>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[RedParadize]

I can confirm that, you need a shipyard that can accommodate the new unlocked hull. It should be made more clear or, alternatively, you should still see the new hull in the builder but not be able to build it.

[DougToss]

5 hours ago, akd said:

would like to see near misses have a chance of inflicting shrapnel damage with ability to penetrate scaled to shell size up to around 3" plate able to keep out even large pieces of the heaviest AP shells (HE tends to produce more, but smaller fragments with less ability to penetrate), but this goes back to the whole hit water = shell no longer exists or has any effect in the world problem.

Absolutely. Even for early gunnery, with small filler in those 6in guns, and not very energetic explosives or reliable fuses in any case, shell splinters need to be a major factor, especially now that crews are present. Obviously, as time went on ships were much better protected, but at Manilla Bay and Tsushima, splinters did a lot of damage, penetrations did not. 

 

Having splinters damage crews and possibly put more equipment out of action and start more small fires I think would be helpful in getting that 1890-1900 era right. I don't expect to sink enemy ships with gunfire, at least not effectively, at the start date - I know a lot of players do - but I would like to see the "hail of fire" cause larger cumulative damage to the crew and unarmored/protected systems.

 

I have no idea what kind of splinters would be created by a nearby hit into water though, I suppose how the projectile broke up would determine how many splinters could damage a passing TB, and how energetic and lethal they'd be. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by DougToss

[akd]

14 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Absolutely. Even for early gunnery, with small filler in those 6in guns, and not very energetic explosives or reliable fuses in any case, shell splinters need to be a major factor, especially now that crews are present. Obviously, as time went on ships were much better protected, but at Manilla Bay and Tsushima, splinters did a lot of damage, penetrations did not. 

A caution, however: I'm not sure the distribution of misses is actually normal.  It seems like misses may be artificially clustered around ships rather than conforming to a real world distribution.  Really hard to say, but that could distort the effects of damage from splinters.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by akd

[o Barão]

Cordite gives a bonus to accuracy when should instead give a penalty.

Stats:

Cordite I -4.5% base gun accuracy.

White powder +1% base gun accuracy.

[RedParadize]

@o BarãoLook at accuracy at point blank range, the penalty is there. Its just that Cordite 10% range bonus basically nullify the decrease in accuracy.

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@o BarãoLook at accuracy at point blank range, the penalty is there. Its just that Cordite 10% range bonus basically nullify the decrease in accuracy.

 

"Its just that Cordite 10% range bonus basically nullify the decrease in accuracy."

This makes sense.Thx

The same thing applies when comparing heavy shells to light shells. 👀

[Enigmato]

On 11/25/2021 at 2:43 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

This should not happen normally. There was no preference from our side to reset mission progress. None of our testers reported such an issue either. Did you have a long time to play/unlock missions?

I got my progress nullified too. cleared all mission except one or two, but now I have to do it from scratch.

+ Issues with current core v93
- In campaign, ship can't be rebased to other ports manually. but occasionally moved to other ports, rendering them ineffective in sea control leading to massive transport loss in the vacated area.
- Simply auto-resolve doesn't make any sense in result.
- Pausing when game loses focus on windows is not particularly helpful especially in some battle it takes a very long time, on idle control. Need an option control to turn it off
- Limited time scaling (x3~x5) on close encounter sometimes make it extremely tedious. Need an option to disable it.
- 

[ColonelHenry]

3 hours ago, fsp said:

I simply cannot understand some of the critique I am reading here. It is very good to point out the obvious problems and mistakes there still are with the campaign - the very first version there is! 

The critique is that you cannot continue building on this gunnery, damage models, restrictive ship designer (Ohhh I haven't forgot about it, but there's more pressing issues) as they are already affecting the balance of the campaign! And those needs to be sort out before we go further and potentially unable to change them in any meaningful way.At least, I hope we can still change them in meaningful ways.

[Enigmato]

Turning rate of a ship should suffer when it loses speed. ship can't turn itself when it can't propel forward. A ship with merely 1.5knots speed turns just fast as it is in full steam.

[Faolind]

Alright! I've played a bit, time for personal feedback.

UI actually looks good to me, despite the comments I saw, Perhaps simply needs some highlights and accents to make it pop better.
UI was soothing, but... dull, I guess.

Mission system- I don't know how to make a big big battle happen, but I'd like to.

Convoy missions are the big gripe for me- Specifically, I should not "fail" when I kill all but one of the transports, then retreat so I don't take damage. The fact it counts as a fail also makes me fear that the transport losses are not recorded against enemy shipping. The game is not very clear about these sorts of things within the system (perhaps it is covered in the manual?)

Anyways, Convoy in my opinion should only count against shipping and also record warship losses, buy not give any victory points to either side. It should just be an opportunity to speed up or mitigate transport losses over the war.

There is a critical lack of warnings for things like - Leaving ships uncrewed, in-being, un-placed, etc.

Battles-
There are 2 times I have had a CA vs 1 CL, and the CL, rather than being decent and running away OR fighting valiantly, instead circled just out of 2" range, unable to fire at me (Except perhaps with a 3"), but with my large guns missing almost all of their 1.5% to-hit shots
This was infuriating, as the cruiser slowly wore me down, but i persevered until I ran out of ammo with nothing to show for it, in the 1st case, and in the 2nd case, a permanently disabled engine allowed me to catch up and land a kill. (The CL repaired engines infuriatingly fast as well)

This... should not happen. For player sanity if nothing else. Please program them to actually fight, or actually run. This half-kiting without firing nonsense is BAD.

This concludes my thoughts for now. Everything unmentioned I either like or find acceptable.

[arkhangelsk]

13 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:

The problem is that people are arguing strenuously in favor of realistic gun performance while arguing just as vigorously in favor of unrealistic torpedo performance.

Well, I didn't say for free, did I? I just argue that considering realistic player psychology, it would be better to "amortize" the duds by reducing the torpedo damage. 100% reliable torpedoes with only 50% their damage is mathematically equivalent to 50% reliable torpedoes with full damage over the long run. And in broad terms, currently the game does that (at least if you weren't stupid enough to go with "Minimum Bulkheads" on your battleships. By using a good number of bulkheads, even a 1890 battleship can survive multiple hits, which averages out to be equivalent to the same number of "full power" torpedoes hitting but only 1-2 of them actually exploding).

That's different from people just in effect saying "I don't care. I want to get that torpedo boat."

13 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

In Grest Naval Battles, which was amazing naval simulation for a time, you felt great satisfaction if your salvo managed to hit target and in fact detonated.

I played Great Naval Battles myself. I still remember that "sheaf" knob that refuses to change to WIDE or NARROW, and really the only usable options on it is HOLD and SPOT.

I've never been much of a torpedo person, but frankly the whole process of using torpedoes in GNB isn't nearly as painful as in UAD. You are not constantly trying to refine your course, trying to get the ship to expose and launch the tubes. You get to launch the tubes yourself and if they are not in arc it's instantly shown to you, so you don't get that feeling of "begging" the ship to fire the torpedoes.

I'm not asking for a net advantage. I'm only suggesting how to keep to realistic overall results while not causing players to RageQuit.

Edited November 29, 2021 by arkhangelsk

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

10 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Since sometimes i could to hit with a torpedo ВВ/СА/СL I thought it was fair exchange.Hmm...Did you use time acceleration?

1x speed during the actual engagement.

I think I had standard bulkheads, standard crew quarters and similar range.

One factor on the TB's success was definitely the abysmal secondary armament on the CAs. They might also had few or even minimal bulkheads, but in 1890, I _expect_ a 3500 ton ship to go down after being hit by two torpedoes so I didn't really check.

To be honest, I expected my TB to, at best, buy enough time for my transports to escape.

Edited November 29, 2021 by The_Real_Hawkeye

[arkhangelsk]

11 hours ago, DougToss said:

I can't agree with @arkhangelsk enough (which is pretty funny considering we went 12 rounds over this, eh?). Secondary armaments weren't effective against torpedo boats. I'd really rather not see gunnery completely discounted from reality to match unrealistic expectations. I would really, really like to opt for realism in fire control, gunnery and damage. That's harder to put into specific feedback - sorry @Nick Thomadis - because I can't say if guns "5% stronger" will be more in line with historical results. 

I won't make any definitive comments on the realism, but I think that the current balance is at least bearable from a gameplay perspective. Last night, I played a mission where I had about 7 torpedo boats flung against 2 battleships (I think they also had two torpedo boats that were supposed to escort them but I barely noticed them). The enemy's defense was such that I could get into the 900m ring, but about there the hits start to pile and I felt like I was only just able to turn around and get that torpedo off and then scurry off with a damaged ship. The AI, of course, is attentive unlike the human player and dodged all but about two torpedoes which sank one battleship.

That seems broadly "fair" without being manifestly unrealistic, but what do you think.

Quote

The first solution, as I said, is to just work on time acceleration so players can experience battles faster rather than the gameplay dictating the battles are simulated faster. Ships in 1890 were expected to slug it out at point blank range, and weren't going to sink quickly considering the medium calibre guns of the time. With time acceleration, engagements with slow-firing, inaccurate guns can still be played through quickly. Better to do that than "fix" the inaccurate 6 inch guns of 1890, firing bagged charges through screw breaches to act like players may expect. 

One problem with time acceleration is that it doesn't deal with the torpedo problem - by the time the human player on high time acceleration notices the torp and is able to react, the torpedo already got something like 15 seconds of free run time when the reaction time is indeed a bit short. If we increase time acceleration more, they will be hit by the torpedoes before they can even click.

Personally, I'm content to just progress the game at 1x speed when I'm in in-fighting range, or even just a six hour Grand Battle second by second, but darn it I need a SAVE button. How many people do they think can just sit a game for 6 hours in a stretch?

Quote

 

I think this applies to most aspects of realism or historical accuracy - It's better to train players on what to expect and how to develop tactics around that in a Naval Academy mission introducing the state of the art in 1890, how battles in the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese Wars unfolded.  If they know that things aren't "broken" when ships take dozens of hits (out of hundreds fired at single digit accuracy) in a 6in "hail of fire", but don't sink quickly, and they can turn up time acceleration to experience it at the pace they like, I think that's a good compromise. 

 

I think the Naval Academy does do some of that, but perhaps not enough. Because it always gives you the option to Boost Fire Control and Gun Technology. So people almost never experience how sucky the guns really are in the 1890 Campaign. Campaign has already convinced me of the need to stick torpedo tubes on my battleships, and I'm even a little more generous on the secondary guns because I'm so desperate for some kind of hit!

[Kane]

Tried posting once already then decided to delete it and better formulate what I want to say.

1)  Accuracy at low tech eras in particular is stupidly bad.  Playing through campaign there were numerous occasions where I'd sail to within 1/2 a kilometer of an enemy ship, and miss every single shot.  Torpedo boat, light cruiser, destroyer, cruiser, battleship, didn't matter.  Accuracy never went above 1.5% or so w/ Mk-II guns and coincidence-I range finder.

This is bad.  Number one if guns were this stupidly inaccurate IRL, no one would have bothered with them.  Tactics would have focused on torpedoes (we'll get to that), as well as ramming and boarding like the good ole' Greek days.  Seriously, when I'm as close as ships of sail and I still can't hit the target with a turreted gun something is very wrong. 

Its one thing to miss torpedo boats at this range.  But let me be clear, this is missing cruisers and battleships at less than 1/2 kilometer.

Yes, it was with trainee crews.  But again.  Half a kilometer or less.  One of two things needs to happen.  Either a serious look needs to be given on how accuracy and range scale with each other.  Or the bonus/penalties of crew training need to be rebalanced with trainees giving a +0, and better trained crew going up from there.

Even if it were realistic to fire hundreds of rounds and run the magazines empty at a target 1/2 a kilometer away.  Draining your magazines and missing EVERY SINGLE SHOT (insert censored swearing here) is frustrating in the most un-fun way possible and makes for terrible game play.

This also helps make torpedoes too good.  Since it doesn't really matter what it is.  Torpedo boat, destroyer, light cruiser.  Whatever.  It can sail in and torpedo  you with absolute impunity since if one of your secondary gunners accidentally manages to hit the target, you'll never do enough damage to matter.  I'd mention your primary guns hitting it, but if that happens I'm going to pause the game to go buy a lotto ticket.  Several missions I resorted to just ramming the enemy.  But this can easily backfire since the game doesn't care who is doing the ramming, what angle, etc.  And of course, you have to get through enemy torpedoes to successfully ram.

In short.  The gun accuracy with trainee crews is so stupidly bad there is literally no point to ever send them into combat.  This needs to be addressed.

2)  Small ships are too tough across the eras.  In late tech era, destroyers shouldn't be surviving multiple hits of 20-inch HE, or multiple 24-inch torpedoes.  Torpedo boats shouldn't be routinely surviving multiple hits from 11-inch guns.  Making them both hard to hit, and able to survive this kind of damage is ridiculous.

3)  The cowardice of the AI is infuriating.  Multiple times now I've had lone battleship vs battleship fights, and the AI never seems to want anything to do with it, even when the enemy has fair to good odds of winning the engagement.  Spending a real-life hour chasing down the other battleship is not fun.  Several fixes have been suggested, one of them needs to be implemented.  The cowardice of the AI in general and its tendency to want to kite without actually engaging or retreating is a whole 'nother level of infuriating.

4)  Specific to campaign.  There really, really, really needs to be some mechanism to see how the other side is doing.  I get that while at war you're not going to have the most up-to-date information.  But playing as Germany I manage to break Britain's blockade, and institute my own shortly thereafter.  Never get any updates at all how things are going in Britain.  Its basically just twiddle my thumbs, and let the cowardly AI piss me off running from me in random battles until finally, oop revolution in Britain.  You win.  This becomes watching paint dry while an aggressive fly just won't leave you alone.  Having some kind of feedback on how the enemy is doing would go a long way to adding some engagement.

That's all I've got for now, any other issue I could raise has already been raised multiple times.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Kane

[TAKTCOM]

12 hours ago, Gregervich said:

Researched dreadnoughts in 1900 campaign, and when I go to establish a new design, the dreadnought hull is not available, but the other battleship hulls have been made obsolete, so I can't do a design for any battleship at all.

I had the same problem at the 1890 company. I think it was 1900+ when I could not build battleships in principle.

10 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

...Meanwhile secondary guns have far inferior performance to IRL stats.

The German 10.5cm (4.1") gun had a range of 10,000 meters (far more than it is right now), and a horizontal breech, not screw.  Same breech type for the 8.8cm/30, and that had a range of 7.3km.  The 5cm( 1.9") gun?  Range of 6.2km!

Actually, no.
...early British 4" (10.2 cm) breech loader bag guns from the late 1800s. These guns shared common characteristics including weak design and few of them survived in active service after 1900.

4"/15 (10.2 cm) 13cwt Mark I...range was 5,500 yards (5,030 m) at a muzzle velocity of 1,180 fps (360 mps) and an elevation of 20 degrees with a 25 lbs. (11.3 kg) projectile.

4"/25 (10.2 cm) Mark I Muzzle velocity was 1,790 fps (546 mps) with a 25 lbs. (11.3 kg) projectile which gave a range of 7,200 yards (6,580 m) at maximum elevation.

9 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@akd @TAKTCOM @arkhangelsk
...We have the campaign now, we should focus on that as that's what they are working on atm. There is plenty of issue to address, plenty of suggestion that need to be made in order to have a viable and fun campaign.

OK then. Let's talk about how I built 6 battleships in the 1900 company and not one never been in combate...for some reason. Or how about a duel CA vs CL, where CL apparently had some sort of stealth cloak, since СА can spotted him at a distance less than a kilometer...when the CL torpedoes already in the water.

Maybe we want to talk about events? Oops, they don't exist.

Or maybe we want to talk about diplomacy?But there is no such thing.

Research? Better to forget about this tab at all. 

Shipbuilding? The designer is still the same as years ago.

How about to buy ships in foreign countries? Hmm, foreign countries ... foreign countries don't exist.

Transfer of ships between ports? Does it even affect anything?

So yeah, on a tactical level there is a something to discuss, on a global map ... not really.

8 hours ago, fsp said:

Biggest issue I am having so far: Way too little possibilities to try out interesting and weird designs, especially early in the game... To be honest, I also think this is part of the communities fault. 

Oh yes, it's totally community fault:

The first test campaign version

9x NEW HULLS

The Japanese “Mogami-class Heavy Cruiser"...new hull for Japan after 1930.

New Japanese “Heavy Cruiser IV”...available after 1930.

New Japanese “Modern Light Cruiser II” available after 1930.

New Japanese “Scout Cruiser”...available after 1930.

New Japanese “Heavy Scout Cruiser”...available after 1930.

New Japanese “Experimental Cruiser”...available after 1935.

New German “Modern Battleship I”...available after 1927.

New USA “Modernized Dreadnought” ...available after 1927.

New French “Experimental Battleship”...available after 1929.

Core Patch 0.5

18x NEW HULLS

The Italian “Littorio-class Battleship” ...after 1936.

The Russian battleship “Sovetsky Soyuz” ...after 1936.

New Italian “Super Battleship” available after 1936.

New Russian “Experimental Battlecruiser” ...available after 1935.

New Italian “Modern Battlecruiser II” available after 1935.

New Italian “Large Cruiser II” available after 1929.

New Russian “Super Cruiser” available after 1934.

New Russian “Heavy Cruiser III” available after 1925.

New Italian “Heavy Cruiser ΙΙ” available after 1934.

New Italian “Modern Light Cruiser II” available after 1930.

New Italian “Compact Light Cruiser” available after 1930s.

New Italian “Hybrid Destroyer” available after 1936.

New Chinese “Super Battleship” available after 1936.

New Spanish “Super Battleship” available after 1936.

New British “Super Battleship” available after 1936.

New Austro-Hungarian “Super Battleship” available after 1936.

New Russian “Super Battleship II” available after 1936.

New "Small Dreadnought" available between 1906 and 1918 for Germany and Austro-Hungary.

Alpha-12

22 NEW HULLS & MODELS

...German “Deutschland-class” cruisers...after year 1921...

...Japanese battleship “Fuso”...available after the year 1924...

New Japanese “Dreadnought IV” variant available between the years 1914 and 1927.

New Italian “Dreadnought I” variant available between the years 1906 and 1918.

New German “Advanced Armored Cruiser II” ...can be found in years after 1927. 

New Japanese “Heavy Cruiser II”...can be found after the year 1922.

New Japanese “Experimental Heavy Cruiser”... available after the year 1934.

New “Fast Battleship” variant a special Battlecruiser hull available for Russia, Spain, Italy, Austro-Hungary, China after the year 1935. 

New Austro-Hungarian ”Modern Battleship” ... available after the year 1929.

New Chinese “Experimental Battleship” variant available after 1929.

New Chinese “Modern Battleship I” variant available after 1936

New Spanish “Modern Battleship II”...available after 1929.

New Italian “Modern Battleship II” ...available after 1929.

New Japanese “Experimental Battleship” ...available after 1929.

New Russian “Modern Battleship II” variant which is available after 1936...

New Russian “Super Battleship” variant available after 1936...

New Russian “Modern Battlecruiser” variant available after 1929...

New Russian “Large Cruiser” variant available after 1929...

New Russian “Modern Light Cruiser” variant available after 1920...

New Russian Pre-Dreadnought “Battleship V” variant available between the years 1899 and 1906...

New Chinese Pre-Dreadnought “Battleship III” variant available between the years 1899 and 1906...

New Japanese Battleship hull variant which can more faithfully recreate the Yamato-class...

Total: 49 new hulls for the last three patches, for half a year later.

Hulls by nation:

13 Japan
11 Russian
10 Italian
4 German
4 Chinese
2 Spanish
2 Austro-Hungarian 
1 British
1 French
1 USA 

Hulls by by year:

(1930+) 26

(1920+) 18

(1910+) 1

(1890-1909) 4

And here these hulls which you can see in the company:

New "Small Dreadnought" available between 1906 and 1918 for Germany and Austro-Hungary. All the rest are other countries, or other eras.

Yes, for six months of work, the developers made for Germany vs Great Britain 1890 and 1900 one (1) hull. One hull  in a nearly fifty hulls. Oh yes, it's totally community fault.

Edited November 29, 2021 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[arkhangelsk]

10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@akd @TAKTCOM @arkhangelsk

Not that I disagree with you guys, but we have been talking about torpedo, secondary, accuracy and armour for over a year... We have the campaign now, we should focus on that as that's what they are working on atm. There is plenty of issue to address, plenty of suggestion that need to be made in order to have a viable and fun campaign.

As far as the campaign is concerned, I actually like what I see. The fact that damaging ships now have meaning means I am now making different choices from when I'm playing Naval Academy.

Maybe I'll comment on the tech-tree. I understand that some technological components are WIP, but that means we are spending a lot of time for nothing. Maybe WIP items in the tech tree should be taken out for the time being, or reweighted such that they are completed in almost no time at all, allowing players to get to the "good stuff".

Another thing I notice is that it's implied I must research all the gun calibers. That seems somewhat un-necessary. I think many people would prefer to get to Mark II guns faster rather than be forced to open all the calibers in sequence.

[T_the_ferret]

"We've been talking about those things for over a year"

Ok so why did they never get fixed or even had an attempt at getting fixed?

Reason we're still talking about it a year later is because its the core of the campaign and its still a bother to play with a year later

[RedParadize]

@TAKTCOM Yep, the "campaign" isn't really one atm. Sorry if my comment sounded rude, but I just trough that commenting about stuff that were made over a year ago sounded counter productive. It isn't that I do not agree trough. Splitting the tower into many part, having some say on the internal layout... Most change I was hoping to see will probably never happen. In my book that ship has sailed long ago. I do not expect any major change regarding combat mechanic. At best we will get few value fix and that's it.

Regarding the campaign:

If their plan is to have it cut in 10 years span, then I have issue with it. But I do not know what is the plan regarding that...

Atm you cant move ship, but the AI will do it for you... and end up placing all your fleet where there is less combat. For that reason it is really hard to win as Germany.

Economy isn't working right, its way too easy to tip on one side or the other. One month you have a 20m surplus and the other you are down the same amount.

Research is meaningless given the 10 years time frame, but I ran some test. Even when playing the full 10 years there isn't much to unlock. What is unlocked often made no sense at all. Example:13kt CL while you have no hull that can go that high.

A big balancing pass need to be made on part stats and upgrade. I just do not see myself going for anything but the cheapest ship possible.

AI need to be a more competent at building ship. It do not make sense to make a 26knot ship on a 32 hull form ship.

Unless in huge numeric inferiority, the AI should not disengage before identifying your ship. Nor should it disengage when it has a huge advantage. ( I suspect that sometimes it isn't strictly disengaging but aiming to remain at a unrealistic range)

Play speed is too slow, really.

One thing worry me allot. To have a meaningful variety (and real design choices) in any era, hundreds of new hulls and bridges will need to be made. Can it be done? Sure, but with a bigger team. If I where to suggest something, I do not think its too late to divide bridge in many sub part. Taking the existing bridge mesh and dividing them in many bridge part would already provide a great deal of diversity.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by RedParadize
I forgot some point.

[WhoCares]

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

.... Or how about a duel CA vs CL, where CL apparently had some sort of stealth cloak, since СА can spotted him at a distance less than a kilometer...when the CL torpedoes already in the water....

I had a batle with BB - CA - CL - 3x TB vs 3x CA - CL - 2x TB.

Ended with my BB barely afloat, CA fine, and 2x TB still around for enemy 2 CA (mostly by my TBs) and CL sunk. Also had that visibility issue for the CLs and TB during the battle. Then I hovered my cursor over the icon next to the compass in the top right: night, bad weather, rough sea - well, that explained it.

 

Wanted to add a screenshot, but after playing first a few Academy battles (all reset for me since I last played 😭) and then the campaign yesterday, it seems today I can' start another academy or even custom battle - I can only load into the campaign where a battle is waiting for me that I don't want to fight right now (I just wanted to get into a random battle to take a screenshot...).

So I attached a screenshot from the custom battle screen that I have now - I can change the left nation and some options for it (year and range), but I can't change anything on the right, and hitting any other buttons does nothing, can't even cancel and go back to the main menu.

Similar for the academy screen, I can select the available scenarios, can also choose the options (like better guns or more money), but can't enter the design phase - but at least I can still go back to the main menu...

 

Could it be that this is because I have a mandatory battle pending in my campaign? Just speculating, I don't know...

Edited November 29, 2021 by WhoCares

[DougToss]

I’ll write out a proper post addressing @arkhangelsk and @TAKTCOM, because I think you both raise really interesting points that mesh with my impressions of gameplay, but real quick:

5 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

One problem with time acceleration is that it doesn't deal with the torpedo problem - by the time the human player on high time acceleration notices the torp and is able to react, the torpedo already got something like 15 seconds of free run time when the reaction time is indeed a bit short. If we increase time acceleration more, they will be hit by the torpedoes before they can even click.

That’s a very good point. How Graviteam Tactics Mius Front handles that is in the options there are events the player can select that will automatically stop time acceleration or even enter a tactical pause. I don’t know if that’s feasible here, but that could be a solution. 
 

Like @arkhangelsk, I’ve been playing full battles in real time - but we’re almost definitely outliers, at least in some ways. Most people have what, 20-40 minutes for a gameplay session? Being able to save in a tactical battle would go a long way towards letting them play in “chunks”.

 

Think about Jutland:

- Battle Cruiser Action

- Fleet Action

- Night Action

 Being able to save and come back later instead of go through a monster session would make this so much more accessible. 
 

e: Theatre of War 2 also has an option of automatically pausing/ending time acceleration when certain events occur.

Edited November 29, 2021 by DougToss

[RedParadize]

53 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Another thing I notice is that it's implied I must research all the gun calibers. That seems somewhat un-necessary. I think many people would prefer to get to Mark II guns faster rather than be forced to open all the calibers in sequence.

I agree with that. I think the same could be said of other research field. For example, if I wanted bigger CA without having to unlock CL and BC stuff it should be doable.

I think many of the research field are unnecessary, many of the technological advancement did not come directly from the Navy, such as engine granular improvement and to some extent steel quality. Those thing could happen outside of the control of the player. Removing them would free up allot of space in the research tab. Allowing us to have it more focused and choice based. For example, would you want to develop a extended and improved version of that hull? or move on to one that may become better on the long run? Do you try to get to dreadnought before everyone else or not? That kind of meaningful choice.

[o Barão]

I thought would be interesting to share this video, since many players are complaining about how terrible is the accuracy and the ranges for the naval battles in the 1890.

Drachinifel, explains at 9:00 , how terrible was the accuracy and the short ranges for the naval engagements in this time period. And watching this and looking to what we have in game i must say i am very pleased in general to how is this simulated in UA:D.

So in short , imo when talking about guns accuracy vs torpedo boats gameplay the player should focus only about the torpedo side of the equation, and the issues why there is this unrealistic imbalance.

 

This are for me:

- Torpedo ranges are much greater that what is show in the stats. It seems this was implemented  to help the AI scoring hits to ships that are trying to kite maybe? However the bonus are completely insane imo, and should be at best +15% the torpedo range and not around 100% as we can all see in game for many of them.

- No torpedo dud rate. Which could be an interesting tech to research for the player that really wants to invest on them in the long run. Better impact pistols to improve detonations at steep angles.

- Torpedo reloads for torpedo boats and destroyers should only become available around 1920+, and could also be related to a tech research to unlock them. So again a player/nation that really wants to get this tactical advantage in game should spend some time in researching this.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by o Barão

[DougToss]

4 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Drachinifel, explains at 9:00 , how terrible was the accuracy and the short ranges for the naval engagements in this time period. And watching this and looking to what we have in game i must say i am very pleased in general to how is this simulated in UA:D.

So in short , imo when talking about guns accuracy vs torpedo boats gameplay the player should focus only about the torpedo side of the equation, and the issues why there is this unrealistic imbalance.

Yeah. Early gunnery was terrible! That's why nobody was building all-big-gun battleships in 1890! You just couldn't reliably hit with the big guns, and they were much, much slower than guns of the same calibre would later be. 

Equally important - early torpedoes were also awful! lol that seems to be the missing ingredient. They didn't even have reliable gyros and ways to keep depth for quite a while if I remember.

[T_the_ferret]

Solution isn't making everything terrible, solution is to realize this is a game, there's already way much worse stuff in term of realism, and enjoyment takes precedent over historical data.

[candresenreed]

I've tried playing a few full campaign/wars, and there's an issue that is making the game practically unplayable for me. Most of the time as the British, went up against some German cruisers or BBs, and usually they start around 10,000m at the longest. Makes the gameplay a bit quicker which is nice.. but as the Germans, that I've now tried three times, I cant get into a real battle to save my life- I will often run out the entire 3 hour clock of a mission just looking for the enemy ships; the AI guides towards them correctly, but even with heading directly towards the enemy at 22 knots, they never come into range or are even seen by the end of the battle. It's truly frustrating as now I get to spend 95% of the gameplay doing absolutely nothing, for no reason I can discern.