SpecTRe_X

I've stopped asking quality control questions, but that's just me. lol

From Merriam-Websters: Turret noun 2 a (1): A revolving armored structure on a warship that protects one or more guns mounted in it (2): A similar upper structure usually for one gun on a tank (3): A gunner's fixed or movable enclosure in an airplane From Wikipedia: "A gun turret (or simply turret) is a mounting platform from which weapons can be fired that affords protection, visibility and ability to turn and aim." A turret speaks to the overall assembly rather than a single component. A turret may be either pedestal or barbette mounted, may be totally enclosed or not enclosed at all, and may or may not employ a rotating platform or cage for the crew to stand/sit on while operating the turret. You seem to be conflating the gun house, the armored box used to protect large guns, with the turret itself. The gun house is part of a turret assembly but it alone is not the turret.

Dresden with midships turret Mainz with side turrets (below boats) Magdeburg Graudenz class Pillau I think you get the point.

1.06.12 issues 1) Research speed is not fast enough for a faction to meet, never mind exceed, expected technology targets for a given period. An 1890 start is unable to unlock all the tech the player has in a 1910 start, for instance. General research speed should be increased by roughly 1.25-1.5 and focused research increased by roughly 2. 2) The shipyard capacity upgrade doesn't follow the eras either. A 1890 start is stuck with upgrading the capacity 4k tons at a time. 1900 start has a max upgrade capacity of 9.6k tons and 1910 a capacity of 15.2k tons. 3) Countries still cease to be after go far enough into dept during a war. When this state is triggered the war should end and part or all of that bankrupt country should be ceded to the enemy. 4) there are too many events that come up. If the average is about 1 per turn it should be decreased to around 1 every other turn. I'm unaware of a turret needing to be fully enclosed to be such and examples exist to support this position.

Germany is what I have the most experience with and, from the limited research I've done, it does look like Germany was playing with at least semi-modern CLs by 1905 in the Konigsberg class and were using broadside turrets by Dresden and Kolberg in 1906 and 1908 respectively. SMS Prinzess Wilhelm of the Irene class was built in the late 1880s and didn't have any casemates from what I can tell. Germany seems to have toyed with their inclusion from then on with protected and light cruisers alternating the inclusion of casemate guns every class.

Sure, but the individual branches are in series. I typically start as Germany in 1890. You can already get mostly modern CAs (~18,500t) floating around by 1900 as well as BCs around 1905 if you stop researching guns and such once you unlock the 13" M2 and 2 geared turb. The more modern light cruisers take longer than that though. I've made it to ~1912 built a fairly modern fleet but still had those ridiculous CLs with casemate ports on the sides. It almost seems like the light cruiser tech was accidentally pushed to the end of the line somewhere.

That's also France, Germany is a different story in my experience. In fact, I have a suspicion Germany is the slowest faction when it comes to research. My biggest issue is how long it takes to unlock modern light cruiser hulls and oil fired boilers relative to everything else. So much boiler tech is trapped behind mounds of funnel tech as if funnels are actually hard to design. Don't forget also that only about half the tech tree is actually implemented. We're still missing subs, mines, naval tactics, etc on the lower third of the screen.

Were your ships significantly more advanced? I had noticed that a lower tech enemy who damages higher tech ships gets more points than if it was a fight against equal tech adversaries. sinking 4 advanced destroyers in the 1,200 ton range will net roughly the same number of VPs as wiping out a fleet of 6 CLs, 5 CAs, 2 - 3 BBs, and 8 TBs of an "average" tech enemy.

For me a lot of this comes back to how games are now made. Instead of a bunch of people coming together to form a proper studio with enough people to actually produce a respectably finished product after a few years of steady development you have small handfuls of people, often times as small as 1 or 2, calling themselves a game studio or developer and never really releasing a finished product. Sure, they'll do some kind of crowd funding, then "early access" then eventually a "full" release but the offerings are never truly finished and almost never in a reasonable time frame. It's the opposite of the issue we had in the window between the 2000s and Unity taking off, right? Most of the smaller, creative, studios had been consumed by large corporate ones and the creativity gave way to a myopic desire for pure profit; the symbiosis between the businessmen and the artistic died. Now, post-Unity, you have the opposite issue with the artists running the show and nary a businessman among them. It seems like they get into game development thinking it's going to be fun, and it may be, but then forget that it's still a job and must still be run as a business. Adding the public into the mix, especially too early, can be more harmful than beneficial also because everyone has an opinion on what direction a game should take and the original scope can quickly spiral out of control. Even if the dev team is able to maintain control of the project scope, opening a title to the general public as "early access" means you're basically releasing the title since those people aren't generally going to be a quality test pool from which you'll get constructive or useful input. They bought it because they wanted to play the finished game and, not only is that not what's being sold, it's not even always what you can deliver. Everyone wants to work for themselves but in reality, most can't because they lack the drive, ability, ingenuity, etc to keep themselves going and produce meaningful offerings for a market. It's not nice to say but something that is true; most people are more productive working for someone else.

I'm not going to do any further "beta" testing on this branch until the devs figure their code out. To be sure it wasn't a corruption issue I uninstalled and reinstalled fresh then spent another ~4 hours on a 1890 German start only to realize in 1917 that I was the only nation with a navy. Every other country was scrapping designs but never actually building anything. At this point I'd amassed over 2 billion in funds, was first in tech, and also had the largest navy. Public beta testing is meant to capture smaller bugs that slip through the devs testing, not to replace dev testing entirely.

The more I see of this beta the more I'm convinced the devs don't know how code works, don't have a means to quality test their work, or both. I get the very distinct impression that no one is testing any of this stuff on the dev side because if they were then surely things would be more functional when they're pushed out for public testing. I don't know if this is the norm for the beta branches but it's indicative of a lack of ability on the dev side. I also highly doubt that bogus bug reports are as prevalent an issue as they're currently made out to be. At least one third of this thread seems to be about campaign issues like the one quoted below.

At those range barrel length wouldn't matter though since the elevation required would be minimal at best so you wouldn't actually gain any reload bonus from a realism standpoint. Beyond that, you're simply trading turret weight for belt/citadel weight since the closer range now means better armor to make sure some of your ships return after wandering so close to the enemy. "Peace in our time" lol

Tension only increases if your ships are 1) in close proximity to other countries and 2) not mothballed. I've either mothballed or scrapped ships when I want a lasting peace as that's the only way to maintain it. Simply having your ships docked and set to "limited" doesn't do anything tension wise. In my 1.06.7 attempt no one has even been to war yet. There's been peace all around for 20 years now.

I'm having trouble decreasing relations with other countries after playing as Germany from 1890 to 1910 as a pacifist. Has anyone tried starting a campaign with the "design fleet" option but then simply starting the campaign without designing/building one? I wouldn't expect this to break anything but who knows? I don't really feel like starting a new campaign with a pre-built fleet, scrapping it, then spending the next 4 hours clicking end turn to find out.

Unrest got too high and the populace revolted. The country ceasing to be is the current result.

Has anyone seen a second war in the campaign after a country collapses from revolt? I just played a campaign where France collapsed and now I can't produce tension with anyone. I didn't even fight the first war because I was playing a pacifist Germany hording naval tech.

The only issues I've ever read about that regarded hot barrels was in mortars where in the tube gets hot enough to "cook off" the mortar itself. Land based artillery functions the same as naval artillery and while barrel wear increases as the barrel gets hotter it takes a long time for the barrel to get hot enough to begin to deform. Look at how many rounds land based artillery sent on fire missions during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam in a given time window. Or, RoF for 40mm AA. Barrel mass and time to heat are probably fairly proportional. I suspect that you're mistakenly combining barrel sag, which was an inherent condition in all barrels, with misreading of a reload time-clock illustration. Theoretical RoF assumes a gun is both stationary itself and firing at another stationary object. It does not deal with the effort of trying to land that fired shell on a target. Practical RoF doesn't deal with the machinery of the gun or gun platform as much as it does how all of those aspects culminate in the effort of hitting the target that's sighted. Just because you can fire a round every 20 or 30 seconds doesn't mean it will land anywhere near where you're aiming, which defeats the point of firing. It also seems like people are conceptualizing gun elevation hydraulics as being piston based when it actually works more like the oil pump in your car or the hydraulic drive on construction machinery. The part that gets substantially more powerful/larger/heavier is the pump motor.

At the moment, tension rises based on your active ships being in proximity to other countries. The only way, as far as I've seen from playing as Germany, to avoid an increasing tension is to place all your ships in mothballs. Any active ships, no matter how far away or in what other state, still seem to generate tension.

I am but it seems to break the AI in that they won't send their ships out to engage yours so you just end up sitting around the map blockading everything with no real fights. As soon as you send out some DDs though, oh boy do things go sideways in a hurry!

Not not really how any of that works with modern powders, "modern" meaning smokeless. Back when black/gun powder was used then yes, more powder meant more range but this was limited by the casting technology of the time. In modern artillery, naval or otherwise, the powder load is a constant and the range is a combination of that powder load, shell, barrel length, and firing trajectory. The reason smokeless powder is so great is because you can increase the length of the barrel without having to also increase the powder load since the powder burns much cleaner and thus more completely. As a result, you get more gas and constant pressure. Powder type also plays into this. This is easily seen in small arms where you have two primary types of powder: "rifle" which burns more slowly and "pistol" which burns quickly. If you use pistol powder to load a rifle cartridge you will typically destroy the rifle that fires it because the powder burns so quickly that it over-pressures the chamber and explodes the barrel and receiver. A large caliber naval piece will typically use a slower burning powder, relatively speaking, than one that burns quickly in order to maximize the gasses produced. As far as ballistic coefficients this is a property of the projectile, not the barrel. A 55 grain 5.56 fired from a 12" barrel has the same general BC as one fired from an 18" barrel. The only way this changes is if you change the projectile weight. If you go up to a 72 grain 5.56 then you change the BC because now the projectile is heavier and spinning faster, making it less susceptible to the environment it passes through as it flies as a result. Ballistic coefficients also change when you make a projectile longer. If you make a long & heavy projectile that projectile becomes more stable, but there is a ratio you have to hit for how long it is relative to its bore size or you increase the threshold at which it begins to wobble. This is why a .308 is more stable and has a greater effective range than a 5.56 because the .308 is a longer, heavier projectile. The powder load, muzzle velocity, and barrel length are secondary to that because all of the powder & barrel length in the world isn't going to change the BC of a 5.56. Small arms "caliber" is also different than artillery in that the caliber of small arms speaks to the projectile's bore size whereas "caliber" in artillery deals with the barrel length. A 5.56 is a 22 caliber projectile regardless of the barrel it's fired from but a 5" can be fired from a multitude of gun calibers.

It defeats the point of testing if they hold off on bug fixes they know they have but are still being reported. Rolling them out lets them know if those hotfixes truly work in the wild or if they break something else in the process.

I recall someone saying the core files are both compressed and encrypted.

They've used AES encryption to make the various save files unintelligible in the latest beta (1.06). I don't know about the core files but if they were able to be changed before I'd expect they're now encrypted also.

You should still be able to change your funds, prestige, etc using CheatEngine or various trainers around the web. Unfortunately this doesn't solve the start tech or similar issues.

The only problem with that is that games seldom reach a completed stage and just as frequent get a "hard" launch. More often than not they remain in this perpetual "early access" development stage until they're eventually abandoned. A true solution would be to only accept bug reports from the in-game reporting system and to make that system not generate bug reports if any of the game files have been altered. Save files shouldn't matter because you shouldn't be allowed to change anything in them that you couldn't get from playing the game "as intended" anyway. If you can edit save files in such a way that they break the game then that's a development issue anyway and not a modding one.