Player Suggestions - January/February

[Captain Meow]

 

@Nick Thomadis please, see this & have it solved:

On 1/28/2022 at 2:29 AM, Captain Meow said:

1) Sometimes when entering Shipbuilder (in Custom Battles) the displacement drops to minimal value for some saved own designs, messing them up. No idea what causes this, but am getting tired of restoring designs to how they were every time this happens. Never had such before this 1.02 patch.

2) In Custom Battles Shipbuilder design gets overwritten (erased) once I click on different default hull of the same type.
I'm building some ship or viewing some finished ship, I click on some different hull of the same type & get "You have unsaved changes. Discard this hull?" notification - whether I click "Yes" or "No", I lose the ship I was just building/viewing, as if that design I had was just overwritten with a new hull. So, if I need to see/use different hull I must click on "New design" to reserve a slot for it so it won't overwrite the existing design.

Those problems still exist, same as this: 

Can't launch a custom battle unless all types I have designs for are included.  Looks like the problem begins once a CA design is created.  Not gonna delete any suggested files, because I lost all my designs after that.

 

Also, noticed this - casemate armor thickness got somehow "messed up" or something? It was up to 17.5mm (if I remember right) for 76mm gun for both sides & top, now the max. thickness is this:

In custom battles I'm already annoyed to select ALL types I created designs of just to have 1-2 I want to play with against enemy while sending all my other types far away from the main action. Otherwise, it can't be played, since the issue starts once a CA (or 2 CA's?) design is created.

Also this:

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Captain Meow

[slightlytreasonous]

Firstly, modding?

Secondly, atleast for the player, the only restriction as to where you can put stuff should be "is there actually room?". Within reason, fine, but things like secondary barbette's being forced onto the centerline in a few select places makes them being useful very rare.  If I got the deck space for something, I should very well be able to use it.

Finally, being able to place little chunks of superstructure here and there, for those of us who hate when a funnel touches the deck or want to get rid of a really minor height difference.

thats my attempt to make a few suggestions within reason, so these are my fantasies that are totally out there with no thoughts about reeling them in:

Much more expanded scope of the campaign fights- location in the world, the scouting, etc, like a tactical map, plus much more time control.  Seeing more "degrees" of a scenario would make fights feel more significant & opens up a lot of room for new scenarios like larger fights in general, long running battles, even carriers.  

Total overhaul for superstructure construction, if not the entire ship designer.

The option to run the industry of the navy a bit- torpedo production, weapon testing, individual slipways, etc.

Edited February 8, 2022 by slightlytreasonous
clarity

[Skeksis]

On 1/3/2022 at 3:10 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Task forces/Campaign movement  (Planned for v1.05)

Officers, was planned but it seems they’re on the backburner for now. But they can have a role…

Change them to 'Admirals' and make it so "taskforces" can only be commanded by one (or one per region).

Then there’ll be no need for them to have stats/buffs/nerfs etc. but they will have a purpose, command, admiral command. I think there’s room to introduce characters into the game. Characters or ‘Admirals’ would give an identity level to fleets, including battles and those taskforce movements around the map. Include enemy AI admirals, lists would be long for each nation but players would be very happy killing them off one by one (when capital/flagship sinks), until there's none left, destroying/weakening a nation. Admiral 'rank' could determine fleet size.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts game full of 'Admiral Characters' would add to the game.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Skeksis

[Kane]

Aside from what I've mentioned in my previous post about the severely borked weights of ship's systems.  Other issues...

1)  Ricochet mechanics need a serious looking at.  No one would be all that excited to cross the T if ricochets happened the way they do in this game.  There's no point when more than 99% of your successful hits bounce.  Crossing the T would be considered a waste of ammo, and no one would have ever gone broadside to bring all their guns to bear.  (Ships would have just been designed to go bow in with their only guns in front.)  Meanwhile when you're hitting a ship's deck, the angle isn't going to change that much whether the ship is facing you or perpendicular to you.  This is a stupid, gamey mechanic that belongs in World of Warships.  There is plenty of photographic evidence of shells penetrating at angles of high obliquity and the ovular holes they leave upon doing so.

Situations like 18" shells ricocheting 3 for 3 on 1" destroyer or light cruiser plating at short range is just beyond ridiculous.

Meanwhile an "average" ricochet chance should not translate to 90%.

2)  The ability for AI ships with 3 trashed engines and a damaged rudder to pirouette like a Bolshoi ballerina to dodge torpedoes needs to be looked at.

3)  Overpen mechanics need a rework.  It is very hard to see how a 3" HE shell can penetrate 1/2 inch of ship's steel, multiple bulkheads, and then 1/2 inch of ship's steel again without detonating.  Hard to see how even a 20" HE shell can go through a ship's weather deck, multiple floors, and then the keel without detonating.  This is multiple inches of steel and voids that thing is going through (to say nothing of equipment it would crash through on the way), all without a contact fuse setting it off?  Shore bombardment missions aren't a thing in current game, so I can't see why ships would be firing HE rounds with time-delay fuses.

4)  Another person brought this up once.  But ships exist beneath the waterline.  I don't know if flooding hits are meant to represent underwater hits, but as present they seem a non issue.  Sinking ships show no damage modeling beneath the waterline.  Meanwhile any player can observe many near-misses that by all rights should have been below waterline hits.

5)  Damage modeling and ship destruction itself needs expansion.  Ships should be able to capsize, ships going down by the bow or stern should occasionally split in two, etc.

6)  Listing needs a look at, since ships often present lists that by all rights would result in capsizing.  If capsizing as a possibility of "sudden death" were to become part of the game that would be one thing.  As it is, its just silly.

7)  There needs to be an immediate ban on gun and torpedo crews stopping for smoke breaks in the middle of combat.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Kane

[UnleashtheKraken]

Linking a concise list of good suggestions that appeared outside this thread.  

 

[halofanjames]

20 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The map will be expanded to cover the whole Europe and Mediterranean, there will be alliances with many nations and the war is going to be much more complex. There is no delay actually, it is just that we will deliver a patch sooner with the big map and more nations, and afterwards the longer campaign, so players will not have to wait for a prolonged patch. Peace.

when can we be expecting the 1.05 beta still end of the week or earlier by splitting it in two

[neph]

I only have one request: please rework how main guns of the same caliber but different #s of barrels per turret function!

[Worry_Rock]

On 2/7/2022 at 5:08 PM, The PC Collector said:

Probably said heavy cruiser is absolutely lackluster in any other regard. So, you need to adapt. Is a great part of what this game is about. Pretty much as what happened in reality, you have to adapt to what other navies have in their arsenals.

tbh i just ended up making fast destroyers to blow their sides out so ig it ended up helping in the long run

[Andvarus]

On 2/8/2022 at 2:42 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

The map will be expanded to cover the whole Europe and Mediterranean, there will be alliances with many nations and the war is going to be much more complex. There is no delay actually, it is just that we will deliver a patch sooner with the big map and more nations, and afterwards the longer campaign, so players will not have to wait for a prolonged patch. Peace.

This sound great and is the way to go. Thank you!  

[Toby]

@Nick Thomadisany word on the next beta patch release date?

 

[ilguisco]

3 hours ago, Toby said:

@Nick Thomadisany word on the next beta patch release date?

 

Yes we need news!

[ilguisco]

If they wanted to add important depth in damage control they could add something like UBOAT and Aircraft Carrier Survival games.

It would be great to be able to prioritize engine repairs or putting out flames on ships. Having more or less sailors engaged in damage control effects on the efficiency of offense weapons like Naval Action game.

Do you think it can be considered as a later addition in the development?

And last but not least it would be great to have an official Discord channel for the game, what do you think? 
Maybe it already exists?
sorry if any of the previous proposals have already been exposed.

Good Hunting!

[Captain Meow]

On 2/5/2022 at 9:10 PM, Captain Meow said:

Plain & simple: make ships be able to CAPSIZE! 

Especially make them able to capsize when being at half-float severe-list while doing a sharp-turn at high-speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvCHuVELCzA at 23:35 - in reality it would have capsized right away. Besides, at 24:00 look how with minimal float & all engines damaged the ship still does a sharp turn as if equipped with powerful bow & stern thrusters.

@Nick Thomadis

Also, in that moment in the video - notice how the enemy's ship guns are clearly pointing towards the sky but they still do score hits at the other ship because of higher % since it's very close.  This should be reworked!

Edited February 11, 2022 by Captain Meow

[Hale]

Hey there, I found out I can rotate things in ship building by pressing R so that solves one of my previous requests. 

However in building I'll have a ship (ie Heavy Cruiser, Russian, 1936) that is around 2k overweight at 19,000 tons, minimum displacement.

I bump the slider to maximum weight, 23,000 tons, and the ship is still 500 tons overweight.   I realize bigger ship = more armor, more surface area etc, but it doesn't seem intuitive. 

[Candle_86]

Oh can we please get an automatic ship kill and sink if a main magazine explodes. If on a heavy cruiser or below a 5in magazine going up is the ship breaking in two, maybe a battleship would be an 8in magazine, but it baffles me when I hit a battlecruiser armed with 18in guns and get a main magazine explosion and they don't sink. 

[Andvarus]

15 minutes ago, Candle_86 said:

Oh can we please get an automatic ship kill and sink if a main magazine explodes. If on a heavy cruiser or below a 5in magazine going up is the ship breaking in two, maybe a battleship would be an 8in magazine, but it baffles me when I hit a battlecruiser armed with 18in guns and get a main magazine explosion and they don't sink. 

Uffff I'd call that unlucky sofar every Ammo Detonation I had resulted in the sinking of the Ship, including Battleships, but yeah I would also love to see ships breaking in two after recieving a hit to the Main Ammo Depot.

Just curious did the game say Ammo explosion or just multible flash fires?

[Candle_86]

1 minute ago, Andvarus said:

Uffff I'd call that unlucky sofar every Ammo Detonation I had resulted in the sinking of the Ship, including Battleships, but yeah I would also love to see ships breaking in two after recieving a hit to the Main Ammo Depot.

Just curious did the game say Ammo explosion or just multible flash fires?

Magazine and when i went to go look she was missing her forward 18in, but her rear 18 was still intact, and since the AI built it with only 2 triple 18's i guess the fire didn't spread fast enough.

[Bigjku]

Unlock the campaign start dates without making me play with Pre-Dreadnoughts that I hate.  Some people do not care for certain eras.  We paid for the game.  Stop restricting it.

[SiWi]

10 minutes ago, Bigjku said:

Unlock the campaign start dates without making me play with Pre-Dreadnoughts that I hate.  Some people do not care for certain eras.  We paid for the game.  Stop restricting it.

we paid for the game, but the dev also kinda need us as game testers.

If no one plays 1890, they get no feedback on it. If they don't get feedback on it, they can't improve it.

This is maybe the reason why they have it behind unlocks.

[Captain Meow]

10 minutes ago, Bigjku said:

Unlock the campaign start dates without making me play with Pre-Dreadnoughts that I hate.  Some people do not care for certain eras.  We paid for the game.  Stop restricting it.

Gets an upvote from me! I too wish it would be possible to choose any start year (with certain level of technology already available for that time).

[Candle_86]

Im in the opposite, i wish we could start at 1860 with monitors and casemate ironclads moving onto early ironclade battleships before moving onto Predreadnoughts 

[Andvarus]

One question............ WHY???????? I mean why are we not allowed top place a barbett right there?

[The PC Collector]

3 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Im in the opposite, i wish we could start at 1860 with monitors and casemate ironclads moving onto early ironclade battleships before moving onto Predreadnoughts 

While I hope that this wwill end being a thing, If I had to bet i'd say that if it ever comes to the game, it will do so as a DLC.

[slightlytreasonous]

 

13 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

Im in the opposite, i wish we could start at 1860 with monitors and casemate ironclads moving onto early ironclade battleships before moving onto Predreadnoughts 

1860-1970, "monitors to super carriers"

I can already see it-Protectsd cruisers ramming through obsolete ironclads, watching my beloved super dreadnoughts be torn asunder by the dawn of missiles and jet aviation, nuclear submarines fights straight out of cold waters.. ^-^

 

I know, I know, it's as unfeasible as snow in hell, but let me dream...

Edited February 12, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, slightlytreasonous said:

 

1860-1970, "monitors to super carriers"

I can already see it-Protectsd cruisers ramming through obsolete ironclads, watching my beloved super dreadnoughts be torn asunder by the dawn of missiles and jet aviation, nuclear submarines fights straight out of cold waters.. ^-^

 

I know, I know, it's as unfeasible as snow in hell, but let me dream...

I don't see it as unfeasible... The Ironclad part is pretty much doable, since a lot of them are already implemented in the missions, so I easily see it as a future DLC once the current content is finished... the carrier part is more difficult, as they really don't fit in the gameplay in any way.