Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<


Recommended Posts

Hey Darth!
Thank you for finally adding in Pagoda type Super structures! Very much appreciated and one step closer to my favorite class the Kongo!

However you only added in the hull suitable for the Fuso class, that hull is very close to the Kongos with one major caveat in game which is the second layer of the hull (which contains the casemates) sits to far back on the version in game.

Would it be possible to add in a modified version where this second layer is sitting forward more and thus allows for the turret configuration of the Kongo class and more resemble her silhouette. I dont expect youll get much clout for it but I would personally be very thankful.

Great patch, thank you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Guys, we are sorry for the silence. The campaign is in works, and it is the primary thing we do now. The game is certainly not dead. The version you play is stable so what remains as top priority for

Admirals, The anticipated patch has been finalized and is ready for you to play! Explore the many new hulls, the Ship Design improvements and lots of interesting mechanics. The AI is also signifi

Please keep this thread relevant to the topic. Some of the latest irrelevant posts were deleted and Elrerune The Honorbound has been warned. It is very understandable to discuss about histor

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Is this intentional, new bug or actually a reintroduced bug? 

It is assuredly intentional. Those numbers neatly match with Imperial to metric conversions.

One modern inch is equal to 25.4mm. The game ticks up by 0.1in at a time, giving increments of either 2.5mm or 2.6mm with rounding.

2in is thus 50.8mm, 3in 76.2mm, 4in 101.6mm, and so on. The example image "124.5mm" and "200.7mm" are rounded conversions from 4.9in and 7.9in, respectively.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Some Designer Tool wishes (or feedback after alittle activity).

Hide components toolbar (bottom bar). Once finish your design, sometimes it would helpful to stop accidentally deleting something or mucking up the design. If we could hide this toolbar then it would be like locking the design. 

Repairs base unit total. There's nothing to compare different techs against, like a total figure of some sort. We simply enter battle with hope and just wait and see if something is going to work/repair.

Funnel required capacity total. After boilers/engines added. All we do is trial & error to see if some funnel is going to make 100% efficiency (and to estimate total capacity), a base total will tell us that you need to make up a certain amount of capacity, we could then add funnels logically. 

Flagship communications range total. Again nothing to give us a reference in battle.

Faster ship identifying tech. And/or added to towers.

Faster smoke screen redeployment time and longer interval tech. And/or added to towers.

Radar Range. So we have a reference that we can use for selecting guns based on gun range and radar range (if a player so chooses). This can actually be viewed with 'Tower Spotting', when changing radar selections, probably could just do with a range value in the hint/help note though. 

Display the ship year in Designer Tool. For screenshot purposes. Should be saved within ship files too, must be something similar in the campaign files. 

Battle instance.

Ability to limit the number of torpedo's to fire at once. If not setting a number then half salvos would be something we could try (for late tech). This is very noticeable in late era ships where we have multiple tubes on launchers and where situations arises that you don't necessary want to launch all torpedo's at once. Especially now that torpedo's have become a premium. 

AI reducing speeds in divisions. When ships are combine into divisions the AI will reduce speeds somewhat, this is uncontrollable, useless and counterproductive to any battle tactics. If we have to we're simply just going to detach every ship, to manage speeds ourselves, correctly. Currently they're just to slow. I think we could live with a few knots slower but any thing slower than 10% of the max will just cause us to detach ships. It's what I'm doing for larger fleet battles and I end up with almost every ship detach. 

Better still if we could manage that speed reduction in an overall battle doctrine of some sort. Actually there's nothing to tells us why perfectly sound ships have to be on the 'go slow' anyway.  

Wayward points. It just really would help positioning ships/divisions into better tactical formations. And maneuvering the whole fleet thereafter.

Transport command. Transports automatically heading in the opposite direction is not always the best tactic, sometimes the opposite flank to the enemy or a vectoring retreat is better. In convoy battles or even in general, our transports and warships are handicapped without this command ability.   

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, disc said:

It is assuredly intentional. Those numbers neatly match with Imperial to metric conversions.

One modern inch is equal to 25.4mm. The game ticks up by 0.1in at a time, giving increments of either 2.5mm or 2.6mm with rounding.

2in is thus 50.8mm, 3in 76.2mm, 4in 101.6mm, and so on. The example image "124.5mm" and "200.7mm" are rounded conversions from 4.9in and 7.9in, respectively.

Just like all the way back in Alpha 1 which had the mix of the two and was too confusing to either-or camps.

There's going to be some criticism about this (by others), future-wise. 

My preference is whole rounded numbers (in metric), a decimal point of something....ah I don't know about that, it doesn't sit very well, it looks messy. I do it to use up the very last tons but never as a conventional setting, always whole numbers.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

Just like all the way back in Alpha 1 which had the mix of the two and was too confusing to either-or camps.

There's going to be some criticism about this. 

I think what should happen is if you switch to imperial measurements it should reflect that everywhere else same for inches. Also the same for metrics, so that it is more consistent.

Also i like the suggestions above, could use all of those really and also a kongo hull suggestion from spanish avenger.

I also feel incredibly sick, thanks to this tooth abcess. Hopefully it will clear up soon as i got work in like 35 mins from this post lol.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Deutschland-class hulls can't fit 152 mm as secondary armament as they should.

Also in 1929 you can't fit Diesel main engines as one should be able to.

Edited by ZorinW
additional content
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that bothers me is you still get those moments where a destroyer 6 kilometers away from you can get shot at by 6 inch triples for like 5+ real life minutes without it being locked in as a target.

I'm pretty sure even WW1 ships could manage that, and yet my 'radar 2, fire control system maxxed' pocket battleship cannot manage it...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

One thing that bothers me is you still get those moments where a destroyer 6 kilometers away from you can get shot at by 6 inch triples for like 5+ real life minutes without it being locked in as a target.

I'm pretty sure even WW1 ships could manage that, and yet my 'radar 2, fire control system maxxed' pocket battleship cannot manage it...

Yep, the bug where your turrets lose lock and have to be manually retargeted to start getting it back. Still not been squashed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While playing today, I no longer was stuck with german, Deutschland-style torpedo tubes. Rather, now japanese-style torpedo tubes were available for all torpedo tubes, including on austrian-hungarian ships and german vessels.

Repeatedly, the game crashed with the "too many threads"-error, occuring while using german superbattleship and japanese battlecruiser.
Also, many weapons mounts cannot be fitted on japanese towers that were mountable before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Nick Thomadis

I'm pretty sure I found the target lock bug. It happens under the following conditions:

  1. Violent maneuvers combined with inadequate turret traverse to maintain a firing solution.
  2. When free rotating (i.e.: 360deg) turrets exist in a design.

1. I don't think this is all that important. Ships nearly always reacquire after a bit if they can bring their guns to bear on the target.

2. This is the real issue. Ships will immediately lose lock with almost any maneuver, no matter how small. Manually retargeting will force a target lock, but the ship will immediately lose it on the next maneuver. Additionally, an occluded free rotating turret will often cause the loss of target lock even if no maneuvers are undertaken. Adjusting a design to eliminate free rotating turrets will always fix this problem.

Additionally, we have a problem with the AI and station-keeping in formations.

The culprit is almost certainly varying rated speeds in a formation, and it's by far the most obvious in screening and scouting formations as they like to move at the maximum rated speed for the fastest ship in that formation. Station-keeping and maneuvers were pretty much the primary reason ships rarely fought at maximum speeds, and it's showing in the game right now. Varying design speeds and damage are playing havoc with formations and the AI is struggling with it. This results in formations which don't maintain any set speed, to say nothing of an optimal speed, and they often spread across 10km or more in long, running battles. 

I think this could be fixed pretty handily by the following:

  1. Formations should begin the battle at no more than 90% of the rated speed of the slowest ship in any given formation. If the player orders maximum speed, that's on them and they'll get the current formation performance.
  2. Damaged ships which are unable to maintain formation speed should reverse course and detach. Notify the player in the log and let them decide what to do with the ship in question.
Edited by killjoy1941
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I am very pleased by Alpha 12, but I have noticed a few things that are (or are still) bugging me:

1: I understand and will not condemn reusing hulls for different nations and/or shipclasses, but seeing the coat of arms of a German aristocrat on my new ITA modern battleship (the new modern hull. which is an enlarged version of Graf Spee) ruins the scene a bit. Same goes for the new ITA dreadnought that's based off of the Fuso design, it still has the Imperial golden sun on the bow.

2: small secondaries [not casemates] (2 and 3 inch) are placed in turrets far too early, both historically and ingame designwise. Most (pre-)dreadnought hulls don't have the space to fit actual 2-inch turrets where 2-inch secondaries can be placed (such as on the bridge), so it throws a "not enough space/overlap" error most of the time meaning those gunslots go wasted. It also isn't very aestethically pleasing. Seeing the return of gunshielded 2 and 3-inch single guns untill about 1920 (when nations started modernizing what they had due to the Washingon treaty) would greatly enhance the looks and design choices of early game.

2.5: On some later hulls the mirrored secondary slots are placed so close together that they cannot actually fit besides eachother, so the game only adds the one on the side you clicked, and leaves the other side empty. Should you try to fit a gun there yourself it will just say it overlaps with its twin and wont allow placing. Also on the Graf Spee main tower one set of secondary slots cannot be fitted at all with guns as it apparently overlaps with the tower itself (thus making the slots currently completely unusable).

3: On the tumblehome type pre-dreadnoughts which can only fit 4-6 inch casemates in two sets of slots in the bow/bridge area, on the set below the forward main turret, anything larger then a 4-inch gun will not fit inside the casemate and be partially visible outside of the hull.

4: On my copy of the game the Germans had Japanese styled torpedo launchers and the Japanese had German styled torpedo launchers :P

 

Nothing else caught my eye in a buggy way. The quality of the new ship models is amazing and it has overal greatly improved the game both in designing new ships and playing battles.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

Good morning and first of all, thanks for the hard work in giving us this mod.

I have, however, discovered some things, that dissapoint me a bit. Playing mostly with german ships, I was surprised that you cannot seem to build a Bismarck-style ship anymmore. The secondary guns (152mm, 127mm) do not fit the side "sockets" anymore on battleships, large cruisers and battlecruisers anymore. Also, german superstructures come with built-in barbettes. These, however, are very limited in what weapons they accept. While it is no problem to fit, say, 457mm guns on american barbettes, german will not accept 432mm weapons on a standard battleship hull, for example.

Also, while I am happy to see the new Graf Spee-style bridge in the game, I would have liked to see these to be placed on german battlecruisers and large cruisers also.
Finally, but that's probably just me, I cannot find an option for different torpedo launcher looks. I am stuck with the same, Deutschland-class launchers, regardless what type I chose and what country I play.

Screenshot 001.jpg

Screenshot 002.jpg

Screenshot 003.jpg

Yeah I was going to mention this earlier as well. Some of the secondary placements are broken like the German ones you mentioned. This is also happening with the Yamato super-structure where you can't place five inch guns on it. Hopefully that gets fixed soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Yamato hull seems to have some issues, especially when mounting barbettes on the inclined section at the front. Any turret placed behind the barbette can rotate, and even fire through it without issueThere's also the issue of not being able to mount 4"/5" guns on the upper tier of secondary mountings for the Modern Tower 1, as long as there are secondaries on the lower tier.

KKSM6.png

KKSM4.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

BUG FIXES

  • Fixed bug that could cause guns to become badly placed when mounting submerged torpedoes.

Bad placement bug via underwater tube placement still problematic...

Quote

SHIP DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS/FIXES

  • Minimum Tonnage step reduced from 5 tons to 1 tons, so you can build ships with more precision.

Changing to 1 ton increment still problematic, now even harder to adjust tonnage exactly. Direct editing tonnage is the best option. Using the "shift" key to slow to exactly 1 ton increment is still an option e.g. when the control is in focus and the shift key is down, lag the scrollbar so it can't jump more than 1 increment at a time or slow the mouse cursor by 90% etc, either will do. 

TZUZyt0.png

Couldn't get the tonnage to 14000.
Austro-Hungarian 1912 'Armored Cruiser V' hull. 
1  or 5 increments itself is not the problem, it’s the sensitively of cursor movement, i.e. we can’t move the mouse cursor slow enough. Scrollbar adjustment pixels / range adjustment = less than 0.5 pixel, often less than 0.1, makes it impossible to scroll 1 pixel to 1 ton.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a question about how the armor buff works.

For example, I got a BB with Krupp IV, giving a 108% buff to armor strength. What does that actually mean?

Does it mean I have 11 Inches of armor that behaves like 22 inches of... what? RHA? Or does it mean that I actually have 22 Inches of armor for the weight of 11 inches of... RHA? Iron? Or does it mean that I actually do have 11 inches of armor, but they are just flat out "just as good" as 22 inches of iron, or RHA?

When making real world inspired Vessels, this is an interesting question. Say I want to make that new shiny Fuso (it had up to 12 inches of armor). Does that mean to have realistic protection I have to enter 6 inches of armor (for 12 inches of "true" protection?). Or do I set it to 12 inches (which according to the game are 22 inches of unknown material.) and live with that?

I guess the more pertinent question would be, what are the armor buffs being compared to? Iron Armor? Or RHA? Is this even an interesting question?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the Deutschland-Class Academy mission. I expected to face something resembling the Dunkirk-Class battleship as guardian of the convoy. Instead I had to fight this: 

 

That seems a little bit overkill to be honest (and I got absolutely destroyed)

1.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SodaBit said:

The new Yamato hull seems to have some issues, especially when mounting barbettes on the inclined section at the front. Any turret placed behind the barbette can rotate, and even fire through it without issueThere's also the issue of not being able to mount 4"/5" guns on the upper tier of secondary mountings for the Modern Tower 1, as long as there are secondaries on the lower tier.

KKSM6.png

Adding to your feedback on secondary placement since you have a screenshot illustrating it: you also can't place both 2in. secondary turrets on the frontmost part of the primary tower if using Modern Tower 1. On the interface for Armor and Plan you can see one of the turrets, but the second spot below it is empty, as it won't allow the second gun to be placed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Instant_Goats said:

I've got a question about how the armor buff works.

For example, I got a BB with Krupp IV, giving a 108% buff to armor strength. What does that actually mean?

Does it mean I have 11 Inches of armor that behaves like 22 inches of... what? RHA? Or does it mean that I actually have 22 Inches of armor for the weight of 11 inches of... RHA? Iron? Or does it mean that I actually do have 11 inches of armor, but they are just flat out "just as good" as 22 inches of iron, or RHA?

When making real world inspired Vessels, this is an interesting question. Say I want to make that new shiny Fuso (it had up to 12 inches of armor). Does that mean to have realistic protection I have to enter 6 inches of armor (for 12 inches of "true" protection?). Or do I set it to 12 inches (which according to the game are 22 inches of unknown material.) and live with that?

I guess the more pertinent question would be, what are the armor buffs being compared to? Iron Armor? Or RHA? Is this even an interesting question?

Think in naval design terms instead of armor thickness and modifiers - i.e.: for a Fuso, penetration-proof your ship against your own guns at 10-15km or so.

Using nice, round numbers for an example, if you have guns with 400mm of penetration at that range and your armor modifier is +100%, you want at least 200mm of armor.

 

9 hours ago, WilliamWindhund said:

I tried the Deutschland-Class Academy mission. I expected to face something resembling the Dunkirk-Class battleship as guardian of the convoy. Instead I had to fight this: 

 

That seems a little bit overkill to be honest (and I got absolutely destroyed)

1.png

Yup. The BC will always have 17" or 18" guns and will always be faster than you, but will always have thin armor. It took a few attempts, but I did it by using an all-forward design and slapping as much armor on my ship as I possibly could with no torpedo protection. I then played torpedo slalom while blasting away at the escorts as I rushed the BC and sank it. Forget the transports - if you sink the BC you win.

Also, you posted a perfect screencap of the target lock bug. Your rear turret can rotate through 360 degrees, is occluded, and you probably have no target lock.

Edited by killjoy1941
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A Feature that would be helpful - for us layman's.

When adjusting the armor it's actually all guesswork, I have no idea how much the armor setting is going to protect against something, I simply up or reduce the values to whatever!

What would be helpful if there was a 'resistance figure' or a set of values of shell resistance's that would tell us what your setting is going to protect against (or best protect against), as you adjust them.  

7chhDJS.png

Like to know what shell (or impact) the setting is going to resist against or have the best resistance against, so players could then set armor to a particular level of resistance. And then adjust tech to suit etc.

 

I do have a question though. If shells are blocked why do ships still sustain damage? like what's the game principle here (help information). 
B7i2C0k.png

BB Triumph was set to only firer 51mm shells.

Also a riddle - How long is 4 inches, 99.1mm or 101.6mm?

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...