DableUTeeF

I'm sure penetration is a lot worse. I still just don't understand this "balancing" nonsense and just how many players are happy about it. Only players who actually playing the game more than testing if the buttons work. For things like, the game is made specifically so that a torpedo boat is able to win 1v1 against a battleships regardless of how many dozens QF guns the battleship has. And the fact that 50% of heavy shells fired at a cruiser always hit the deck and ricochet off despite the range being so close the angle of fall is so low that it shouldn't be possible to hit the deck to begin with. The fact that the shells can already hit another ship they aren't aimed at including friendly ships and the torpedoes aiming work as in real life make it clear that the game can have a realistic combat mechanic but someone decided it shouldn't. So that any ship can have some "chance" against something that in real life would have blown it out of the water immediately on sight (like HMS Defence at Jutland). Which I just don't understand why.

While I do agree that calling them "incompetent" is a bit strong on my part. I stand by my words because Nick's attitude of "Our algorithm is already the most realistic way to handle this and any change to it is unrealistic" is unacceptable. It's not even because the current handlig characteristic is bad that I called them that. The first step to solve any problem is to accept that there's a problem to begin with. Continuous denying can only be described by that one word.

But in short, what you have to do is construct a path that make the ships in the division follow the vector of the "ghost ship" as desripbed by @neph. And more importantly. Stop the turn BEFORE it pass the line, not just let the ship overshot the line then reverse the turn. The whole problem we have previously about the ship inthe division can't go straight is entirely because you make it stop turning too late.

Seriously. If your programmer really can't make it without "artificial bonuses" then tell me what language you're using and I'll the make the rough altorithm for you.

And no, "artificial bonuses" is not the only way to fix them. That is just the laziest way and scream incompetent.

You really should try to understand that what you made isn't even remotely close to "realism" and his suggestion is way more realistic than what we have in game now. No "Admiral" ever told the ship to follow the imagination line he draw in his head after he tell it to turn. They only tell the ships "how many degree to turn and which way".

That is certainly better than the current "automatically select the target by threat" that just pick a torpedo boat 20km away just because I told a cruiser from another division to shoot it. Although it'll probably have a fun time when more than one target is in the zone of the same side. Like, should it track the closest target that already dropped torpedoes or the second target that is closing in? But I can see this work with some fine tune. Just hope the "if the player provides some kind of input, that should override the auto behavior" stays intact unlike the recent one.

The funny thing is that. Mark 2 4.9 inch turret weight the same as 6.9 inch which is also significantly lighter than 7 inch. While 5.9 inch is also slightly heavier than 6 inch but less insane than 4.9. My passing guess is float to integer conversion screwup somewhere. Both weight, armor penetration, and accuracy.

IRL is differed from in game since if you have only 1 turret firing you get near enough the full rate of fire.

Like I said I don't have the code to look at myself, just a speculation from a programmer. The 2-3 rounds per second I said was because, correct me if I'm wrong, months ago when I tested this the ships were only firing a single gun at a time. There's a slight delay before a turret can fire all 3 guns instead of firing the whole turret like the current patch. The current patch feels like the limitation is how many turret was firing than how many barrels. Again just a speculation.

I personally I hate this "auto targetting system" since I find it absolutely abysmal currently. Also more often than not 2" guns are actually the most accurate below 5km and also devastating against torpedo boats. But may not do anything against bow-tanking torpedo equiped light cruiser other than setting the paint on fire.

I thought about suggesting putting priority on bigger guns but then realize sometime I may want more advanced mark 4 secondary guns to fire at the nearby destoryer instead of the slighly-less-accurate-at-close-range mark 3 main guns.

I test it again with that but apparently now I can only have 7 turrets and the rate of fire of 21x9" mark 5 is not enough. But a lot of 2" still able to yield roughly the same result.

It was there since the first time I play the game, around June this year. I also managed to dig some onversation but not convinced enough and decided to experimented myself. You can see this by using the biggest american battleship but putting as many tripple 9" (230mm?) turrets as you can (at least 7). Fit it with light shell and Auto II loader. And you'll find that some turret will naver fire because the other guns reload so fast.

The problem is that, currently there's a limitation on rate of fire on a single ship. I think 2-3 rounds per second but not comfirmed. So if you have 3 tripple 50mm with rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute each. You have a grand total of 180 rounds per minute or 3 rounds per second already. So if the limit is also 3 rounds per second you'll never get to fire anything else since the firing priority for whatever reason is completely random. This has been an issue since forever but if it's really a limitation on the game's engine then the only thing we can do is use fewer but bigger secondary guns instead.

Like say, if I'm USA and want to invade Cuba I can just declare war on Spain and set 100,000 tons of fleet on Cuba and the "Naval Invasion" would show up?

We're not navigating these ships through minefield or narrow channel anyway. Accurately controling the heading is a lot more useful than threading the precise path if we can only select one.

This shouldn't be a problem in the first place since the data about turn radius and rudder shift rate already exist. You can just use that and stop the turn when the calculated momentum would bring the ship to the speficied direction. I shouldn't even be typing this since it used to work last patch.

Nobody is talking about how "absolute straight lines" the ships had to be. But how they behave to the turning order. For example, if a ship is heading 030 and I ask it to turn 20 degrees to starboard in the last patch it'll slowly turn until its heading is 050. But right now it'll turn hard to starboard in an attempt to follow the exact line created then overshot the line and then turn to port oscillating over and over instead of simply "head to that direction". Which is a lot worse than useless and not in the slightest realistic.

I'm aware of the bug but this is more like a minor bug causing a major problem. After all the only ways to create a NaN out of nothing are divide-by-zero and negative square root. So the actual fix to this is probably figuring out what had cause something to become 0 or negative when it shouldn't. And if the devs weren't aware of the fact that fuel also became NaN maybe this can help them fixing things faster.

Practically the same situation I posted here. Unavoidable battles that labeled as advantageous for the player somehow caused the entire task force to stay in place instead of following orders.

@@Nick Thomadis Is ships fuel or oil production used to calculate in equation for economy somewhere? Because I had my ship with NaN% fuel the turn before the campaign ends. Not sure if it's there before or after the budget.

Target reset problem hasn't really go away. Despite having only 1 target and the starboard guns can point at the target the guns still got "Angle!" warning after every round and so can't hit anything.

It causes the growth to became -100% which will end the campaing as economic collapse. I reported that in game but here is just suggesting adding more info on this panel.

With the recent foreign shipbuilding, I think having shipyard capacity here so we can better choose whether or not we should build a ship for someone else would be really helpful. But what a nice amount of money there.