aradragoon
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by aradragoon
-
-
21 hours ago, o Barão said:
o7!
Yes. Every ship class have two global modifiers that will have an impact in how much damage is dealt after getting a hit by a gun or a torpedo. In N.A.R. I made the DDs, TBs and the merchants more vulnerable to both hits by shells and torpedoes.
I also lowered HE fire chance probability. *Global modifier.
From my understanding, you are using guns with too much penetration power against weaker targets. Good against BBs but too much against cruisers or even worse against DDs. However, against DDs the 12" are great if using HE, unless you are using incendiary shells.
Note, that there is a parameter that will determine if you get a overpen or not. If is double the armor effective value, then you will get a overpen. You can see this below.
over_penetration_threshold,2,penetration threshold over armor to over-penetration (ratio),10,,,,,,
But take note, that there are also two penetration randomizers. So don't go crazy about if you get a overpen when the UI is saying that is impossible, or vice versa.
penetration_randomness,0.05,small randomness of penetration (ratio),0.1 [0~0.15],,,,,,
penetration_skewing,9,"right skewing of penetration randomness, additional multiplier (0-9)",0,0~9,,,,,I think it is best to post all damage modifiers here. It is a big list, but is good for all players to understand how complex are this game mechanics.
#,,Damage,,,,,,,
part_basic_size,0.45,fixed old issue: it is now a strict multiplier of part size for calculating dmg,10 [5~15],10.5,,,,,
main_gun_ricochet_chance,70,chance to richochet from main guns' turret,30,,,,,,
penetration_randomness,0.05,small randomness of penetration (ratio),0.1 [0~0.15],,,,,,
penetration_skewing,9,"right skewing of penetration randomness, additional multiplier (0-9)",0,0~9,,,,,
armor_damage_threshold,0.25,penetration threshold over armor to damage armor (ratio),0.8,0.4,,,,,
armor_damage,0.16,damage multiplier due to partial penetration,0.33,,,,,,
ap_base_ratio,0.6,The default AP/HE ratio for ship's shell rounds,,,,,,,
ap_base_weight_modifier,1.25,Modifier for AP weight,,,,,,,
he_base_weight_modifier,0.9,Modifier for HE weight,,,,,,,
over_penetration_threshold,2,penetration threshold over armor to over-penetration (ratio),10,,,,,,
over_penetration_min_armor,12.7,minimal amount of armor always present to track over-penetration (mm),25,,,,,,
over_penetration,0.085,damage multiplier due to over-penetration,0.33,,,,,,
penetration_1st_layer_reduction,0.6,Base Reduction of penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck,,,,,,,
penetration_2nd_layer_reduction,0.3,Base Reduction of penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer,,,,,,,
penetration_3rd_layer_reduction,0.125,Base Reduction of penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer & 2nd layer,,,,,,,
penetration_turret_reduction,0.8,Base Reduction of penetration power after penetrating side/top armor of turret,,,,,,,
barbette_armor_modifier,1.06,modifier to simulate the dissipation of shell/torpedo penetration after first hit,,,,,,,
barbette_extra_damage,2.5,Damage multiplier when penetrating barbettes,,,,,,,
he_use_threshold_low_anglemodifier,1.8,modifier for increasing the chance to switch to HE according to target angle,1.2,,,,,,
he_use_threshold_low,0.4,threshold of low penetration relative to belt to switch to high explosive shells,0.5,,,,,,
he_use_threshold_high,5,threshold of high penetration relative to belt to switch to high explosive shells,10,,,,,,
he_penetration_mod,0.2,penetration modifier from using he shells,0.2,,,,,,
ap_damage_mod,1,multipler for damage from armor piercing shells (guns),3,,,,,,
he_damage_mod,1.66,multipler for damage from high explosives shells (guns),3,,,,,,
no_ricochet_threshold,1.5,"n-penetration rule: if armor is too thin (n-times smaller than penetration), never ricochet",10,,,,,,
ricochet_angle_from,30,angle above this to side can produce ricochet (except he shells),45,,,,,,
ricochet_angle_to,50,angle above this will give maximal ricochet chance,60,,,,,,
ricochet_chance,55,"if ricochet is possible due to angle, chance if its happening",70,,,,,,
flash_fire_armor_mod,0.5,multipier to increase armor to trigger flash fire,1 [1~2],,,,,,
ammo_detonation_armor_mod,0.1,multipier to increase armor for ammo storage from turret's armor,1.1 [1~2],,,,,,
ammo_detonation_torp_dam_to_pen,1.75,"convertion of torpedo damage to penetration (multiplier), for ammo detonation",1,,,,,,
ammo_detonation_chance,155,ammo detonation chance (if penetrated),20,33,,,,,
ammo_detonation_chance_torp,55,ammo detonation chance for torpedo hits (if penetrated),35,,,,,,
torpedo_detonation_chance_mod,100,torpedo launcher detonation chance if destroyed,50,,,,,,
ammo_detonation_big_cal,24,below this inch caliber size ammo storage is much more smaller,12,10,,,,,
flashfire_big_cal,24,below this inch flash fire chance is much smaller,12,,,,,,
ammo_detonation_maxdamage,10500,damage that totally depletes the exploded ammo,,,,,,,
section_damage_ammo_detonation,1950,basic damage to section if ammo storage detonated,1000,,,,,,
torpedo_damage_ammo_detonation,400,base damage caused by torpedo launcher detonation,,,,,,,
torpedo_detonation_maxdamage,1500,damage that totally depletes the exploded torpedo ammo,,,,,,,
surv_ammo_detonation_dam_decrease,40,percent ammo detonation damage decrease (from max survivability),65,,,,,,
section_fire_chance_ammo_detonation,2000,chance for fire if ammo storage detonated,200,,,,,,
section_flooding_chance_ammo_detonation,2000,chance for flooding if ammo storage detonated,100,,,,,,
module_damage_chance_ammo_detonation,160,chance for module damage if ammo storage detonated,80,,,,,,
flash_fire_chance,100,"chance to ""start"" flash fire if can ammo detonate (but not detonated) (not explode yet)",20,70,,,,,
flash_fire_time,9,delay before flash fire explosion,30,30,,,,,
flash_fire_time_spread,7,"same, but for flash fires started from spreading",10,,,,,,
flash_fire_explosion_chance,110,chance for happening flash fire to explode,50,50,,,,,
section_damage_flash_fire,2150,basic damage from flash fire,1000,,,,,,
flash_fire_spread_chance_explode,110,chance for flash fire to spread if exploded,80,,,,,,
flash_fire_spread_chance_nonexplode,85,chance for flash fire to spread if not exploded,25,,,,,,
damage_randomness,0.99,small randomness of damage (ratio) (for guns),0.2,,0.75,,,,
damage_skewing,9,"right skewing of damage randomness, additional multiplier (0-9)",0,0~9,5,,,,
damage_randomness_torpedo,0.375,small randomness of damage (ratio) (for torpedoes),0.2,,0.3,,,,
damage_skewing_torpedo,4.5,"right skewing of torpedo damage randomness, additional multiplier (0-9)",0,0~9,4,,,,
section_damage_gun,985,base damage to section (from gun),15,149,,,,,
section_fire_chance_gun,8,basic chance of fire in section (from gun),10,,,,,,
section_fire_chance_gun_deck,12.5,"same, but special chance of fire if hit deck sections",10,,,,,,
section_flooding_chance_gun,0.25,basic chance of flooding in section (from gun),20,,,,,,
module_damage_chance_gun,50,basic chance of damage to module (if present) to module (from gun),20,,,,,,
section_damage_torpedo,940,base damage to section (from torpedo),70,275,,,,,
torpedo_dud_base_chance,55,base chance for not exploding torpedoes,60,,,,,,
torpedo_premature_explosion_chance_mod,0.07,modifier to dud torpedo chance that can trigger premature explosion of the torpedo,,,,,,,
torpedo_deviation_chance_mod,0.4,modifier to dud torpedo chance that can trigger deviation of path for the torpedo,,,,,,,
section_fire_chance_torpedo,15,basic chance of fire in section (from torpedo),15,,,,,,
section_flooding_chance_torpedo,10,basic chance of flooding in section (from torpedo),80,,,,,,
module_damage_chance_torpedo,75,basic chance of damage to module (if present) to module (from torpedo),50,,,,,,
flooding_mod_chance_from_damage,1000,"multiplier to chance of flooding, if section is fully damaged (linearly scaled)",3,610,,,,,
destroyed_section_damage_penalty,0.2,,,,,,,,
damage_section_spread_mod,0.6,multiplier for damage spreading to other sections,0.6,,,,,,
engine_hp_to_fcap,0.001,convertion of engine's hp power to fcap requirement (multiplier),0.001,,,,,,
engine_slowdown,90,max slowdown of ship due to engine damage (percent),90,,,,,,
structure_slowdown,40,max slowdown of ship due to structure damage (percent),50,,,,,,
flooding_slowdown,80,max slowdown of ship due to flooding (percent),80,,,,,,
surv_flooding_slowdown_decrease,55,survivability effect of decrease of flooding slowdown (percent) (from max survivability),40,,,,,,
slowdown_max_single,95,limit for slowdown from any single factor (percent),95,,,,,,
slowdown_max_all,99,limit for slowdown combined all-together (percent),99,,,,,,
damage_fire_control_to_pen_conversion,0.2,modifer of damage dealt to main tower to convert it to armor check vs A.Superstructure,,,,,,,
damage_con_tower_to_pen_conversion,1,modifer of damage dealt to main tower to convert it to armor check vs A.ConningTower,,,,,,,
hit_chance_conning_tower,50,chance to hit conning tower if main tower is hit,20,,,,,,
hit_chance_fire_control,50,chance to hit fire control if main tower is hit,20,,,,,,
conning_tower_damage_acc_loss,0.85,loss of accuracy due to damaged conning tower,0.5,,,,,,
fire_control_damage_acc_loss,0.7,loss of accuracy due to damaged fire control,0.35,,,,,,
fire_damage,0.33,base fire damage percent per second (to structure),0.5,,,,,,
fire_damage_part,0.1,base fire damage percent per second (to part),,,,,,,
surv_fire_decrease,65,percent decrease of fire damage due to fire (from max survivability),65,,,,,,
flooding_water,2.15,base flooding water percent increase per second (to water level),1,2.5,,,,,
pump_water,0.4,remove water by pumps from non-destroyed sections,0.2,,,,,,
surv_flooding_decrease,55,percent decrease of water from flooding (from max survivability),80,,,,,,
surv_pump_increase,50,percent of pumping increase (from max survivability),100,,,,,,
fire_stop_chance,35,basic chance to stop fire (every 10 seconds),10,,,,,,
flooding_stop_chance,2,basic chance to stop flooding (every 10 seconds),5,,,,,,
surv_flooding_stop,20,percent additional increase of flooding stop chance (from max survivability),10,,,,,,
water_stop_fire,80,threshold of water level (due to flooding) to stop any fire in section,80,,,,,,
fire_min_dur,45,minimal duration of fire (in seconds),15,,,,,,
flooding_min_dur,30,minimal duration of flooding (in seconds),15,,,,,,
water_spread_threshold,20,threshold of water level to start spreading into nearby sections (percent),80,,,,,,
water_spread_flood_mod,0.4,water spreading multiplier relative to normal flooding (affected by surv too),0.2,,,,,,
fire_spread_chance,20,"chance of fire to spread to one nearby section (percent chance, every 10 sec)",5,,,,,,
ap_fire_mod,0.8,fire chance multiplier for ap rounds penetrations,3,,,,,,
he_fire_mod,3.5,fire chance multiplier for he rounds penetrations,3,,,,,,
repair_module_chance,5,chance to repair module (every 10 seconds),5,,,,,,
structure_sink,100,percent to be sunk of structure damage sum relative to total structure,40,,,,,,
fire_sink,70,percent to be sunk of sections with fire relative to all sections' amount,80,,,,,,
flooding_sink,65,percent to be sunk of flooding levels sum relative to total floodable sections,65,,,,,,In my opinion the devs are to be praised for trying really hard to simulate all possible things that could happen in the battlefield. The issue is for a player trying to understand why X happen in battle and not Y without understanding what are the modifiers behind the calculations and how they work. My advice is not to go crazy about how this values work, but instead use common sense that you got from the experience in just having fun playing the game.
You are comparing different caliber guns, probably using different shell types, some HE, others AP, some getting overpens, others full pen, against a variety of targets in a chaotic situation (battle). That is the worse situation possible to study the guns behavior. I strongly recommend to test a specific gun against a specific target (design the AI ship) in custom battles. Test to see at what ranges you get overpens if hitting near 90º, how the damage is being applied if using this type of shell or the other one, etc, etc....
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! -
29 minutes ago, jw62 said:
It evens out after a little bit. It's not a real driver or even an AI, it's just an algorithm, give it a break
I think it's something they can tweak a bit more, I think the lead ship may have a slightly slower speed to allow the rest of the ships to adjust, but the rest of the ships may be starting out a quarter knot higher at full or cruise. The ships are modeled pretty good in a lot of ways, but each battle-line has to base off the leader, and it just takes some time to adjust until they are all running smoothly together. It could be raw processing power makes it run smoother faster, my coding skill is limited and way out of date but I am running a monster, and it evens out over time for me, usually before I get to engagement range.
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. -
22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
IMO.
BBs/large hulls are still turning on a dime. It’s related to Auto-Avoid Torps, it enables ships to turn a smaller radius than designed capability, especially prevalent when AI avoiding player torps. Also damaged engines/rudder does not affect or diminish Auto-Avoid. Totally unrealistic and very damaging to the game’s image, i.e. looks too arcady. Also weakens AI when player turns on.
AI places/designs one off caliber guns and/or multiple calibers, breaks game maker own rules of shell splashes accuracy effect and penalties apply. Weaken AI.
AI designing superfast CAs, sacrificing armor/survivability, frustrating to hit and when hit, too easily destroyed and AI is penalized by fast turns. Weaken AI, Unrealistic, Image damaging.
VPs added to tally for pre battle damage or unrelated damage. Just frustrating.
DDs or minesweeping tech is not working or having minimal effect, player side. If working as intended then we need info or event message to say, “x number of mines cleared by #”, i.e. ships were saved!
AI not investing in minesweeping tech for designs, inclusion should not be minimized. AI suffering huge losses. Also weakens battle AI – as and when entering battle after such damage.
BBs only TF not dying to submarine (x3) TF. This is very Unrealistic.
DD TF vs SS TF, seems randomized, DDs should have decisive advantage. Maybe ASW not working fully, yet.
We can't see the damage of our ships in the world view pre mission/ship info tab. We need to know this for selecting options, especially needed post turn with ‘meetings’ but we are lockout of viewing such general information.
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.-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Skeksis said:
What's needed is another level of alliance, ‘Military Pack’, where units in each other’s territory doesn’t raise tension.
So, if have alliance for x months then a Military Pack is offered:
E.g.
- 3 Months – 100, 000, 000.
- 6 Months – 250, 000, 000.
- 12 Months – 450, 000, 000.
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.
-
1
-
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-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, jw62 said:
They swerve like that because they cannot adjust their speed instantly. It certainly looks weird, but its realer than you think. It takes time for a formation to all get to exactly the same speed, and there are no brakes. So just like a ski slope, you've got no choice but to slalom down that "hill" or hit that big steel ass in front of you
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.
-
34 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:
I had a couple of crashes on "Building New Ships" between rounds.
Crash as in, if I do nothing the game just gets stuck there and if I make a click or hit a key, I crash back to Desktop.
Started having this as well 3 or 4 years into the game.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, havaduck said:
While this change is most aprreciated, I dare say even overdue, it still doesnt fix the interaction with "magical guns" and "fairy dust" aka sliders. This is me (havent really started) to casually build an 1890s japanese heavy cruiser with over 50 % accuracy on the main guns. Do I need to mention an 6 or 7 " gun accuracy base is at 9 to 9,5 % ?
and this is how an "non magical" aka 7" gun reacts to the same fairy dust? (and no its not the gunsize, a "non magical" 9,9 " gun gives just 17 % )
Speaking of Sliders: If you use them, and then wanting to build close to tonnage is a pain in the ....... You can either use the slider to build something like an 4464 ts ship or you have to typ the desired value in. But typing in 4500 just gives a ship WAY under that limit. Cant remember what number I had to use but something like 5145 or so will actually give a 4500 ts cruiser.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Beta Update 6 (22/10/2022)
Warning! Saves reset! Campaign long turns, and various bugs would be unavoidable with old saves.
- Fixed major issues of map pathfinding which were also causing severe turn lags. Now you should notice a faster resolution of campaign turns. Moreover, the ship movement on map is more consistent.
- Fine tuned Technology Research, Fuel Consumption, and various other aspects of the campaign.
- (New feature) Gun length settings depended on technology: The maximum gun length caliber is now researchable in “Turret Mechanisms” (and can be increased a little further than before), simulating the needed metallurgy developments to allow durable large caliber naval rifles which previously were unrealistically available too early in the technology era.
- Fixed bugs of flaws mechanics which caused various issues with the calculations. Please check if late era ships have less defects and if refits now repair those issues more consistently than before.
- Battle AI & Targeting balances.
- Nearest Supply Port now takes into consideration not only the distance but also the Port Capacity of distant ports. Moreover Supply ports can be not only those you own but also those of your allies. Consequently, supplying Task Forces with ammo and fuel in distant waters can be now more effective.Please Restart Steam to receive the new update.
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)-
3
-
-
16 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Take the overweight flaw. The very main control factor in designing ships, weight, every single component you add to the weight is carefully considered to optimize your design, right down to a single ton, BANG it's now overweight by 7%:
- Increased costs.
- Requires more engine power.
- Decreases maneuverability.
- Increases target signature.
Damn me now why bother designing best optimal. That's just one of them.
@Baboulinet @Pappystein @PalaiologosTheGreat, a robust debate best serves the Dev's.
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.
-
52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
*UPDATE FINAL* (5/7/2022)
- Improved Auto-Design speed/memory usage. (Campaign turns will pass faster, in general the auto-design will be faster and equally effective).
- Lessened greatly some penetration randomization factors which could create unfavorable shell hit results.
- Added temporary extra mechanic for Game Over: When all non-allied major nations are totally defeated, then the game ends. (Previously it would continue forever with small chance to break alliance). In the next update we will add more mechanics to prolong the campaign further.
- Crew Pool Reserve cost will become minimized when it reaches a certain ratio vs the amount of crew used in ships. In this way, any excessive crew not used, will act as a cost-effective reserve.
- Increased Port Capacity Growth.
- Crew damage from HE penetrations and Fire lessened.THIS IS THE FINAL BETA UPDATE (WE WILL RELEASE THE LIVE BUILD IN A FEW HOURS - WE CAN FIX ANYTHING ELSE YOU FIND CRITICAL IN A HOTFIX)
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.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Littorio said:
Let's handles this point by point shall we?
1. "Having visible ranges....balance...different classes...same instance...own purpose" - Uhhhh no. Are you telling me that the only difference in your battles between a BB and a TB is how far their respective, gamey memetower with it's particular "values" can "spot" the enemy?
If so, I don't know what kind of ships you are building. The differences should be patently transparent: vastly different armament, armor, speed, hull durability, crew size, propulsion, etc. Trying to say "Ohh well the #1 distinguishing feature between different vessels is their god-gifted sight range from their super-special towers!" is ridiculous. They will behave differently and have different roles based on all of the aforementioned characteristics. If you keep DDs in a line trying to hit BBs, that's on you.
2. "If all visible...rapid death...destroyers...slugfest...horizon...every battle" - Wrong again, because for some reason you seem to think that a "visually-acquired target" directly translates to "we can accurately hit that target repeatedly at this range." This doesn't bear up to the historical reality that we are suggesting be followed. If what you stated was true, no navy would have ever built anything but BBs, because any other class of ship in battle would be useless, unable to see and thus hit larger ships at range.
I fail to see any condition in UAD in which simply being aware of an enemy vessel on the horizon suddenly translates to being able to hit them squarely time and again. There will always be uses for different classes of vessels. Obviously, BBs are meant to fight other BBs. You seem to be of the simplistic belief that fleet actions wouldn't have many more moving pieces. Lighter ships are meant to fight their counterparts, not the larger vessels (usually). DDs kill TBs, CLs kill DDs, and CAs kill CLs. Anything else is just happenstance and particular battlefield positioning/luck (i.e. a timely torpedo run from light vessels on the battleline).
The scenario you are describing is just BBs siting back and annihilating everything they see from the moment they see it, which is of course ridiculous both in game as well as in reality. BBs can't even reliably hit what they CAN SEE NOW based on your ridiculous spotting fog. Why would that change and increase greatly given another 10-15km of vision???
3. "But in UAD even blind-firing enemies challenges the player, you cannot deny that." - I would not say this current system imposes any more challenge, so yes, I will argue that point. Sure, it's ANNOYING to be invisibly shelled by a vessel I can clearly see the shells ORIGINATING from (or even better surrounded in a CL "smoke ring" clearly marking it's position for all to see - defeating your and the games point of this invisibility adding more "challenge"..). Sure, it makes more of a PAIN to fight every battle, particularly a ship fleeing as it shoots invisibly. Sure, it makes the battles LESS tactically-inclined because no one can make any actual fleet moves but must instead flail about in a literal, non-weather created, dev-mandated "fog."
Instead of having something like Jutland happen, with escalating situations and runs to the south because we see BCs but don't know BBs are just over the horizon, we have an ever-increasing number of Guadalcanal brawls with a mass of ships engaging point blank on top of each other.
4. "'Ease' the challenge'" - And this one just takes the cake as your most ridiculous statement yet. We, the players who want to do away with this fake, battle-map-centric system of "spotting" that negates WHAT WE WERE ALREADY TOLD on the campaign map, (enemy type, armament, speed, etc) and which you haven't addressed AT ALL in your poor response, are the ones pushing for a harder challenge based on reality. YOU, and those supporting your position, be they devs or players, are the ones pushing for an easier challenge. You just stated it above: "If all were visible then it’ll be a rapid death of destroyers to cruisers, cruisers to battleships and battleships in a slugfest to the horizon, every battle. At some point realism has to be balanced for gameplay."
Thus, you feel it would be too hard to compensate for "long-range battleships able to pummel all others" or some such equally nonsensical notion. I already addressed that above, in this doom scenario you describe, the escorts of each fleet would be focused on each other, and the BBs their counterparts. "OMG WHAT IF THERE ARE NO BBs ON THE ENEMY SIDE! WOULDN'T I JUST DOMINATE, OR VICE VERSA IF IT WAS THEM???" So you want every encounter balanced? Who is wanting it easy now? Not every battle featured symmetrical opposition, and indeed most did not.
Regardless, as I stated above in passing - your argument is lacking as it completely disregards any notion of campaign-map, operations-level scouting, reconnaissance, and intelligence, which would abrogate most of the issues on the battle-maps anyway. In a manner, the game already hints at this as it gives you enemy classifications and details entering a given fight. IF WE KNOW THIS GOING IN, which means we sighted and classified the enemy already, WHY IN NEPTUNE'S SALTY BEARD do we need to do it all over again in battle!?
You want to talk about what is "best for gameplay"? Ok, how about not having players chase smoke sighted for 10 mins until the game lets them exit? How about having players actually have to take agency over their forces when the full enemy fleet is spotted on the horizon, giving ample but dangerously critical time to plan moves and countermoves. How about having the player understand that just because he can see the enemy, does not mean he will hit the enemy with any chance of success, and therefore must move closer to the foe, and thus be in a more dangerous position, in order to hit anything?
Your idea of what is best for the game is flawed and is decisively shot down by your own logic, or dare I say, the lack thereof.
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.-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, admiralsnackbar said:
There are several things about this game where I imagine the developers could implement a temporary fix that would address the issue 90% of the way and take 1-2 hours to implement.
I remember in the old admiral missions at high level where RDF would have a green or red target symbol on the ocean itself representing where the enemy ship/ships were. There is nothing as far as i can tell that would break the game if when smoke is *actually* spotted to show a target or a shaded silhouette of ship/ships where these things cannot be targeted by guns. I can't imagine that such a thing couldn't have been done like... 2 years ago. To some extent you can do this when warships that have their cloaking devices still active are firing at you, you can see where the shells are originating from and roughly guess where you need to go.
I have not seen a single person on this forum defend the current system as fun, reasonable, or historically justified.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.-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Rucki said:
This is with the latest patch.
The distance is 1.6 Km and my 305mm guns have between 450 and 500 pen value there with ap, the enemy CL hase only 57.5mm armor on the belt, so how is it possible that my hit was only a partial pen ?The CL armor values:
Main Armor Belt: 57.5
Fore Belt 21mm
First inner deck citadel: 8mm
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?
-
52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry.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. -
4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:
The problem isn't just the bug. The problem is that there are so many bugs I cannot tell which is intended and which is a feature (dead serious). The current problem of partial pen, I noticed it for awhile now, but I wasn't sure if it's wacky armor calculation, AI over-armoring their ships, or as some people now suggest the game is mistaking deck hit percentage with belt hits. We all expect bugs and we're here to test the product. But we can only go so far without the debugging console and everything falls apart within 30 seconds of starting a campaign.
I just hope this game turn out to be good.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.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:
Though I agree with competing demands, communication is good. It is a learning experience for this team and I hope they are taking the right lessons from this game. Specifically, all of these could have been avoided had they pushed through the Covid time, being bought by another company, etc. and actually communicated while delivering updates akin to the current pace. During the Alpha stage, so many dedicated people wanted to give feedback, extremely detailed feedback to the team but more than half of the time all we got was crickets from the dev with nearly no update whatsoever. The smaller but dedicated playerbase would have been so beneficial to this team it's insane that they botched that entire thing.
I don't comment much here anymore just the occasional bug report in-game because I do not want to sound like I'm saying this isn't going anywhere concrete but I have to agree that the bug squashing is getting ridiculous as the game feels like it's being held upright by a 90 years old man trying to balance what amount to a car while rope walking across the Grand Canyon.Tbh, this beta gave me a hello kittying anxiety attack because the amount of bugs that I encountered and I couldn't write much because I felt hopeless for the devs. I felt like so much potential was wasted, and like 99% of the ideas that so many talented naval history enthusiasts on this forum would never be implemented because they can't even make the campaign AI to actually be an AI and not 10 nested if statements.
Not sure if I should have wrote this...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.-
3
-
-
15 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
It is rare problem. Will be fixed in the next update. Thank you.
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.
-
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).
-
15 hours ago, mikekervin said:
I think there's a couple errors with GDP and transports which is making the game unplayable as you get deeper into a war.
1. There seems to be a fixed percentage of total needed shipping that you can build per turn, this doesn't change at all depending on the economy or dock capacity.
2. Shipping is lost at a very high rate, sometimes even if the enemy is completely blockaded.
3. Shipping percentage sometimes goes down even when no ships are lost.
4. Shipping percentage sometimes doesn't increase even after enough turns without any shiping losses.
5. The amount if shipping needed doesn't decrease when the economy declines.
6. The shipping penalty seems to be over-applied, because it applies a negative GDP percentage that increases per turn, as well as a fixed expense penalty that doesn't decrease as the economy shrinks - essentially amounting to a larger and larger percentage of the economy over time. Taken together this essentailly means that if you lose a few ships per month for about a year you can never, ever stabilize your economy if you are at war. Even if you reduce your spending and scrap ships it can never be enough. I believe this is a cause of the AI never being able to field a fleet in the late game.
For example with a 1890 start as UK:
Get into a series of consecutive wars, because each time my ships blockade one country in the meditteranean they increase tension with the other ones as well. Despite winning every battle I lose shipping to ghost ships. Soon the AI doesn't generate any battles, so I can't generate victory points, and it takes 3 years to win all the wars despite not taking any losses, and in that time my shipping percentage goes down to 60%.
At the start of the war my GDP was $14 billion, when the wars ended it was down to $10 billion. I had to scrap every warship in order to not go bankrupt, and kept shipping slider on maximum. By the time I built enough shipping to get to 0 GDP growth my total GDP was 5 bllion but I was still paying the fixed transport penalty every turn, so for the 8ish years this took I had to have zero research and zero training. Once I went from 99% to 100% my GDP magically flipped to 15 billion with huge monthly growth and budget surpluses.
It seems to me that there is a formula error in here creating some wrong economic results, and this is contributing to some of the strange behaviour players have observed in mid-late game.
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.
-=Beta v1.4 Planned for end of next week=-
in General Discussions
Posted
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.