|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 16, 2019 5:09:44 GMT -6
playing UK, at war with USA, 1900 start
i have 5 CVLs and a single CV in the east NA seazone, but every single battle that generates never includes the CVLs, only the CV
i'v replayed the recent turns many times and in spite of fleet battles, etc the CVLs are never showing up - it's possible they might show if i move the CV out, but havn't tried that
i'l also note the USA keeps launching invasions there even though at most they only have double my forces - unless that's WAD
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 16, 2019 7:00:05 GMT -6
i did remove the CV later on, and a couple CVLs started showing up in battles - never more than 2 even though they were invasion battles with seemingly full forces on either side, but better than nothing
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 16, 2019 7:29:16 GMT -6
ok, this is interesting - i was going to restart the turn due to an unwanted event and started declining the battles to get to the next turn, and due to me declining the USA invaded Nova Scotia, then Maine (i previously captured it), and now it's invading...Ireland?
this happened all in the same turn resolution - the ai is able to invade more than 1 area in the same turn?
and can the USA invade Ireland when the closest USA base is mainland USA? it's only 1926 and i'm playing at 50% research so seems a little 'optimistic' - especially since it doesn't look like they have superiority
----
so i kept declining and 3 more invasion battles popped up for a total of 6 in that same turn, with each progressive one taking away VP from the enemy if i declined
however when i got to the next turn only the very first invasion of Nova Scotia was in progress, the rest never materialized
so it would seem that declining invasions sets something screwy off
here is the save before that turn started
and here is the turn afterwards with just the 1 invasion
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 16, 2019 12:11:06 GMT -6
I have already noticed that it is quite often that CVs show only if enemy has CV too. It should not be so as there should be that CV usage is increased by CV numbers and decreased by number of capital ships of enemy. If it is are when enemy has small fleet compared to own fleet, enemy should apeared quite often, especially if own fleet has several CVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 17, 2019 9:11:51 GMT -6
ok, this is interesting - i was going to restart the turn due to an unwanted event and started declining the battles to get to the next turn, and due to me declining the USA invaded Nova Scotia, then Maine (i previously captured it), and now it's invading...Ireland?
this happened all in the same turn resolution - the ai is able to invade more than 1 area in the same turn?
and can the USA invade Ireland when the closest USA base is mainland USA? it's only 1926 and i'm playing at 50% research so seems a little 'optimistic' - especially since it doesn't look like they have superiority
----
so i kept declining and 3 more invasion battles popped up for a total of 6 in that same turn, with each progressive one taking away VP from the enemy if i declined
however when i got to the next turn only the very first invasion of Nova Scotia was in progress, the rest never materialized
so it would seem that declining invasions sets something screwy off
here is the save before that turn started
and here is the turn afterwards with just the 1 invasion
This seems like a bug. There should only be one invasion in progress at the same time. Were all the battles you declined invasion battles? |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 17, 2019 10:56:11 GMT -6
This seems like a bug. There should only be one invasion in progress at the same time. Were all the battles you declined invasion battles? yes, 6 all appeared in a row one after the other |
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Aug 17, 2019 12:10:45 GMT -6
This seems like a bug. There should only be one invasion in progress at the same time. Were all the battles you declined invasion battles? There's a bug that had already been reported (I don't recall which thread), wherein if an invasion battle is declined by either side, or otherwise doesn't happen, all battles generated after it for the same turn are invasion battles, even if it doesn't make sense for them to be in terms of location, battle type, or forces present. It looks like some boolean is used as a flag to indicate that a battle is an invasion, and that it gets set when certain conditions are met for a battle, but never cleared if the battle doesn't happen, and that it exists in too broad a scope to pass out of context when the generator moves on to the next battle. |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 18, 2019 4:17:38 GMT -6
i did remove the CV later on, and a couple CVLs started showing up in battles - never more than 2 even though they were invasion battles with seemingly full forces on either side, but better than nothing Back to the CVL issue. What speed were your CVL:s? The game wants CVL:s to have a speed of at least 25 knots to add them to a force with other "real grownup" carriers, on the assumption that otherwise they will slow down the carrier force. If you have slower CVL:s they will only be added to the force if no other carriers are available. I guess this might be what is happening here.
I will consider if I can make this requirement milder or more like a preference. But it requires some deliberation, as it would be undesirable to have slow, smallish escort carriers added to a fast carrier force.
|
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 18, 2019 4:56:32 GMT -6
i did remove the CV later on, and a couple CVLs started showing up in battles - never more than 2 even though they were invasion battles with seemingly full forces on either side, but better than nothing Back to the CVL issue. What speed were your CVL:s? The game wants CVL:s to have a speed of at least 25 knots to add them to a force with other "real grownup" carriers, on the assumption that otherwise they will slow down the carrier force. If you have slower CVL:s they will only be added to the force if no other carriers are available. I guess this might be what is happening here.
I will consider if I can make this requirement milder or more like a preference. But it requires some deliberation, as it would be undesirable to have slow, smallish escort carriers added to a fast carrier force.
all the CVLs are 30+kts, which is as fast or faster than the CV
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 18, 2019 8:47:24 GMT -6
i did remove the CV later on, and a couple CVLs started showing up in battles - never more than 2 even though they were invasion battles with seemingly full forces on either side, but better than nothing Back to the CVL issue. What speed were your CVL:s? The game wants CVL:s to have a speed of at least 25 knots to add them to a force with other "real grownup" carriers, on the assumption that otherwise they will slow down the carrier force. If you have slower CVL:s they will only be added to the force if no other carriers are available. I guess this might be what is happening here.
I will consider if I can make this requirement milder or more like a preference. But it requires some deliberation, as it would be undesirable to have slow, smallish escort carriers added to a fast carrier force.
Ah!! Thanks for this info Fredrik - it explains some of what *I* see in my games. I routinely convert my early 16KTon B's into 21-22 kt CVL. When I have both (fast) CV and these (slow) CVL in a zone where there's a big battle, then the CV will show up in the carrier force and the CVL will be placed in support divisions in the main force. I actually *really* like this (having some of the CV* show up in the main force) behavior. This is because there is no way to tell the carrier force to provide "remote CAP" to my battle line without sailing the CV force right on top of them. As others have mentioned, this is a major downside to the carrier force behavior at this time. This "ability" to still provide support CAP coverage even when there's a carrier force makes this much less of a problem. In addition, I recently had a battle with a (fast) BC main force (no BB), a fast CV force, and 21kt CVL as escort divisions for the BC force. The 6-7kt speed disadvantage of the CVL was not a problem at all, since the support order had them hanging back from the main battle, so their speed disadvantage didn't result in them being overrun by the enemy. So I guess my request is that, as part of your considerations, please include the issue of having a reliable mechanism (like exists today with slow CVL) present so that the main BB/BC force has CAP support. [EDIT] I just began an enemy raid on coastal shipping with large CV in both the carrier force and in the main force. So I'm much less concerned about this regressing [/EDIT] John |
|
|
|
Post by Fredrik W on Aug 18, 2019 10:56:51 GMT -6
Back to the CVL issue. What speed were your CVL:s? The game wants CVL:s to have a speed of at least 25 knots to add them to a force with other "real grownup" carriers, on the assumption that otherwise they will slow down the carrier force. If you have slower CVL:s they will only be added to the force if no other carriers are available. I guess this might be what is happening here.
I will consider if I can make this requirement milder or more like a preference. But it requires some deliberation, as it would be undesirable to have slow, smallish escort carriers added to a fast carrier force.
all the CVLs are 30+kts, which is as fast or faster than the CV
I see. There is also a mechanism where it will be more likely to have more carriers in a battle the more years pass. Considering that your game is only in 1926, this might have an influence. The intention is to reflect conservative navies and uncertainty about the value of carriers, and to prevent players using hindsight to kick start the carrier age. I admit I should have mention this in the manual, so that players should know what to expect. |
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 18, 2019 11:11:33 GMT -6
all the CVLs are 30+kts, which is as fast or faster than the CV
I see. There is also a mechanism where it will be more likely to have more carriers in a battle the more years pass. Considering that your game is only in 1926, this might have an influence. The intention is to reflect conservative navies and uncertainty about the value of carriers, and to prevent players using hindsight to kick start the carrier age. I admit I should have mention this in the manual, so that players should know what to expect. interesting - good to know since i have been evolving to add more carriers earlier
i also play at 50% tech so if numbers are tech based then it's closer to the early 1910s than 1926 - can't expect big carrier battles that early lol
|
|
