Knobby

over time, yeah definitely.

Confirmed, exiting ship editor to main campaign interface hangs at 'battles'. Can't test because of this.

Agreed, features that take control away from players are no fun. Why else would you play a game? And we also desperately need a write up of how the existing mechanisms are supposed to work, even if, or actually especially when it's something we as a player have no control over. How else are we to test stuff? I'm sure it will prevent lots of rage against AI decisions if we know what factors decide that decision. It will also certainly lighten the dev workload if we can stop reporting stuff as broken when we know how it's supposed to work and thus if something actually broken or not. One example that I just noticed in my current game: Fuel costs. As Britain I have a pretty big fleet. But I'm at peace and 90% of that fleet is sitting in port at 'limited'. I have 3 cruisers at sea relocating to another port, and a bunch of ships in port (limited) that are not at 100% fuel so presumably are getting refueled at this time. Yet my fuel costs are nearly 37 million! As Britain I'm literally swimming in naval funds so it's not that big a deal, but in other campaigns with less affluent nations this would be, and has been, a major problem. One that would most likely cripple my tech budget. In fact, I just put my entire fleet of 90 ships on sea control and refueling these 15 ships, one 6th of my entire fleet, still costs more to refuel than the maintenance of my entire fleet! Now I feel that 37m is way way excessive. But I don't know. And why? Well, because like nearly every new feature since 1.8 we have never gotten any concrete information on how it should work. I think that is pretty bad and the devs can save themselves lots of work and grief if they would just give a good explanation (with numbers!) of how all these features are supposed to work.

It has been said before but I guess I'll add my voice. Economic collapse of AI opponents needs to go. I guess you can keep it as a failure mode for the player. New campaign as Britain. War with Germany. Had some nice battles that were decently playable, no real doomstacks, AI playing reasonable. Actually enjoyable. I rack up 100k points to their 10k. After 18 months we sign peace. The same turn the peace was accepted they collapse, leaving me with 770m in reparations but NO PROVINCES to choose. TBH this is bullshit, and just made me want to stop playing again.

No. You are four years out of date, they lifted that ban specifically for videogames in 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45142651

yes please

BUG: Impossible to generate tension by parking a fleet in somebodies water. BUG: When finally at war, impossible to get VP because hardly any missions/encounters generate, even though I'm parking taskforces next to the enemy or in enemy water or in a chokepoint where he's travelling (like suez or gibraltar), he just sails right through. BUG: Having fleet in enemy waters (sea control or invade) never seems to sink transports (AI on AI seems to sink transports fine, but player on AI doesn't work) BUG: submarine missions still don't generate. last Japan game: Was literally me just watching tech-tree advance and design new ships and refit old ones for many many irl hours. It took a literal DECADE (1900-1910) to get my first war, with france, only because of always choosing biggest negative relations in events. Then I couldn't actually fight the war, because no missions/encounters were generating, even though taskforces were real close to the enemy. I blockaded france, but the enemy gets the VP bonus. GG, loads of fun. actually nearly all campaigns turn out exactly like this. very very boring

Why is my fleet burning 18 million in fuel every month when they are all in port set to limited? Edit: I am now at war and with my entire fleet at sea I'm only spending 8m on fuel. What's going on here?

Yup, I just came in here to say wars need to be toned down. Since the first war started I have been at war continuously. At some point both france and spain declared on me when I am sure they only had very limited negative opinion -15 to -25 at best. Wars also just keep going way to long even when nothing is going on. Enemy hardly has a fleet any more, already had a revolution and fired the admiral. Been blockaded for god knows how long but war just doesnt end. FINALLY get both russia and japan to sue for peace, but i'm still at war with because of spain and france no reason declaration. 3 turns later, LITERALLY only 3 turns, Russia declares again. Tbh i think i'm gonna quit for a bit and wait a few patches

It's very difficult to get taskforces to fight. I can have my own taskforce sit right next to the enemy and nothing wil lhappen for many turns. Yes, I have scouts in the taskforce as well, taskforce set to sea control. This makes it very difficult to blockade narrow passages, as the enemy just sails on through. Speaking of blocking passage, why can't the USA close panama canal? Why can't the British close Suez?

extensive fire is again way overpowered. easily more than half of kills by fire, while the ship has 80% or more structure left. these were also reasonably even fights

In my game as Britain, during a war with Austro-Hungary I suddenly got fights with Spanish ships during one turn. I was not at war with Spain. In fact I had 90+ relationship with them. It only happend that one turn but it was really weird.

For battleship calibers where the gun has to return to horizontal to be loaded this makes sense. Longer barrel means more mass and should move slower. For guns that don't need to return to horizontal to reload it makes no sense at all.

So after sinking 95% of the enemy fleet, I'm having trouble getting victory points. IMO if the enemy is leaving ports undefended, either because they have no fleet or that fleet is fighting on the other side of the globe, I should be able to punish them for it. But actually I can't. I can't bombard those ports. I can't invade. Parking my fleet in front of it, either on sea control or invade does nothing. I'm not even sinking transports (and blockade is impossible because it's russia) I have been at ~8k VP vs ~500VP for many many months now, russia is at war with the world (seriously, all but one nations are warring them) and there is no end in sight.

yes. be safe!

Refit is broken. Before changing ANYTHING, refit time is as long as original build time.

Ships sent to Messina port on Sicily will end up in Catania. Sending ships from Catania to Messina is impossible as it says "Same port". I can send them from Messina to Catania however. Same thing happens with La Spezia and Livorno

Some feedback trying to play with USA 1900 start. It's pretty hard to get into a war with anybody. Using ships to raise tension with Spain in the Caribbean doesn't seem to work. Sending fleets to europe or asia means they are out of fuel when they arrive. By always choosing max negative relation in random events I finally get a war with Russia in 1906. Fuel is a major pain in the ass, so harsh it's actually mostly barring me from playing the game. My designs have 3/4 range bar and I allied with Britain to have supply in Europe, max transport capacity. Even so I just can't fight a battle even right from the coast of portsmouth (my supply port) because my ships are limited to 6 knots. In battle fuel consumption is also ridiculously high. My 13000+ range ship went from 69% fuel down to 39% in 20 minutes. Sure I was at full speed and not cruising speed but still, this is insane. Already I'm too frustrated to keep playing USA. Maybe I will only play European nations, or not at all until this is brought into some kind of playability. The whole fuel mechanism is just too untransparant and too much out of the players control to be anything but a barrier to actually playing the game. If patrolling around the main fleet costs fuel, then let me decide to do that or not. Please devs just copy rule the waves range mechanism, and have it be some kind of bonus to beneficial encounters, trade protection/raiding on the top end and don't let minimum range ships cross the pacific or atlantic at the bottom range.

also don't give victory points for damage that exists before the battle starts...

i ALWAYS put taskforce on repair low, because i get so tired of some stupid engagement with a destroyer sending my entire fleet back the way they came from

Ship loss due to surrendering needs to be looked at My overwhelming taskforce vs a few enemy ships: 2 battleships start as surrendered due to low crew (apparently they had enough crew to steam to the battle, but then immediately surrendered, funny as i'm playing france). There is also no way to see this in the pre-battle screen.... I then continue to crush the enemy, but my low crew ships that are completely undamaged are lost forever. When you win the battle and are in control of the 'field', surrendered ships should not be lost. In fact, I could argue that surrendered enemy ship should be captured as prizes. But at the very least I should be able to put some skeleton crew on my own ships and sail them home.

AI gets victory points for ships that start the battle pre-damaged. For instance, a battle where I don't catch up with the enemy and end the battle when that becomes possible. No ships have been sighted, no shots fired, but because some of my ships started damaged, the AI is awarded the victory and some victory points

I've killed so many unspotted '???' by shooting at the spotted BB's at long ranges it's rather funny, especially as targeting these -presumed- DD's had they been spotted isn't nearly as effective

Homing torpedo's? Just witnessed a torp fired from behind, passing my ship on a parallel course make a 90 degree turn to hit me amidships. Is this supposed to happen? I think it's not....

Another big factor of visibility is contrast, wether an object is silhouetted against the horizon or not or is a significantly different color from the surrounding makes a massive difference. Why do you think most navy vessels are painted gray? In this case a destroyer that doesn't break the horizon could be less detectable than a battleship that does, even if the destroyer is actually closer. In the extreme size difference example, there are many anecdotal examples of shipwrecked survivors on floating debris or even half sunk ships or brightly colored rafts that could clearly see passing ships in the distance while never being spotted themselves. Thus it makes sense that at a certain distance a destroyer would be able to spot a BB while the BB might not be able to detect the DD, even though they are the same distance from each other and the BB has taller masts. Now I can't comment wether the current implementation in the game is realistic because I haven't really payed attention to it in detail.