AdmiralObvious

Since the addition of poor weather, it's entirety possible for you to not even see half of the transports. Last time I tried it last night, it was midnight in a storm which didn't lead to a good result at all until I turret farmed with three cruisers, and only had 20 in game second left. Before weather was added, sure.

Are there going to be any balance passes for some of the earlier naval academy missions? Some of them are pretty insane to pull off early on in the list. Like "undefended convoy" demands that you sink 20 transports in 10 in game minutes, or "sink the raiders" involving you taking a predreadnought up against 3 heavy cruisers each with tech advantage and a price point of your maximum, per ship. I also noticed an instance in which the to hit chance on a target was acting like you'd see in a "visualized RNG generator" with the to hit chance rapidly changing per frame.

Can we get clarification on what this means?

This isn't happening on my client though. It's reverse once, forever.

There are several issues with the "reverse" button. 1. Once you reverse, the ship is permanently stuck in reverse for the remainder of the battle. 2. Ships basically stop on a dime when the button is pressed. 3. When in reverse, ships seem to ignore weather related speed debuffs.

I've been noticing an issue with the screening AI on destroyers in particular. When ordering single destroyer divisions to do an action off of screening duty (such as going on a torpedo run against an enemy target), and then later reattaching said destroyer to screen a larger ship from some distance away on many occasions lead the AI of the destroyer to completely stop the ship instead of attempting to reattach to the lead div in question and screen it.

It looks like the gun length modifier has been inverted on It's effects of gun reload in the tooltip where it shows shortened guns getting a positive (bad) modifier but the actual values go down and the modifier goes negative (good) when the barrel length increases, but in fact reduces RoF. Edit: These values seem to be corrected once you actually take the ship into battle.

Submarines and mines, like many of the mechanics in the game would work out better if there was a more direct actionable way to deal with them (the modules do *something* apparently), and if the AI was able to keep up without having their difficulty tweaked, then I don't think subs, nor mines would be a significant issue. As far as I know, there is no way to have your fleet defend convoys directly and have them target submarines (nor is there any particular understanding by most players how convoy losses/raids even work) specifically, and minesweeping is overall incredibly random (quite a lot like naval invasions too). Completely removing both would be a massive waste of previous effort that shouldn't be considered at all. The mechanics need to be refined and make sense and not get into overflow cases that just make complete nonsense occur. At most you should make these features optional, but you should not outright remove these features from the game, regardless of the poll result.

Users have already figured out how to mod things like accuracy modifiers and tech unlocks, but currently it seems that we aren't allowed to mess with, for example importing new hulls or gun models. Is this planned to change in the future at any point?

Is the visibility of ships affected by the same thing you have applied that doesn't slow down ships immediately on battle start in rough seas? I've been noticing that in poorer weather my fleets can usually see the enemy at the start of the battle but they lose this visibility by the time they get their guns turned and first volley off.

Fighting in the worst possible circumstances frankly isn't very fun for the player, and now we also encounter the issue where torpedoes are weirdly powerful again, partially because the waves don't affect the accuracy of their launch and partially because they're invisible in heavy sea conditions. I feel like some mechanic should be in play to reduce the efficacy of that kind of strategy. Currently it seems like the optimal strategy is to just fill your battleships with torpedoes since they're now much more reliable than guns in poor weather. Additionally, it doesn't seem like sea state has much of any effect on smaller ship classes. Torpedo boats in a near hurricane/typhoon really shouldn't even be able to participate in battles let alone score accurate shots on larger ships.

A question about how the time of day. It seems like in certain cases, "broad daylight" or generally the "day" time weather seems to give an accuracy penalty? It seems to only do this when compounded with bad weather like overcast, but it still seems weird that this effect compounds twice as a result of clouds.

I knew I was forgetting something. 😅

In addition to this, I feel resistance would make some more sense, if you applied the above, to reducing the fire chance on recieving a hit.

Can I make a suggestion in relation to the resistance mechanic? The problem. Even with the most recent changes to the way it works, late game, super battleships are still effectively immune to guns and this doesn't make much sense, especially since if history kept going in the way of big gun warfare, we would have potentially seen development of the 18+ inch guns, which were partially for their penetration against other battleships, but also due to their sheer devastating power once they hit something. The suggestion. Change the guns so that as you develop bigger guns that they start to negate the resistance values of the target ship. Currently, even with full penetration of a 20 inch gun to the core of a turtleback battleship, you're really only ever taking approximately 500 damage, which is still just extremely low considering the impact a shell that big burying itself into your magazines and engine spaces should be. If you add a logarithmic resistance negation for guns (and to a degree torpedoes) then large guns will have a better place in game compared to the current "meta" of stopping at around 14 inch as the all around best guns to use.

New hacked account spammed a "free nitro" phishing link. Please. Just one moderator that isn't a dev.

You get a random tech allocation from the last 3 effective years of simulation, so that's normal.

Found a new bug with higher speed ships deciding to not even attempt to track targets with guns if the ship is making a turn of any significance. These ships tend to have the turrets do stop/start motions as though they want to track, but then they stop. It's created cases where only the front and rear turrets turn, but the rest of the centerline turrets do not.

I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of decisive battle here. The issue is that it happens far too frequently, and that it seriously bogs down the game performance. You can have a beast of a PC, and when the game decides to send all 415 of the AIs ships at you simultaneously, against your fleet of 200, the game basically does not run.

Out of curiosity, does that ship have the blacked out Citadel bug I posted earlier before the rant about capping ship count?

This is a normal, working ship. This ship on the other hand tends to experience very unusual penetration mechanics, in a lot of cases, the game seems to ignore the fact the internal armor scheme exists, and seems to fall back to an older model? I'm not 100% sure if this specifically affects the penetration chance, or how the game sees it, but it has been noticed that shots that should be blocked by the internal armor scheme overpenetrate the ship instead?

So, I've been noticing a particular bug in regards to the new Citadel mechanics, and I think I've identified an issue that seems to be hull specific in that the game does not actually seem to recognize where the Citadel armor is on specific ship classes. I've checked this with the Super BB of pretty much every nation, as well as the N3/G3 classes of BB, and once you complete the ship build, the ships do not show the Citadel, nor engine placement scheme.

I still don't entirely understand how this system works after the explanation. With the old models before the Citadel rework, penetration was a 1 or 0. After this, it's harder to understand when a shell should penetrate the inner armor of a ship. So, for example (if you took out the RNG) how would a shell perform when it has ~80 inches of pen, and hits a 30 inch belt and a 15 inch back layer (assuming 0 armor quality)? Mainly I'm wondering, how much actual penetration is lost as a result of this, and does fusing make a difference in determining wether the shot actually goes through or not.

I'm assuming you modified gun barrel length? By default that makes no sense. With the new gun barrels and caliber shenanigans, it also doesn't make much sense either. However if you're talking about the aim bug, that 100% needs to be fixed.

https://discord.gg/gmv2fqzm