-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So your angry because they try to make the 10+ Battleship Jutland like fleets that are currently very powerful weaker? What now?!
Its not only about that battles are lasting long enough, many times there was no battles at all because the smaller fleet retreated before an open battle started. Is this something that going to be changed or will a small fleet meeting a much bigger still engaging.
Most of the battles occurred when both side was confident of gain something or if one side was surprised by the other side.
Captain Jack
Huzzah! Huzzah! I can't wait to see the changes.
Now, if we could get convoy raiding to be meaningful by changing how resource convoys work, and had some updates to the surrender events for ahistorical conquests, then we could get a bunch of what-if scenarios to be meaningful.
The convoy changes make a war for north Africa possible, but they don't really make it necessary, as all it could do, even if the AI can't send anything into the med, is protect Italy from naval invasion. The oil in Iraq and Persia is meaningless to Italy, England and Germany. So why would we ever send real troops there?
More constrained resources would also make the resource mining techs more meeaningful: The countries that have enough leadership to sink research into those are the countries that reach the resource cap everywhere anyway.
Now, if we could get convoy raiding to be meaningful by changing how resource convoys work, and had some updates to the surrender events for ahistorical conquests, then we could get a bunch of what-if scenarios to be meaningful.
The convoy changes make a war for north Africa possible, but they don't really make it necessary, as all it could do, even if the AI can't send anything into the med, is protect Italy from naval invasion. The oil in Iraq and Persia is meaningless to Italy, England and Germany. So why would we ever send real troops there?
More constrained resources would also make the resource mining techs more meeaningful: The countries that have enough leadership to sink research into those are the countries that reach the resource cap everywhere anyway.
I agree with this concern. If we ever want to see a Battlecruiser raiding the Atlantic we also need them to not rush headfirst into the UK home fleet at first encounter!
This also goes for all use off smaller scouting fleets made up off fast ships, they are pretty useless if you need to sacrifice them each and every time.
Bad idea, IMHO. Naval battles shouldn't last days. Midway was effectively over by noon. The engagement between Hood/PoW and Bismarck was two hours. Battles of the Slot were over in a few hours. Etc, et al.
Will other countries outside of the United States build Carriers?
Will the carriers that are built build CAGs?
Will the CAGs that are built actually be placed on the carriers?
Will the CAGs suffer the same, or different, or additional penalties for the size of the fleet (read : Not the number of CAGS) ?
Will the carriers that are built build CAGs?
Will the CAGs that are built actually be placed on the carriers?
Will the CAGs suffer the same, or different, or additional penalties for the size of the fleet (read : Not the number of CAGS) ?
Agreed. Naval battles tended to be short and furious not to mention ships can sink in minutes
The problem is, that the minimum time elapesed in the game is one hour. If you want any interaction with said battles, you will need to make them unrealistically long.
For example I doubt that any battles in the reneisance lasted for weeks, but still, they do in Europa Universalis. Balance reasons.
The production AI is completely rewritten, so, yes, other countries should build some. CAGs will also be built and placed. No, CAGs are not included in fleet penalties.
It should be easy to reproduce, as Italy set up patrols in different sea areas in front of Suez and watch them sail through to patrol east Africa.
Hurray!
Please also make it possible to send convoys from overseas areas to other ports on the same overseas landmass. See the thread on the Qingdao problem for detailed analysis of why this is needed for Japan in particular. For example, if Qingdao is designated the supply depot, once the 99k supply stockpile arrives from Korea, all the convoys to all ports on mainland asia go down to 1 supplies/fuel per day, crippling war efforts. If we could send convoys directly from the hugh stockpile in Qingdao to Shanghai, Haikou, Singapore, Calcutta, etc etc it would solve this problem.
If you get this supply convoy feature working well it will resolve my only outstanding major complaint with the supply system, thank you.
Did you think about introducing torpedo attack and defense values and a maneuver value (similar to land units who have two attack and defense values + softness) to have more options to balance naval battle and ship classes accordingly?
(Maybe take a look in this thread about naval combat model ideas.)
If not for Semper Fi and it's patches due to complexity or not at all - what is your approach to create more realistic naval battles in the long run?
(Maybe take a look in this thread about naval combat model ideas.)
If not for Semper Fi and it's patches due to complexity or not at all - what is your approach to create more realistic naval battles in the long run?
In this model if 30 battleship fleet will meet 10 battleship fleet then 30 BB fleet will loose some ships and then 10 battleships fleet would be able to disingage.
This is idiocy. If 30 ship fleet meets 10 ships fleet and 10 ship fleet would make monuvers to engage then it will be under crossfire.
Tell me why 20 BB would have a huge positioning penalty and 10 BB would not?
If column of 30 BBs would cross a cource of 10 BBs then it would mean that 10 BB are dead. What positioning problems here?
Or 30 BBs can go in 3 columns. If 10 BB engage then they are encircled. I predict that in Semper Fi true engagement of 30 BBs vs 10 BBs would lead to bullshit.
Last edited:
Because the 20 BB fleet is visible from much further, so the smaller fleet will have more time to prepare.
That was exactly what I was thinking as well when I saw the stacking penalty for that "squadron sized" fleet in the pic.
There should be penalties for stacking large amounts of capitals but there's two changes which absolutely has to be made;
#1 Operating at least 10 capitals in the same area without suicidal penalties
should be possible.
#2 Screens and tranports absolutely must not count vs. any kind of stacking.
Jutland would be THE WW1 example of why they have to change this but there are plenty in WW2 as well....such as pretty much every US pacific landing, for instance the Iwo Jima invasion force consisted of no less than 880 ships.
You got some reading to do here devs ;p
imo the whole naval/air stacking concept is pretty bad tbh, it would be much more realistic if larger fleets saw a much reduced chance for each combatant to take part in the battle at any given time.
I see you changed the font for the provinces/ocean provinces. I am not sure I like it; a little too loud. Is this permanent?