Long list of issues (Please read)

[SonicB]

8 minutes ago, akd said:

no one claimed it was harder to estimate the speed of a faster vessel.

I mean the devs have for several months... but also, so when you said:

1 hour ago, akd said:

Whether precisely known or not, target speed itself is not the dominant factor in accuracy, but it is also not irrelevant.

what you meant to say was that "it is also not irrelevant when combined with other factors," correct? In that case then of course I would agree.

[Hangar18]

4 hours ago, SonicB said:

Out of interest, are you talking sim or IRL experience, because agreed, immediately judging the angle on bow of a ship in visual range is very possible. On a clear day, close enough to make out the ship's main features

>Would just like to add that @Hangar18's conclusions, while they may be drawn from subsims, 

Sim, he would use the masts to do this. iirc that was pretty far relatively speaking, about 10km. Personally, i was unable to break the optical illusion long enough to judge, so i stayed with the tried and true. This man would come in, direct course to interdict, leave for nearly an hour, come back, walk in, say "Los....Los...Los....Los, set course x", and then leave. He would time the launches so there would be a window where you could fire across the bow of multiple ships, in order to strike 4 paralel targets and the same time.

(in modern subs you wouldn't check angle on bow visually, you would just course plot. You don't have to be exact in calculations because the torpedo can take up the slack with its own sonar)

The biggest difference between sub and surface, would be the shell travel time. Torpedos are easy, they go a set speed; The external ballistics of a shell are far more complex in a number of ways. 

2 hours ago, akd said:

but it is also not irrelevant.

It is not entirely irrelevant, but it is not particularly relevant in any way either. it is certainly no -90%.

Like my previous comment above showed, you dont need to be exact, you have plenty of room for error. it's hard for a battleship to get out of a dispersion ellipse even at 40ky. And if you noticed the error, which seems likely in most cases, then it would not take long to check your work. The error has to be large enough to shift the point of aim significantly, but not large enough that the operator would notice that he has made an error at all. That's a small set of circumstances.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Hangar18

[SonicB]

Just to drop this in as a minor fix request - it's looking like the 'shell weight' information for guns is incorrectly stated in the designer. It's instead describing the 'all-up' weight of shell and charge, and even then needs some work.

To take a well-known example: the British 15" gun fired a ~870kg shell, which would make it light according to this game, despite British practice of preferring heavier shells with lower muzzle velocity to their German counterparts. However, add in the propellant charge of 195kg cordite and that gives you a 1,065kg round, which is almost 'medium' in game (and, I would argue, should be 'heavy' according to conventional doctrine.)

[Hangar18]

3 hours ago, SonicB said:

Just to drop this in as a minor fix request - it's looking like the 'shell weight' information for guns is incorrectly stated in the designer. It's instead describing the 'all-up' weight of shell and charge, and even then needs some work.

To take a well-known example: the British 15" gun fired a ~870kg shell, which would make it light according to this game, despite British practice of preferring heavier shells with lower muzzle velocity to their German counterparts. However, add in the propellant charge of 195kg cordite and that gives you a 1,065kg round, which is almost 'medium' in game (and, I would argue, should be 'heavy' according to conventional doctrine.)

Probably something to kick down the road to the propellant, filler separation.

[BobRoss0902]

One thing I'd like to see is instead of showing a percentage of how much weight a module or thing will add, show the actual amount of weight that the item will add.

[TsAGI]

2 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:

One thing I'd like to see is instead of showing a percentage of how much weight a module or thing will add, show the actual amount of weight that the item will add.

So for example, it would show 

Stereoscopic Rangefinder: +15% / 140t 

or something like that? That would be nice.

[Nick Thomadis]

Please keep posting your issues here. A new reply will be offered by us, as soon as possible.
We monitor all your latest feedback, to prioritize our work.

[Nick Thomadis]

We are sorry for the accidental moderation action that happened when clearing pinned topics.
Thread unlocked.

[Skeksis]

Weapons firing while badly listing and/or sinking…

Water should be pouring in and flooding the casemates deck but as you can see, somehow the crew are still at their stations and even managing to firer off their gun!

All the barrels are pointing into the ocean but somehow the shells still fly! ditto for when the barrels are aiming at the clouds, though they can still firer they shouldn't be on target.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Skeksis

[Admiral Lütjens]

 

new ships are a must , Scharnhorst and King George V classes and maybe richelieu class  

actually with the feature King George V class need and 
now seriously range finders and propellers with animation condition feature range finders really

 

and the flooding  mechanics should be corrected 

for example the ship takes water from the bow or stern but listing on the port or

starboard side.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Admiral Lütjens

[coalminer]

Quote

from

The insistence that faster ships are inherently more difficult to hit is baffling, for example. There are some excellent posts that explore that in detail, and I hope the dev team entirely revisits this issue.

*snip*

Indeed the whole issue of damage control (the wonder bulkheads about which I have been writing for more than 6 months) is a huge topic, especially given the current system reeks of WoWS and its "magic spanner" button, but I guess I'll have to wait to see what sort of response comes from that thread then add all this to the new one.

Ok the other thread got closed and this got reopened, so got to put this here instead.

In previous patches there were numerous feedback that DDs (lighter vessels) were too fragile and could be destroyed with relative ease by BBs mounting large numbers of 2"/3" RF guns. Recent patches introduced (tweaked) accuracy number to compensate for weaker unarmoured vessels, but this resulted in terribly unrealistic system where pointblank ranges are resulting in way more missed than what would probably happen.

I recently went back to test a 1940s BB vs a bunch of about 20 1915 BBs, BCs, CAs and CLs (ok silly scenario but it was just to push the extremes) what resulted was running out of ammo (16", 8",6" triples increased shells and SH shells) as my ship was missing CAs at 6km ranges from simply sailing straight. The opposing fleet was also incredibly hard to sink due to the magical bulkhead/destroyed module system and took way more shells than expected such as flotation going down to single digits and magically popping up while belt penetrations were continuously going on, near misses and below waterline hits should also be factored in. A vessel listing port side and taking more deck and belt hits on the same side should not magically be able to pump out water to right the vessel without massive counterflooding or outright capsizing due to physics. The AI also tended to sail straight "exploiting" the bow tanking mechanics, better definition of armoured areas and visualisation of armour coverage is needed instead of the all or all armouring method that tends to stand out now.

What this also highlights is that tweaking of numbers cannot help address fundamental issues of the game mechanics (gunnery, armour, survivability in general) without a serious indepth look at how each component interacts with the other. While the flash fire/ammo detonation being made more deadly was indeed a step in the correct direction, belt extended hits from small calibre weapons triggering flashes/ammo dets really shows some of the limitations of the current armouring system.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Old one, extremely limited editor.

AI generating gunbarges as cruisers and speedboats as ironclads.
Gunbarges and speedboats in general. It isn't normal, nor pretty, when they field a 30 heavy turrets cruiser abomination like it's From the Depths. They often tend to go for extremities, maximum possible speed with tiny guns or just all the guns that physically can fit onto the hull, probably even violating the mass restriction.

Magically unhittable enemies, to the point when your guns somehow shoot literally backwards if the magic enemy is too close. Yes still happens. Shells go where guns physically cannot aim, just to avoid hitting the target.

Visual listing of ships having nothing in common with their damage display. Physical floatation model (or whatever is used to visualize boats on the water) is exaggerated in general, ships often wobble around way too much - in real conditions such heavy rocking would be considered dangerous, and they definitely won't be physically able to use the guns.
Also seems like hull proportions for many dreadnoughts (at least) are off, they're too high.

Do they even get hit chance decrease for my manoeuvres? Seems like no. But always have a buff for their manoeuvre even if doing nothing.

Numerous confusing moments with damage model, like
Undead destroyers that just won't sink after 20 heavy HE hits to the face, despite being completely on fire and 99% flooded.
Chosen ones torpedoboats that just never cannot be hit by anything at all. They make missions with them the hardest ones. Again it seems that enemies have easier time.
99% flooded burning ship keeps full firepower and accuracy. Weapons rarely getting damage and penalty for being a pile of scrap seems to be low.
and many others

[1MajorKoenig]

- Option to manipulate length to beam ratio 

-option to manipulate free board / height 

- option to freely place structures 

- option to manipulate machinery sections

- option to place Mast and bridge separately and addition of more mast types (tripod, pole, simple fore mast, spotting top, etc.)

- remove fix points

- AND MOSTLY: ADD DERFFLINGER PARTS (along with Mackensen & Ersatz Yorck parts)

 

🙂

 

[madham82]

Just a reminder, this tread is for bug/unresolved issues. Not feature adds. See Nick's post on that specific question:

I'm probably putting words in Nick's mouth, but I saw the point of this tread to be about bugs/problems with the game that haven't been fixed in previous patches. So we need to leave out "features" suggestions like adding X hull, Y guns, Z visual improvement. Those are probably best for another thread. @Nick Thomadis can you clarify before this thread gets full of I want quad turrets and such? (Which I want too of course lol). 

Nick: Indeed, we need reports about major, game-breaking issues in this thread.

[1MajorKoenig]

46 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Just a reminder, this tread is for bug/unresolved issues. Not feature adds. See Nick's post on that specific question:

I'm probably putting words in Nick's mouth, but I saw the point of this tread to be about bugs/problems with the game that haven't been fixed in previous patches. So we need to leave out "features" suggestions like adding X hull, Y guns, Z visual improvement. Those are probably best for another thread. @Nick Thomadis can you clarify before this thread gets full of I want quad turrets and such? (Which I want too of course lol). 

Nick: Indeed, we need reports about major, game-breaking issues in this thread.

Well I don’t think he is looking for bug reports.

As I understood he is looking for feedback on potential improvements to prioritize work 

[madham82]

17 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well I don’t think he is looking for bug reports.

As I understood he is looking for feedback on potential improvements to prioritize work 

That is precisely what I asked him and you see his response. Adding new things has to take a backseat to fixing core issues (i.e. "major, game-breaking issues"). 

[Latur Husky]

The only thing that comes to my mind is bug that causes game to think that some of your guns and/or modules are pleced incorrectly when you load design or go back to ship designer from the mission. Happens for various ship types, modules and guns. 

[Dan Dare]

When vessels are in line, the 2nd and rest of then are all the time correcting their bearing, so they look like vibrating... 

[evildeathmonkey]

Please ignore if mentioned before, but the formation-AI still seems to be unable to keep ships in a line. Whenever I have a formation of more than two my ships start violently and erratically manoeuvring all over the place, as if they're on a collision-course.. I've tried the 'spread out' option to see of that helps any, but they do it regardless of distance between them it seems. It doesn't seem to happen if I place them all in their own 1-ship divisions and just tell them to follow the ship in front of them individually.

[1MajorKoenig]

@Nick Thomadis hi nick, there has been some discussions on communication and transparency — and I really like the fact that there are some threads to collect feedback now.
 

However: can you already share a bit on the current plans on the next update? Eg. Focus content-wise, Outlook on rough timeline, etc.

Edited August 10, 2020 by 1MajorKoenig

[Finwenolofinwe]

Stationkeeping right now is attrocious. Even changing a squadron's speed is likely to break it up, let alone something as simple as a 8 point turn. On a similar note at the very least the options to turn in succession and to turn together are a must when maneuvering.

[BobRoss0902]

Could we get a sort of middle superstructure? Just adding something in between the main and secondary towers would add so much more to ship design than just pick the best tower, and change up the looks of ships significantly.

[1MajorKoenig]

Here is a bug (potentially):

• I built a "moltke" Style BC with en-echolon turrets by placing side turrets and deleting one of each
• the program shows a 100% starboard weight offset
• unfortunately the screenshot does not cover the error on screen but that's what it showed

 

Apparently the program gets confused over tehse kind of placements but these were rather common back in the days - can this be fixed @Nick Thomadis ?

 

[Marshall99]

34 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Here is a bug (potentially):

• I built a "moltke" Style BC with en-echolon turrets by placing side turrets and deleting one of each
• the program shows a 100% starboard weight offset
• unfortunately the screenshot does not cover the error on screen but that's what it showed

 

Apparently the program gets confused over tehse kind of placements but these were rather common back in the days - can this be fixed @Nick Thomadis ?

 

Yep. This is very annoying bug. I tried to design similar ships but it is impossible. Every single time, there will be a weight offset (I usually balance it with secondaries)

[Purgato]

The German pre-dreadnought battleship 3 hull has been an annoyance to me for as long as I can remember it being in game.

For one the more upgraded 'front tower 3' mount needs to just have that GIANT GAP in between it and the upper deck for it to be placed. Which means you are heavily limited on what guns can even be mounted in the front for more or less no reason.

It isn't even an issue of true collision since when you try and place it flush with the deck behind it, it looks like a perfect fit and the designer just yells "OVERLAPS WITH BORDER" instead. Worst of all is that the older tower you can mount gives you about the same amount of space on the raised part of the turret deck and YET it can be fit on the node where the other tower was overlapping even though the back walkway on it SHOULD be currently jammed into the upper deck.

Also, the rear towers don't even get close to lining up with the upper decks, they are more or less half a floor below it.

Something I'm not entirely sure is a problem, but has always been slightly annoying was the near requirement to have double 5 inch gun mounts, it would be nice to be able to mount some single 6 inch mounts in their spot, but that's more of a personal gripe then anything.

 

TL;DR, The front tower is very messed up and the rear is kind of messed up.