Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Skeksis said:

A nation must expect losses.

I do not have much of a problem with torpedo or dd spawning too close. There is instance where night battle happened at "point blank" range in history. But as I said before, while I think it could be better, there is far more pressing issues atm.

Question: when was the last time you lost a BB/BC/CA to gun shots?

Personally, I did not lose a gun fight in ages. It isn't that torpedo are too strong. Its that AI build fast ship using hulls that can't go fast. Ship generator makes thin, all or nothing armour, and that doesn't work at all. On top of that, it make weak main battery and overkill secondary. Oh, and without any consideration to stability.

To fix the stern chasing,  square to square damage transmission was added. Its not a bad feature in itself, but now you can defeat a BB using HE only, as damage will spread from the weak extended belt to the interior of the main belt.

Besides working on the campaign, I would argue that this is a issue should be on the top of the priority list.

Edited by RedParadize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!
Finally bought the game on Steam, I was super hyped to finally get it ^^
I used to play with a copy a friend passed me and I just love the game, I played quite a lot and I wanted it to come out on Steam so I could buy it from a real platform...

I also messed quite a bit with the files and I'm kinda sad for one thing :
I used to use DnSpy on the AssemblyCSharp.dll file to remove some game restrictions, so I could place anything anywhere, no weight limits, no barbettes limits or have all hulls and cannons (Like a 18in canon on a Destroyer)...
Because the old
"Shift + Control + Alt + A" isn't quite enough to me
"Sadly" now the game uses IL2CPP and I'm lost now :/ (I know it's a great improvement tho, don't get me wrong)

Would it be possible to have such a advanced Cheat Code in the future? I know this can (or will in most cases) break the AI ship generation but that's mainly how I enjoyed the game, doing dumb stuff à la Warship Gunners, I'm more a Sandbox enjoyer with little time rather than a Hardcore history mode player with a week to spend in intricate designs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, akd said:

 and binoculars did not "upgrade"

https://houseofwhitley.com/wwii-japanese-naval-binoculars-big-eye-spyglasses-of-the-rising-sun/

"During the 1930s and 1940s, while the U.S. and Britain focused on developing radar, the Japanese largely ignored the new technology; their superiority in the optics of binoculars led them to think they didn’t need it."

" The aim of such huge binoculars is to funnel in as much light as possible. These huge brass-and-steel instruments (many of them built by Nippon Kogaku, a supplier that became Nikon) are often large enough to fit a human head inside, with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

https://houseofwhitley.com/wwii-japanese-naval-binoculars-big-eye-spyglasses-of-the-rising-sun/

"During the 1930s and 1940s, while the U.S. and Britain focused on developing radar, the Japanese largely ignored the new technology; their superiority in the optics of binoculars led them to think they didn’t need it."

" The aim of such huge binoculars is to funnel in as much light as possible. These huge brass-and-steel instruments (many of them built by Nippon Kogaku, a supplier that became Nikon) are often large enough to fit a human head inside, with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away."

Yes, night optics could be improved (but the Japanese were, of course, completely wrong that this gave them a significant edge).  But such optics were not the difference between seeing and not seeing a cruiser that is hull up above the horizon on a clear day.

Edited by akd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, akd said:

The idea that spotting distances were lower in the pre-dreadnought era vs. later is bonkers and the real problem.  Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930.  Only radar changed things significantly (and radar is not visual observation).

Thank you.

The horizon is as far away as it’s always been. Better optics than binoculars helped see more clearly, and helped identify ships better, estimate range and so on, but even in the days of Nelson, the enemy could be seen to the horizon.

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Thank you.

The horizon is as far away as it’s always been. Better optics than binoculars helped see more clearly, and helped identify ships better, estimate range and so on, but even in the days of Nelson, the enemy could be seen to the horizon.

technically beyond as the masts stuck up over the horizon :D but they really need to make a realistic spotting sense not the thing there using now which makes no sense.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JeeWeeJ said:

I was talking about in game terms, not real life. The pre-dreadnought equipment has much lower spotting range than stuff you get later. Just compare the stuff you get at the start of the 1890 campaign vs the 1920 campaign.

That’s the point everybody was making and why it should be fixed. It’s plainly ridiculous with no basis in reality, and makes the game less intuitive and fun to play, so you can’t even say it’s a gameplay over realism decision. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akd said:

but the Japanese were, of course, completely wrong that this gave them a significant edge

It seems you missed this part "with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away." Or maybe you still don't understand the big advantage this gives in battle.

Anyway that is not point. You said and i quote: "Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930."

This is clear a mistake. I only used one example to show there is improvements related to lenses. I could use many others , tank scope, or rifle scopes.The lenses tech from the 1930 is way different and superior to what was being produced in XIX century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It seems you missed this part "with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away." Or maybe you still don't understand the big advantage this gives in battle.

Anyway that is not point. You said and i quote: "Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930."

This is clear a mistake. I only used one example to show there is improvements related to lenses. I could use many others , tank scope, or rifle scopes.The lenses tech from the 1930 is way different and superior to what was being produced in XIX century.

I think the point is, That you can still see to the horizon. As has been pointed out, ships do not have cloaking devices, even at Jutland in 1916 they were engaging at 9-10K meters. The enemy knew when the lighter ships made torpedo runs and could adjust course, this was because they could see them. The system currently in place is just ridiculous, it makes no sense and is not fun. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feedback (sorry for wall of text but i do have alot to tell and i did played quite a bit. Also sorry for bad spelling)

AI – acts strange. On one hand i had few big battles playing campaing in which they did relativly well, in fact there was one battle in which AI played evrything to their advantage and i lost (mind you i did only used CA in my campaing) which showed my that when AI plays as coherent force capable of using ships it has well then it actually may do suprisingly well


On the other hand i had battle in which my 1 CA was ambushed by 6 torpedo boats. Whilie i thought that i lost but wanted to make my valiant stand, Tbs came one by one (not as they shoud in swarm or two packs from different sideds) atacking with torpedoes on max distance with no chance of actually scoring hit. So i torpedoed them back, i torpedoed torpedo boats


So botom line is that when AI works it may do very well but it is often beaten by lack of cohesion or planing ahead.


Ships AI make are not tailored to fight player – i think ai should get a hint of what player is building and build next ships which do well against those, prehaps after playing few "mocked" battlest to ensure new design is valid.

In fact i would suggest that you make AI battle few standard designs evry time it is making new ships to ensure they are not stupid. For example

in 1890 and 1900 guns are ineffective compered to torpedoes. Its truth, thats the reason why all my ships have torpedoes (and i do build only CA) so why is AI not puting them on evrything it can? We know it can but it does not. Which means AI is building ships that are already hendicaped.


Gameplay – Its fine, however i think torpedoes should have chance to be a dud. There are many improvments planed so i am not gooing to list those that are about most likly change in few days.

Ship building – Lack of hulls that give room for fun in 1890 is visable. I mean... there is only one correct way to build ships that are effective. I made some cursed but effective designs in later periods in fact you can by all means make cursed and fun ships in all dates above 1900.

- Outside of more things to be added to that starting date i would suggest Ship designer improvments such as

 

– slider for amount of rangefinders on ships
- slider for size of fire control section
- slider for size of machinery
- New superstructures that would be cosmetical and practical – cat walks, protection from wind for crew, stairs and soo on – things that make ships look more unique.
- paint scheme for ships and soo on.

If you are planing to leave current designer then i would suggest giving player things to give soul to ship.



What shoud be given next to player – I think that campaign expansion and more components for 1890 – 1900 starting date is a must. More agresive ai that always put torpedoes on it ships would be awesome and make for fun over all improvment even if a place holder waiting to be changed in to AI acting always as coherent fighting force


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

It seems you missed this part "with lenses that absorb up to 980 times more light than the human eye, offering a view of objects up to 20 miles away." Or maybe you still don't understand the big advantage this gives in battle.

Anyway that is not point. You said and i quote: "Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade" and battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930."

This is clear a mistake. I only used one example to show there is improvements related to lenses. I could use many others , tank scope, or rifle scopes.The lenses tech from the 1930 is way different and superior to what was being produced in XIX century.

Such optics did not allow them to see further, but to see better at night.  Regular handheld binoculars are perfectly capable of spotting an object as large as ship above the horizon.  In fact, the unaided human eye is capable. The horizon imposes the limit, not the optics.

And the seeing at night thing is way more complicated than just who had the best light-gathering optics.  Regardless, any of that goes totally out the window once you start firing (and arguably once you start going full speed and throwing a huge, bright bow wave).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danelin Aruna said:

I think the point is, That you can still see to the horizon. As has been pointed out, ships do not have cloaking devices, even at Jutland in 1916 they were engaging at 9-10K meters. The enemy knew when the lighter ships made torpedo runs and could adjust course, this was because they could see them. The system currently in place is just ridiculous, it makes no sense and is not fun. 

Just to add to this, Detection ≠ Engagement.

Better optics allow you to better engage the target, but visibility remains the same. What separates ships from tank and rifle optics is that the target does not require optics to be detected. With those land systems, the optics to detect and engage are almost always different in any case - increasing magnification reduces field of view, so it’s a terrible way to initially detect the enemy. 
 

Better optics of course help you see better, but at sea they don’t change what you can see. @akd is absolutely correct: the distance you could detect the enemy did not change. What they did do, was extend the range you could engage the enemy at. The question was never if there was a ship there - it could be plainly seen - it was turning that sighting into usable data: range, bearing, speed, identification and so on. 
 

In Gameplay terms ( @Nick Thomadis 👀) this could be represented as slightly faster generation of firing data, slightly less initial error in the firing solution, slightly better corrections. 
 

Most simply this represents them making a better “guess” at where the target is, because they can measure mast heights to calculate approximate range and so on. They’d still miss of course, but a smaller initial error leads to applying smaller corrections, which means faster effective engagement, ideally hitting sooner.

It was never likely that the initial data were correct. Gunnery was a cycle of firing, observation, correction, and then firing again, much depending on how the observation was interpreted (spotting). The corrections themselves came to be called spots. The early British long-range firing experiments showed that hits could rarely be seen from the firing ship. Gunners had to depend on what was visible – the splash from a miss. It also turned out that misses beyond the target were often invisible, so the British learned to depend on what they could see. The British view (not shared by the US) was that it was impractical to measure how far short a shell had fallen, so that corrections had to be by rule. It took time for a splash to form, so that a shell aimed properly for line (direction) might produce a splash near the target’s stern. A second lesson was that concentrated firing in salvoes was far easier to spot than individual shots, hence that central control was inescapable; by 1903 it seemed that spotting by individual gunners would be limited to 2000 yards (this figure later rose). Salvo firing with control from aloft seemed inevitable for ranges beyond about 5000 yards.”


Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era
 

This is a matter of degrees of course, but all throughout the dreadnought era we see the development of better and larger optical rangefinders for this reason. Again - they weren’t used to see the enemy, but to shoot at them.

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, akd said:

Such optics did not allow them to see further, but to see better at night.  Regular handheld binoculars are perfectly capable of spotting an object as large as ship above the horizon.  In fact, the unaided human eye is capable. The horizon imposes the limit, not the optics.

And the seeing at night thing is way more complicated than just who had the best light-gathering optics.  Regardless, any of that goes totally out the window once you start firing (and arguably once you start going full speed and throwing a huge, bright bow wave).

It seems hard to explain this to you, but i will try one last time.

Understand that i am not:

....debating if you can see further or not.

....debating if you can see better or not.

....debating about the horizons limits.

....interested in the excuses you are giving, to ignore what you said.

You said and i quote again: "...binoculars did not "upgrade" This is a mistake. The lenses and binoculars tech is not the same. I gave you only one  example to show that there was a normal development in this tech between the nations.

Is this part clear?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed something really annoying while playing the campaign. Maintenance cost seems to vary allot depending on the hull you chose. As a example, look at these two ship:
vNAB4r1.png
1KIU16Q.png
Exept a difference in speed, almost everything is built the same way. While they cost about the same, maintenance of the second ship is only half of the first one, I aint sure why. Accuracy, speed, almost everything is better on the second ship.

I think a balancing pass his hugely needed. Not only for hulls and tower, but perk too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It seems hard to explain this to you, but i will try one last time.

Understand that i am not:

....debating if you can see further or not.

....debating if you can see better or not.

....debating about the horizons limits.

....interested in the excuses you are giving, to ignore what you said.

You said and i quote again: "...binoculars did not "upgrade" This is a mistake. The lenses and binoculars tech is not the same. I gave you only one  example to show that there was a normal development in this tech between the nations.

Is this part clear?

My point was clearly (*hehehe*) that human eyeballs and ship’s optics did not “upgrade” to see ship-sized objects further away.  But that’s how it works in game.  Later towers simply see further, in all conditions and with no regard to any particular technology (e.g. better light-gathering optics increasing *chance* of seeing an enemy that is within the limit of the horizon on a clear night, but that is otherwise not revealing itself by firing, using spotlights, throwing a huge bow wave, etc.).

Edited by akd
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, lots here gents. I guess the Steam release truly kicked some energy back into here:

 

20 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In "Fleet" window you can enable the option "Add Crew" and it is going to be auto-managed from the next turn and onwards.

One QoL suggestion @Nick Thomadis - can the 'Add Crew" checkmark remain even when exit campaign? In other words, can it remain on in the saved game? Many times I jump back into my campaign and play several turns, taking losses, only to forget I am not replenishing my crew for several months!

 

20 hours ago, SiWi said:

I mean enemy ships. I'm pretty sure that I leave to few survivors (insert evil laugh) for the enemy fleet to have veteran crews. Yet they always have, after a certain time, veteran crews on all ships including some I never spotted.

Same that some of my ships who barley saw action have veteran crews.

I have noticed the same thing. Enemy ships I have never engaged before have highly-trained crews. The crew XP mechanic might need some tweaking.

 

20 hours ago, JeeWeeJ said:

Hi all!

New forumite here who has been playing this game for quite a while now but only recently dabbled with the campaign mode.
Given that I really like this game, I thought I'd share my feedback here. I'm sure quite a few things I mention here will have been discussed in one of the many topics on this forum...I haven't read all threads yet, apologies for that. ;) Please note that I am very much aware that this is a very early version of the campaign and that it is work in progress.

Anyway, to the wall of text!

Note: this is mostly based of v97. Haven't been able to play v98 that much yet.


GAMEPLAY
- The transport mechanic: In essence I like the transport mechanic and how you can actively invest into your own economy. However, due to it not being explained how you actually protect your transports (as in: how do you decrease the chance of losing them) it can be somewhat game breaking when you suddenly start losing 10+ transport per turn and actually go bankrupt even though you are winning all battles thrown at you. Please let the player know WHY they are losing the transports so you can respond to it before some politician throws a hissy fit and decides you lost the war. (For example a warning that not enough ships are available to protect trade lanes or something)
- Spotting is weird: this has ofcourse been discussed to death in other threads, but right now it's just weird how ships can suddenly pop into existance right next to you. I know this is due to a lack of visible clues regarding the weather effects, but if you didn't know this (like your random Steam early access purchaser) it would be frustrating and more or less "unfair and game breaking".
- The AI bravely runs away: another thing that has multiple topics on this forum. Like the brave Sir Robin, the AI seemingly decides that bravely running aways it the best course of action. Always. Even when it has a numerical advantage. (I especially found this to be the case in the 1890 and 1900 campaigns. It becomes less of an issue in the later campaigns)
- Convoy Missions: I really like the idea of convoy missions, but so far they seem to have little actual effect. If you only kill the transport ships, you don't get any victory points. So right now it's not clear to me, as a player, why I should focus on these missions. For example, skipping a convoy defence mission doesn't always result in me losing transports.
- Already visible Work in Progress stuff: I really like that we're already able to see stuff that doesn't yet work, but gives us an idea of what is coming. Gives me something to look forward to. :)


UI
- In general: the UI is nice and clean and overall is easy to understand. Nice work!
- Mechanics need more info: This game has quite a few underwater mechanics which aren't really explained ingame. For example the option to have ships "In Being" or out at sea. Now I get the gist of what it means...but what does it mean in game terms? Like, which option is better for the protection of transports? Having popups with a short explanation would be nice.
- Need weather info before entering combat: What I would really like to see (or maybe I'm blind and missed it completely?) is having weather info before you go into battle. I really like pre-dreadnought era ships but entering a battle where you suddenly find out that your commander Hanz forgot that it's nighttime...and it's storming with a seastate that would make a hardened sailor cry...not much sense even going into that battle, right? But hey! At least they can see smoke on the horizon!
- Speaking of smoke: While I really like the "Smoke on the horizon" mechanic, it's also a bit frustrating. Especially in the pre-dreadnought era where spotting distances are low and speeds are even lower, it's kind of annoying to just sail around and not finding your foe. (especially now with the AI's tendency to run away without even spotting you) It would be nice to have an (optional?) indicator of some kind showing you exactly on what bearing the smoke was spotted instead of just "East"...no make that North-East...no, East!...or maybe West?


SOUND
I can be brief about this. Both the effects and the music is GLORIOUS really well done!


OTHER SUGGESTIONS
- Wars between AI's: One of the things I really disliked from Rule the Waves 2 (sorry, had to make the comparison once) was that it was always you vs the AI. The AI nations never had wars between themselves and alliances didn't mean that much excepty for some extra ships during battles. So I really hope that in this game the other AI nations will get into wars with eachother to keep things in balance. (with balance I mean nations which just have their fleets grown and grow because they never suffer any losses...and then declare war on you with a massive numerical superiority)
- Moddable nations: While I really like the ten nations we have so far, I'm sure everyone can think of other countries they'd like to add. I'd love to see us having the ability to add nations via mods. I mean...who wouldn't want to rule the seven seas with the dreaded Swiss war canoes? Seriously though, I think being able to add not just equipment and 3D models to this game would greatly expand the replayability value.


All in all, I really like what I see in this first version! Sure, it needs polish and more stuff to be added. And I'm not sure if it would be wise to put it on Steam in its current state given how some aspects of the game can easily be seen as "broken"...but it really has a lot of potential and I cannot wait for the stuff to come!

Totally agree on wars between AI. I know it might be hard to balance at first but it will pay off in the long run. There needs to be more going on than the player taking over the world. Also moddable nations would be wonderful. Greece, Turkey, South American nations, and even the Netherlands are all possible candidates.

 

15 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

^

This matter of the vision system is a continuation of the issue of Borg sighting, too, as far as I'm concerned.

We've been saying for a long time the vision system has some major issues. If you shoot at me, there's no way I don't see you, for example. Maybe all I get is an idea of your bearing and range, but it's immediately a huge "look somewhere over here" sign. Yet that's not what happens because the system runs on a lazy Borg sighting system, something that has no business being in a game in 2021.

You'd think you'd have a test system with a whole bunch of scenarios mapped out. You'd run your designed game system through those scenarios to see that it generates the result that's expected. If it doesn't, it's a fail.

That's basic User Acceptance Testing in a nutshell, isn't it?

Granted, I've only ever done it in situations like banking and insurance companies' systems, so maybe I don't understand it properly.

On top of that, as I've said many times, you ALSO ought to have a "must NOT" list, too.

'Must NOT have 6 DDs spawn within 1km of enemy BB' would seem potentially to be one of them. If the visibility is so poor that the BB can't see the DDs, the DDs almost certainly would never have spotted the BB from range to close on it. That leaves both forces happening to be on converging courses at exactly the correct distance and speed to come within 1km of each other.

I don't think I need to comment on the statistical likelihood of that happening, especially if it's in open seas.

That absence of the "must not" list is one I've seen cause all sorts of mayhem (a bank ended up fined ~$1.6 billion because of what I'm sure was a failure to have that check in place with a change made to their ATM network; considering they were technically liable for something like a fine of $50 billion due to the number of breaches through the network, they got off lightly).

It's simple yet so often seems to be neglected, with predictable consequences.

 

12 hours ago, Skeksis said:

A nation must expect losses. 

Take the most unfortunate lost of HMS Vanguard (1909), sunk by internal explosion at Scapa Flow. I'm not saying this should happen in game but DDs appearing at point blank range can be a way the AI/game could make campaigns challenging and simulate unfortunate losses. 

Maybe the player should endure unfortunate losses? like lets make it a very interesting UAD campaign to play? And then the player endures the struggle to right himself. 

I wouldn't like it myself and I don't play hard-mode either, not yet, but just because I wouldn't like it (or any one else) doesn't mean hard-mode events shouldn't happen, well at least rarely.
 

I'm all for acceptable losses, but having "6 DDs start within 1km of 1 BB" is ridiculous. The DDs would start further out and take fire on the way in. For every single one to get within that range, taking no damage in the process, is ridiculous. At the very least, wait to give us these ranges in battles until weather is actually added visually. Then we may console ourselves with the knowledge that it was at least dark and stormy, allowing them to creep up....which contrarily should affect their spotting as well, possibly reducing their ability to spot the enemy BB. It would also make them apprehensive about firing a salvo knowing they might misidentify a friendly DD in the dark and hit them by accident., or just plain miss the BB and strike one of their own after the fact. Also, the torpedoes might not run as accurately in bad weather and plotting a firing solution to begin with might be more difficult. Pros and cons....

 

2 hours ago, Grayknight said:

My feedback (sorry for wall of text but i do have alot to tell and i did played quite a bit. Also sorry for bad spelling)

AI – acts strange. On one hand i had few big battles playing campaing in which they did relativly well, in fact there was one battle in which AI played evrything to their advantage and i lost (mind you i did only used CA in my campaing) which showed my that when AI plays as coherent force capable of using ships it has well then it actually may do suprisingly well


On the other hand i had battle in which my 1 CA was ambushed by 6 torpedo boats. Whilie i thought that i lost but wanted to make my valiant stand, Tbs came one by one (not as they shoud in swarm or two packs from different sideds) atacking with torpedoes on max distance with no chance of actually scoring hit. So i torpedoed them back, i torpedoed torpedo boats


So botom line is that when AI works it may do very well but it is often beaten by lack of cohesion or planing ahead.


Ships AI make are not tailored to fight player – i think ai should get a hint of what player is building and build next ships which do well against those, prehaps after playing few "mocked" battlest to ensure new design is valid.

In fact i would suggest that you make AI battle few standard designs evry time it is making new ships to ensure they are not stupid. For example

in 1890 and 1900 guns are ineffective compered to torpedoes. Its truth, thats the reason why all my ships have torpedoes (and i do build only CA) so why is AI not puting them on evrything it can? We know it can but it does not. Which means AI is building ships that are already hendicaped.


Gameplay – Its fine, however i think torpedoes should have chance to be a dud. There are many improvments planed so i am not gooing to list those that are about most likly change in few days.

Ship building – Lack of hulls that give room for fun in 1890 is visable. I mean... there is only one correct way to build ships that are effective. I made some cursed but effective designs in later periods in fact you can by all means make cursed and fun ships in all dates above 1900.

- Outside of more things to be added to that starting date i would suggest Ship designer improvments such as

 

– slider for amount of rangefinders on ships
- slider for size of fire control section
- slider for size of machinery
- New superstructures that would be cosmetical and practical – cat walks, protection from wind for crew, stairs and soo on – things that make ships look more unique.
- paint scheme for ships and soo on.

If you are planing to leave current designer then i would suggest giving player things to give soul to ship.



What shoud be given next to player – I think that campaign expansion and more components for 1890 – 1900 starting date is a must. More agresive ai that always put torpedoes on it ships would be awesome and make for fun over all improvment even if a place holder waiting to be changed in to AI acting always as coherent fighting force


 

I agree, that the AI seems inconsistent. Sometimes it seems to act intelligently and pull off good moves. Other times it squanders it's advantage. I chalk it up to headcannon commanding officers. Some are good and some are morons.

 

30 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I noticed something really annoying while playing the campaign. Maintenance cost seems to vary allot depending on the hull you chose. As a example, look at these two ship:
vNAB4r1.png
1KIU16Q.png
Exept a difference in speed, almost everything is built the same way. While they cost about the same, maintenance of the second ship is only half of the first one, I aint sure why. Accuracy, speed, almost everything is better on the second ship.

I think a balancing pass his hugely needed. Not only for hulls and tower, but perk too.

This is really something big. I would be interested to see if the devs look at this and if it is a bug.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, akd said:

My point was clearly (*hehehe*) that human eyeballs and ship’s optics did not “upgrade” to see ship-sized objects further away.  But that’s how it works in game.  Later towers simply see further, in all conditions and with no regard to any particular technology (e.g. better light-gathering optics increasing *chance* of seeing an enemy that is within the limit of the horizon on a clear night, but that is otherwise not revealing itself by firing, using spotlights, throwing a huge bow wave, etc.).

That was my interpretation too, I’m not sure what @o Barão is getting at, other than as I said, better optics help with engagement. Which is true, of course, but does not translate to seeing further - what exists in game right now. 
 

@o Barão is correct, insofar as optics got better. I agree, just look at the increase in size of rangefinders to truly massive proportions. However, the larger, and most important point is that it did not change how far they could see. Sort of an apples to oranges situation.

Ideally then, visibility is to the horizon and optical technology applies modifiers to the engagement cycle.

Let’s break the quote @o Barão objected to into its elements, I feel like we’ll find a compromise:

 

- "Human eyes and binoculars did not "upgrade"

There were improvements in optics, no doubt. I have no objection to this statement. I don’t think @akd does either. @akd’s point was “upgraded in what way?” “What are the in-game implications?”

 

and

 

- battleship ship spotters were able to observe roughly the same distances in 1890 and 1930

This is also true. @akd is correct that the improvements to optics, which @o Barão pointed out, did not change the distances that could be observed. He did not say they did not improve other things - for instance light amplification, image clarity, range finding accuracy. 

 

So, as a synthesis, what @akd is saying can be summarized as:

“Human eyes and binoculars did not upgrade in such a way that changed how far targets could be detected/observed between 1890 and 1930; and therefore in-game these improvements should be represented in some other form than visibility distance.”

This is in agreement with what @Steeltrap, and others, have said about reworking the visibility system to take this into account, and what I said about possible in-game modifiers that better represent improved optics.

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Danelin Aruna said:

Yes what happened to Scapa Flow can happen. Accidents do happen after all. And the only way i could see the DD's getting to with a Kilometer is if its night time. But i doubt they'd be able to do that in the 1900's As you would have spotted them long before you could close. Mainly do to funnel smoke on the horizon. No commander wants to engage at a disadvantage, the devs really need to overhaul the spotting mechanic and make it realistic as it stands it is beyond the suspension of disbelief. I've seen several places were people want it to be more transparent and go into the realm of RTW's spotting mechanics I think this would help a lot of people.

 

Make it sensible, as it is it just appears stupid and annoying to players. Ships do not have cloaking devices. If its light out for the most part you can see the enemy out to at least the horizon, even at night you should still be able to see them from fairly far off, unless your the Americans at Savo Island apparently.

I reckon Dev’s would have tested horizon visibility and probably decided (obviously) that dogged fights was too problematic and offer no mystery. Dogged fights to the end would be the result if all is visible.

Approaching stealth fleets (using unity’s fog-of-war engine)  starts tactical gameplay right off the bat, the player has ‘mystery’ when beginning the battle. I think that has got to count for something when offering a ‘gameplay package’ to the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Approaching stealth fleets (using unity’s fog-of-war engine)  starts tactical gameplay right off the bat, the player has ‘mystery’ when beginning the battle. I think that has got to count for something when offering a ‘gameplay package’ to the player.

Please feel free to list examples of that happening. 
 

A ship you can’t see also can’t see you, which means it cannot stealthy approach you. At best, you’re describing fleets blundering into each other under poor visibility conditions. This did happen, but contact was not initiated in favour of some “stealthy” side, but rather both sides detected each other, where their respective training and equipment - not stealth or visibility - determined the outcome. 
 

Being trained for night fighting, the proper doctrine, and with good searchlights and star shells, you have a better chance of making the best of the situation once the action commences, but that’s not stealth either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The_Real_Hawkeye You are on a  open bridge ww1 destroyer. Going at 38knots, those fancy binocular are a tad wet. Assuming you are in the northern hemisphere the sun is front left of you. Winds coming from your rear, smoke is passing over the bridge... And its almost night. Yes... 5km isn't that unreasonable. There is limit to the realism argument. None of what I just said can easily be passed to the average player.

Oh, btw, do you guys think the spotter on the Titanic had binocular or not? Would it had matter ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DougToss then it must be a situation where my poor english didn't helped me to understand what was the meaning. If that is the case i am sorry.

@akd "Later towers simply see further" Maybe because they are bigger? The higher they are, the higher the observations placements/rangefinders are? I never compared the towers size to see if this is the case. Maybe can be for gameplay reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I reckon Dev’s would have tested horizon visibility and probably decided (obviously) that dogged fights was too problematic and offer no mystery. Dogged fights to the end would be the result if all is visible.

Approaching stealth fleets (using unity’s fog-of-war engine)  starts tactical gameplay right off the bat, the player has ‘mystery’ when beginning the battle. I think that has got to count for something when offering a ‘gameplay package’ to the player.

A lot of people think the current system is bad, and hurts playability. Give us a real world system, and the losing fleet always has the chance to disengage, as is currently happening with the poor AI. And tactics because of some broken concept of spotting is just stupid and doesn't lead to tactics. 

First they need to actually fix pathfinding, as it is now all i do is form battle lines and put my large ships as the farthest away then the cruisers and then the LC's and DD's. As if i try to let the AI take care of everything except the battle line then they crash into each other. 

So yes i want a really world sighting system not this half backed thing they have now, i want to be able to set up orders or waypoints like in RTW and i want to not have to micro every ship and line so they don't slam into each other. And I can always tell were the enemy is going to be because it'll be on the opposite were my screens start the battle. So then i have the whole problem of getting my screens on the right side of the formation which is a pain. Especially when I need to get well inside engagement range before i can see the enemy.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Danelin Aruna said:

A lot of people think the current system is bad, and hurts playability

Have you ever played WOWS ‘ocean map’? There’s no cover for anyone, essentially it’s a dogged fight to the end, players mill around until one makes a mistake or just one guy sinks first, at that point one fleet outnumbers the other and then it’s a numbers game to the end (not always but mostly).

With full horizonal view, at exactly the point of the first sinking, the battle could be as good as over. No mystery! Just a dogged fight to the end.

While the fog-of-war system is challenging, it still might be the best system developed for our game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...