The PC Collector
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by The PC Collector
-
-
9 hours ago, Admiral Donuts said:
The battles in this game have really gone to hell. I have absolutely no control of the outcome anymore. The AI seems perfectly capable. The AI on my side is totally retarded.
And let's face it - aside from pretending to steer my ships, I have no real control. I'm finished with trying to convince you guys that making a game that plays itself just reduces what once was fun to a boring game of designing ships and building shipyard capacity.
That's a very sad summary of the current status of the game. Campaign is supposed to be a Grand Strategy mode. But there are simply too many things which are out of the player's control for that to be enjoyable.
I can't decide on attacks on minors, I depend on RNG to do that.
I can't even influence land attacks, I depend on RNG to do that.
There is a number of mechanics, like elections, in which I can be greatly benefitted, or essentially have my campaign ruined, over which I have absolutely no saying about. 100% RNG.
And the few mechanics over which we actually have some degree of control, like army logistics, are so poorly explained that it's very difficult to effect said control.
I'll keep saying it: We need more control over what our country does as a whole. Having too much RNG on a Grand Strategy mode simply makes the game dull and frustrating to play.
And definitely we need more information on when, and over everything WHY things happen.
Edit: I almost forgot: Now with the new targeting system, we also have to rely on the RNG to decide to target the adequate ship. Tired of seeing BBs with their main guns shootng at a TB and the secondaries shooting at an enemy BB... But if you manually target, more often than not they forget how to aim at all...-
6
-
-
1 minute ago, Lima said:
If you want to play for a specific country, but the government interferes, you can have a normal government by editing the save file.
I had quite a good campaign for Spain, but at the very beginning I was very lucky - the right wing won the election (best government btw).
I'm afraid i have no idea how to do that anymore after they changed the format.
-
1 hour ago, Lima said:
Do you have a nationalist government? I once said that governments with a large debuff to GDP growth simply unplayable in the long run (far-right/left, absolute monarchy). The differences in GDP growth in previous versions were much smaller, but even so they were very noticeable. You can win as much as you want, but the government will ruin the country.
Okay, so no point on playing Spain until that is balanced, or there is a way to change governments. Good to know.
And this is why I keep saying that this has simply too many things out of player's control to be enjoyable as a Grand Strategy. -
13 minutes ago, Lima said:
It's possible, but it should be insanely expensive.
I disagree. Refits are already stupidly capped to cap them more. There have been ships which were almos completely rebuilt upon refit, yet here we can't do so because the stupid "Too far from original place"
-
2
-
-
Okay. I think economy needs a serious overhaul before this is ready for release. Playing as Spain in 1890, I'm started with around 7 billion GDP. in 1922 and after taking most of france, a part of the USA atlantic coast, Panama, Puerto Rico, all the Black Sea but Georgia and the south of Italy, among other territories, my GDP sits at a laugable 10 billion. Whereas AH, without doing nothing, sits almost as high as the US at 35 billion. I think something is not adding up right here.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Lima said:
I hate it because
- There is no chance to occupy Serbia
- We're losing soldiers for nothing
- I can't do anything about it
Exactly the kind of thing I'm complaining about. For the Campaign to work as a Grand Strategy mode, we need at the very least some degree of control about what out country as a whole does.
-
1
-
Well
Some gameplay feedback after giving up the campaign:
We need more feedback on what's going on. There are simply too many things which we have no infor about, like why logictics are going up or down, what is the government doing... There are simply too many things which feel completely RNG based and that's not healthy for a Grand Strategy mode.
Likewise, for the sake of the mode working properly, we need some degree of control on what our land forces do. I know where are supposed to be tha admirals, but again, the overall feeling in the campaign is that there is too much RNG and too many things out of our control for an enjoyable Grand Strategy mode as the campaign is supposed to be. -
2 hours ago, Lima said:
CL💀
I think they were the ones who suffered the most, since they were not too good at gunnery before. Although I can kill destroyers with a CL, this turns into close combat with 5-10% hit chances at best.
Cruisers in general, and CLs in particular have always been, at least in my opinion, the ugly ducklings of this game. More often than not, they're simply too expensive for their combat value. For example, I found that, if you want to make a cruiser with big guns (10" or bigger) they become so expensive that you'd be better simply building a much more powerful BC instead for only a bit more money. But worst offenders are CLs. if you keep them with 5-6" guns, they become obsolete the second you unlock DDs. As 5-5.9" armed DDs can do the job just as well as the CLs, if not better, for a fraction of the price. And if you get to big CLs, they become so expensive that you'd be better building a CA with 6" guns and light armour. But with access to torpedo protection and other stuff CLs don't have.
-
Okay, seems that with the new gunnery changes, BBs can again hit DDs reliably enough so the can't simply YOLO under normal circumstances.
Edit: CAs, however, are still off. While for BBs is okay having relatively low chances, because more often than not they only need to manage to hit once, three 1918 cruisers equipped with 4 twin 9.4" mk III guns and trained crew needing to spend over one hour and half of in game time on knife range (under 3 km) and nearly their whole ammo supply to sink other three CAs is simply ludicrous. It was impossible for them to get any meaninful hit chance beyond that range. -
Aiming still neds tweaks. Call me crazy, but id say that a Mk III 11" gun in a 1918 tech ship and a regular crew should have more than a 28% hit chance at 1.8 km.
The ladder aiming bug for which guns take ages (one of my CAs in the last battle spent its whole ammo supply trying) or even refuse to aquire target is still present.
Seriously, ladder aiming is one of the most useless, frustrating and troublesome features you ever added to this game, why do you keep insisting on it instead of looking for other way to simulate the target aquiring process?-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Alnitak said:
And then they will tell you that you should fxxk off.This is unrealistic.🤣
To be fair, I don't care too much about what torpedo zealots say. I'm 100% sure that if devs don't do it, once game is fully released a modder will eventually do it.
-
1
-
-
Bug Report: Avoid Torpedoes is sometimes making ships other than the lead ship to freeze in place after evaing torpedoes.
Also, sugestion: Minors should get ship name lists to get their ships named from them. Also, I thing the option to sell mothballed ships doesn't work. At least, I have failed to manage it.-
1
-
-
Okay, it needs further testing, but in the same battle I aborted yesterday, ships now seem able to consitently hit more than one Km away.
And, despite my insistence in that torpedoes should have an OPTION to limit them (There are people who find torpedo spam annoying and a game should not be annoying) I think they should stay relevant as base. And that should be the player's decission if they want to deal with them or not.
For the torpedo zealots: This is not a "git gud" issue. I know how to deal with torpedo spam. I just don't want to because I find it the exact opposite of fun. And a game is supposed to be fun. Dealing with torpedo spam swarms feels like an annoying chore, and I have enough of these in real life.-
2
-
-
50 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:
After 15 years ingame and 5 wars fought I don't see any problem with torpedoes. None of my ships were sunk by torpedoes, only gunfire, so I can hardly see any problem with that. And yes, I tend to save the weight sometimes by reducing bulkheads, but I also start to maneuver whenever something with torpedoes gets within the launch range.
Try not playing with time compression and just watching big guns blasting. You can not controll things well at 5X speed.
How??? There is impossible to reliably score hits more than 1 Km away! The problem with torpedoes are not torpedoes themselves. Are that the ships carrying them survive too long because aiming is shit.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Alnitak said:
The power of Torpedo
The current version recommends that lightning protection and torpedo be fully armed🤣
And this is your so-called sense of reality.
Ultimate Admiral: Torpedoes
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, DieselPower said:
Seems almost pointless to build BB's anymore, their entire viability is being able to outrange other ships with their main guns.
Even with maxed out crews, rangefinders, radar and MKV guns, they struggle to hit anything 1km away. For some reason, they continually forget their firing solutions on targets who are not maneuvering while staying at a steady cruise speed themselves. Once "aimed", they should stay that way unless something drastic occurs, and even then, advanced radar should negate that.
I literally debated ramming a CA in 1935 after failing to hit it from 20km out for over 100 salvos.
Gonna have to skip testing for now until another patch comes out.
Yeah, it is curious a game which "dreadnoughts" in its name, where Dreadnoughts are pointless because the only viable weapons are torpedoes...
The new aiming system is horrible, in 1890 I didn't notice because you don't expect hitting consistently from afar, but in 1920 my ships still struggle to hit consistently more than 1km away. No matter crew experience, no matter anything else.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Lima said:
It's just a destroyer beating up a battleship. This is the best result for a battleship, by the way. In previous versions in 1940, the destroyer did not have a chance. Now...
Yes I know what HMS Acasta did. But she was sunk in the end. Now you can attack battleships with destroyers and sail away without any problems.
Totally agreed. That shouldn't be possible, except on very favourable conditions which allowed the DD to sneak up on the BB. And after the aim changes, it can be done consistently. I've been able to sink very competitive AI BBs by doing nothing but circling around the enemy BB until it is sunk or until I run out of torpedoes, without even being hit once. Consistently. With shitty captured DDs with 1km torpedo range.
-
4
-
-
Seems that the bug of insane population on reborn countries is still lurking around.-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:
I don't know how military force is calculated but if it's just a function of GDP and military budget then that might explain it.
name NavalBudgetMod GDPGrowthMod RegionDevelopmentMod MilitaryPowerMod UnrestMod nameUI nameUIMod AbsoluteMonarchy 1.2 0.93 0.95 1.13 1.15 Absolute Monarchy ConstitutionalMonarchy 1.15 0.95 0.99 1.1 1.11 Constitutional Monarchy NationalistsParty 1.1 0.94 1.01 1.2 1.09 Nationalists Party Naval Budget RightWingParty 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.06 Right Wing Party GDP Growth CentreParty 1.014 1.03 1.05 0.98 0.95 Centre Party Province Income LeftWingParty 0.98 0.95 1.15 0.95 0.9 Left Wing Party Military Power CommunistsParty 0.95 0.91 1.11 1.05 0.82 Communists Party Unrest Well, whatever it is, is evident it is a very poor design choice which needs to be refined. Thanks for the reply anyways
Edit: Also, it seems that the bug of damaged ships going to random ports for repairs instead of the closest port is back.-
1
-
-
More things which need to be addressed before release: army calculations
Can anyone explain to me how the frick can the french have more army than I do? We have similar GDP, and I have 10 times their population. I can't believe I'm going to need a naval invasion to get that province. I assumed the second I got at war with them, land invasions from both Spain and Northern france would crush southern france instantly. But seems that the game thinks otherwise.-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:
but isn't that the point of a video game?
Exactly, and as such its point isn't being annoying. Maybe you have fun playing those battles, but there is a lot of people who don't. That's what difficulty and realism options are for.
-
3 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:
Counterpoint: by 1916 at Jutland, the British brought a total of 151 ships while the Germans brought 99. That wasn't spamming, or swarming, that was the size of a large BB formation plus their supporting elements. If you cap the number of hulls, you either get a silly mechanic where one BB = one CA = one DD etc, or an incredibly arbitary metric where a given squadron magically can't have an extra DD because it offends a ratio somewhere. While the max crew limit is a on that sort of spectrum of silly, it at least has a good rationale to it (namely, that your navy lacks the logistical means and practical experience to manage that many people at sea in one operational unit).
Jutland is not a valid example, as it is something which has happened ONCE in the whole history. In the game happens every single turn. Task forces need a hard cap, with larger battles being event battles. Besides, even if Jutland was something common, there os still the issue of the game simply not being able to handle it.
-
Okay, I have finally been able to play long enough to test how the task force limit works, and I have to say that, while it is certainly a step in the good direction, I still feel that, in adittion to it, a hard cap in the limit of ships a taskforce can contain is needed.
Even without taking into account the fact that, in the current iteration of the game, the engine can't really handle a battle with more than 30-40 ships without performance degrading noticeably, even in computers with specs way above average and way above what you stated as required, I think I speak for a significant part of the community when I say that fighting a taskforce which has 40+ TBs/DDs as screen, or even worse, which that's all what the taskforce has, is one of the most unenjoyable and chore-feeling tasks in this game.
The same that a tonnage/crew limit was needed in the task force limit to prevent it being abused with BB/BC spam, a hard cap in number of ships is needed to prevent TB/DD spam.-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Lima said:
Now one main caliber turret is enough. In general, this is good, but now the AI will create even greater abominations than before.
Actually, only one gun is allowed upon refit. Which I don't know if it is intentional or a bug, but I think it is reallistic, as sometimes older ships got guns/turrets removed with time.
This is how I refitted my Pelayo class (Originally it had two main turrets side to side, but no longer fitted after going from Mk I to Mk 2)
I dunno if being allowed to do this is intentional or not, but please don't remove it. I think it is reallistic being able of only have one single turret on refitted old ships.
>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)
in General Discussions
Posted
Indeed, this wasn't happening in the early versions of the 1.1, and then in the last iterations started happening again.