>>> Beta 1.03 version<<< [EXPIRED 20/01/2022]

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all, 

While we are developing the next major patch, we have prepared a new small update that is now available to test in the beta branch. Here is what it includes:

*IMPROVEMENTS*
- Improved the Battle AI in all aspects. It should be more aggressive when stronger, keep a more effective firing distance and maneuver more dynamically. The AI auto-targeting is also improved.
- AI auto-design further improvement to build more balanced and effective ships.
- Ship evasion slight improvement. Ships should more effectively try to keep distance from each other. Some remaining issues will be fixed in the next update.
- Improved Acceleration/Deceleration of ships to be more natural and be affected more from flooding. Fixed also an old issue for ships that were not Division leaders, which made them speed up and turn unnaturally fast.
- Now ports can be damaged in the campaign after successful “Port Strike” missions.
- Ships now sink more gradually and lose speed slowly.
- Secondary guns will now aim more effectively against fast moving targets.
- Shell dispersion for missing shells should not happen so often close to the target.
- AI will be able to auto-switch shell type more effectively, evaluating the angle of the target. Moreover, the penetration estimation info now uses a more accurate algorithm that estimates the penetration chance depending on the angle of the target ship.
- Flash Fire and Detonations now properly reduce the exploding ammo. Moreover, the chance of receiving a Flash Fire or Detonation is directly dependent on current ammo storage, so if ammo is zero, the chance becomes zero.
- Increased the cost of Bulkheads to proper levels according to its significance in battle.

*FIXES*
- Fixed issue with torpedo friendly fire calculations, causing the firing of torpedoes through friendly ships.
- Fixed bug of Division Auto-Avoid option which could cause ships to stall and become non controllable.
- Fixed bug in campaign that caused TR losses to not be displayed each turn.
- Fixed bug that did not allow you to exit the Ship Design if you have previously interrupted an auto-design process.
- Fixed bug that allowed you to interrupt auto-design when pressing the H key during battle load.
- Fixed bug that allowed you to continue the campaign after a peace treaty when pressing ESC.
- Fixed some inconsistencies in the Key-Binding options.
- Some minor hull fixes.
- Some text fixes.

INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:

- Find the game on your Steam Game Library and right click on it:

- Click on properties...

- ... and on the opened window, select from the list the "BETAS" option. On the appearing list, select the "beta branch" to switch to the latest beta version of the game.

- If you want to switch back to the stable live version, repeat the procedure and select from the Beta list "None".

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

We need your feedback for v1.03 in order to release, possibly on next week.

This small update v1.03 will be a precursor to a major update which will come afterwards including:

- Map expansion
- More nations (France & other)
- Diplomacy options and peacetime events
- Task forces and map movement
- New ship models
- More features and improvements

[SiWi]

reads nice, lets check the beta and look if we can help out with feedback

[akd]

Sounds like good improvements and fixes.  Will check them out shortly.

[DieHard_BR]

Thank you, very good news. 

 

[SiWi]

I fought an couple of port strikes and what I notice that some ships, BB's might I add, didn't came out to defend their home harbor (i was attacker).

 

I suggest that ship in an attack port either take ALL part in the defense or at least the most heavy units of that port.

Edited January 13, 2022 by SiWi

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Shell dispersion for missing shells should not happen so often close to the target.

Glad to know! It was becoming a bit too infuriating to see two ships missing every shot from 200m away in the campaign hahah

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Fixed bug in campaign that caused TR losses to not be displayed each turn.

I knew there was something odd about transports xD

In general, I am glad to see all these fixes and improvements!

[Sturmalex]

I did not manage to test the new patch yet, but the notes read great.

Looking forward to try it out and also being stoked about the next patch.

 

Best regards!

[The PC Collector]

Oooh, so the campaign will be actually playable soon? Wondeful! I can't wait!

[akd]

1 hour ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

Glad to know! It was becoming a bit too infuriating to see two ships missing every shot from 200m away in the campaign hahah

I think the change is meant to address this:

 

[vyprestrike]

Opening the settings menu in the main menu after starting the game locks the game up. There is no exit button on the settings to close the menu, hitting escape doesn't close the settings menu, and none of the other main menu buttons work, forcing players to close the game with Alt+Tab or Task Manager.

[Nick Thomadis]

11 minutes ago, vyprestrike said:

Opening the settings menu in the main menu after starting the game locks the game up. There is no exit button on the settings to close the menu, hitting escape doesn't close the settings menu, and none of the other main menu buttons work, forcing players to close the game with Alt+Tab or Task Manager.

Does the problem persist on a restart of the game?

[akd]

Something seems very off in the calculation of engine efficiencies.  As a comparison test, I put something together somewhat analogous to the historical two-ship Delaware class.  The two were built largely to the same design, but USS Delaware had the latest VTE engines (in game Steam M-Exp II), while her sister USS North Dakota was built with 1st gen (Curtis) turbines instead (in game "Turbines").  This was for the purposes of direct comparison, so both were extensively trialed.  Endurances for the two ships in reality:

Delaware - 18057 km

North Dakota - 12149 km

49% gain in endurance with VTE engines over 1st gen turbines with other design factors held constant.  And Curtis turbines were actually somewhat more efficient (power for total space and weight) than the more typical Parsons turbines that dominated the early market (but they proved less reliable in use).

https://navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_bb_delaware.htm

Now in game comparison:

0.004% gain in endurance for VTE over turbines with other design factors held constant.  Turbines seem to just save weight (or gain a bunch of HP for same weight) with no trade-off.  There should be huge endurance trade-off for selecting 1st Gen turbines over VTE-type engines.  With the later New York class, the US Navy even reverted to triple-expansion machinery due to these efficiencies and the need for endurance in the Pacific, before finally sticking with turbines in the following Nevada class due to the improved efficiency provided by her reduction gear turbines.  Nonetheless, VTE machinery remained more efficient for lower cruising speeds, and so still dominated in slower merchant ships until diesels provided an efficient alternative.

One other thing observed while putting this together: the topmost superstructure deck on this hull does not let you place anything while holding CTRL.  You must used the existing mounting points for towers, funnels and guns.  And several of the mounting points for guns (the 4 on the back) give you "border" errors if you try to mount guns on them.

Also, these Dreadnought (USA) hulls don't work at all for most US dreadnoughts as can be seen with the turrets above.  South Carolina was really more of a pre-dreadnought hull narrowly altered to fit the additional super-imposed turrets (some refused to refer to her as a dreadnought at the time because of the total number of guns and her small size compared to other dreadnoughts).  You can see how the shape of the hull and superstructure changed significantly in the subsequent Delawares:

Edited January 14, 2022 by akd

[Norbert Sattler]

Just a minor issue, but when a flashfire happens on an already sinking ship, the text is anchored at the spot where the ship was destroyed, while the wreck keeps moving for a while resulting in this:

[Norbert Sattler]

I also just had one of my ship pass behind a sinking wreck and "ram" the empty space there.

So it looks like only the visible model of a sinking ship keeps moving, while the meaningful bit stays anchored at the spot it dies.

[Nick Thomadis]

6 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Just a minor issue, but when a flashfire happens on an already sinking ship, the text is anchored at the spot where the ship was destroyed, while the wreck keeps moving for a while resulting in this:

Known issue, already fixed for the upcoming update of the beta.

[The PC Collector]

If you're going to make the campaign long already, you should take in account the need for the docks to grow as the tonnages do. If not, later dates are going to be... interesting to play.

[Norbert Sattler]

I finished an entire campaign now and not a single time did I notice any of the ships getting stuck in collision avoidance more and only go in circles, so that appears to be fixed both for torpedo and ship dodging.

That being said, I did notice that ships now start the collision avoidance at a longer range and despite that my ships still ended up colliding far more often with those set to screen, follow or scout than they did before the patch.

Also my DDs set to screening just love to drive between the enemy and my BB close enough to the BB to stop them from shooting, while catching the enemy fire now.

[Iuvenalis]

On 1/13/2022 at 8:33 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

- Improved Acceleration/Deceleration of ships to be more natural and be affected more from flooding. Fixed also an old issue for ships that were not Division leaders, which made them speed up and turn unnaturally fast.

I noticed on a few occasions that when I set a division from loose or normal to a tighter formation all the ships reported being at or very near max speed yet the rear ships were able to close the distance to the division lead. I thought maybe this was as intended, as some ships could over-work their engines and boilers for extra speed for short (and dangerous) periods. For my own suspension of disbelief I accepted this explanation, but I guess it was just a bug!

So my question is, if I have a division of say 3 cruisers motoring along at max speed in "normal" and I change it to "tight", will the AI slow down the division lead to allow them to catch up?

[The PC Collector]

 

I've noticed that if you close the game, and then resume the campaign, the crew pool resets. You should take a look at that.

[Captain Meow]

8 hours ago, Iuvenalis said:

I noticed on a few occasions that when I set a division from loose or normal to a tighter formation all the ships reported being at or very near max speed yet the rear ships were able to close the distance to the division lead. I thought maybe this was as intended, as some ships could over-work their engines and boilers for extra speed for short (and dangerous) periods. For my own suspension of disbelief I accepted this explanation, but I guess it was just a bug!

So my question is, if I have a division of say 3 cruisers motoring along at max speed in "normal" and I change it to "tight", will the AI slow down the division lead to allow them to catch up?

I would like to have that if "Loose" or "Normal" was set to "Tight" then forward ship(s) would automatically slow down until the far ship catches up & then they all go back to same speed.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Captain Meow

[akd]

I’m seeing a reoccurring issue with ships set to follow others or joined with others not being able to properly follow in line.  Most recent example: game decided to drop my 3x CAs into battle in a group and in line ahead. Problem was the fastest, but least armed and armored was put in the lead, so I detached it and sent it looping around to the back.  Once it was behind the other two and roughly on their course again, I dragged and dropped its “card” back into the formation so it would be at the back of the line.  From that point on it wouldn’t hold a normal distance in the line and constantly snaked back and forth behind the ship in front of it in the formation.  The speed slider showed the ship constantly trying to achieve its own max speed (32 kts.) rather than the formation speed of 28 kts even though it was actually closer to the ship in front than the spacing set for the formation (so had no reason to “catch up” with higher speed).

Edited January 15, 2022 by akd

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

7 hours ago, akd said:

I’m seeing a reoccurring issue with ships set to follow others or joined with others not being able to properly follow in line.  Most recent example: game decided to drop my 3x CAs into battle in a group and in line ahead. Problem was the fastest, but least armed and armored was put in the lead, so I detached it and sent it looping around to the back.  Once it was behind the other two and roughly on their course again, I dragged and dropped its “card” back into the formation so it would be at the back of the line.  From that point on it wouldn’t hold a normal distance in the line and constantly snaked back and forth behind the ship in front of it in the formation.  The speed slider showed the ship constantly trying to achieve its own max speed (32 kts.) rather than the formation speed of 28 kts even though it was actually closer to the ship in front than the spacing set for the formation (so had no reason to “catch up” with higher speed).

I also have weird issues like this… sometimes the speed slider show the ship as in sailing at its top speed, but it’s completely frozen and stuck in place, falling behind the rest of the fleet and becoming unusable most of the times unless I micromanage its way out and it un-bugs out, but it never manages to follow the line ever again, even if I re-attach it.

Edited January 15, 2022 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[Dr.Dag]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:33 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

 

We need your feedback for v1.03 in order to release, possibly on next week.

This small update v1.03 will be a precursor to a major update which will come afterwards including:

- Map expansion
- More nations (France & other)
- Diplomacy options and peacetime events
- Task forces and map movement
- New ship models
- More features and improvements

Amazing, rally looking forward to this. Especially task force and map movement may make the campaign much more enjoyable.

Keep it up - I really like what you guys are putting together.

Dag

[Nick Thomadis]

The beta has been updated with the following:

- Flash Fire and Detonations now properly reduce the exploding ammo. Moreover, the chance of receiving a Flash Fire or Detonation is directly dependent on current ammo storage, so if ammo is zero, the chance becomes zero.
- Increased the cost of Bulkheads to proper levels according to its significance in battle.

and

- Battle AI & Targeting algorithms improvements.
- AI auto-design improvements.
- Fixed bug of colliders not synced with ship movement when sinking.
- Various other small hotfixes.

[Spitfire109]

So the error where the superstructure is considered badly placed is still occurring. I hope this is known as a bug?

 

 

There is also this, where if I try to spawn a battle of only 1940 CAs it says the designs are invalid or unselected and I cant start the battle.