>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[Mutsu]

Played the 1910 campaign as the British and researched Dreadnought Hull III but I couldn't actually build with it, is this only because I didn't have a big enough shipyard?

[TAKTCOM]

I knew auto designer suck, but single 4 inch cannon on 5.9k ship this is a new level

[Toby]

15 minutes ago, Mutsu said:

Played the 1910 campaign as the British and researched Dreadnought Hull III but I couldn't actually build with it, is this only because I didn't have a big enough shipyard?

i have a simmilair issue but im sure i have shipyards big enough as the hulls were for non bb classes. not sure if its a bug or some other issue

 

[Iuvenalis]

11 hours ago, beepboop6 said:

Anyone else having the issue of losing crew in a battle, where there is no contact with the enemy. seems even without making contact with any enemy ships, a few people died on each of my ships

I didn't have it happen to me, but I noticed the enemy ships losing crew mysteriously within seconds of the battle starting and when we were no where near each other

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

I knew auto designer suck, but single 4 inch cannon on 5.9k ship this is a new level

which year is this?

 

If it is not 1910+, then my main complain would be the lack of torpedos.

But 4 inch on itself, on a CL, which seems to be quite fast, could work just okay as long you can avoid CA or heavier.

[Squatter]

The amount of time chasing enemy ships and never finding them is pretty insane at the moment. There is no skill or satisfaction in watching your ships chase as 'smoke detected to the west' message for hours on end. Completely enjoyment breaking, sadly. 

What I don't quite get is that currently before a battle begins, we are told the composition of both fleets. Then we move to the battle screen, and both fleets start outside of visual range. So how are we meant to know which enemy vessels are involved if we haven't yet sighted them? 

Seems to me there should be an extra pre-battle phase. 

Phase 1: Battle icon appears on the map. Click on it to see which of your vessels are involved. No mention of enemy vessels yet. Decide whether to attempt to 'evade', or 'engage' (or 'delay' I guess). If engage chosen, then decide whether to 'keep fleet together' or 'split ships' with fastest ships forming a scout group. Forming a scout group will give better chance of contact with evading enemy ships below, but battle will begin with fleet split. 

Phase 2: Game decides whether visual contact is made, depending on the orders chosen by both sides above, and the relative speeds of vessels involved. If one side 'evades' and the other 'engages', a roll is made against a probability determined by relative speeds of fleets (and weather conditions etc). If successful then: 

Phase 3: Launch battle with vessels in spotting/radar distance of each other. Only now does ship recognition take place. And you never begin a battle without first having come within spotting range of an enemy vessel (or at least smoke plume). And most battles launched will either be because both sides want to fight, or in the case of pursuers having the speed advantage against evaders. 

Obviously chance to make contact/enemy identification could be modified by air assets/submarines/coast watchers where appropriate. 

Whether or not a system like the above, something is clearly needed to stop wasting so much time chasing shadows in the battle screen.

 

[o Barão]

This is from another discord user but clear shows there is an issue with campaigns ending too soon.

 

@Nick Thomadis

[Hussarball_PL]

In my recent playthroughs I have encountered very worrisome bug/feature. The problem is

the AI does not create new ships

This results in short campaigns where technological superiority is guaranteed for player, however the AI does spend money on research since intelligence agencies are geniuses (and I like it) and they provide latest news about technological development from opposing country. Another problem is the fact that 0% crew on Torpedoes does not prevent them from firing and hitting my ships , such event is most common in campaign starting year 1890 or 1900.

Oh yes I would like to ask how sinking enemy's entire starting fleet is counted as minor victory? I was blockaded at some point, but I retaliated. (can't provide screenshot since it took picture of map instead of summary).

I don't know is it indented but ctrl+alt+shift+z is able to hide battle summary and show our ships still sailing which is quite nice.

[TAKTCOM]

27 minutes ago, SiWi said:

which year is this?

This is the 1910 company.

27 minutes ago, SiWi said:

But 4 inch on itself, on a CL, which seems to be quite fast, could work just okay as long you can avoid CA or heavier.

 

I hope, is it more obvious now.

[SiWi]

1 minute ago, TAKTCOM said:

This is the 1910 company.

 

I hope, is it more obvious now.

okay sorry I though it had multiple guns.

[SiWi]

13 minutes ago, Hussarball_PL said:

In my recent playthroughs I have encountered very worrisome bug/feature. The problem is

the AI does not create new ships

This results in short campaigns where technological superiority is guaranteed for player, however the AI does spend money on research since intelligence agencies are geniuses (and I like it) and they provide latest news about technological development from opposing country. Another problem is the fact that 0% crew on Torpedoes does not prevent them from firing and hitting my ships , such event is most common in campaign starting year 1890 or 1900.

Oh yes I would like to ask how sinking enemy's entire starting fleet is counted as minor victory? I was blockaded at some point, but I retaliated. (can't provide screenshot since it took picture of map instead of summary).

I don't know is it indented but ctrl+alt+shift+z is able to hide battle summary and show our ships still sailing which is quite nice.

the ai does create new ships and makes new plans.

there are some campaigns where they seem to no do it (thou who knows what the exact situation is for its Budget) but in most of my campaign (which aren't too short) the AI makes new plans and builds new ships.

[Nick Thomadis]

17 minutes ago, o Barão said:

This is from another discord user but clear shows there is an issue with campaigns ending too soon.

 

@Nick Thomadis

Will be fixed in the upcoming hotfix.

[Norbert Sattler]

Does the AI get some kind of bonus in auto-resolve that gets higher the later the start period is?

In the 1890 and 1900 scenarios auto-resolve was a gamble, but appeared to be more or less fair in the long run. In 1910 the odds start to severely shift toward the AI and in 1920 it is near enough impossible to win an auto-resolve, even when your ships are superior to the enemy in every single aspect.

Also with the 1920 start the repair cost are so ridiculously high, it's impossible to win as Germany. If you fight the repair cost wil bankrupt you even if you win and sink more British ships than you lose. And if you don't fight, the Brits slaughter all your transports also bankrupting you anyway.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Norbert Sattler

[DieHard_BR]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

This is from another discord user but clear shows there is an issue with campaigns ending too soon.

 

@Nick Thomadis

I finished mine in the first month with just one battle 

[baatsman]

18 hours ago, Faolind said:

I.. do this all the time. I don't have the effect you are describing. I'd like to know what I'm doing differently. I can ram enemy ships quite easily as well, including by accident.

With friendly ships however, I do experience the dead stops you are describing, even at 100s of feet out. And it is annoying when I dead-stop and take a friendly broadside because the ship wont move even though *I got this* on the navigation.

Good to know not everyone have this issue, and that clarify why there are only two ppl bothering to make a post about it. But I assure you, it is so frustrating, knowing you could flank torp, just to realize the AI have proximity "emp" disabling your engines.

For now It force me develop and use other tactics, perhaps this is for the better. A pair of fast movers, using the good old "end around" sub tac seem to do the job.

Edited December 1, 2021 by baatsman
.

[akd]

I would like to point out that battles initiating during a cloudy night with smoke spotted on the horizon is a bit ridiculous, nevermind the complete lack of features to support night fighting (environment, star shell, spotlights, proper separation of radar spotting from visual spotting, etc.).

Please remove night battles from the game until they are properly supported.

Also, the way smoke on the horizon works in combination with poor visibility (besides being on its face nonsensical) is extremely frustrating.  Because the AI does the magic thing where it constantly steers a precise course to sail directly away from you, and the bearing updates are intermittent and extremely imprecise (actual smoke spotted on the horizon would come with an exact bearing, of course), you find yourself in a situation where you steer to close the enemy, but as you get closer (and are forced into lower time compression, drawing the whole thing out), the AI steers to sail directly away toward the unlimited horizon, then you get a "smoke" direction update later find the enemy is at a new bearing, steer to correct, then have the same thing happen as you close again.  You can end up chasing the AI in an unending circle around the compass.

Edited December 1, 2021 by akd

[RedParadize]

@Nick Thomadis I had a BB vs BC battle, at 12 km I decided to turn away as it was fleeing. To my surprise it turned back toward me at 15km. However this is above spotting range of enemy BC! As soon as it spotted me again it turned away again

In 1920 that result in a chance to hit of about 2% for him and 3% for me. At that hit rate battle are not fun, regardless if its historical or not.

[Zuikaku]

Gosh, just give us realism panel so that game can be fun even for the players who expect sniper arena. Do the same with the torps. Something like flawless torpedoes and historical torpedoes. 

[DougToss]

6 hours ago, SiWi said:

But 4 inch on itself, on a CL, which seems to be quite fast, could work just okay as long you can avoid CA or heavier.

You don’t design a warship with the mindset “as long as I get as lucky as humanly possible”.

Armed Merchant Ships carried a heavier armament. So did Oilers, Seaplane Tenders, lol Depot Ships.

A 4 inch gun would never be adequate for a ship of any significant size, no.

 

e: Saw the edits!

I agree that 4 inch guns(!) are more than adequate for the period lol. My mistake.

Edited December 1, 2021 by DougToss

[SiWi]

7 minutes ago, DougToss said:

You don’t design a warship with the mindset “as long as I get as lucky as humanly possible”.

Armed Merchant Ships carried a heavier armament. So did Oilers, Seaplane Tenders, lol Depot Ships.

A 4 inch gun would never be adequate for a ship of any significant size, no.

in 1910? maybe not, but in 1890/1900?

Absolutely adequate if Combine with torps and multiple guns.

And you don't need to ne "lucky as humanly possible" if you have a commanding speed advantage.

The great advantage of high speed is that you can chose your engagements. 

 

edit: mostly irrelevant through his edit.

Edited December 1, 2021 by SiWi

[SpardaSon21]

22 hours ago, DougToss said:

For sure, in the field artillery it looks like this 

You can see that most significant errors are errors of range, even if you are accurate and consistent. Accuracy “simply” (lol) consists of superimposing that elliptical pattern so that the MPI is on target. 

Again for the field artillery, but if you look at predicted errors firing on the map (unobserved, indirect fire), you can see that the bulk of errors will also be ranging errors, stretching out that oval, or moving the MPI long or short of the target coordinate.

 

 

 

The wrinkle for naval guns is of course that this is all happening on the move, on a moving target, lol but even more than that, offset between turrets and blast dispersion. Needless to say, prior to good radars, firing unobserved was out of the question. 
 

If I recall, directors designate point targets, they don’t plot linear fires or other complex fireplans, so even if you were running on a course exactly parallel to your target, your fires are only ever going to be 90 degrees to them. 
 

Which makes sense. Trying to work out the convergence so that you fire bow to stern - besides being just about impossible even with modern fire control kit - would just mean more errors. 
 

Am I engaging with what you were saying, or did you mean something else? I can speak about Commonwealth artillery all day, and I’ve read up on the naval stuff, but it’s not always 1:1, so if I misread you, just help me “adjust on”.

No no, we seem to be in agreement.  I just wish that shells impacted in a more realistic manner in this game, but that would require effort on the work of the devs to either A.  add a more realistic ballistic system instead of a hit/miss dice roll, or B. add a hit bonus to the existing system based on the target's heading relative to your own to account for the peculiarities of long-range fire.  I see no reason B. couldn't be feasibly implemented.

[Iuvenalis]

41 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

A.  add a more realistic ballistic system instead of a hit/miss dice roll

Funny thing about this is that the shell trajectory seems to actually determine the hit, but it seems the dice roll determines if it is a good trajectory or not. You can use this to your advantage by targeting a ship that is close to but behind another. The shots will slam into the untargeted ship and hit far more times than you would have hit your target if the 2nd ship wasn't there! I've found it particularly useful when convoy raiding and the transports end up in a jumbled mess.

[o Barão]

Minor issue maybe?

In the post battle result screen, if the player disable the UI will return to the battle and can still control the ships. So is in theory possible to keep the battle going on after the battle result showing up? I don't think the battle results will be updated, but is a strange possibility.

[o Barão]

Tõgõ Heihachirõ was the german supreme naval commander? Well now that he was expelled he can return to japan i guess

[Faolind]

24 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Tõgõ Heihachirõ was the german supreme naval commander? Well now that he was expelled he can return to japan i guess

possibly an artifact of selecting Random nation disposition? Did you select Random? If so, maybe it selected Japanese AI, ans there's an issue with it tying up the name with that selection