justMike247

Prior to crew training being "improved", I used to set a reasonable amount on the slider and just left it there, changing only when I needed a serious amount of new bodies to fill a batch of new builds. That option's no longer available; I don't know what the cut-off number might be, but going from single digit crew available the previous month, I might get 2.5k new bodies this month, but next month, despite identical expenditure, maybe 10% of that number if the crew haven't been allocated to ships yet. Until/unless I have a "ghost fleet" of obsolete hulls available, there's no point maintaining that level of expenditure if there's negligable return. If that ghost fleet IS available however, I use them as a reservoir; place to deposit the new grunts until new build ships are available, then go through a cycle of decomission/recomission until I've hit the training cut-off, plus full crews in the ghost fleet. Yea, I know it's an ugly work around, but there's some historical basis behind it, at least as far as the ghost fleet is concerned. As for the rookie to green transition... that's a damned good question; the answer should be interesting.

Over a dozen crashes while loading a battle, including one as simple as my fleet v's a single solitary torpedo boat... Thought we were promised an end to BS missions? Ticket submitted. Reload forces replay of all battles during that month because there's no functioning auto-save after an engagement. Once in battle, my fleet's scattered over literally 100Km... Slight cool down in Tension = rolled straight into war before the previous one has wound up, simply to avoid being extorted by a country boasting a fleet of a single DD and two TB's... Auto resolve still as crazy as ever; exactly how does a solitary TB put an entire fleet into dry dock? If I play the same mission hands on, TB is deep six'd without delivering so much as a single point of damage.

Panzergraf's video serves to illustrate just how ignorant the dev's are about ship construction, metalurgy, ballistics, the workings of kinetic penetrators, and the effect of high explosives.

That invulnerability isn't restricted to just that particular hull. In my current campaign, I'm facing American BB hulls of around 70k tons displacement, built with just 300mm main belt armour, and literally nothing, zero, everywhere else except the main turrets. Despite that, AP rounds either bounce or over-pen, doing fractional damage. Likewise HE rounds, either bounce, partial-pen or over-pen, similarly doing fractional damage. Net result, it takes near 1000 hits to send one of these tin cans down. Note, the guns suffering this latest nerfage are 15", 16" and 18" Mk5's. While this farce is going on, AI's 7" armed CL's are literally tearing my CA's appart at extreme range. The level of absurdity in this is spectacularly insulting.

Ohhhhhhhh I got that beat... check this out... Near identical situation, having to be very hands on re targetting. It's taken an age to move a squadron of CL's into prime position for a torp attack at a very tempting opposing cluster of CA's, CL's and DD's... I must have had a bit of tunnel vision, missing that a DD screen had started moving up, on the inside of my CL's, and right at the optimum moment to fire, auto-targetting over-rides, switching to a cluster of opposing DD's broad on the beam. Cue a spread of over 80 torps, launched right into the Khyber Pass of my DD screen, at near point blank range... No time to react, and of course, the active torp avoidance did what it does, i.e. move DD's that would have missed this clusterfuq straight into the torps path, because... why not, right? Yet another demo of A.I. priorities... Artificial it might be, Intelligent however, not so much...

The Frenchies were in that party too... makes sense when ya think about it... America wouldn't have been too far behind. According to Wiki, Austro-Hungarians barely made it, their first pre-dreadnoughts being comissioned around turn of the century, armed with Krupp supplied guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_274_modèle_1893/1896 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_cm_SK_L/40 Interesting side-note... Technically, the Krupp guns were QF rather than BL...

hmmmmmm... somethin wrong with that picture... mine have always been start year to save year...

honestly? no idea for certain... I'm guessing maybe some corrupted files with the copy/paste after the latest update... The corruption caused instant crash when trying to launch the game... Some head-scratching and rebooting later, I thought, try to copy/paste again... Cha CHING....

continuous crash on re-launch... Patch has been flawless on every rev save this one... Worrying thing is I can't seem to roll it back Edit... Fixed it... no worries

Did you try a re-start? I've encountered the same, but never frequently enough to say it's a bug... seems more like a temp glitch to me

There's this real hi-tech piece of kit that gave sailors the ability to identify an opposing vessel and figure its capabilities, in real time... Only needed a few crude sightings and a couple of minutes of head-scratching... So... unless the weather really was... foggy... chances were you'd have positive I.D. on a target long before entering engagement range... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janes_Fighting_Ships

in a game positively exploding with fundamentally offensive clusterfuq's, THIS is the straw you shed tears over???????????? *thunks... repeatedly*

Not a bug, just a coin toss... Sometimes they're available, sometimes not... I've noticed similar non availables (though not as frequently) with Modern Armour II too.

A.I. nations can't declare war at all. All they can do is squeeze you, financially until YOU declare war on them. The way things are now, that happens with eye-watering frequency, compounded when multiple countries are doing exactly the same, at the exact same time. Any political tools we have to smooth ruffled feathers are useless when fleets that don't exist are increasing tension in 5-6 bodies of water at the same time, this despite your fleet being in port in home waters, with status set to minimum threat profile. Result... you never get the chance to recover, your merchant fleet gets tanked, with better than 50% merchant losses in areas where there's no hostile ships present. Best you can do is try to tough things out, tackling opponents one at a time until you can beat enough countries into submission for the 20-30 years you need for merchant fleet/GDP to recover. It's not impossible to recover from this, but you'll feel like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs for 30-40 years once the chit really hits the fan.

"When" is nigh on impossible to answer... the game bears no relationship with historical development, merely serving up stretched versions of obsolete hulls that get progressively heavier with no discernable increase in capabilities. When, is gonna depend on your GDP's ability to plough cash into your research. It's gonna depend on how stable things are for you, politically. It's gonna depend on how much priority you give to Cruiser development, rather than other equally critical systems...

Good observation Suri... Backing you up, I'm still saying I've no clue if these are related, bu with less than stellar GDP (3.5%), vastly better navy *qualitative and quantative* and healthy navy budget allowed my A.I. generated 50k army (local strength) to do significant damage to a 2million army with better GDP (6.58%) , but vastly inferiour *qualitative and quantitative* navy. Ass-whoppage still happened (lost Maine when US Army invaded from Eastern U.S.) but not before inflicting over 300k casualties...

Can't say you're wrong with that observation, just gonna tag on something I've noticed. I'm working under the impression that naval tech advantage has zero influence on land-forces capability, but with that (and far better naval strength), whenever the army gets involved while I've been blockading China, my army performs way above what I'd expect it to do. When an opponent is far closer to me in tech development, army performance is pretty pitiful. I'm not by any means trying to tie any link between tech standard and army performance, just logging my own observations.

That's quite the presumption given that multi-player was launched a matter of days before v1.6 was inflicted on the rest of us. Prior to that, the game was pretty bad, with the potential to have promise. V1.6 has proven itself to be disasterous, with every update compounding issues rather than addressing them. But don't take my word for it... Have a read through any of the V1.5 - 1.6 threads and count the thoroughly satisfied posts... I guarantee you won't need to remove your sox to count them... Given the game's dire state, it'd be a pretty ignorant fool that'd post a positive review, moreso when the dev's refuse to take heed of well intended feedback re issues that have been crying out to be addressed since the release of Campaign.

Gets my vote too... V1.5 was crying out for a freaky amount of rework, but V1.6 has been a clusterfuq from the get-go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_U-864

Ballast's not required bro... that's not where the bug is... Like I spell out in my "building a Brit 2850 ton DD" post, adding a 66 ton turret to the fantail LIGHTENS displacement, making the stern lighter, which compounds the bow offset; how much displacement is affected depends on exactly where you're placing it... Someone, I donno who, had some pretty damned serious "morning after the night before" syndrome when they rewrote that mess... If this is what vodka does to your head, I'm seriously thankful I'm a Rum guy... my head's quite messed up enough without that BS...

Nick Thomadis, READ my previous post in this thread re building a 2850 ton Brit DD... I've spelled out in very clear, easily understood language exactly what's wrong and why... Believe it or not, we're actively trying to HELP you guys

So throughout Rev 1.6, we’ve had to grow accustomed to needing to build our own clown versions of ships because someone in the dev team doesn’t know about weight balance. We’ve had to endure pitifully unrealistic gun accuracy, ballast masquerading as torpedoes, and a whole host of other nonsense. I honestly didn’t think they could trash the game any more than they already have… But boy was I wrong; get this… Despite having my fleet in port, with minimal threat profile, evidently I’m pissing off a bunch of countries because… game code. Evidently the cause is my shipping being in various different areas, even when each and every active hull is in my home ports… In other words… BS is driving the politics. Expensive BS at that, because the only way you have to forestall combat is throw money to delay things a while; political attempts to smooth ruffled feathers has so little effect that it’s a waste of time and effort trying. So, no matter how strong your economy is, you’re gonna get bled dry by potential combatants that militarily you could wipe the floor with, if not for one major glaring vulnerability that you’re utterly powerless to defend. In my last three conquest campaigns, I started really paying attention to losses incurred by my merchant fleet, noting their number and location, then, when I could finally access the map, looking to see why those losses happened. No great shock that over 50% of those losses happened in areas where not one single, solitary opposing vessel was present. Absolutely nothing there to interdict my merchant fleet, and yet… 6 ships lost here, 8 ships lost there, another 5 over here… each and every month… Sunk by… Nothing. But it gets worse… There’s a new bug with 1.6.0.4 that can bring you to your knees, abruptly, irrespective of your naval strength and health of your economy. It doesn’t take too many of those monthly “paying to delay hostilities” sessions to completely wipe out any reserve you have in your naval budget, and your balance goes negative. Up until now, when that happens, your GDP takes a hit and your balance gets a small boost. That’s where the bug hits you now. You get warned that we’ll be bankrupted, but there’s no GDP reduction, no boost to your budget, and the negative balance gets bigger. And of course, you can neither build new nor upgrade while your balance is negative. Even when I’m fighting against NOBODY… my GDP is growing as my merchant fleet sloooooooooowly regenerates, but when the bug strikes, replacing battle losses, upgrading old hulls, building new hulls… all that comes to a crashing halt, irrespective of what you do with your fleet settings, and where or even IF you’re spending your budget. So you’re left to struggle as best you can with what you have… But it gets worse… My last clash was against the US… Normally they’re a pretty tough nut to crack, and this was no exception, right up until things changed from surreal to just plain freakin’ loopy. After taking the majority of US provinces in the Caribbean, I took the Gulf Coast, South Eastern US, and then moved up to Maine. Two months into trying to conquer Maine, the US army retakes one of their central American provinces, warranting diversion of some fleets to recapture it. Their army then recaptures a neighbouring province, kicking off a back and forth running exchange that lasted over a year. But things didn’t end there. Overnight, the US army changes strength from 75k to 2.5 MILLION… and promptly retakes the Gulf Coast, then the South East, before moving on to try to retake Maine. From the first instance of the US army involvement using unbelievable numbers, I’m looking for an option to bug out of this nonsense; no surprise that the political “peace treaty” option was disabled for over 18 months. So I’m locked into a war where despite having a numerical and qualitive advantage over the opposition, I can’t win, because the opposing A.I. has snatched this game killer advantage out of thin air. My own economy is steadily dwindling all the while, and I’m still being bled dry by up to three other pissed off countries for BS reasons.

Short answer?? It's not.... Period.... It makes as much sense as a DD being able to bounce 16" AP rounds *just don't ask why the A.I. believes a DD NEEDS to be targeted with AP*. Hell, I could fill 16" shells with bananas, and they'd wreck a DD just with sheer mass alone, but, sadly, our intrepid dev's donno a freakin thing from physics... Ticket the fault, take a deep breath and shake it off as best you can... Who knows, maybe some day we'll get the errors fixed... just don't hold your breath.

I think you're almost, but not quite correct there Zuikaku... Yea, superstructures are insanely heavy, and the weight penalties when you add tech systems to them are just plain batchit loopy... But that's not where the problem is exclusively... Every vessel has a centre of balance... like the pivot point of a see-saw, yea? Adding your main tower has just put a bunch of mass forward of that balance point... Now... Experiment with adding other kit to the stern; key point here is you're adding stuff to the opposite end of that balance point. You'll see what I mean. During my last dozen builds, I had to double-take when I see weight added behind that balance point CONTRIBUTING to the fore-end weight imbalance. Moving mahoosive lumps of kit on the stern (turrets are a classic example) doesn't have a fraction of the effect it has when moving forward-mounted kit. I'm honestly not sure which is more unforgivable; the creation of the error, the roll-out of the error when that update clearly hadn't been tested, or that folk have been flagging the error for as long as we have, but nothing's been done about it. The effect is more profound on smaller hulls, DD's, CL's etc, but it's definitely present in every hull. I'm getting tired of being forced to design ships that look more like top-fuel dragsters than fighting ships.