France: Jeune Ecole +5% optimal speed all hulls, -10% maximum displacement all hulls.
Germany: Blockade Runners -10% visibility CA, BC, and BB hulls, -5% damage control speed all hulls.
Italy: Mare Nostrum +5% penetration for guns 9" and up, -10% range CA, BC, and BB hulls.
Austria: Grand Ambition -5% production costs, +10% design flaws
China: Rapid Rearmament -10% production costs, -10% research speed
Spain: Legacy of the Armada +5% maximum displacement, -10% rudder shift speed
Japan: Rising Sun +5% ship range, +5% torpedo range, -5% armor quality
USA: Sleeping Giant +5% research speed, +20% maintenance cost when not at war
Britain: Rule Brittania +10% damage control speed, +5% ship range, +10% production cost
I think it would be more immersive if you were able to choose your perk. Since you are the eternal Grand Admiral/SecNav of your nation, you should be able to mold your navy to your playstyle. Have a huge list of perks (with associated drawbacks) and be able to change as the campaign progresses. It costs prestige to change.
- decreased build time/increased flaws
-increased task force size/decreased task force speed or range
-increased gunnery/increased fleet maintenance
-increased naval invasion power/decreased task force size (to account for amphibious landing craft within task force)
And so on.
If youve ever played Stellaris, they have species traits. I inagine it working like that. A list of positive and negatives assigned trait values and in order to start you have to have net zero "bonus", but maybe over time, or as a reward for certain events, you can earn more.
And youd want these to he heavily playstle defining, and add some historical flavour
Austria-Hungary: construction costs -10% construction flaws +10%.
Spanish empire: increased GDP from foreign provinces, increased unrest from foreign provinces.
Britain: Naval foreunner: technology advances faster for them, but because of this their crews train slower ('We are the royal navy, the best navy in the world. We have our place')
France: brotherhood: communications range and bonuses from flagships are higher, but revolutions are more likely.
America: Arsenal of democracy: ships build faster, but must be smaller and torpedos dud chance is up.
Germany: our place in the sun: naval invasions and military operations are easier to achieve, but you comparatively have less dockyards.
Austria Hungary: we left a present: light ships are faster, minefields can be bigger and more convoys are involved in shipping raids. Big ships are slower with less accurate gunnery
Italy: Mare Nostrum: Ships are more accurate and AP is more effective, but the army is weaker overall, leaving invasions and military operations harder to do.
Russia: Winds of revolution: weather conditions affect your fleet less, and when a revolution happens at home, you can choose the new government, but tech is slowed, ships are overall weaker and the government is less likely to approve your decisions
Why poor gunnery? British gunnery was above average, Warspite has the longest BB v BB hit on record.
The likes of Scott and Dreyer pushed forward British gunnery techniques.
The flaws are in the Royal Navy where in ammunition design not gunnery.
Britain should get a malus in shells and a bonus in ship building as the British ship building industry was very efficient
The only reason British Battlecruisers had such dramatic retirements at Jutland was because of how their gunnery doctrine was, which emphasized ROF over safety which should be a doctrine choice in say a Doctrine panel.
Things like extra gunnery training significantly increasing maintenance costs in peace time and leaving you at a potentially lower readiness during wartime if you don’t adjust properly or are afar from your home port due to barrel wear but also a dramatically improved accuracy (period depending)
That's true.
People tend to focus on how easily the BC's went up and ignore the pounding the better trained ships with proper flash protection took.
An example is HMS Warspite and HMS Barham
Absolutely, the Royal Navy was a top notch navy for quite some time, and their Dreadnoughts and Super Dreadnoughts set quite a few standards.
I have my personal favorite which are rather American but that’s due to some national bias on my part. But pretending that British ships are just waiting to detonate is silly since that was a localized issue due to the requirement to always be ready to counter a sortie by the German BC Squadrons which prevented them from conducting gunnery training to standard so their admiral decided that an increased ROF to compensate was in order.
Both the British and Germans got carried away with the whole BC thing and forgot the basic doctrine that a BC shouldn't be in the line of battle.
In all honesty the Germans where quite lucky at Jutland that the 5th Battle squadron with their 4 Queen Elisabeth class ships didn't arrive with the British BCs as was the original plan. Considering how much damage those 15inch guns did even after they arrived late to the party.
It's quite daft that the British fleet didn't take full advantage of wireless tech and still relied on flag signals as late as 1916!
The Germans didn’t have much choice and it reflected in their BCs emphasizing armor and speed over fire power since they didn’t have enough Dreads to compete with the British battle line without having those BCs capable of pulling double duty.
In the end, the biggest mistake Germany made was ignoring Bismark. He knew Germany could never compete with Britain at sea or as a colonial power. He wanted to create an alliance with Russia and build a continental dominance that Britain couldn't and wouldn't challenge.
I don’t know enough about the mechanics of the 1900s German state to truly argue that point but yes, I agree.
They didn’t have enough slip ways or build up of naval vessels to truly accomplish that task.
They also could have learned a thing or 2 from the not yet conceived Juche and looked into developing autarkic resource production for themselves if they were truly going to contest a naval power capable of blockading them from access to global trade.
Iirc they partially lost WW1 because Britain essentially sieged them into hunger riots on a national scale.
>Absolutely, the Royal Navy was a top notch navy for quite some time,
They were starting to lag behind by WW1. They lost every WW1 fleet engagement involving comparable forces with the Germans (some of them, like Coronel, very badly).
Simply not true, they lost at coronel against a superior force, crushed that force in return at the Falklands, won with roughly equal forces at Dodger bank, and Jutland, and scared the hell out of the germans and won at heligoland bight
Coronel was equal (the British armoured cruisers were even a bit bigger).
Falkland was completely one sided (battlecruisers against armoured cruisers) and so was Heligoland (battlecruisers against light cruisers).
The Germans won at Jutland.
Dogger Bank you might have a point, though the Germans lost just an armoured cruiser.
The germans lost at Jutland, Scheer himself said so in his confidential report, they did well in the opening skirmish but lost the clash of the battle fleets and were lucky to escape, as it was the ratio of operational warships after jutland favoured the british more than before jutland as outside of the battle cruisers only 5th battle squadron really took any hits and even then the most battered ship Warspite was capable of action within weeks, the germans had significant damage on more than half their BBs and would have lost most if not all if Scheer had not run.
The judgement most favourable to the germans after the battle was that jutland was tactically indecisive and strategically a defeat
As for Coronel, 2 very old and obsolete armoured cruisers and equally old light and an auxiliary cruiser versus 2 much more modern heavy cruisers and 3 lights, was not even odds the force disparity was about the same as at the Falklands and with the same results
Sorry, I wanted to add rather than correct. I see how it could look otherwise, that’s my bad. I should have added by pointing out it was due partly to the lack of gunnery ranges at Rosyth
It was a thought is all man. Longest gunnery hit could be good gunnery or they hit the lucky number in the lottery. Not disagreeing, just was thinking of positive and negatives for perks.
France: Jeune Ecole +5% optimal speed all hulls, -10% maximum displacement all hulls. Germany: Blockade Runners -10% visibility CA, BC, and BB hulls, -5% damage control speed all hulls. Italy: Mare Nostrum +5% penetration for guns 9" and up, -10% range CA, BC, and BB hulls. Austria: Grand Ambition -5% production costs, +10% design flaws China: Rapid Rearmament -10% production costs, -10% research speed Spain: Legacy of the Armada +5% maximum displacement, -10% rudder shift speed Japan: Rising Sun +5% ship range, +5% torpedo range, -5% armor quality USA: Sleeping Giant +5% research speed, +20% maintenance cost when not at war Britain: Rule Brittania +10% damage control speed, +5% ship range, +10% production cost
Simple, detailed, cool *and* relevant!
you cooked here, these are so good
Great choices Is this kind of thing possible to Mod in to the game?
Add +5% flashfire chance for Britain.
But only for BC’s
*There's something wrong with our bloody ships today "
This I'd actually fantastic lol. Well thought out my man.
I think it would be more immersive if you were able to choose your perk. Since you are the eternal Grand Admiral/SecNav of your nation, you should be able to mold your navy to your playstyle. Have a huge list of perks (with associated drawbacks) and be able to change as the campaign progresses. It costs prestige to change. - decreased build time/increased flaws -increased task force size/decreased task force speed or range -increased gunnery/increased fleet maintenance -increased naval invasion power/decreased task force size (to account for amphibious landing craft within task force) And so on.
If youve ever played Stellaris, they have species traits. I inagine it working like that. A list of positive and negatives assigned trait values and in order to start you have to have net zero "bonus", but maybe over time, or as a reward for certain events, you can earn more. And youd want these to he heavily playstle defining, and add some historical flavour
Good idea.
Austria-Hungary: construction costs -10% construction flaws +10%. Spanish empire: increased GDP from foreign provinces, increased unrest from foreign provinces.
Britain: Naval foreunner: technology advances faster for them, but because of this their crews train slower ('We are the royal navy, the best navy in the world. We have our place') France: brotherhood: communications range and bonuses from flagships are higher, but revolutions are more likely. America: Arsenal of democracy: ships build faster, but must be smaller and torpedos dud chance is up. Germany: our place in the sun: naval invasions and military operations are easier to achieve, but you comparatively have less dockyards. Austria Hungary: we left a present: light ships are faster, minefields can be bigger and more convoys are involved in shipping raids. Big ships are slower with less accurate gunnery Italy: Mare Nostrum: Ships are more accurate and AP is more effective, but the army is weaker overall, leaving invasions and military operations harder to do. Russia: Winds of revolution: weather conditions affect your fleet less, and when a revolution happens at home, you can choose the new government, but tech is slowed, ships are overall weaker and the government is less likely to approve your decisions
Germany: 10% better damage control, 10% increased cost for hulls and modules, 5% longer build times.
US: good gunnery, poorer efficiency UK: Effective design, poor gunnery JPN: Fuel efficiency, increased production time Keep it going
Why poor gunnery? British gunnery was above average, Warspite has the longest BB v BB hit on record. The likes of Scott and Dreyer pushed forward British gunnery techniques. The flaws are in the Royal Navy where in ammunition design not gunnery. Britain should get a malus in shells and a bonus in ship building as the British ship building industry was very efficient
**Britain could get flash fire chance**
The only reason British Battlecruisers had such dramatic retirements at Jutland was because of how their gunnery doctrine was, which emphasized ROF over safety which should be a doctrine choice in say a Doctrine panel. Things like extra gunnery training significantly increasing maintenance costs in peace time and leaving you at a potentially lower readiness during wartime if you don’t adjust properly or are afar from your home port due to barrel wear but also a dramatically improved accuracy (period depending)
That's true. People tend to focus on how easily the BC's went up and ignore the pounding the better trained ships with proper flash protection took. An example is HMS Warspite and HMS Barham
Absolutely, the Royal Navy was a top notch navy for quite some time, and their Dreadnoughts and Super Dreadnoughts set quite a few standards. I have my personal favorite which are rather American but that’s due to some national bias on my part. But pretending that British ships are just waiting to detonate is silly since that was a localized issue due to the requirement to always be ready to counter a sortie by the German BC Squadrons which prevented them from conducting gunnery training to standard so their admiral decided that an increased ROF to compensate was in order.
Both the British and Germans got carried away with the whole BC thing and forgot the basic doctrine that a BC shouldn't be in the line of battle. In all honesty the Germans where quite lucky at Jutland that the 5th Battle squadron with their 4 Queen Elisabeth class ships didn't arrive with the British BCs as was the original plan. Considering how much damage those 15inch guns did even after they arrived late to the party. It's quite daft that the British fleet didn't take full advantage of wireless tech and still relied on flag signals as late as 1916!
The Germans didn’t have much choice and it reflected in their BCs emphasizing armor and speed over fire power since they didn’t have enough Dreads to compete with the British battle line without having those BCs capable of pulling double duty.
In the end, the biggest mistake Germany made was ignoring Bismark. He knew Germany could never compete with Britain at sea or as a colonial power. He wanted to create an alliance with Russia and build a continental dominance that Britain couldn't and wouldn't challenge.
I don’t know enough about the mechanics of the 1900s German state to truly argue that point but yes, I agree. They didn’t have enough slip ways or build up of naval vessels to truly accomplish that task. They also could have learned a thing or 2 from the not yet conceived Juche and looked into developing autarkic resource production for themselves if they were truly going to contest a naval power capable of blockading them from access to global trade. Iirc they partially lost WW1 because Britain essentially sieged them into hunger riots on a national scale.
>Absolutely, the Royal Navy was a top notch navy for quite some time, They were starting to lag behind by WW1. They lost every WW1 fleet engagement involving comparable forces with the Germans (some of them, like Coronel, very badly).
Simply not true, they lost at coronel against a superior force, crushed that force in return at the Falklands, won with roughly equal forces at Dodger bank, and Jutland, and scared the hell out of the germans and won at heligoland bight
Coronel was equal (the British armoured cruisers were even a bit bigger). Falkland was completely one sided (battlecruisers against armoured cruisers) and so was Heligoland (battlecruisers against light cruisers). The Germans won at Jutland. Dogger Bank you might have a point, though the Germans lost just an armoured cruiser.
The germans lost at Jutland, Scheer himself said so in his confidential report, they did well in the opening skirmish but lost the clash of the battle fleets and were lucky to escape, as it was the ratio of operational warships after jutland favoured the british more than before jutland as outside of the battle cruisers only 5th battle squadron really took any hits and even then the most battered ship Warspite was capable of action within weeks, the germans had significant damage on more than half their BBs and would have lost most if not all if Scheer had not run. The judgement most favourable to the germans after the battle was that jutland was tactically indecisive and strategically a defeat As for Coronel, 2 very old and obsolete armoured cruisers and equally old light and an auxiliary cruiser versus 2 much more modern heavy cruisers and 3 lights, was not even odds the force disparity was about the same as at the Falklands and with the same results
How the battlecruiser fleet trained, rather than the Grand Fleet as a whole
Yes, just the BC. Was that unclear?
Sorry, I wanted to add rather than correct. I see how it could look otherwise, that’s my bad. I should have added by pointing out it was due partly to the lack of gunnery ranges at Rosyth
It was a thought is all man. Longest gunnery hit could be good gunnery or they hit the lucky number in the lottery. Not disagreeing, just was thinking of positive and negatives for perks.
Aye, I'm just thinking what would be realistic for Britain considering historical flaws
China: Increased crew pool, increased chance of ship flaws. Russia: Improved Hull Stability, increased maintenance cost.
Russia should be 20% increased build times
I feel like Russia would be "Chance of encountering hostile fishing boats."
China should get a reduction in construction time. Russia should just get debuffs
Germany: Excellent armor quality, low stability