aradragoon

Any chance to address the U.S. super heavy cruiser hull? Specifically, the towers don't make sense. The towers are more like Atlanta, which causes 7in and above to not work correctly on the hulls. Doesn't make any sense for a "super heavy cruiser" hull.

Thanks for the response! I will take some time to look over and understand all of this. The only thing I will say is I can say with certainty that I did check the shell types. (ballistic capped for the enemy and ballistic capped II for me) Also, the enemy was firing AP, and I was also firing AP. The damage of the 12in being lower than the 8.1 and the 15 confused me. I had expected that the damage of the 12in to fall more in the middle of the 2 enemy calibers. Just to be clear, not complaining at all. Just trying to find out if it was working correctly and if so how and why. Still a great mod and brings new life into the game for sure. (Also makes secondaries and small caliber feel more worthwhile.)

First thank you for taking the time to make this mod! Second I had a few questions I was hoping you might be able to help answer. I understand how penetration and such works in general and the historical values but does this mod also impact damage done? I haven't had time to do testing on a large number of weapons and such but there seems to be some disparity. As an example I am engaging an enemy fleet at around 10 - 11km with my destroyers and a battle cruiser while the enemy has TBs/DDs, CLs, CAs, and BB's. My BC is running 12in/50 mk3 naval artillery (I think +10% length but I could be wrong) as the U.S. As I engage the enemy smaller ships my BC is hitting the DDs and getting in the mid hundreds for damage when landing a hit as it is an over pen. I then hit some CL's and CA's. the CL's I am getting high triple digits and occasionally low 4 digits (1000 - 1100) over pen hits for overpens and when the enemy CL is bow on I might get 3 - 4k damage. The enemy CA's, which I thought would be different, are also generally just straight over-penetration usually. (Armor thickness is like 7.5 on enemy CA with +90%, so around 14.25in of armor when flat broadside. My penetration is around 24in at that range for main belt. I am going between bounces and over pens usually. I did manage to get 1 full pen on the CA that did around 3 - 4k damage. Meanwhile, my DD's 5in guns are hitting enemy TBs, DDs, and CLs for hundreds to thousands of damage per hit. My own 12in performance was a bit confusing but it got more so as the enemy landed a few hits. The enemy CA 8.1in over penned my DD and did 4k damage. I then had an enemy 15in over pen my destroyer for 9k damage. All this to ask how the damage model has been impacted and why? Alternatively is the US 12in just impacted alone or bugged? Potentially the mark 3 specifically? I know there are other factors as work as well so I am open to more information and input. Even so it seems like a 12in BC isn't well suited to deal with any enemy ship I am facing which makes me look at the guns themselves not working properly. Thanks for any input you can provide!

Glad it works for you, honestly, but I have not once seen it even out for me. If by running a monster you mean a computer, I am as well. 5900X with 64gb of RAM @ 3600mhz and a 3080. Also, running the game from a gigabyte nvme pcie gen 4 drive. Have chased the enemy for 2 and a half in-game hours and they kept swerving back and forth. (2 BCs supposed to be going at 28 knots.) It gets even worse when there are course and speed changes from the lead ship, which should theoretically take just as long to slow down, let alone if this happens in battle, though at that point it can also become problematic from other factors like avoiding torpedoes. My present fix is if they are doing this as I get to engagement range then I split them off and manually control each ship. Though this won't work well with larger fleets.

It seems like the ASW and mine sweeping either aren't fully implemented or aren't balanced against each other. My guess is the latter. Will take a good bit of work to get all the systems into a good state to work with each other. While understandable that things won't be balanced at this point it can make things hard in campaigns to test other features.

I think that would help but not be enough to make alliances feel fully integrated into the game. Having this allow resupply and docking at allied bases would be good, maybe missions where the game asks you to move a fleet to patrol along with an ally or something. Even so I think treaties are a must.

I want to start this with I sincerely appreciate the game devs and all the work you put in. I have done programming and I know how long it can take to do things and track down bugs. Now I posted this feedback on steam but I find it gets more attention via this forum, though I know its said that each forum is given the same attention. My feedback/suggestions, and please note I have extensive time in the game and this patch as well. Please also note that more information might be needed, and could be provided, but if I included everything relevant for full information I feel that this would make my post significantly longer. -Fix mines as they are not currently balanced. A small fleet (2 BBs, 2CAs, and 6 DD's where all DD's have minesweeping 4), all of my ships go into combat half damaged. I start to retreat and the next turn I get intercepted by a third nation. Half of my ships surrender at the start. The mine sweeping equipment seems like it does nothing, especially when DD's with the equipment are also being ALL hit, though I haven't taken the time to make similar fleets with the only difference being mine-sweeping equipment to calculate actual differences; the damage is incredibly high (seriously my BB's with triple bottom hulls, max anti-flood, and 18in of belt armor having 50% damage from the start in the first engagement as they approached Japan's mainland is ridiculous. Most mines would have minimal impacts against modern (late 1920's/early 30's and beyond) battleships. It also does not blend well with the crew surrender system at all. This mechanic needs a complete overhaul. Second to this, and maybe I am misremembering, when my ships are hit by mines, the floatability of my ships is still full... it seems the opposite of how they should function - Given movement speeds on the campaign map, it seems slow. My suggestion is to increase the movement slightly, and also I would recommend moving turns from 1 turn = 1 month to 1 turn = 2 weeks. I know this would require a significant amount of rework on multiple systems but after considering this over multiple patches and seeing the implementation of the full world map, I am convinced it would be the right way to go for multiple reasons. Though for brevity, I will say it boils down to making the game more fluid. (I can go into more depth as to why if needed.) Also because taking 6 - 8 months between 1910 - 1920 to get from Japan to Europe seems excessive. (That is with 20 - 22 knots cruising speed and 20 - 30k km ranges.) - Research still doesn't seem quite right. While I don't expect to get every tech at 1940 in every game, it still seems a bit slow, and without priorities, I feel that, by date, I am slightly behind and it would take 3 to 5 years after 1940 to get all 1940s tech. While problematic on its own this leads to my biggest complaint: research priorities. It feels like priorities are too much of a downside. With priorities I manage to get tech about a year or 2 early at most, in long campaigns, before I am supposed to, not taking into account the random tech distribution which occasionally places a tech in the list early, while placing most of my techs 4 or 5 years behind. I don't have a fleshed-out idea, but something to consider is changing the priorities into another feature. Something like older Hearts of Iron would be having scientists with specialties where you could choose 1 to 3 scientists that give buffs and debuffs. A possible example would be a scientist that favored using traditional naval artillery (say 1in to 14in) and gives a slight debuff to the artillery of a higher caliber and a higher debuff to things like submarines. This could be balanced with options that give bigger buffs to specific things with similar debuffs or smaller buffs with smaller/less debuffs. This could also be done by picking supporting admirals instead of scientists. This could be supplemented by also allowing different naval doctrines that could give different buffs/debuffs not only for research but for ship types and fleet compositions. - Long term I feel like invasion might be important to add as something that players can have more control over, as opposed to just bombing or blockading ports. - Alliances don't feel well integrated. When allied with another nation, say the UK, I can get into their wars as they start, and if an allied ship or fleet is nearby, I can fight with that fleet. Outside of this, alliances feel a bit empty. I can't coordinate with allies; if they are defeated, it feels like there isn't any real impact on my navy or country. - Treaties would be good to add. Beyond war reparations, the ability to enforce timed peace (say 1, 2 or 3 years though I know this would be a recommendation from the player and the government, read rng, gets the final deciding factor). Also, things like the types of treaties similar to the London naval treaty. - Nationwide projects such as canals that take time and money, similar to building shipyards, would be nice to be in player control. Possibly also with tonnage limitations that, again, like shipyards, could be increased. - Fixing the formations to properly follow seems like it would be important around this time, given the state of the game. My units going back and forth because they can't calculate the proper speed, heading, and distance from the ship in front all the time makes it tedious to control larger fleets. - Adding to the comment before, please add a fleet formation window for fleets that are set out together. -A more realistic mode, either optional by the player or tied to higher difficulty, that at the least doesn't show the ship information before the battle. I.E. not seeing before the battle that the enemy is engaging with BBs that have 18in armor and 16in artillery and a BC with 12in armor and 12in artillery. -Fix the VP system, as it seems to give the enemy VP points for damage your ships take from mines before the battle. I don't know if this is intentional, but when entering battle damaged, even after having fought previous battles while damaged, the AI gets VP points multiple times from the same damage. I.E. I get damaged by mines before battle 1. The enemy gets credit for that damage, let us say 20%. I take no further damage in the battle and go into battle 2 with the same damage, and the enemy does no damage but still seems to get credit again for the same 20%. - Speed seems a bit too important. Enemies seem very reluctant to engage unless they have massively superior numbers. I find myself having to make ships as fast as I reasonably can. This isn't the worst but I also can't tend to make accurate ships, like 21 - 22 knot ships circa 1900 - 1915 as the enemy still tends to try to run away. I have had engagements where the enemy has a BB and some CA's compared to my BC and a few DDs, and while my ships are slightly more advanced, the enemy makes a fighting retreat. It wouldn't bother me if this were a tactic based on various factors. However, I still find a disproportionate number of battles find me doing this unless the enemy has overwhelming numerical superiority. I don't have a complete fix because I also don't want the AI to play stupidly and just suicide. That being said, I think a possibility would be to indicate "immunity zones" for each ship relative to similar armament for their class: Option 1 might be to calculate this based on their naval artillery. I.E. a CA has 9in naval artillery, so a calculator will do basic calculations to determine if that ship was facing its armament at what range would it be immune to fire for the belt/deck and try to stay at that range. Option 2 might be to use standard gun size based on the decade. I.E. in 1920 immunity zones for DD's are calculated by standard 5in, CLs by 6in, CA's by 8in, BC's by 12in, and BB's by 14in. Note 1: This would be voided if a ship makes a torpedo run. Note 2: This would also have to be balanced with the AI determining at what range they can penetrate the enemy ship and deciding based on the enemy's immunity zone vs their immunity zone. Edited for clarity, grammar, and spelling

I have gone into a battle and had this type of swerving occur from the start from 2 ships of the same class without course or speed changes, which makes the problem more significant. Put it on x10 for 5 to 10m IRL (trying to chase enemies) and the ships are still swerving back and forth so it isn't just your explanation.

Started having this as well 3 or 4 years into the game.

This has been discussed to quite a lot in multiple posts and feedback. IIRC there are 3 diameters that give these results with 8in being one of them. I can't speak to why but it is already well known. Not sure if/when it will be addressed but as it really falls under balance it doesn't bother me if they finish adding features first.

Darn, had waited and just started a new campaign yesterday... guess its time to scrap that. Still thank you for all the work put in so far!

Also I have started having some issues recently where when I end the battle it never loads back to the campaign.

Enjoying the new features honestly but some feedback currently. Problems with the current version: 1. As mentioned before campaign map not allowing direct movement across the pacific. Not only movement but having the east and west ends of the map stitched together for easy map movement. Alternatively or in addition you could add a globe mode (probably low priority.) 2. Range on ships seems a bit messed up. My 1900's battleships I could make around almost 20,000 km while my 1912 BC was capped at around 13,000km. I understand how the techs play in but it seems like the hull may also have values that don't add up. This could fall under balance, though, so I understand if this tweaking waits until later. 3. Research speed - Research doesn't seem to be quite right. Playing as the US my research, while more advanced than almost every nation, was lagging far behind the dates for tech. I.E. I started in 1900 and by 1915 I was just finishing mark 3 guns, the 1912 BC, and almost every other tech I was getting to was 1904 to 1912. This was with 100% into technology. The fact that I was "very advanced" concerns me that by 1930 or 1940 I won't be able to get to the top tech currently if I start at the beginning of the campaign. While this may also come down to balance it makes it more difficult to test everything in long campaign. 4. Subs - It seems subs have a cost per month but no cost to build? Not sure if that is intended but something I wanted to point out. 5. With the full game map will we at some point get standard convoy routes we can have expressed on the map? I think it would be more helpful to have convoys to certain countries expressed on common routes, not that other routes couldn't be used, in order to allow the player more control on having shipping interdicted or sending fleets to support certain routes. (Might be something further away but still.) 6. This might just be tying in to the research but it almost feels like the finance screen could be worked on. As an example perhaps instead of sliders with a max we could allocate the full budget. I.E. If a player wants to get, based on current values, 120% into research (which could have diminishing returns over 100%) instead of stocking up on cash or building ships. 7. Ships teleporting back to port after being damaged. Ships should travel back and also present good targets as they limp home. 8. Options to have refueling at sea via tankers to increase range at the expense of a turn and also being vulnerable and possibly also floating docks later in tech to repair at sea. 9. Flaws - This is a big topic and I don't think flaws are implemented well currently but I know this is the first iterations so: I think a better way to resolve this would be to have the flaws start as unknowns. Given this is a game it could still show how many just with ? similar to how when you go into combat the enemy ship class isn't identified. I.E. You design a new BB and build the first of the class. This ship shows something like "BB Montana - flaw (?), flaw (?), flaw (?)" This could lead to the second portion. With this change we could then have the player offered sea trials and potentially a shakedown cruise. These could have controls, as well, added to duration and/or funding. It could then play in to a tech to determine how many flaws are determined. (Like say max time/money gives a base 90% chance to find and in addition with tech you can get over 100% in order to lower time. Numbers could be tweaked or potentially new tech makes it harder to find all the flaws without the tech, it could even be the same one to reduce flaws during construction.) This allows that with more time and funding you could determine all the flaws. From this I would say would come the most important portion of this new systems. The ability to assign time and funding to resolve these flaws. Perhaps similar to research but without impacting the current research times. (Such as you have a timer and have to allocate some much total funding/funding per month) which results in a refit of sorts. This would allow the player the control to determine if the flaws in the ship needs to be fixed and if the flaws need to be fixed a way to resolve them. Of course this would require flaws to be for a class and less per ship. Just throwing out ideas on how to have flaws, which I do think are needed, without making it completely problematic or honestly just too annoying to play with. Final comment but its 100% balance: Deck pen on standard guns is just not close to balanced. Looking at I think it was a 12in or 13in AP mark 2 or 3 it had 4in of deck pen at 1,000m which just seems over the top since the drop angle would be so minimal. (Around 1912 with capped AP just for reference)

Just to be fair You are designing but the shipyard can cause issues. Thus when you design it to be 100 tons under weight the shipyard could make mistakes. I was going address a better way to do flaws but I will make a separate post with some issues.

Appreciate all the work you and your team have put in. I know people want to see more fixes and changes but this isn't the final full game release yet and I do think overall the game is shaping up overall. Look forward to what the finished product will look like and what we might be able to see added after the game leaves early access/beta status.

Not specific to your overall argument but wanted to say with point 4: I think it would be amazing to have a different system that could be enabled at the campaign screen. The more realistic option could work along the lines of reality and most engagements will be an unknown number and type of ships while larger formations with screens have a chance to identify the number of smoke detected (I.E. 4 distinct smoke coming from over the horizon), total contacts with radar, or if spotter planes are added allowing number and possibly type as type of generated info. In all cases, besides possibly radar, even when you get information you can't always trust its the full extent. Just wanted to put it out there as I would actually enjoy that as part of a more difficult/realistic campaign.

RDF does make a green arrow on the map occasionally telling you the direction of enemies. My biggest issue is with spotting itself, honestly, when I have a BB with a giant mast unable to spot a CA at 8 or 10km but the enemy has already spotted me and is firing.

What is the armor level of the enemy ship? Citadel type? Inner belt? Angle the shot was taken from? (position of the ship and which turret along with enemy ship position)? Type of shells you are using for AP?

Yes sorry my question was directed more at the people saying "My gun has X penetration and the armor of the enemy ship is only 1/2 and..." P.S. Just to add I can't speak to whether everything is working properly/as intended was my second point since I can't see the code itself but it sounds like from what you said it is working more or less as intended.

With the partial pens, has anyone considered this is the result of the inner belt(s) and inner decks? I am not saying that it isn't messed up but rather just not complete.

I agree with the first part but I have to say the last part is just wrong. What is disappointing is despite so many early access games out people STILL have no idea how alpha/early access works. Yes this is still alpha, the game is NOT feature complete yet. (As evidenced by this update which is in testing and introduces large parts of the campaign) Alpha will address many bugs but the intent is to keep a relatively stable platform and add all features into the game in a working fashion. Then get a general workability and general balance. Beta, as in a true beta and not the beta of a specific version since terms have really gotten kind of convoluted, is where you really see bugs fixed and game balance focused on. The game is, at least supposed to anyway, be polished to a proper full release state. That isn't to say there might not be some additional features added but the This is not a defense of these devs specifically. Most of this was just behind closed doors before early access became so popular. (Which does have merits, don't get me wrong.) That being said, I have agreed with the communication for quite awhile. All in all, though, I would expect more updates like this until the game is feature complete and then worry about the large number of bugs, proper full game balance (things like 12inch is slightly too strong. Things like penetration not working I think is problematic enough to warrant fixing so other features can be properly tested), and overall polish. I can't say with certainty it will get to the point people will like but I am hopeful.

Understood, thanks. Didn't know if it was known.

Ran into an interesting "bug" if that is the right term. Under rangefinder research I researched radar 2 before radar 1.

Found a potential bug. Had my fleet out and designed a refit for my battleships. While the battleships were out on sea patrol I selected to start refit (13 months). I waited a turn and noticed it still said 13 months and moved my BB's back to port. They arrived at port the next turn (2 turns after starting refit). Didn't check that turn but hit end turn (now 3 turns) and looked at timer and the refit was done (essentially instantly but at best 10 months early).

I agree with all this. I would add, though, that we are also missing tech research to improve the economy. I.E. making transports build faster (like liberty ships as an example), increasing civilian shipyards or the ability to use military shipyards for transports, tech to increase the size and/or cargo capacity of transports, speed of transports etc. Also it might be nice to see some military upgrades for transports like increased protection or possibly even transport ships that are disguised smaller warships.