>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

[Urst]

3 minutes ago, Littorio said:

I remember that in old versions and I never got an answer to it. I guess there is some kind of general crew attrition or else it's a minor bug.

Similarly, I've had enemy ships arriving with upwards of 1/3rd of their hull integrity missing. I could explain it as previous battle damage and they just hadn't made it to port yet, but they have no other damage and neither do any of the other ships with them.

[Darth Khyron]

There seems to be somewhat of a bias towards the british
As a side note, my task force originally consisted of four battleships, but only two fought. A month later, the other two were attacked by a force consisting of several of the ships I sunk here.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Darth Khyron

[ZorinW]

Played as Italy in a 1890 campaign and was at war with Austro-Hungary and Germany.

I forced Austro-Hungary to sign a peace treaty with me and the entire campaign ended. That should not happen as I was still at war with Germany. 

Even worse, the campaign result showed a Defeat for me against Britain because of very low victory points.

[Littorio]

3 hours ago, Urst said:

Similarly, I've had enemy ships arriving with upwards of 1/3rd of their hull integrity missing. I could explain it as previous battle damage and they just hadn't made it to port yet, but they have no other damage and neither do any of the other ships with them.

That's really odd. I have never seen that.

 

Also but unrelated: I have seen other players mentioning "ghosts ships" in the latest 1.05 beta and now I see what you mean. I know I just sunk a particular CA, and then a couple turns later I see it's name again. It might be possible that they used the name again on a new ship, but this is less than a year into 1890 so I don't think they would have had sufficient time to make the vessel, as CA's take ~ 8 months usually.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

are the new hulls in game already and just havent been listed or are they gonna be added later?

[The PC Collector]

6 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

are the new hulls in game already and just havent been listed or are they gonna be added later?

AFAIK they're going to be added in the full release of the 1.05, not in the beta.

[DieselPower]

Thanks to the devteam for all the hard work and the frequent patches.

 

Campaign is much better, battles are very frequent, and economies seem stable.

 

 The VP bug still exists randomly, seems to be mostly against the Italians.

 

Also have noticed ghost ships or even battlegroups, some that literally reappear the next month. I defeated a large German battlegroup of 1 BB 2BC 2 CA 5 CL 1DD (sunk everything but on CL) and lo and behold the next month the exact same ships in the same group are defending Bremen against a port strike.

The BB is a 100880 ton "Whittlebach", maybe the Germans refloated it? 😄

[Handam]

Refit is initializes ship performance.

 

Refit Before.

 

The design I want.

 

Refit After...

Edited March 7, 2022 by Handam

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Handam said:

Refit is initializes ship performance.

 

Refit Before.

 

The design I want.

 

Refit After...

Is this a convoluted way to say that refit is still broken?

[Phelidai]

The refits do work better than before but… yeah, definitely still broken. I’ve noticed that ammo load outs (HE:AP ratio) get set to defaults after a refit. You also can run into issues when the gun shapes change due to a tech upgrade, making any refit impossible without changing what size your main armament is.

I’ve also noticed that you can’t refit a design that is itself an earlier refit. You also can’t do a second refit using the original design if you already refit the whole class to the original refit.

[vyprestrike]

Since we have the ability to customize width and height of our ships by just stretching the models, can we have the same for length? The current displacement slider is useful but the ability to stretch a boat out even longer would be highly appreciated.

[Handam]

4 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Is this a convoluted way to say that refit is still broken?

In conclusion, yes. That's right.

[Tycondero]

AI still needs quite some work. It seems that it remains somewhat easy to win in a naval battle even against the odds. 

I think that this could be mostly due to the still mediocre AI ship designs. Design by human beats design by AI. The AI seems to still make suboptimal choices and forgets to put emphasis on certain doctrines that are more powerful than others during certain stages of naval design (e.g. torpedoes during the 1890-1910 area) and making this work during battles.

Sadly, I do not know how to improve AI for this game, but I do think that it is vital that the AI will be capable of making more "conscious" choices. ATM it seems rather random, random designed ships combined with a random battle tactic. Perhaps certain doctrines should be scripted for the AI to guide it in making better choices.

[El Jefe]

12 hours ago, ZorinW said:

Played as Italy in a 1890 campaign and was at war with Austro-Hungary and Germany.

I forced Austro-Hungary to sign a peace treaty with me and the entire campaign ended. That should not happen as I was still at war with Germany. 

Even worse, the campaign result showed a Defeat for me against Britain because of very low victory points.

Can confirm this happening, with Italy in 1940. Beat Austro-Hungary, peace signed, was marked as a defeat.

[SodaBit]

Got some ship designer feedback here.
I once again, must suggest that Panzerschiff/Large Cruisers be made their own class of ship, due to how much of a difference in capabilities they have in comparison to both Heavy Cruisers and Battlecruisers.
As it currently stands, Panzerschiff armed with 11" guns are classified as Heavy cruisers, but are an absolute nightmare to fight with when you only have 8" guns to hand, and your armor is only rated at withstanding 8" shells.

Results like this would be outstanding for normal 8" CA's, but are only average when you consider that the 3 CA's on the German side looked like this:

That's not a heavy cruiser. That's a Scharnhorst, being classified as a "Heavy Cruiser." Exeter had a bad enough time fighting Deutschland with just 2 triple 11" turrets, and doesn't stand a chance in hell against Scharnhorst. So, for this design to be classified as a Heavy Cruiser doesn't really work.

However, it wouldn't be fair to classify it as a battlecruiser either, given what is possible to field as a battlecruiser in 1940. 2 examples are as follows:
First, the "Battlecruiser Scharnhorst."

Again, that's not a Scharnhorst-class Battlecruiser. That's Bismarck, with 20" of belt armor and a 13" deck. The heavy cruiser shown above cannot crack that armor at any range, while its own 12" belt can be shredded by "Scharnhorst's" super-heavy 15" shells.
Second example, a USN "Battlecruiser" that everyone here will probably recognize immediately.

Again, this is a far, far more capable unit than the other hull option the USN gets for its battlecruisers, that option being based on the Alaska-class Large Cruisers. Say what you will about the capabilities of the Scharnhorst's or Alaska's, but there's no way in hell either of them could beat Bismarck or Iowa. But on the other hand, I'm not sure any CA has a chance at beating Scharnhorst or Alaska mono-e-mono.
There's other examples I can bring up, like Amagi versus B-65, but the point is that as it stands right now, Large cruisers don't really fit into either the CA or BC role. With the campaign's tendency to match ships against enemies of the same class, having the bigger ship usually leads to victory. For Kriegsmarine players this is going to mean using Panzerschiffe in the Heavy Cruiser role, as these ships can simply roll over any actual CA's that get sent their way. Likewise, for Royal Navy players this means ignoring the Large Cruiser hull entirely, as a 30k ton ship isn't going to get you very far against a Kriegsmarine battlecruiser that could turn out to actually be Bismarck under a different classification.

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

Got some ship designer feedback here.
I once again, must suggest that Panzerschiff/Large Cruisers be made their own class of ship, due to how much of a difference in capabilities they have in comparison to both Heavy Cruisers and Battlecruisers.
As it currently stands, Panzerschiff armed with 11" guns are classified as Heavy cruisers, but are an absolute nightmare to fight with when you only have 8" guns to hand, and your armor is only rated at withstanding 8" shells.

Results like this would be outstanding for normal 8" CA's, but are only average when you consider that the 3 CA's on the German side looked like this:

That's not a heavy cruiser. That's a Scharnhorst, being classified as a "Heavy Cruiser." Exeter had a bad enough time fighting Deutschland with just 2 triple 11" turrets, and doesn't stand a chance in hell against Scharnhorst. So, for this design to be classified as a Heavy Cruiser doesn't really work.

However, it wouldn't be fair to classify it as a battlecruiser either, given what is possible to field as a battlecruiser in 1940. 2 examples are as follows:
First, the "Battlecruiser Scharnhorst."

Again, that's not a Scharnhorst-class Battlecruiser. That's Bismarck, with 20" of belt armor and a 13" deck. The heavy cruiser shown above cannot crack that armor at any range, while its own 12" belt can be shredded by "Scharnhorst's" super-heavy 15" shells.
Second example, a USN "Battlecruiser" that everyone here will probably recognize immediately.

Again, this is a far, far more capable unit than the other hull option the USN gets for its battlecruisers, that option being based on the Alaska-class Large Cruisers. Say what you will about the capabilities of the Scharnhorst's or Alaska's, but there's no way in hell either of them could beat Bismarck or Iowa. But on the other hand, I'm not sure any CA has a chance at beating Scharnhorst or Alaska mono-e-mono.
There's other examples I can bring up, like Amagi versus B-65, but the point is that as it stands right now, Large cruisers don't really fit into either the CA or BC role. With the campaign's tendency to match ships against enemies of the same class, having the bigger ship usually leads to victory. For Kriegsmarine players this is going to mean using Panzerschiffe in the Heavy Cruiser role, as these ships can simply roll over any actual CA's that get sent their way. Likewise, for Royal Navy players this means ignoring the Large Cruiser hull entirely, as a 30k ton ship isn't going to get you very far against a Kriegsmarine battlecruiser that could turn out to actually be Bismarck under a different classification.

This. Panzerschiffs should be grouped with CBs. As most CBs were equipped with 10 to 12" guns, they would neither have a fair match against either CAs or BCs. We need more ship classes.

[Darth Khyron]

I know this was already mentioned, but please, please, please fix formation speed. Always, when not going flank speed, the second ship tries to overtake the lead vessel, raming it, turning, swaying, foiling it's aim. Also, when passing the lead ship, they present an easier target, escpecially for torpedoes.

[Speglord]

5 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

I know this was already mentioned, but please, please, please fix formation speed. Always, when not going flank speed, the second ship tries to overtake the lead vessel, raming it, turning, swaying, foiling it's aim. Also, when passing the lead ship, they present an easier target, escpecially for torpedoes.

This is probably my biggest issue with the game as it currently stands.

I may be wrong here, but I think I've deduced one of the causes: ships of multiple classes (not even necessarily different types, just classes) in the same formation (battle line). In my French campaign I had two smaller battleships leading the formation, with a super battleship at the back of the line, and the second ship kept running into the lead ship.

I don't know if this happens in formations with uniform ship classes, but every time I've experienced it so far, it was with a formation with class variety -- as far as I can remember, anyway.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Speglord

[Darth Khyron]

That also happens in formations with uniform ships.

[SodaBit]

I've got some uh...
"Interesting" campaign feedback, let's say.
To be honest I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature of the Legendary campaign difficulty, but some ships seem to have difficulty staying dead.

MN Saigon sailed into the North Sea this month with nobody aboard. The reason being that the ship was lost with all hands in a battle several months ago in the English Channel. 

In fact, of the enemy fleet's ration strength of roughly 15,000 men, over 11,000 of them are already dead. Most of the enemy's ships were previously sunk, but have been redeployed without so much as a scratch in the paint to fight again. Here's the French order of battle for this engagement:

Of these units, the BC Neptune, CA's Admiral Trehouart, Imprenable, Latouche-Treville, Paixhans, and Saigon, CL's Alger, Dubourdieu, and Laperouse, and DD's Bordelais, Jaguar, and Sirocco, were all sunk in the same battle back in August of 1940. The fleet that was destroyed in this battle only contained a single "living" ship, that being the CA Belier. Neptune was also redeployed with a full crew, though I suspect this is due to the French re-manning the ship with what replacements they had available after they bribed Cthulhu to get it back.
Like I said, I'm not sure if this is a bug, or a feature of Legendary difficulty. That said, if it is a bug, it's probably going to cause a lot of headaches for players who were expecting their enemies to stay dead.

[Iuvenalis]

So this doesn't make any sense...

 

[GhostlyDoggo]

Put this down for a few months then came back to it and im happy about the additions to the game.  But certain things are far worse then they were with the AI. When my ships are firing at the enemy with a low accuracy solution they will fire massively off target I'm talking like almost 45 degree difference from each turret. No way on earth would this ever happen in real life even with widely in experienced crew. As other people have stated I've experienced ghost ships. I've also experienced a round that hit a CA and took out 350 of 350 crew on board. Then said CA continued to fire at me with 0 crew still alive. Again as stated finally I think this game is swinging back towards the right direction but I hope these bugs get fixed soon as it seems buggyier then it's ever been.

[Phelidai]

https://imgur.com/a/js2CCQJ

I didn't know the devs added submarines already!

[AurumCorvus]

1 hour ago, Phelidai said:

https://imgur.com/a/js2CCQJ

I didn't know the devs added submarines already!

https://i.imgur.com/MBxyhfc.jpeg

It's only a few years early, don't worry too much.

[Fangoriously]

Just got to the 1940 french campaign, that I'm pretending i unlocked by beating all previous campaigns, and attempted to build an "experimental battle cruiser 2"

that with 6 whole 18 inch guns, 33 knots of speed, and only ~47k displacement, costs almost as much as the ~74k ton super battleship I designed thats got 8 20 inch guns.

so, i designed an 'old' battleship 4 to the exact guns, armor and speed of that failed 'experiment'

and it requires less crew, weights 13k less, and cost almost 50 million less. If you just select that "experimental battle cruiser 2" hull, its base cost before you do anything with it is $100,000,000.

 

Also, in my 1930 campaign, I almost lost because Austria Hungry kept getting all my victory points, i had to pull out of the Mediterranean and focus on the Germans because my government was trying to sue for peace. When i sunk German fleets i did get my point.