>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

51 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate  and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

Agreed, I mean, this screen should speak for itself:

I had a single TB with two torpedo launcher and a single reload for a total of 4 torps - yeah, torps are TOTALLY not OP, lol.
 

[baatsman]

Convoy attack mission too? Sink all transports = 0 VP

Outnumbered and now out "crewed" I decided to not kill the escorts this time

Since the AI is NOT limited to a crew training of "trained", but have both regular and seasoned at least despite losing ALL encounters during the first 14 months.

But hey, sink 75% of transports translates to sink the whole damn convoy, or you will share the VP with an AI, that is not even loyal to the devs, considering the crewlevels they have at 100% loss. I know this is a rant, but first AI cheat with crew levels, when that cant stop you, it deny you the VPs, just to prove it is a worthy one?

It is A LOT, better than it ever was IMO, and there is NO need for it to play dirty like this.

 

[TAKTCOM]

3 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

had a single TB with two torpedo launcher...

How many knots?  My attempts to use TB against cruisers and battleships in 1890 ended up "TB all on fire" and "TB 1-2 engine damaged" at best. In 1890, the best TB for me was CA 3,5-5к.

In 1900, the enemy CA are dodging my torpedoes 10/10. Of course, the German СA are hopeless design, so it doesn't really matter.

Edited November 28, 2021 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[arkhangelsk]

3 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate  and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

I think the "flawless torpedoes" are an acceptable compromise. Remember, you have to think of your own feelings when you are the guy struggling a lot to set up the shot (remember, you don't have a navigator so you are plotting intercept courses by feel, and the computer likes to put constant turns in to make life harder for you). Finally, you set up the shot. It hits, and it duds. Do you think you won't get such thoughts as "Ahh, the computer saved itself"?

As it is, people ignore probability theory as they complain about how the other ship hits them first even though it has a lower hit probability (which just means it's less likely they'll get in any particular hit, not that they can't hit you first).

Plus. Remember. In 1890 you don't get double hulls or Anti-Torp V. But you still get maximum bulkheads against puny 15 inch torps.

  

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

How many knots?  My attempts to use TB against cruisers and battleships in 1890 ended up "all on fire" and "1-2 engine damaged" at best. In 1890, the best TB for me was CA 3,5-5к.

In 1900, the enemy CA are dodging my torpedoes 10/10. Of course, the German СA are hopeless design, so it doesn't really matter.

Maybe he just happened to get enemy cruisers with Minimum Bulkheads.

Edited November 28, 2021 by arkhangelsk

[Cptbarney]

I remember when it took loads of long lances to sink a single ship, too be fair a hit from a torp should mean severe damage or death, torps are more likely to hit during those eras, because the ships are far more sluggish and also because the close ranges.

However i would like too see mechanical failures and also duds or improper detonations regardless.

[StoneofTriumph]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

I think the "flawless torpedoes" are an acceptable compromise. Remember, you have to think of your own feelings when you are the guy struggling a lot to set up the shot (remember, you don't have a navigator so you are plotting intercept courses by feel, and the computer likes to put constant turns in to make life harder for you). Finally, you set up the shot. It hits, and it duds. Do you think you won't get such thoughts as "Ahh, the computer saved itself"?

 

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.

[Zuikaku]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

I think the "flawless torpedoes" are an acceptable compromise. Remember, you have to think of your own feelings when you are the guy struggling a lot to set up the shot (remember, you don't have a navigator so you are plotting intercept courses by feel, and the computer likes to put constant turns in to make life harder for you). Finally, you set up the shot. It hits, and it duds. Do you think you won't get such thoughts as "Ahh, the computer saved itself"?

Well it depends. If you play shooters then, yes, you expect to be godlike. If you are playing something which pretends to be historical then you are on unrealistic expectations if you expect every torpedo to be perfect. 

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.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

4 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

How many knots?  My attempts to use TB against cruisers and battleships in 1890 ended up "TB all on fire" and "TB 1-2 engine damaged" at best. In 1890, the best TB for me was CA 3,5-5к.

In 1900, the enemy CA are dodging my torpedoes 10/10. Of course, the German СA are hopeless design, so it doesn't really matter.

25 or 26 knots, not sure which, but definitely not faster than 26.

The enemy CA were engages "singly", i.e. each one of them were on their own and their armament was sorely lacking. I think two single 9 or 10 inch turrets and a single 4 or 5 inch gun on each broadside.

Can't check at the moments, since the game currently forces my PC to reboot whenever I start it.

 

Edit: Gun armament was the absolute minimum with a single 2 inch gun on the bow and engine efficiency was horrible at around 50%

Edited November 28, 2021 by The_Real_Hawkeye

[Verdant]

18 hours ago, baatsman said:

Just noticed, convoy defence mission reward you with a loss, when driving off the attackers, all TRs 100%, 815dmg vs 846dmg no losses on any side. Somth wierd going on, when results are evaluated?

I think it's something odd going on with the code, but I think it means "Defeat for the attackers". Not yourself.

[lordcmdr]

3 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I remember when it took loads of long lances to sink a single ship, too be fair a hit from a torp should mean severe damage or death, torps are more likely to hit during those eras, because the ships are far more sluggish and also because the close ranges.

However i would like too see mechanical failures and also duds or improper detonations regardless.

Type 93’s were extremely deadly in most circumstances. North Carolina was hit with a single long lance and had a massive hole blown out only feet from the forward ammo hold. She was essentially mission disabled for several months of repairs.

a single long lance caused the obliteration of numerous cruisers and smaller vessels.

now, the smaller air dropped or submarine launched torpedoes were known to be much less lethal especially to capital ships.

[DougToss]

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. 

13 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

What if I ask you to prove this assertion? Not by intuitive feel, but by showing battles where secondary batteries were actually effective against torpedo boats? One reason countries had to build torpedo boat destroyers was that they really can't expect very much from the secondaries.

From a gameplay perspective, you need to balance your annoyance when you can't defend against the torpedo boat versus what you'll feel when you are the torpedo boat. When the firing range of your torpedoes is nine hundred meters, you don't want the enemy ship to suddenly become an Aegis cruiser at say under 1000m. In the time it takes you to get into range, turn to expose your torp tubes and fire, your torpedo boat might be fatally crippled and you'll never get the shot off.

In my experience people over-rate the torpedo threat, at least in this era. Your ship simply isn't that big, so if you are careful, you won't be getting under 900m from your opponents. And if you did, unless you let them get very close, even a battleship can turn in time to avoid torpedoes. People get clobbered because they play on high time accelerations, which means let the torpedo multiple tens of seconds of "free time" before they even notice the torpedo. Then they try to set course rather than use rudder control. Then they get hit by the torpedo and they say "Torps OP, plz nerf".

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. 

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. 

 

8 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate  and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

The other side of the equation is to make the torpedos of 1890 perform like it. The torpedo threat never materialized as people feared, but not because secondary guns did, or could keep the torpedo boats away on their own, but because torpedos were not particularly effective weapons.

[TAKTCOM]

2 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

25 or 26 knots, not sure which, but definitely not faster than 26.

Hmm. My TB in 1890 looked like this

After meeting with an enemy battleship or cruiser she looked something like this

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

P.S. The second picture from 1900, but in 1890 three inches was enough for 200 ton torpedo boat to fire and flooding.

Edited November 28, 2021 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Gregervich]

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'm also having the issue where my ships switch from north sea ports to Baltic ports, and then I can't defend any of my convoys in the north sea and start losing a lot of them

Edited November 28, 2021 by Gregervich

[akd]

1 hour 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 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.

That might add some realistic deterrence to TBs that approach under a high volume of fire in good visibility conditions.

Edited November 28, 2021 by akd

[kineuhansen]

so they need to fix lost transport message in the campaign 

[SpardaSon21]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

The other side of the equation is to make the torpedos of 1890 perform like it. The torpedo threat never materialized as people feared, but not because secondary guns did, or could keep the torpedo boats away on their own, but because torpedos were not particularly effective weapons.

I've mentioned it plenty but I'll do it again: torpedoes in this game have better performance than IRL by far.  The current 15" torpedoes in 1890 have the performance of the German 17.7" torpedoes at that time.  The British Whitehead had a range of 730 meters on an 18" platform.  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!

Torpedoes are OP because they are, and secondaries are UP because again, they are.

And before you ask, Poudre B was a late 1880's invention, and should be unlocked at the 1890 start for all nations.  Not brown powder.

Edited November 28, 2021 by SpardaSon21

[Gertz]

On 11/26/2021 at 8:39 AM, ETF said:

Love it great first Core implementation!

Really enjoyed rule the waves 2.....if you can implement those features and with your amazing graphics and design features this will be a WINNER!! 

Appreciate your hard work!!

 

I saw the campaign and instantly recognized it. Both are great games and merged together it's just a gem.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Gertz

[Saliddry]

i should have informed myself..... just killed my own campaign  by accepting an surrender from  great britain .... february 1893

i can only say i dont need torpedo boats...

My light cruisers where totaly op ........ and no not because of torps ....

my brit ai had light cruisers with 4x7" guns as main ..... i used 2500tonn with 5" using he  but where he was shooting 2 at the same time i could fire back with 5 guns..and with 20 knots my  lights where faster..........  my new lights with 3000 tonns would have had 7 per side  with 19.5 knots

but like i said unknowingly i killed my campaign ... hoped it would just bring a few months if chease fire to progress in technology ..screen even said it would be for 38 months

but they diplomacy isnt in and i gues that the reason there wouldnt have been an new war

 

of cause for his heavy cruisers my lights used there torps cause it simply takes to long to burn them down

 

early game  more guns are better than many guns.... when ya have your maybe 10% hitchance  firing 5-7 is better than firing 2 or 3 big ones

 

also my 5"  with there 2" secondary where quite good in  fendign off enemy torpedo boats

 

21k vs 7k victory points or so and still only minor victory ..... but the trade window is allready in could force them to give me there ships or even colony

Edited November 28, 2021 by Saliddry

[RedParadize]

@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.

[RedParadize]

There is a issue with port attribution, when a ship is damaged it get reassigned to a different port:




As you can see Frankfurt and Stralsund have been reassigned. It is a major problem as we cant send them back to their original port. For the British it do not matter much but for the German it result in ship slowly being removed from where they are likely to get damaged to where they are not: North Sea to the Baltic Sea. Over time, it leave the North Sea completely empty and you cant do anything about it.

[fsp]

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! 

But I for one am having a very good time already and it is pretty much what I wanted - RTW2 in 3d and I have to say to me the mission generator is already a lot better than in RTW. 

Sure, there is a lot that needs to be improved, features to be added etc., but it is WIP. And I reaaaaaallly don't get what people expected. I would appreciate to have more regular updates, even if some features are incomplete/not working at the moment (e.g. movement of ships to other harbours), then not to have those updates at all. 

Communication and update cycles have been abysmal. No doubt. Now that things are - hopefully - improving, we could all do without the negativity. Point out things that need to be fixed - but no need to be so negative about it.

I would really appreciate more regular updates, even for things that aren't quite perfect yet. 

 

Biggest issue I am having so far: Way too little possibilities to try out interesting and weird designs, especially early in the game. In RTW, if I wanted to have a CA in 1900 that sported crazy armour and tons of 6", 7" or 8" guns, like an old ship of the line, I could have that. It would not be coast effective. It would not be efficient (though in one war these CAs proved quite successful). But it would be fun!

This is missing here. 
To be honest, I also think this is part of the communities fault. Asking for basically every hull that ever floated under the sun from every nation is taking a huge time. I would be very happy to have a lot of default hulls and guns, available for every nation, looking the same, but very flexible to design, than having a 1890s CA hull for every nation.

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by fsp

[Samhil00]

 With games like War on the Sea, you can kind of edit the starting resources and what not in the INI files.  can that be done here as well to adjust things or no? Thanks ahead of time!

[RedParadize]

To illustrate my previous point, here is my fleet after 3 year of battle:


All these ship were assigned to various port of the North Sea, and now there is only the 4 newly build ship protecting the transport in that area. Needless to say that I will lose very soon because of that.

[AurumCorvus]

4 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.

Do you have a big enough shipyard for the minimum displacement of the design? If you don't, it won't show up.

If you want to check, try custom battles to find out the minimum displacement.

[Gregervich]

1 hour ago, AurumCorvus said:

Do you have a big enough shipyard for the minimum displacement of the design? If you don't, it won't show up.

If you want to check, try custom battles to find out the minimum displacement.

That was it, thanks