Danelin Aruna

totally agree with you here. I know in RtW2 it seems more realistic for accuracy against all guns, Like trying to hit a dd with a main gun is shear random luck. Yet the secondary's are killers to them (depending on size). I prefer the 5" secondary's my self, but they definitely need to rework accuracy calculations. I cant remember if big guns get a malus against small ships but your secondary's don't seem to do much against small ships.

I agree the graphics are secondary to me as well. I mean i play RtW 1/2 and love it. Gameplay is important, and i like the concept of this.

and yet you cant win the game.... so seems like hes doing it better

a google search lead me to 1947, a royal navy motor gunboat who had its engine converted to a gas turbine. Maybe there confusing Gas with high pressure steam turbines? I have know idea why they do some of the things they do. Its an intriguing game, RtW with graphics.

if your effectively engaging BB's with CC's and making it out with out losing ships then they need to reexamine game balance. But i agree power projection is a little iffy, i also go for fewer better quality ships. Always get blockaded and always win the war

I think flooding needs a major rework, I mean you don't see ships list and turn over like happens in real life when taking mass damage on one side. Also why does the flooding stop at the first block, if you blow the bow wide open the ship is going to dip and flood more then the lower deck. I don't understand why it works the way it is, on top of pumps being way to effective.

the gun it self shouldn't need a rebuild, but i could see how the shell weight change could be a problem, although wouldn't they just load fewer shells.

The turning on ships, especially AI ships is just stupid. No ship in history can turn like these do, ive had ships bracketed on both sides by torpedoes miss them all. it was just so wrong it hurt me.

Ive seen pen hits that have knocked out two wing turrets at the same time. its hilarious to watch the turrets pop off due to flash fires like jumping beans. I also think flash fires do not do enough damage, multiple times ive seen multiple flash fires not sink a ship on either side. When in reality one magazine going off would sink a ship, Look at hood as a prime example.

I really like this idea, although i think some break up for historically available yard space should be made maybe. I know in the '20's and 30's when naval rearmament started the only ones who made absurdly huge ships was the Japanese, Yamamoto class. Even the American fast BB's in the interwar did not go above 35000 tons. I can understand the want to build huge ships, but very few people did it as it stuck all your horses in one basket. But before they work on that they should really fix weight calculations on ships. but definitely like the idea of increasing tonnage. I never understood why the Germans dock was 2000 tons under Britain that makes no sense historically. You can even build historical German predreadnaughts at the start of the game.

i concur

Advocating for realistic spotting actually helps you develop better tactics, if engagement ranges are artificially shortened then the tactics you have become less as you have less room to maneuver. Longer realistic sight lines would help a lot in being able to maneuver for advantage, its to late if I'm 3km off to try to develop a plan then it becomes a shoot out. and the reasons the Guadalcanal campaign was fought at night was because during the day the Americans owned the airspace. This was eventually won by the Americans for employing Radar in night engagements. So yes technology should play a part, but during the day with no clouds and calm seas, you should be able to see everything within 20km of you, most likely it would be further, due to mast height. with that further range of sight you would be freed up to develop your plan of action and maneuver your forces the way you want, which I would argue help tactical situations not hinder them. Also the AI seemingly knows where you are already as they always run straight away from you when they run, even before you make visual contact, if possible restrict the AI so they would have to close the range to know what they are fighting. Maybe that will help with the whole they run away all the time.

1. As others have pointed out Spotting. right now its so wonky... 2. Flat weight penalties for Radio's, Radar, Fire Control. 3. Definitely more freedom with ship designer especially when placing secondary's 4. Rework of modern CA and LC hulls, as they cant carry the historical secondary armament 5. weather effects.

That's all well and good, but that's not how spotting works irl. as 27 km is over the horizon it makes sense but the minimum range to site the destroyer shouldn't be under 20km and in fact would be a little more. As the higher your tower the farther you can see. That it takes you an extra 12 km before you can make out destroyer is asinine and not realistic in the least. As has been pointed out before by many people that's not how sight works, we just want it to work like it should not be obscured and hampered by some artificial construct.

this is in no way close to reality the at Salvo Island when the Japanese navy opened up the Americans tried to return fire, they were just at a disadvantage for multiple reasons. American Cruisers had a very real problem with catching fire amidships uncontrollably due to the presence of the sea plan hangers. Also the commander didn't trust radar and had turned it off. It was a failure on the American Side and a crushing win for the Japanese Navy. But if you follow the campaign the Americans come back with a vengeance see Battle of Cape Esperanza. So yes Historically you opening fire led to the others shooting back at you.