ColonelHenry

Do you think you can make guns that are below 2 inch to be auto cannon? Idk how much you can modify the numbers but something along the line if the 2inch gun is modified to be below 2inch, the reload gets better? Would be great to see the german 20mm AA guns and 40mm bofos guns. Right now, the reload for guns like 37mm just don't represent auto cannon even with 1940 tech.

Most dedicated players that wanted more realistic depiction in various department of the game have moved on I'm afraid; especially those with access and are familiar with various source materials and are willing to see the game go toward the realism direction. I know it's falling on deaf ears but my hope of changes toward the battles are: Change the spotting and modify gunnery system to be more realistic doing away with the current arcady spotting distance, and the wacky -99% target fast speed penalty. Beside the WOWS spotting system, this speed penalty thing is wild. An example: I made 2 Shimakaze vs 1 Baltimore Cruiser (both 1940 tech). I had both design to be very good in game with low pitch and negligible stability problem. And somehow... the Baltimore cruiser failed to kill both DD for 40 mins plus. Both destroyers with 40.5knts, somehow gave my cruiser with the latest radar tech (radar III), armed with 3x3 8inch/55, 6x2 5inch/38, and ~12x4 1.6 (40mm) inch AA gun, a -99% accuracy penalty. I kid you not, both destroyers got within 500m of my cruisers without dying; the 8inch simply refused to fire, the 5inch got off like 3 salvos, and my 40mm AA guns simply missed like 80% of the shot at that moment. It took my 8inch half of its ammo count to actually kill both of these destroyers at 5km. That is neither realistic, NOR FUN to play. I tried having my ship going at cruising speed, I tried it at max speed (33 knts), it did not matter. Internal fire and fire in general needs to be extremely dangerous regardless of time period. A ship should not be able to put out fire in completely destroyed sections of a ship, not constantly taking out fire like it's as easy as snuffing out a candle. More pronounced flooding damage. It was great at the start of the last beta testing with ships sinking due to inability to 100% stop flooding. It was a too much however, but a complete nerf (nearly removed outright) was not justified. It made flooding hits dangerous. It just needs more system to work with (like player and AI can focus crew toward dealing with the flooding) so a single lucky flooding hit would not completely sink a BB. After all of that, the last thing about battles that need a look at is the ship deployment menu at the start. We should be able to deploy the ships like how Total War allow the player to place units at the start. If this isn't possible, at least in the campaign map, allow the player to customize division and what ship leads what division in a fleet; and possible formations that could be adopted before a battle start (with exception of ambushes).

This game has the ship building mechanic and instead of expanding on how it would interact with the campaign... they opted for something too straight-forward. In my opinion, the technology that we research should be influence directly by the type of ships that we build or the planning of ships. Instead of just waiting for technology just randomly get better, we should be pushing technology toward a direction by drawing up ship blueprints. It's more work for the devs: like we would need to break up some tech nodes for this to work like separate gun house and the gun itself as an example. But the result would be glorious.

That's just straight up bullshit. I'm sorry but you really need to stop putting words in other people mouth. Nobody who wants a better spotting system wants to dumb the game down, at least the people that I have interacted on this forum. Every single one of us who wanted it changed had given documentations, wrote probably half a PhD. thesis worth of content on possible changes and suggestion to move toward a campaign spotting system. Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true... Right now, invisible destroyers/TB with broken AI formation only makes it so that the player has to build a fleet that has the smallest number of ships but insanely broken in order to dodge torpedo effectively while killing these ships as fast as possible to get close to their capital ships for the easy kills. Moving magic spotting from the battle to the campaign map will force the player to build a balanced fleet. Not enough DD, CL will make sure your fleet is completely blind because cruiser actions will stop your fleet from scouting thus the game should force the player into disadvantageous fleet ambush battles in those instances. Instead right now, CLs and DDs are glorified temporary magic invisible spotters; that's just terrible gameplay. Nobody benefits from the current system. The AIs that are focusing on CL and DD get stomped by other nations because right now everyone can afford somewhat the same fleet (like somehow A-H getting more ship than the Brits in 1900), and AI auto resolves make sure they lose in the long run. Meanwhile in battle, these invisible ships are there to annoy the player in a shitty way but are almost useless against the aforementioned godly capital ships. There are so much you could do with campaign map cruiser (light ships) gameplay instead of invisible ships in battle but I guess I'm just playing an instrument for a water buffalo (or barking up the wrong tree if you prefer English).

The problem isn't just the bug. The problem is that there are so many bugs I cannot tell which is intended and which is a feature (dead serious). The current problem of partial pen, I noticed it for awhile now, but I wasn't sure if it's wacky armor calculation, AI over-armoring their ships, or as some people now suggest the game is mistaking deck hit percentage with belt hits. We all expect bugs and we're here to test the product. But we can only go so far without the debugging console and everything falls apart within 30 seconds of starting a campaign. I just hope this game turn out to be good.

Though I agree with competing demands, communication is good. It is a learning experience for this team and I hope they are taking the right lessons from this game. Specifically, all of these could have been avoided had they pushed through the Covid time, being bought by another company, etc. and actually communicated while delivering updates akin to the current pace. During the Alpha stage, so many dedicated people wanted to give feedback, extremely detailed feedback to the team but more than half of the time all we got was crickets from the dev with nearly no update whatsoever. The smaller but dedicated playerbase would have been so beneficial to this team it's insane that they botched that entire thing. I don't comment much here anymore just the occasional bug report in-game because I do not want to sound like I'm saying this isn't going anywhere concrete but I have to agree that the bug squashing is getting ridiculous as the game feels like it's being held upright by a 90 years old man trying to balance what amount to a car while rope walking across the Grand Canyon. Tbh, this beta gave me a hello kittying anxiety attack because the amount of bugs that I encountered and I couldn't write much because I felt hopeless for the devs. I felt like so much potential was wasted, and like 99% of the ideas that so many talented naval history enthusiasts on this forum would never be implemented because they can't even make the campaign AI to actually be an AI and not 10 nested if statements. Not sure if I should have wrote this...

Can we have two sliders for crews? I have 45,000 bench sitters doing nothing after a war with Germany. We should be able to reduce our forces once a war end.

YOUR DD and TB might be OP, but the AI's DD and TB sucks so bad the only time they actually do any damage is if you get bullshit unlucky with the current spotting system and random weather conditions working together to make you completely blind. If you nerf them even more... the enemy ships would just be useless, and they already are with the French Jeune Ecole playstyle being completely useless in the campaign for the AI and the French AI usually just get shit on even against Italy or A-H despite having like 110 ships in 1901.

I really think we should get a detailed research for guns if they want to go with this kind of barrel length, diameter customization. Remove all the big gun tech and replace them with something like this. Say, we design a ship with 12inch L/55, the game should make it a research within the "big gun" section and it takes time to research the gun, once the gun is researched, the ship hull will take 1 month to complete after everything else is done if the entire ship hasn't finished and the ship is launched. The more 12inch L/55 +- 5 you make, the better that gun is. The bigger and longer the gun is and the earlier the player research those, the longer the research time and it should be long, the research money should probably only affect ~20% research time at max.You can also draw up ship design to research guns without making the ship; and you can only research 2 big guns at the same time to limit spam. You force people to build smaller big guns first by making it so that if the player design a BB with 14 inch guns in 1890 right away, it will take like 5-7 years just to research the base weapon meanwhile they are stuck with an 1880 12 inch starter gun which means the player will definitely lose the game since the AI will literally hit twice as accurate/fast with 1890 weapons within half a year or something. And since they skipped the 12 inch guns, at later dates, they will have to go back and develop 12 in guns if they want advanced 1920s 12 in guns. Right now, the game forces you to go all the way from 10 inch to 20 inch without any control. And we need large guns that are 14-18inch during the 1890s, those existed in open turret and should be represented with the Mk1 weapons. Move the later turret 14-18 inch guns to Mk2. Also, this will work nicely with separate gun house technology for better ship building experience which I think is a must have to fine tune ship designs to the player's liking. This should make the game more about the player choices and their consequences. If the players focus too much on larger guns, they will find themselves heavily outnumbered and outshot by smaller and more numerous enemy ships at the point of the decision made as well as 40 years down the line if they refuse to change.

Realistic? Kind of. The problem is that the enemy right now will refuse all battle regardless of the balance of power unless they have like 5 times the force or whatever which is nonsensical because the game will randomly pull one or two out of like 25 Pre-Dreadnoughts that you have in 3-4 large fleets and try to suicide charge you with infinite Torpedo Boats. And problem is that your fleets seem like they do nothing since I am having 10 Pre-Dread, 5 CL, 5 TB blocking the English Channel yet the French and the Brits sail through them like they don't even exist. But as soon as I move one BB for refit, somehow they get intercepted in the North Sea against 2 BBs and escorts which is just the most nonsensical stuff in a strategy game... like how does a fleet gets through a 12 BB, 4CL fleet to attack a lone BB?

Might work if you are going under the cruising speed. Going at or above the cruising speed usually means your engine is irreparably damaged for the rest of the battle. And depending on the distance that the torpedoes are fired, it would only make sure that you have a damaged engine while eating the other half of the torpedo salvo.

Surely the AI is fixed when enemy ships can still turn on demand when severely damaged to dodge torpedo. Surely the AI is fixed when they can't even get into formation without re-enacting the loss of HMS Victoria. Surely...

I somewhat agree with this if dud is just straight up a number that can only be affected by random tech advancement chance so if the AI "luck" out in terms of tech discovery, you are fked for no reason (at the start at least). Devs will only need to make slight changes to technology development to fix this. I want torpedo duds, but most of all, I want to see them be at least 50% less accurate than they are now. Only Seasoned and Veteran skill crews should have like -10% of the current torpedo accuracy. Right now, they are ~90% accurate give or take if the ship does not turn which is absurd.

The game already does not make sense with this "spotting" system. Seriously... Every time I get hit by a torpedo attack because a DD "pop" into existence at 6km going 33knts straight at my BC or BB battle line, I reset because that's just straight up fantasy. And if I have to rely on an "AI" that sometimes decides not to dodge the torpedoes while I have no control over how the ships in my battle line turn then it's just bad design. I really don't understand how the game wants to be realistic while a 1910 destroyer can be hidden 6-7km away from a battleship line. Look, I do not have a degree in engineering but looking at this chart from Engineers' and Mechanics' Pocket-Book by Chas.H.Haswell (1851): Clearly, people... smart people in 1840s and very much since people started to travel by boats knew you could see an object... tens of kilometers away given the right condition: clear sky, no overcast. In this game, a BB, my most recent case, a German BB masquerading as a BC using the latest 1910 German conning tower/superstructure, in morning, clear sky cannot see a RN destroyer until ~6km in. Look at this drawing of SMS Seydlitz using the scale on the picture, from the ship's waterline to the spotting top of the front superstructure, the position is ~30m (98.4ft) =~100ft from the water. Referencing the chart above, in good condition, you should be able to see up to 21.2 km (13.23 miles)!!!! And this is not taking in consideration the other ship's height. The problem with the current gameplay for early time frame is that you cannot SEE where the enemy are or what they are up to unless you use a sacrificial lamb in form of some CL with 5.5 inches of armor so that they could live long enough (5.5-6 in allows 12 in AP round to overpen while HE can only slightly partial pen which is broken - taken from my most 2 recent campaigns) to give you info. And then with later technology, you don't even have to bother with this mechanic AT ALL. It's just frustrating to play with and the design is not even based on reality. Oh and the distance of 19in normal torpedo in 1910 is 6.1km. Thank god the RN only use fast torpedo at 4.1km else we would have stealth torpedo destroyers in 1910 in the middle of the day launching torpedo against a BB at 6.1km... Certainly, you all you see this as absolutely ridiculous in any game that even touches the word realism/realistic. @Nick Thomadis I know this is going to take quite some effort but I would rather see one more, just one, change to the firing mechanic. Make it heavily based on the change of distance between the target and the shooter instead of what we currently have now. Make it so that my huge, tall ships can spot ship at realistic ranges but engaging them would requite my crew to acquire the the correct range and shots at 20km and beyond would require interwar tech. I want to be able to plan my attack going in, not hoping that my ship would "spot" an enemy in time in a naval strategy game. Instead make the spotting/info part relegated to campaign/world map mechanics. My CL should be spotting enemy task forces... on the map... on the strategic level. Not spotting a DD 7km away from my BB while steaming like 3 km from it. Thank you for coming to my TEDTALK .

This is great. I still think we should be able to customize the gun house and the gun itself. Right now in most cases, the single gun turret is the exact same size as its double or triple guns turret except for some low caliber 5-6inch guns. Having the ability to modify the turret house would be great, we could have a larger turret house with less guns but more space for better loading system or longer shells, etc. all affecting the ship performance and hull integrity or whatnot. Is it feasible to develop such system?