Capilla
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Capilla
-
-
I think the same about turret refits messing the ship with the resizes
-
There is a bug where you cant place turrets on a funnel station on a superstructure. The same problem happens if you try to place secondaries on a main turret on a superstructure with main gun slot. I guess that is a object[object[object]] kind of problem.
-
3
-
-
I totally agree with the aircraft DLC idea. Also add my small caliber autocannons/AA idea there.
-
This is a very old one. All yamato modern towers have problems with gun colissions. For example, they allways collide on the aft tower.
Also a lot of main towers with a big turret slot cant suport the suposed the 4" or 5" turrets that should go there
-
The only nations I've played lately are Spain and Japan so here we go:
Spain (Mostly aesthetics):
-
Spanish BBs and BCs need unturreted versions of single secondary guns. Early BBs also have the same proble and wich superstructures with enclosed gun slots it just looks terrible The models are there because CAs have them. Maybe a swich while mounting a gun to make it unturreted for that purpose would be nice.
- Last time Mark IV 152mm (6") and 203mm (8") models were upsized versions of the american 127mm (5"). This may have been adressed when I was playing Japan because I think I saw it on a patch but i'm not sure sorry.
Japan (big recreation problems and secondaries caliber placement):
- Yesterday I was trying to recreate the B-65 Large Cruiser design and noticed that the superstructures couldn't mount 102mm (4") guns while they should also the draft is too high (around 5m) and should go down to more than 8m.
- 76mm (3") guns for CL should use the destroyer mount models and not the round AA mount. Look about agano class cruisers for more information.
- Inconsistences with secondaries placement and caliber on multiple BBs and BCs superstructures that should be able to mount a pair of 127mm(5") guns.
- The Scout Light Cruiser hull funnels and superstructures needs a full rework. This one should be the gate to recreate the Agano Class and Oyodo cruisers but everything is wrong. For the Aganos we lack a superstructure that allows centerline dual torpedo launchers (Aganos had 2 of these). There is no boiler/engine/funnel/fuel combination that allows to efficiently run a 35knots cruiser with a single funnel ewen downsizing the ship to the minimun wide and draft. Also both hulls need raised prows like every late era japanese cruiser design.
- Experimental Cruiser Hull (AKA Yubari hull) needs a full main tower rework and rebalance. Those thing have the construction and running cost of a small battleship but the communication range bonus is nonexistent making them a terrible flagships for small flotillas and everything that isnt lone wolf tactics. Also same funnel and superstructure problem with no centerline torpedos from the previous one. Maybe real life Yubari was looked upon as a weak cruiser but it was a proof of concepts that later influenced all japanese designs.
- Late era heavy cruisers need a full rework. Instead of hulls with raised deck for enclosed torpedo mounts, especialized superstructures as wide as the hull would be a better option to recreate Myoko, Atago, Mogami, and ibuki classes with a single unified hull. These superstructure would have the dedicated torpedo and 127mm secondaries mounts. Also the Heavy Scout Cruiser needs Tone Class superstructure.
Proposed Hulls / elements / mechanics:
- Colorado Class and Nagato Class dedicated hulls and superstructures. Also Nelson superstructures. With this we would have the full Big Seven set and those were the most powerfull interwar dreathnoughts.
- A new weapon. 1" guns or autocanons. they sould be able to be upscaled up to 28mm and maybe have a magazine stat with automatic fire. This is because many ships had a vast arrays of AA/dual purpose weapons ranging from 3" to .50" and trying to cover 2" and lower with only 2" inch mounts is a nightmare. I dont care if they are peashooters with ocasional real use at point blank range.
- Some ability to swap mount designs or ability to create our own on some kind of editor combining weapons and barrels and having forced standarized weapon systems on the fleets.
- All calibers should be able to be downsized a bit.
-
4
-
Spanish BBs and BCs need unturreted versions of single secondary guns. Early BBs also have the same proble and wich superstructures with enclosed gun slots it just looks terrible The models are there because CAs have them. Maybe a swich while mounting a gun to make it unturreted for that purpose would be nice.
-
12 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:
i think the most common cause is accidentially placing a turret slightly offset of center.
also forgetting a casemate gun
-
Forget this. I'm an idiot that should should learn to read properly.
-
@Nick Thomadis, I ask you directly because it should't be a problem to solve this one. When is Spain getting unturreted single guns for its capital ships? CAs have single gun versions for its secondaries but capital ships lack them
-
1
-
-
Nothing to see here. Tried to delete a post.
-
6 minutes ago, Lima said:
These countries are dead, they are no more. Also, please let us know if you can continue playing. I see an English TF at sea, this can lead to endless loading on "Update mission".
I can keep playing (actually in 1896) but I'm deleting the campaing and starting again. Half the world becoming "no mans land" in 1895 is not funny.
-
1
-
-
I have a question. ¿What happens with destroyed nations? Suddenly France and England colapsed on 2 consedutive turns (for unknown reasons) and now half the world is composed by whyte flags
-
18 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:
I don't understand why people complain about doomstacks all the time. I mean I've never had any problem dealing with them. They bring their junkyard navy, I scrap it with a handful of ships, war usually over. I love it when they try to bring the hurt. Welcome to the meatgrinder.
Is it just me?
Also the Grand Fleet and the Fleet of the High Seas from WWI are hitorical doomstacks
-
1
-
-
For some reason as soon as it reaches MK2 tech, all secondary guns on spanish capital ships become turreted ones. This is a 1892 battleship.
This problem with spanish capital ship secondaries have been there for more than a year and I think it would be a good idea to solve it. Also the turret design doesnt look from the time period...
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Grizli60rus said:
The same problem is on the hull of the battleship 5. The screenshot shows that the armor of the limbs is the same, the engine room is shifted to the stern, there are 2 towers of the main caliber on the stern, but still 55% overweight on the bow!
Changing the length of the ship has almost no effect on this. And even adding 300mm of armor to the stern does not allow you to make the ship balanced.
If possible, I ask you to look at and adjust the balance of this very interesting, but now useless ship. Thanks!I also think that fore weight offset is one big problem.
One solution (the complicated and bad one) whould be that when you add tonnage to the ship, the size doesnt increase not only at the middle and the back, but also the fore end of the ship. This should increase the distance between the turret and the foremost end of the bow reducing the weight offset. Also, in this hull design, incresing the middle section makes little sense. This is bad because it means messing with all the vissual assets of the hulls and is a huge change. I only mention this to talk about the lack of sense on huge middle section increases on hulls with unusable midsections.
Other option (The most appealing and easy I think) would be to give a natural stern weight offset to the hulls representing the rudder compartment (With the rudder upgrades increasing more this weight, and offset, even more). This would be able to solve the general fore weight offset with most of the hulls without needing to mess with the actual visual models. This makes sense because ships are designed to be balanced at the end of its construction when everyting (main weapons, engine rooms and superstructure) is already placed. Having a perfectly balanced hull at the beggining makes little sense. Most of the work here would be testing designs that looks like real existing ships (trying to keep with historical dimensions, proportions and armor). Once you see a hull having 15% to 25% (this is just an optimistic example) fore weight ofset with all that hull variations, then you know that giving a natural 20% weight offset woud be a huge help for the playerbase. I think most of us like our ships looking good more than covering them with all the guns we can.
-
3
-
-
I have noticed that when you refit a ship, the number of shells of the guns and torpedos, as long as you doesn't change the caliber, increases dramatically to stupid numbers.
The most visible example in the screenshots is a 16557 tons battleship with:
720(3(406))+440(1(73))+3080(14(73))+8480(14(6))+1060(2(6))=4781880kg=4781.88tons of ammo.
Yes, I know I calcullated All AP but the standar ratio has around 2/3 or 3/4 AP anyway.
The numbers are: Shells(Guns(Weight))+...=Shell weight.
Thats a 28.9% of its own weight only on ammunition but this last scrennshot says it shoud be 376tons (2.3%) only.
Its a bug that greatly impacts gameplay because I don't have to care about holding fire at extreme ranges or running out of ammunition on a battle (I have destroyed huge 100+ ships fleets with only 2BBs and 4CAs).
It also means that on a refit I can choose reduced shells ammo to lower the flash fire and save weight with minimal to no impact on the game.
-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, Admiral Hipster said:
98% of the Russian fleet destroyed and the Russians do not surrender.
The most bizarre thing is the public opinion that seems to enjoy seeing their ships at the bottom of the ocean. 🤔
Because now they have a mighty submarine fleet! The propaganda was right!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Pappystein said:
So I have reported this as a bug for the last two updates.
When starting a new career, if you choose a latter date (than 1890) And choose "build your own fleet" The game will spend a lot of time then randomly pick a country (never the one you chose) and give you an 1890 start.
Try this
-
POSIBLE BUGS
There I have another bug. Everytime I finish a battle I get stuck like this (See the image). There is a big problem with corrupted saves on this update that needs to be polished as this is my 4th campaing that gets stuck gefore getting to 1900s.
Also the pathfinding problem where ships on the same formation keeps overspeeding and raming each other that some players have reported.
And lately the AI have been starting the battle with almost destroyed ships with broken engines but I dont think thas a bug. More like trying to fight to the last man before getting a blockade (I still can't understand why it doesn't surrender) while getting smashed by half the world powers. And that moves to the next point.
THINGS THAT NEED A LOOK
I think the AI falls too fast into full World War mode. Despite having no alliances my world ALLWAYS have world wars before 1895 so I think the whole relationship system needs a rework. It wasnt so evident before but now with all the nations around the world it starts to be concerning. Conflicts involving 2/3 nations shouldn't be a problem but instead, once the first war starts, the world cascades into full 40K eternal war mode... These conficts with 5 or more superpowers involved sould be something scarce and not the standar rule.
I think this is one of the reason that research speed is so difficult to calibrate. Once a country goes into war, the economy growth usually stagnates or even goes negative due to transport losses. If all the world powers are fighting the end result is a economical crysis and technological slow down no one gets ahead and the research speed up for common technologies can't work properly. Not only they can't invest enought on research but also the bad growth adds to the problem.
Making the AI less sensible to foreign conflicts should help improve these two things. It's a win/win situacion for them. If two world powers start to slaughter each other, two potential enemies get weaker while they keep economical power and fighting ability. Just make the AI more irrational and susceptible around the 1910s, 1930s and 1950s (if you start campaing on 1890, this is every 20 years and works like world/cold wars from those periods).
ADITIONS THAT WOULD SPICE UP THE THINGS SO PEACETIME PERIODS (That I would like to become a more common thing) DOESN'T BECOME A "NEXT TURN" BUTTON SMASHER.
Minor factions. These ones would be more active than major factions and would work with major factions like a patronage system. They would give you a economical boost but you have to suport them on border conflicts and suport theyr economy. These conficts should be with neighbouring or close minor factions (like Portugal with Denmark or/and Morocco and not Chile) and should be able to drag boss powers (like Spain for portugal, France for Morocco, and Germany or UK for Denmark, for example) without dragging all the world powers behind. The system would work like this.
-Minor powers like Portugal Greece or Morocco are there.
-Minor powers can be suported by only one world power but a single world power can suppor multiple minor factions.
-World powers are more passive with each other becoming more active on specific decades and then going back to rebuild economy and research.
-Minor factions are more active and have their own simplified budget and economy hidden to the player.
-Minor powers can't research, but can boost world powers with very limited transport networks.
-Minor powers have limited access to build small fleets with limited access to the parent world power technology (like 1-2 BBs, 5-6 CA/CL, 10-12 TB/DD from technologies 1 tier lower).
-World powers can put ships on sale that can be bought by corresponding minor factions. If they can afford it.
-World powers can use limited minor power port tonnage to dock theyr ships but this may raise tension with neighboring major and minor oposing powers.
-World powers can use supply lines based on minor power ports at increased economic cost (this would be activated through a checkbox on a task force menu.
-World powers can invest on minor powers throught events and direct intervention to atract them to our power sphere. Diferent superpowers would have diferent cultural bonifications depending on the minor faction. (Seriously. We as players NEED to be able to direct diplomacy aside from special events. If we are important enought to be asked about diplomacy we should be able to make proposals paying with naval prestige and our own funds).
I have been playing a lot this week trying to test everyting I could so I'm gona take a few days or weeks of rest and give the updates some time to build up and try to help finding more problems.
-
7
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nagato said:
Bug that fix turn stall, isnt fully fixed. It still freeze, whenever came to "building new ships" it stalls, freeze, if you click with mouse, once every second freeze it crashes. Now i dont know if this is because current campaign i started before this latest patch, but it still doesnt work.
Try this, maybe it helps you .
-
16 minutes ago, Iuvenalis said:
Proposed solution: There should be a "common knowledge" mechanic that augments the time to research something based on how many other nations have acquired the tech.
I guess you want to say "augments the speed" or "reduces the time" here.
It would be a great and logical idea. The more common ad widespread a technology becomes, it should be easier to research. Maybe not for for the last researched tech of a tree but it should be easier to keep up to a lower tier. For example, if 2 or more (not just one) countries discover the turbines tech, the last steam engines should become easy to research because at this point it should be common and widespread. It also would prevent a broke and lagging AI to keep the pace. My last campaigns allways had 1 or 2 nations that were so f***ed that it was like fighting a 3rd world country. There is a point were sealclubbing stops being funny.
-
2 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Please check the latest update for all those fixes. Any remaining issue with scrapping is under review to fix if needed.
You can follow the advices here for what you asked:Thanks! I'll do this right now.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Urgent new update available. Please Restart Steam to get it!
Beta Update 4 (19/10/2022)
- Fixed rotation bug which caused turrets to lose their targets and stop rotating.
- Fixed various bugs of the campaign which could cause errors and stall the turns.
- Fixed bug that made ships to not sink after a battle and enter a never-ending repair cycle.
- Fixed bug that made impossible to bombard enemy ports after a successful Port Strike mission.
- Fixed errors in End Campaign results which prevented to show crew and transports losses.
- Finalized minefield mechanics. Now hits and damage when ship groups pass by minefields in ports or at sea should be consistent.
- Completed the Shipyard upgrades. Minor visual improvements may follow.
- Battle AI adjustments to raise its aggressiveness.Thanks for the hard work!
Almost all the bugs are from the last major update but you guys are making 1 or 2 updates averyday trying to fix them. You guys must be undergoing a lot of pressure. Don't let some comments discourage your efforts. I myself am a programmer and bug fixing is a long and tedious hell. Keep up with the good work!
-
6
-
-
I've just reinstalled the game because I had a campaign breaking bug:
-In 1895 I scrapped 4 of my 8 battleships brcause they were old and i wanted to lower costs. Around that time 1/3 of my fleet was undergoing minor repairs.
-It's 1900. After every battle 3 cursed battleships from 1885 keep appearing at my docks undergoing repairs. Also all my ships from 5 years ago that were undergoing repairs return at that time return to repairs disabling around 20% of my current fleet. It doesnt matter how much I refit them. It doesnt matter how much times I scrap them. It doesnt matter that the battleship class that caused the problem doesn't exist anymore. all I can do is cry as after every battle my ships get stuck at port and my repair costs skyrocket.
-Also the same turret stuck/not traking bug that lots of people are reporting was happening to me.
-Also the shipyard appearance seems really bugged.
I'll report if this reinstall seems to fix something. Also i'd like to ask @Nick Thomadis about all the game folder locations. The savegames and AppData locations, not the ones from Steam because those are easy to find. The reason is to erase everything to try the cleanest reinstall possible if the ghost ship/eternal repairs bug keeps happening.
-
Trying to build echelon turrets on España class hull is a pain... Any help or tip please? Being able to see or modify the hull's center of mass position would be of great help on a future. There was a lot of ship designs with echelon turrets that would be nice to reproduce.
Also i think the germans shouls have access to the small dreadnought hull because the Nassau class had almost the same size.
>>>v1.3 Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.3.9.9 Rx2)
in General Discussions
Posted
I think that instead choosing caliber and lenght for every gun on every warship we should have something like a weapon station designer were we could shoose turret, armor thickness, barrel lenght, caliber... that way it would be easier to manage our weapons stations and we could have standarized turrets on our ships. Just choose one of your weapon stations and place it on the ship. More spacious turrets would be heavier but have better reload or more gun barrels...
Also fully developed 2, 3 or 4 gun turrets should have the same reload speed as long as the turret is big enought. Lets say for example that 2 possible stats for a big and wide turret are:
At the optimal number of barrels or lower, the guns of same caliber have a fixed reload speed and if you go higher you get a penalization.
Weapon system components would be:
Instead of developing every single component in a separete way, turrets and barrels would be grouped by generations. Developing Mark 3 components would make Mark 1 obsolete but still make posible to use Mark 2 designs. Also the turret body would act as a ship hull and make it a base for future design refits. Once the ship mounting a weapon station gets a refit then the turret is upgraded to the last version. That way you would keep a turret body but change the gun barrels and make sure the refit version still fits on the ship.
This also would help the AI to have more consistent designs and avoid having 10 diferent calibers on 3 ship classes...