|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 4, 2019 10:26:58 GMT -6
First, a question. Does the game have a London Naval Treaty or equivalent? If so, does it ban flying deck cruisers and the like. If not, then I suggest that it be included.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Nov 4, 2019 11:00:47 GMT -6
Does the game have a London Naval Treaty or equivalent? No.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Nov 9, 2019 8:58:30 GMT -6
Well you can get "treaty" limitations but you do have some influence on whether your nation agrees. Most play through Im too aggressive strategically to do them.
Getting exactly a real world treaty is unlikely on specific details.
I think I had one play through where my RP (roleplay) mindset was more servant of the nation so did little interference with political processes.
In another I really was struggling after losing a lot of ships in vicious war so the limitation was welcomed. I used the treaty time to rebuild my medium and small size ships groups with a few large ships I knew could stand a chance against the similarly limited enemies. Post treaty I had a focus on large ships, as my medium and small groups were now in good order.
|
|
|
Post by janxol on Nov 9, 2019 11:57:35 GMT -6
In order to ban flying deck cruisers they would first need to be added to the game as an actual class. Which I'm all for it. Give us CA/CV and BB/CV. We want hybrids! And not just the ones we manage to "squeeze past" the designer checks as CVL.
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Nov 9, 2019 13:10:01 GMT -6
The games treaties are very blunt force if they do get enacted as well, wave goodbye to all your big ships in construction, no way of arguing to keep some of them or to rebuild them as different classes etc.
But I suppose replicating the myriad of multi-month long real world conferences would be a bit time consuming!
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 9, 2019 14:53:02 GMT -6
...wave goodbye to all your big ships in construction, no way of arguing to keep some of them or to rebuild them as different classes etc. Great idea!
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 10, 2019 13:33:12 GMT -6
The games treaties are very blunt force if they do get enacted as well, wave goodbye to all your big ships in construction, no way of arguing to keep some of them or to rebuild them as different classes etc. Yes but it sometimes worth it when your opponents also have to scrap lots of ships. I like to go for a treaty when I'm not building any battleships.
Unfortunately, I usually am building battleships; maybe i should instead build all my battleships together then cycle though a period of only building other ships, thenif an opportunity for a treaty arises when I'm not building battleships, i can go for it.
|
|
rdfox
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by rdfox on Nov 11, 2019 9:40:59 GMT -6
I particularly hate how treaties demand all big ships in construction be scrapped immediately. Invariably, when I'm playing, if a treaty goes into effect, it's when I have a number of large ships that I really desperately need for modernization purposes 1-3 months from completion, having spent a small fortune on building them, and now I lose all of the work done on them. (For me, it's almost invariably when I'm playing a smaller nation and comes just as I'm about to complete my first few dreadnoughts/battlecruisers to keep up with the bigger nations, even when I gave the "We should not be restricted in our national security" option.) It's particularly frustrating when you get, say, a 36-month treaty where it, frankly, would make more sense to just suspend work on the ships, giving the option of completing them after the treaty expires.
Given that the actual Washington Treaty allowed *all* parties to it to complete a number of ships that were still under construction, but so close to being complete that it would have been downright stupid to scrap them rather than complete them (and scrap equivalent tonnage of older ships), even if we don't allow for CV conversions, maybe it would be more realistic to allow ships that are within the last, say, 10% of the construction process to be seen as already launched and just fitting out, and thus allowed to be completed, possibly with a requirement of scrapping an equivalent-or-greater total tonnage of existing ships of the same (basic) type.
(RL examples of ships still under construction at the time the Washington Treaty went into effect, but allowed to be completed include the US's Colorados and the IJN's Nagatos. The Nelsons were actually a special exemption from the building holiday entirely, to allow the British to have a response to the 16" battleships that the US and Japan were bringing into service.)
|
|