DougToss

Tsushima was situational though, as fireproofing and firefighting gear were primitive. Beside paint, flooring, furniture and wall panels all being more flammable than in the World Wars, damage control parties and water hoses and mains were exposed to shell splinters in ways they weren't on later ships. By the Second World War, aircraft carriers excepted, fires very rarely resulted in the total loss of a ship. "Cumulative damage" was not something naval designers pursued, as we see with the development of all-big-gun armament after, and as a result of lessons from, the Russo-Japanese War. Better for a 12 inch shell to cause major damage than a 6 inch shell to start small fires. In addition, rate of fire was demonstrably not the same as rate of hitting, and as fire control equipment improved, and ranges increased, the emphasis became clear - hits by large calibre guns that could defeat armour.

Incredible

It might be best to wait for a "plateau" in development, so the patches aren't coming fast and furious and requiring you to constantly play catch up. I believe you also mod for Sea Power and War on the Sea, correct? Maybe focus on enjoying those rather than getting burnt out on this title?

I appreciate your attention to detail

Is there a way to make sure the autogenerated merchantmen are more accurate? Little compartmentalization, power plants far behind military standard (remember Liberty Ships had triple expansion engines), minimal gun armament with no fire control or rangefinding systems, etc. ? Convoys even in 1900 can pummel a light cruiser, while the ships are hard to sink, where we know from the surface actions in the world wars that a few shells could compel a merchant to heave to, or would sink her or set her alight, and that their gunnery - while enthusiastic- was barely enough to cause a U-Boat to back off, let alone actually fight off a surface combatant. Love the mod.

I'm always really impressed with what you're doing here. How would you describe, as best as you can tell, how the AI tries to build ships here compared to RTW? I'm trying to wrap my head around the reason for the randomness in number of guns, arrangement, calibre, that you're working around. I appreciate your fixes, I'm just wondering why the AI tries to build ships where 9 inch guns would even be considered for a capital ship (absent a treaty).

I think some sort of testing needs to be brought back for changes like this

Sorry for the delay. From a simulationist perspective, what is it representing? Is how much damage a ship takes not already represented by defeating protection (armour, torpedo defence), and then behind armour effect (compartmentalization)? I’m just trying to work out what the system is standing in for, which would be the durability of a ship based on form, since the value in the game is tied to the hull itself, no?

What is "resistance" even supposed to model? Armour already exists, as does compartmentalization, so what is being abstracted here?

Well…? In that case art largely imitates life.

This was a great opportunity to have the AI at least start with realistic ships that closely follow historical designs, maybe even per country, but these are... not good.

I think Rule the Waves and Steam and Iron: Russo-Japanese War had the right idea where there can be a TB sortie into an anchorage at night to start a war (specific to Japan only), but the only ships that cruise alone are, well, cruisers and merchants.

Ideally we get a game update where, just like in Rule the Waves, unshielded, shielded and turreted mounts scaled with armour and not with time. Perhaps even having a fourth class, lightly armoured gunhouses (more than a shield, less than a turret), as on the US treaty cruisers, Tribal Class etc.

I suppose the functionality of the diplomacy system, and the tendency of the world to break out into several anarchic wars is backend stuff beyond the scope of the mod. I've really appreciated the past few updates, and your growing ambition - adding new nations for one thing! - so please keep up the good work.