Missions and Challenges - Community Feedback

[Tikibarted]

On 10/21/2019 at 9:02 PM, Invictus said:

The one I disliked the most was BB vs TBs.  I dont think that would be very realistic as there would be screening ships.  Plus its a pain to sink them.

 

 

See Svent Istvan for TB vs Dreadnought

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5pSiCjfhUUw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tikibarted]

1 hour ago, Asthaven said:

I think we should just get Mission editor and some space to share our creations. xD

This right here!  The community will create a plethora of historic, could've happened, might have happened, and fantasy stupidity in great quantities.

 

I'd love to play Santiago, Manila Bay, or Falklands...

[MichaelWells]

I'd like to see a battle of jutland mission, assuming the game engine can handle that many ships.  And assuming part of the fleets could be commanded by the AI, and not be useless...

[Agathos]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 8:57 AM, Tousansons said:

Mission I like the most:

Pre Dreadnought.....

....enemy screen while some Big Boys are hurling explosive umbrellas at each others from across the map. Bonus point if you can land some fishes on the enemy Big Boys before the timer end.

Toussansons, i like your viewpoint although i have to admit my personal opinion is almost the excat opposite.

I disliked both Pred-Dreadnought and DD vs TD as they for me where basicly just chaotic close in slug fests.

I enjoyed later missions like Destroy a whole fleet, WIP Dreadnough or lets say any missions where i could build one or more super dreadnoughts facing an opposing fleet the most. But i admit, i build all my ships to some extend with a historical backround in mind and i.e. the idea of an immunity zone, where i than try to exploit my strenght to the fullest against the opponent.

But i have to agree with you, that a lot of those naval academy missions can be beaten quite easily with some hilariously builds that rely on some single treat, that would never see the light IRL. And so would also like to see more balanced engagements, where maneuvering, positioning and target priorization become much more important than cheesy design choices.

I found the last patch to have resolved some of those issues, as especially the Destroy a whole fleet is now way more balanced and not so much a "one trick Pony" mission.   

Edited October 29, 2019 by Agathos

[Quinte]

It would also be interesting to have some scenarios forcing you to have some kind of range. As a scenario condition, I mean, I don't want us to sail for three actual days.

Because right now, setting the range slider to the minimum is pretty much the first step of any build. 

In a future update, being able to design all the ships in our fleet, at least for some scenarios, would also be more engaging. I'm not a big fan of playing autodesigned ships.

[Diabolic_Wave]

13 hours ago, Quinte said:

In a future update, being able to design all the ships in our fleet, at least for some scenarios, would also be more engaging. I'm not a big fan of playing autodesigned ships.

Seconded. Losing a scenario because the enemy has light cruisers that can run away from your fleet is just unfun. In the 'Sink the Semidreadnought' mission, I was able to sink the dreadnought itself, but both light cruisers turned and ran, and I couldn't catch up.

Alternately, install standardized designs with, say, speeds that should let them catch up to enemies and semi-viable guns, at the least.

[Captain_Sir_Loughton_Peto]

I have really enjoyed what i have played so far. The game seems solid. However i agree with some of the other posts regarding ships running away. Makes total sense in a campaign setting but with these scenarios it makes some very hard to complete.

[Agathos]

I enjoyed most missions so far except two.

Number 1 is TDs vs. BB as sometimes the AI designs unsinkable BBs. But with reasonable designs and a few tries that mission atleast could be done.

Number 2 is DD vs TDs. This one has the potential to become a game breaker if it is ever decided that you have to progress through naval academy missions by mission. I now have countless tries on that one, with every possible and impossible design choice, but never sank more than 5 TDs. This mission just feels bad, just feels to be pure chance and to no point something you as a player can influence. As said if naval academy ever becomes a mission by mission progress, this mission in its curent state will drive players away. If it is kept in its current state, i would advice that naval academy gets another progress mode, i.e. if you finish the 2-3 basic missions you than get the choice to try you luck on 2-3 higher missions and only need to succeed in one of those to unlock more missions.

P.S. I will upload one of my tries to my youtube channel. It was hard to stay calm as the recorded try is the sixth try in succession on that day on that mission that failed.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Agathos

[Cptbarney]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:38 PM, Diabolic_Wave said:

Seconded. Losing a scenario because the enemy has light cruisers that can run away from your fleet is just unfun. In the 'Sink the Semidreadnought' mission, I was able to sink the dreadnought itself, but both light cruisers turned and ran, and I couldn't catch up.

Alternately, install standardized designs with, say, speeds that should let them catch up to enemies and semi-viable guns, at the least.

Omg this, the amount of times i had a close fight thinking i've won when some bloody light cruiser has entered mars's orbit because i didn't finish the remaining 12% structure is insane.

Hense why these scenarios should have a secondary objectives where if the enemy retreats and ship is of low value and/or damaged or just runs away then you should win (obviously for campaign and other missions this doesn't need to apply but you get my point).

[Felius]

The "Destroy the Pre-Dreadnought" mission probably needs a few alterations: In particular, with how the enemy CLs are nearly always faster than the ones you are given (and occasionally even their BB is faster than your CLs too), if one of them decide to run away and you don't immediately blow it up, the mission becomes essentially unwinnable.

Specifically, you simply don't have the weight or the funds to really make a BB good enough to have both speed and power to handle their BB and still keep on pursuit, so unless you get a few extremely lucky hits, even if you manage to effectively win the engagement, they are still likely to manage to get away and escape.

As a sidenote, when they do, the game eventually bugs out, with a few error messages that I assume are about the mission script not predicting the disengagement.

A few solutions I could see:

1. Have the enemy ships programmed never to retreat, like in some other missions.
2. Make so that enemy retreat count as destruction.
3. Make so that you don't have to destroy all their ships, just their BB, their CLs being allowed to survive and still win the mission.
4. Make sure the CLs the player gets are at least as fast as the enemy BB, or ideally as the enemy CLs too.

[WafflesToo]

5 hours ago, Felius said:

The "Destroy the Pre-Dreadnought" mission probably needs a few alterations: In particular, with how the enemy CLs are nearly always faster than the ones you are given (and occasionally even their BB is faster than your CLs too), if one of them decide to run away and you don't immediately blow it up, the mission becomes essentially unwinnable.

Specifically, you simply don't have the weight or the funds to really make a BB good enough to have both speed and power to handle their BB and still keep on pursuit, so unless you get a few extremely lucky hits, even if you manage to effectively win the engagement, they are still likely to manage to get away and escape.

I have a new, "MOST HATED MISSION"

It's not just the funds, the hull you're saddled with can't make use of the funds you do get.  It can't mount 13" guns (even though they're technically an option).  It can't mount "Tower III" (even though it is likewise offered) unless you want to forgo having a forward gun turret.  You literally have to take an inferior force up against a superior one.

Couple this with being teleported into action well within range of the enemy battleship at time+0 so you don't even have time to organize your CLs into a screening force to try and close the range under smoke.  Every time I've tried this mission my flagship suffers serious damage within 60-seconds of starting; long before anything I try can influence the course of the battle.

Edited October 31, 2019 by WafflesToo

[Hellstrike]

16 minutes ago, WafflesToo said:

I have a new, "MOST HATED MISSION"

It's not just the funds, the hull you're saddled with can't make use of the funds you do get.  It can't mount 13" guns (even though they're technically an option).  It can't mount "Tower III" (even though it is likewise offered) unless you want to forgo having a forward gun turret.  You literally have to take an inferior force up against a superior one.

Couple this with being teleported into action well within range of the enemy battleship at time+0 so you don't even have time to organize your CLs into a screening force to try and close the range under smoke.  Every time I've tried this mission my flagship suffers serious damage within 60-seconds of starting; long before anything I try can influence the course of the battle.

You can match the enemy with your main battery and you bring more secondaries. HE spam works quite well. You can slap a lot of 3 inch secondaries on the upper hull, which can also start fires despite their lacklustre penetration. The reload mods help to increase the volume of fire you put out, and with HE you should torch the semi pretty easily. You don't need speed as in my experience as the enemy CLs won't flee until you sank the BB, at which point you should be close enough to finish them before they can disengage. Also, try to minimise your smoke interference. 

 

I admit that this mission is rather luck-based, but if you manage to do more damage with your first few salvoes than the semi does in return, it is not that difficult. Especially if you knock out the towers or main battery. Still rather annoying, but not as bad as DD vs TB.

[Steeltrap]

12 hours ago, Agathos said:

I enjoyed most missions so far except two.

Number 1 is TDs vs. BB as sometimes the AI designs unsinkable BBs. But with reasonable designs and a few tries that mission atleast could be done.

Number 2 is DD vs TDs. This one has the potential to become a game breaker if it is ever decided that you have to progress through naval academy missions by mission. I now have countless tries on that one, with every possible and impossible design choice, but never sank more than 5 TDs. This mission just feels bad, just feels to be pure chance and to no point something you as a player can influence. As said if naval academy ever becomes a mission by mission progress, this mission in its curent state will drive players away. If it is kept in its current state, i would advice that naval academy gets another progress mode, i.e. if you finish the 2-3 basic missions you than get the choice to try you luck on 2-3 higher missions and only need to succeed in one of those to unlock more missions.

P.S. I will upload one of my tries to my youtube channel. It was hard to stay calm as the recorded try is the sixth try in succession on that day on that mission that failed.

Entirely agree.

The second one is disappointing in that it's clear what the devs were aiming at, namely the idea you really ought to have a screen for your capital ships.

The problem is, as has been said here and also in the combat feedback thread, is you simply can't reliably hit the damn things. I suspect this is due to the fact they move quickly (enemy high speed penalty), they often manoeuvre (enemy manoeuvre penalty) and they're damn small (target size penalty). In one attempt I found my DDs being hit by 4" guns from the torpedo boats while my DDs couldn't hit them for jack. Clearly there is an issue with the combination of penalties v base accuracy and range, because DDs were more or less in part designed precisely to deal with torpedo boats, initially being larger, more capable versions of them.

As I said, I can see what this mission was trying to achieve, and I like the premise. It's just that the total mix of modifiers etc are yet to be calibrated to make it a desirable scenario to play.

I don't quite know how this is to be addressed without making TBs more or less irrelevant, however. Even if they significantly boost the accuracy of smaller guns (2-4") there's still the issue of TBs hitting DDs more than the reverse. I'll play around with it a bit more, but I think it's still pretty broken given current combination of accuracy determinants.

Having said all that, generally been lots of fun. I've been into naval warfare for 35+ years, and this is the most promising thing I've seen since the remarkable "Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-43" released in 1992 (ridiculous, I know) that had the greatest damage model, right down to a blueprint of several decks with their compartments plus assigning damage control parties and assigning pumps and allowing counterflooding to manage stability, of any naval game I've ever played.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Steeltrap
Corrected minor error

[WafflesToo]

15 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

You can match the enemy with your main battery and you bring more secondaries. HE spam works quite well. You can slap a lot of 3 inch secondaries on the upper hull, which can also start fires despite their lacklustre penetration. The reload mods help to increase the volume of fire you put out, and with HE you should torch the semi pretty easily. You don't need speed as in my experience as the enemy CLs won't flee until you sank the BB, at which point you should be close enough to finish them before they can disengage. Also, try to minimise your smoke interference. 

 

I admit that this mission is rather luck-based, but if you manage to do more damage with your first few salvoes than the semi does in return, it is not that difficult. Especially if you knock out the towers or main battery. Still rather annoying, but not as bad as DD vs TB.

Ok, maybe not, "Most Hated" but I've still got a bunch of problems with the mission.

So far, on every attempt I start off well inside his effective gun range and outside of my own with my cruisers out of position to even lay covering smoke.  Hell, on two attempts I've had my towers destroyed before my turrets even rotate far enough to return fire (once), or get off more than ranging shots (the second time)

Third attempt I crippled the bastard but one of the two CLs ran off to the moon and the mission timed out.

So, critically speaking, here are my problems with the scenario balance.
1) You have even numbers going into the fight (and given the VC you'd BETTER have even numbers since you game over if even a portion of your heavy force is lost)
2) OPFOR has a significant tech advantage over BLUE (both light and heavy units; if the relative speeds of your escorting units are anything to judge by)
3) Victory conditions are lopsided favoring the OPFOR (they only need to defeat a single heavy unit; even if you brought more than one, you need to sink their entire force)
4) Start conditions arguably favor the OPFOR (although I suppose I should be grateful not to have to weather their long-range fire to get even that close).
5) That BBIII hull... oh god that BBIII hull.  Can't effectively mount larger than 11" guns (I have heard of a cheat to get the 13" guns on though), can't mount tower III if you still want a front turret, nearly impossible to balance (I've always ended up with a serious aft-bias no matter what I've done).  The CA hull is okay though.

[WafflesToo]

16 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

The second one is disappointing in that it's clear what the devs were aiming at, namely the idea you really ought to have a screen for your capital ships.

The problem is, as has been said here and also in the combat feedback thread, is you simply can't reliably hit the damn things. I suspect this is due to the fact they move quickly (enemy high speed penalty), they often manoeuvre (enemy manoeuvre penalty) and they're damn small (target size penalty). In one attempt I found my DDs being hit by 4" guns from the torpedo boats while my DDs couldn't hit them for jack. Clearly there is an issue with the combination of penalties v base accuracy and range, because DDs were more or less in part designed precisely to deal with torpedo boats, initially being larger, more capable versions of them.

I think the issue isn't so much as, "you can't hit the bloody things" as, "there isn't enough effect on target when you do hit them".  A hit from a 4" or 5" gun should pretty much ruin a 400-tonner's day; not mildly inconvenience them.

...by comparison: This is a 400 ton ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_harbor_tug

and this is a 5" gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer (admittedly, a modern one but still).

Edited November 1, 2019 by WafflesToo

[Steeltrap]

11 hours ago, WafflesToo said:

I think the issue isn't so much as, "you can't hit the bloody things" as, "there isn't enough effect on target when you do hit them".  A hit from a 4" or 5" gun should pretty much ruin a 400-tonner's day; not mildly inconvenience them.

...by comparison: This is a 400 ton ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant-class_harbor_tug

and this is a 5" gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer (admittedly, a modern one but still).

Yes, I suspect yours is the more complete explanation.

If I were to correct mine given your excellent points, I'd say "You can't hit the damn things often enough given 4" and 5" guns typically need many hits to destroy one".

How's that? LOL

I can see how the devs have a bit of a dilemma, however.

If they make the TBs 1 hit wonders then why include them unless hitting them is really, really difficult, as in "you have to close to a range you don't want to be at when dealing with something carrying a bunch of torpedoes" sort of difficult.

If they do that so as to make them some sort of threat, however, everyone will complain about the fact they can't hit them, which indeed many of us (including me) have done.

In my view torpedo boats were more a psychological weapon and tactical concern than a truly effective one. Doing a quick search suggests to me they really never resulted in being a great effective threat to major warships. By WW1 that role was undeniably taken on by their successors, Destroyers.

Which means, frankly, I think the devs ought to get rid of them. They're a PITA that don't add much enjoyment but do add considerable frustration.

Cheers

[icepharmy]

I did manage to finish all the missions, including the defeat the pre-dreadnaught but it did take luck. Chose extra funds, 25 knots, 2x2 12 inch guns and first disabled (funnel,engine) the CLs before getting a lucky hit on the BB from close range. Then I chased the CLs at leasure, but it did take about 25 tries. 

[WafflesToo]

16 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

In my view torpedo boats were more a psychological weapon and tactical concern than a truly effective one. Doing a quick search suggests to me they really never resulted in being a great effective threat to major warships...

This is very much true I'd say.  Battle of Jutland, Adm Scheer got Adm Jellicoe to pull his battleships back just by moving his TBs into position to threaten the Grand Fleet causing them to turn away and deploy their destroyers allowing the High Seas fleet to retire from action.

Even if they're one-hit-wonders, their torpedoes should still be dangerous enough that you have to be ready for them; destroyers and CLs to defend your heavy assets (which was supposedly the point of DD v TB mission... they just borked up their victory conditions making the TBs the focus instead of the battleships and armored cruisers.

[Steeltrap]

7 hours ago, WafflesToo said:

This is very much true I'd say.  Battle of Jutland, Adm Scheer got Adm Jellicoe to pull his battleships back just by moving his TBs into position to threaten the Grand Fleet causing them to turn away and deploy their destroyers allowing the High Seas fleet to retire from action.

Even if they're one-hit-wonders, their torpedoes should still be dangerous enough that you have to be ready for them; destroyers and CLs to defend your heavy assets (which was supposedly the point of DD v TB mission... they just borked up their victory conditions making the TBs the focus instead of the battleships and armored cruisers.

My understanding was they didn't have TBs in the battle, rather DDs who of course all carried torps. It's interesting, too, that the two sides had almost completely opposite opinions as to the roles, the Brits seeing them as defensive and screens/scouts, the Germans as offensive and screens/scouts.

I also believe that the significant increase in range and theoretical performance of torpedoes, more than doubling in 10 years or so I think, added greatly to the need to be able to conduct gunnery at greater ranges in the minds of the world's major navies. As it happened, their performance was again more consequential tactically than in damage done.

I've always felt sorry for Jellicoe and the amount of crap he copped for that turn away. It was the correct choice in my admittedly unimportant view, and even doing so there were a surprising number of near misses.

The main reason I feel sorry for him, however, is he wrote very clearly, in 1914 I think, that he would do exactly that if put in that situation, explained why, and sent it to all the relevant higher ups. They all concurred. Then he faces that exact situation and does exactly as he said he would, and people like Churchill (who had many admirable traits but also some lamentable ones) didn't stand up for him. Even Beatty was critical at the time, although he subsequently did say he very much understood once he was elevated to Jellicoe's position (apparently the two were good friends and remained so).

Pardon my detour, lol, but if they intend to keep TBs, and have them able to be built by players (probably will I expect), they're still going to have to sort it out.

Cheers

[Fishyfish]

I discovered in the "Battlecruiser vs Battleship" mission and as far as I can tell only that mission and only with the Battlecruiser I hull that if by chance you are building an American warship, you can get access to cage masts! Should you be able to is the question..? It looks neat, but kinda out of place and goofy. 

[Hellstrike]

The "The Power of Dreadnoughts" mission is way too easy if you pick technology. You can build auto-loading, 14 inch armed battleships with oil-fired turbines. Ignore secondaries, just put the money and weight into that sweet Krupp 4 armour. I ended up with three ships which outgunned the dreadnoughts (tripple mark 3 auto-loading rifles vs what looked like mk 1s of the same calibre) and sank the pair while they managed to land exactly one "penetrating" hit (26 dmg and a fire). The whole affair lasted maybe 10 minutes.

Don't get me wrong, it was fun to do so, but I don't think that the mission was supposed to be that easy. Perhaps add a better tower, range finder or better explosives rather than the tools to outgun a Kongo-class.

[Admiral_Alpha]

This may be a little useless feedback in this topic but I have to say, that I didnt found the naval academy fun enough until I created a cheat table to zero out the weight, cost and set a custom number of ships. With so many maxed out OP ships I completed the naval academy rather quickly, but multiple times and I still want more. I dont expect devs to implement this kind of features in naval academy, but I really hope that this kind of unrestricted construction will be featured in custom battles when they will finally arrive.

[TooManyPuppies]

So I'm Currently sitting watching my Pre-Dreadnought chase after a ping representing 2 torpedo boats after sinking 2 Pre-Deadnoughts, an Armoured Cruiser, a CL and a torpedo boat. So my suggestion would be end a scenario after say 95% of enemy tonnage is sunk or if a ship retreating and undetected for say 5 mins count it as escaped or driven off. Or not include light screening forces towards a win.

Loving the game its just kinda dull chasing after fleeing enemies that you cant even see to shoot at. Also a bit frustrating to fail a scenario because a ship decided to run away.

[Steeltrap]

4 hours ago, TooManyPuppies said:

So I'm Currently sitting watching my Pre-Dreadnought chase after a ping representing 2 torpedo boats after sinking 2 Pre-Deadnoughts, an Armoured Cruiser, a CL and a torpedo boat. So my suggestion would be end a scenario after say 95% of enemy tonnage is sunk or if a ship retreating and undetected for say 5 mins count it as escaped or driven off. Or not include light screening forces towards a win.

Loving the game its just kinda dull chasing after fleeing enemies that you cant even see to shoot at. Also a bit frustrating to fail a scenario because a ship decided to run away.

Yes that's happened to many people. They tend not to run if the last of the PD or CA are still afloat, generally. Some of the missions do have "sink %" conditions, and others say the enemy won't retreat. 

Perhaps the devs just wanted to see how those various things would play out, how the AI would react, and so on?

[TooManyPuppies]

9 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Yes that's happened to many people. They tend not to run if the last of the PD or CA are still afloat, generally. Some of the missions do have "sink %" conditions, and others say the enemy won't retreat. 

Perhaps the devs just wanted to see how those various things would play out, how the AI would react, and so on?

It was a sink percentage one i thin it was pre-dreadnought battle or something. Its why i think those would make sense with a sink percentage of tonnage instead so people don't feel the need to chase down the last couple of TBs.to not risk failing it. 

Oh and a suggestion for another scenario.Design a Treaty era battle ship that can take on a battleship that exceeds treaty limits. Like HMS King George V or USS North Carolina vs Bismarck