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

[Nick Thomadis]

17 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

My CPU is a 3600 6-Core 3.59 Ghz regarding the too many threads.

Do you remember in which situation you got this "Too Many Threads" error warning? Was it during Auto-Design, while waiting to start battle or during battle? Did any of the ships have torpedoes (e.g. If the fleet had destroyers, they would have torpedoes). Ιn which technology year was this battle event?

[Nick Thomadis]

8 hours ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

There's a discrepancy in the new fuels: Oil I reduces boiler weight by 10%, but Oil II and III do not.

This fuel type is meant to be used with Turbines, as a more cost effective option. The other more expensive fuels are optimized for Diesel engines, so they do not have any boiler weight bonuses. You can compare weights/costs of ships as you switch fuel types for a given speed, to check what is better.

[ZorinW]

After the Hotfix the new model for the German torpedo launchers has disappeared for all years except 1940. Now we only get the Japanese ones for the period between 1931 and 1940, while the new German model should be available from 1929 onward.

Edited June 5, 2021 by ZorinW

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

After the Hotfix the new model for the German torpedo launchers has disappeared for all years except 1940. Now we only get the Japanese ones for the period between 1931 and 1940, while the new German model should be available from 1929 onward.

This was working the same before. We currently use 3 generic torpedo models for all nations and for 5 Technology Marks, scaled to torpedo size. Later we will add more models.

[Darth Khyron]

Year was 1936 and there were torpedo-armed Ships involved.

And, yes, it crashed when building up towards a battle.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Darth Khyron

[SpootKnight]

5 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

As for the placement of secondaries, here are a few pictures of the problem. I think, that secondary turrets are now (or were before Alpha 12) too big, sometimes. Hm...I wanted to upload more, but an unknown error keeps occuring. Anyway, often you cannot place a secondary or larger torpedo tubes on the side of a ship. This is especially true with vessels which mount large superstructures like german or british cruisers (you cannot place 5' secondaries). Torpedo tubes are now scales, which is good. But you cannot really mount larger tubes on the side of many vessels, especially japanese large oxygen-type tubes, they are simply too big, even for heavy cruisers (on a side note, japanese and german-style tubes seem to have switched places with one another).

On the picture with the japanese battleship, I tried to mount 102mm guns on the superstructure. Before Patch Alpha 12 that was possible on all fixture points. Now, only four out of six can mount the guns. 127mm guns will only be accepted on the lower three hardpoints. On smaller vessels, like heavy cruisers, you can only mount 76mm-type guns on the superstructure. However, these often come into conflict with forward-mounted main guns, causing them to go "red".

 

For this one it was mentioned to be happening in Alpha 11 as well. I was hoping from the patch notes that this gun placement was allowed again.

The two 2in. secondaries still can't be placed together on the Modern Tower I, when the models will never overlap with each other. Modern Tower II will fit both.

It seems like now there's always a gap when using Modern Tower I and Modern Secondary Tower I. If you try to fine-tune the position any closer it won't allow the tower to be placed. Comparing this to both of the II towers, they'll fit together to be flush with the models - no gap.

Edited June 5, 2021 by SpootKnight
Putting relevant text over their respective image

[Cptbarney]

List of issues found, by mighty menhet on a discord i am on.

Italy have not heavy cruiser 1894 - 1895 Astro-Hungary have no light cruiser in 1890 and not heavy cruiser in 1894 - 1895 Germany have no heavy cruiser 1909 - 1911

The double casemate slots on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 and 2 allows for only one gun to be placed otherwise they overlap. Also on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 (pictured here) the double casemate mounts in the middle is only 1 high and doesn't allow any casemate guns to be placed.

 

 

There's missing casemate slot on the forward part of the rear superstructure

There's also funnel-clipping with this hull

 

turrets sticking out casemates

 

They have not fixed this yet either

 

They still haven't fixed the Chinese battleship 1 being to small to fit most of the funnels available for it, nor that you can't fit guns on the deck above the casemate guns on Light Cruisers 1 - 4

 

So yeah hes found quite a bit wrong, with the current patch atm, just wanted to give you a heads up.

Tommorrow ill be posting my own issues. Should use the in-game bug-report more often really.

 

[PainGod]

On 6/4/2021 at 12:59 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

The game reflects the necessity of using your broadside and large number of main guns to acquire a target at long range. The aiming process needs at least two turrets to function properly. A single turret may never find optimally the range of the target, if the target is at a large range and moves very fast. The turret may fire but with large error margins and its accuracy is expected to be the lowest possible. 

If you move your ship at a broadside position, with a slight angle for more protection, so that the range between the ships does not change very fast, you should notice that the target locking will remain constant and the aim progress will be steady.

That holds true for emergency rangefinding using the turrets' integrated rangefinders. However, the game strongly emphasizes the gun directors on the superstructure, which would under normal circumstances direct the ship battery's fire onto a target without those turrets needing to fall back on their own, less capable rangefinders. That is, unless battle damage forces them to.

[Skeksis]

...

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

... 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Steeltrap]

The discussion of aim lock etc simply reinforces something I've written many times, namely the decision to base accuracy predominantly on the calibre and mark of the gun firing as opposed to the fire control system directing it is a fundamental flaw.

As with all fundamental flaws, it has cascading effects.

Which gets back to the question I have asked many, many times.

Why is it the basic design does not simply do its best to replicate KNOWN FACTS from the period then fine tune, rather than make often seemingly arbitrary decisions then modify to try to ameliorate the loudest voices on the forum?

What was the REAL determining factor as to the effectiveness of gunnery? From all I read it came down to the following:

1. Effectiveness of fire control. As radar became available as integrated with fire control computers and thus had bearing and range in particular to very considerable accuracy, the significance got even greater.

2. Training. Adm Willis Lee on USS Washington was arguably the USN's best expert on radar and fire control etc. He learned massively about it himself, then trained the hell out of his ships. Some of the SNAFUs at Guadalcanal would almost certainly never have occurred had he been in command as he would have placed himself on a ship with the best radar and would have known exactly how to use and interpret it.

3. Imponderables, such as inherent accuracy of mounts, reliability of propellant charges etc.

Any successful system ought, therefore, emphasise the top 2 in particular.

Yet it doesn't at present. The changes in accuracy across various FCS are not anywhere near as important as calibre and mark of guns. That simply tells me it's inherently flawed, which is rather disappointing when the truth of what went on with development of these techs is not exactly a secret, nor their pros and cons.

Meanwhile, consider this. I believe Bismarck was firing her main guns as TWO batteries effectively, fore turrets then aft, so 4 shells per salvo, during the Battle of Denmark Straits.

Are we seriously expected to believe she didn't achieve target lock on HMS Hood?

Yet that's what the system as designed says if I've read it correctly.

That suggests to me it's bollocks.

Add it to the very looooooooooooooooooong list there ought to be being kept somewhere.

Cheers all

Edited June 9, 2021 by Steeltrap

[Darth Khyron]

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Minor Bug.

Italy Heavy Cruiser IV hull 1923 (max tonnage), second secondaries turret lower deck, if fitted with 127mm guns, it won't rotate, even though all the others do...

Reproducible...

Thank you, that's what I try to say for some time now. Some starboard turrets to not rotate or fire.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 6/5/2021 at 6:45 PM, Cptbarney said:

List of issues found, by mighty menhet on a discord i am on.

Italy have not heavy cruiser 1894 - 1895 Astro-Hungary have no light cruiser in 1890 and not heavy cruiser in 1894 - 1895 Germany have no heavy cruiser 1909 - 1911

The double casemate slots on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 and 2 allows for only one gun to be placed otherwise they overlap. Also on Semi-armoured Cruiser 1 (pictured here) the double casemate mounts in the middle is only 1 high and doesn't allow any casemate guns to be placed.

 

 

There's missing casemate slot on the forward part of the rear superstructure

There's also funnel-clipping with this hull

 

turrets sticking out casemates

 

They have not fixed this yet either

 

They still haven't fixed the Chinese battleship 1 being to small to fit most of the funnels available for it, nor that you can't fit guns on the deck above the casemate guns on Light Cruisers 1 - 4

 

So yeah hes found quite a bit wrong, with the current patch atm, just wanted to give you a heads up.

Tommorrow ill be posting my own issues. Should use the in-game bug-report more often really.

 

Not sure I understand the problem. Those casemate guns are perfectly placed near to each other for Semi-Armored Cruisers. The same implies for the Chinese Light Cruisers etc. where you report the same problem.

 

Regarding the new Chinese Pre-Dreadnought:

If I try to do what you show in the game A) Try to Squeeze two funnels on small space (left) or place a funnel over the limits (right), the game correctly does not allow you to do so. Not sure what is the problem here too.

This is a known minor issue that it can happen some times in ship designer view. The "decor" casemate cover remains in position while it should be auto-removed. However, when you enter the battle, the cover is removed properly.

About the Chinese Battleship I that has some funnels not fitting, it will be fixed.
 

This also
"Italy have not heavy cruiser 1894 - 1895 Astro-Hungary have no light cruiser in 1890 and not heavy cruiser in 1894 - 1895 Germany have no heavy cruiser 1909 - 1911"
appears to be a problem with latest tech code, not recognizing properly some years. Shall be addressed.

[Nick Thomadis]

10 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Minor Bug.

Italy Heavy Cruiser IV hull 1923 (max tonnage), second secondaries turret lower deck, if fitted with 127mm guns, it won't rotate, even though all the others do...

Reproducible...

Do you remember if you added these guns manually or by using the CTRL button?

[Cptbarney]

19 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Not sure I understand the problem. Those casemate guns are perfectly placed near to each other for Semi-Armored Cruisers. The same implies for the Chinese Light Cruisers etc. where you report the same problem.

 

Regarding the new Chinese Pre-Dreadnought:

If I try to do what you show in the game A) Try to Squeeze two funnels on small space (left) or place a funnel over the limits (right), the game correctly does not allow you to do so. Not sure what is the problem here too.

This is a known minor issue that it can happen some times in ship designer view. The "decor" casemate cover remains in position while it should be auto-removed. However, when you enter the battle, the cover is removed properly.

About the Chinese Battleship I that has some funnels not fitting, it will be fixed.
 

This also
"Italy have not heavy cruiser 1894 - 1895 Astro-Hungary have no light cruiser in 1890 and not heavy cruiser in 1894 - 1895 Germany have no heavy cruiser 1909 - 1911"
appears to be a problem with latest tech code, not recognizing properly some years. Shall be addressed.

Ok cool, ill upload my own issues at somepoint. Might be repeats if so ill remove them. I've mostly been focusing on the newer ships, will take a look at the older ones too.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 6/5/2021 at 5:05 PM, SpootKnight said:

It seems like now there's always a gap when using Modern Tower I and Modern Secondary Tower I. If you try to fine-tune the position any closer it won't allow the tower to be placed. Comparing this to both of the II towers, they'll fit together to be flush with the models - no gap.

Have you tried using the CTRL button when moving the towers to snap them?

[Darth Khyron]

6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Do you remember if you added these guns manually or by using the CTRL button?

This happens with and without using CTRL button. And, as stated, the guns on the port side, aka the exact twin of the one on starboard, does not have that problem. See my earlier post for clarification, please

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Stormnet]

12 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Add it to the very looooooooooooooooooong list there ought to be being kept somewhere.

We really need a super long issue/feature suggestion list. There has been so many ideas/issues, yet their implementation and fixing has taken so long/never happened that we end up forgetting 70% of them, until they come to mind a few months later, and the cycle repeats.

Edited June 7, 2021 by Stormnet

[PainGod]

14 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

The discussion of aim lock etc simply reinforces something I've written many times, namely the decision to base accuracy predominantly on the calibre and mark of the gun firing as opposed to the fire control system directing it is a fundamental flaw.

As with all fundamental flaws, it has cascading effects.

Which gets back to the question I have asked many, many times.

Why is it the basic design does not simply do its best to replicate KNOWN FACTS from the period then fine tune, rather than make often seemingly arbitrary decisions then modify to try to ameliorate the loudest voices on the forum?

What was the REAL determining factor as to the effectiveness of gunnery? From all I read it came down to the following:

1. Effectiveness of fire control. As radar became available as integrated with fire control computers and thus had bearing and range in particular to very considerable accuracy, the significance got even greater.

2. Training. Adm Willis Lee on USS Washington was arguably the USN's best expert on radar and fire control etc. He learned massively about it himself, then trained the hell out of his ships. Some of the SNAFUs at Guadalcanal would almost certainly never have occurred had he been in command as he would have placed himself on a ship with the best radar and would have known exactly how to use and interpret it.

3. Imponderables, such as inherent accuracy of mounts, reliability of propellant charges etc.

Any successful system ought, therefore, emphasise the top 2 in particular.

Yet it doesn't at present. The changes in accuracy across various FCS is not anywhere near as important as calibre and mark of guns. That simply tells me it's inherently flawed, which is rather disappointing when the truth of what went on with development of these techs is not exactly a secret, nor their pros and cons.

Meanwhile, consider this. I believe Bismarck was firing her main guns as TWO batteries effectively, fore turrets then aft, so 4 shells per salvo, during the Battle of Denmark Straits.

Are we seriously expected to believe she didn't achieve target lock on HMS Hood?

Yet that's what the system as designed says if I've read it correctly.

That suggests to me it's bollocks.

Add it to the very looooooooooooooooooong list there ought to be being kept somewhere.

Cheers all

I agree with your conclusion, but I think along the way you were confusing yourself because the game confuses accuracy with precision.

Long range gunfire can be accurate and yet have very little chance to actually hit its target due to being imprecise - the gun mounts simply having too much spread at the range the target is at, due to lack of caliber lengths, too much clearance on the horizontal and vertical aiming machinery, quality of ammunition and propellant, you name it.

Meanwhile gun mounts can be precise without being accurate - which is to say the guns are precise when the rangefinders the ship is equipped with aren't, for all the same mechanical reasons listed above, plus size where coincidence rangefinders are concerned.

Anyways, the whole "you need x turrets to properly find the range to target" argument falls flat on its face when historically, not every turret on a given ship's main battery was even equipped with an emergency rangefinder, or the fact coastal batteries often used repurposed ship turrets, but without any integrated rangefinders.
In fact, Gneisenau's whole C turret was repurposed as a coastal battery at Austrått fort, Ørlandet in Norway when the ship was stripped of its armament in preparation for getting upgunned to twin 38 cm turrets (which was obviously never completed).
The ship's B turret ended up at Fjell Fortress.
For this purpose, the turret rangefinders were actually stripped out:

Full disclaimer: the second picture was taken in 1963, according to Wikipedia.

TL;DR: mark and caliber of gun should influence battery precision, while mark of the rangefinding equipment should influence its accuracy.

[SodaBit]

On 6/5/2021 at 10:05 AM, SpootKnight said:

For this one it was mentioned to be happening in Alpha 11 as well. I was hoping from the patch notes that this gun placement was allowed again.

The two 2in. secondaries still can't be placed together on the Modern Tower I, when the models will never overlap with each other. Modern Tower II will fit both.

It seems like now there's always a gap when using Modern Tower I and Modern Secondary Tower I. If you try to fine-tune the position any closer it won't allow the tower to be placed. Comparing this to both of the II towers, they'll fit together to be flush with the models - no gap.

I have found a way to mount all secondaries on Modern Tower 1, but it's kinda weird. I'm pretty sure this works with USN secondaries as well, but I have not yet tested RN secondary models on this tower. However, the massive gap between the main and secondary towers persists, regardless of nation.
Update: I have done further testing with the various nation's secondary models on Modern Tower 1. The only nations that have trouble mounting all secondaries on it are Japan and France. Everyone else has no trouble with it.
I have also tried using the control key/right mouse to maneuver the main and secondary towers closer together, but with no improvement in the gap between them.
I'll be trying the secondary mounts on the German hulls/towers when I get a chance.

Edited June 7, 2021 by SodaBit

[madham82]

20 minutes ago, PainGod said:

I agree with your conclusion, but I think along the way you were confusing yourself because the game confuses accuracy with precision.

Long range gunfire can be accurate and yet have very little chance to actually hit its target due to being imprecise - the gun mounts simply having too much spread at the range the target is at, due to lack of caliber lengths, too much clearance on the horizontal and vertical aiming machinery, quality of ammunition and propellant, you name it.

Meanwhile gun mounts can be precise without being accurate - which is to say the guns are precise when the rangefinders the ship is equipped with aren't, for all the same mechanical reasons listed above, plus size where coincidence rangefinders are concerned.

TL;DR: mark and caliber of gun should influence battery precision, while mark of the rangefinding equipment should influence its accuracy.

Great points, see the modern Italian BBs in WW2. They had excellent range finding equipment, but terrible quality problems with the guns/ammo. 

[SpootKnight]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Have you tried using the CTRL button when moving the towers to snap them?

That was what I meant with fine-tuning - using CTRL for movement. Any closer from where it's positioned in the screenshot and it goes red.

[Cptbarney]

10 hours ago, madham82 said:

Great points, see the modern Italian BBs in WW2. They had excellent range finding equipment, but terrible quality problems with the guns/ammo. 

Shame we never got too see them with both. Results would been mad

[Elrerune The Honorbound]

Hello, I just went to do a Bismarck today and the rear secondary turrets are still unable to add. Does anyone else have this problem or am I doing something wrong? I'm not sure.



Edit:
I have more issues. Can someone please check if you have them too? 

Torpedo tubes are small in any year before 1940.


I still cant put secondary guns (even small ones) on Deutschland-class hulls. I try to put them in the correct places.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Elrerune