Agathos

TLDR: Currently campaigs are decided the moment you design the ships and build your initial fleet. This renders all development options (research, dockbuilding, fleetbuilding, etc. ) meaningless. Change the dynamics of the campaign so both navys start small and overall pace of campaign is more aimed towards 5-10 years, instead of current month. Testing out the campaign i found that the initial fleet build decision and ship designs are the factors that absolutely dominated the campaign. Using a properly designed fleet and building a large enough fleet i so far beat any campaign no matter the settings after about 5-7 month (rounds). I would rather like the campaign to last longer and the decisions done on research, crew and transport budget actually take effect. Also it would be nice to slowly build up a fleet instead of just starting with a huge one. For this i suggest the following: - heavily reduce initial navy budget to purchase ships, so that initial fleets starts out way smaller not exceeding 2-4 BBs, 4-6 CA, 4-6 CLs, 4-8 DDs ~ 18 ships average - slightly increase monthly income - reduce ship building times 5-25% depending on ship type, where BBs should build way quicker, while CLs and DDs only very slightly if any - slightly reduce encounter frequency, especially multiple encounters (might not be needed if encounter frequency actually depends on overall fleet size and ships at sea) - in general add selectable campaign duration in 5 year steps from 10-60. I think these suggestion would make the campaign last longer. Once the campaign actually runs longer, it might be necessary to take a closer look at how research works. As it currently doesn't matter, its hard to judge if research overall takes to long or not and if there are to many research options or not.

Additional feedback: Own accuraccy....calculated hit percentage ist >30% and own crew constantly shoots about 50m short forever...hit percentage even moving past 50% and own crew to dump to hit broadside of a barn....

After last patch i noticed that occasionally ships won't shoot there target. In a 1 BB vs 1 BB mission, i hat to manually retarget every 2-3 salvos so my ship keeped firing. Another thing, sometimes to UI elements for targets and direction (red lines, green line) kinda disappear under the waves as if the sealevel suddenly is above those UI elements. About AI: AI still seems to cheat somehow. The amount of hits the AI gets compared to me is way out of proportion to the displayed and calculated hit percentages. This doesnt really make battles feel good, as it gives that sense off fighting against the mechanics not the AI. This is especially pronounced on hard difficulty. If it is intended, it should be explained somewhere. Also the tendency of the AI to just turn the back to my ships makes them extremely hard to sink. I have had enemy ships that literally had all there sections red or yellow and they still keeped afloot for ever. About campaign: I have played to British and now in a 1910 campaign. Sadly the research part is all but unnecessary in the way the campaigns currently works. To win a campaign the decision made prior to the first round in the ship designer and fleet building is the only thing that really counts. If you do not build good ships and buy a heck of a lot of them, you will inevitably lose transports. If you do properly design and buy, you win in about 6-8 month. So research and budget decisions are all but useless.

Just updated to latest alpha. New turret designs are mostly horrible. Sadly so far i seem not to be able to get back the got old turret design used for most of my older builds. As i am mostly a player by asthetics, any gameplay currently on hold.

I enjoyed most missions so far except two. Number 1 is TDs vs. BB as sometimes the AI designs unsinkable BBs. But with reasonable designs and a few tries that mission atleast could be done. Number 2 is DD vs TDs. This one has the potential to become a game breaker if it is ever decided that you have to progress through naval academy missions by mission. I now have countless tries on that one, with every possible and impossible design choice, but never sank more than 5 TDs. This mission just feels bad, just feels to be pure chance and to no point something you as a player can influence. As said if naval academy ever becomes a mission by mission progress, this mission in its curent state will drive players away. If it is kept in its current state, i would advice that naval academy gets another progress mode, i.e. if you finish the 2-3 basic missions you than get the choice to try you luck on 2-3 higher missions and only need to succeed in one of those to unlock more missions. P.S. I will upload one of my tries to my youtube channel. It was hard to stay calm as the recorded try is the sixth try in succession on that day on that mission that failed.

Some more feedback on current combat state: still guns sometimes do not fire for no apparent reason or refuse to broadside, i currently try to finish DD vs TDs which is the least fun and most frustrating mission so far, and both my DDs and my BBs often simply refuse to fire on a perfectly locked on and tracked target torpedos also often do not fire for no apparent reason, i have ships refusing to release torpedoes on targets that are basicly immobile, most notible with bow or aft mounted underwater tubes, but also happens with all other tubes, again in torps i feel the AI is cheating in some way, as i have very hard time to make any torpedo work in a usefullway due to the current fire/release mechanics Both things are extremely frustrating, they are not happening so often in the straight forward missions where you use a dreadnough or super dreadnought, but more in those battles where you get a fleet of smaller and/or less ranged vessels. If i maneuver and position properly it is extremely disappointing when i can not get my guns to fire. And more important the game gives me no feedback why that happens.

Folks, as interesting as your discussion is, i think you are getting a bit offtopic for the general feedback thread on the current version.

Toussansons, i like your viewpoint although i have to admit my personal opinion is almost the excat opposite. I disliked both Pred-Dreadnought and DD vs TD as they for me where basicly just chaotic close in slug fests. I enjoyed later missions like Destroy a whole fleet, WIP Dreadnough or lets say any missions where i could build one or more super dreadnoughts facing an opposing fleet the most. But i admit, i build all my ships to some extend with a historical backround in mind and i.e. the idea of an immunity zone, where i than try to exploit my strenght to the fullest against the opponent. But i have to agree with you, that a lot of those naval academy missions can be beaten quite easily with some hilariously builds that rely on some single treat, that would never see the light IRL. And so would also like to see more balanced engagements, where maneuvering, positioning and target priorization become much more important than cheesy design choices. I found the last patch to have resolved some of those issues, as especially the Destroy a whole fleet is now way more balanced and not so much a "one trick Pony" mission.

Wulfrick, Evil thanks for your contributions here, they give more inside in the matter. Didn't know that via range increase you could also affect your accuracy at closer ranges.

I went for 3 BBs with 9x17", 6.2 deck armor Krupp II or III and maxed out radar and rangefinder. Lost about half the DDs. One BB heavy damage, one moderate.

Here my feedback on patch this patch General Gameplay feels more comfortable now, especially at normal speed main battery pace feels better now, altough i find a slight buff of addition5-10% might do well Accelerate time restriction should be removed, player should have the choice to accel at the danger of missing important things secondary still not viable, small guns on DDs/TDs/cruiser still feel not worth it, makes missions where you have to deal with many own small ships against many enemy small ships a frustrating demotivating experience...worst so far DD vs TD Missions tech chances to some missions very welcome, especially Destroy a fleet, that one is real fun now Ship designer still issues with some BB/BC hulls being very fore heavy even with well distrubete turret/barbettes still issues with interfere between turrets and towers takes a lot longer to load now for some reason, even leading to a crash once yet Combat penetration increase very welcome, battles changed significantly, now i have to make a choice up to which caliber and distance my armor should be able to hold no longer the need to close to coin throwing distance to get penetrations feels like mid range main battery of 14-16" inch got a lot more viable now small guns/secondaries see General still the feeling that accuracy shown is not what the game uses, although i beat all missions i tried so far with solid builds, it nevertheless feels frustration when my ships get peppered all along while missing almost guranteed hits, as i played alot i cannot attribute this to RNG alone, for my maneuvering feel free to look at my gameplay video on YT, i assume i got a decent idea of how to sail well and keep own accuracy up Thats it so far. Can't wait to play campaign. Great game.

Actually not. If you check the vertical penetration for the guns it has decreased slighty over all ranges. As i only checked in "Destroy a fleet" where player no longer hast access to 18" the 17" with super heavy shells has 7.6" pen at 25km so with 4.5" deck armor and Krupp I you will be safe against 17" and you won't need much more to guard against 18". I was suprised to see that ingame, cause i though there would a penetration buff across the board, but that only happened to horizontal pen as is seems.

In the new "Semi-dreadnought" mission the BB hull is useless. Once you place a forward tower you can not place any main turret infront of it.

I don't know if you noticed that there was a decrease in vertical penetration from plunging fire. Cause of this i was now able to build a 15" ship that was safe in vertical armor against anything. The difference in horizontal penetration is acceptable. Now compared to the situation before, i have no longer to move in to ridicolous close distance. As i said, felt viable now in the games i played. Secondary for me is also small guns on big ships. I disagree on your judgement that they where only kept for AA purposes. Secondaries had there task to deal with threats the main battery shells where though to be a waste i.e. DD, torpedo boats. But against those ingame secondary is still useless, best way is still aim with main, wait for that 1 blow and go back to another target.

So noticeable change in combat so far. Played Sink a fleet twice, both times solid combat at rather long range. Positive that player now can see AI at long range also. Increased penetration very welcome, now mid range main caliber 13-15 are viable in that mission. Secondary where still useless. Played new Defeat a Semi-Dreadnought. Nice, challenging. But ONE big issue still with AI accuracy. The numbers shown ingame do not match with what happens. I have an advantage of 30% vs 18% hit shown in the gun tab down left side, but AI BB hits 3 out of 4 shells on most salvos and i hit 1 shell in two salvos totaling 8 shells. Its hard to play that way and definitely feels like the AI is "cheating".

On combat here some oddities i noticed: main battery for no apparent reason refuses to fire all guns sometimes, target is locked on, all turrets pointed on target, good hit percentage, but only one or two guns fire main battery sometimes seems to wait for some indefinite status before opening up on enemy, had BBs sale miles before the forward guns that could open fire actually fired, turrets clearly tracked the target and had to problem with that, but they won't start firing, even on aggressive i'd like the option to set my main battery on different firing modes like "broadside", "as fast as possible" especially when one mixes guns of different barrel numbers i rarely see a nice broadside although it is stated the AI doesnt "cheat" it often feels that way, i now have numerous examples where i - despite a high hit percentage up to 100% - miss most of my shots, while the AI hits even when its hit percentage is way lower than mine, if AI has 100% all of their rounds usually find the target, while for me at 100% a miss in the 75-80% region is normal, thats frustrating penetration RNG seems also to favor AI heavily Overall gameplay at higher missions and tech levels feels way more like RNG and AI ship designer luck than own contribution in maneuvering, ship building and so own.

I noticed some visiual issues with the advance forward and aft towers that have a barbette integrated. The 3D model of larger main turrets, even when they fit to the barbette of those towers will interfere and overlap with the bridges on those towers. I suggest that the integrated barbette be moved further away (about 5-10m) from the bridge or that the barbette will fit its size and position to the turret it actually mounts.

Like this?

Lead ship opening up on enemy battleline and what the artist later made out of that shot

A sandbox with all tech available would be great, both for developement and testing and game itself i think.

I spent some more time in the higher naval academy missions trying out different approaches. The more time I spent there and the more I try out, the more i get the Impression that in the current state and balance in the game - especially capital ships BC/BBs - there is basically only one choice in main battery and that is “go big or go home”. The only consistent way to be successful with those super dreadnoughts is to take the best penetrating gun available - which is usually either the 17” or 18” - cause else one will end up against forces that one cannot really damage. From examining the gameplay itself it seems that the accuracy buffs those large calibers get give unproportional advantages compared to smaller guns in the 14-16” range. i.e. if comparing one of my 17” builds against one of my 15” builds, I noticed that eh 17” with the guns being the only difference in design, easily demonstrated an accuracy at range that was double that of the 15” incher. I regularly see AI ships with 18” inchers who show 70-90% accuracy at around 10km and that is even without the most advanced towers, compared to AI with smaller caliber who at that comparable ranges only manage half or one third of that accuracy. This effect makes large guns a must have at the moment, cause no matter what the advantages of smaller calibers might be (less weight, faster reload) they are totally outweighed by the accuracy alone. The difference in penetration of the big guns only add to that and make small calibers even less a choice. Overall this results in my opinion in an unnecessary limitation of viable choices. And I’d rather prefer more playable options than a one way route. Currently I am not sure if the big calibers really need that much of an accuracy advantage. The better penetration - especially for plunging fire - and the greater damage is already a good advantage over the smaller calibers. I understand that a slighty better accuracy might be desirable to compensate for the lesser barrels, but I think this should really be slight and not result in 17" or 18" having multiple times the accuracy of smaller main guns at range. The effect i describe is also noticeable in earlier missions, but not the the extend it shows up in those missions where 17" or 18" are available.

Half hour look into the ship designer in Alpha-1 v61 And my two 13x15 inchers super dreads approaching the opponent.

I find this part rather strange, cause in the later missions i usually face AI ships that have maxed out main caliber (17-18" inchers) an stomped my ships into the sea easily, so that i personally had to switch from rather moderate 14-16" inchers main battery builds to using 17-18" to ever succeed. I look ahead to a bit more main guns frequency and so more active gameplay, but the nerf to small guns seems unnecessary. At the moment i found secondary guns so underperforming that almost all my successfuls ship builds rely on there main battery only.

Hi, got into the game a few days ago and even though it is in alpha i really like it and found it running suprisingly well and so i like to give some feedback and observations. General it would be nice to have additional grafics options, especially FPS limter, vsync and the ability to display an FPS counter performance needs optimization, i run an I3-8350k@4,5 Ghz and a GTX 1080 and on beautiful settings the performance seems to suffer, especially when close to smoke effects the missions Destroyer vs. TB, Super Dreadnough or Battlecruiser, Destroy a full fleet, Pre-dreadnough conflict and The modern Battleship frequently crash and i was not able to play through most of them Ships and design features AI often designs near unsinkable or really unsinkable ships, maximum bulkheads seem to play a major part in that i.e. i had multiple runs on Torpedo the Dreadnough where the AI BB got around 20-30 torpedo hits and was easily able to counter any flood and stay afloat AI has a tendency to build "franken" ships which look rather odd, most prominent in the sink a fleet mission, where i see very odd combinations of 17" or 18" turrets with tiny towers secondary guns seem to fullfill no real role and i feel that installing them is usually a waste of tonnage and money, only in the BB vs TD i needed them to succeed and even there the performance was rather poor both in battle and in ship designer i would find it more usefull if the effective thickness of the armor is always displayed in inches so i can directly compare that to the penetration ability of the guns, currently it is confusing and not excatly clear from the game itself have different armor types affect effective thickness and against which amror type penetration is meatured Mission design and AI the AI often seems to somewhat build the opposite of what i build for a mission, i.e. if i got with a moderate main battery of 12-16" inchers i constantly ran into AI ships featuring 17-18" inchers, to my suprise when i switched to a 17-18" inch layout the AI only brought lower calibers to the battle. The resulting missions tended to be rather one sided either in favour for or against the AI it is a little frustrating that even in those missions labled "fight old ships with a modern counterpart" the AI always sees me way further than me and seems to have access to radar when i have not, usually resulting in damage to my ships before i am even able to spot a single opponent my own gunners AI sometimes switches to another target for no apparent reason, it would be nice to be either informed why that is or else be able to restrict the AI from doing that and have only manual control over my gunners Battle UI i rather accidently discovered that you can set speed in increments of 0.5 knots and not only 1 knot, it would be great if displayed speed setting and increments in which i can change match up, additionally it would be great if the actual speed the ship is currenty moving at would be displayed without the need to hover over the speed bar i would like to have the option to set both a main and secondary guns target and ammunition choice seperately, this might make secondaries a bit more viable (see above)

Even with the unpolished UI i really like the ship designer in general, the following feedback therefore should improve the experience: Bugs: if i rotate an item the mirror function will not mirror the rotation left UI bar seems to autoscroll down when certan - especially aux engine - tabs where opened parts placement i would really like to have the same freedom of placement for towers and funnels that i have using the CTRL-key for turrets, so that i have more control over excatly where a tower is placed and how much space there is between parts i often find it hard to avoid for- or aft-weight setoffs when placing parts in a way i get a pleasant and somewhat realistic look, on some hulls it is required to place the aftmost or foremost turret at locations where its barbette would unlikely fit into the hull, so it would be nice if i could move some internal parts (engine, gear etc.) to some extend to balance out the weight currently i have the feeling that the barbettes for single, dual and triple mounts of one caliber have the same size, would be nice if there is some slight difference that i could place possibly place a dual mount, where a triple of same caliber would be to large, this would also give more choice i.e. triple 14" vs. dual 15" or single 16" i.e. barbettes should scale and be an option for the turret, not be a part itself, i.e. if i go into 15" turrets i could select a superimposed turret and it would that automatically get the necessary barbette, instead of choosing the barbette on its own it would be great if i could to some degree change the position where on the hull with a lower aft deck, the "break" in the deck would be, currently i often find the break to be to far forward to get a well balanced layout UI when changing or hovering over the different armor sections it would be great to have an overlay on the 3d model to see which parts are changed and what is actually covered, would be even greater if this overlay than also shows the internal arrangement, so i can see if my heavy belt actually covers the engines room i.e. i would like to be able to type in most values on the left UI side i.e. displacement, speed, armor