Player Suggestions - December

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

This topic will help to prioritize feedback and get it all in one place
Please post your suggestions on improving the game in this thread.

Rules:
- 1x suggestion per post (or a clear numbered list of suggestions)
- Repeats of other player suggestions are allowed

We will collect suggestions and feedback and tell you which we will add to the development list for next stages at the end of the month.

============

December currently requested features that will get done as hotfixes or as part of major patches:

- Key bindings for AZERTY keyboards and various control options
- AI Aggressiveness improvements
- Various bug fixes as per your feedback
- Design the enemy ships in custom battle

Not development related but extremely important:
- Backers steam key distribution

[bshaftoe]

Wars between non-player countries. You don't need to participate, just the game telling you that X country is in war with Y. If you're not an ally, you can simply take popcorn and watch how two of your enemies bleed to deatch. if you're an ally, you can be called into the war. Also, the opposite can happen, and their navies can finish the war in a better shape that they were.

This combined with economy should help trimming the growth of big countries, that should be involved in wars more often.

Edited December 13, 2021 by bshaftoe

[catloverjerrygarcia]

I'd like more transparency/concreteness in the math/figures for designing ships so I'm not just randomly stabbing blindly wondering what will and won't work.

[T_the_ferret]

1: More early ships (1890-1910) as well as modules and options for that time period. Currently these ships offer the least amount of build possibility and creativity while also being a focus of the campaign as it starts then.

2: Gunships or more torpedo boats introduced to allow small-scale battle to still be interesting and dynamic while also offering another threat against DD and CL than just torpedoes .

3: Important research in campaign. Currently everything in campaign takes way too much time to research and thus priority or focus of research offers absolutely no benefit. What is only 3-4 months away from being researched is the only thing you'll unlock.

4: Clarify tooltips, currently many tooltips display erroneous information such as "accuracy increase" or are not clear enough such as what resistance offers. The right panel when designing is also nothing but a mess of numbers and confusing words for new players not acquainted with naval terms or the game itself.

5: Improve naval academy, currently those missions not only make for a poor introduction overall to the game, they do not explain much either and some outright use erroneous information and battle parameters, such as tooltips describing battle against outdated ships but those ships sporting 1920-1930 technology.

6: Change nation AI and AI overall to not prioritize "wall of torpedoes" so much, as it feels they are heavily weighted to use torpedoes.

7: Vastly improve light shells and propellant modules, currently light shell and some propellant module benefits are pitiful which makes almost no one use them. A sliding scale of accuracy vs range and RoF would be much better.

8: Improve small gun accuracy and damage. Currently small caliber guns (under 127) feel outright useless unless at high Mark tiers, such as Mark 4, because of the huge accuracy change between calibers. 51mm guns cannot hit the broadside of a barn while 203mm guns can (relatively) easily hit enemies at 5km. This makes small caliber guns useless and massively influences small-scale battles into slap fights at knife fight range, or torpedo spams. Smoothing accuracy from low to high caliber would help enormously.

9: Very secondary but i would love to see more options for Ironclad/Monitor battles and other such things.

10: Please please please please PLEASE  I AM BEGGING YOU  hire a community manager or someone able to dedicate time to the community. I cannot with any amount of words overstate how much it would improve its health and attitude as well as promote constructive discussion and help the game.

[catloverjerrygarcia]

8 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

10: Please please please please PLEASE  I AM BEGGING YOU  hire a community manager or someone able to dedicate time to the community. I cannot with any amount of words overstate how much it would improve its health and attitude as well as promote constructive discussion and help the game.

This would go a very very very long way in allowing this game to succeed, and conversely the company too.

[o Barão]

 1 ) An Hardcore/Realism setting:

- No intel about the weapons being reloaded in the enemy ships.

- No intel about how much ammo the enemy is carrying.

- No intel about the enemy weapons range until the target is identified.

- No teleporting the camera to an enemy ship until the target is identified.

- No X-Ray damage report on the enemy ships. Replaced by a simplified damage report. light, medium, heavy damage & light, medium, heavy flooding.

I already played some battles using some house rules to simulate this, and it makes a BIG difference. For the players that want a more challenging, realistic experience, this is a MUST HAVE IMO.

 

2)  Fix the torpedoes issues: range, no dud rate, accuracy, torpedo reloads available for small ships.

The torpedo real ranges must be fixed to be what is displayed in the stats. At maximum give a 10% bonus range to compensate the AI targeting ships that are running away. Not 100% bonus was we can see in some torpedoes.

How to balance torpedoes? Possible solution: 3 new techs that needs to be researched to solve the torpedoes issues. If a nation really wants to have powerful deadly torpedoes will need to invest time in researching technologies. This could be applied to the historical japanese nation AI behavior as a priority.

 

A : Impact pistols to lower the dud rate % value.  1890 torpedoes could start with a 50% dud rate. Higher impact pistols will lower this value to a minimum 5% dud rate.

B : Gyro mechanics to improve accuracy. 1890 torpedoes will start with a big penalty to accuracy. Higher gyro mechanics will improve the accuracy.

C : Torpedo reload for DDs tech only available to research from 1920 and forward. All DDs and Torpedo boats will be using only reduced torpedo ammo. Around 1920 a new tech with 2 levels is available to research torpedo reloads for DDs.

 

3)  Implement a template system to help the AI building good ship designs or implement a library for the player to design ships that are going to be used by the AI in custom battles and in the campaign. To be a perfect mechanic would be to allow the players to upload the designs to an online library to share wth other players.

 

4)  The smoke mechanic doens't work. Is an arcadey mechanic with a timer, not visual interesting to see and the AI doesn't know how to use and when to use. 3 problems.

Instead i propose an automated system available for all ships , except merchants.

- All ships (except merchants) will use the smoke only when they are retreating, this is automated and is enabled for the player when he use the "retreat" button. A fair system for both the player an the AI.

- Replace the aura bright circle with smoke above ships for a simple smoke column.

Here is one possible example how could look in game.

 

5) Barbettes and citadel components doesn't make any sense and need to be replaced or reworked.

The issue: Barbettes and citadel components are irrelevant to be used in capital ships and to an extent also to CAs. The reason is if the player invest in having the best armor thickness values in the belt and deck armor, completely ignore the bow and stern and make sure the main guns are inside the main belt, then is easy to get a situation where it can't be pen. If the player ship can't be pen then the barbettes and citadel components will not work. So why is the player going to invest money and tonnage to two components that we can completely ignore? This creates a BIG imbalance in ship designing that favors the player that follows this method.

A: Barbette solution.

- All guns that are in another level above the deck, will need to have a barbette armor to protect the connection between the gun to the belt/deck armor.

- Barbette component replaced by armor sliders. For each gun caliber that is above the deck a level a new armor slider will be available.

- The damage model needs to be updated to identify there are barbettes inside the superstructure.

- For DDs, the barbettes will go all the way to the water level and is applied to all guns ( deck level or above)

 

B: Citadel solution.

Replace the citadel variables to have an impact to the armor thickness values. This solve important issues with citadel components we have atm.

A  : They will always have an impact in the battlefield, and not only if the ship armor is penetrated.

B  : Will better represent why there was different armor schemes in different time periods.

C :This will solve the issue in using All-or-nothing armor scheme and then place huge armor values in the bow and ship stern which doens't make any sense.

Short summary about different armor schemes:

Turtleback armor was an armor scheme used since the protected cruisers where invented. The reason why it was so effective and used by many nations it was simple because that increased the protection at close ranges. However the penalty is because the slope angle it makes the deck armor more vulnerable at long distances.

All or nothing. Not only a solution about armor weight issue to focus only in the vital areas, also featured a slight belt angle inwards in many ships to increase the belt thickness.

So my suggestion about citadels would be something like this:

1. Turtleback at close ranges: maximum 10% bonus to belt armor thickness
2. Turtleback at long ranges: maximum 10% penalty to deck armor thickness
3. All-or-nothing at close ranges:  maximum 2% bonus to belt armor thickness
4. All-or-nothing at long ranges:  maximum 6% bonus to belt armor thickness
5. All-or-nothing penalty: The Bow and Stern armor values will be limited to low values.

The values to armor thickness are dynamic and will change according to the distance the shells are coming.

And then it would be possible to add more variants. As an example:

Dreadnought armor. Not effective in providing any armour thickness bonus but because it was used to protect different parts in a ship could give bonus to flash fires & fires.

1.  Dreadnought armor, 10% fire bonus resistance.
2.  Dreadnought armor, -10% flash fire.
3. Dreadnought armor penalty, +5% armor weight.

Dreadnought armor plus turtleback armor. Combining the values between dreadnought and turtleback armor plus a big penalty in armor weight.

1. Dreadnought & Turtleback at close ranges: maximum 10% bonus to belt armor thickness
2. Dreadnought & Turtleback at long ranges: maximum 10% penalty to deck armor thickness
3. Dreadnought & Turtleback armor, 10% fire bonus resistance.
4. Dreadnought & Turtleback armor, -10% flash fire.
5. Dreadnought & Turtleback penalty, +15% armor weight.

 

NOTE: The dreadnought armor layout ( component ) is exclusive to BBs, BCs and CAs. The turtleback and all-or-nothing can also be used in CLs.

This is important to simulate the armor layout used since the protected cruisers appearance to the late all-or-nothing used in many light cruisers in the 1920 and forward,

 

6 ) Coal should give a 10% bonus to the belt armor thickness to simulate the use to increase the ship protection. Only in the middle section.

 

And thank you for the opportunity, to allow the players share their opinions about what should be improved. @Nick Thomadis

Edited December 14, 2021 by o Barão

[Littorio]

Firstly, thanks for doing this thread @Nick Thomadis! It means a lot and is good communication with your loyal players, which is always needed and appreciated. There are a number of things that I could say, but I'll restrict myself to only mentioning the most important, so as to be most clear.

1. Proper Weather and Day/Night - This is the most important aspect right now to truly get into the feel of the game. Invisible penalties from storms you can't see? That's ridiculous. If it is night, give us a dark background with a moon. I don't believe that at least basic  backgrounds would be very difficult to put in. Moreso, it will help the Steam community and your ratings, because people will not think the game is too cheap and simple looking. I am not asking for high-fidelity 4K backgrounds, just basic ones that accurately reflect the battlefield you claim we are fighting on.

2. Spotting on the Campaign Map - This would save you lots of problems as far as "fleeing enemies" and chasing "smoke sighted" messages. Simply put, don't inform the player precisely what we have found, or at least in most cases. I know you want to say "Battleship Duel," but honestly, how can our battleship know the enemy is a battleship too, if once we start the battle, we can't see anyone, and then have to find the enemy and identify them? Didn't we identify them on the campaign layer already? If not, how did we know we would have a BB duel???

This would alleviate a lot of player frustration in terms of finding/identifying the enemy, but also allow us or them to try and flee on the campaign layer, preventing pointless stern chases in battles that start the moment you begin. You in fact already have mechanics to do this - the withdraw and delay features, so they can be upgraded and expanded, taking into account the respective vessels' speeds and ranges.

3. Spotting on the Tactical/Battle Map - Going further, I argue that towers should not have much of a "spotting value," but instead a much larger and more important "identifying value." It's true, higher towers can see the enemy farther away, because of basic optics and how the horizon works. So obviously a TB Mk.1 tower is going to be harder to find enemies with compared to that of an large BB with very tall towers. But there should not be a massive technological difference between earlier and later towers as far as spotting goes (and in fact some later towers were shorter than earlier ones).

Instead, the technological difference should be seen in quickly and precisely identifying the foe. Having a much more important identifying value assigned to towers means all that tech in the later models, better rangefinders, bigger and heavier optics, etc, has a proper effect. It adds to the balance of the game. You might build a BB with very tall 40m masts, but they must be very thin and light to attain such height and keep stable. Therefore, though you can see the enemy from the longest distance possible given atmospheric conditions and the physics of the horizon, you might still be at a disadvantage.

The enemy may have a shorter tower, and see you later, but they have better equipment and more of it, because their design is wider and heavier. This means they can identify your ship model, class, number, name, etc. much sooner than you, and thus generate accurate firing solutions, and correct said solutions faster. Basically, make the spotting value strictly tied to tower height, regardless of tech tier. Instead of that being the primary purpose of towers, add an identifying value that scales with tower technological advancement to simulate better optics and rangefinders. Lastly, make this identifying value a key component of generating accurate fire on the enemy target.

 

1 hour ago, T_the_ferret said:

10: Please please please please PLEASE  I AM BEGGING YOU  hire a community manager or someone able to dedicate time to the community. I cannot with any amount of words overstate how much it would improve its health and attitude as well as promote constructive discussion and help the game.

 

52 minutes ago, catloverjerrygarcia said:

This would go a very very very long way in allowing this game to succeed, and conversely the company too.

 

I very much agree with these statements.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Littorio

[catloverjerrygarcia]

8 minutes ago, Littorio said:

3. Spotting on the Tactical/Battle Map

I think the points you make here would be probably the single most valuable addition/change that could be made right now.  The proper identification and targeting of a foe was and still is the most critical factor in naval engagements IMHO.  If you can correctly identify the foe you can know if you have the capability of shadowing them, withdrawing before a major engagement develops, or know you have no hope of outrunning them and plan for action.  Information is the singular most critical factor in all forms of warfare, with information you have knowledge and with knowledge you can make a decision.

[Leficent]

I will try to keep each suggestion shot but I have alot of them, so here we go

1: Get rid of the WoWS spotting mechanic. It dosent make sense historically or gameplay wise and just makes engagements frustrating. Replace it with rendered ships at all distances but keep the range when you can identify the target shorter. (If anything increase the spotting distances, especially if a ship fires)

1.5: if you guys are worried about rendering so many ships at all distances you can simply have each ship give off smoke from its stacks to simulate what happened in most actual engagements (smoke was often sighted over the horizon). This will make chasing phantom ships much less frustrating.

2: Make weather and time of day more noticeable (but I am sure you guys are already working on that). And decrease the ammount of engagements that occur durring extreme weather, these sort of engagements were few and far in between but they feel like 1 out of every 3 engagements for my campaigns.

3: For the campaign, make engagements more ambiguous, you should not know the exact ammount or type of ships every single time. For example:

Enemy surface fleet spotted:

1x BB Sharnhorst 

2x CA Unknown

7x Unknown Surface Units 

or

Enemy convoy spotted:

Atleast 6x Transports 

1x CL Loyal

1x DD Traveler

1x DD Unknown

2x Unknown Surface Units 

By having this ambiguity it gives the player a choice to risk the engagement with some unknown enemy ships just like most actual engagements. This can also allow for a naval intelligence research tree to better predict the enemy units and potentially passive float planes and submarines.

4: Rework smoke screen to be more accurate. As of now they work alot like WoWS, yet it is almost completely incorrect. The entire ship isnt engulfed in smoke screen, especially if its moving. They will decrease enemy accuracy, but instead of forming a moving bubble round the ship, it forms a trail behind it. It will allow smoke to be used for its intended purpose, to distract enemy fire and to conceal retreating friendly ships.

5: Fix the weights of certain components. Adding radio equipment to my battleship shouldn't add over a thousand tons. Having it as a fixed weight per ship class can stop this.

6: Allow the player to withdraw from certain encounters without a chance to be stopped. If I get a chance to intercept and enemy fleet near my coast, I should be able to deny it even if it costs prestige.

7: Reduce research time or merge certain research areas. In the current campaign it just takes too much time to research most things, and sometimes they are only small buffs that doesn't make a big impact. (The current research could work with a much longer campaign which I know is planned, but right now my average campaign never lasted over a year.

8: Increase the diversity of earlier ships (1890-1900), currently they all seem cut and dry, and don't allow for alot of flexibility or creativity.

I am looking forward to everything this game has in store for us.

[Skeksis]

1) Night shadow across the world map.

To show which areas are in night and day, this then relates to any battle that’s in the shadow or not. Player then has night time information to decide cause of action prior to battle. At least somewhere on the global map there should be night and its night shadow.

2) Improve stern facing AI.

Example, 1v1, while not completely immobilized, the retreating AI just keeps turning away from you, you can never encircle that unit. Seemingly outside its ability too. I think it’s an area of the AI that needs improving to remove the simplicity of this action (AI). Don’t know what to suggest though, just that it needs some creativity!

Sometimes it seems impossible to completely destroy the ship through saturated stern damage.

3) Nominate transport design.

If we could design transports and then nominate one of those designs as the default design for battle build. This way the 'Transport Capacity' figure could remain the same for finance mechanics and also the auto battle implementation would remain the same. Just our design would be incorporated.

Eventually commanding those transports. Leave the financial risk of using transports in combat up to the player! Also the onus of financial cost of transport replacement. Maybe the transport tonnage (cargo) capacity of those designs could be implemented in some way (i.e. cost vs capacity dilemma).

Edited December 14, 2021 by Skeksis

[Himbeereule]

1. Renaming individual ships

2. Allowing players to use obsolete hulls

[Skeksis]

4) Refits.

[HusariuS]

1. Standard Design Templates for AI to base their ships upon - I'm sorry Nick but you can't deny that AI is... poor at designing ships and so far there has been very little improvement since the start of the game.

2. Player Templates usable by the AI - Just as above (obviously we can choose which template AI can use or base it's ship upon)

Edited December 13, 2021 by HusariuS

[HusariuS]

3. And steam workshop compability in the future to allow players to also use other players templates.

Edited December 13, 2021 by HusariuS

[Joshua Levinson]

Destroyer and torpedo boat balance needs to be addressed. They can take multiple battleship shells, torpedos, and significant flooding, even at 1890 tech, and still survive to drop their torps. They're more OP than aircraft would be. They should have significantly fewer hit points, underwater compartments, and damage control ability.

[Cptbarney]

1. Dud torpedoes and torpedoes exploding or sinking after going beyond max range.

2. The ability to set gun firing modes like full salvo, half salvo, one-by-one, stagger fire etc.

3. More older unique ships from 1880-1920 (USS Texas (both), Tennessee class, HMS Neptune etc.)

4. More port designs which scale up with the vessel in question as a visual thing.

5. A more unique looking UI and better gun sounds, plus unique music and scores.

6. Shells being less bright than they are and also doppler sound effects like the whistle of shells flying by or the horrible noise a shell makes when its about to land.

7. Camos and liveries.

8. Internal hull modules and a more extensive hull damage mechanic.

9. Better physics and visuals.

10. Spotting system replaced with a 5 step system that shows a ships model at five stages (very simple, simple, detailed, very detailed, identified.

11. Crew and officers getting unique traits or bonuses in certains skills and modules depending on their personality and maybe negs to either offest those or for lore reasons.

12. More unique modules in general and the ability to play in different areas with glaciers, maybe the odd island or too and bombardment missions where we assist troops landing or just hit land targets.

13. Refits and museum ships.

14. Realistic mod, removes most features that would provide a player huge advantages.

15. Espionage and trading.

16. AI wars and Alliances.

17. Standard Templates for ships.

18. More calibres, like 410's, 240's, 310's, 140's, 162's etc and also a gun length slider and maybe a turret designer.

I know all these would takes ages, but still a good amount of stuff to work on regardless.

Cheers lads. 

[Speglord]

3 hours ago, T_the_ferret said:

10: Please please please please PLEASE  I AM BEGGING YOU  hire a community manager or someone able to dedicate time to the community. I cannot with any amount of words overstate how much it would improve its health and attitude as well as promote constructive discussion and help the game.

I think this would help a lot, even though it isn't technically a game improvement. Though to be fair to Nick I think he's gone a long way to dedicate a lot more time interacting with the community over the last month or so, answering questions and seeking to clarify some stuff. That's really appreciated btw, @Nick Thomadis. While in general I personally have agreed with a lot of people on the forum over the last few months who have complained about community engagement, I also do think a fair bit of that criticism was often way too harsh, bordering on insulting at times. 

My biggest suggestions as far as the game goes are as follows: 

1. More early-period hulls, armament, and superstructures (pre-dreadnoughts, light/protected cruisers, WWI-era German ships especially, etc.) -- I know you guys are supposedly working on this, so I won't harp on too much about it.

2. Wars between AIs in the campaign. Helps to add some more immersion and depth for the campaign in the future.

3. Some sort of system to allow for refits in campaign: altering armament, some modules (armor layout(?), torpedo belts, barbettes, rangefingers, etc.), superstructures, and so forth.

4. Ability to rename individual ships.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Speglord

[Skeksis]

5) Ironclads 1860-1889 Mini Campaign. Could use and keep current northern hemisphere map as a short/mini campaign or create new American coastal map. April fools day schedule? Just that you have ironclads but no place for them, so a mini map could make use of them. Could be alot of fun. Could have some very extended hulls as short-term options.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Skeksis

[ColonelHenry]

1. Damage Models
I have heard that this is in the works but I think people would like to get an update on how it's going and how detailed it is going to be.

2. More 1890s-1910s hulls.
Since this is in the works also, I would like to see some updates on the progress if possible.

3. Crews
You want feedback on crews? Here it is. They are unbalanced. Very, unbalanced. In terms of the strategical side, there should be a better way to train crew other than duke it out the death with another nation. I mean, there are numerous accounts of crew trained in peace time achieving very high hit rate during war time. AI really needs to stop cheating with Veteran crews on ship that never even seen combat. I mean my two years battle hardened BB crew can only attain Regular status while a BB I have never seen before in my life has Veteran status... and there are TWO of them?! On the tactical side... they are a little bit too decisive (in terms of gameplay). Veteran crew can just fix fire, flooding too quickly, like... inhumanly quickly. Damaged rudder by 13 inch shells? Not anymore. Flooding? I've never seen water in my life. Maybe this needs a revision.

EDIT: And crews seem to suffer casualties from silly things like a shell bouncing off armor? But like suffer only 5%-10% when a flash fire happens?

3.1 Improvements
Please @Nick Thomadis. You guys have done an amazing job on the crew side for AoS. I would not complain one bit if the crew morale mechanic is port straight to this game with no code change. I will never forget the fact that I could make a first rate SOL surrender in less than 2 minutes by having another ship raking its stern with a full broadside causing 300 deaths and a surrender. And the moment leading up to that stunt, having to steer my ships into position in order to pull such a feat reminiscence of HMS Victory action at Trafalgar. Such a crew morale mechanic would be a great improvement for Dreadnoughts. Right now, ships can survive insane amount of damage because the crew would not give up the ship no matter what (as well as magic repairing ability but this is not about that). Something along the line of crew scuttling the ship when it is heavily damaged (say 50% flooded and half the ship is red, going barely 5-7knts) and cannot be saved, reduced accuracy under intense accurate fire, surrendering (extremely rare %), chance of officers dying and crews suffer from lack of leadership, crew suffer permanent morale loss due to casualties sustained, etc.

4. AI Ship Design Templates
The AI ships from 1890 - 1910 are "fine" in terms of realism and "difficulty" if sometimes misguided placement of guns (like 2 wings main turret that are placed too close, resulting in a non existing firing arc). But 1920 going forward is just... too much. Especially the amount of torpedo launchers. They would just build the heaviest ship there is and battles become slug fest ships tanking hundred of shells while still firing back with accurate fire without sinking (partly related to Damage Models and crew). I think this could be vastly improved with a template. For 1890-1910, this means even better AI ships to fight against since they kinda nail down the basics. For 1920 onwards, this means putting a cap on the AI and guide them toward certain ship designs that are balanced, fun to fight against, and not frustrating. The last part I think is important. Frustrating designs to play against. Sure I can dodge 100 torpedoes and wait for my ship to score 200 hits on a single target but if that's what I paid 40CAD for then I might as well save that to go the movies 4 times with my friends or blow through a karaoke session.

5. More Open Ship Designer
Am I the only one who think that the designer is too limited and way too much stat based? I find myself building the exact same ship over and over again because... that's all the superstructures available to me allow. I really think that if you could work your magic and give the ability to design the superstructures like the main tower, funnels, and aft tower, you would see immediately improvement in the variety of ships that could be built. Allow us to use different turret housing if not outright slightly design them, or even have another technology node specifically for this.

 

 

Do I expect every single one of these to be added to the list for the update after December? No. These are big asks. I know they are especially 5. but I believe they can very much be done.

And like others have said, we really appreciate that your stepped up and start interacting with the community!

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[SiWi]

1) an Option that allows to have an "eternal war". Here is how that could work:

Instead of the campaign being over after the first peace was sign, the game would go on, with maybe a peace period of 12-36 months (enough time to build new BB's) and some funding boost for the losing party to compensate a bit for the reparations (in a "real game" later this could be balance with other factions). After that the war starts automatically anew. This could help to see how the AI handles really the introduction of new classes and give the player a feel for the progresses as well as we right now rarley see new classes in action in a campaign. It also could help to balance adjust research.

[Grayknight]

- More ship hulls (obvious) especially needed in 1890 - no cursed yet effective designs possible)

- Sliders for amount of range finders during ship design

- Slider for size of fire control room

- Slider for engine room size on ship


- More superstructure that would have practical and visual use - such as lifeboats on ships (maybe puting akagi island matteresses for example as a possible modification )

- Eternall war type of scenario - obviously expanding campaign would be alot of work so  this seams to be short term easy solution

- Ability to force engagment or atleast attack port of enemy (start a fleet battle)

 

- Removal of transport looses that are rng based and ading state of ship convoy esscort then based upon those ships that are on convoy duty determining actuall engagments

- Ability to rename ships and actually set up naming scheme for your ships

- Paint scheme for fleet including flag for navy

- ability to set up taskforce that take part in engagment in stead of random - congrats your bb was ambushed by 10 destroyers (which heapened to me twice in fact )

- Adding visible smoke in place which enemy is - which was not yet detected

- Adding possibility to spend prestige on political decisions such as advocating for more funds and soo on.

- AI making ships based on mocked battlest agains players - to simiulate arms race

 

 

[madham82]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

2) Improve stern facing AI.

Example, 1v1, while not completely immobilized, the retreating AI just keeps turning away from you, you can never encircle that unit. Seemingly outside its ability too. I think it’s an area of the AI that needs improving to remove the simplicity of this action (AI). Don’t know what to suggest though, just that it needs some creativity!

Sometimes it seems impossible to completely destroy the ship through saturated stern damage.

Lots of good ideas but want to bring more attention to this one as it a horrible gameplay experience. AI just needs to take a run or fight to the last man stance. Run if it has speed to outrun, fight if it can't. Could add something to make the ship run behind friendly ships to have them draw fire. If no friendlies to flee towards, fight to the end. 

Separate topics:

1. Spotting needs a rework based on how other similar games in this genre work at the very least. Right now we have a mix of WoWS, C&C, and RTW. This is not a good mix as the balancing of competing ideas has created completely arbitrary system that is full of exploits and contractions to what gave rise to the historical era the game is based on.

2. Torpedoes reloads should require special equipment and take up valuable deck space, crew, and displacement. Torpedoes are lethal and have already shown to be way more effective in the campaign than historical. This throws out of balance many of the core concepts in the games and ship roles. By making single shot tubes common and fixing spotting, we will find torpedoes back in balance with the whole reasoning behind building dreadnaughts. 

3. Refits refits refits....need say more?

4.  Torpedo protection needs to degrade with hits to the same side/sections of hull. What is technically feasible I am not sure, but ideally keep track of sections hit on both sides of the ship. Right now protection offers a flat damage reduction to hits regardless of how many. This will help balance torpedoes with the other suggestions above and make avoidance that much more imperative even for well protected ships. 

5. Armor viewer/editor to allow us to see the placement of the different sections of armor to ensure designs are protected as intended. Ideally would like to change the length/height of sections, but I would settle for it being a factor in choosing hulls. 

6. Retreat option for ending battles or ordering ships to flee. This preserves your ship/fleet, but is considered a loss for the battle. This could go in with fixes to the stern chase AI. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by madham82

[catloverjerrygarcia]

21 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

5. More Open Ship Designer
Am I the only one who think that the designer is too limited and way too much stat based? I find myself building the exact same ship over and over again because... that's all the superstructures available to me allow. I really think that if you could work your magic and give the ability to design the superstructures like the main tower, funnels, and aft tower, you would see immediately improvement in the variety of ships that could be built. Allow us to use different turret housing if not outright slightly design them, or even have another technology node specifically for this.

Totally feel this one, wish there were more fine control on things.

[RedParadize]

1:A balancing pass on all hulls and parts, perk included. With a special focus to cost and cost/effectiveness in relation to campaign.
2:There is many tower that are generic enough to fit every nation. Applying them to other hulls and nations would add diversity and cost almost no time. Here is few example: 

Edit:
Oh, and this too:

42 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

5.  3: More Open Ship Designer

Am I the only one who think that the designer is too limited and way too much stat based? I find myself building the exact same ship over and over again because... that's all the superstructures available to me allow. I really think that if you could work your magic and give the ability to design the superstructures like the main tower, funnels, and aft tower, you would see immediately improvement in the variety of ships that could be built. Allow us to use different turret housing if not outright slightly design them, or even have another technology node specifically for this.

 

Edited December 13, 2021 by RedParadize

[SiWi]

2) when building ships, please show a map when "select port" thats shows were the ports are (this will be more important as bigger the map becomes)

3) Name list for ship classes.

Give us the ability to create list of names (including the ones you put in game) and then give a class a designated list of names that ships of that class get names. please make it so that the game remember all list of all campaign with a nation (so I won't have to redo all the name list if start a new campaign)

4) show ship class in movement and during battle UI (let us see "BB Bismarck Class" ect).