Player Suggestions - December

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Thank you guys for all the suggestions. They are really helpful!

Regarding the spotting mechanics, we need to wait for the new environment graphics for different weathers. The current weather modifiers which affect spotting distances, were perceptually working without the issues you are having. For example, when the weather had heavy fog on a stormy sea (in our internal testing with multiple weather types) it worked fine. Ships were not appearing so suddenly as now in clear weather situations. We need some time to perfect this mechanic according to weather differentiation.

Really? What could be causing such an inconsistency? Just as an example, here is a picture I have posted elsewhere. It says it's a stormy day with strong gale winds and very rough waves. It doesn't look like that at all and I believe I have the graphics on maximum.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Littorio

[Nick Thomadis]

7 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Really? What could be causing such an inconsistency? Just as an example, here is a picture I have posted elsewhere. It says it's a stormy day with strong gale winds and very rough waves. It doesn't look like that at all and I believe I have the graphics on maximum.

The weathers are just random, not representative at all of the applied modifiers. This is something we should fix ASAP.

[Skeksis]

6) Battle History.

Sometimes I want to see what has sunk after reloading etc, recap - could be more than a week between gaming. Like what class of ship has sunk to figure out its replacement, that’s the main reason. Now that we have a post-battle screen, all that has to happen is to save those results and then list them for us to select and view later. Could make it optional for player to save result. Could be keep and managed in separate file and cleaned every time when ‘new campaign’ has started. On campaign end an analytics could be compile from it and displayed.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

Oh forgot the most important, ugly and annoying bug... 

7) 'BAD PARTS ERROR', one single whole 'hotfix' patch for this one.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Skeksis

[Nick Thomadis]

26 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

6) Battle History.

Sometimes I want to see what has sunk after reloading etc, recap - could be more than a week between gaming. Like what class of ship has sunk to figure out its replacement, that’s the main reason. Now that we have a post-battle screen, all that has to happen is to save those results and then list them for us to select and view later. Could make it optional for player to save result. Could be keep and managed in separate file and cleaned every time when ‘new campaign’ has started. On campaign end an analytics could be compile from it and displayed.

We could have offered this already, but the problem is the auto-resolve which needs to auto-calculate ship performance in a consistent way. Maybe we do this later.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

Oh forgot the most important, ugly and annoying bug... 

7) 'BAD PARTS ERROR', one single whole 'hotfix' patch for this one, ASAP too.

 

What it is known and reproduced is the occasional false positive error that can appear in Campaign Ship View for ships that are absolutely fine, but have some parts on non physical mount points. This error can be fixed by itself, if you exit and re-enter the view. We will try to find all possible causes and fix.

[Skeksis]

4 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We could have offered this already, but the problem is the auto-resolve which needs to auto-calculate ship performance in a consistent way. Maybe we do this later.

Later is good, would become more apparent with full campaign anyway.

[1MajorKoenig]

Mostly Ship Designer Changes:

 

1) Split Bridge from Mast and increase variety in designs (tripods, Pole masts, etc. - each could have spotting and targeting values)

 

[1MajorKoenig]

2) Configurable hull - length-to-beam ratio, bow shape, free board, stern shape

[1MajorKoenig]

3) placement of machinery spaces in a simplified form

 

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The weathers are just random, not representative at all of the applied modifiers. This is something we should fix ASAP.

Thank you for letting us know. We appreciate it.

[catloverjerrygarcia]

Just thought of another thing to request for graphics settings, borderless windowed mode.

[1MajorKoenig]

Essentially mostly something like this here:

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

4) Refitting of existing ships in the campaign 

[Zuikaku]

1. Torpedo spread setup. Narrow, normal and wide.

2. Ability to fire only individual torpedo mount if ship have more of them.

3. Kill list in each ship statistic screen (campaign only).

4. Not so perfect torpedoes. Introduce duds, failed torpedo runs etc.

[Norbert Sattler]

A superficial damage level in addition to light, medium and heavy.

Right now a ship getting even a single point of damage and still remaining at 100% structure still causes them to go into dock for a month at full cost. It's a bit much to pay millions of basically removing a few scratches.

[SiWi]

Research start options:

right now start tech seems to be random. I suggest two alternatives to that (as option, random is great for replay-ability):

1. "Historical" Technologies where the Countries get roughly their historical navy tech level.

2. "Tech points". Depending on starting point and the country you chose you would get points to buy your starting technologies. This one one can make strategic decisions before the first turn starts.

Edited December 14, 2021 by SiWi

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

1) More Nation Specific Models/ship parts

I could go on and ramble about this, but the fact that the US, British, French and German navies are all locked to a Light Cruiser build that consists of "modern tower I-IV", "modern secondary tower I-IV" and the same funnels where the only difference is the hull shape, displacement and cosmetics of the guns from 1920 onwards whereas Spain, Italy and Russia all have at least two (and Japan has 5) where one of which is a like a mix of a CL and DD (judging by tower shape and size) says enough about the lack of cruiser towers and hulls available in-game. Also, let's discuss how some nations have mix-matched parts. I get that Spain and Austria-Hungary weren't major players after WWI and I'm also not ignorant of the fact that some nations had ships built by other nations (like the first of the Kongo class was built for Japan by the UK)...but come on. The 1935 CL "Modernized Cruiser" for Spain has Japanese Towers and Torpedo launchers along with British and American main guns. That just seems a little to mix-n-match for me. If this is supposed to be a "historically based" and not "historically accurate" game I can look past some smaller/minor nations (like Spain, Austria-Hungary or Russia) having ships that look like they were, for lack of a better term, "kit-bashed" together. But for the Major Players (i.e. Britain, Germany, France, US and Japan) where they have such a high number of unique designs for ships and guns...I feel like there should at least be a representation of all those historical, was-actually-built and actually-saw-service ship classes.

Even at the bare minimum, using the US Navy's cruisers as an example, you could probably make 1 new main gun model and at the most 3 or maybe 4 new tower designs, square off the rear of a CL hull and us players could instantly have a believable Brooklyn AND Cleveland class. Taking that one step further, if you were to upsize that exact same squared-off rear CL hull and make maybe two new towers...us players could have a Wichita/Baltimore class CA, rather than a downsized Iowa.

There are so many iconic ships that are so close to being in-game, that should be there, but aren't either due to lack of tower or gun options: Myoko/Takao, Furutaka, Isuzu, Brooklyn, Cleveland, Atlanta, Wichita/Baltimore, Northampton/Pensacola/New Orleans, County Class, Town Class, Leander, Konigsberg, Leipzig just to name the ones I can immediately think of and that's not even starting to count DDs, CAs, BCs, and BBs.

I realize that my main issue with this is probably because I'm a history buff at heart, but if you already have historical ships in game (Iowa, Bismarck, Yamato, Prinz Eugen, Deutschland, Richelieu, Vittorio Veneto just to name a few) with their respective superstructure and gun models, what is stopping you from adding more (outside of small team size, campaign being the priority, etc)? Some of the issues stated above are also thanks to a lack of superstructure options and freedom of gun placement. First example that springs to mind is the Atlanta class with their triple super-firing turret arrangement...the only way you could make that work is with a very specific superstructure/tower for both front and rear.

2) Ship Individualization/Retrofitting

I assume that retrofitting will come with the full release, but it is so frustrating right now to build a BB in the campaign only to find out that three months later rangefinders are now a thing...but I've got to build a completely brand new ship class if I want to put them on. As far as "individualization" goes...I'm talking about being able to name each ship that you build and maybe something like a Hull Number/Pennant Number/Hull Markings. Again...I assume that all of this will come with the full release, but I would like to be able to name each ship I build rather than have the names auto-generated. Maybe give us a toggleable option to either name each ship, or have the names auto-generated.

3) Task Forces/Divisions

Perfect example of why we need them: just yesterday in my current campaign I have a convoy mission "1 CL vs 1 CA, 2 CL and 8 TR." I know for a fact that I had at least 4 CLs capable of reaching the area where the battle took place, so why is a lone CL operating just outside of the port of Belfast? Another example: a lone Battleship is ambushed in the open ocean by 4 of my TBs and 2 of my CLs. Not only is a BB or CL, or any class of ship, operating all by it's lonesome unrealistic...it's incredibly absurd (look at what happened to USS Indianapolis). And honestly...it shouldn't be that hard to implement a better system. Just go to the fleet tab in campaign, click something that says "add/create task force/division," choose which ships you want to be in said task force/division, give it a name, click done. Then, you can select that task force and either have it be "in being" or in "sea control," or maybe add some more "orders" like "prioritize convoys" or "search and destroy." Did one of your ships get damaged or is now outdated? Either edit the task force to replace that ship with a new one so you don't lose any time, or just wait out the repair/refit. Want to transfer a bunch of ships without having to select every single one? Just select move ships, then select that task force. Plain, simple, easy. If anyone, including the devs, have any questions...I'd be happy to provide a more in-depth explanation.

4) Clarification of Transports in Campaign

As I lose transports, I notice the percentage goes down...does that mean I can now only transport that much of my GDP, or is that the strength remaining of my transport fleet? I raise the slider to try and have my transports carry more. What does that tiny percentage in parenthesis mean next to the main blue percentage? Can I build more transports to replace the ones I lost? Is that already happening and I just don't know it? I feel like there are still some things that need to be made clearer or more evident for everyone.

5) Ship Designer Suggestions

I feel as though the snap points should be (almost) completely done away with. So long as the superstructure is mounted along the center line of the ship and isn't too far forward or aft (discounting deigns like the Nelson or Izumo) then they should be able to be placed anywhere. Same thing with the guns. The only places I feel like snap points are actually helpful is when you go to place guns in/on the superstructure or in those "gun tubs" like on the US Modern Battleships at the front and rear of the ship or for the cutouts on the Bismarck superstructure where you can fit 6-inch guns.

[Mr Vidicord]

I've said this before but it would be very nice to be able to download ship files easily. I know it is possible to pull ships out from one of the .json files, but it would be so much nicer to just download. Also if one is trying to organise a competition of some sorts, then all the competitors can just send in ships with no hassle, and asking where to locate the .json file.

Very good game, congratulations are in order.

[Mr Vidicord]

On 12/13/2021 at 8:13 PM, Cptbarney said:

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. 

More gun calibres was suggested here, and I would like to second this point. It would be nice to get a British hull in the 1910s with casemates, and it would be nicer to get 15" guns earlier so I can build a QE class.

[UnleashtheKraken]

I've read every post in this thread.  So many good, constructive ideas.  Love this community.  I'm no naval history expert but there's a few things I spotted during my play and want to contribute/reinforce.

1)  MORE CUSTOMIZATION, REDUCED LIMITATIONS, INCREASE NUMBER OF USEFUL POSSIBILITIES.

As many have asked, please increase or remove the number of snap points on the hulls.  They're very restrictive, more than feel appropriate.

Adjustable and designable barbettes, in terms of height (please make them procedural and not in 'steps', or at least increase the number of possible steps) and allow to make multi-barbette emplacements, removing the extremely strict limitations.  Right now the barbettes are extremely limited because of set heights and very limited positioning availability.

Some ability to make custom superstructure for fore and aft towers.  I cannot state this strongly enough.  Right now there's always a 'best choice' in terms of stats, but maybe I want to build a narrow, long superstructure on a ship for which that is not a provided option or the stats are very poor, but I could decide where to place lookouts, gun mounts, funnels.  The predesigned structures are quite limiting.  If that's not possible, then how about superstructure only determines 2ndary placement and main gun barbette, and then bring in equipment to supplement the superstructure, providing the bonuses/penalties independent of the superstructure model?  That would at least make more choices available and useful.

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Mostly Ship Designer Changes:

 

1) Split Bridge from Mast and increase variety in designs (tripods, Pole masts, etc. - each could have spotting and targeting values)

 

Yes, love this idea.

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

3) placement of machinery spaces in a simplified form

 

This is also great.  More player control.

Similarly, with total tonnage increases, the ship's length increases.  Why can we not customize sections of the hull, similar to what the trailer showed, for subdeck inset torpedo launchers, and other systems and weapons?  I believe I saw that the designers thought it was too confusing.  So maybe work on that?  Have deep contextual help for what a hull section choice does, what it gains and loses for different sections.  I really liked what the trailer showed and think it would bring more uniqueness...eventually all these ships tend to look a lot the same during a specific time period.

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

2) Configurable hull - length-to-beam ratio, bow shape, free board, stern shape

This as well.

More topside components to represent abilities.  Ability to fit multiple rangefinding and spotting systems, each adding weight.  If you want torpedo reloads, you need a structure to support that, placed directly beside, fore, or aft of the torp launcher(s).

To me it very much seems that the 'custom ship building' isn't custom ENOUGH.  I think the easiest fix is to separate superstructure models from their stats, and instead have many viable structures, to which equipment is added, ala how rangefinders and radar, etc. work now. There was so much variation in shipbuilding all throughout the represented periods that I've seen or heard of (say what you want about WoWs gameplay but their ship models are really good to excellent) and frankly this game has a scant sliver of it represented.

Lastly, cosmetic stuff.  Fencing and rails, lifeboats and rafts, life rings all about, and all the other minutia and operating supplies stored abovedecks.  Maybe this leans on the GPU too hard but I'd love to see it.

2)  GAMEPLAY AND MECHANICS

Fix to ship maneuvering so that ships with damaged engines don't make right angle turns.  This is absolutely maddening, to close on a critically wounded enemy, fire torps at 1km! to finish them and watch the target turn away and dodge while making less than 3 knots.  I noted that I could do this as well, it's just moving the manual rudder hard over to either direction and the ship magically spins in place with the engines grinding themselves to shards.

Gameplay bug - reported this elsewhere.  When a ship intercedes on the line between a shooter and a target, especially at flatter trajectories, suddenly the shooter achieves 100% accuracy with every shot fired, striking the intercessor.  I've had this happen with torpedo destroyer swarms.  It's not that sometimes the intercessor gets hit; it's that every single shell fired by the shooter is now directly and perfectly aimed at the intercessor.  I suggested in my post a method for testing this.  Thread: 

 

Reworked spotting mechanics.  So many good ideas have been proposed I won't bother to repeat.

The ability to share designs through steam workshop, and the ability to individually rename ships, or at least be able to choose a category of names for each class.  Rivers, mountains, other geological features, cities, famous people, concepts (redoubtable, invincible, terrible), states or districts or counties (eg USS Nebraska, et. al.), and so on.  Players should be able to create their own libraries of names for each nation, and again, share them online.  

[HerrTom]

Honestly the two biggest things to me would be:

1. Borg Spotting: The fact that any of your ships can play "forward observer" and allow the entire fleet to bombard a target really takes me out of the game.  It honestly makes for, in my opinion, really boring gameplay. Especially so in those chases where you cripple a ship while the enemy fleet sails away, but even as they get out of sight they keep pummeling you and even might get a lucky hit.  In my opinion, ships need to be able to spot a target themselves to engage.  This probably means a small rework of spotting ranges as already mentioned.  How to display it to the player? I think even just recoloring contacts from red to dark red or brown when they're out of sight of the selected ship would be enough.
2. More 1890-1910 hulls.  I know most people aren't in the game for these, but especially for the current campaign version having 1 hull for each class means there's not a lot of space for variety. Plus, I'm a sucker for pre dreadnoughts!

But really, I'm 200% for ships having independent vision.

[SiWi]

I would like the ability to have by different sides of the ship to engage different targets. This would make  side guns more viable and avoid 2nd guns not shooting. 

[Werwaz]

1. AI improvements- the AI runs away too much, it uses 19 and 20 inch guns way too often, cruisers and destroyers become torp spammers
   1. AI bonuses- the AI should not get any extra advantages over the player.
2. excessive "some parts are badly placed" errors, even when the ship was launchable the first time
3. campaign improvements
   1. battle groups- one could create different battle groups comprised of complimentary ships meant for certain tasks instead of the current randomized ones, then assign the group a role, i.e. raiding, escorting convoys, scouting, sea control, etc.
   2. more realistic campaign battles- using the battle groups system, there would be less 1 on 1 duels which are highly unrealistic and quite boring, and more battles between small fleets, for example a battleship with a heavy cruiser and 4 destroyers versus a battleship with three light cruisers.
   3. diplomacy functions like naval treaties, alliances, tech sharing within alliances, and non aggression pacts.
4. make radios useful (limited range minimap???)
5. late US and British battleships need a resistance buff. 80 is not good enough against the AI's 19 and 20 inch guns.
6. the green water needs to go
   1. would also be nice if we had corresponding sky boxes for different conditions

Edited December 15, 2021 by Werwaz

[Nick Thomadis]

7 hours ago, Werwaz said:

AI bonuses- the AI should not get any extra advantages over the player.

I have said it in other posts, I need to clarify again. The AI has NO bonuses. If the AI achieves better targeting is because it can achieve a steadier course. If AI dodges torpedoes, it is because the AI observes them faster than the player who can usually lose a lot of seconds by observing the sea or by fast forwarding. If there is any other problem, it can be a bug, but certainly there is no intention to make AI cheat against the player. There is NO such cheap mechanic in the game.