Skeksis

I'm not 100% sure but low, medium and high works opposite to what is intuitive. Many think it's the repair level at sea but it's actually the priority level of sending ships back to port for repair. Low = low chance of sending ships to port for minimal damages. Medium = medium chance of sending ships to port for minimal damages. High = high chance of sending ships to port for minimal damages. There been a few posts where players don't what their entire taskforce sent to port because of a single ship that has minor damage. Often the AI can exploit this by deploying a whole lot of single ship taskforces against the player full taskforces and forcing them all to port to gaining tactical advantage. So by setting to low repairs, your taskforce will mostly remain on station and not fall victim to these tactical tricks. Especially important for long ranged deployments. Will be even more important with an expanded map. Tactically, it's better to keep your ships on station with minor damage, even for just a few turns more, than to have them taken out of the field for 3-4 months of repairs and 2-3 months more for them to travel back to the area of deployment. Therefore I have to disagree.

Maybe if the AI had max caliber tech too, i.e. conditions, it could sort or streamline its builds... Like some AI ghost techs: 1885 Independent Fire Control AI-0 +2 to the number of main calibers (at 1885 +2 is from 0). +2 to the number of secondaries calibers. PS, and I suggest another condition of, if base caliber equals then adjustment equals. e.g. if 4" then adjustment 4.5, so all 4" will be 4.5 and not 4.5 and 4.1s, as shown above.

Good point. Tech options, that come with a cost, would handle unique situations.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have different calibers for secondaries. 2 should be the norm. So maybe we could have tech for this. 1890 - none. 1905 Independent Fire Control I +2 Calibers for Secondaries (no penalties for 2 secondaries calibers), -25% Multiple Secondaries Calibers Penalties (all secondaries). 1920 Independent Fire Control II -25% Multiple Secondaries Calibers Penalties. 1935 Independent Fire Control III -25% Multiple Main Calibers Penalties (all mains). Actual names & values by Dev's. While historically it’s not accepted for mains, the game is founded in the “What IF” and so it should be open to alternative designs. At least for secondaries, 2 calibers is historical and the game should definitely be open to such designs. Also multiple secondaries penalties is not very clear to most players, it’s a hidden penalty and not intuitive at all. Actually it’s very hard for players to realize such penalties. If info is posted by Dev’s or by helpful players, it's not guarantee others will ever see such posts. In-game tech would be intuitive too.

What, you don’t find anything of that interesting or helpful? Like Diplomacy options. Is this not what players have been asking for? Is it not published improvements based on feedback to which more feedback can be posted. Yes it’s not labelled specifically as a roadmap but nonetheless it is a minor one. A few other interesting items too. Something has happen over on the steam forum, 1) A major increase in the volume of partisans, this can give some weight to issues, compelling Dev’s to act. 2) Not so many shit posts either, to which steam is famous for, they are creditable. There’s alittle bit more info over on steam than here.

That's as good as any roadmap from GameLabs. Here's the last one... Both outline upcoming features, no difference.

Helps if you READ MORE

A stab in the dark here, looks like to me Dev's will complete the full map and the 'entirely of the campaign', and patch it. With the 'entirely of the campaign' in place, they can sit back and see what is working and what's not. So then I foresee a series of re-works and it's done. And naturally with that the end of beta testing anyway.

Goodbye priority boost!

Yeah we only got 3 new hulls in the last update. v1.05 (Apr 14) we got 58, 3 months later (Jul 7) and we only get 3. Admittedly, modelers probably had to rework all the hulls and gun models for adjustable calibers. If Dev's worked an extra tower or two per patch, not just hulls or full ships, then they could double the variety per hull. Next patch is going to be huge, all nations or most of them, so we could anticipate a massive injection of new hulls anyway. But still extra towers for existing hulls would go along way.

Don’t forget GameLabs made Naval Action, endless hours of sailing, bought a new meaning to AFK. Very unlikely they will budge on this.

More options: Dockhands I -1 Month All Ships to Mothball Speed (mothball). Longshoreman I -1 mothball to BB, CA. Dockworker I -1 mothball to CL, DD. You know such a conventional tech tree would 'help' the player not to construct “20 super battleships”! And conventional tech trees could be introduced progressively, once the framework is done have both the current and new side by side, then with every patch move one or two over to the new. Easy!

Alternatively, you can F12 a screenshot, upload to steam, copy link and paste into your post.

Serviceable capacity is the global governor, your entire fleet, port capacity is the local governor, how many ships per port. Ship tonnage still has to be under port tonnage else penalties apply. You could look at it this way, once researched, serviceable capacity technology is passed to all ports. I guess this doesn't explain enough on its own: "-10% maintenance costs". It also means that if a nation builds more than serviceable capacity, full maintenance costs applies to all extra ships (we'll call this Over Service). Maybe 10% should be much higher so over service has a real effect but again actual implementation by Dev's (if they go for it!). I'll add Over Service to op. The game could add penalties to Over Service too. With penalties the player/nation could have extra ships but it will cost them. Also this would allow for some wriggle room, allow for short time periods to rollover replacement ships and scrap old ones, etc.

Following up... February Screenshot shows 5 taskforces deployed... Next, March shows a newly created taskforce number 6, I'm sending ships to reinforce the English Channel taskforce. Also war against France has just been declared... Now April the battle generator has generated a battle against a newly created taskforce, number 6. All other taskforces have been ignored. The English Channel taskforce should have had a battle generated against it first, it has a denial zone... This... 'Denial Zones' should have applied for the English Channel taskforce and anything in the North Sea before number 6 taskforce. Battle generator isn't accounting for older taskforces. Those taskforces should be pulling ships out of those ports regardless of there condition or assigned modes or at very least engaging any new enemy taskforces. 'Denial Zones' haven't worked since 1.06.3. Oh and why hasn't Britain been blockaded yet.

There must be a better way. A: Controlling fleet capacity could be done with tech trees, namely by 'Serviceable Capacity'. Currently, the new update is trying to control it with maintenance cost, it's not working verywell. B: Also, a singular tech line can advance so far ahead that the overall tech becomes imbalanced and creates huge one-sided battles. While putting A together I realized that these two are connected. We can still control nation's ship numbers with maintenance costs but to a lesser extent, so long as we add in other tech tree elements to support overall fleet serviceable capacity. I'm going to showcase this with a conventional tech tree, lets see: Serviceable Capacity Tech Tree: 1885 1887 1892 1909 | | | | | | On-Dock Rail ------| Marshaling Yard I ------| | | | | Wharf I ----- Bollards I ---- Tugboats I -------------------Wharf II ----------- Tugboats II ------------------------- Wharf III --------- etc. | | |---------| | | | | |---------- Dunnage & Tethering I ------------- Dunnage & Tethering II --------------------------------------------etc. | | 1903 | | |---- Marine Surveyor I Pressure-Resisting Diving Suits ------| | | | | |------------ Gravity Anchors I--------------------- Embedded Anchors I --------------------- Suction Anchors I ----- etc. | | | |--------| | | |----- Buoys I -------|-------------------------- Day Beacons I ---------|-------- Fog Signals --------- etc. | | | | | |-------------------------------- Harbour Master I ----------------------------------- Harbour Master II --------------- etc. | |---- Feeder Service I -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Launch Services I ---------------- etc. 1890 Enables Researching Of (Enables) Wharf I. Wharf I -10% maintenance costs (mc) to all ships. Enables Bollards I, Marine Surveyor I, Feeder Service I. 1887 Enables Tugboats I. Bollards I Enables Tugboats I & Dunnage Tethering I. Marine Surveyor I Enables Gravity Anchors I, Harbour Master I. Feeder Service I -1 to Repairs Times, Enables Launch Services. Tugboats I Adds 6 Battleships to dockside processing (dockside), 6 Heavy Cruisers dockside. Dunnage & Tethered I Adds 12 Light Cruisers, 18 Destroyers/Torpedo Boats dockside. Gravity Anchors I Adds 6 BB to harbor anchoring (anchoring), 6 CA anchoring. Enables Embedded Anchors, Embedded Buoys. Buoys I Enables Harbour Master I, Enables Day Beacons I. Harbour Master I 12 CL, 18 DD/TB anchoring. Enables Harbour Master II. 1896 Enables On-Dock Rail. On-Dock Rail Enables Wharf II 1903 Enables Pressure-Resisting Diving Suits. Pressure-Resisting Diving Suits - Enables Embedded Anchors. 1901 Enables Day Beacons. Embedded Anchors +2 Battleships, +3 Heavy Cruisers to anchoring. Enables Suction Anchors I, Enables Day Beacons. Day Beacons I Enables Harbour Master II, Enables Fog Signals. Harbour Master II +6 Light Cruisers, +9 Destroyers to anchoring. 1909 Enables Marshaling Yard I. Wharf II -5%mc, Enables Dunnage Tethering II. Dunnage & Tethered II +3 Light Cruisers, +6 Destroyers dockside. Marshaling yard I +5% to repair time, Enables Wharf II. Tugboats II +4 Battleships, +4 Heavy Cruisers dockside. Launch Services I -5 to Repairs Times, +5 to Training. Suction Anchors I +2 Battleships, +3 Heavy Cruisers to anchoring. Fog Signals +6 Light Cruisers, +9 Destroyers to anchoring. Wharf III -5%mc. Etc. Actual researches, research times and all figures by Dev's. Note: If a player/nation builds more than serviceable capacity, builds extra ships, an 'Over Service', then hefty penalties should apply, similar to port capacity penalties. This should too allow for some wriggle room, allow for short time periods for players/nations to rollover replacement ships and scrap old ones. Points: If players wants more battleships than escorts they can research Tugboats II ahead of Dunnage & Tethering II. Should be typical of research branches. No research can get too far ahead of it's time but could be researched before another if its associated researches are completed, i.e. the governor. If all research were setup this way then there could be a fair amount of limitations to complete certain research lines, thus stabilizing research lines in general and throughout the time frame. Anyway I think every one knows how conventional tech tree's works but the main point with this is, a particular research would be dependent on another, not just linear but branched dependent. If all techs are setup this way then the total amount of researches should govern each tech line so none could be overly researched. Summary. Sure, if you rebuild the entire tech tree and convert it all to conventional, it would take months and months of work and a huge graphical display panel (see EVEs) but as you can see, there are sufficient advantages to conventional tech tree's. It would solve alot of issues including B. For a long time I thought conventional tech trees would be better, in hindsight it's probably alittle bit more apparent and maybe alittle bit too late but it would solve many issues.

After battle this taskforce below remained on station, with damage. But with every other battle/campaign, all the taskforce's were sent to port. I've just notice the difference was I didn't change it from Sea Control. So maybe this bug occurs if the taskforce are set to Invade or Protect. Or even just occurs if mode changes. During campaigns, I did have other taskforces set to Sea Control but not many, it's quite possible they just didn't come up for battle or when they did I didn't notice anything, no one has noticed. Also this explains why others are saying they have no problems because they don't actually change modes from Sea Control. This bug seems to chime in with when these modes were added/activated. Anyway, very confusing when all taskforces previously are sent home after battle but then without any consistency one remains on station. As an observation or just something to mention. 2) . The battle generator nearly always set missions for newly created taskforces. But for existing taskforces they seem to skip missions, except for newly create AI taskforces, they do engage those existing taskforces. It's like if and when a new taskforce is created then all taskforces are considered but if there are no new taskforces (on the turn) all existing taskforces miss consideration.

E.g. Maintenance costs are, IMO, killing the game. Players will just stop playing and wait for the next improved version. Throwing a series of hotfixes for hotly added features onto the live version causes discontent. This doesn't need to happen. So my feedback is to stick to a well and tried tested format, beta test everything first, then release live. v1.08.8 is a very good version (except for maintenance costs). It's quite possible the game may take a different direction now. I.e. start shutting down the full enterprises that we have experience up until now - though take this with a huge grain of salt! - purely perspective. Whatever happens there's going to be better versions than others, there's no doubt of this IMO, therefore players should be able to choose their version preference.

Wouldn't it be better if some of this stuff was beta tested here first before going live. If not or the team has decided to go general listing, then maybe the game should list different steam betas/versions so players could roll back if needed.

Worst still you can't move damaged ships out either. Harbor penalties should disable until players can set designated repair ports or enable (for the meantime) one per ship port to port movement while damaged.

Having another look at this: Hull Stability is low at 0.7% Speed at 34 What’s unknown: Smoke inference Pitch/Roll but turrets are at extremities. Etc. At 0.10: 7.1" Guns Stop Enemy State at 0.13: Target Ship Size -20.5 Target Fast Speed -24.5 Target Manoeuvre -79 Target Inside Smoke -25 At 0.35: Own Manoeuvre comes down to -9 Also by this time target smoke has ceased. At 0.36: Own Manoeuvre down to -6 At 0.37: Main guns firer. It does look more towards design issues. Or with that design keep manoeuvre at or under -6, lower speed, and only firer (or only target) when target is not deploying smoke.

But using out-of-date posts or as you have put it, out-of-date "mistakes", would be a massive misrepresentation on his part.

This would mock UADs. This is typical of every single patch. The game has come a long way since those posts, very few now.

This isn't a bad idea. If the player fails to build an adequate fleet then the game can still max against the player. But still, the game has got to be able to destroy the player because of a lack of ship building and/or deployments, i.e. campaign failure must still be a thing, including financial or otherwise, there can't be an easy out.

7 hours ago!