>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[Gangut]

Enjoyed my session last night by experimenting with the Jeune Ecole idea further. So far light cruisers, especially with no armour don't work out well, heavy cruisers need torpedoes to have any form of killing power. Torpedo boats however are op as hell early on, like last night 80% of my battles were torpedo boat only, and in almost every naval battle I werecked the British fleets without taking many loses, however in convoy raiding they arn't great, though that being said it's better to kill the warships than the convoy if you want victory points.

[RedHerring]

I’ve been looking forward to this campaign since the game was released. This is very much like what I was hoping we would get. Obviously it’s bare-bones right now and has a very long way to go, but I think I see where it's going and I'm excited to see it be developed further. So great work devs!

I have a couple thoughts based on the limited time that I've been able to play around with the campaign so far. 

First, a question; What is the intention behind locking the campaign behind 3 Naval Academy missions? Is it simply to ensure that new players have some familiarity with the game before they dive into the campaign? If so, may I suggest a dialog box that recommends that you play the naval academy before starting the campaign, rather than requiring it.

On a side note, I would also recommend splitting the naval academy into two sections on the main menu. A “Tutorial” section containing the “learn the mechanics” type missions (ie. Gun basics, speed basics), and a “Scenarios” section containing the rest of the missions. This would help clarify what you are getting into, rather than overwhelming new players with what can, at first glance, look like a hundred tutorial missions.

Second, is the starting years for the campaign. I would like to see all starting years available without an unlock. I know this may be personal taste, but I’m not a huge fan of the pre-dreadnought portion of the game. I’d like to be able to start in 1910 or later, but as it is I have to play 2 campaigns before I can get to the ones that I’m really interested in. If players have to spend 10+ hours doing something they don’t care about, or possibly even dislike, in order to be able to play the content that they want to, you are going to lose some of them. Maybe the current system is intended to create a sense of progression, but I think that the campaign will provide that inherently. Generally, letting your players do what they want to do within your game is better than making them grind to unlock content. 

There are other things that would make the campaign better, but many of them have either already been raised by someone else, or will most likely become irrelevant as the campaign gets fleshed out. 

Overall, I like where the campaign (and game as a whole) are heading. Thanks for the hard work! I’m looking forward to seeing what comes next.

[Mr.Chappy]

Firstly, I'm really enjoying the campaign, even if it's limited, however somethings still don't make sense.
 

• You need to explain that when the end battle button comes up that it doesn't mean a win, even when it's obvious the other side has been mauled.
• The victory point system just doesn't work and it's disheartening to win what you think is a decisive victory and to be told "Nah mate, they still have 1% float, so it's a draw" with the corresponding almost equal VP.
• Renaming ships and classes, while purely cosmetic, is a must. Having my A-Class TB have names not beginning with A is annoying. 
• The starting tonnage limit needs making larger.
• The weight/offset system doesn't work. We need the ability to add ballast to weight a ship properly. 
• We must be able to increase time speed for earlier engagements, it takes way to long to just watch a close range slug-fest play out. 
• There is a fleet of transports off portside in the ship design window. The TR's are clearly visible.
• When building a fleet from scratch, there is no way to figure out how much budget you have left until you're building ships and the writing goes red. 
• The tools-tips are infuriating. Make it wait a second or two to show them as it covers so much of the window that it's distracting. I'm constantly having to move my mouse to read what is behind tool-tips. 

 

 

[Mutsu]

I like the new Japanese cruiser hulls though I feel like a new model for 127mm secondary guns is needed, the current ones don't fit and are more appropriate for battleships 

 

Having them in the open mount like this would probably help to make them fit.

Also could we have the 102mm guns in the Akizuki turrets for CLs as well? Would be very nice to make a Japanese Atlanta

 

[Afghanicus]

3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Finally launched the battles on a tactical level. The first battle was port defense, I could not find the enemy. Second battle, protection of the convoy, the enemy could not find the convoy. Third battle - Battle, could not find the enemy. 

For me, this is one of the most frustrating experiences for last thirty years in PC games. I have no censorship word for your work.

I had this problem, easy way is turn on AI captain, they will proceed directly to enemy, take control when enemy spotted.

[kadm]

It is a joke not a game.

Can't hit enemy even though we could hurt their sailors by blast effect from our guns.

AI goes into sip building every turn.

But best for last, auto resolve: 1TB vs 1CA and CL  

[Stealth17]

Not sure if bug, but I researched 2 new techs (BB3 hull and coincidence rangefinders). Neither are showing up when I'm designing a new ship. Am I just not seeing something?

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

For the most part, I'd say that I'm mostly pleased with how this first rendition of the campaign turned out, and I'm excited to see where the game goes from here. I understand that the campaign is very limited right now with only the basic necessities in place for it to function, but here is my feedback after two times of going through, most of, the German 1890 campaign (I haven't had the time to sit down and actually finish the campaign yet).

• Auto-resolve: I do appreciate it for those almost insignificant "One of our <insert ship type here> has intercepted an enemy <insert ship type here>" battles, but for the battles larger than a 1v1 or a 2v2 it seems like it is very RNG dependent with no clear criteria when it comes to win, lose or draw. For instance, I've had 2 CLs and 4 TBs raid a convoy of 8 TRs with 1 CL and 3 TBs for escort. I hit auto-resolve, and then we get the confusing results. Despite me sinking 7 TRs and their CL, which was slightly bigger and better armed than my CL, and lightly damaging 2 of their TBs, it still basically came out as a victory for them as one of my CLs had moderate damage, the other one had light damage, and 1 of my TBs had light damage. So...I guess the question here is, how are the results for auto-resolved battles calculated? Is it by tonnage of ships involved? Is it by speed and armament? Or does it take everything into consideration (armor, crew level, speed, armament, etc)? I realize we can go down a rabbit hole with this, but I'd just like to know a little more about how and why the results are calculated the way they are
• Victory Points: It kinda threw me for a loop when I saw how many VPs some things give you, and how much is given to the enemy. I raid an enemy convoy and sink all the transports, nothing else, and come out unscathed...I get maybe 21 VPs while the enemy gets awarded 9 or something because "well...at least we didn't lose the 3 TBs we had escorting them." Then, I go raid another convoy and I sink the lone CA that is escorting them, no transports, and nearly lose one of my TBs in the process. But the second that CA sank, the screen faded out, then popped up with the results screen: I have won the battle and have been awarded 54 VPs where the enemy either gains 0 or maybe gets like 2 because all the transports got away. To me, that seems kind of backwards. I get that sinking an enemy CA is no small ordeal, but when you're fighting against the British and they will just replace that sunk CA with two or three new ones in a handful of turns...is it really that significant that they are down one heavy cruiser? I think that sinking an entire convoy of transports would be more detrimental, but to that same point, you can build more transports in less time than you can a heavy cruiser...so maybe I'm missing that aspect of it. I don't know whether Victory Points need addressed or not, but how much you get awarded for doing certain things seems kinda backwards to me.
• Naval Prestige and Population Unrest: Now, I don't know if it was because I did the majority of my battles (on my fist run of the campaign) using auto-resolve and therefore not scoring any major victories, or if it was just because while I wasn't losing VPs, the British were just gaining them at a much faster rate than I was...but it seemed like my Naval Prestige and Population Unrest was climbing pretty quickly. I also don't know if this is because I didn't have a lot of ships to fight with and wasn't building many new ones, or because I would routinely lose 3 to 5 transports in the North Sea before I finally realized that I had 3/4 of my fleet set to "In Being" and therefore not being available for long range combat. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this or thought about it...but I'd guess it's probably due to me not realizing that I'm moron.

Now, here are some suggestions I have

• Task Forces/Squadrons/Divisions: To me, this seems like such an easy way to keep your fleet organized as far as what port they are stationed at, which ships are where, and what their orders are. How I envision it is that once ships are built or at whatever port/dockyard you wish (basically just like how you choose which dockyard to build a new ship at in the current campaign, and once the "move ships" feature is implemented that will be utilized as well to move ships where you want them) you can then create a Task Force/Squadron of however many ships you want, comprised of whatever ships you want (probably along the process of Select Port/Fleet Tab>New Task Force>Add Ships>Save Task Force). Do you want a Raider Squadron consisting of a BC and 6 CLs, or do you want to station a Battleship Division at a certain port? Why not both (so long as your dockyard can accommodate that much tonnage)? Then, once you have your Task Force/Division named and created, you can give them orders which would basically be just like we have now--In Being, Sea Control and a new "Escort" order that would basically assign said Task Force to convoy escort duty. You could view these Task Forces under the "Fleet" tab or by clicking on a specific port. Naturally, you could edit these Task Forces as well. This just seems a little more intuitive than setting ships to "sea control" and then you've got no idea what ship's you're gonna wind up with when you see a mission pop up until you finally click on a mission only to see that your 1 BB and 2 CLs are staring down 2 BBs, 2 CAs and 4 CLs. It would at least allow you to tailor your Task Forces for certain engagements.
• Map Icons for Ships/Task Forces: It would be nice to see where exactly my ships are patrolling or where exactly I lost those 8 transports rather than just a message saying "8 transports lost in area North Sea." I realize that since this game goes on a month-to-month basis and not a day-to-day, or even week-to-week, basis it might be counter intuitive to do this since if you are operating close to port you might only be at sea for a month or two. But, it only makes sense that enemies keep tabs on each other, so giving players a rough location on the world map of where the enemy is vs where your ships are might be helpful...idk. (If anyone has played Cold Waters, try to think along the lines of that map, just maybe a little more simplified and not animated since that game is played in real-time)
• Ship Building: I know that the ability to retrofit/refit ships has been discussed and will likely show up with the full game, but what about being able to name every individual ship? If you can already do this, I guess I missed it and would like to know how. If you can't do this, why not just have a toggleable option to either auto-generate names, or create your own names, similar to how you can either toggle historic/random AI behavior and pre-generated ships. I could've missed this, but if I didn't, it would be a nice feature to have.

 

Like I said at the beginning of this mountain of text, I'm overall pleased with this first rendition of the campaign. It runs pretty smooth, I haven't encountered any bugs (unless the "Move Ships" button is actually supposed to be working), and while I may not be the best strategist or tactician it's still mostly enjoyable (I myself am most interested in the 1920s era of this game, but I understand that everything has it's beginning). What I suggested above are merely ideas to add some depth/immersion into the game, and maybe simplify some things, or at least make them  a little easier (i.e. fleet organization).

Great work dev team!

[ReefKip]

Anyone else got enemy DD's that simply refuse to sink and sit at 1% floatability despite getting penned and flooded again and again by 11 inch guns?

It seems the damage sytem currently favours small ships far more then big ships.Especially where flooding damage is concerned.

Can't wait until they have added accurate damage models for ships interior modules. right now it seems the interior is just a damage zone that gives random crits to shells that penetrate through it. an example is a shell hitting a mid ships taking out a turret at the front which is physically impossible. location of penetration does not matter much. Exception to this rule seem to be torpedoes that always only damage the area they hit.

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by ReefKip

[Hussarball_PL]

While campaign is quite addicting there are some problem. I'm fully aware that this is first version and nothing is perfect, but I wish to share my experience.

My first nation to pick was germany, during this playthrough I was struggling to survive, (un)fortunately game froze during loading next turn. After this event I have decided to read some forum posts to gain knowledge, I gained it and tries again, same result I was getting heavily beaten by British AI. Then I have decided to try Brits, I have smashed Germans in 4 years. This is unironically example of "germany suffers".

General observation: Technological advancements are painfully slow especially when you don't pump money into research
General observation2 : What on earth is 90% nerf to hit chance because target is "maneuvering" even tho it literally has all engines wrecked? (1890 tech)
General observation3: Auto resolve is retarded example - Getting swarmed by TB - encounter-manual result-Death  Autoresolve- "light" damage

[Nick Thomadis]

A new hotfix update has just become available!

*Hotfix Update v93* (27/11/2021)
- Fixed crash issue when we chose "Rebuild" during a custom battle.
- Fixed other crash issues.
- Fixed old issue with accuracy caused by angular velocity not estimated properly according to speed of ships. Accuracy should be now properly increased when firing at slow moving ships.

[ColonelHenry]

7 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

14 years is still fine? 

First impressions:

- slow research + minimal choice of early hulls = starter ships will end company. Even if the company goes on 14 years.

Using all three Free Priority points for some reason is a noob trap: using one point gives + 50% acceleration to the selected research, but slows down all other (!!!) research by 50%. 

The second and third Free Priority points do the same, essentially slowing down all research in total by 150% (!!!). This modifier even affects selected research, as a result, they are have 25% acceleration. That's not bad, but certainly not at the cost of slowing down everything else by 150%. I find this a rather odd design.

The slow research is fine because we are talking without the context of a long campaign. If everything is fast, then what's the point of a country specializing in a technology like radar when your enemy could switch technology like it's raining Einsteins on to their research center?

@Nick Thomadis I know this is difficult, but I think early hulls need some rework in terms of deck space. Besides the limited hulls available, the ones that are available, are not good... There are not enough space to balance the ships (this includes BB, CA, CL, TB, and early DD). Bow and stern heavy plagues my designer more than anything. Can you look into it?

I think keeping the research priority is ok, but the boost to research needs to be a bit higher while retaining the downside.

Edited November 26, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[RedParadize]

So far I made it to 1910. Enemy collapse too quickly. I had 4 minor victory and it seem it isnt enough to move me to the next level.

[CenturionsofRome]

@Nick Thomadishotfix has introduced new bug. Game now freezes on "update relationships" upon hitting end turn. Exiting to main menu and selecting continue campaign clears it, but only for that turn.

[eraserr83]

This whole campaign mechanic is just a simple and primitive copy of 'RTW'. In fact, that one still works better. I expected much more, than just looking at an empty map, AI generating random battles, which you either fight or not. Where are the real stuff, where you can select your own ships, and sortie out to the see, or where you can interact with your assets, put ships in to separate fleets, etc? So much potential in the game, yet devs are doing such simple-minded stuff and mechanics. Not even speaking of the pace of development, we waited more than a year for this crap, shame on you, that is all I can say. You have to do better, much better, if you want to impress the audience.

[Skeksis]

23 hours ago, davidt_man said:

In the prior statements fomo the devs, they stated we can pick the time period we wish to start in. The game is forcing us to start in 1890. I would rather start in 1930-1940.  The slider on the main menu to pick your time frame is grayed out. Is this going to be fixed in a future patch?

I only know as much as you do but IMO, and as of today, you have no choice but to play the game and unlock each decade as and when you win the previous. You know, all GameLabs game campaigns are built the same way, none of them you can start at the end or even in the middle.   

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Skeksis

[RedParadize]

Just now, Skeksis said:

I only know as much as you do but IMO, and as of today, you have no choice but to play the game and unlock each decade as and when you win the previous. You know, all GameLabs game campaigns are built the same way. None of them you can start at the end or even the in middle.   

 

I am at my 6th attempt at unlocking 1920. Enemy keep going bankrupt and I only get minor victory. I am not sure what to do.

[Evil4Zerggin]

3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I am at my 6th attempt at unlocking 1920. Enemy keep going bankrupt and I only get minor victory. I am not sure what to do.

There is no 1920 start yet. From the blog post:

Quote

You can select and play both of them in different starting years spanning from 1890 to 1940 which you unlock as you win campaigns (in the first build you will be allowed to unlock years up to 1910).

Though it is possible (though not guaranteed) that beating 1910 will make 1920 ready-to-go when it is implemented in a later update.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[RedParadize]

Ah...

[Skeksis]

4 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I am at my 6th attempt at unlocking 1920. Enemy keep going bankrupt and I only get minor victory. I am not sure what to do.

I'm still battling through 1900s. Yeah what Evil4Zerggin said. 

Edited November 27, 2021 by Skeksis

[RedParadize]

The Light cruiser spam is really effective at protecting your transport. What I do is a 80ish CL starting fleet + 1-2 BC. You auto resolve every battle that do not feature your BC and you will win within a year.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, CenturionsofRome said:

@Nick Thomadishotfix has introduced new bug. Game now freezes on "update relationships" upon hitting end turn. Exiting to main menu and selecting continue campaign clears it, but only for that turn.

Do you continue to have this problem, as we cannot reproduce. Is anyone else having such a bug?

[Ehrler]

Yes, got this bug after the update, too. Started a new campaign und choosed to design my own ships. 

[monbvol]

I have to add my voice to those calling for some quality of life improvements to ship management(grouping ships into divisions/task forces and assigning roles that way) and making it a bit clearer what your starting budget is for making your own fleet.

As far as speed of research I think that will take some looking into once a more extensive campaign is unlocked but some sort of secondary display where you can see what bonuses you've unlocked(like -2.5% weight to torpedo launchers) would most certainly be appreciated.

Now that we actually have a framework to more properly judge certain aspects of crew quality I might be able to provide more feedback on that once I get more of a chance to play.

I will also say the VP system is a bit off.  Just had a fight where I lost a CL but took out 6 enemy transports and drove off the escort but was considered a loss.

[ColonelHenry]

Just now, monbvol said:

I have to add my voice to those calling for some quality of life improvements to ship management(grouping ships into divisions/task forces and assigning roles that way) and making it a bit clearer what your starting budget is for making your own fleet.

As far as speed of research I think that will take some looking into once a more extensive campaign is unlocked but some sort of secondary display where you can see what bonuses you've unlocked(like -2.5% weight to torpedo launchers) would most certainly be appreciated.

Now that we actually have a framework to more properly judge certain aspects of crew quality I might be able to provide more feedback on that once I get more of a chance to play.

I will also say the VP system is a bit off.  Just had a fight where I lost a CL but took out 6 enemy transports and drove off the escort but was considered a loss.

I just had a game where the 2 enemy DDs that were supposed to attack my transport, ran away before even making contact, and was at least 30-40km away from the transport at that point seeing how my BC couldn't see them either, and it was 20km away from the transport. So I pressed leave game, and somehow, my BC and DD got heavy damage... from 2 DDs that were actively running away. Really need to work on enemy retreating so that it does not waste the player time. Timer went nearly 30 mins.