Warspite96

Huh, I just assumed it was an error. Specifically for US battleships, on a historical basis, there is no direct equivalent of the in-game guns since all US battleships used 5" guns as their secondaries, but for any other nation that used higher caliber guns as secondaries, their guns and turrets are often just ripped from cruiser mounted weaponry, very rarely if at all would a battleship get its own unique secondaries in high angle mounts. I guess the towers *do* make it difficult to put a generic 6/7/8" turret on. The cruisers still have incorrect turrets for the 6 inch gun, however, they should have the WW2 style turrets they used to have in-game but have the same model as the secondary gun for battleships.

To add to this, after further testing not only are the 6 inch guns the wrong model, but all US battleship secondaries above 5 inches are also just re-using the 5 inch turret model. Kinda hilarious being able to stack incredibly compact 5 inch turreted 8 inch guns on US battleship hulls.

The 1930s+ US 6 inch turret is just an upsized 5 inch turret instead of the 6 inch turret model, this wasn't the case a few patches ago so this seems relatively new.

Moved a part on a French Dunkerque class hull into the exact same place it was before because the game claimed it was "badly placed".........7 month refit. Thanks game!

1930s campaign, I have 4 CAs vs 3 CA, managed to sink one of the enemy CAs early and the last two attempt to flee, I split my ships into two divisions and begin pelting them from multiple sides.......and then three of my CAs randomly stop following my orders and start sailing in random directions unless I manually rudder them, even if I turn AI on the ships do a bunch of random nonsensical maneuvers like sailing in circles or sailing away from the fight. Excellent.........

Trying to load up a France 1933 save I made yesterday and its crashing to desktop every single time for some reason.

Since the most recent update my campaign map and UI is really blurry, almost like its not running at the correct resolution or something, but its fine according to my settings. Does anyone have a fix?

In my case it was the aft belt of a light cruiser, so it isn't protected by an inner belt. However I wasn't aware that the armour effectiveness is actually calculated as 240% instead of 140, it seems I've been misled by the in-game UI. So does this mean a gun's penetration value is given as its effectiveness against base armour quality values and not against what I assumed would be roughly 100% armour quality? Perhaps this needs to be made clearer in-game as now I am massively confused. 🤨

I'm curious about the mathematics that goes into successful penetration, my gun has 285mm of penetration at 10km vs 79mm of armour with a quality rating of 140% (so 110mm effective), the two ships were almost perfectly broadside with each other at the point of impact and my gun's velocity at the barrel is over 1000m/s so the guns fire at a relatively flat trajectory at that distance......I'm wondering where the other 175mm of effective armour is coming from to get a fully blocked shot at that distance? Sometimes it feels like there is some magical force stopping you from penetrating parts of a ship that should logically be easy pens.

I very interestingly just got a "No Defense Against Enemy" mission as Germany against an AI France who are threatening Wilhelmshaven......which is exactly where my main fleet is. I'm very curious what triggers this kind of mission that somehow France is attacking my fleet's home port....without engaging the fleet in it?

I've been getting A LOT of crashes on a new save, sometimes after only 1-2 turns or even trying to open menus. I'm not quite sure why the game suddenly feels so unstable. EDIT: I'm even getting hard crashes trying to boot up the game now.

Allow me to give you a non-ChatGPT answer. Assuming Gen III radar represents late war surface search radar sets, there's absolutely no reason a ship should go from spotting targets at 30-40km to 5 with a late war radar set, unless the weather somehow damages it. HMS Venus spotted Haguro from over 60km away in extremely poor weather conditions and at night with her radar, even Gneisenau using Seetakt detected HMS Renown outside of her gun range in poor weather.

The spotting penalties in bad weather seem a bit drastic, using a Japanese battlecruiser with Gen III radar and I didn't detect an enemy cruiser in a night storm until it was 5km away. Sure bad weather does affect radar performance to a degree, but surely not making a ship practically blind.

Also, I am hoping the AI follow the same rules as the player regarding detectability with this new weather system? Quite a few times now I've had AI ships get to within 10-15km of Gen III radar equipped endgame ships and still be undetected while blasting away at me from the shadows. Yes, radar is affected by weather, but it should be affecting their spotting too, which sometimes it seems not so.

I'm having an issue with ships not being able to go to their top speeds if you detach them from a slower speed division and form their own, they pretend they're still tethered to the slower speed ships and refuse to go faster. For example, I have a 30 knot BB class and a 26.5 knot BB class, both classes were in a single division but when I detached the faster ships and formed their own division, they're still restricted to 26.5 knots no matter what I do. It seems to be more specifically when ships start the battle in already formed divisions.

1930s+ cruiser vs cruiser engagements are still absolutely awful. I have Italian cruisers with the best fire control in the game, seasoned crew and mark 5 guns, and their hit chance at 5km is......4%. The enemy hit chance is not much better, so even at hilariously close ranges you basically have the warship equivalent of handbags being swung at each other and missing. Again, I think this is to do with the "target fast speed" modifier slapping ships with like a 75-90+% debuff to aiming accuracy, coupled with the weather system now further debuffing accuracy, makes for cruisers that can barely hit battleships accurately, nevermind other cruisers.

If you read earlier comments I mention Samar, surely you don't consider Samar the same as the "destroyer attack" mission? Those destroyers, while yes, theoretically "could have ran", it would have been absolutely absurd for them to do so considering they had direct orders from Sprague to screen the retreating escort carriers. Not even close to being the same as the mission in this game. Same thing with Surigao Strait, it's not the same as the "destroyer attack" mission. The Japanese battleships were practically useless against that night ambush, and those US DDs and PTs were still part of an overall larger command consisting of cruisers and battleships, whereas in the "destroyer attack" mission you supposedly "ambush" much heavier ships alone with a bunch of destroyers in broad daylight when the battleship knows you are there and is fully capable of fighting back with full efficiency.

In addition to last post, I'm not sure if this was intentional but some of the gun/turret models have had major size changes in the most recent update, I've had to refit all of my British cruisers because the 4 inch and 8 inch gun models have massively increased and some don't even fit on the hulls anymore.

That's.....true to an extent, but can you point out to me a time where a destroyer flotilla commander decided to risk his entire command to attack a force of battleships and cruisers as happens in this game? Again, it feels like you're getting your ideas on how destroyers operate based on battles like Guadalcanal or Samar or even Glowworm ramming Admiral Hipper, where destroyers were forced to engage much bigger ships because they had nowhere ro run or were caught by surprise and had to fight for their lives. Completely different to an independent destroyer command on the open sea trying to close down a battleship that very much knows they are there.

In a historical sense, there is very few engagements where destroyer captains have intentionally deployed to engage a much larger vessel, the sinking of the cruiser Haguro is probably the main example of this and that was done at night so the destroyers had a massive advantage with radar, unless you count early 20th century torpedo boats as DDs. In WW2, the vast majority of engagements where destroyers fought larger ships were either as part of fleet screens, or by being forced to when there are no larger ships present (Samar, for example). You are correct that DD captains tend to be very aggressive, but this is often when they are forced to fight for their lives, otherwise generally I'd say they have the same will to live as any other ship captain and would prefer not to sail their tin can towards a ship that displaces more than their entire combined flotilla, and has guns specifically designed to counter them.

I don't want to seem like I'm repeating myself, but please remove or at least tweak the "Destroyer Attack" ambush missions you are forced to do at the start of turns. It makes no sense a bunch of destroyers yeeting themselves at a battleship in broad daylight hoping to get torpedo hits, aside from a great way to get a lot of destroyers sunk in the process, and it makes even less sense that there's a withdraw button that never works, how can't a bunch of destroyers disengage from a much slower battleship on the high seas? Now that we have a weather system, my suggestion is to always set these missions to night, and perhaps there is a time limited window where the enemy ship is steaming at "low readiness" or something where you can set up the ambush accordingly, after that time window ends its all guns blazing from the enemy ship. Not particularly realistic if the enemy ship has radar, but way more realistic than a bunch of destroyers having to charge at a fully alert, very angry battleship in broad daylight.

I always play 1930 campaigns, and I notice the AI love to build cruisers and battlecruisers that are almost always absurdly fast (38-40 knots) and because of the "target fast speed" penalty to aiming, it makes them almost impossible to hit sometimes, even with the best fire control systems. I think the "target fast speed" modifier needs a rework (since its a very big penalty to aiming) but that's opening a huge can of worms regarding fire control in this game I guess.

Very happy with the new US destroyer hulls, the increased tower spotting range makes it actually useful at detecting targets at long range when you use radar. Previously a lot of destroyer hulls couldn't even spot targets at the horizon even with radar (which to be fair is still the case with most DDs but this is a vast improvement). Also, it's a flush deck, praise the flush deck destroyer hull! We need more of them across other nations.

Can we please get a fix for destroyer spotting ranges being absurdly low? I just had a 1v1 fight with a massive Russian 3,000 ton DD with my Italian DD with gen II radar and didn't actually spot the enemy DD until he was......4km away. Does the Italian Navy not use binoculars or something? I dread to think what the spotting range would have been if I didn't have radar. Would I have been totally blind?

Fighting convoy battles is not fun, every time I fight one personally the same thing happens: the AI spots your escorts, turns around and starts running away, even if they initiated the attack. Its making for very boring gameplay when the AI refuse to fight at all! I'm also seeing old issues like the stuck turrets and "ladder aiming 0%" bug happening still.