TotalRampage

To be fair the Germans did make the scharnhorst. While classified as a BB by the germans for all intesive purposes even in design function I think it was a BC. We also get the Alaska and while one was called a cruiser and the other a BB even tho the tonnage difference was only 4000 tons. In game we are going to see players make crazy things because Air power at least from CV's has been pretty cold on the reception from the devs so we very well may see a BC meta because of the speed the hulls can produce along with the armour we can add onto them.

I AGREE. It also scares me I could even add more armour to the BC hull essentially making it more amoured. I believe you played RTW I like the system that auto detects ship type so theoretically you could use a BB hull as a BC and vice versa it was just the stats the eventually determined its class.

Didn't think of the machinery weight! Good point! But your point about the hulls both hulls I used were the modern hulls of both lines. Speaking of RTW I did like how you could theoretically build anything then the class type was determined. Obviously you could use a historically BC hull but just use it as a basis for BB's if you like it.

True you see that especially with the Japanese and the retros they did to Amagi and the Kongo class. I am still alittle worried because during my test I could still add MORE Armour.

I decided to do a test on how Armour weights effects ships by class. This is to test if say I could Armour up a BC more the same as a BB. (German 1930's tech)Hulls used Include: Modern Battleship Modern Battle Cruiser All ships towers are the most advanced available. But all these factors will remain the same Krupp 4, Barb 4, Anti Torp 3, Reinforced Bulkhead 2, Citadel 5, White Powder, Electro-hydro turrets with auto loading as well, and finally Stereoscopic 5 with Radar 2. The ships will all have a 30kt speed, medium range with standard bulkheads. Again the purpose of this test is to just show Armour disparities I'm just trying to limit as many factors as I can, but I decided to include these in the calculations because I might actually use a ship with these upgrades only as a minimum. Obliviously we could make slight changes but they are meant to serve as a baseline in say campaign or mission viability. All Values in Imperial Inches The BBs armaments included 4x2 14 inch guns 6x2 8 inch guns 8x2 4 inch guns The BB with a total of 52,493 out of 52,500 displacement 20 belt 10 Belt Ex 12 deck 5 Deck Ex 19 conning tower 20 turret 9.5 turret top 6 secondaries The BC with a total of 46,745 out of 49,000 Displacement could fit the same amour and armament as the BB. But I could add more. 20 belt 10 Belt Ex 12 deck 5 Deck Ex 19 conning tower 20 turret 9.5 turret top 6 secondaries This could be because the BB has more displacement (couldn't make the battleship any smaller than 52,500 displacement or the BC bigger than 49,000). But we also have more tonnage to play around with so I could actually add more amour to the BC if I wanted. But with a displacement difference of only 3,500 we have an pretty significant weight difference. I know the displacement difference still counts towards the weight because more is being armored but the weight difference doesn't seem right yet. Some problems that could arise with this include BB hulls being less competitive in certain missions and eventually campaign if not addressed. AI maybe abusing the BC hull in games say by squeezing things onto hulls they shouldn't be able too (Robots can be weird as we have all seen). Having BC's just be to much like BB's no difference in the actual ship classes and people treating them as essentially BB's were we would not see them used for there historical purpose. 2nd Test with America Did this one in a hurry so I used all the same factors as above! Only thing different was armament. (America 1930's tech)Hulls used Modern BB 1 Modern Battle Cruiser Armament used was 3x3 16 inch guns 5x2 4 inch guns All Armour values set to 8 inches for quickness and accuracy The BB had a displacement of 47,814 out of 50,000 tons the total weight of the BB superstructure and funnels was 10,664 tons. The weight without the superstructure would be 37,150. The BC had a displacement of 47,591 out of 50,000 tons the total weight of the BC superstructure and funnels was 7,524 tons. The weight without the superstructure would be 38,767. In this test seems like the BB fared better. While the ship had more total weight less of that weight was allocated by the algorithm to Armour and more was due to the superstructure just weighing more. Also because you can increase the displacement of the BB we don't have to worry about this BC hull having ridiculous amounts of Armour because it couldn't support the weight like with the German hulls. Please comment your thoughts! If you have a question or comment I usually try to respond! I just wanna see what other people think about my little test.

Ya i'm not worried about the you know historical aspect of this game because its going to end up being ahistorical at the end if the player has a successful campaign. With the non-linear tech tree they announced i'm pretty sure tech stealing in an easy way to solve the issue of hulls. Or like you said allowing the player to lease or have a bb be built for them using that countries tech.

So this thread was started before they announced the delay of campaign and when there was much speculation around campaign release with or extremely near the steam release. But if the problem is not addressed (I believe it will be I like these devs a lot as I've made clear) it could create an endgame balance issue past say 1930 when nations will not receive many new hulls partly due to historical introductions of aircraft carriers and the Washington naval treaty. Update: It also goes with your torpedo balance thread. Nations would be less able to include anti-torpedo measures because of size displacements thus giving an edge to nations who designed and implemented super bb's. Which is why I wanted the espionage system to be included. This was prior to them announcing an only 2 nation campaign initially as a way for nations to stay competitive at any point in the game by some sort of hull stealing mechanic.

This quote is amazing. I love non-linear research not gonna lie. Gives or takes the edge from me! Another reason i'm excited!

Hey I'm just so happy the devs keep us updated on this stuff! I'm so ready for campaign but I know i'd hate myself if I rushed them to much and it sucked. I'm so happy my idea of admiral traits snuck itself in tho! I remember me and you talking about it like 2 months ago (I know I didn't give them the idea but I like that its there!)

I just wanted to show that atm its an issue even with economic might nations wouldn't be able to build them. Because even Britain a great naval power didn't design that many high displacement bbs because there was frankly not a need. But that just allows nations like Germany to have a hull edge the entire late game because they can build ships that were not constrained by say the Washington treaty.

I was just a bit worried because lion was only 40k displacement of course you can stretch the hull like the allow us to do in this game but it was designed as a fast battleship. But I do like the idea for a campaign with varying degrees of realism because then we could have an option to essentially make late game hulls a bit more balanced well because everyone has them.

That's true. But this being a game I can already max out 2 ships and have them beat 6 without losing one in custom. I know in campaign that it will be expensive but it begs the question of if the player is playing Germany with the highest displacement allowed and doing moderately well half the nations in the game would never be able to Armour up a ship as well as I could so I could just set a personal displacement limit of lets say 80k and most nations in the game would never be able to build a battleship that's that big even if they are economically able to do so i.e. Britain or Italy which goes to my solution of allowing players and AI nations to steal hull types from other nations as a work around to this issue.

So I have a question/observation. I was recently doing a custom battle British vs. Japan. Just to warm up 1940's tech was gonna build the biggest battleship I could, But then I noticed that the biggest battleship The Brits could get are the Dreadnought IV and the N3/G3 hulls which top out at 62k displacement. That got me thinking does Britain actually have the smallest size battleship displacement in the game? All Displacements are max French 93k Germany 130k Japan 125k USA 109k Spain 69k Russia 69k Italy 65k Austro 90.5k China 87k British 62k Spain and Russia share the same hull but it begs the question of balance late game. Obviously not all of these nations designed ships with high displacements but the problem is that how are the devs going to balance these hulls out? Britain tops out at 62k but Germany for example has 4 battleship hulls that hit a max of 62k and up. Some hulls will inevitably be shared across nations like how I noticed in Spain and Russia with the modern battleship 69k hull but I thought I'd post this here for the community to brainstorm ideas for the devs or maybe share historical designs for nations they can find of specifically capital ships. One Idea I had was for if this game has an espionage system (I haven't seen anything confirmed yet) is that your spies could actually steal hull types that you could then build in your own faction. This would stop specific nations having a hull advantage. But ideally I'd hope us the community could find some examples the devs could look at and see if they want to eventually include into the game!

I am ready

We still love you.

Kinda like what I just responded to Cptbarney I'm of the opinion they are earned and not started with to stop that abuse. Read quote below i'm also gonna edit the post to reflect my views. Updated skills and how they would be obtained also started a skills list and put some suggestions in the main article

I'm of the opinion they would need to either start with no base skills and learn them over time while being in the position. I.E. admiral in the arctic +5% accuracy during bad weather in arctic climate and he could get that skill by launching naval war games during peace time or actually fighting in the region at war time. The war games would thus cost resources and money causing a balance so the player doesn't get an added buff right away. But both are okay I just always prefer making someone from the ground up

Hey all been awhile! Hope everyone safe and enjoying a little more free time to beta test the game if your lucky. Now to the point I have seen this mentioned a bit before specifically with countries but I wanna focus on admirals and "XP" or experience they would earn after battles while touching on country traits towards the end. I haven't seen anything official through the devs yet but I just thought I'd put my two cents in with this idea. This could hopefully be added after initial release. As of right now there is a flag ship buff but I would like to expand upon this. Hopefully they could implement a system similar to Ultimate: Civil war but instead of army of corps perks we can make fleet perks. I do believe having an experience system would be beneficial in more than one way. For example and experience system would provide a way for players to maybe over come a technological or numerical advantage in the game. Say for example your guy is a "Night Fighter" who's squadron gets a bonus of 5% spotting and accuracy at night you WOULD have a edge, the rest would play into how you play the battle. There already is trainable crew as stated on the website that you will have to pay for as a monthly cost. But having an admiral or country trait as I will get to later could help add a degree of variation in how you spend your money. If admiral traits were implemented I feel strongly they should obviously be tied to a specific person in a specific region. They would then have the opportunity to join the battle if there ship was within range of lets say a major conflict between two ships. The admiral would obviously be located on the flagship of the fleet and would be used in conjunction to the current flagship buff. But this is a double edged sword say you put your admiral out in the front to inspire your men but then your brand new BB takes a torp and sinks, this would result in an moral debuff and an instant loss of all commander traits. This would result in an anxiety in human players being unresolved to commit your flagship completely into the fight because of fear of it That's not to say all traits would be good maybe we have a "Bull" who gets an 10% capital ships call in range for a battle but -10% call in range of screen vessels which would result in maybe your fleet not being as balanced as you like it. Skills List (Names Subject to change) Bull 10% capital ships call in range for a battle but -10% call in range of screen vessels Night fighter 5% accuracy and spotting during night engagements Arctic Warrior 5% accuracy and spotting during combat in arctic storm environments Tropical Warrior 5% spotting and accuracy during tropical storm environments Cool features to add -Maybe and event where your commander gets dismissed for a certain amount of time due to a scandal or maybe for life if he gets a heart attack. -Debuffs for losses i.e. trauma due to failure. -Historical Admirals making an appearance or maybe yourself if you feel you missed your calling in life. -Skills must be earned through actual combat or training. I.E. training a fleet in the arctic would provide a buff in that specific region when fighting there. The skills should be hard to obtain and unique. So someone cant have the arctic skill but also a tropical skill at the same time because they would cancel each other out What I would like to avoid is -Skills that add speed or other buffs that couldn't be applied to training because no matter how well trained your crew is the ship wont go any faster without paddles. -Commanders that wont die as stated above the double edged sword part is key they can not live forever. -Commanders not being able to be dismissed, If you get a bad or unwanted trait on your commander you should be able to dismiss them but you will have to start all over with a fresh commander and take a debuff which could be thought of later I.E. a green commander debuff. Now country traits. For country traits I believe its been talked about but I just wanted to put a list of what I would like to see. I think a country trait should be a trait specific only to them that is with them throughout the game without having to do anything special to initially obtain it. This is just a list of some that might or could hopefully be implemented. Again everyone kind of sees the benefit of a country trait and i'm pretty sure they will be in......hopefully. Japan 5% nation bonus to night battles spotting and accuracy 10% to torpedo accuracy 5% research to torpedo tech Germany -5% torpedo reload 5% research speed to Armour techs 5% research to torpedo tech Great Britain -5% cost reduction of capital ships 5% build speed of capital ships Legacy of the admiralty 10% chance to pick up new admiral traits United States -5% time of building new dockyards and ports -10% time of researching radar and sonar technology -5% time of building cruisers France Quad Turrets Tech This is an incomplete list let me know down below some I could add or your thought's of my thread. Ill try to update as long as this hopefully stays hot.

I'm so ready

Range for ships is definitely going to play a factor between naval bases, that's why they have that slider bar to add more Range i.e. fuel storage. The only problem I see is how the TW approach would work with battles because if you go to the max range of your fleet like how most people do in total war how would that transmit to the battle per-say. Would my ships be almost out of fuel and or is fuel even a factor in battles which it should be because what happens if you try to outrun an pursuer or chase someone down myself. Then also on the campaign map would my ship move instantly in one turn like TW or is it more real time when you can actually see your ship move which I think would be damn awesome but thats me. Also they are going to use an random battle generator that just introduces variables and then creates a battle in a zone so we wont have fleets with exact compositions out because nothing ever goes as planned and they want to make sure we cant pick and choose our battles to much to make it alittle harder. They have that up on the website but that really doesn't say how we would actually move ships to regions just how an battle would commence. On a side note I hope they implement treaties in to say refuel at an neutral nations port during a war or even get interned there but moving on. Getting to my main point I do like the system TW uses but it might not fit well into the game with the random battle generation. Finally damn straight campaign should be imbalanced, im gonna make Italy the roman empire again and there aint no way the Brits are stopping me though.

It could be a neat idea. But they as devs could also just put in reference template's that the AI wouldn't deviate a lot from. Also in campaign the type of fuel storage is going to play a big part and also the range at which they travel. I know in my games i turn range to little which can make or break a design.