Suggestions

[N3rull]

So as not to make another thread:

Brit, please give the random map generator another level of island sizes or make continents bigger on bigger maps. I have generated four Continents type maps on biggest possible size and all those maps were, in fact, small islands connected with land bridges. They were all big, but very thin, which means that most of their important territory would be in range of battleships' weapons. I would expect that at least this final level of island sizes would force the player to make some sort of land warfare, employ tactics and artillery etc.

This is what it looked like when I generated a "continents" type map of the biggest possible size:

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/likethisq.jpg/

This is what I would expect:

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/likethatx.jpg/

This is not a burning issue, of course, since we can make our own maps. But if you have a moment to tweak the generator a bit and it won't take too much time, please take a look at it.

[N3rull]

Another suggestion.

The current DemoMap is getting OMGW00Tedly boring. I've done ~20 games, I know the whole map by heart and I can't really stand those islands anymore ;D.

It is my suggestion, kind request and personal hope that at least one more map is added sometime soon.

PWEASE?

[the.mensch]

I'd like to see the ability to upgrade resources as well. At the risk of getting too "civ-like" I think it's an appropriate piece for the tech tree.

[Brit]

So as not to make another thread:

Brit, please give the random map generator another level of island sizes or make continents bigger on bigger maps. I have generated four Continents type maps on biggest possible size and all those maps were, in fact, small islands connected with land bridges. They were all big, but very thin, which means that most of their important territory would be in range of battleships' weapons. I would expect that at least this final level of island sizes would force the player to make some sort of land warfare, employ tactics and artillery etc.

This is what it looked like when I generated a "continents" type map of the biggest possible size:

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/likethisq.jpg/

This is what I would expect:

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/likethatx.jpg/

This is not a burning issue, of course, since we can make our own maps. But if you have a moment to tweak the generator a bit and it won't take too much time, please take a look at it.

Nice images.

[N3rull]

I'd like to see the ability to upgrade resources as well. At the risk of getting too "civ-like" I think it's an appropriate piece for the tech tree.

We have Oil Refineries.

...

heeeeeyyy, wouldn't that solve the Food issue if there was a building, say, "Food Storage" that did the very same thing to Food what Refineries do to Oil?

Ad. Brit - no they're not, I'm a poor artist. But I guess they show better what I made unclear using words.

[EoS]

If it is planned that the population will grow, such building will be necessary.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Then, in addition to refineries, put in some Granaries (Civ) or somesuch for food, Mass Production tech for increased industrial output, Banks for increased cash flow.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Another suggestion.

The current DemoMap is getting OMGW00Tedly boring. I've done ~20 games, I know the whole map by heart and I can't really stand those islands anymore ;D.

It is my suggestion, kind request and personal hope that at least one more map is added sometime soon.

PWEASE?

Oh, the maps are there (I see, in the Maps and Scenarios folder, 4 other maps, not including the tutorial). We just can't load them. For the purposes of testing other modes of play (e.g. on 75% land maps), I think opening up the editor/map load function would be a good idea.

[Brit]

(Nod) One thing I was thinking about is how we've increased food production over the past century. Due to the 'green revolution' (nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, etc) we've increased our food-output per acre. That suggests some technology-based increases to food production (rather than city-built advantages). Of course, there's also irrigation, which is something that is built in an area, rather than being a nationwide advantage.

[N3rull]

Due to the 'green revolution' (nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, etc) we've increased our food-output per acre. That suggests some technology-based increases to food production (rather than city-built advantages).

You still need a place to manufacture such stuff -> a building in a city. Say, a "Medical Research Center" or an "Agroculture Support Agency".

Brit, it's still a game. You don't have to make it 101% accurate. Right now all we need is some way to decrease the amount of Food we lose, cause we lose it in horrifying amounts as soon as our armies begin to look respectable.

If someone wants the game to reflect the real world in every detail, then you're giving him the ruleset editor to meddle in it as much as he wants.

You don't have to worry about everything

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Oh, and one more thing: carriers are ridiculously slow; even transports can run rings around them. The slowest fleet CV in WWII was the Kaga (unless some semi-obsolete British tub was slower), at 28 knots. Pre-WWII battlewagons all were less than 25 knots, not counting battlecruisers (which would be a good alternate build choice now that I mention it-more speed less armor).

[N3rull]

That's generally untrue. Only class 1 carrier is brutally slow with 60 speed. Class 2 carrier has ninety already. Specifically, C4 carrier has 110 speed while C4 transport has 100.

I, on the other hand, think subs need more love. They should be the stalkers of the sea, the bane of any ship foolish enough to wander without escort.

But this is a dream at best.

They are the weakest ship in the fleet and the slowest, too. EVERYTHING outruns them at sea, including transports and carriers (C2 carrier outruns C5 sub roflcopter!). Destroyers do them up the dark hole, Cruisers and Battleships defeat them swiftly (I lost four C4 subs to a class 2 battleship just yesterday) and when the enemy is in an unfavourable position - they can escape. And now Destroyers and Cruisers can see them without a fuss.

The subs are not the hunters, they are the PREY of the sea. They should at least be able to catch up with Transports and Carriers, maybe Battleships. When everything can run away from them, they don't really have a point other than being a mobile missile platform.

[Boris Balaban]

On the replay speed how about adding a 0.5?

[dieseltaylor]

Regarding subs. The original use where they were hidden but fairly useless as attackers may well have been the best arrangement. They were hidden information gatherers - quite a useful role.

Seems like a bit of baby out with the bathwater given the perpetual tweaking. Incidentally the capabiity of a unit like a sub to do high speeds underwater is complete variance with remaining undetected. Is it possibly that at some near date surface ships will have air-dropped homing anti-submarine torpedoes .... oops

Perhaps to help makes subs useful there should be killer/attack subs , and also subs designed to be as stealthy and undetectable as possible.

[N3rull]

The first subs may have been slow and useless in combat, but ever since WW2 they were a serious threat. If you don't believe it, ask the thousands of freighters sank on the atlantic.

According to wikipedia, the u-boat naval tactic was:

A number of U-boats were dispersed across possible paths of a convoy.

A boat sighting the convoys would signal its course, speed and composition to German Naval Command.

The submarine continues to shadow the convoy, reporting any changes.

The rest of the pack is then ordered to close to the first boat's position.

When the pack is formed a coordinated attack is made on the surface at night.

At dawn the pack withdraws leaving a shadower, and resumes the attack at dusk.

This specifically means that submarines could catch up with convoys.

Which they can not in EoS.

Unless you use spy planes or satellites to scout the seas for enemy ships and place your subs right on their path, a submarine can't kill diddly. That's just wrong.

[hoolaman]

The variables for subs already allow for plenty of tweaking and balancing, but the fact that spotting is 100% when inside the appropriate range makes it hard to reflect the fact that real world subs also got more and more stealthy the more the technology developed.

I'd like to see much shorter spotting ranges for early levels of destroyers/cruisers, maybe starting at 10 and going up in +5 increments. Also tactical air should have some spotting range for subs, and later, some combat abilities.

The ASW in the atlantic in WW2 was a really interesting technological arms race and it would be nice if that could be reflected in some way. Really the anti-shipping submarine role should become more obsolete at higher levels and have subs as recon and missile platforms.

[dieseltaylor]

Subs effective since WW2? Possibly, possibly not as we have not had a war since then pitting high tech navies against subs. As for subs being faster than convoys it did really rely on convoys moving at the speed of the slowest ship in WW2. The RMS Queen Mary would travel too fast for a submarine and would lift a division at a time and occasionally travel without escorts. As did the RMS Queen Elizabeth.

In December 1942, the Queen Mary was carrying exactly 16,082 American troops from New York to Great Britain, a standing record for the most passengers ever transported on one vessel.[8] While 700 miles from Scotland during a gale, she was suddenly hit broadside by a rogue wave that may have reached a height of 28 metres (92 ft). An account of this crossing can be found in Walter Ford Carter's book, No Greater Sacrifice, No Greater Love. Carter's father, Dr. Norval Carter, part of the 110th Station Hospital on board at the time, wrote that at one point the Queen Mary "damned near capsized... One moment the top deck was at its usual height and then, swoom! Down, over, and forward she would pitch." It was calculated later that the ship would have capsized had she rolled another 20 cm. The incident inspired Paul Gallico to write his story, The Poseidon Adventure, which was later made into a film by the same name, using the Queen Mary as a stand-in for the SS Poseidon.

As for not simply using U boat tactics:

The Virginia-class submarines and Astute Class submarines have photonics masts rather than hull-penetrating optical periscopes. These masts must still be hoisted above the surface, and employ electronic sensors for visible light, infrared, laser range-finding, and electromagnetic surveillance.

The ability of submarines to approach enemy harbours covertly led to their use as minelayers. Minelaying submarines of WWI and WWII were specially built for that purpose. Modern submarine-laid mines, such as the British Mark 6 Sea Urchin, are designed to be deployed by a submarine's torpedo tubes.

Which comes back to my contention that weapon systems over a span of 150 years is too long a period as weapon systems have been effective for short periods of time until counters arrive. Trying to replicate that cycle within such a long period is tricky. The U boat scourge was really only for a very short period in WW2 in comparison to 150 years so trying to model them as highly effective for the whole period is daft.

However subs lying deep could be useful for recon .... however a certain degree of technology would be required to get messages back to base - particularly if you wish to remain hidden/alive.

[N3rull]

Which comes back to my contention that weapon systems over a span of 150 years is too long a period as weapon systems have been effective for short periods of time until counters arrive. Trying to replicate that cycle within such a long period is tricky. The U boat scourge was really only for a very short period in WW2 in comparison to 150 years so trying to model them as highly effective for the whole period is daft.

However subs lying deep could be useful for recon .... however a certain degree of technology would be required to get messages back to base - particularly if you wish to remain hidden/alive.

Subs ceased to be a threat not because they suddenly began to suck, but because of some various means employed by the Allies and the fact that Germany had a lot more serious stuff to worry about than developing new revolutionary submarine engines.

In WW2, they were a threat all the time. Yes, they were moslty diesel/electric and had to surface often, which made them quite easy to surprise and destroy. Also, early torpedoes were blind and it took some serious skill to make a torpedo hit a ship.

But torpedoes are an ever increasing threat. Yes, it is a blessing that there was no serious submarine warfare going on after WW2, but that doesn't mean torps are still the same blind and slow metal pipes filled with oil and explosives, leaving an obvious straight trail on the surface of water as they are underway to their target. Mark48 can break any ship in two while never getting close to the surface.

As surface ships and air force get new toys to counter subs, the latter get new toys and improvements to stay undetected. That there was no war to show how deadly they are is no reason to think they're just scouts.

Letting a submarine undetected near any not specifically anti-submarine ship should be a grave mistake in this game. Right now, the only chance for a sub to score a kill is to either sail right into a stationary transport or have the enemy transport sail right over the sub.

MAYBE if submarines had an ability to detect other ships at greater distances (say double their sight range; something like the radar against aircraft), they would have a chance of intercepting the enemies before they sail right past them.

Right now subs are useless, cause when they see an enemy ship at their view range it has likely passed them already, because high class ships can cover twice the view range of subs.

And if missiles are fixed, they'll be just extremely slow missile launchers that take years to return to base for a new set of missiles.

PS. Brit - is it not an overlooking that UAV Bombers are Radar-Visible, while the class 4 bomber (B2) is not radar-visible?

[N3rull]

double post, my bad.

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/chinese-submarine-fleet-growing-analysts-t54821.html

Worldwide sub fleets have been decreasing ever since WW2 as counter-measures are seen to be pretty effective. The cost of a high-tech sub is about $2billion or half the cost of a super carrier so they are incredibly expensive in their later incarnations and the idea of having such a vessel chasing transports seems funny.

[EoS]

Is B2 absolutely invisible for a radar? I would like, the characteristic stealth only reduced radar range. For example, pre stealth planes have stealth=1, class 4 bomber has stealth=2 => radar range reduced in 2 times etc.

It is not important, though.

[N3rull]

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/chinese-submarine-fleet-growing-analysts-t54821.html

Worldwide sub fleets have been decreasing ever since WW2 as counter-measures are seen to be pretty effective. The cost of a high-tech sub is about $2billion or half the cost of a super carrier so they are incredibly expensive in their later incarnations and the idea of having such a vessel chasing transports seems funny.

Subs had to grow very expensive. It is easy to throw a ten-ton device on a surface ship; not so into a tight tube that has to be silent, fast, durable.

But this $2billion sonufabrick can sink a whole fleet before they know what hit'em.

Maybe this is how it should be?

A series of cheap diesel powered subs worth diddly as they are; then a separate line of super-expensive nuclear powered submarines.

Eh, whatever. Either way, this is not priority one update.

Just don't you try to BS me that submarines are useless without the ability to fire ballistic missiles, cause that's as far from truth as frozen mammoths are from hawaii.

-------

As for B2 - it is not completely invisible, but you won't find a difference between a bird or a small cloud of insects and a B2.

Most specifically, a computer analysing incoming radar data won't pick a B2 out of thousands small disruptions caused by nature.

This is not really important as well, but I think it will make me sit down and write my own ruleset the moment I get the full game ;p.

[the.mensch]

We have Oil Refineries.

...

heeeeeyyy, wouldn't that solve the Food issue if there was a building, say, "Food Storage" that did the very same thing to Food what Refineries do to Oil?

Perhaps "advanced farming techniques" and "genetic engineering" as tech tree items, or just a background increase in one's ability to feed one's people at major technological milestones that aren't really tech tree items, but come in to play silently?

[EoS]

This is not really important as well, but I think it will make me sit down and write my own ruleset the moment I get the full game ;p

And how it will be realised without property "stealth"?

I am anxious about a weak diplomacy model in the game. Any ideas?

[EoS]

Perhaps "advanced farming techniques" and "genetic engineering" as tech tree items, or just a background increase in one's ability to feed one's people at major technological milestones that aren't really tech tree items, but come in to play silently?

Anything what you like, only please not workers which make irrigation. The number of groups should remain minimum. The best variant is a late science giving a building "Food storage".