More variety, realism and anti-frustration for Treaties

[corvus]

During one of my more recent playthroughs I ran across a problem where the Kaiser kept demanding new Battleships while a particularly harsh treaty (max 10kt and 6 inch guns, IIRC) preventing any designs that the game would recognize as valid Battleships was in effect. That got me thinking about the current treaty system and how it could be improved.

From what I have seen in game, there are three possible limitations: a limit on max tonnage of new ships, a limit on max gun caliber on new ships and a ban on subs. I would suggest expanding it a bit for better realism, more variety and as an anti-frustration measure to prevent situations like described above.

Firtst of all, seperate the limitations into several categories (e.g. Capital Ships (B, BB and BC), Carriers, and everything else) with stricter limits for smaller ships, as was the case in historical treaties.

Aditionally other potential limitations could be implimented, such as a limit on  max number of guns, max aircraft capacity, max total tonnage of the corresponding type (potentially forcing the player to scrap a bunch of older ships) , max speed, max armour thickness or even a total ban on certain ship or weapon types.

So a treaty might look like this: (based on the Washington Naval Treaty)

Capital Ships: max 35kt, max 16 inch guns, max total tonnage of 525kt

Carriers: max 27kt, max 10 main guns, max 8 inch guns, max total tonnage of 135kt

everything else: max 10kt, max 8 inch guns

or this: (arbitrary)

Capital Ships: max 29kt, max 9 main guns, max 16 inch guns, max sped of 25, max total tonnage of 250kt
Carriers: max 23kt, max 4 main guns, max 6 inch guns, max aicraft of 50, max 3 inches of armour, max total tonnage of 112kt
everything else: max 10kt, max 8 inch guns, max 20 secondary+tertiary guns, max horizontal armour of 6 inches, max vertical armour of 2 inches, max speed of 30

Ban on subs, BCs and mines

Also I'd like to see the current mechanic of automatic scrapping of anything treaty violating replaced with a grace period of 2 or 3 months for the player to scrap, refit or sell (another mechanic that could be added for dealing with unwanted ships. Would generate more money than scrapping but also increase tensions with the parties not involved in the sale and give a ship to potential enemies if sold to another naval power) anything that's non-compliant or face massive increases in tensions and maybe prestige losses under certain government types. It would also allow the player to engage in shenanigans, like the current cheating mechanic or even a new "hide ship" status representing stuf like converting it into a training ship but in a way that it's easy to restore with a limit on how manny ships could be hidden.

[navalperson]

Mar 30, 2021 5:49:39 GMT -6 corvus said:

During one of my more recent playthroughs I ran across a problem where the Kaiser kept demanding new Battleships while a particularly harsh treaty (max 10kt and 6 inch guns, IIRC) preventing any designs that the game would recognize as valid Battleships was in effect. That got me thinking about the current treaty system and how it could be improved.

From what I have seen in game, there are three possible limitations: a limit on max tonnage of new ships, a limit on max gun caliber on new ships and a ban on subs. I would suggest expanding it a bit for better realism, more variety and as an anti-frustration measure to prevent situations like described above.

Firtst of all, seperate the limitations into several categories (e.g. Capital Ships (B, BB and BC), Carriers, and everything else) with stricter limits for smaller ships, as was the case in historical treaties.

Aditionally other potential limitations could be implimented, such as a limit on  max number of guns, max aircraft capacity, max total tonnage of the corresponding type (potentially forcing the player to scrap a bunch of older ships) , max speed, max armour thickness or even a total ban on certain ship or weapon types.

So a treaty might look like this: (based on the Washington Naval Treaty)

Capital Ships: max 35kt, max 16 inch guns, max total tonnage of 525kt

Carriers: max 27kt, max 10 main guns, max 8 inch guns, max total tonnage of 135kt

everything else: max 10kt, max 8 inch guns

or this: (arbitrary)

Capital Ships: max 29kt, max 9 main guns, max 16 inch guns, max sped of 25, max total tonnage of 250kt
Carriers: max 23kt, max 4 main guns, max 6 inch guns, max aicraft of 50, max 3 inches of armour, max total tonnage of 112kt
everything else: max 10kt, max 8 inch guns, max 20 secondary+tertiary guns, max horizontal armour of 6 inches, max vertical armour of 2 inches, max speed of 30

Ban on subs, BCs and mines

Also I'd like to see the current mechanic of automatic scrapping of anything treaty violating replaced with a grace period of 2 or 3 months for the player to scrap, refit or sell (another mechanic that could be added for dealing with unwanted ships. Would generate more money than scrapping but also increase tensions with the parties not involved in the sale and give a ship to potential enemies if sold to another naval power) anything that's non-compliant or face massive increases in tensions and maybe prestige losses under certain government types. It would also allow the player to engage in shenanigans, like the current cheating mechanic or even a new "hide ship" status representing stuf like converting it into a training ship but in a way that it's easy to restore with a limit on how manny ships could be hidden.

I would also like to add the potential to convert ships in order to comply with the treaty and being able to technically redesign that specific ship instead of making it a new class. Adding on to your tonnage would be you can only have so much tonnage to build ships like the Washington naval treaty countries were only allowed so much to build carriers. I would also like to see for nations that aren’t a democratic/ democracy type you can leave the treaty like how Japan left the London Naval treaty but maybe have some negative as well as positive effects to go with it.

[captaintrek]

Probably make it so you have to hit a certain tension threshold before you can leave the treaty, and doing so will cause even more tension.

[potrero]

I absolutely hate the current treaty system with its blanket restrictions. Once a treaty goes into effect, anything on the ways that was actually worth building goes away, all the money spent on them is gone, and the AI starts spamming super-cruisers with 10” guns.

Treaties in-game should at least have seperate limits for cruisers, carriers, and battleships. If possible, it would be nice if we could potentially have some input in the negotiations via a decision box, i.e. “We can afford to cancel our latest battleships if we can keep our existing fleet (stricter limit on new construction, higher total tonnage cap)” vice “Offer to trade away some of our obsolete ships in exchange for finishing the ships we’re building now (lower total tonnage cap, less restrictions on new construction).”

Treaty violations should also be a possibility, with varying consequences. Say you order a class that exceeds treaty limitations (which you absolutely should be able to do). Depending on the type/belligerence of your government and current tension levels, you may either get praised for taking the initiative in national security or criticized for ignoring the law (the latter option may or may not result in the build being cancelled). There should also be diplomatic events where ONI warns you that there’s no way in hell your rival’s new class is treaty-compliant, with options to let it go to avoid raising tensions, invoke an escalator clause to increase treaty limitations, or scrapping the treaty altogether for a ++ bump in tensions.

Finally, modifying ships under construction should be a thing, both to incorporate new tech and to comply with new treaty restrictions. Things like fire control upgrades and light AA guns should be relatively fast and cheap, while more major revisions (Lexington-style, for example) become more expensive the further along a ship is.