>>>Patch 1.01/1.02 Feedback<<<

[Captain Meow]

When will that thread open? I have a lot on my mind I can write!

Like this one, right now:  where do I quickly see any ship's speed unless expanding cards all the time?

Suggesting to show current speed in that right info window, like: Struct: 70%, Float: 100%, Speed: 16kn or in the lower window or in ship cards without expanding them.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Captain Meow

[rgreat]

54 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:

When will that thread open? I have a lot on my mind I can write!

Like this one, right now:  where do I quickly see any ship's speed unless expanding cards all the time?

Suggesting to show current speed in that right info window, like: Struct: 70%, Float: 100%, Speed: 16kn or in the lower window or in ship cards without expanding them.

Yeah. 

I'd suggest allowing to "open" several divisions at once.

Also, it would be smart to hide the division card when it is opened. Basic thin rectangle, with caption, around division ships would be enough.

Edited January 6, 2022 by rgreat

[TheRealJostapo]

Regarding the AI ship designer...   almost everything about it is broken and I believe, hurting the game (all aspects).

You don't truly know what the AI designer has done until you are well into either battle or a battle within the campaign.   Often to find out the AI has taken the 'clown' approach.   Requiring a restart.

Moreover, none of the designs appear to be setup to compliment each other (escorts too slow to actually escort their clown ship capital).

Why aren't we talking about:

• Libraries of ship designs.
   
• Variance in what the AI uses in Custom Battles and the Campaign.   Every ship within a class (at least at the start) is the same design.   Boring and predictable.
   
• Keep the format for ship designs open (ideally json) and shareable here on the forums or as workshop downloads.   Reducing your Game-labs work-load and off loading some of it to the community.

If the effort had been devoted to serialization and UI code for making the above points real, instead of a barely working AI designer, I've got to think the game would be in way better shape than it is today.

 

[T_the_ferret]

7 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

When will that thread open? I have a lot on my mind I can write!

Like this one, right now:  where do I quickly see any ship's speed unless expanding cards all the time?

Suggesting to show current speed in that right info window, like: Struct: 70%, Float: 100%, Speed: 16kn or in the lower window or in ship cards without expanding them.

No way to know, whenever the team is done gathering the feedback from last month i imagine

[Grayknight]

Steam discussion is already filled with january comments, my guess is that december one was 100x bigger then on this forum. Probably 100s of pages.

They most likly have to group up feedback and vote on things that are easy to do and important; easy to do but not important; hard to do but important; hard to and not important and things that are not important or not viable now. It may be alot of work.


Edit

 

I just got back to game since somebody told on steam forums that when peace deal shows up if you press esc then truce is implemented and war heapens after some time (aparently peace mechanic is implemented) but enemy escaped 3 times in the row building ships that are the same ridiciuluse speed as mine (please note that it was 1890 and my ships are already 21 knots for CA) all 3 times in the row... Also i got bloced in 2nd turn...

No point in playing before update on my end...

Edited January 6, 2022 by Grayknight

[saintpietro]

Hi Team, many thanks for your effort, enjoy and painful so much for the game, may I suggest to set an option for the campaign，like the usual scale and massive one with dozens ship battle. 

and to introduce an option for a long compaign,  with agreesive AI not to yeild so easy.

And may we have the latest tech/gun/layout for custom battle? seems MK5 series 15inch+ are only appear in campaign.

 

Thanks again

[SpardaSon21]

On 1/4/2022 at 4:22 PM, akd said:

If that is a necessary minimum then there is something seriously wrong in the game.  Or did you mean belt?

To be fair given the existence of the hilariously ahistorical 19" and 20" guns... that might very well be a necessity at some point.  Especially since the lack of powder/shell split means the entire mass gets electro-magnetically fired out of the barrel, leading to in-game 16" shells that weigh more than the Yamato's 18.1"s (1475kg vs. 1460kg), and 12" shells that weigh more than historical 14"s (697kg vs. 680kg). Using the same equipment a 20" Mk. 3 will have a total shell weight of over two and a half metric tons at 2615kg!  Did I mention velocities are also much higher than you would expect for a shell that weight?  The American 12"/50 Mark 8 only got 792 mps muzzle velocity with a fresh gun and a full charge, and for shells a full 160 kg lighter than the ones in-game.

  Considering that 20" mentioned above gets 22.5" of deck pen at a mere 15,000m, and an absurd 38.9" of belt pen at that distance, creating a ZoI will cost you big time since even with all armor mods to get to 120% strength you still need a 10" deck thickness to have a chance of stopping a deck hit at that range, and 17.5" of belt armor to stop that.  A 12" deck will protect you out to 20km or so, but since you're going AoN for the armor strength bonuses that's going to cost you big in terms of displacement and cost, and you're going to need a 19" citadel belt if you want to have a chance of stopping shells at 12.5km.

So yes, armor is going to need to be much, much thicker than IRL.

*In-game shell measurements taken using triple base/super-heavy/TNT-IV. Armor using Krupp IV/AoN.  Measurements taken in Custom Battle, Year 1940, Nation USA.

On 1/5/2022 at 8:11 AM, T_the_ferret said:

I'm probably gonna write about it in more detail when the january feedback thread opens but i really feel like hull statistics (stability/floatabilit/resistance) really need a rework

It definitely does, especially since the current setup is based heavily on memes instead of actual history.  The only thing keeping Bismarck and Yamato afloat at the end was their massive reserve buoyancy considering the former was Swiss Cheese until finally scuttled and the latter had a mere double hull and a single torpedo bulge.  USS Skate was able to blow a hole open in Yamato with a single torpedo that flooded her entire aft magazine space with 3,000 tons of water.  Funnily enough that's the same amount of water that the much smaller USS Canberra took in when she got torpedoed amidships by a Japanese aerial torpedo. I don't know about you, but I consider that impressive considering one is the world's largest battleship and the other just a CA.  Meanwhile USS Pittsburgh escaped a 7 hour battle with a typhoon in sailable condition, even with a shorn-off bow and buckled second deck.

Looks surprisingly intact for something that spent 7 hours getting battered by a typhoon with no bow and its deck damaged at the start by one of its seaplanes being smashed into it, wouldn't you agree?  Especially since that ship had quote-unquote "poor quality welds at the bow".

 

I mean, for frak's sake, every post-1930 hull we laid down used armor-grade STS in the hulls, bulkheads, and decks wherever we could afford it instead of traditional structural steel due to its increased strength, hardness, and ability to resist damage.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#U.S._Carnegie_Corp._Special_Treatment_Steel_(STS)_Armor%2FConstruction_Steel

[ColonelHenry]

1 hour ago, SpardaSon21 said:

It definitely does, especially since the current setup is based heavily on memes instead of actual history.  The only thing keeping Bismarck and Yamato afloat at the end was their massive reserve buoyancy considering the former was Swiss Cheese until finally scuttled and the latter had a mere double hull and a single torpedo bulge. 

I mean with torpedo protection in this game... ships are literally floating while tanking hundreds of flooding damage hits... It's just that IRL internal systems would be nothing more but randomly placed pieces of metals and camp fires comparable to a crowded tourist beach. Meanwhile in this game, the ships can still fire all the guns... accurately. I can live with the hull stats if internal damage is implemented because then a floating hunk traveling at 3 knts that can't fire back is as good as dead hull stats or otherwise.

[SpardaSon21]

2 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

I mean with torpedo protection in this game... ships are literally floating while tanking hundreds of flooding damage hits... It's just that IRL internal systems would be nothing more but randomly placed pieces of metals and camp fires comparable to a crowded tourist beach. Meanwhile in this game, the ships can still fire all the guns... accurately. I can live with the hull stats if internal damage is implemented because then a floating hunk traveling at 3 knts that can't fire back is as good as dead hull stats or otherwise.

Agreed.  Damage such as fires and flooding should steadily eat away at crew until fixed, damage should cause lasting penalties to the ship's performance until damcon teams can clear away wreckage and splice in repairs, but that should only restore it to a certain cap, and citadel protection should negate penalties and raise the repair cap, so long as damage is outside of the citadel, AoN having the most benefit given that everything outside the box was completely expendable in combat by design.

[ColonelHenry]

38 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Damage such as fires and flooding should steadily eat away at crew until fixed,

Fire does to my knowledge but crew loss atm barely means anything. Every single time, the ship is sunk before even losing more than 25-30% at the max in all of my battles. I'm not sure if flooding causes any crew loss.

I'm just tired of 1920+ combat where a BB can tank 200 BB grade shells and still floating while shooting back. Every single battle is just a waste of time... Urgh. I hope the December chosen feature list is solid.

[Captain Meow]

I don't know what's happening, but this patch kinda messed up the shipbuilder.  First I had that "Design invalid" error preventing me from launching any vessel I had, so trying to solve it eventually I had to delete that json.dll file erasing ALL my designs (thankfully I screenshoted them). 

Now that I rebuild some of my designs, was playing alright, but then came to shipbuilder & I see suddenly all my French vessels got messed up cause displacement dropped to minimum!

Edited January 7, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Scot]

My notes so far on this update:
Spawn distances are way better,
Ai seems to perform well
"Avoid torpedoes" works (too well)

Avoid torpedoes and enable AI now cause weird behaviours where you cannot resume normal control of a ship.
Changes to avoid friendly fire are good for guns, but somehow feel worse for torpedoes (My ships just keep firing torpedoes into each others paths)

Also a more general request - Can the torpedo targeting ai be updated? Ships tend to fire torpedoes as if the target was always moving in a straight line, making no attempt to track the turning of their target - this leads to a lot of frustrating misses. 

Can we have some way of controlling torpedo fire tracking? In most instances ships are firing all their torpedoes at one specific point in a very thin column. A system to choose the target area spread would help massively - or the ability to stagger torpedo launches as a ship moves (so they aren't all entirely simultaneous) 

Kind Regards

Scot

[T_the_ferret]

17 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

To be fair given the existence of the hilariously ahistorical 19" and 20" guns... that might very well be a necessity at some point.  Especially since the lack of powder/shell split means the entire mass gets electro-magnetically fired out of the barrel, leading to in-game 16" shells that weigh more than the Yamato's 18.1"s (1475kg vs. 1460kg), and 12" shells that weigh more than historical 14"s (697kg vs. 680kg). Using the same equipment a 20" Mk. 3 will have a total shell weight of over two and a half metric tons at 2615kg!  Did I mention velocities are also much higher than you would expect for a shell that weight?  The American 12"/50 Mark 8 only got 792 mps muzzle velocity with a fresh gun and a full charge, and for shells a full 160 kg lighter than the ones in-game.

  Considering that 20" mentioned above gets 22.5" of deck pen at a mere 15,000m, and an absurd 38.9" of belt pen at that distance, creating a ZoI will cost you big time since even with all armor mods to get to 120% strength you still need a 10" deck thickness to have a chance of stopping a deck hit at that range, and 17.5" of belt armor to stop that.  A 12" deck will protect you out to 20km or so, but since you're going AoN for the armor strength bonuses that's going to cost you big in terms of displacement and cost, and you're going to need a 19" citadel belt if you want to have a chance of stopping shells at 12.5km.

So yes, armor is going to need to be much, much thicker than IRL.

*In-game shell measurements taken using triple base/super-heavy/TNT-IV. Armor using Krupp IV/AoN.  Measurements taken in Custom Battle, Year 1940, Nation USA.

It definitely does, especially since the current setup is based heavily on memes instead of actual history.  The only thing keeping Bismarck and Yamato afloat at the end was their massive reserve buoyancy considering the former was Swiss Cheese until finally scuttled and the latter had a mere double hull and a single torpedo bulge.  USS Skate was able to blow a hole open in Yamato with a single torpedo that flooded her entire aft magazine space with 3,000 tons of water.  Funnily enough that's the same amount of water that the much smaller USS Canberra took in when she got torpedoed amidships by a Japanese aerial torpedo. I don't know about you, but I consider that impressive considering one is the world's largest battleship and the other just a CA.  Meanwhile USS Pittsburgh escaped a 7 hour battle with a typhoon in sailable condition, even with a shorn-off bow and buckled second deck.

Looks surprisingly intact for something that spent 7 hours getting battered by a typhoon with no bow and its deck damaged at the start by one of its seaplanes being smashed into it, wouldn't you agree?  Especially since that ship had quote-unquote "poor quality welds at the bow".

 

I mean, for frak's sake, every post-1930 hull we laid down used armor-grade STS in the hulls, bulkheads, and decks wherever we could afford it instead of traditional structural steel due to its increased strength, hardness, and ability to resist damage.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/metalprpsept2009.php#U.S._Carnegie_Corp._Special_Treatment_Steel_(STS)_Armor%2FConstruction_Steel

Main problem is early hulls have ridiculously low stability (and thus exasperate the problem of low accuracy to even more ridiculous extent) while late hulls have ridiculously high resistance (making it utterly stupid in ways where being shot by a 508mm shell does close to no internal damage)

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, T_the_ferret said:

Main problem is early hulls have ridiculously low stability (and thus exasperate the problem of low accuracy to even more ridiculous extent) while late hulls have ridiculously high resistance (making it utterly stupid in ways where being shot by a 508mm shell does close to no internal damage)

Don't forget the 90+ resistance early hulls like the new French ironclad BB's.  Totally nothing unbalanced about those new hulls and all their absurd secondary firepower, either.

Edited January 7, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[T_the_ferret]

23 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Don't forget the 90+ resistance early hulls like the new French ironclad BB's.  Totally nothing unbalanced about those new hulls and all their absurd secondary firepower, either.

Yeah... that too

[Phelidai]

Interesting thing I just discovered while playing a 1910 campaign: 32 knots is faster than 37 knots.
Doesn't make sense? Didn't make sense to me either. While the AI built ships with torpedoes that ran at a speed of about 32 knots, those 32 knot torpedoes still outran my destroyer sailing parallel to them at over 37 knots (as displayed by the ship's division infocard)
Either the torpedoes got a speed over 6 knots faster than they were listed at, or my ship was going 6 knots slower than the game said it was. Or hell, maybe both are wrong and the game is displaying the wrong speed everywhere.

For reference, here are the enemy torpedoes:

 

...and here's my destroyer at the time of the speed mismatch:

If there's a valid explanation that I'm totally missing (I'm still somewhat of a newcomer to naval history), please let me know!

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

51 minutes ago, Phelidai said:

Interesting thing I just discovered while playing a 1910 campaign: 32 knots is faster than 37 knots.
Doesn't make sense? Didn't make sense to me either. While the AI built ships with torpedoes that ran at a speed of about 32 knots, those 32 knot torpedoes still outran my destroyer sailing parallel to them at over 37 knots (as displayed by the ship's division infocard)
Either the torpedoes got a speed over 6 knots faster than they were listed at, or my ship was going 6 knots slower than the game said it was. Or hell, maybe both are wrong and the game is displaying the wrong speed everywhere.

For reference, here are the enemy torpedoes:

 

...and here's my destroyer at the time of the speed mismatch:

If there's a valid explanation that I'm totally missing (I'm still somewhat of a newcomer to naval history), please let me know!

Has your DD been running in a more or less straight line for a while or done some maneuvering beforehand (that will slow a ship down and, depending on engine efficiency, it can take a long time to get up to speed again)?

Also, any damage to the DD?

Other than that, I don't have an explanation.

 

Note: AFAIK, the info-card shows the maximum speed, not the current speed a ship is at. For that you have to hover your mouse over the speed-slider (could be wrong on that, as I haven't payed much attention to that, I have to admit)

 

[Phelidai]

Yup, straight as a ruler for enough time for it to be at full speed. Either way, the info-card shows the current speed. Maximum speed is shown on the ship X-ray viewer below the compartments view. As the info-card shows, there is only a few scratches on the DD.

Bottom line is that the game says she was running at 37 knots.

[akd]

Pretty sure the “card” shows the unit’s current possible maximum speed (with damage), and the x-ray viewer the design maximum speed.  The only way you can get exact current speed that I have found is to hover over the speed slider and it will show current speed —> ordered speed.

Edited January 8, 2022 by akd

[Phelidai]

3 hours ago, akd said:

Pretty sure the “card” shows the unit’s current possible maximum speed (with damage), and the x-ray viewer the design maximum speed.  The only way you can get exact current speed that I have found is to hover over the speed slider and it will show current speed —> ordered speed.

Quote

Note: AFAIK, the info-card shows the maximum speed, not the current speed a ship is at. For that you have to hover your mouse over the speed-slider (could be wrong on that, as I haven't payed much attention to that, I have to admit)

Here you can see all relevant speed indicators (speed slider, division ship card, ship specific info-card, and x-ray design speed). This screenshot was taken right as a battle started, so no manuvers were preformed and all ships started at "Full" speed, and are accellerating to flank speed. As you can see, the division ship card and the ship sepcific info-card both show the same speed, implying that they are showing the same value (actual speed, not top speed, design speed, or top speed with damage).

[akd]

51 minutes ago, Phelidai said:

Here you can see all relevant speed indicators (speed slider, division ship card, ship specific info-card, and x-ray design speed). This screenshot was taken right as a battle started, so no manuvers were preformed and all ships started at "Full" speed, and are accellerating to flank speed. As you can see, the division ship card and the ship sepcific info-card both show the same speed, implying that they are showing the same value (actual speed, not top speed, design speed, or top speed with damage).

Nevermind, I was thinking of mouseing over the division "card", which then gives you a popup listing the current max possible speed for all ships in the division, not the individual ship cards, which do show the current speed same as mouseing over the slider.

[Grayknight]

@Nick ThomadisSince topic of January feedback lacks information about update (which suggest that it will be some time before it arrives) i would very much like to ask you, please, for information regarding fix thta curently makes 1890 campaign (my favorite) unplayable for me.

[raysin bisket]

I've noticed specifically just in the campaigns 1890 and 1900 RN atm (I haven't really done any custom battles or naval academy so not claiming this is exclusive to the campaigns), but naturally due to both technology limitations and relatively inexperienced crews accuracy is pretty poor.

However it appears that if you get enemy ships in close proximity down the the same line of fire and you aim for the further of the two ships, the vast majority of the shells hit the closer ship. Perhaps not particularly outstanding given it is in front of the further ship, expect that the proficiency in which this closer ship is dealt with is insane, it feels like a cheap exploit to gain insane accuracy, almost as if the accuracy nerf just means the crew regularly under-ranges the shots meaning that by aiming at a further target the closer target actually receives what would've been the vast majority of inaccurate shots.

Perhaps it just makes sense, would be curious to hear other players opinions on this or whether this is just me. But taking minutes to land a few shots, to then landing a shot (or multiple) pretty much every volley just by doing this seems exploitative of the accuracy system rather than realistic consequence of poor accuracy to me.

Maybe the accuracy system penalties prefer to under-range rather than over-range, but I'd urge other players to try this (essentially when the enemy ships are within a few 100m of each other if not closer) because I don't get how you can be so inaccurate at a single target but by aiming for the further of two close targets have insane accuracy essentially by exploiting misses. Unless I'm just being silly...

 

Edit: This is extremely prevalent and obvious during the transport destroying missions

Edited January 9, 2022 by raysin bisket

[T_the_ferret]

Nah its pretty well known that accuracy is pretty wonky at all time, whether its the lower end during 1900s battles or high end during 1940s battles

[FattyFranz]

On 12/29/2021 at 1:13 AM, Josh said:

First and foremost, Nick and the team, thank you for making such a great game. I look forward to its future development.

One comment on my end. I tried the campaign today. The economy seems to be off now. There is no way to sustain a fleet against the AI. I just lost a campaign to the AI where I destroyed over 20 vessels, and won almost every battle, and didn't lose a warship myself. I lost because I could not keep up with my exponentially diminishing economy, even though I was winning the war. When playing the 1930's campaign, its seems impossible to keep transports up. Also, the pop up for transports lost does not seem to occur any longer. This issue did not seem to affect the AI, because they were able to replenish their fleets appropriately, and maintain them.

Regardless, I am thoroughly looking forward to a further refined campaign. I believe your long term vision is amazing. Again, thanks for all the hard work. 

This sums up my experience with the campaign as well. I'm so excited for the campaign to be fully complete. From the sounds of things, it will basically be Rule the Waves but 3D, which is awesome. Hopefully the economy issues are resolved in the next patch.