>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[admiralsnackbar]

On 11/29/2021 at 4:18 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Problems with money after 1920 should happen with the own fleet creation, right? If you choose to auto-generate fleet, the results should be mostly sufficient.

But why exactly is this a thing? 

[Kevinsteve79]

Played a bit the campaign this morning to get a view impressions...

I do hope that the developers will consider a view other options and take ideas from other naval games. 

1. To send out fleets or task forces that the player has to put together and see those moving in real time as it is done in the game "War on the sea"

2.when you encounter another task force don't show what types and how many ships the enemy got so you'll get the suprise effect and make decisions from there

3.maybe adding more joints in the build editor since you can place certain guns even if there's  no joint showing 

The controls and menu are pretty easy to master and comfortable to manage compare to other similar games

Can't wait for the next future campaign updates to see what you've decided on 😁

Now for me... back on round 2 this time on the British side 

[o Barão]

8 hours ago, Faolind said:

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

Yeah , most likely.

[SiWi]

8 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

But why exactly is this a thing? 

it isn't anymore (my experience after patch)

[Christoffer]

18 hours ago, Squatter said:

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.

 

I would like to add a "prebattle" screen in step one where you can sett upp your divisions.  (posibly limited by your technologies)   i hate that i have to start many battles with shuffling ships around and getting a good formation.  
(this ofcourse should not happen in case of an ambush battle )

Edit: even better.  the posibility to save presett formations.
 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Christoffer
New idea :)

[SiWi]

1 minute ago, Christoffer said:

I would like to add a "prebattle" screen in step one where you can sett upp your divisions.  (posibly limited by your technologies)   i hate that i have to start many battles with shuffling ships around and getting a good formation.  
(this ofcourse should not happen in case of an ambush battle )

yup. this has been requested for a long time.

Especially since the game likes to place ships of either side of another (a recipe for disaster).

Hopefully with the campaign finally underway the devs will find time to do this.

[ColonelHenry]

@DougToss @arkhangelskSo I read through the accuracy report that was snipped from the book, and at least what I could see is that it were not the guns that were inaccurate but the technique being used were not good for accuracy as well as not enough training was done? For 1890s technology I meant. Then there's the attack on the fort which was indeed terrible accuracy for a stationary giant target... I'm not sure how we could represent that better in-game? Right now, everything is done through technology research and crew experience. Do we know anything about the gunnery training that was done by Percy Scott? Because the hit percentage seems pretty insane for 1899, but what was the range and was the simulated target moving?

For now, the in-game accuracy under 1km is okay-ish I think. I can't test much because it's getting busy before Christmas. How are you guys finding the gunnery system after these few hotfixes?

[ColonelHenry]

About the campaign so far, I think the campaigns for 1890 -> 1910 are currently the most balanced. 1920 and above just feel a bit too much (aka hit chance too high, the damage model being absolutely rudimentary shows its ugly head, super-battleships). The only 1920 campaign that I beat was the Royal Navy campaign. Playing as Germany, you would have to be a masochist and into CBT right now because you cannot prepare for war but instead immediately build a fleet and fight, of course, you will be out numbered and outgunned. Is it winnable? Absolutely. Is it fun? Eh. *shrug*. No, do not increase Germany funds any further. I think it just comes down the the fact that the campaign is immediate war instead of a naval build up.

Though an already established concern about 1890-1920 campaign, we desperately needs more variety in hulls and gun models for all the nations (yes, even the ones that aren't in the campaign right now).

Another point is balancing heavy cruisers. Right now, I feel like heavy cruisers are a waste of money. For the 1910-1920 campaigns that I have played, I made the decision to not build any CA but instead building 3x twin 11 inch armed Battlecruisers with the displacement scale all the way to the left, fast, heavily armed and armored CA. For Germany, I could stand up to RN other BCs which have the distinct disadvantage of having eject-able turrets. For the RN, it is almost broken. I could build x10 of these BCs beside 5 top of the line BBs and 5 slower 23000 tons BBs while also building another 5 normal 12 inch armed BCs. For a total of 25 BB/BC. Literally, one battle, I had 1BB/4BC vs enemy 1BB/3CA and the amount of 11 inch shells I showered on this lone BB was insane. Maybe CA needs a buff in something. Usually the enemy CAs are slow even in 1920 campaign (<20 knts!) which are subject to mass torpedo attack. They are expensive, unable to stand up to BBs. Any thoughts on this anyone?

 

[WhoCares]

13 hours ago, DougToss said:

...

e: Saw the edits!

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

In fact most of the German cruisers in WW1 were armed with 10.5cm (4.1") guns, and were called "Kleiner Kreuzer" (small cruiser). Obviously they had more than one gun, more like 8 to 12, like the Gazelle class launched in 1900 up to  the Graudenz class in 1914.

The British had some similarly armed scout cruisers like the Active class,, but also mixed 6" (usually 2 guns)  + many 4" and also pure 6" cruisers like in the Town class.

Whether a 4" cruiser is competitive in the game conext in a 1900 or 1910 campaign is a different topic, and indeed at least dubious.

With the generic CL classification and then match-up in battles, you will mostly do better with bigger guns and more armor - or a fast torpedo cruiser with a few token guns like Kitakami and Oi....

Edited December 2, 2021 by WhoCares

[SodaBit]

Just finished up the U.K. campaigns, not much to mention that hasn't been mentioned, aside from the fact that victory points might need a major rebalancing.

This single engagement won the entire war, instantly resulting in revolution and Donitz being exiled, despite it only a small portion of the enemy's total naval strength being lost. After this battle, the enemy still had 5 BB's, 2 BC's, 4 CA's, 4 CL's, and 6 DD's. The Kriegsmarine did lose a pretty important battle, but it was by no means finished.
This sort of thing should be changed, and I personally think a victory points cap should be introduced for each engagement, so that factions will keep fighting after a terrible defeat provided they still have ships left to fight with.
Edit: should have included the end screen for the campaign, but w/e. In summary, the war lasted from January 1930 to February 1930, and I had a total of 285.6 Naval prestige by the end, presumably being be knighted, given the title of "Sir" Dumba** McGee, and made heir apparent of the British Empire. Kinda excessive for winning a single battle.

Edited December 2, 2021 by SodaBit

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Just finished up the U.K. campaigns, not much to mention that hasn't been mentioned, aside from the fact that victory points might need a major rebalancing.

This single engagement won the entire war, instantly resulting in revolution and Donitz being exiled, despite it only a small portion of the enemy's total naval strength being lost. After this battle, the enemy still had 5 BB's, 2 BC's, 4 CA's, 4 CL's, and 6 DD's. The Kriegsmarine did lose a pretty important battle, but it was by no means finished.
This sort of thing should be changed, and I personally think a victory points cap should be introduced for each engagement, so that factions will keep fighting after a terrible defeat provided they still have ships left to fight with.

Hmm, i reckon country stability, morale and willpower should be a thing so that these things go down or up depending on events as the campaign progresses. Maybe losing almost 10k sailors and 12 ships was enough to just make people want give the ruling government the finger and insight revolution. We need more info about how people are feeling, but my jest is that morale plummeted from the defeat and also the massive amount of victory points allowed Britain to brag nonstop about the victory. 

Little things like that can help the game in a long way.

[o Barão]

@ColonelHenry "For now, the in-game accuracy under 1km is okay-ish I think"

We are all happy that you finally had some sense and finally learned how terrible it was back then.

Better late than never i supposed.  Must be a christmas miracle.

 

[T_the_ferret]

I mean it doesn't change that modules that reduce range are useless

[ColonelHenry]

20 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@ColonelHenry "For now, the in-game accuracy under 1km is okay-ish I think"

We are all happy that you finally had some sense and finally learned how terrible it was back then.

Better late than never i supposed.  Must be a christmas miracle.

 

Oh yea? Maybe it's because they patched it? Such ignorance. And, for the record, you have again, and again argued in bad faith, lying, misrepresenting people arguments because your ego does not let you to be wrong for once in your petty life. Maybe use a dictionary and learn these words, maybe then you can win an argument.

Edited December 2, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[Lastreaumont]

After some campaigns (England 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 and Germany 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920) I noticed following points:
- Nations in 1910 and later are very sensitive to victory points and can collapse quickly. My campaign in 1910 and later all finished in less than 1 year. 
- Transports sunk during missions don't seem to be counted in later losses summaries (in a campagnain, I'm sure I sank more than 20 ennemy transports and only less than 10 losses were displayed). I'll do more precise counts during my next campaign.
- In v0.95 version, ship balance variations are special (tested on german ships, 1910 and 1920). It looks like the value for a lateral balance influence of an placed object is applied to lengthwise balance influence, and reciprocally. 
- Quality seems to be too stronger than quantity in 1910, 1920 and 1930, especially with the possibility to win in a short time, after few won battles. 

Personnal feeling:
- 1890 and 1900 battles were very boring and funless. Maybe I didn't found yet how create funny ships for these periods. 
- 1910, 1920 and 1930 battles were fun but the campaigns ended to soon. 

[o Barão]

@ColonelHenry "...misrepresenting people arguments because your ego"

Interesting, because i was using my knowledge about naval warfare to state that you were wrong from the beginning. And it was you that were being sttuborn to admit that you where wrong from the beginning and being disrecpectful with others that didn't think the same way , without any proof to support your claim. In other words, an asshole. Well i think even assholes can learn something sometimes. Or maybe it is a christmas miracle. 😁

[Cptbarney]

And the arguments resume.

[Commander Reed]

I didn't expect anything less from this community.

[DougToss]

5 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Do we know anything about the gunnery training that was done by Percy Scott? Because the hit percentage seems pretty insane for 1899, but what was the range and was the simulated target moving?

It was the Continuous Aim Technique, where the gun is kept on target despite the pitch and roll of the ship.

It was a huge revolution and set the stage for the Dreadnought Era - for the first time, targets could be engaged at any sort of range. It also took better gun mounts and a lot of crew training to make sure the gun could be trained continuously. 
 

Quote

“The gunnery revolution began in 1898 when Captain (later Admiral) Percy Scott RN, then captain of the cruiser HMS Scylla, found a solution to the rolling problem. On 26 May 1899 Scylla made fifty-six hits out of seventy shots at the annual prize firing, six times her performance the previous year. This result was so remarkable that few believed it before they had seen it in action. Just as important, Scott’s guns could hit at longer ranges because they were so much steadier. Scott had carefully observed gunners, some of whom achieved great success by continuously elevating and depressing their guns so that they were always on target. Scott called this technique continuous aim. It was no longer necessary to choose a point in the ship’s roll at which to fire. Waiting for the gun-sights to come ‘onto’ the target had always been a source of error, because no gunner’s reflexes were instantaneous. Moreover, firing only at a set point in the roll limited the firing rate.

Scott was stabilising guns in the line of sight but not across it (ie against cross-roll). This pre-World War I gunnery revolution extended line-of-sight compensation to heavy guns so that, by 1914, gunners firing at 10,000 yards could make many more hits than they might have at 1000 yards before Scott. Cross-roll, however, was a different proposition.”

Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era

Quote

“But technology advances on a broad front, albeit erratically, and the pendulum had, to some extent, swung back. The coming-of-age of the torpedo made it necessary for large warships to exploit the long-range potential of their heavy guns in order to engage beyond the reach of the enemy’s flotilla craft; and through improvements in range-finders, and the drive of gunnery reformers such as Percy Scott, Lord Charles Beresford and Fisher himself with his ‘Fishpond’ of disciples, a succession of technical problems were surmounted and battle-ranges suddenly stretched out to 8,000 yards – ranges at which large shells, impacting now at oblique angles of descent and with velocities partially spent, could be defeated by hardened armour-plate. The armoured capital ship was back in business. And the new idea that a ship’s guns should all be controlled by one centrally placed observer, who would watch their shell-splashes and coordinate corrections in elevation and bearing, favoured a single-calibre armament.”

The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
 

Quote

“Owing to the drive and invention of a handful of enthusiasts and prima donnas, most conspicuous among whom was Fisher’s friend Percy Scott, many of the obstacles to more accurate, longer-range shooting were systematically surmounted; and from the assortment of battle-formations which had been vaguely mooted for twenty-five years, the fleets dressed back into the beam-firing line-ahead of ancient memory. In 1904 there arrived as ‘First Sea Lord’ (as the First Naval Lord was now termed) the manic, almost messianic Fisher, poised – contrary to received belief – dramatically to curtail the rebirth of single-line battle-fleets.”

The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command

e: I mean, if someone is persuaded to agree with you, dunking on them for ever having disagreed is bad form. @ColonelHenry read long excerpts from a challenging book, learned about gunnery, and asked thoughtful questions about Scott’s technique.

Isn’t that what we want? For people to become naval enthusiasts themselves? 
 

Edited December 2, 2021 by DougToss

[Fishyfish]

Ah good one of the two paid shills is talking out a hole in their backside again. So let me get this straight, if you're a closed beta tester you get full right to be a condensending jackass to people? Two of those closed beta testers are absolutely worthless, one I think quite highly of despite their terminal animuu affliction, and the rest I don't think I've ever seen comment. 

 

[T_the_ferret]

12 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Ah good one of the two paid shills is talking out a hole in their backside again. So let me get this straight, if you're a closed beta tester you get full right to be a condensending jackass to people? Two of those closed beta testers are absolutely worthless, one I think quite highly of despite their terminal animuu affliction, and the rest I don't think I've ever seen comment. 

 

Hi 

[Fishyfish]

1 minute ago, T_the_ferret said:

Hi 

Nice to meet you! Keep up the good work. 

[T_the_ferret]

I try but it never makes it into the build

[Cptbarney]

4 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

I try but it never makes it into the build

Well, guess we just got to make sure it does. We managed to get the devs to prioritise now (i assume) the old ships from 1890-1920 as the campaign has shown the severe lack of ship variety and also how imbalanced it is down there with torp boats reigning supreme (also the fact, that you can cheese the campaign with those dd's and auto-resolve which is a huge issue).

So whatever else needs doing will need to be repeated here, by a good sum of us. Otherwise i doubt we will see it implemented, either in a good time frame or at all.

It's why tech debt needs to avoided otherwise you end up with massive issues down the line (just look at the AI currently for example and how its also tied in with the players ship building mechanic.) It seems to fail at managing multiple groups of ships and while much better at building ships, builds some freaky things, which im sure will get more noticed as the campaign years open up.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Cptbarney

[Fishyfish]

We desperately need some of them, ahem, "old boaghts" if that's how you pronounce it. 😉

I have multiple resources availed if you ever need them, Janes books and the like. Just give me a ping or a DM or what ever and I'll photo or scan pages for you. 

If you can somehow coerce the devs to give me some goddang hulls like the USS Maine AC1 I will eat my fin.