madham82

Aiming progress changes: The aiming mechanics got fixes and adjustments in their logic, so that they work overall better and more realistic. You will notice that when you hit a target then subsequent hits will happen more consistently unless the target maneuvers. Maneuvers will also affect the overall aiming progress more against a target, making fast ships have more chances on avoiding incoming shells (The UI is set to update slower for performance reasons, so the accuracy changes when you hover on target will be displayed not fully synced). Suggestion to change Fast to Agile, as I am sure that is the intent since you mention maneuvers. A ship's speed has no bearing on firing solution accuracy as long as it is known.

Maybe the fix is to not 0 it on a reset. 0 implies you lost range, bearing, speed, and course information. That doesn't happen if a target stays in visual range. Maybe reset it to 25% or something to indicate a degraded solution due to changes in target.

I'd never disagree with giving users a choice over what to show.

We also get HP/Flooding bars, damage counters, and a host of other unrealistic GUI features because.....it is a game..

A rework of the spotting systems has been acknowledge by the Devs to be coming sometime before summer. I and a few others have made numerous threads about the unrealistic results the current systems generates. The problem seems to mainly be "target signature" values being out of balanced, weather ones too. In the meantime, admiralsnackbar's rebalancing mod has found a way to produce more realistic spotting and engagements.

Simulated gun barrel erosion, so that there is a diminishing effect on accuracy for gun barrels that produce very high muzzle velocity for the shells. This improvement realistically balances the gun accuracy and fixes the human player exploit to create ships with overpowered long barrel guns with extreme accuracy. How is this being implemented exactly?

I wonder if a debuff to torpedo damage reduction to TB, DD, and even CL hulls is needed. Might be the easiest way to make them more likely to take serious damage. I'm thinking a lot of techs that give buffs to it are making them unbalanced on hulls that lack torpedo protection.

We think of 1890 to 1910s as not that long. But really we are talking 1970s computers vs 2000s computers in terms of the jump in fire control.

1. Certain armor schemes apply a "sloped armor" buff. There are also some techs in the tree that mention sloped armor too. 2. I don't think it makes any difference other than checking to see if the shell penned completely. If full pen below the waterline, then flooding. That's just my observations.

Not 1.09 I know for sure. Transports should definitely not get torpedo launchers.

Best advice in the meantime, save before auto-resolve and reload if needed. Auto resolve RNG seems to be the problem and needs tuning.

Indeed. This is where I would say just need to have a flat limit of ships for performance alone. Or at least, give us a campaign option to set a limit. That way people with potato PCs can manage it better, and those who really don't enjoy managing a huge fleet can do so too. Got a i7, 4090, and the patience of a saint to control that 100 ship TF...have at it!

So no red circle on the west coast but you can see it on east coast subs in port? Also not sure if it is still present, but I had issues in 1.09 with not being able to send any TF if I happened to click on the sea region name specifically. Would have to click around the text or zoom in enough that the point I was trying to go to wasn't in the text. Have not checked if this bug is still present in latest fix.

I typically only focus when you actually get the turn counter on something I want. It seems keeping focus on slows down progression on all other techs otherwise. Interested to hear others as the mechanics are not explained.

Need to see or explain this one a bit more. I have moved the bigger ocean going subs across before (have to island hop).

Not unplayable, but very annoying. Bug: Convoy attack missions ending as soon as last enemy warship is sunk, giving no opportunity to sink transports.

That's the AI torpedo avoidance bug. It seems as soon as a ship sees one to start avoiding, it gets stuck going a random direction. Basically it doesn't revert to formation keeping.

They should probably switch to something like Stellaris. Where you have naval capacity where each ship consumes some of it. Then tech to improve it.

Interested to see #2 get implemented as soon as possible. For #4, if you can at least add a button to jump between the two sides of the Pacific would do QoL wonders. Extremely annoying to have to scroll all the way back and forth. Makes it harder to track what is going on as well.

Supporting it was not my point. They "shouldn't" be able to order a refit unless you are refitting a ship they have already. That is the purpose and definition of a refit. This is what the Copy button is for. Now can the problem with the Copy button be fixed? Right now if you copy a design that doesn't have the latest technology (ex. shell types, propellant, rangefinder), you can't actually equip that design with it. It seems to be locked to that equipment (you can downgrade, but not upgrade). This is annoying, because you almost end up with the same problem...have to build a ship then immediately refit it.

I end up doing the same. If you think of it from the historical perspective, you only refit ships you weren't building anymore. Changes to an existing design that resulted in new construction were considered a separate class usually. So the copy and save as new really matches that. Is it a bit annoying? Sure.

Agreed, crew limits should be swapped for a hard ship count. AI already loves to spam smaller ships when broke.

Glad you brought up auto resolving. This highlights why encounter logic needs changes. I suggested in an earlier post we need to have whatever checks are done by the enemy AI once a battle starts that causes them to run done before an encounter is presented to the player. The fact auto resolve results in an actual engagement vs player battle (where the AI can run forever) shows the conflicting logic. There should be no logic checks in the actual battle. It should all take place before an encounter option displays. If the AI cannot "withdraw", then their logic should always be to fight. If they can withdraw, no encounter displays to the player.

Awesome, so you have proven it is a simple fix in reality. Hopefully that makes into their next patch. Thanks again for taking a stab at the problem!

@admiralsnackbar, what did you change in terms of spotting? Looks like it worked.