While I realize that there is a large # of people who will "vote in a poll" without actually reading the options, I encourage you to look to the bottom of this post before choosing your option 
.
I have seen a lot of posts on this forum regarding the state of naval warfare; and I'll agree for the most part, it could use a rework. That said, I want to get a "pulse" of what this playerbase actually thinks of what irks them the most; as individual posts within individual threads all seem to sound like what is wrong to "them" is what is "actually" wrong.
The best way to do this, I figure, is by asking the question in broad.
That said, I would like to make a few statements, so that there is no confusion.
1) I don't work for Paradox.
That should be pretty evident from my option #7, as Johan himself has stated he won't do it. This is not like Kallocain's "what would you like to see in 1.4" thread. Nothing voted on in this poll will dictate future... well, anything. I just want to see what the "primary peeve" is.
2) These are not mutually exclusive.
Some of these compliment each other, and none really stop any of the others from being done as well. Like above, this isn't a "what do you want to see", it's a "what irks you the most" poll.
3) This is about mechanics, not implementation.
This means 2 things: A) That I have no idea which of these would be harder to code; I'm not making this poll with "ease of change" in mind, so don't vote/not vote for something because you think "it would be too hard to code"... and B) This doesn't include the AI as a poll choice, because I'm not after "how bad the AI uses fleets" as this poll's topic, rather just the mechanics of the units. Yes, I think the AI is horrible with fleet maintenance too, but that has nothing to do with the ships themselves.
4) I was tired as I typed this.
Due largely to the time difference between myself posting this and the mods in Sweden actually seeing it, and me wanting to put it up as close to their start time as possible. If anyone wants further explanations of the poll choices, just ask, and I'll try and clarify (by editing this first post if possible). And of course, feel free to post any opinions/thoughts (within forum guidelines ) yourselves, as this is an opinion poll after all.
--- FURTHER DESCRIPTIONS
Due to poll options only being a max of 100 characters, I've trimmed them down... here's a semi-expanded explanation of what they mean:
1) The other ships in the fleet can stick around and fight if they want to, perhaps based on a fleet's "aggressive/defensive/passive" setting. And CAGs can stick around as well, even if the carrier "flees".
2) Possible fixes would be to reduce the staking penalty for naval and port strikes or to give CAGs a new "anti-ship patrol" that continuously circles the Carrier Fleet's adjacent seazones looking for ships to attack
3) Their effect, as well as all ships capable of shore bombardment, on nearby combat should be looked at, and they should also get a new "shore bombardment" mission.
4) Either by a "combined arms" type bonus, or by changing a fleet's stacking penalty to base each ship's penalty on the number of the same type of ships, rather than total number of ships, in the fleet (I.E. a fleet of 4BB and 8DD has each of the BB act like a 4-ship penalty, and the DD each act like an 8-ship. The base penalty per ship should be higher for larger ships).
5) They should either do more damage (to abstract each "destroyer" as being multiple ships attacking at once), or should build much faster (making the "abstraction" more generally represent single ships). at the very least, damaged destroyer (and sub) groups should be able to "reserve" each other, akin to the airforce equivalent mission".
6) Torpedoes do a lot of damage when they hit successfully, they were just dangerous and iffy propositions. "Surface attack" should be split into "Gun attack" and "torpedo attack"; Gun staying as surface is now, and Torpedoes doing high damage, but (for realism) have a high base degree of inaccuracy. Torpedo tech should then apply to more than just subs.
7) Techs and Doctrines should all be reviewed so that these 3 types of units can better hold their jobs up to the standards of BB, CV, and other planes. For SHBB, it shouldn't be a "Dead end"; better main guns don't necessarily have to mean continuously increasing caliber, just overall improvement in performance, so capital techs should apply to them. Or, at the very least, AA and doctrines.
8) Perhaps by getting a "first strike" against any fleet they aggressively engage, or by having their combat be more like real subs... 1 shot and run. And they certainly shouldn't be getting torn up by Battleships.
.I have seen a lot of posts on this forum regarding the state of naval warfare; and I'll agree for the most part, it could use a rework. That said, I want to get a "pulse" of what this playerbase actually thinks of what irks them the most; as individual posts within individual threads all seem to sound like what is wrong to "them" is what is "actually" wrong.
The best way to do this, I figure, is by asking the question in broad.
That said, I would like to make a few statements, so that there is no confusion.
1) I don't work for Paradox.
That should be pretty evident from my option #7, as Johan himself has stated he won't do it
. This is not like Kallocain's "what would you like to see in 1.4" thread. Nothing voted on in this poll will dictate future... well, anything. I just want to see what the "primary peeve" is.2) These are not mutually exclusive.
Some of these compliment each other, and none really stop any of the others from being done as well. Like above, this isn't a "what do you want to see", it's a "what irks you the most" poll.
3) This is about mechanics, not implementation.
This means 2 things: A) That I have no idea which of these would be harder to code; I'm not making this poll with "ease of change" in mind, so don't vote/not vote for something because you think "it would be too hard to code"... and B) This doesn't include the AI as a poll choice, because I'm not after "how bad the AI uses fleets" as this poll's topic, rather just the mechanics of the units. Yes, I think the AI is horrible with fleet maintenance too, but that has nothing to do with the ships themselves
.4) I was tired as I typed this.
Due largely to the time difference between myself posting this and the mods in Sweden actually seeing it, and me wanting to put it up as close to their start time as possible
. If anyone wants further explanations of the poll choices, just ask, and I'll try and clarify (by editing this first post if possible). And of course, feel free to post any opinions/thoughts (within forum guidelines ) yourselves, as this is an opinion poll after all.--- FURTHER DESCRIPTIONS
Due to poll options only being a max of 100 characters, I've trimmed them down... here's a semi-expanded explanation of what they mean:
1) The other ships in the fleet can stick around and fight if they want to, perhaps based on a fleet's "aggressive/defensive/passive" setting. And CAGs can stick around as well, even if the carrier "flees".
2) Possible fixes would be to reduce the staking penalty for naval and port strikes or to give CAGs a new "anti-ship patrol" that continuously circles the Carrier Fleet's adjacent seazones looking for ships to attack
3) Their effect, as well as all ships capable of shore bombardment, on nearby combat should be looked at, and they should also get a new "shore bombardment" mission.
4) Either by a "combined arms" type bonus, or by changing a fleet's stacking penalty to base each ship's penalty on the number of the same type of ships, rather than total number of ships, in the fleet (I.E. a fleet of 4BB and 8DD has each of the BB act like a 4-ship penalty, and the DD each act like an 8-ship. The base penalty per ship should be higher for larger ships).
5) They should either do more damage (to abstract each "destroyer" as being multiple ships attacking at once), or should build much faster (making the "abstraction" more generally represent single ships). at the very least, damaged destroyer (and sub) groups should be able to "reserve" each other, akin to the airforce equivalent mission".
6) Torpedoes do a lot of damage when they hit successfully, they were just dangerous and iffy propositions. "Surface attack" should be split into "Gun attack" and "torpedo attack"; Gun staying as surface is now, and Torpedoes doing high damage, but (for realism) have a high base degree of inaccuracy. Torpedo tech should then apply to more than just subs.
7) Techs and Doctrines should all be reviewed so that these 3 types of units can better hold their jobs up to the standards of BB, CV, and other planes. For SHBB, it shouldn't be a "Dead end"; better main guns don't necessarily have to mean continuously increasing caliber, just overall improvement in performance, so capital techs should apply to them. Or, at the very least, AA and doctrines.
8) Perhaps by getting a "first strike" against any fleet they aggressively engage, or by having their combat be more like real subs... 1 shot and run. And they certainly shouldn't be getting torn up by Battleships.
Last edited by a moderator:
