Skeksis

IMO. BBs/large hulls are still turning on a dime. It’s related to Auto-Avoid Torps, it enables ships to turn in a smaller radius than designed capability, often what is physically impossible, especially prevalent when AI avoiding player torps. Also damaged engines/rudder does not affect or diminish Auto-Avoid. Totally unrealistic and very damaging to the game’s image, i.e. looks too arcady. Also weakens AI when player turns on. AI places/designs one off caliber guns and/or multiple calibers, breaks game maker own rules of shell splashes accuracy effect and penalties apply. Weaken AI. AI designing superfast CA speedboats, sacrificing armor/survivability, frustrating to hit and when hit, too easily destroyed and AI is penalized by fast turns. Weaken AI, Unrealistic, Image damaging. Lone AI with full rudder damage keeps turning away from pursuers. Hmm....what can you say? Some things have been around for so long that they seem part of the scenery! Image damaging. VPs added to tally for pre battle damage or unrelated damage. Just frustrating. DDs or minesweeping tech is not working or having minimal effect, player side. If working as intended then we need info or event message to say, “x number of mines cleared by #”, i.e. ships were saved! AI not investing in minesweeping tech for designs, inclusion should not be minimized. AI suffering huge losses. Also weakens battle AI – as and when entering battle after such damage. BBs only TF not dying to submarine (x3) TF. This is very Unrealistic. DD TF vs SS TF, seems randomized, DDs should have decisive advantage. Maybe ASW not working fully, yet. We can't see the damage of our ships in the world view pre mission/ship info tab. We need to know this for selecting options, especially needed post turn with ‘meetings’ but we are lockout of viewing such general information.

What's needed is another level of alliance, ‘Military Pack’, where units in each other’s territory doesn’t raise tension. So, if have alliance for x months then a Military Pack is offered: E.g. 3 Months – 100, 000, 000. 6 Months – 250, 000, 000. 12 Months – 450, 000, 000.

I've only played 1910 US 1.09 (many restarts) and you don't actually get that many battles and of the convoys, even fewer chances at taking down transports. I don't know the year of this tech, so (obviously) I haven't reached that far into the campaign to notice it, well until now. But now I know, I will be very wary of transports.

WTF, transports are now packing torpedo's!

@Kane There's another aspect, the AI side. The whole time I've been playing with dud torpedo's that have misfire against me, I've thought, "wow, that was lucky, I got away with that one". But the truth is, it was my mistake, I sailed in a straight line, or I wasn't watching enemies torpedo launch sequence, or just was lazy with my tactics. I should have been punished for those mistakes. That was the case before the introduction of duds, if you made mistakes, you lost ships, plain and simple, git gud or lose. The AI was punishing and effective. So yes, the other aspect is the contest/challenge, or the lack of because of duds. I don't know why or if Dev's realize, but there's a systematic development towards a weaker AI. Features have to be thought through encompassing the bigger picture. Without cheating, the AI needs any advantage it can muster, including an effective barrage of torpedo's.

We're all saying the same thing. When taskforces was first introduced, blocking was a thing, natural, but it would seem that Dev's have moved away from this, actually in that very next update! By Nick comments, Dev's have a bunch of sliders to adjust aggressiveness. So 'blocking' in the form of a slider, could be an aggressiveness level slider for taskforce dominance, where if a taskforce is large enough, i.e. dominant, it will intercept enemies travelling through its sea area. Whatever the coding is, taskforces shouldn't be idle giving enemies a free pass!

Things I hope will be fixed in the next patch... Taskforces sitting for months not receiving missions even though sea area has enemies. AI or any nation should not be allowed to escape just because player/nation dominates a particular sea area. This includes taskforces travelling through occupied sea areas. E.g. I had a taskforce sitting in the Indian Ocean near the Gulf of Aden - i.e. blocking, multiple enemies pasted by monthly, I suspect they were looking up into the sky and enjoying the sunny weather, not a single battle for 24 months. Idle taskforces are detrimental to the game. Submarine missions not listing. Allied ports not refueling taskforces, and then, refuels 100% close to enemy's ports (refueling was working 1.09.0). Multi-selecting submarines, to set port, isn’t working. Arctic Ocean doesn’t add fleets into its info tab. And part of this is activating the Arctic into a warring sea area. When starting new campaign, 1910+, America doesn’t have any foreign ports or control any provinces outside of its northern continent. America is alittle disadvantaged. America home sea areas never get any emeries dispatched to it. Or it’s very rare, after 11-year campaign, just one battle in the Gulf of Mexico (btw, that enemy never sailed over any oceans, battle just pop into existent all on its own). This includes centre Northern Atlantic (rarely) and the Northern Pacific (never). I suspect part of the issue (considering everything is still a WIP) is the AI is skimping on range to build cheaper ships. So not only battle generator issues but also AI design strategies are too problematic. With the larger oceans, maybe we need to split them up into more localized sea areas. Convoy attack battles ends with last visible escort destroyed but while enemy transports are still visible. It's just not a good way to end the battle. Can’t adjust armor on 3” guns (very old bug). Hopefully Hotfix soon... Game stalling/hanging at 'update missions' when nation warring against dissolves and still has taskforces active/travelling. There are some hulls where lifeboats don't disable for gun placements. They have been listed way back in version........ well just way back.

Was planned for 1.09 but delay until next patch. Submarines are already limited per taskforce, I suspect this is how limitations will work, player/AI can only add to taskforce's the number allowable, per class.

@Nick Thomadis Update missions stall... https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/3488628582213438810/ Steam users have identified a possible cause. If nation collapses while fleet/s are still travelling, the game will stall, but if that fleet/s makes it back to port and then nation collapses, the game is ok.

Hopefully you have split research into 6 columns, BB BC CA CL DD/TB SS, so player can choose which limit to boost. Assuming you’ve kept the current research format.

I was at war with Germany when it dissolved, so it looks like mission's vs Germany were still trying to form. Were you at war with your China.

My fleet is getting fueled by the enemy! These 3 taskforces are 100% fueled, this can be only from those Russian ports, since Germany is dissolved... with 1.09.1 Live, allies don't fuel taskforces anymore, actually was working in 1.09.0. Somehow fueling allies and enemies have been switched! - Still need to know which foreign ports taskforce's can be fueled from. Anyhow the campaign is dead, stalling on every turn at 'update missions'... Lasted 11 years, 1910 to 1921 but last update corrupts campaigns if a nation dissolves. This has pissed me off, wanted to run campaign to full duration but totally f****p now.

If you go way back to Academy Missions only, the AI was (is still?) very competitive. That’s unflawed full tech challenging the player. Where success was not achieved on the first attempt. This is the level Dev’s need to build AI campaign designs towards. Flaws can’t be part of that future, you can’t handicap the AI, in any way. AI needs full tech. Flawed AI is not a threat, this is not a good thing, it’s not good for the future of the game. IMO. LOL, yes, I’m trying to talk Dev’s around, what of it? Also, I acknowledge “we” are the minority. But maybe not so much, I would guess 80/20% like flaws/don’t, maybe higher likes. But of likes, majority want reductions, which has occurred in last update. So, while few of us, still some of us, and changes have happened. If flaws were drop (nerf to nothing), how many would miss it, not so much I would say.

And if human player uses the method of scrapping every single flawed ship, what do you think the result might be? Maybe AI inferiority? Because it's happing now, countless times my flawless ships have laid waste to AI flawed fleets. I can’t see any way around this, the flaws system is flawed from its very conception – in how to prop up the AI, to provide the contest. And if Dev’s allow different rules for the AI, e.g. less flaws or funds indifferences, that's cheating, can’t do that So how does Dev's overcome human craziness? Best solution is dropping the flaws system altogether, i.e. level the playing field.

I thought they fixed this bug - lingering unfixed minor bugs like this are getting rather tiresome. One of your saved designs has an error. Doesn’t even matter if not selected for battle. Workaround: Delete every single design of that year, including enemies, i.e. start over.

Add this to the list: If a nation dissolves while you're at war with them, shouldn't you get a chance at some of their provinces? Not home ports but foreign ports. All grayout when nation dissolved, no chance for another nation to own them. It seems like a cheap trick to deny a warring nation any rewards because said nation has beaten them into economical failure.

That’s not the problem, it should have remained in beta for a month or two, clearing up issues, even minor ones. IMO Dev’s need to start releasing UAD live versions in a somewhat polished state. That’s what those players are waiting for, a live version where they don’t have to deal with bugs and issues.

Submarine missions aren't listed, can be very easily missed, player must scroll around the map to find them... Also port info tab list ships outside the box...

Do you have a better solution? - penalties for low fuel and low fuel capacity designs. Besides, you learn pretty quickly to: a) Build ships with greater range, to traverse oceans and still have enough fuel to stay on station and fight effectively. b) To manage taskforces, i.e. pull them back to port before fuel runs low. So, for the lack of a better solution, and given how quickly players can adjust, I would say no, status-quo is best. I.e. Incorporating logistics in ship designs is better than, for example, arbitrary cost penalties.

If Academy Missions are a ‘proving grounds’ for later campaigns, then 100% fuel consideration is needed. No longer can players skimp on (and in an unrealistic way) fuel to clear tonnage for other components.

Wanted to send some ships into the Arctic Ocean, for no reason at all! Realize that Russia doesn't have any ports up there, why? Could have Archangelsk. In fact, the whole Norway coast is ignored, any plans to include? And while on about places and names... Why is the ocean east of America called Eastern North America? Shouldn't it be called Sargasso Sea or at very least Western Atlantic Ocean. Ditto for the Pacific. Though the map/Pacific being split you might understand why 'naming' may have been overlooked - the split being cumbersome and all. PS, I guess the ice cap has melted away too!

This info tab doesn't tell me anything. It shows Italy, France vs Germany, what is this? Who's this faction??? Not mind. As USA I have alliances with Britain, Italy and Japan, warring with Germany and Spain, this info doesn't relate to that tab. What are these victory points telling me? especially if they don't even relate. We can get any of that info from the politic tab anyway. How about we replace this tab with a taskforce manager, where all our taskforces are listed, and where we could double click on any listed taskforce and the map will scroll/locate to. Would be much more useful! E.g... Would be good if listed per ocean area.

I think the AI needs to be… let’s say, ‘a bastard’. To do that it needs to apply best tech. Ok it’s not doing that fully, yet, but maybe that’s because it’s still a WIP/placeholder and will be improved dramatically sometime soon. But nonetheless, to challenge the player, best tech has got to be flawless. Otherwise, battles will forever be unchallenging. And if that happens, battles are endanger of becoming passive or unintelligible – players will sooner or later skip because they can’t be bothered. IMO, it’s a greater issue than just a fun gimmick.

LOL, do you think that this is an irrational and/or inept reason? But the fact is, at the highest levels, emotional response from playing the game is important to game makers. I would say for me, that this is the exact issue. RNG after you have designed, it's a ‘let down’ – oh no, not more crappy ships, not a challenge to overcome – it fails to incite its targeted response. And simply there’s just zero skills needed to fight with flawed ships, does absolutely nothing to enhance battle gameplay, in fact lessens the experience. Especially when the AI is weakened by such.

@Lastreaumont I don’t even bother with refits, simply scrap every single ship with flaws, build as many as my budget will allow, rinse and repeat. Starting as USA 1910, it’s usually 3-4 years before any wars and if there are, no nation sends its fleets against me anyway, AI cannot build ocean going ships, well not in this patch. So more than enough time to build a flawless fleet! But there’s a downside, my flawless fleet is rather superior to the AI corrupted, so battles are just alittle too easy (given than AI designs is not up to par, as a standard – hoping Dev’s will work this area over soon, e.g. not using max bulkheads/technologies etc.). Of the 12 BC below, 4 were accepted into my fleet, the rest scraped.