[Long list of issues (Please read)]

Barbettes that can actually be placed anywhere instead of 2 or three randomly specific places. 

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

Why is the friendly AI so broken 😭 does anyone else get issues of ships just randomly leaving formation to do a random loop? Then all the ships behind it in the squadron following it until what was originally a nice straight line becomes a complete mess?

[More frequent updates?]

The obvious solution would be to do what pretty much every other game like this does - have the 'good' updates on rare occasions, then a different version for the latest 'hot' update. Like minecraft does with its 'latest snapshot' option.

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

Sorry if I came across as a bit agressive old chap, think wires were a bit crossed.

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

Finally, is the AI hitting more frequently because they are designing better ships, or because the calculations are applied differently to players and AI? Using auto-generated ships would be a good way to test this theory.

Worth a shot a guess. It's possible my designs were unoptimised in some way, but the game gave me no indication. In my previous example the enemy ship in question had 15in triples which should be both less accurate and have a shorter range than the 16in doubles I had equipped. From memory the only part of my fire control which wasn't optimal was the rear tower, since (for some bizarre reason) the built in barbette was too small to accept my 16in guns. 

On an unrelated note, funny coincidence that drachinifel would release a video on range-finding today. 

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

25 minutes ago, Whomst'd've said:

It does seem weird that while using max equipment and still being unable to achieve hits is odd, cant say it has happened to myself. I found however that accuracy does depend on a lot in speed in a rather unrealistic fashion. When developing my battlecruisers I found that sticking to realistic armours and speed I would get rather normal slugging matches, but if I dropped everything for speed I was borderline untouchable. Maybe the AI you have encountered have a much greater speed difference leading to a drop in your accuracy?

I was getting hits, and the number of hits I was scoring felt fair to me, the problem was that the enemy were getting more and started scoring hits before me when I was supposed to have a technical advantage. As for speed, they probably had a speed advantage on me, although realistically if the enemy is maintaining a steady course their speed should be practically irrelevant. 

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

12 hours ago, DougToss said:

tl;dr. 

Building an accesible game around reality is easier than trying to balance reality to make the game accessable. 

People can wrap their heads around gunnery if it is explained to them, you don't have to cripple the model to suit them. 

I'm sorry but if I utilise all of the in-game information to make the most accurate ship possible and the AI still outperforms me in accuracy, then that is a problem with the game not me. Players shouldn't need to read swathes of literature on advanced ballistics to be able to achieve at least parity with the enemy... If I have max radar and rangefinders, RDF, top-tier towers, the most stable hull available, the most accurate form of gun available, perfect balance, optimised cruise speed, etc then I SHOULD NOT be receiving more accurate gunfire from vessels with INFERIOR EQUIPMENT beyond my observation range.

Having never played WoW or WT (at least not the naval part) I cannot comment on how they perform as comparison. I know from reputation how arcady that is, and I'm not advocating for that at all, but when the odds seem so stacked against the player, I don't think asking for a certain amount of balancing is unreasonable or 'dumbing it down'.

Quote

By all means, give them a sandbox to have fun designing ships in, but make those ships operate under real conditions. This is the Kerbal Space Program route - room for creativity, with great UI, and good tutorials and wiki - under realistic conditions. If you want to run a space program with spacecraft and missions as close to a real life as possible you can, if you don't understand spaceflight or just want to have fun in a sandbox you can too, but either way the sandbox is rooted in punishingly accurate and detailed reality. 

I agree with this exactly and believe this aligns with that I've been saying all along on the construction threads. I'm not asking the game mechanics to be changed to make stupid designs 'work', all I want is the freedom to do stupid designs. Rather than lock the ability to do certain configurations, strongly advise the player against it. 

 

At the end of the day I'm not trying to just piss all over this game. It's better than the opposition by a country mile, and has so much potential.

The problem is, it seems to be suffering a kind of identity crisis.  It wants to be nearly as serious as RTW but markets itself as something much more mainstream. At the practically AAA pricepoint you cannot do this and not expect a lot of unhappy customers. As it happens I straddle the market, WoW is too arcady, rooted in fantasy and honestly banal - RTW was too indepth and overcomplicated. I don't want the game to be dumbed down, but I want expanded freedom to be original and not to feel that the odds are stacked against me with no explanation for where I am going wrong.

rant over

[More freedom with building]

To everyone saying that allowing unlimited freedom would lead (somehow) to a bad gameplay experience, I invite you to play Kerbal Space Program (Which this game initially advertised itself as being like). You have infinite scope to be stupid, but that hasn't stopped it becoming immensely popular.

You have to think where the money is. Of the two target audiences for this game (amateur naval historian nerds vs people who have a general interest in battleships) the latter is a much larger group. By limiting the players to 'reason' you are alienating the main audience, wheras allowing unlimited scope is beneficial to all parties. 

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

Attempting the 'Destroy a Full Fleet' mission today has almost driven me to insanity. 

I first tried an accuracy based battleship platform. Maxed out stereo range finders, max radar, RDF, 16in twins... yet the enemy were able to detect and begin laying accurate fire on me before I had even spotted them!? Even once I had spotted them I needed to zoom over to actually see, since the markers did not appear unless I was close enough to them. I was down to about 50% structural (with similar damage on a single enemy BB) before they turned tail and ran, weathering my smattering of shots until the timer ran down. 

Next I tried tanking, with incredibly thick armour and more slightly smaller guns. Still no good, once again down to around 50% struc when I was swarmed by torpedo boats. Sadly the crews of my 2ndary guns were evidently blind since apparently 21 5in guns were incapable of taking down a single TB. 

Finally I just made as many small torpedo boats as possible... initially things seemed good taking down a fair number of their ships, but then the lack of map really began to play havoc, with divisions disappearing into the distance while I attended to units in the thick of it. There seems to be a bug where TBs get stuck just randomly going in circles which was fantastically helpful.

 

Overall my main takeaways are:

• either enemy long range accuracy needs nerfing, or the players spotting abilites need to be improved 
• Close range accuracy is absolutely appalling 
• TACTICAL MAP IS NEEDED!!!!!
• The AI regarding ships in the division needs a real look at, the way the flagship rank will change between ships in a division depending on damage seems good on paper, but ends up in utter chaos with ships pirouetting all over the place
• The torpedo warning should be repeated in the top right or something so that you know they're inbound if you're busy observing the fall of shot away from your ship.

 

Honestly I'm going to pin my hopes/predictions for the future of this game on what goes on in the next update. The seeming push to get the campaign out is admirable but seems to be putting the cart before the horse if the very basic gameplay function isn't enjoyable - because frankly playing some of these missions has not been an enjoyable experience for me, in either the design or combat stages. 

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

5 hours ago, DougToss said:

It's a ship without a doctrine or a mission or at best with a doctrine or mission that could be better accomplished by a lesser vessel for lesser cost or several lesser vessels for the same cost. 

I never said it was a good idea 😉

 

Quote

Now if you say, "because I want to" and "it's fun", well I have to give it to you. It's entirely subjective and I'm not against people having fun! 🥳

 I'm just saying there are many, many reasons why certain designs were never theorized or built, and because ship design and naval combat is not intuitive, design limitations channel players into areas where they will find success independent of them having theoretical knowledge of the subject. 

If I'm honest, nail + head. I want to mess around! It's really no skin off the dev's back to free up many of the current constrictions to improve the player experience. At the end of the day it's a matter of what this game is marketing itself as, and for whom. Perhaps a compromise would be some sort of system in the campaign which means that designs can be vetoed by some faceless 'navy controller' if they're too stupid, but give you no such limits in the individual missions or free-play? 

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

Oh, and another small suggestion:

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

21 hours ago, DougToss said:

 

I agree with most of what you said, but you are describing a primary armament. If you have lots of heavy guns, those are you main guns. 

Now, if you are arguing that a ship laid down in 1900 should have the main armament arranged in broadside, either casemates or like in the age of Nelson, I think that's absolutely absurd and should not be allowed, because it would never be designed or built. Fantasy or no, there has to be some grounding in reality. What nation would allow a 20, 000tn vessel costing what would be roughly $267,606,118 USD in today's currency (based on Dreadnought) with an armament that they would know, from the earliest napkin sketch, would be totally ineffective? 

I like that players have freedom to design imperfect, even bad designs, I don't think there is any point allowing them to design impossibly terrible ships, especially since that is a recipe for frustration for players that don't understand the theory and practice of ship design. 

I'm only saying that the game should not make arbitrary impositions on the numbers of specific items you can place. What If I wanted to make a vessel with a similar layout to the Victoria class ironclads but modernised? (Aka, a single extra-heavy turret). In the current game you are FORCED to place at least two main turrets... there is no need.

As for stopping the player producing totally absurd designs – you would have to have a very loose grasp on actual naval history to believe that mere absurdity was a barrier to many naval architects – one only needs to look at French vessels of the period – or ridiculous ships like HMS Furious, Admiral Popov, Virginia Class etc etc to see this.

What if I wanted to make a true 'large light cruiser' armed with many small-calibre weapons on a battlecruiser hull? Such a vessel could have practical use in certain scenarios.

At the end of the day I'm paying a not-inconsiderable amount of money for a game which for a long time likened itself to the Kerbal Space program yet forces to essentially build the same ship each time. 

14 hours ago, thesethawa said:

I'd like to say I expected the design to be much more freeform than I got when I bought the game. The ads made it look like you could make your own hulls and everything. Just having sliders and a few snapping points for attachments is kind of lame.

 

The game is interesting but currently it feels like I've wasted my money.

This pretty much sums it up. 

[Suggestions for more British style towers]

On 3/25/2020 at 6:12 PM, disc said:

I think we're going about this the wrong direction, personally. I think "towers" should be subdivided into separate parts.

Right now it's two big blocks that limit turret and funnel placement. We're beholden to these monoliths, and thus on the superstructures the devs have introduced and are planning on. Makes designs look the same.

I think it should have a Lego-like approach. We could have different blocks: deckhouses, bridges, conning towers, masts, fire control tops, secondary directors, and searchlight supports. You slot them together and get a custom result. Want an heavier fire control top? Use a stronger mast or place it lower, where its field of vision is worse. Or, have a light one atop the mast and a heavier one on the conning tower. Want a better bridge? Build up a bunch of platforms on the mast and make your own pagoda, or start from scratch with a big block like the King George V class.

Crucially, blocks could overlap to some extent. No more "wrong-size" barbettes -- just slot in a different one instead. On those hulls with cut down quarterdecks, the barbette could overlap with the hull structure, so no awkward squeezes there either.

Issue is that this would take a lot of work.

Agree with this 100%! I really cannot get excited at the prospect of the devs adding new, pre designed towers. They account for a huge part of a vessels character. The difficulty comes in balancing customisation with simplicity. A slightly more restrictive but potentially more implementable solution, would be to split the tower into 3 different parts: Bridge (which would include other auxiliary decks as one unit) Mast, and Top. Upgrading the bridge could improve turning radius and potentially stability, the mast and top would be a mix of cosmetic, and affecting accuracy/spotting etc (this could be both through construction such as cage vs tripod, and height as you suggest). By mixing these three components a much greater variety in style can be achieved.

Can I also take a moment to complain about the towers which include a superfiring barbette as part of them! NO! 

[>>>Combat Feedback<<<]

Now, to me the combat aspect of this game was of secondary interest to the building phase – after all the unique construction aspect is what sets this game apart from its competitors. Because of this, I can look at this aspect of the game with less preconceptions and perhaps can review it with more fairness. (My thoughts on construction can be seen here)

 

I am going to start by saying that I am still very much a novice at the combat part of the game. Although I have sampled a fair number of the missions, my success rate has been very low. Therefore I am going to focus most my comments on the UI, since I do not feel competent enough to critique the actual mechanics of fighting at this point.

 

My first comment actually comes before a mission even starts. You are given a screen which tells you the makeup of both your and the enemy’s fleets. Ideally I would like to be able to adjust my divisions before the mission actually starts. Say I have 4 battleships and I want to put them into 2 divisions; currently I must load the mission, pause, then go through the rather clunky system of changing things about.

 

On the topic of pausing, I found myself instinctively hitting the space-bar to stop the action. I don’t know if this is just because of years using video and audio editing software though. Just seemed the most intuitive bind to me!

 

I personally found the division controls at the bottom pretty unintuitive during gameplay. My natural instinct when I wanted to — say — detach a ship or add to another division — was to right-click on its icon, which instead changed its course. I would suggest potentially removing the separate icon, and consolidating those controls in a right-click popup menu. (mockup below)

A further optimisation could be the ability to simply click and drag a ship’s icon between divisions. Anyone who has used a software like photoshop would be familiar with this, like you are sorting layers.

These are my initial thoughts regarding the combat section. Once I have played a bit more I shall make some more comments. I will say, there does seem an unfair bias against the player in some scenarios. There’s been missions where I’ll pause almost as soon as I load in, and the enemy will already have shells in the air, before I have a chance to target them or my turrets can traverse. In another situation I spawned with an enemy torpedo boat a few hundred metres away who immediately launched a salvo of torps into my flank sinking me, giving me no opportunity to manoeuvre whatsoever.

[>>> Ship Designer Feedback<<<]

I know that what a lot of what I’m about to say has been said before, but I feel suggestion reports often work on a principle of ‘accuracy by volume’

I will preface this by saying that the compelling facebook adverts (which have slowly ground down my will into purchasing a £40 over the course of several months) are pretty misleading since I now see on here, that the devs have said back in October that they have no intention of implementing a similar system to adjust the hull. This borders on false advertising which I don’t think is fair for a game of this price!

In general I find designing a vessel a very straightforward process and which produces very realistic-looking designs, but the limitations are such that I find myself getting frustrated — which is sad since otherwise this game is the answer to my prayers. 

Essential changes:

• Superstructure and barbettes are extremely limited on placement. I understand locking to the centre line (although don’t necessarily agree) but having a very small margin of placement makes no sense to me. What If I wanted to make a Nelson-style ship on one of the ‘dreadnought’ hulls? Personally I think you should be free to place them anywhere there’s physically sufficient beam to fit it.

• ‘Secondary Tower - is needed’ ‘Main Guns - at least 2 needed’ Why? I understand mandating the main tower and funnels, but what if I want only one tower? What if I want to have no ‘main’ guns and use lots of heavy secondaries? Obviously there’s disadvantages to this, but that should be up to the player to discover, not the game to dictate.

• Similar to the above, why does it limit the number of some things? Why not let me have two secondary towers? Even worse, why limit the number of barbettes/turrets? Dreadnought/superdreadnought hulls seem limited to 6x centreline turrets, which is not only unnecessarily limiting to the player, but ahistorical (HMS Agincourt having 7).
• Although it seems trivial, cosmetic customisation will be key to maintaining player interest. The ability to place spotlights and lifeboats for example (and perhaps the ability to customise how the bridge superstructure looks?)  gives the player the ability to sink more time into customisation and become attached to their designs.

 

Nice to have 

Things which I don't consider essential, but would still greatly improve the general playability of the game. 

• Mirroring is very unintuitive, sometimes decides to turn off, the icon isn’t particularly clear either. Perhaps have a ‘ghost’ version of the mirrored item? Also, rotation should be mirrored.

• When you are in item-placement mode, left-clicking on an object already placed should automatically clear the selection. For example, if you’ve just placed a funnel, your cursor is still ‘loaded’ with the funnel. Currently if you click on, say, a placed tower, you’ll get an ‘overlaps with tower’ warning. Instead, it would be more intuitive if clicking clears the funnel and selects the tower.
• Left clicking on an object shouldn’t immediately pick it up, but simply highlight it. A second click should be required (or alternatively a click-and-hold) to move the object. This prevents you messing up a placement by clicking on an object by accident.
• Pressing esc while ‘holding’ an object should clear it. Then you’d press esc again to bring up the menu.
• Current casemate system is very restrictive, limiting you to the pre-provided slots, and leaving you with said slots if you decide to not have casemates. Instead hulls could be blank by default. When you select casemates, a strip will be shown on the hull for acceptable placement. Once casemates are placed, a slot will be rendered.

 

Basically, TL:DR this game currently doesn't allow you the level of customisation that is suggests, limiting your building needlessly. ALLOW PLAYERS TO BUILD WEIRD THINGS! If I wanted a generic 4 turret superfiring battleship I'd play World of Warships!

Thanks for coming to my TED talk