Kane

And now I've reached the point of save-scumming any time I get a night battle. The issue with enemy ships having cloaking technology has only gotten worse. Just lost an entire group of 4 destroyers, torpedoed by enemy destroyers whom they never even saw. Nevermind that my tech is more advanced, I have the best towers available, and by all rights should see the enemy before they see me. Nevermind that the enemy is significantly behind me in tech including things like torpedo range. None of it matters. The enemy always sees me first, always attacks first. So, can't invade since its a bloodbath no matter how badly I out match the enemy. And now I'm having to reload until I get something that's not a night or storm battle (which means I have to reload nine or ten times just to have a battle.) I swear. I've been PC gaming since the days of Das Boot, and I have never seen such general incompetence, poor design, and absolute refusal to address long-standing issues as I have in this game.

And just tried it again, hoping it was a fluke. NOPE. Round-1: Me: 43,000+ casualties Enemy: 5,781 So, not as insane as before. Still insane enough to demonstrate that someone needs to flogged. Edit: Over 100,000 in round 2!

So, I took this post down just to make sure I had the most recent update. Just tried to invade Phengu with far more tonnage than required. Round-1: I suffer, 50,000 casualties. The enemy suffers.... wait for it... 800 casualties. By round 3 my casualties were over 100,000. Sigh. Just another "fix" from UA Developers. Edit: Should probably also mention that the enemy navy was on the other side of the planet. But hey, why bother having a navy when you can score a 62-1 kill-to-death ratio against anyone trying to invade you? I'm going to stop now before I start saying things I shouldn't.

STOP hello kittying forcing us into battles at the beginning of a turn. My campaign has gone into the 40's, and I'm having to do a dozen mandatory battles at the beginning of every turn. By the time they're over I can't hello kittying remember what else I needed to do in that turn. This is bad game design. It should have been addressed before this game ever went live.

Things like this would be a big one. In my current campaign I'm fighting the new Giga-Rome (ie Italians), with Spain as my ally. Italy already took everything but northern Spain away from them. I would invade Italian-occupied Spain by sea, but playing as the US, I really don't want to have to defend territory so far away, and I can't give the territory back to Spain once the war is over. So, no invade. Would be really nice to be able to do things like this.

A lot of the things I would have suggested are already here. But a few things I would suggest. 1) An expansion of colony importance beyond their cash-based economic value. Gibraltar for example is an incredibly important location from a strategic standpoint. This should be one of the last things Britain is willing to give up before having to surrender the home islands. Meanwhile, oil is the only thing a colony has going for it beyond a simple economic value that matters is any way. (And even then it remains primarily a simple economic thing.) Oil is important, its very important. But so is chromium, rubber, etc. It would be nice if things like this were accounted for in colonies and gave certain colonies value beyond "X dollars". If for example a colony was a source of chromium, whoever held it might be able to build a bit cheaper. Things of that nature. I understand this could be a big thing to implement so I wouldn't cry if it was not added to the game. But there really needs to be more than just a dollar value attached to a colony, and the AI needs to understand that some colonies are going to have worth out of proportion to their simple dollar value. (Again, places like Gibraltar) 2) We need the ability to order certain types of missions directly. As an example, I am currently playing as the United States, and am at war with Germany. Germany has effectively been neutered. I have a very large, and powerful fleet off their coast and they have very little left to defend it. It would be very nice if I could manually order my ships to go in and bombard the ports. I have no interest in invading Germany. But if I could raze their ports from the sea, I could not only help dismantle their economy, but would severely inhibit their ability to build new ships after the war. Thus leaving lasting consequences for the conflict, since they wouldn't be able to just immediately build a dozen more battleships in 2 years. 3) I would like to see reparations expanded. It is currently a "cash n' prizes" scenario where you can take either/or/mix of ships or cash. I would think that if you beat an enemy hard enough, you could force them to give you a % of their GDP for a pre-defined period. This would not only help give lasting consequence to a war, but would make it harder for a defeated nation to simply tool up and do it again in only 2-3 years. The nation on the losing end meanwhile could be given the option of breaking the agreement, as the cost of massive hit to relations, and with it the chance of a brand new war. 4) Though I am trying to stay away from things other people have already listed, I am going to add my voice on this one. We need more ability to interact with minor nations, and even help incite our nation against them. As others have stated, it would give the player more agency in expanding their naval empire. 5) And lastly torpedoes. While I have a lot of issue with their implementation in game, I would still like to see them fleshed out a bit with options like different explosives (torpex), magnetic / contact, incremental size, etc. Edit 6) Almost forgot. We need the ability to manually choose to spend money and expand ports. I get that not every port can be a Scapa Flow. But we lose a lot of our ability to control how we plan, station our ships etc when we can't do this. Sure, we can just pack our ships into a port and pay out the nose to keep them there. But especially in my case as the USA with an ungodly naval budget. If I want to put in money to shore-up the Philippines to be my Pacific base (as opposed to say, Pearl Harbor) I should be able to do that. Would also be nice if things like shore batteries existed in the game in some form. Even if only to reduce the odds of "port strike" missions.

Yeah, this is a constant source of annoyance when I see my rounds clearly hitting the deck, but the game registers hits on the listing ship's belt. Which is weird considering how often I get deck hits on ships that aren't listing, and at ranges where Luke Skywalker would be required to make the shot.

Yes I have. I doubt you're conveying any information anyone here doesn't already know, but I do note that you are going far out of your way to ignore the other points I've made that demonstrate that what you have to say is irrelevant. "comical you think i might not know what i'm talking about." Its your reading comprehension I have doubts about. So I will try to explain this one more time. You cannot make an objective assessment on things that modify ballistics when the ballistic mechanics are inherently broken. Clear enough now? ""There was quite a lot of nerfing and balancing on this exact thing in the beta based on my findings and feedback alone" I take it you were looking for a cookie?. Do you understand how stupidly difficult it would be to consistently hit an opponent's deck with the conditions I have specified? Do you understand why this is a problem? Do you understand why this indicates that there is an inherent problem in the ballistics calculations of the game? Do you understand how impossible it would be to land repeated hits on an opponent's front belt when firing at him from directly behind him? Do you understand that if the ballistic calculations of the game are so broken that one can get these results consistently, that there is an inherent problem in said mechanics that needs to be addressed? And that quibbling over things like barrel length is basically the equivalent of worrying about what razor to shave with while your hair is on fire? Literally nothing you have said has any bearing when the mechanics are this broken. And your suggestion essentially boils down to "don't worry about how broken it is, just do X and pretend its not broken." No, the solution is not "use short barrels". The solution is fix the broken mechanics of the game, then evaluate what barrel length you should be working with. And no, the belt armor bug isn't the problem when I'm doing nothing but hitting the opponent's deck at ranges where that should be impossible. Edit: Also, since you seem to want to go down the 16/45 vs 16/50 rabbit-hole http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php At 42,000 the 16/50, could deck pen 14", that is more than the 16/45 can pen at any range, and out of the 45's effective range. But at this range its a hail-Mary, so getting closer... At 35,000 yards the difference is penetration between the two is 2.09 inch, at a range where both are still going to be lucky to be getting hits even with radar guidance. At 30,000 yards the difference in penetration between the two is less than 1 inch. At 16,000 yards the hit probably was only around 30%, and at that distance the difference in deck penetration was less than 0.25 inch. The difference in angle of fall meanwhile being only about 2°. All with horizontal penetration greatly favoring the 50 at this range. So yeah, I'm sure the navy was real concerned about downgrading the velocity and accuracy of the 16/50 so that they could get more penetration in the tiny window where the 45 has an advantage, and actually scoring a hit has more to do with luck than anything else. Or maybe the reduced charges were for training and shore bombardment...

So I guess you missed the part of the game where barrel length has a direct impact on hit probability? Judging by your comment I'm having doubts you've actually spent any time using long barrels. Meanwhile the entirety of your argument has been rendered moot by the bugged mechanics of the game which you acknowledge. Penetration is king, and right now it is impossible in a huge number of circumstances where it shouldn't be. Your opinion on how people should be playing, is immaterial. The problem is in the game itself, and the broken mechanics. Mechanics that have been broken since before we had the option to tinker with barrel length. Edit: Not to mention, as has been pointed out, that even when optimizing for plunging fire, players are not getting the penetration they should.

Yes....except no. A 16" 50-caliber guns should not be scoring 90% deck hits at ranges of less than 2 miles. At that range and shell velocity, it should be pretty damn difficult to hit the deck of the opposing ship at all. The problem is that the developers of this game seem to have a pre-schooler's understanding of ballistics, and think that angling armor just a little bit will turn it into a magical invulnerability shield. Hence, 18" super heavies ricocheting off 1" armor plate at a range of 1 mile or less, when a shell of that velocity and sectional density should smash through that plate like its not even there, despite significant angling. This combined with the fact that the ballistic arcs the weapons have are just ridiculous. Again, at less than 2 miles one should not be scoring 90% deck hits. The problem here is not what we are doing with our guns. The problem is what the devs have done with armor angling, and ballistic arcs. Hell, just spend some time zoomed in on an enemy ship while its feeling from you, and take note of how many times you'll hit the front belt while you're attacking from behind. This problem existed before the option to lengthen barrels was in the game, and its still here. Edit: Meanwhile in my current game, I've tried shortening barrels as far as 40-calibers on a 13 inch. While I get a even more deck hits (as if more were needed) it still gets only partial pens when by the numbers it should have plenty of penetration to go right through.

The players have made a lot of very significant suggestions, and raised some significant concerns, and a lot of them don't seem to be addressed. 1) There needs to be a "war cooldown" after a peace treaty is finalized so that AI nations don't declare war the very same turn they sign a peace agreement. This is mandatory in a game like this, and frankly bad game design that this hasn't been done already. Once again, I'm going to suggest the devs look into a game like Galactic Civilizations. It has a lot of its own problems, but things like this are not one of them. The fact something like this was not added to the game as soon as the 2nd batch of nations were themselves added demonstrates a severe lack of professional competency in game design. 2) Combat is nearly unplayable. It randomly freezes up for long seconds at a time, or runs so slow that its like someone is trying to hand-animate the scene. This is particularly noticeable when one manually designates targets for their current ship selection. 3) Ballistic arcs in this game are a joke, and not the funny kind. With a 16-inch 50 caliber gun I can attack a target less than 2 miles away and have every single shot blocked, because they somehow all hit the deck of the enemy ship. This happens consistently, and is easily reproducable in-game. If ships can't even shoot each other properly, then what the hell is even the point of playing this game? Even at ranges of less than a mile this remains an issue. 4) Small ships remain unreasonably tough, with cruisers tanking 16-inch fire in ways Bismarck only wished it could, destroyers continuing to fight after taking 2 or 3, 24-inch torpedoes, and light cruisers routinely bouncing 18" shell fire with 1-inch of armor plate because it is just slightly angled. Things like this are why I will call anyone a liar who suggests that any of the devs are playtesting this game during development. These issues have been around for quite awhile now, and don't seem to be getting better in any meaningful way that I can see. 5) Many hulls (too many for me to list here) have severe problems. This ranges from towers with integrated barbettes that can't hold guns of appropriate size. 6) Wars routinely end without the player being asked their opinion, without an option for reparations, or even without the player being informed that said war was ended. I know the devs think they know better than the players what constitutes fun, but the lack of player agency in this game is already a problem, and an un-addressed bug like this only makes it worse. 7) Armor for ships is still jacked up. Real world ship designs often had inner layers thicker than outer layers. This is not possible in game. Meanwhile, unless I want to break out my abacus (and even then the results often are non-sensical), its really difficult now to ascertain how much gun will work versus how much armor. If anything it seems we've gone from armor being way too ineffective, to it being way too effective. The armor system either needs a rework, or the tool tips in game need a re-work to help layer figure out just how much armor they need to stop a gun of a given caliber. 8. It is clear that the in game cards (loading screens, etc) were written by someone who speaks English, but is not a native speaker. @Nick ThomadisI will volunteer to rewrite these cards for you, for free. If that is not good enough, I will be happy to refer you to a professional, native English-speaking, book editor who works at very reasonable rates to do the job. 9) When friendly ships are told to screen, maybe 1 battle of 10 will they do something useful. The other 90% of the time, they will spend the whole battle either hiding behind the battleships, or at the far edge of the map doing nothing. This problem has been around for a lot of patches now, and I don't see any signs that the devs acknowledge that said problem exists. 10) Ships that take evasive actions due to torpedoes often sail off into the void, never to return until the players realizes they are gone and orders them back. The leash for ships in a formation is still woefully bugged. 11) Ship targeting priority is stupidly broken. If I assign cruisers to screen my battleship, they'll waste all their ammo attacking far-off battleships, rather than attacking the DD's and torpedo boats racing in to assault the battleship they're supposed to be protecting. My battleships meanwhile if left to their own devices will waste secondary fire on distant battleships, and fire their main guns at torpedo boats they'll be lucky to ever hit (even if they are far away) rather than the big ships those guns are meant for. I'm really getting tired of playing Ultimate Admiral - Dodge the hello kittying Torpedoes because my screening ships not only won't screen, but won't attack the ships that routinely close to spitting distance and launch spreads of never-dud torpedoes on my battleships. 12) The enemy still seems to be in possession of cloaking technology, ensuring they pretty much always see me first and get many salvos in (which often ends up wrecking destroyers near my battleships) before I ever even see them. This despite my tower, and other techs being well, well ahead of theirs. Have even been out-spotted when using radar by enemies who do not have it. This is another problem that has been around a long time and has not been addressed. The AI clearly sees further than it is supposed to. Edit 13) Oh, and forgot to mention, we're once again in a position where minor damage to one ship can result in an entire fleet being sent back to port. Guess the captain's really can't handle having their ship's paint scratched. Edit-2 14) There is still a (very common) issue with my current ship selection being de-selected when one of my ships is sunk. Considering 90% of this game is now dodging torpedoes, this is really pissing me off, and I know I can't be the only one. Having my ship de-selected is just another way too end up eating more torpedoes because the game interrupted my control over my units for no intelligent reason. Edit-3 15) Also. If you'd program the ships set to screen to form up on the lead ship rather than the second one in the formation, you'd probably cure about 25-50% of the screening issues.

Или мы могли бы просто попросить их признать, что «агентство игрока» должно быть частью игры. И что никому не нравится побеждать только для того, чтобы у него украли выигрыш в последнюю секунду без уважительной причины.

( Машинный перевод) Либо вы плохо понимаете английский. Или вы очень хорошо думаете, и тогда мне придется сделать это за вас. Это ошибка. Ошибки нужно исправлять. Частью игры является то, что у игрока должны спросить его мнение. Они также должны быть в состоянии предложить репарации. Этого не может быть, когда войны заканчиваются без причины. Получи это сейчас? Edit: Кроме того, это чертовски глупо для правителя ИИ выходить из войны, когда он находится в 1% от победы. Это равносильно тому, что Советы сражались до самых ворот Берлина, а затем подписали мирный договор с Гитлером. Это глупо, это невозможно защитить, и это нужно исправлять.

Still have wars ending for no reason at all. I am not asked about it, and I don't even get a notice it happened. War just ends. This needs to be fixed yesterday. It is...extremely aggravating....that this keeps happening just when I'm about to take a big piece away from an enemy (often part of their homeland.) As Germany I was at over 90% invading both Manchura and Northern China. Would have taken both on the next turn. War ends, no warning, no notice, and I get nothing. Has also happened to me against Italy, and Britain. Please fix this.

And I still have wars ending for no reason at all, don't even get a notice that the war has ended. Its just over, and we're all friends again. No solicitation of my input, no reparations, just spontaneous peace. Just happened between me (Germany)/Autro-Hungary/China vs Soviet Union. Peace for everybody! Considering I was less than 10% away from conquering several of their territories, this is extremely aggravating. Edit: And it consistently happens when reverting to a previous save. There is a definite bug of some kind here that is causing wars to spontaneously end.