StoneofTriumph

Yeah. I know not every ship can or will be perfectly balanced, but I feel like there was a more elegant way to handle it than the game having equipment placed forward of a certain line act like it weighs four times as much as equipment placed behind said line.

Pitch and roll are one thing- That's just the price of doing business. What we've been talking about has always been the fore/aft weight offset and how very many hulls become bow-heavy well out of proportion to the weight of equipment placed in that position- Equipment that you put in the fore affects the fore/aft weight offset far more than things that you put far in the rear, no matter how far back you set either of them, and no matter if they have the same weight.

Sorry, no luck there. And this is on Modern Battleship 1. I can't imagine what would happen if I tried to build something with an Iowa gun layout.

After all that, I'm just trying to figure out when in history 15 5" guns was a reasonable gun loadout for a 2800-ton destroyer. Because even the 3,000-ton 1936C had only 6x 5" guns along with their torpedoes and somewhat modest AA armament.

The way people were complaining about it wasn't "Why is an outmatched enemy running away" but rather "If the battle conditions would cause an enemy to immediately run away, why did it trigger a battle on the world map in the first place?"

This sort of thing happened to me with Veteran crew. A handful of non-penetrating secondary HE hits burned down 40% of a well-equipped dreadnought's crew with ease.

This is even happening with good damage control and highly-trained crews. Fires that should not be a problem are wrecking ships and crews very quickly and easily.

Okay, but what about the overpowered out-of-control fires, though?

Okay, that part is also fair.

This is something I'm okay with considering how extremely rare it was to actually capture warships at sea in this period- Even if the crew surrendered, they'd more likely than not scuttle the ship to prevent it from falling into the hands of an enemy nation. Most of the time when an enemy ship was taken it was because the ship had outright sailed into an enemy port, was salvaged after running aground or being sunk in a harbor, or taken as a war prize after the fact. The only really notable surrender of ships into the hands of an enemy nation in the middle of wartime in this period was the surrender of the remnants of the 3rd Pacific squadron into the hands of the Japanese the day after Tsushima, and even then it wasn't due to battle damage so much as "We're completely outmatched by the force that's surrounding us, better give up without a fight."

Hiei suffered badly in terms of her ability to fight, but even after being shot up by various calibers of guns at very close range, torpedoed, and eventually finished off by torpedo and level bombers after the battle was over, she still only lost 188 members of her crew out of something like 12-1300. The other thing is that even non-penetrating hits from relatively light HE can now cause catastrophic crew casualties at high speed. This has been kinda a problem before, but now it's a lot worse. It's going from "HE is maybe an option to to some damage to ships I can't penetrate" to "This is an outright superior option to AP for dealing with armored warships."

They should, but that's not what's happening- any HE can burn down even pristine ships. Currently, even small-caliber non-penetrating HE can easily do 2 and 3 on their own, causing even a small number of hits to spread out of control and do catastrophic damage to ships with even high-veterancy crews, as was the case recently when a few fires caused by hits from 4/5" guns managed to cause 40% crew casualties on a dreadnought of mine with veteran crew with immense speed. And HE doesn't care about things like angle and armor thickness.

Nope. As of now there's really not much point to bringing AP shells, as HE will cause far more overall damage due to fires whether it penetrates or not.

I managed to get the situation largely back under control by beating the Germans so hard I got 2.7 billion in reparations, but that's something I was only really able to do because I was playing as England- It wouldn't have saved me as Italy or China because I was losing core territories. Now I know what I'm about to say will sound a little like "Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" But the fact that enemy fleets will actually fight me now is a big improvement, plus the fact that an enemy actually attempted a naval invasion on me was a welcome surprise when it comes to shaking things up.

This is insane. I'm playing as England right at the moment, and am currently at war with Germany, and no matter how well I do in the parts of the game I can control, I keep on losing tons of territories due to things that are out of my hands. I could sink 50 German ships in one turn and be ahead in the war by hundreds of thousands of VP, but my government refuses to sign a peace treaty no matter how many times I urge it because they just can't seem to get enough of losing territory in land invasions. I'm doing absolutely everything I can do as well as it can be done and I'm still going to come out of the war way behind, possibly lose all of my African territory, if it ever even ends. EDIT: Come to think of it, this is the third campaign in a row where this has happened to me: Italy: Do really well at sea, push for peace at every chance, government keeps the war going, lose everything to land invasions. China: Do really well at sea, push for peace at every chance, government keeps the war going, lose everything to land invasions. UK: ABSOLUTELY CRUSH IT at sea, push for peace at every chance, government keeps the war going, lose a whole bunch to land invasions. And it's not like the government only refused once or twice, we're talking eight or nine times at least. So either fix the peace process or let me turn off land invasions, because I'm tired of losing for no other reason than because the AI says so.