Cpt.Hissy

Where this guy is going? Notice, they're on "Follow". This particular case i know is a bug, was reported.

Hmm, this leads me to an idea.. What if it's intentional, like simulation of loss of communication? Just yet again undocumented, and maybe poorly balanced. Devs seem to love sneakily leaving in-progress mechanics in these patcnes.

Oh please no, no combined "towers". We need rather opposite, break parts down to the basic single function elements and simply allow us to combine them in whatever configuration we want. More flexibility, not less.

A hint here. If you focus the camera on the enemy and then move the camera (by WASD or mouse), this unlocks it from enemy and makes this info available from camera's position. Select your ship (but don't move camera over there) and point at enemy. May want to tilt the cam upwards, as info panel appearing above the enemy will be huge. I do agree it's bad UI design anyway

And i mean most of it's armour was under 1" (that 4" you see was something hardly useful like conning tower), no bulkheads, no bulges, no double bottom, no antiflood, no guys with buckets even i believe.

Yes please. But together with the fact that a ship this top heavy will tip over on launch. Let those silly gamers build their gamer ideas, and see how it doesn't work because it's not a cartoon dammit!

Subordinates can get stuck sailing in a straight line, or unnecessarily slow down to a crawl and never speed up again, or go somewhere out of formation on their own and never come back. In short, they stop actually following their formation leader and behave as if they had no orders. Fixable by kicking them out of this formation, or sometimes by repeated formation change commands. Happens very often, in fact during one battle this always happens at least once to every formation with subordinates. Seems like it affects AI controlled groups (both player and enemy) too, but less often. Maybe because AI less often issues new orders to it's formations.

Don't know what youre talking about. Was playing yesterday, and never encountered a Matsushima. Instead, it was more or less evenly split between all-forward designs, classic dreadnought designs (including fore-aft groups and midships turrets) and chaotic gunbarges.

So to solve all the clown car cases in current system, we need moar of everything this may become a problem...

Formation movement logic is still very much broken. I mean not AI and not commands. In multi ship formations, only formation leader always behaves properly, but all subordinate ships can and will randomly derp around at any moment. It feels like they stop receiving data that tells them how to manoeuvre to stay in formation, and continue to do whatever they did last. Like sailing in straight line. Affects only movement, gunnery and target swapping still works as normal.

At first glance, this is stupid. But look at it closer: these barbettes are integrated into the "towers" aka halves of a certain cruiser's superstructure. If it wasn't the case, this could be perfectly good design, even if very strange one: it has no protection whatsoever.

Yep, speed down to 20, belt down to 10 Easy win. Raiders had 9" guns max and this ship happen to be almost invulnerable for them. Lobbed shells at the closest one from around 8 km, while manoeuvring in such way as to keep my battleship between raiders and transports, and seriously damaged it. Then the rest two tried to sneak past me, or cross my T, so I turned hard to port and said hello to their leader from ~6.5km, he really liked it and fell behind with most engines knocked out. Last undamaged raider quickly went down, while his turrets became rockets, and from there it was just mopping up remaining hulks one at a time. First time i got spawned behind the transports and got insta-fail when one of them sank. So you kind of need to reroll starting positions until your warship becomes priority target on start. Or you may get lucky and have your transports hide behind your warships before enemy scores a fatal hit on them. Had many many many internal fires after superstructure hits, i wonder, if it's caused simply by "thin" deck and stupid deck pen stats we've discussed some time ago, or there is some special coding for this, to imitate collateral damage or fires going down vents. Hope it's latter.

This was my solution some time ago, but now it's overweight for whatever reason. Had 11" vertical armour al around though, i think by dropping this and maybe speed a little i can get it working again. Will try.

There is alternative way. This here button: To add some ships to a division. select them, click this button and select the division you want to add them to. To just group several loose ships, select all of them but one and here pick that last one to attach the rest to it. With multi-ship division selected, "Detach" button becomes active, it kicks selected ships out of division. If all the ships are selected, it effectively disbands the division. Don't know a way to quickly group up all the selected ships in a new division.

I would do exactly the same when going for efficiency. It's the lightest one that fits the desired turret, and it has no other functional differences, so why would you use anything else?

I still have impression that main reason behind stupid AI designs in current version is mostly stupidity of designer itself, AI just does it's best to bypass the problems caused by slap-together-real-ship-parts approach itself and all the unreasonable limitations like "you can't place sanely sized barbette here, only giant one" or "you can't place that turret here just because". And unreasonable possibilities like the big gun on smol thin barbette. It just does what placement allowances let it to do. Those "stupid" elevated main guns are there because AI wants some secondaries, but designer doesn't allow to place them where they would realistically go. So it puts mains on barbettes and covers the deck below in secondaries.

On that, i remembered it late, but.. That thicc barbette is there because that hull for some unknown reason doesn't allow any other barbette at that position. Which is one of countless designer issues. Not autodesign AI. Actually skinny secondary barbette forward may exist there for the same reason.

Oh. I need to test this. I believe i did lost it before due to timeout, while everything was still alive (couldn't see enemies, they plonked shells from max range and couldn't hit anything, and that lasted for all 6 hours), but it might change since then. But if so, maybe you could post it somewhere people can easily see, or literally just add that "or" into UI?

light cruisers? these are destroyers. often they were generated with no torpedoes or single smallest tube, and all the guns. I too try to build balanced-ish ship here and everywhere else, never made anything with kilometers of armour or 50 knot speeds yet. In aforementioned try i managed to close in and kill one of their cruisers, with my ship being able to hit something at all only when chances go above 10% (and suddenly it hits for about 10% of shots or so). Enemies start landing hits at ~1% chance and steadily increase hitrates as their chance grows, overall hitting somewhat more often than their chance suggests. While i fought that one cruiser, the rest of enemy fleet ran away to invisibility, and all my ships lost their speed due to damage and had zero chances to catch up with them. Convoy, as usually, sailed away unscratched, and logically mission "to defend a convoy" was successful, but by game mechanics it's a failure as you need to kill all enemies.

Couldn't beat it still. Definitely something very strange is going on Enemy has 8 of (slower firing) 17"mk2 guns and 2.5% chance to hit. I have 12 of (faster firing) 14"mk3 guns and 2.1% chance to hit they score 100 hits, i score none. I could understand even if they had twice the hits over mine, i'm not lucky. But.. basically infinity times more hits with what ought to do slightly less or evenly? also, "Bismarck" is now consistently not "Bismarck" but "Deutschland" on steroids, always 2x 4-gun mains and variety of secondaries.

underwater tubes already have most disadvantages in place. Awful launch angles, the fact it's one torp per launch. Don't know if they're as dangerous if being hit as they were irl They don't have launch speed limit, but that's perfectly acceptable gameplay compromise.

Making a topic for this to be seen. @Nick Thomadis and team, please add keyboard hotkeys for in-battle time control. I'll suggest spacebar for pause/unpause and maybe 1-2-3 for different speed settings, though those may live without hotkeys. Small thing, but makes experience noticeably better. Well and key remap screen may be gud too Now, to not waste a topic, everyone may add their own ideas for small, quick, but helpful things, so team may be adding those in next hotfixes. Please keep things small and simple, we have many other topics to discuss how something is broken or might be better

Rear barbette is biggest possible tho, so nope, still bad. Seriously tho, ships being like this showcase flaws of the designer, perhaps, even more than flaws of autodesign AI. Latter really became much better after patches that changed it. Now, this is my new superbattleship from "Prove your might". I'll see how it goes, maybe i'll be able to win it at last, or maybe these are 20" Mk5 guns or their cruisers are UFO's with plasmaguns. But this is no ship.

if you keep poking it with different orders and swapping divisions, it will eventually wake up and unglitch.

It may be related to torpedoes, as future overhauled fuel/propulsion type system for example.