Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Player Suggestions - January/February


Recommended Posts

I think the point with the captain is really great. When in later versions of the game you can form task forces maybe you can promote one of your officers to an Admiral.

On the other hand if the forward structure of your ship get destroyed you will also loose your captain of this ship. And if this ship is the flagship you will also loose the Admiral... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id like to see the option to continue fighting the single missions even if the primary condition has been achieved. There have been lots of times I've had a very interesting fight on my hands only to then sink the objective and have the battle end without any of the satisfaction of mopping up the remaining enemy forces or being able to watch them as they rally to avenge their comrades.

Also the AI seems to cheat quite a bit when designing the single mission ships...There are quite a few times I've just straight up quit them because the AI has built a ship that somehow manages to have a ship with multiple triple and quad turrets running 35+ knots and has 14+ inches of armor. It gets old having to make the sacrifices to build a reasonably balanced ship only to have to face enemies like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To begin, thank you for adding the friendly fire check last update. That was a big deal and from what I have seen, works well. Also, knowing that refits will be in the next patch is wonderful news and I'm sure everyone will be excited to see them. That said, I will repeat what I stated last month, but in a condensed manner with one addition. Overall, while there a lots of things people consider to be "important" to add to this game, I would humbly submit that many are thinking too long term.

Suggestions like - "We just need all the countries," or "We need the advanced economy that allows different shells to be stockpiled" aren't very helpful. These are coming to be sure, but require many other systems in place first. What I suggest is instead focusing on things that can be immediately implemented to the betterment of the current state of play - such as we can see with the friendly fire system/refits.

So I have:

1. Backgrounds/Weather/Time of Day - I have said from the beginning that this is necessary ASAP and I stand by it. Entering a battle where it is supposedly night with high winds and rough seas to see a sunny day is jarring and makes the game seem cheap, like a farce. I know implementing these visuals and the accompanying systems (actual rain, fog, etc.) can take time because you need to keep the game optimized and running smoothly, but please prioritize these visual effects. Not only are they important in of themselves, but they will set the scene for later additions to the game. Namely...

2. Overall Spotting Mechanics - To be more brief than last time, I will combine the battle and campaign map spotting overhaul into one point. I remember you told me before that you are waiting for visual additions and changes before even considering doing anything to spotting, at any level (and I agree with this approach 100%), but I must once again insist on the importance of this feature for the record. Once the appropriate visual elements are in place, consider making them an integral part of first the battle maps of course, but more importantly the campaign map. If I "sight" a hostile squadron via the mission generator, and the dicerolls or what have you say that the current conditions should be sunny, then perhaps that translates to more accurate classification of the foe and their strength. Then I can decide to engage or not.

On the flip side, if it's a raging storm, all I might see are two vessels....but in reality there could be four! Or maybe I think I can see two BBs, but in reality it is just two CAs. Not all mis-classifications need to be negative for the player. But the entire current system of "Get Cruiser Duel from the mission generator - Accept Cruiser Duel - Don't see the enemy even though I already had to have seen her on the campaign layer to identify said cruiser and thus decide to engage - Steam at 10x speed following 'smoke' until End Battle appears" is extremely frustrating to all your players and moreso a completely pointless waste of time. A proper spotting layer on the campaign map that conforms with reality will vastly and quickly improve the quality of the game as it will liberate the player to make informed choices as to when to engage or not. We will not have to physically jump into every single battle just to see what kind of weather and time it is currently. This in turn, with implemented visuals on the battle maps, will finally allow a more realistic spotting system to be developed that will logically make sense, freeing players to worry about actual tactics and positioning, rather than searching the whole battlespace on accelerated time until you end the "engagement," never having seen anyone.

3. Intelligence - This will dovetail nicely with the above two points and is a logical extension of where the game needs to go. Simply said, I hate having to start a campaign and fight several engagements just to get an idea of what the AI has built this time. Players need to know what the AI has built for each class before our first campaign engagement. We need to know what the enemy has built/is building in order to know what to make ourselves. How else can we make informed choices as to how to design our vessels? This means a very basic intelligence collection system needs to be coded now, before expanding the campaign. Test it in this 1v1 sandbox while you can.

My perception would be different if we simply had wrong or erroneous intelligence, and we built our ships in such a way as to not be very effective, but as it stands you could do so anyway simply out of total ignorance of the latest AI design. In short, it is another aspect of the game where the player is reminded of random dice rolls. These are necessary, yes, but the best implemented randomness is hidden from the player. Reminding us every time we start a game that we lack control and understanding of the campaign, with nothing we can immediately do to change that short of charging the nearest enemy and engaging, takes us out of enjoying playing. We truly do need a basic intel system to begin exploring this crucial area of naval conflict that was of extreme importance in reality.

4. Transport Mechanics and Transparency - Right now, the what, how, where, when, and why of transports is absent. I understand fully if you don't really want to touch them at all until you do a economic overhaul, but a few UI tweaks right now could help at the very least. The bottom line is that transports are and have been a black box. What I mean by that is their use is largely abstract and opaque. They play a crucial role in the progress or lack thereof in a campaign, and yet players have very little real control of them. Now, since the start things have changed, but both for better and worse. Initially, players sinking TPs ourselves seemed less impactful because we weren't given VPs in the post-battle stats (even though they were counted in the overall campaign tallies). That has since been addressed, but is countered by the fact that TP losses each turn from AI dicerolls are now hidden. As far as I can tell, it's not that you're TPs are not getting sunk, just alerts are not coming up like they used to.

Taken together, you have a game mechanic that is very important reduced to minimal interaction with the player. The slider to produce more or fewer transports was initially very confusing to me when I first began playing, and was not inherently intuitive. It took some experimenting to figure out exactly what it was doing. This can be fixed with better UI, encyclopedia entries, or even a basic tutorial point. But the issue of TPs extends beyond strategic and operational concerns, but right down to the tactical layer. One of the most egregious things is the totally random gun layouts, often with misplaced guns inside the hull and/or superstructure that still fire, about which I have sent many bug reports. There should be some logic to how well-armed a freighter is overall, as well as to it's exact gun layout. More could be said but it is not immediately useful to the game so I will refrain for now.

Edited by Littorio
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Levels of information - the game shows far too much information for new players. It needs to graduate the levels of detail it presents, for example: a game setting to show "detailed information", or an click to expand further information after an initial summary. Using detailed percentages is useful for an experienced player, but hard to grasp for a more casual one. Furthermore, percentages are difficult, as they are proportional to some other value I don't always know, why not just summarise it rather than making me do the math? For example "-2.5% Acceleration" could be "Makes the ship accelerate a little slower", or "+1.3% Hull Weight" could be "Weighs 1 ton".

2. Campaign: missions - the campaign feels a lot like a random mission generator. I don't have enough agency over what happens. I've no idea where one of my ships will appear or what it will be trying to do.  I would like to be able to create task forces and assign them to missions and areas, Hearts and Iron 4 does this well. For example: destroyers scout for the enemy, which then triggers a task force to engage, in battle this is represented by reinforcements joining mid battle, providing both sides with additional options.

3. Battle: deployment phase - battles need a deployment phase where I can organise my ships position and divisions. I don't like the way the AI lays my fleet out (e.g. I want by torpedo boats out in front charging abrest). I've tried reorganising in battle but its chaos and on the enemy is upon me before they form up in new positions. Alternatively the map should be much larger, to allow for reposition and scouting, effectively becoming an extension of the world map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have played the 1890 and 1900 campaign on the German Side.

First of all: I know the game is still in development, but I had a lot of fun with the campaigns so far and plan on streaming my 1910 campaign on twitch.

 

For my suggestions (or wishes rather) on no particular order:

  • Namelist for different times (e.g. a bismarck in 1890 seems a bit weird) maybe this can be "outsourced" to the community. Like if someone wants to do the list you only have to check the values. If nobody wants to - you cann still do it yourself. Means you include the community in development for mundane tasks which in turn allows devs to use their time for more difficult tasks.
  • Spinning propellers
  • Fleets - we should be able to specify how our fleets should look like (fleetcomposition) and what their task is. (cue HOI4 naval system: task for Patrol, Raid, Task Force)
  • Manual orders and movement on the campaignmap (currently its kind of a hit or miss whether or not your BBs are actually in a fleet even if you have your whole fleet in 1 harbour and set on sea control).
  • nerf TB floatability, they tank more than BBs lol
  • Change of researchfocus - currently the downsides of boosting a research are far too big. I suggest -5%;-10%;-17% researchspeed for 1/2/3 boosters used.
  • historical ww1 campaign date (1914).
  • longer campaign in general. Unfortunately  currently there is little use in research especially for battleships because usually the war is over before you have researched and then build a BB with the new techs unless its really really even.
  • Guns not able to fire on the selected target fire on the next suitable target on their own until the primary target can get fired upon (e.g. by angle or by range). 
  • Torpedos aiming even when "off".
  • Speed of Sound - seeing the flash before the sound is a little but very immersive change
  • a better bow wave. currently it looks very low quality
  • Change missed shot pattern so it doenst always fall 5m short.
Edited by Sturmalex
grammar
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that needs addressing (but is bigger in nature) is AI convey defense/attack behavior. Aka the fact that the AI has none. The Ai never even tires to actually protect their TR or really attacks yours. Even if you chase after the enemies leaving your TR valuable, they won't come after them and their never come to aid their own TR unless they right you anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall improvement of the cruiser and destroyer classes of ships. Their guns are in need of an overall improvement to their damage and accuracy. Cruiser duels currently feel like waiting for the other guy to run out of ammo cause at any reasonable range you almost never go over a 2% hit rate. Destroyers and TP Boats are almost useless outside of Torpedo Payloads. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ship designer-

Im not going to go to in depth on what doesnt need to be said, yeah it needs an overhaul badly.  Im personally hoping (as well as begging you devs) for it to be the next thing after the campaign.  

However, i will throw down a few quick improvements i think could be made.

-Multiple towers.  No stats buff after the first and it doesnt serve as redundancy, either.  However, I think the option of having multiple towers would be good for us aesthetically focused players.

-A true unlock all

-Standard battleships and tillman battleship hulls. 

-Designing transports/ mebbe even liners? troop transports. that sounds like a convincing enough excuse..

-On transports, force the designs to use free deck space for cargo holds.  For the sake of my eyes.

-Ship painting.

Also, ill mention now that Japanese super structures have a big problem with practically none of them being able to fit dual/ angled funnels. From what i can tell this is a problem all across the board.

 

The repeated ones- let me turn off auto collision ; modding would be good ;  In some way, punish the AI for emptying the national torpedo stockpiles.

Minor-  Keeping track of a ships entire history, and having the option of turning them into museum ships, etc.  Being able to go back, look at the battles, read the full logs of ships, just reliving the entire campaign.  That would all be simply incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Torpedo launchers should continually track the target. 
 

2) need ability to create battle groups in campaign. Random selection of ships doesn’t work when you design a ship for a specific purpose. 

Edited by Branman
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 9:59 PM, akd said:

I already pointed out why you were wrong on this, so I'll repeat facts when you repeat fiction.

I would like to kindly remind you people that there are rules to this topic and it is for suggestions only. It really annoys me to see this become another of those "I will prove you I am right" topic.

Anyway as for my suggestions - all i added in the previous  month, i will not repeat it as there was alot of this and i am not sure which of those are planed to be implemented over all i belive that:

- When more nations are aded we will need more hulls, each and evry single class should be possible to be acesed in short time since 1890, i would also like to see more hulls that are not based strictly on ships that were made in real life. - This is especialy true when talking about torpedo boat and destroyers.

- Qol - pls. Give us button to auto-assign ships to ports in balanced maner :)
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Skeksis said:

A small QOL improvement:

IV) Selection quantity.

E.g.

T8LU2Lp.png

maybe also show the tonnage involved if you select a new port for the ships. Aka how much do the ships have and what does the port has left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the game feels really good, even if it's still in very early stages.

My suggestions:

Switches for easier navigation in the battles.

Speed: [stop], [cruising speed], [full speed ahead]
Rudder: [hard starboard], [hard port] , [straight ahead]
 

Ship designer:

Switch [+] [-] for speed and other values. This is easier to use for small changes than the pure slider.

Switch to optimize the speed and / or other values. It often happens that the remaining tonnage should contribute as much as possible to increasing the speed. There would be a good way to automate this.


Fleet overview:

Filter to show only certain ship classes as "only BB", only "CA".... 

Edited by Tunichtgut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting up custom battles:

1) An option to quickly swap sides (like France VS Germany to Germany VS France) while having selected ships/year the same, instead of making 3 times selecting countries (change France to other country, change Germany to France, change other country to Germany).

2) In Shipbuilder when there are already several copies of one certain design which have their respective names - let exactly those names be used in a custom battle if this type/design was selected with number of ships not more than number of ships of this design.
For example, in Shipbuilder for Germany/1895 I have 4 CL's of same design with names Gazelle, Niobe, Nymphe, Thetis - if I select this design & set number to 4 for CL then I want to see exactly these names in a custom battle, not 1 name & 3 others are random I never assigned to any ship.

3) Possibility to have several different designs of one type in a Custom Battle, instead of having just clones of one design.
For example, I have 2 different designs of battleships for a certain year/country & if I set the number of BB as 2 then I wish I could select those both designs & have them together in the battle, same goes for enemy side - selecting which designs to be in a battle.  3 different cruisers for that country/year - then ability to have all 3 of them in a battle instead of just 3 clones of same design.

 

Bugs in custom battles  discovered with 1.02 upgrade:

1) Sometimes when entering Shipbuilder the displacement drops to minimal value for some 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) Design overwrites (erases) once clicked on different default hull.
I'm building some ship or viewing some finished ship, I click on some different hull & 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.

3) Some unfinished design doesn't allow to launch any ship I have for a chosen year/country in Custom Battles.
Viewing a finished playable design but can't launch it because of a displayed error it doesn't have - the error is in other design even if that design/type isn't chosen for next battle.

4) When my other ship gets between my ship & enemy ship shooting one another, enemy's ship gets a boost in accuracy so every shell it fires is a pen on my that in-between ship. Also works the other way round - I'm shooting at enemy ship & another enemy ship gets in-between then my guns get a boost in accuracy & that poor ship gets every pen possible. It's either a boost in accuracy or the in-between ship looses it's armor values so it get's penetrated by every gun.

5) "Invalid design" error.
Even after suggested deletion of certain files (and as a result, manual restoring of all design I had!) & conflicting designs, the error is back - please, fix it somehow!

 

To improve in Shipbuilder:

1) Turret choices for 1890-1905 battleships.
Many real battleships of 1898-1905 built had turrets that visually look like in-game turrets available for 1890-1897 battleships. This means if I want to recreate a some 1902 real battleship for a custom battle I must set year to be earlier than 1898 for a ship to visually have exactly those turrets of a real ship.
---> Solution: make earlier turrets available until like 1905 (with same parameters of newer turrets?) & let French hulls also have their unique turrets till mid-1900s.
Also make single/twin-barrel turret choices for secondary guns on predreadnoughts (Russian BB Tsesarevich had twin-barrel secondary turrets, for example).

4fqCQIPvMocc.jpg?o=1

 

2) 51 & 76mm gun choices.
For example, a recreated predreadnought Russian battleship will look wrong with current models for 51/76mm deck guns available for that hull, so I have to omit those guns. Yet predreadnoughts of some other country have 2 versions of those guns.  
---> Solution: make 51 & 76mm guns in 2 versions for all ships before mid-1900s.

xcQhqHQ6yd4j.jpg?o=1

 

3) Mounting points on many designs.
For example, recreating a Japanese predreadnought triple-funnel battleship has issue with funnels because of limited amounts of mounting points for funnels. Placing 3 single-funnels looks not right because they are very close to each other & located in the middle than closer to main tower, yet placing a triple-funnel part is impossible unless making the hull longer which would be non-authentic because of more casemate gun ports added than on real ship.
---> Solution: Make much more funnel mounting points for such hull models &/or make a smaller version of triple funnel part so it could fit there with a hull at it's smallest length. 

QKB1IJOKZTlk.jpg?o=1

 

4) Casemate guns.
These should be inside the ship, not on deck. Yet available exterior mounting points on some hulls/towers not allow to install typical 51/76mm deck guns but only casemate versions of them.
---> Solution: make exterior mounting points on some hulls (like German predreadnought BBs) allow to install 51/76mm deck guns instead of casemate versions of them.

KL81wdUH8ZBR.jpg?o=1

 

5) Size of parts.
Some parts like towers & funnels visually look very small (or very big) for some hulls & this ruins appearance/arrangement options when trying to recreate a real ship. Even the smallest version of a certain tower is still too big. Or certain funnel exists only in one version & it's either too big or too small.
---> Solution: Make bigger & smaller versions of yet-single version parts. Or implement a some option allowing players to visually change dimensions (scaling) of towers/funnels on +/-20% while keeping their characteristics intact.

6) Lifeboats.
When selecting some tower part (with lifeboats) & placing on some hull (also with lifeboats), hull's lifeboats do not disappear but continue sticking out of the tower part. For some towers lifeboats continue to be there when they have nothing under to support them which makes them visually hover in the air.
Also, placing a funnel in a mounting point where tower's lifeboats are doesn't make those lifeboats disappear but overlap with the funnel.
---> Solution: Make hull/tower lifeboats disappear when they overlap with something or make an option to manually include/exclude lifeboats from tower part. Make tower lifeboats disappear when they don't have a deck under them.

Exalp46kYUb7.jpg?o=1

 

7) Weight of parts.
Everything is too heavy! Impossible to recreate close to original ship by having their armor thickness.
---> Solution: Reduce hull's initial weight or all parts' weight on some percent.

8 ) Deck decorative details.
When installing a some part like tower/funnel/turret, decorative details which are scattered across the deck sometimes continue to stick out of that part. Also placement of these deck details always changes every time a displacement changes or design loaded, so they in most of cases always stick out of the installed parts.
---> Solution: Make deck details automatically disappear under installed parts.

cJVcqcqA1SA8.jpg?o=1

 

9) More freedom regarding creating ships.
There's a limitation that each country has it's own hulls (many of which repeat for other countries) with own parts available for certain years. It's possible to unlock all hulls for one country, but then not all parts compatible with this certain hull are available.
For example, trying to recreate a predreadnought BB Kearsarge close to original is not possible because of availability of hulls/parts for that country/year. The best could be unlocking all hulls, however 330mm main guns come in different turrets than the cylindrical ones real ship had, yet these 330mm cylindrical main guns turrets are available for this exact hull BUT if trying to build this ship as Russian while having real ship's year of built correct.
---> Solution: ability to  also unlock all available parts from different countries which are compatible with a selected hull.
Or an option to assign different country/year to a finished design. So if it wasn't possible to faithfully built BB Kearsarge under USA flag, then built under different country which has this hull & authentic parts for it available, then assign USA as country & year for this finished design & see it being in Custom Battles design saves under USA & that year, having USA flags on.

10) Casemate guns mounting points.
For example, predreadnought BB Kearsardge had 14x152mm casemate guns but this hull in the game allows only installing 14x102mm guns.
Something should be changed about this. Like, let all hull mounting points for casemate guns be compatible with all available casemate guns calibers.

 

To possibly add to Shipbuilder:

1) Miscellaneous parts.
Include air intakes, casings parts (in 3 size versions) possible for installation in random places (how it's with torpedo launchers on torpedo boats). Or make empty upper deck spaces be filled up with various details how the main deck is. Installing these small parts will might have a little effect on engine performance & will not make a design have empty spaces.

0ltwEsjEvPEg.jpg?o=1

 

2) Shorter/thinner funnels for French cruiser hulls & also unique French cruiser towers (but not downscales from French BB towers).

3) Perhaps a couple of hulls/towers so it would be possible to recreate certain German & Russian triple-funnel battleships built in the first half of 1900s (like Deutschland, Potemkin, Evstafiy, etc). 

 

Visual improvements for the game:

1) Anchor chains should look like chains, not like cables.
Could be done as 2 crossing (but not intersecting) long rectangular transparent surfaces with textures of links (with gaps in-between) on them & arranged in a way that it would look like a chain.  Curved parts of chains can be made of shorter such rectangles with links textures. Such method would make anchor chains look more like chains & keep the whole 3D hull model not high on polygon count.
Or however you could make them. Many other simpler ship games had anchor chains like chains, after all!

2) Railings.
Somehow, either as flat textures or composed of triangular or rectangular "tubes", but let there be railings on ships!

3) Add glass on windows so all ships would look a little less crude.

 

To improve in Gameplay:

1) Currently player-controlled ships accelerate too fast & slow down very slowly. This should be almost the other way round.

2) AI ships turn too sharply & accelerate/decelerate too fast which makes enemies very good at dodging torpedoes. This should be changed because predreadnought ships shouldn't turn like if they have also bow+stern thrusters working!

3) AI's target preferences.
Make AI not just target the biggest ship of the other side, but target a ship based on level of threat & own guns' accuracy.
Example: enemy BB keeps firing at my BB 1km away completely ignoring my CL & TB like 200m away.
If my torpedo boat or some CL comes too close to enemy ship then it should be that ship's primary target as exposing high level of threat & level of firing should be up to "aggressive" then.

4) AI's behaviour.
Enemy shouldn't be a coward but try to do at least something productive.
Example: I had my last remaining BB at 30% damage & 15% float with all 3 engines non-functioning & running out of ammo, yet there's that enemy cruiser with 50% damage 80% float with all ammo needed or even 3 fully intact enemy cruisers - staying far away & wasting their ammo just cause they have 1,5% chance of hitting my ship. This situation is hopeless.
Make AI to not retreat, especially if it's fully intact battleships or others which stayed far away the whole battle & did zero contribution.
For example, I had 1BB, 1CA, 2CL while enemy had 1BB, 2CA, 2CL, 2TB. The end of the battle looked like me trying to chase down a fully intact BB & CL - they were simply retreating, they didn't even participate in the main action!

5) Ramming physics.
Make the bow of a ramming ship to not slip & slide along the other ship's hull so easy. It should be stuck in the other ship's hull where it rammed into, than slip away like a knife's tip on a glass surface.
So many times when I ram enemy ship at 90 degrees angle to it's hull, the bow of my ship then just slips away & drags all across the enemy's hull causing much damage to my ship in return.

7) Targeting with main/secondary guns.
Clicking to target single enemy ship among all makes all guns fire at it as long as it's within a reach. Alt+click on another ship to fire at 2 ships at the same time. But main guns fire at first selected ship, secondaries at second ship. For example, my battleship has fore & aft turrets & they fire at that first ship, but then that ship is out of reach for one turret & so that turret/gun is sitting idle until the primary target is within it's reach.
A suggestion for the gun/turret that can't can't fire at primary target (because of arc limitation) to automatically switch to fire at second target (if reachable) together with secondary guns while the other turret keeps firing at primary target. Once that primary target is reachable for both main turrets then that turret auto-switches back to the primary target.

8 ) Sinking.
The ship does for example 2-15kn then if it's status changes to "Sinking" it suddenly stops & proceeds sinking.  Like it had 2-15kn  while being targeted & a next second it has 0kn when it starts sinking.  This should be changed! Suggestion for a more smooth stopping WHILE starting to sink.
Also, a suggestion for long/narrow lighter ships to be able to break apart from a powerful torpedo hit or ammo detonation or high-speed ramming.

9) Issue of still aiming at the ship which is sinking.
I notice a lot that my ship keeps aiming at a sinking ship with some of it's guns while having another target locked with other guns. Once an enemy ship sinks, any guns that were aiming at it should automatically switch to next closest enemy & red aim line should disappear from sinking ship automatically.
Also, the (Sinking) notification shouldn't be displayed for too long, 3-5 seconds is enough.

10) Hitpoints.
Let those be somewhere visible for every ship, like 1000/1000 for intact ship, or how to understand those 3 or 29 or 293 or 728 numbers once there's a hit? 3 from what & how many are left? Very confusing.

11) Ship's speed regarding waves.
Designed max. speed only on a calm sea, not possible for a ship with a chosen some 25kn speed to still achieve it in higher waves. 


Improvements for UI:

1) Show my ship's current speed somewhere in right info window (Like Struct: 100%, Float: 100%, Current speed: 25kn) or somewhere, so the current speed will be visible at first glance instead of it being visible only after opening ship cards. Same goes for enemy or any ship: make current speed be easily visible like anything else.

2) When mouse-hover at some ship which is close to the frame/screen edge, that little info window partly or fully goes off the frame/screen which is inconvenient as I must change camera angle & point again.
Make that little info window still be fully visible even if the ship is near the frame/screen edge.

vmOy8ye4IWNq.jpg?o=1

 

3) Implement an indicator which underwater torpedo launcher has torpedo in it & which has not (or reloading).
For example, my ships have 4 underwater torpedo tubes & a reduced amount of torpedoes (thus 4). Trying to memorize from which tube of which ship I fired a torpedo is difficult, especially when my ship fired a torpedo while I wasn't aware of it. 
Make something like 1Fx1 1Lx1 1Rx1 1Ax1 (in case of ship in example), so if portside tube is on reload or no longer has a torpedo it will show 1Lx0. Or however you can make those indicators but let a player know which tube has or has no torpedoes, so he will know how to position his ship when he wants to use torpedoes.

4) Implement some indicators of which guns / torpedo launchers are not usable because of having been destroyed during the battle.
Often trying to notice a non-functioning unit on the structural diagram of my ship is near impossible because of a complete mess of yellow & red if a ship is severely damaged.
For example, I want to fire a torpedo & position my ship accordingly, but nothing happens because the underwater torpedo launcher is destroyed & I couldn't see it on messy coloured diagram.

 

Controlling from keyboard:

1) Time compression.
If "P" key is for pause then make "[" & "]" keys being used to accelerate/decelerate time compression instead of clicking on the screen buttons.
For example, Silent Hunter 4 game had it's time compression controlled by +- keys & it was very useful.

2) Controlling a ship.
Make up/down arrow keys be used for controlling the ship's speed instead of just by clicking on the screen buttons. Reverse is still by clicking on reverse button though.
Make left/right arrow keys be used for hard to port/starboard moves, so there will be less misclicking moments when you need to quickly react to torpedo incoming, especially when time is compressed.
In Ironclads Anthology game it was possible to steer the ship with arrow keys & it was very useful.


Possible suggestion for future:

A 1V1 multiplayer with your designs against designs of other player.

Something like Player1 in waiting room, sets year & country, Player2 comes in, joins Player1, maybe sets +/-3 years to that year & his country. If Player1 agrees he chooses how many ships & which types to include in his fleet. There would be a some certain displacement limit per each year so fleets can be balanced instead of having 10 BBs VS 10 BBs, so Player1 would have, for example, 1 BB, 2 CA, 3 CL, 2 TB, while Player2 would go with 2 BB, 0 CA, 1 CL & 4 TB. Either player can negotiate a setup incl. year (there could be a some chat window?) or disagree & leave, choosing other available players. Possibility to add other players to friends for further battles some other time. Time in the battle cannot be changed by players but adjusts automatically depending on distances.

Edited by Captain Meow
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1- Campaign suggestion: An start option to limit all torpedo launchers/deck torpedo launchers to Torpedo Boats and destroyers. Campaigns after 1910 are reduced to who can dodge torpedoes better, and thus become really dull and boring.

2- Completely rework the visibility system and get rid of the WoWs "ships appear out of thin air" system. The current one is unreallistic, higly exploitable and frustrating.

3- Hydros, radio, ragefinders and such need to have a fixed weight. The current % of tower weight makkes them absurdly heavy, specially on heavy ships.

4- Weights need to be revised in general. With the current systems, creating 1920s light cruisers of reallistic tonnages (around 6000 tonnes) is nigh impossible, unless you give them absolutely no protection.

5- An option for a test sail in the designer in campaign. Currently, there are design flaws (like reduced arcs of fire that aren't detected by the game designer) that would be reallistically detected in trials during the design process and which in game can only be descovered in battle.

Edited by The PC Collector
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am please with the campaign so far.

3 MUST for me so far:

1 Manage you fleet before a battle: we should be able to do our own formation. Also, having a type of Task force, choosing witch ship will sortie together, so we can have a group of ship we know will fight and not a single BB again 6 tb!

2 Tech tree should be more precise, We should have to chose more precisely what we develop, example, focus on 2 inch and not developing the 3 inch etc or the 11 inch instead of the 10 or 12 (A national Caliber!). Also, It should evolve faster, to have a technologies race, and having to redesign often.

3. Supply and stocking resources is THE thing we will need to have a more historic challenge /  game. Spending money on 17 inch torpedoes stock, having 100 of them in each ports to resupply your current ships, it will influence our design. If we developed 18 or 19  inch torpedoes, we must contract supplies and scrap the old inventories. Same goes for guns, if we have ordered a stock of 4 inch rounds, we will have to thing witch secondaries is more logical to put on our ships.

 

Of course, a more functioning campaign should be fun! to start from 1890 and go to 1940 ...

Edited by AdmER
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I've enjoyed the earlier campaigns however when going up to 1940's and playing British I'm going up against CA's and CL's with 20+ tubes each side. AI appears to love building these and making them oxygen or electric. Their preferred tactic is to also run away and dump torps in the process, making for a x5 speed battle dodging a steady stream of torpedoes and slowly slowing them down by hitting them with HE.

Don't even get me started on a fleet battle I had where they dumped 3 CA's worth (about 60 torps) at me at once.... Then they turned and did the other side.

So it brings me on to some improvements.

Torpedoes

1) Once they are detected by a friendly ship, please can they be more visible, make it a hotkey you hold down or something.

2) They have unlimited range it seems, but only tend to be fired once target either 100% range and approaching, or 75% range and away.

3) A manual fire mode for torps would be great as the ship targeting is terrible (It judges at the speed/direction of the ship at the time of launch) so mid-turn it will be way off.

4) An indicator as to ready to fire or reloading would be good. This can simply be using the current UI however where they highlight on the ship to show location which appears yellow at the moment, it could indicate Green for ready to fire, Red for destroyed and yellow for reloading. This way you can tell which side have launched and which are reloading without having to remember for multiple ships.

5) Friendly ship targeting doesn't take in account when launching torps, this is for both friendly and enemy ships. Ships at the back of the fleet that do not have a clear line to target (Friendly ships blocking) will still dump torps, usually killing their own ships.

Guns

1) Auto shell selection appears to currently be based on penetration chance. It should also factor in ricochet chance and any angle that is a high chance of ricochet should force a switch to HE.

2) They also have a habit at the moment of stopping for a short time, randomly. An order to attack again will make them fire.

Movement

1) The torp dodge function is interesting, however I've had it bug a ship out when turning it off again and had to use the AI button to toggle on and off to get a ship to obey any movement order. Otherwise they will just sail in circles.

Campaign

1) I'm not sure that the finances are quite correct yet. I can do a tech heavy fleet and have perhaps 19 ships before my money starts to get tight. Repair, in being and sea control costs need to be looked at 20million a month for a 1940's BB on sea control.

2)  I'm not a fan of the current build for campaign in regard to fleet. It's simply a list and nothing more once the ships are built. Rather than being tied to a port and being around the port or going further afield, it would be better to be able to assign a fleet, or assign to convoy patrol/raiding etc. I tend to build my ships for a specific role, while yes they can be caught in a fight they are not designed for, having them being told and performing their role would be good. 

3) Destroyed ships do not mean the loss of all crew - Lifeboats, rafts, jackets etc. were all used and developed over time. So losing 1200 souls may not be the case, it should be a % based on distance the battle was from port for example. A battle a long distance away would mean it is less likely that the crew are rescued and more likely they simply drowned or captured by the enemy.

4) A visible representation of a frontline effect would be good also and battle should take place along there, with a victory pushing it towards your opponent.

5) Blockades should have a scaled effectiveness and shouldn't simply be an on/off function. This is kinda already covered with convoy % anyway.

6) Intel provides what ships are in the area, this should scale with your convoy amount and radar/rdf ships as to how accurate this is. Being informed of what time, weather, sea state is like prior to battle is beneficial also and having a small map / indicator as to where the ships are likely to be prior to going into battle and perhaps having some pre-set formations to auto deploy into would be great. It's a pain having a screen switch through 2-3 BC's or BB's.

7) Crew experience on game start - They shouldn't all be cadets, it should be a flat 0% bonus across the board. Early battles in campaign just suck due to poor accuracy.

8- Crew provisions/ship supply/rearm should be a slider - Ships should use their range/ammo etc. and then have to re-arm/re-fuel/re-stock, staying out longer means a reduction in these. At the moment ships being caught in a follow up battle are rare.

9) Repair costs are insane, 30Million a month to repair a BS, it's better to critically damage your enemy than destroy them sure but this is just crazy. I can't recall if there is a function to pause ship repairs or even prevent it. There should be a threshold also that light damage (not including destroyed modules) is automatically repaired for free by the crew... bashing out the dents, patching etc. Obviously if a turret or two went bang, they can't repair that at sea.

10) Building ships should be a have an option as to how much you want to pay upfront. A CA for 90M takes 15 months to build, so 6M a month. I have 60M spare at the moment in my funds, my income is good. I want to put 45M into paying for this ship, so the rest is 3M a month for 15 months. At the moment naval funds are just a buffer to going bust, nothing more.

Missions

1) The Auto-end function should stop, the transports that could be left do not count as destroyed when they could be after killing their escorts.

2) Everything is in open water, are we adding coasts at some point? Islands etc. Reefs/shallows where larger ships would run aground/risk flooding effect to move through.

3) A port attack scenario would be great, ships in port being repaired etc. still aren't safe from enemy guns. Maybe recreate subs sneaking into harbours etc.

Ship Design

1) Super Battlecruisers and other Battlecruisers (modern), simply do not appear to be able to lose any speed, this includes via harsh turns, bringing the speed to 0. The only way I've found is to hit reverse, but of course that knackers the engine.

2) The AI design of ships above is crazy. Don't even get me started on the 42kt CA's that just run every fight. AI ship design should be more average/rounded for the role of the ship, not a CA acting like it is a very very big DD where it's torps block out the sun and it's running like a cheetah on cocaine.

3) Engine/hull weight just appears to be too high at the moment, can't get anywhere near to a historical Battleship build as it is overweight.

4) Having a number of pre-designed stock ships based on historical ship designs would be good. Perhaps ask the community to share a design.

5) Export ship design feature to share in the community.

 

Looking forward to future content

Thanks

Ohm

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the maximum amount of bulkhead subdivisions on torpedo boats needs to be reduced. There's no way these glorified shoeboxes could fit 10x3 bulkhead subdivisions in them. Coupled with the fact that they're hard to hit to begin with, this is making TBs ludicrously survivable - more so than cruisers even - and this causes battles to drag out. Instead make it so that they get maybe 5x2 subdivisions when bulkheads are set to "max". 

Defender_class_torpedo_boat.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Implement an indicator which underwater torpedo launcher has torpedo in it & which has not (or reloading).
For example, my ships have 4 underwater torpedo tubes & a reduced amount of torpedoes (thus 4). Trying to memorize from which tube of which ship I fired a torpedo is difficult, especially when my ship fired a torpedo while I wasn't aware of it. 
Make something like 1Fx1 1Lx1 1Rx1 1Ax1 (in case of ship in example), so if portside tube is on reload or no longer has a torpedo it will show 1Lx0. Or however you can make those indicators but let a player know which tube has or has no torpedoes, so he will know how to position his ship when he wants to use torpedoes.

4) Implement some indicators of which guns / torpedo launchers are not usable because of having been destroyed during the battle.
Often trying to notice a non-functioning unit on the structural diagram of my ship is near impossible because of a complete mess of yellow & red if a ship is severely damaged.
For example, I want to fire a torpedo & position my ship accordingly, but nothing happens because the underwater torpedo launcher is destroyed & I couldn't see it on messy coloured diagram.

 

Possible suggestion for a underwater torpedo launcher indicator on UI:

1 - ship has 1 bow/port/starboard/stern launchers each loaded with a torpedo ready to fire.

2 - ship has no bow torpedo launcher installed.

3 - portside launcher has no more torpedoes for it.

4 - portside launcher is on reload.

5 - portside launcher is destroyed (unusable).

0.jpg

Edited by Captain Meow
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, khalv said:

I think the maximum amount of bulkhead subdivisions on torpedo boats needs to be reduced. There's no way these glorified shoeboxes could fit 10x3 bulkhead subdivisions in them. Coupled with the fact that they're hard to hit to begin with, this is making TBs ludicrously survivable - more so than cruisers even - and this causes battles to drag out. Instead make it so that they get maybe 5x2 subdivisions when bulkheads are set to "max". 

Defender_class_torpedo_boat.jpg

When we choose Max. Bulkheads we choose an abstract setting for the max. possible subdivision for the selected hull. When damage is received, you will notice that a single hit can flood 6 or more squares of the TB hull, while an equal hit to a BB would scratch a single square.

The visual subdivisions are just a graphical representation of the damage model, for showing which part of the ship is damaged, separated in sections. It does not show the actual number of subdivisions. Following the example, the TB do not have the same number of subdivisions with BB, since everything is scaled according to displacement.

In a few words, Max. Bulkheads is not something equal between hulls. You just choose to design a ship with a maximum protective subdivision system or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

3) Implement an indicator which underwater torpedo launcher has torpedo in it & which has not (or reloading).
For example, my ships have 4 underwater torpedo tubes & a reduced amount of torpedoes (thus 4). Trying to memorize from which tube of which ship I fired a torpedo is difficult, especially when my ship fired a torpedo while I wasn't aware of it. 
Make something like 1Fx1 1Lx1 1Rx1 1Ax1 (in case of ship in example), so if portside tube is on reload or no longer has a torpedo it will show 1Lx0. Or however you can make those indicators but let a player know which tube has or has no torpedoes, so he will know how to position his ship when he wants to use torpedoes.

4) Implement some indicators of which guns / torpedo launchers are not usable because of having been destroyed during the battle.
Often trying to notice a non-functioning unit on the structural diagram of my ship is near impossible because of a complete mess of yellow & red if a ship is severely damaged.
For example, I want to fire a torpedo & position my ship accordingly, but nothing happens because the underwater torpedo launcher is destroyed & I couldn't see it on messy coloured diagram.

 

Possible suggestion for a underwater torpedo launcher indicator on UI:

1 - ship has 1 bow/port/starboard/stern launchers each loaded with a torpedo ready to fire.

2 - ship has no bow torpedo launcher installed.

3 - portside launcher has no more torpedoes for it.

4 - portside launcher is on reload.

5 - portside launcher is destroyed (unusable).

0.jpg

May i suggest black or grey for a destroyed module. Either way i like the idea a lot too be fair. that and duds for torp too.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the same rounded grey torpedo indicator as currently in UI could be used but divided into 4 segments & with green/yellow/red numbers in them for ready/reloading/empty/destroyed & a total number of torpedoes on board below as is. (about underwater torpedo launchers)

Edited by Captain Meow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, last month's post

The more I find out about naval artillery, the more unsatisfied by the in game gun selection I am. Guns didn't come in uniform per inch/centimeter diameters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_guns_by_caliber and nearly as important is the caliber of the barrel (basically how many shell diameters long the barrel is).

When you add a gun to a ship, sliders for armor thickness for that gun appear on the side UI box for 'armor', I propose having an 'armament' UI box appear for every gun type you use as well. But, also add new sliders to it that can adjust some new things.

Slider for diameter from X.0 to X.9 inch, and whatever appropriate for centimeter. This could have a corresponding impact on weight/damage/range/penetration/etc

Slider for barrel caliber from say 25 to 75. A visual change of the barrel even if for only every 10 units would be plenty. Having a corresponding impact on weight/muzzle velocity/long range accuracy/range/etc.

Slider for shell amount from -50% to +150% current standard, in increments of 10%

A new equipment category for 'secondary on turret range finders' that can mitigate the loss of central fire control or conning tower damage, both a -30% penalty if i recall correctly. If those are lost, this gives the individual gun a small accuracy bonus to compensate. In effect, the ship would stop salvo firing completely,each gun just doing its best on its own, maybe never having the "aimed" status. You can already see these on most of the in game gun models.

an 'electromechanical analog computer' equipment category, ether for each gun type or for the whole ship, introduced some time in the 30s for unlock, essentially one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer Also by the time you can slot one of these, no one is using the conning tower anymore anyway, armoring it should not be especially necessary, and losing it shouldn't cause much of a penalty, just like the penalty for number of barrels lessens over time.

 

Now each gun type can have its own stats, reloading procedure/shell weight/propellant/charge/rotation mechanism/Barbette thickness if 5"+/, its not a blanket setting for all types of guns, which is silly. I don't need 5000 rounds of secondary ammo when i just want a standard+ amount of main gun shells, i might not care to waste tonnage on an automatic reloader for my secondaries, and they don't need to be firing super heavy shells optimized to penetrate, I just want them firing picric acid, exploding on impact, and starting fires.

 

Also a pass on "secondary guns" acting as "main guns" for heavy cruisers especially, ammo pools, etc. From 11" to 9", the stodgy rules apply for number of guns on centerline or side but not for 8" to 6". Centerline and side gun being different things at all on any ship is annoying, that whole thing with side and centerline 9"-20" guns not having the same ammo pool, or guns of the same diameter but different number of barrels having different ammo pools, but in the armor section at least, a X" gun is a X' gun.

 

now some campaign suggestions for the new thread

 

-campaigns at start years that start with a 5.

1895- Sino-Japanese War period, good excuse to add an east asia map and other nations for campaign use

1905- Russo-Japanese War period. This start date would be especially interesting, you start with max tech pre-dreadnoughts and research unlocks dreadnought 1 hulls and turbines right after the start.

1915- Would be pretty much the WW1 campaign start

1925- Would be a good time period for adding 'modernized dreadnought hulls' research unlocked right after the start, and the first 'modern' ships

1935- Maybe work in Anglo-German Naval Agreement restrictions into ship building?

1945- No ship yard size restrictions, actually able to build super battleships, all component tech unlocked, all guns mk5, etc.

 

-enhanced Role settings.

other then 'in being' and 'sea control' you could add other settings that cause certain ships to get certain types of missions. Here are some I thought of. There could be restrictions for what kind of ship could perform each type of role, depending on ship type, range, etc.

Convoy escort- ships set to this are almost exclusively used in convoy defense missions. Enough ships with standard to very long rage assigned to this should all but prevent off screen transport losses.

Commerce raider- these ships almost exclusively attack convoys. Ships with long or very long range could raid on the far side of the map and encounter minimal escorts

Coastal defense- a good use for ships built with very low range, get convoy defense and coastal alarm missions that happen right off the coast

Capital ship escort- (CA, CL, DD, TB) these ships will often tag along on missions that a battleship/battle cruiser/large cruiser finds itself in

Task force- (BB, BC, CB, CA) like sea control, but for capital ships, and in groups. Projects power, causes fleet battle missions

Blockade- have some indication for when its possible to blockade the enemy, unlocking this. The blockade will only be as strong and effective as you have ships assigned to it

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ship Designer: I'd like to add a few suggestions if I may.

1.) Add guns that have in between calibers. For example, 3.5 inch instead of 3 in or 4 in. They could be made nation specific. 

 

2.) Tapered Armor. I don't know if this is currently possible in game but have armor that thins towards the water line and below. I don't know why ships were designed this way, possibly to save weight? You'd think the armor would taper upwards instead of below the waterline to protect against penetrating flooding hits. 

 

3.) Clarification on Anti-Torpedo choices. For example, Anti-Torp one is so and so inches thick armor. Include stats on the torpedo bulge etc,.

 

4.) May want to consider a slight rebalance of earlier hulls. Tweak stability etc,.

 

5.) Ability to have and designate a single ship in each campaign as the Fleet's most important ship. It could have Veteran crew from the campaign beginning and have other slight bonuses. 

 

I have a few non suggestions also. These are observations. 

1.) Shell type and shell propellant choices lead to opposite affect on accuracy. For example, selecting light shells leads to an accuracy loss as opposed to gain. Same with propellants that have a minus accuracy modifier. For example, switching to Cordite gains gun accuracy as opposed to accuracy loss. It could be a display bug though. The accuracy stat I am looking at is hovering over the turret and looking at the accuracy and pen stats in the ship designer. Has anyone else noticed this?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...