|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 5, 2020 14:53:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 17:25:34 GMT -6
~20kt ton, 11-12" gunned Dunkirks/Alaska/Baby Scharns. A ~20,000t ship is hardly any more comparable to a ~30,000-ton (standard) Alaska than it is to a ~32,000-ton (standard) Scharnhorst, and even Dunkerque's about six thousand tons bigger than that by standard displacement.
As to the value of such ships, I consider them marginal for the cost. If you want a big cruiser hunter-killer, a ~15,000t CA with eight or nine 9" or 10" guns is more than good enough to beat pretty much any CA that the computer will build and costs less than a ~20,000t BC with eight or nine 11" or 12" guns would; if you want a distraction for enemy battleships to shoot when your carrier force blunders into them, a battlecruiser that's built like a battleship would be much more resilient and far more threatening while a ~15,000t CA would be cheaper and unlikely to die all that much faster. Additionally, the battle generator tends to match like classification against like classification, so from the 1930s onwards a 20,000t "battlecruiser" armed with eight or nine 11" or 12" guns is liable to go up against ships that are more than half again its displacement and carry a similar number of 14" or 15" or 16" guns, placing it at a serious disadvantage despite the computer's tendency towards relatively thin capital ship armor unless it has a friend or two backing it up while the opponent does not. Such ships are not unusable, but I'd much rather have one ship that can fight a peer-by-classification opponent on equal terms than two ships that cannot.
does the game increase the mantenance of the fleet for having varied calibers guns in the fleet? In thery should have a more complex logistic chain
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 17:17:07 GMT -6
Show AVs in the Almanac should be implemented. treaties should use presitige points to get a better position in the negociation in general incluiding conclude some ships and convert to cv.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 17:14:57 GMT -6
should be very important in late game. i like
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 17:11:14 GMT -6
the elevators could be a good add. Affect the time from ready-fly time. the spotting is an interesting feature too.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 4, 2020 11:43:52 GMT -6
The game is less about building what was but doing what could have been, as much as I would like much more realism in many areas things like dock size need that flexibility to let players explore the 'what if?' a bit more. Jackie Fisher convinced the Admiralty to adopt a host of new ideas, what if I could convince them to go all in on hull size? etc. im not talking about of cap the values so hard, you can easy get a 50ktn in 20s, around the seize of proyect in that time. make a comparable 70ktn would be very empensive to the player, i will calculate if you can and how much expensive tomorrow. But im not convince that a 70ktns was fisible of construction in 20s, tensions are wide compared to a 20ktns, so many develpment were dont until something enought bigger were built and said that the treaty was the only cause of the lack of so big ships dont look to me rasonable. well mybe was a bit restrictive, getting X3 times to build the +2000tns. if you get X3 (6000) cost and X1.5 time (18 months) you can reach relative right values. if you do this every time without events giving you bonus like if you be over the (1885-year)*(-1250) line you can get: 1900 - 15000 1910 - 28333 1920 - 41666 1930 - 55000 1940 - 68333 1950 - 81666 1960 - 95000 Its expensive it looks rasonable
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 3, 2020 21:55:49 GMT -6
again the tension matrix stop updating after the first player peace deal.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 3, 2020 20:36:07 GMT -6
i like thisone:
Proposal 2 - Produce separate tables for Flying Boats, Very large flying boats, and Torpedo equipped (early) flying boats: - Flying Boat - Large Flying Boat (note: This could include R-planes) - Flying Boat Torpedo bomber (note: This could include the earliest torpedo bombers)
AA at least should work in other way, from the moment the air attack starts and after few tunrs it ends (5?) every ship in a range from the "planes unit" should fire aa, and stack the damage non linealy or get multiple rounds of aa over the same "unit" until the run ends. I bealive its not reliable to hunt planes going in or out becose you dont model the plane altitude...
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 3, 2020 20:32:10 GMT -6
The game is less about building what was but doing what could have been, as much as I would like much more realism in many areas things like dock size need that flexibility to let players explore the 'what if?' a bit more. Jackie Fisher convinced the Admiralty to adopt a host of new ideas, what if I could convince them to go all in on hull size? etc. im not talking about of cap the values so hard, you can easy get a 50ktn in 20s, around the seize of proyect in that time. make a comparable 70ktn would be very empensive to the player, i will calculate if you can and how much expensive tomorrow. But im not convince that a 70ktns was fisible of construction in 20s, tensions are wide compared to a 20ktns, so many develpment were dont until something enought bigger were built and said that the treaty was the only cause of the lack of so big ships dont look to me rasonable.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 14:53:31 GMT -6
Please if someone could confirm this question
Ships with mines deploy them been in TP and AF? Ships with mine swiper use them been in TP and AF? A destroyer (ship with ASW) in AF could sink a destroyer with out been in TP? i understand that yes and its the mensage of gunfight with a sub.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 14:48:48 GMT -6
I dont see much impact of midget submarines. All submrines should have a little of pimp up, becose midget subs were so sucessfull in my view to take to much acount, but the diferece of a meduim and ling range sub was quiet important and part of sub doctrines that i dont understand why theres no a separate medium sub than a longrange sub, witch was extremly costly in ww2. Even i dont know if some desing choises could be done for subs, i feel subs are underestimated in game, even been a pain in unrestricted operation
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 14:44:47 GMT -6
I want to point out that, in real history, after WW1, many of the nations that had been involved in the war were in serious economic condition and frankly could not afford to build 70000 ton warships. Now, if that war had not occurred, there is no reason that they could not have accomplished it. The British G3 battlecruisers were 53,000 tons in combat weight but were never built due to the economic conditions and the Washington Naval Treaty. Please consider this, that this is a game, it does not necessarily have to follow the path of real history. i take it, and you could rise the roof a bit, but they werent built in that moment not only by the treaty, but also for building technologies. I doubt to see a 70.000tn ship in 1920 sounds rasonable, but a 45.000 in 1925 is far than rasonable. And this limit not prevent to reaching faster to that values, but is much money and slow curve, maths should be donde but mybe a 70ktn in 1922 is imposible but a 55ktns is easy to reach if you want to expend in it. So G3 is reacheable for players and posible ai if its tunned. Even the 55ktns should be under the limits into 1925/26.
|
|
|
Oilers?
Sept 2, 2020 14:36:08 GMT -6
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 14:36:08 GMT -6
You can express your opinion by clicking on the poll. i did of course
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 11:42:37 GMT -6
I would like too see a more limited capaicty to get bigger dock sieze, i dont like the concept of implement a tech limit for it.
Instead i would like to see at least at a workingup campoing option to get a restriction in this way:
when your docks are over the value (1885-year)*(-1250), building yards cost X3 and spend 36 months. Also over that value you dont get the event for free dock expansion. So you can but its too expensive.
The curve its:
1900- 18750
1910- 31250
1920- 43750
1930- 56250
1940- 68750
1950- 81250
1960- 93750
its not the best but at least a way to avoid 70000 tn ships in 1925 witch its very unrealistic, im not against bigger ships than historical but in a more rasonable range have a 50k ton in 1925 is quiet fine, a 70tn looks odd.
|
|
|
Post by aquelarrefox on Sept 2, 2020 9:16:09 GMT -6
I think better ots some sort of posibility to make operations like commandos incluiding this type of things , mybe a mecanic similar to invasion, but instead of take a port, damage airfields or instalations annd mybe damage ships.
|
|