>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[T_the_ferret]

@Nick ThomadisWhat about the tooltip and accuracy problem?

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

thank you for doing the math I was suspecting it given that even if I go for "medicore" ships and not the best current ships I could, I still end up with less then 5 ships...

Try a new company, I started an hour ago, suddenly, the start-up funds were about 280 million.

[o Barão]

34 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

No, when you switch shell type, the bonuses update the overall stats. You can see what each component does by hovering on each shell type. 

Excuse me Nick , but i wasn't refering to the shell type. I was talking about the shell weight increase by using Tube powder propellant & variants.

It cleary states: Tube Powder III: - 5% gun reload times; +33% shell weight  

So we have two ways to influence the shell weigth.

a) we can choose the shell type

b) or we can decide to use a propellant to also influence the shell weight.

And it is the propellant part that can make a BIG confusion.

Tube powder III 100.4 sec reload for this example.

106.5 sec if using Cordite III.

But to make things even more strange.

Cordite III gives a 22.5% shell weight penalty.

Tube Powder III gives a 33% shell weight penalty.

 

However tube powder weight III gives a 5% reload bonus speed because reasons?

Edited November 30, 2021 by o Barão

[Nick Thomadis]

15 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

@Nick ThomadisWhat about the tooltip and accuracy problem?

If you pinpoint an exact problem, I will look to reply, from the above you said, there is nothing more to add.

 

7 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Excuse me Nick , but i wasn't refering to the shell type. I was talking about the shell weight increase by using Tube powder propellant & variants.

Propellant weight, affects the ammunition weight, overall. We do not have a separate weight measurement solely for propellants and shells alone. It is added as one package in the ammunition store, and ship weight calcs. 
 

[DieHard_BR]

@Nick Thomadis

Any plans to review repair cost? I am going broke to keep my fleet afloat

[o Barão]

4 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Propellant weight, affects the ammunition weight, overall, so it should not affect ballistics in the main stats. We do not have a separate weight measurement solely for propellants and shells alone. It is added as one package in the ammunition store, and ship weight calcs. 

I suspected this could be a reason however then why is "Tube powder I" have a lower reload bonus time in comparison with "Tube powder III"?

Tube Powder I: -3% gun reload time; +25% shell weight; -8% range

Tube Powder II: - 4% gun reload time; +29% shell weight; - 7% range

Tube Powder III: - 5% gun reload times; +33% shell weight; - 9% range

 

Propellant is the same type, but the shell is lighter. So the reload time is worse?

[SiWi]

25 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Try a new campaign, I started an hour ago, suddenly, the start-up funds were about 280 million.

I see a new update just dropped.

[Nick Thomadis]

Admirals, 

We have completed a new update (some urgent partial fixes were deployed previously):

Hotfix Update v95 (30/11/2021)
- Fixed bug that caused a game crash after moving in some ports.
- Fixed bug that made the campaign unlocking to work inconsistently.
- Fixed relationship update bug caused when a blockade was ceased.
- Fixed some other minor bugs.
- Aiming of guns fine tuning.
- AI aggressiveness increased (it is affected by aiming).
- Fixed issue with few money for own fleet creation after 1920.
- Fixed issue with mount snap points being too strict, causing errors to auto-design.

[Toby]

ok so im quite liking what of the campaign thier is although we despratelyh need more factions so that wars and the campaign is not over in a year or two.

the major issue i am having is that i unlock new hulls through tech and i cannot build them. i check in the custom mission editior and the hulls are no bigger (at minimum size) then the ones i already have so dont understand why i cannot build them when they become avaible

 

[DougToss]

I have to say @Nick Thomadis I am really happy with the communication and frequency of updates. 
 

Genuinely, it’s been great to see this week.

[arkhangelsk]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

I know @arkhangelsk is familiar with them, he might be able to help.

Well, I ran through Warrior and copied out information concerning hit rates:

Warrior to Dreadnought Gunnery Images.docx

Click to read.

[Nick Thomadis]

15 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I suspected this could be a reason however then why is "Tube powder I" have a lower reload bonus time in comparison with "Tube powder III"?

Tube Powder I: -3% gun reload time; +25% shell weight; -8% range

Tube Powder II: - 4% gun reload time; +29% shell weight; - 7% range

Tube Powder III: - 5% gun reload times; +33% shell weight; - 9% range

 

Propellant is the same type, but the shell is lighter. So the reload time is worse?

A minor issue that will be fixed in the next update. Thank you 👍

[o Barão]

Just now, Nick Thomadis said:

A minor issue that will be fixed in the next update. Thank you 👍

Thank you!!! Sorry if i am being nitpicking with this small values.

[akd]

30 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Propellant weight, affects the ammunition weight, overall. We do not have a separate weight measurement solely for propellants and shells alone. It is added as one package in the ammunition store, and ship weight calcs. 
 

But it’s not used in the flight and terminal ballistics for the shell itself, correct?  Because the description still implies that it does, but is on its face nonsensical.

Edited November 30, 2021 by akd

[Count Sessine]

First post

 

I bought the game a long time ago and now I just want to say that I really like the look of the campaign. The tactical battles, obviously, are quite brilliant

[DougToss]

2 minutes ago, akd said:

But it’s not used in the flight and terminal ballistics for the shell itself, correct?  Because the description still implies that it does, but is on its face nonsensical.

Oh, I think I see what you’re saying - is it listing energy per weight in propellant, but assuming the bagged charges are equal in weight or volume due to breach dimensions, making heavier, less energetic propellant not throw the shell as far?

I’m probably overthinking this one, but I do have a copy of Brassy’s Explosives, Propellants and Pyrotechnics I could consult. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this come up, since NATO charge bags and propellents aren’t that variable. There might be a formula somewhere?

[T_the_ferret]

@Nick ThomadisAlright i will illustrate my point

Stats of a 127mm guns using Light Shells and Tube Powder I, supposedly reducing the range and increasing accuracy, as per the tooltip for both

Stats of a 127mm using Heavy Shells and Cordite I supposedly as per the tooltip severely reducing accuracy but increasing range.

Note how using range increase that supposedly are very detrimental to my accuracy, i gained more than 6% of base accuracy (thus much more while in battle when aimed) over using "accuracy increasing" components.

This is the problem i am talking about
 

[eraserr83]

Its utterly annoying, that if one of your ships gets close to another, then you cant control them, they wont turn either way, they just simply sail in one direction, regardless what orders you give. How the fck should we avoid torpedoes, ships, or anything? Fix this BS, and let us decide, how our ships turn and behave, and remove this nonsense 'close proximity' thingy, which immobilize your ships. Sad, that things like this have to be pointed out...

Edited November 30, 2021 by eraserr83

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, eraserr83 said:

Its utterly annoying, that if one of your ships gets close to another, then you cant control them, they wont turn either way, they just simply sail in one direction, regardless what orders you give. How the fck should we avoid torpedoes, ships, or anything? Fix this BS, and let us decide, how our ships turn and behave, and remove this nonsense 'close proximity' thingy, which immobilize your ships. Sad, that things like this have to be pointed out...

"How the fck should we avoid torpedoes, ships, or anything? "

 Use the rudder slider.

[Nick Thomadis]

4 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

@Nick ThomadisAlright i will illustrate my point

Stats of a 127mm guns using Light Shells and Tube Powder I, supposedly reducing the range and increasing accuracy, as per the tooltip for both

Stats of a 127mm using Heavy Shells and Cordite I supposedly as per the tooltip severely reducing accuracy but increasing range.

Note how using range increase that supposedly are very detrimental to my accuracy, i gained more than 6% of base accuracy (thus much more while in battle when aimed) over using "accuracy increasing" components.

This is the problem i am talking about
 

It is not a problem, stats say the truth and the tooltip says nothing wrong. Tooltip does not say anywhere that accuracy is not affected by the max. range of the shell. There is something else that this data cannot show, how the reload affects accuracy, because when your guns reload significantly faster, they can build up their aiming and accuracy more effectively, so on average guns with lighter shells gain accuracy that cannot be measured in a base data sheet. You need to test this in practice, especially at close range fights.

[T_the_ferret]

What i mean is that the propellant and shell tooltip specifically say that this increases your base accuracy, while in fact it does no such things, it reduces it. Tooltip should mention that "rate of fire allows better aiming" but not directly say "less barrel wear results in increased accuracy" as it is factually untrue

[Nick Thomadis]

8 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

What i mean is that the propellant and shell tooltip specifically say that this increases your base accuracy, while in fact it does no such things, it reduces it. Tooltip should mention that "rate of fire allows better aiming" but not directly say "less barrel wear results in increased accuracy" as it is factually untrue

Base accuracy is a main stat of the ship that is deterministic in change. It becomes lower or higher depending on the stat. But I see your point. When we update texts, we will check if they need further explanations, but at the moment, I think we need to focus on much higher priorities, as we have many to do to complete the campaign.

@Everybody else
I am sorry that I cannot reply to all, I notice your requests, we will improve anything possible, according to our priorities. 

[Warrior044]

okay here are my thoughs about the campaign so far (after 5 playthroughs)

The Campaign speed is okay, could be a bit faster while it is such barebone edition. I imagine later when you can do more than just wait for research and ship construction it will fit better.

Currently starts are only 1890 and 1900, and the later only for the german Empire. i never got further than 6 years in the Campaign (in 5 playthroughs!) because eitehr my goverement or the enemy giverment forced an end by surrendering.

You guys really need to get rid of the forced slow down of ships. i lost more than one battel, because i wanted to move a TB (27 kn) through a line of CAs (19kn) and while tehre was still more than 800 meters between each of the ships all 3 of them stopped dead in the water, becoming sitting ducks for the enemy ... not to mention the opportunites i wanted to use with my TB (Aka using torpedoes on a big ship) were long LONG ging before the ships began moving again... usually half sunk at that point. I understand the idea behind that mechanic if you let the AI controll a Division, but if i give a manual order, it is only one thing: annoying as hell

Overall... the Campaign mode is okayish. it is fun first but so barebone, that it gets dull pretty quick. considering that this update has been delayed by a year, that is really a shame..... but honestly even that would be okay, YOU, the developers would communicate properly with us, your paying customers. cause in all honesty and earnest, your information policy sinks deeper than the mariane rift....

[T_the_ferret]

21 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Base accuracy is a main stat of the ship that is deterministic in change. It becomes lower or higher depending on the stat. But I see your point. When we update texts, we will check if they need further explanations, but at the moment, I think we need to focus on much higher priorities, as we have many to do to complete the campaign.

@Everybody else
I am sorry that I cannot reply to all, I notice your requests, we will improve anything possible, according to our priorities. 

Its not only the text i'm talking about. In my opinion having the only advantage of those modules be a slight RoF increase (that can be achieved via loading mechanism anyway) is not worth it versus the huge bonus that is having shells that do more damage, penetrate more, are more accurate, have more range and more chance to damage something important

In my opinion propellant and shell types need to be rebalanced

[Danvanthevacuumman]

hey will you improve water physics and how it affects the ships