, so to speak. You are given the option of going on a mission and can decide not to take it. What I'm talking about is a "positive" way of influencing mission generation. As it stands right now, it feels a lot like the enemy gets to decide what missions you get to run - if he stays in his base, all you get is a couple "Enemy fleet declines battle! Take 10 VP!", if he sens out raiders you get to chase them down, if your enemy graciously decides to go for a fleet battle you actually get to use those dreadnoughts you've spent so much time and money on. It feels really disconnected from the rest of the game in terms of control. I understand that it is somewhat realistic (it takes two to tango, and the enemy is probably unwilling to play into your hands), but not having the opportunity to punish the enemy's passivity or react to his aggression is a little strange. The price Germany paid for their fleet-in-being was the blockade. Right now, if I'm being blockaded, I would have to hope that the mission generator throws me a fleet battle instead of actively being able to force one (which the Germans could have done at any time and attempted several times).
|
|
|
Post by darkrenown on Jul 14, 2015 8:24:59 GMT -6
1: Vastly reduce the effect of raiders where the enemy has no bases....especially when the raiding nation DOES have bases. If a country is at war, merchants are going to tend to shy away from areas where there is no protection. I'm not saying eliminate the raider effectiveness, just vastly reduce it. Indeed - it was fairly odd to cause starvation and rioting in the USA by raiding their Mediterranean convoys as Austria in my current game. Some suggestions of my own: 1) In the ship design screen, show more information about what is valid or not directly, rather than waiting until I hit Check design. Some examples of what I mean: - Hide, mark, or colour turrets which you can't build yet. E.g. You can't have a superimposed forward turret in 1900 - take it out of the possible turret lists or just put a * after it or something so I don't try putting it on a ship. Or I perhaps cannot put Wing turrets on a CA, so don't let me. I would much rather just see what I can build instead of having to repeatedly trial and error turret configurations. Maybe also indicate the max allow centerline turrets on the selected class.
- Indicate special gun/turret rules. E.g. if a ship of tonnage X can't mount a gun of size Y, show this when I am selecting gun size. Also, the manual mentions that early triple/quad turrets have a RoF penalty, but the design screen don't seem to reflect this, not even in the Check design function show Overcrowded centerline shows.
- Show or indicate displacement limitations. E.g. if I say I am building a CL and it must be within, say, 2000-8000 tons put a (2000-8000) next to the displacement box, or even just colour or mark the displacement number if I go outside the approved range.
And of course, if treaties are limiting designs, the effect should be indicated on design screen too. There's also some options not explained anywhere, not even in the manual, such as Cross-deck fire or Improved elevation. I mean, I think I know what they should do, but I don't know exactly what ingame effect they have or why they are disallowed at times. The armour scheme also have little information about their actual effects, although they are at least mentioned briefly in the manual. It would be neat to show salvo weight and/or throw weight per minute either in the turret/gun part of design screen or on the gun data subscreen so you get a quick comparison of throw 2) Have a Research/Design summary screen which basically sums up the design rules for each class. Show things like: - Displacement/speed/weapon limitations
- Allowed turret types/setups
- Special armour rules.
You can find these details currently by clicking through the Research screen and/or trial and erroring on the design screen, but a little summery screen showing what sizes ships can be, how many centerline turrets they can mount, if they can have heavy wing or superimposed turrets, or if my CLs are still limited to Protected Cruiser armour setups would make things much easier. Ideally you would be able to see/open the rules summery for your chosen ship class on the design screen too.
3) Make gaining access to oil a bigger deal/more obvious. It's 1915 and my Austria apparently has oil now. When did this happen? Have I mean making Coal ships for years without noticing I had oil? Where is it coming from? On the other hand, if I did not have oil and wanted to get some, where are the oilfields? There doesn't seem to be any indication of oilfields on the map. 4) This is much more of a new feature request, but I think it would be very interesting to have some kind of Navy league screen which would list the biggest/fastest/best armoured/best armed/overall best ships of different classes in service. You could gain prestige for having the best capital ships in the CA/B(before BC and BBs appear) or BC/BB classes which would be lost again when someone else usurped you, and maybe the same for having the most capital ships of a class. Going further, your nation's naval league could show concern over your enemy's or nation's with high tension's ships and perhaps get upset that they have a better armed CA or a faster BC (or just more CLs), then demand the player build a better ship. I think that would nicely capture the oneupmanship and rivalry that were inherent parts of the naval arms race. Plus it would feel good to have the gameworld acknowledge how great my latest BB design is. 5) There could be some more fuss made when new classes first appear, especially BBs, with perhaps a prestige reward for the navy who first gets them in service. HMS Dreadnought and a few other ships did make a bit of a rukus when they were launched afterall.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 14, 2015 8:44:20 GMT -6
A Couple more suggestions: 1: Vastly reduce the effect of raiders where the enemy has no bases....especially when the raiding nation DOES have bases. If a country is at war, merchants are going to tend to shy away from areas where there is no protection. I'm not saying eliminate the raider effectiveness, just vastly reduce it. 2: Make the bonus techs a freebie rather than a research bonus. At the moment it is impossible to build a Michigan at anything like the time is was historically built. You could make it a timed tech where you automatically get it at a certain date, but I'm thinking a "tech at start" would be easier. Cheers Bruce Raiders already are more effective where the enemy has possessions or trade interests, but I see your point, and it might be that this needs to be tweaked further.
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Jul 14, 2015 8:47:13 GMT -6
1: Vastly reduce the effect of raiders where the enemy has no bases....especially when the raiding nation DOES have bases. If a country is at war, merchants are going to tend to shy away from areas where there is no protection. I'm not saying eliminate the raider effectiveness, just vastly reduce it. Indeed - it was fairly odd to cause starvation and rioting in the USA by raiding their Mediterranean convoys as Austria in my current game. Some suggestions of my own: 1) In the ship design screen, show more information about what is valid or not directly, rather than waiting until I hit Check design. Some examples of what I mean: - Hide, mark, or colour turrets which you can't build yet. E.g. You can't have a superimposed forward turret in 1900 - take it out of the possible turret lists or just put a * after it or something so I don't try putting it on a ship. Or I perhaps cannot put Wing turrets on a CA, so don't let me. I would much rather just see what I can build instead of having to repeatedly trial and error turret configurations. Maybe also indicate the max allow centerline turrets on the selected class.
- Indicate special gun/turret rules. E.g. if a ship of tonnage X can't mount a gun of size Y, show this when I am selecting gun size. Also, the manual mentions that early triple/quad turrets have a RoF penalty, but the design screen don't seem to reflect this, not even in the Check design function show Overcrowded centerline shows.
- Show or indicate displacement limitations. E.g. if I say I am building a CL and it must be within, say, 2000-8000 tons put a (2000-8000) next to the displacement box, or even just colour or mark the displacement number if I go outside the approved range.
And of course, if treaties are limiting designs, the effect should be indicated on design screen too. There's also some options not explained anywhere, not even in the manual, such as Cross-deck fire or Improved elevation. I mean, I think I know what they should do, but I don't know exactly what ingame effect they have or why they are disallowed at times. The armour scheme also have little information about their actual effects, although they are at least mentioned briefly in the manual. It would be neat to show salvo weight and/or throw weight per minute either in the turret/gun part of design screen or on the gun data subscreen so you get a quick comparison of throw 2) Have a Research/Design summary screen which basically sums up the design rules for each class. Show things like: - Displacement/speed/weapon limitations
- Allowed turret types/setups
- Special armour rules.
You can find these details currently by clicking through the Research screen and/or trial and erroring on the design screen, but a little summery screen showing what sizes ships can be, how many centerline turrets they can mount, if they can have heavy wing or superimposed turrets, or if my CLs are still limited to Protected Cruiser armour setups would make things much easier. Ideally you would be able to see/open the rules summery for your chosen ship class on the design screen too.
3) Make gaining access to oil a bigger deal/more obvious. It's 1915 and my Austria apparently has oil now. When did this happen? Have I mean making Coal ships for years without noticing I had oil? Where is it coming from? On the other hand, if I did not have oil and wanted to get some, where are the oilfields? There doesn't seem to be any indication of oilfields on the map. 4) This is much more of a new feature request, but I think it would be very interesting to have some kind of Navy league screen which would list the biggest/fastest/best armoured/best armed/overall best ships of different classes in service. You could gain prestige for having the best capital ships in the CA/B(before BC and BBs appear) or BC/BB classes which would be lost again when someone else usurped you, and maybe the same for having the most capital ships of a class. Going further, your nation's naval league could show concern over your enemy's or nation's with high tension's ships and perhaps get upset that they have a better armed CA or a faster BC (or just more CLs), then demand the player build a better ship. I think that would nicely capture the oneupmanship and rivalry that were inherent parts of the naval arms race. Plus it would feel good to have the gameworld acknowledge how great my latest BB design is. 5) There could be some more fuss made when new classes first appear, especially BBs, with perhaps a prestige reward for the navy who first gets them in service. HMS Dreadnought and a few other ships did make a bit of a rukus when they were launched afterall.
Thanks for the suggestions. A lot of what you suggest is very sensible. The problem is that dynamically enabling or disabling stuff in the design window according to the present design is very complicated and time consuming to program. That is what some of that is made but not everything. I certainly see the utility from a user perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Sven on Jul 14, 2015 9:20:42 GMT -6
If you plan to change the raider battles, I would like to point out that I like it the way it is. Don't change it too much, please.
|
|
|
Post by bshaftoe on Jul 14, 2015 10:42:37 GMT -6
4) This is much more of a new feature request, but I think it would be very interesting to have some kind of Navy league screen which would list the biggest/fastest/best armoured/best armed/overall best ships of different classes in service. You could gain prestige for having the best capital ships in the CA/B(before BC and BBs appear) or BC/BB classes which would be lost again when someone else usurped you, and maybe the same for having the most capital ships of a class. Going further, your nation's naval league could show concern over your enemy's or nation's with high tension's ships and perhaps get upset that they have a better armed CA or a faster BC (or just more CLs), then demand the player build a better ship. I think that would nicely capture the oneupmanship and rivalry that were inherent parts of the naval arms race. Plus it would feel good to have the gameworld acknowledge how great my latest BB design is. 5) There could be some more fuss made when new classes first appear, especially BBs, with perhaps a prestige reward for the navy who first gets them in service. HMS Dreadnought and a few other ships did make a bit of a rukus when they were launched afterall. I though these ones are very good ones. Number 4) could be the "Jane's Fighting Ships Highlights", launched every year or so. Programming wise, I guess it could take a lot of time just to have a flavour event. Related with events. Is there any way to add/mod events?
|
|
|
Post by julianbarker on Jul 14, 2015 13:35:45 GMT -6
Re Oil and AH - AH was something like the world's third largest producer of oil in 1900 so always has oil (although IIRC for technical reasons, that doesn't appear on the nation selection screen). Click on the nation flag in the almanac to find out if you have (or any other country has) oil. The story of Galician Oil is here - jerome-segal.de/Publis/TheGDec12E.9-13.pdf
|
|