>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)

[ColonelHenry]

9 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

As it should be. TBs, DDs, and small CLs (like the ones found on early capaigns) should be oneshotted by main gun hits from BBs. Anything else is simply not reallistic.

I do think the 100% structure damage needed to sink a ship is a bit absurd, it is really due for a rework since the first Alpha version.  I can live with this 100% structure health bar thing, if we had detailed crew mechanics that would result in scuttling or abandonment of ships when the structure or flooding gets out of control. We shouldn't have to 100% destroy a ship for it to be destroyed. People are people and people will want to live, only in exceptional circumstances in which war will provide many out of thousands of days of constant warfare would we see extraordinary action by a few. These few exceptions shouldn't be the norm.

[German CL mk II guns]

2 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Please. For the love of god, the 1890-1910 campaign are just unfun playing as the Central Powers. The new french light cruisers torpedo spam with this kind of 8km visibility at midday is just not even logical, let alone realistic. And on top of that, just with a tiny difference in weather like overcast, and somehow I can't see a cruiser until 6km in. By that time, yea 4 fast torpedoes in 1910 with 100% accuracy might as well be a magic beam from Warhammer universe for all I care.

Please, make spotting how it is IRL. There have been a million posts about this mechanic...
 

Scouting and screening with DDs doesn't help? 

[The PC Collector]

3 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Please. For the love of god, the 1890-1910 campaign are just unfun playing as the Central Powers. The new french light cruisers torpedo spam with this kind of 8km visibility at midday is just not even logical, let alone realistic. And on top of that, just with a tiny difference in weather like overcast, and somehow I can't see a cruiser until 6km in. By that time, yea 4 fast torpedoes in 1910 with 100% accuracy might as well be a magic beam from Warhammer universe for all I care.

Please, make spotting how it is IRL. There have been a million posts about this mechanic...

I'd get a comfortable chair to wait. I could be mistaken, but I remember them stating somewhere that that won't happen until they rework how the whole map visibility system work, because required modifying the graphic engine. And that's not happening anytime soon, according to the info available. At least not until the campaign has a minimum of functionality.

[ColonelHenry]

2 hours ago, Terminus Est said:

Scouting and screening with DDs doesn't help? 

Ahhh yes, when your scouting ships needs to get right next to an enemy with 4 tubes/side vs your 1 tube/side. Truly fun.

Joke aside, scouting ships were never used to "spot" the enemy for other ships to fire at. That's WOWS bullshit. They were meant to scout where the enemy fleet are on a strategic level.

Also, this game has a major problem with fleet deployment. You cannot have your screening force be actually screening the side you need when starting. And with all the of the battles I have played, the time it takes me to manage the CLs to get into screening position, I'm already taking BB fire and the enemy are already full send at my location. What's the point then? We need a pre battle deployment on top of this spotting fix

Edited March 26, 2022 by ColonelHenry

[Mutsu]

I don't think funnels work that way

[Andvarus]

Something wrong here. I encountered this while doing the BB vs TB Mission.

[slightlytreasonous]

10 hours ago, Urst said:

You gave only examples that are far past the time-range that he was talking about. A DD from 1945 is about as sturdy as a heavy cruiser from 1900

 No I didn't, wrong person.

And if that's the case, I just recommend that Collector, you know, actually put down the time they're talking about instead of calling everything outside it "the exception"

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[Erukanu Senpai]

Just now, slightlytreasonous said:

A.  No I didn't, wrong person.

B. Show me where he actually said "oh I'm only talking about this" instead of saying "the general rule"?

 

You know, you guys can hello kittying pm each other instead of filling up this tread with trash comments ?!?!?!

[Drenzul]

Anyone else finding the game just taking ages to do anything?

Start a new campaign..... takes like 15 minutes to do anything.
Designed my ships, ended the first turn... now sitting waiting to 'Updating relationships'. 
Been there for 10+ minutes

[Drenzul]

Ok turn finally started while I was writing this.....

All my fleets I sent out were split up and intercepted.

I sent out 2 fleets of 2 BCs each
And 2 fleets of 2BBs + 4 LCs each

Battles generated - 3 enemy LCs vs 2 friendly LCs
                                 12 enemy ships vs 1 friendly BB
                                 8 enemy ships vs 1 friendly BB

So basically my fleets randomly decided to split up.......

[Lastreaumont]

Small remark about ship design. 

French campaign 1930, Light cruiser V hull, Impossible to place rear tower IV to VI, even with max beam. 

[Urst]

The U.S. Dreadnought II hull refuses to allow for any gun to be placed in the 4 rear-most positions on the upper deck (this is a 4", but it doesn't work for a 2" either)
and the Large Cagemast IV refuses to allow for any gun larger than 2" to be placed on it, despite saying that up to a 4" gun can go on it.

The position under the side-wings, where I've placed a 4" gun in the bottom picture also doesn't allow for anything to be placed there (despite having a barbette slot) and has no supports, so maybe just fill that in if nothing goes there? At least put a beam to support it.
I'd also like to request that the side-guns be allowed to go up to AT LEAST 6". It's silly that they can't support anything larger than a 5" gun in the most stable sponsons, especially when I can put an 8" gun in the end sponsons

Edited March 26, 2022 by Urst

[Littorio]

13 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I really hope the team is working on continuous campaigns in the next version. 

It really would help stop the constant fleet rebuild at the end of every short war. And I'm very keen to see how prioritizing certain search lines will give you advantage - wars just don't last long enough for any meaningful researching. Plus, choosing who to actually war with and who to make an ally. 

The issue with diplomacy will be this: what reason do we have to fight? This will be more complex than many players realize. As it stands, we fight because we have to, we are already locked in. But deciding to go to war when we have a choice? That will require more stuff on the backend to incentivize us. I am talking about logistics and economic factors. Right now that is all very barebones and opaque. We will need to see that stuff fleshed out a bit before we can have any meaningful campaign. Plus...I dread to see what happens if you are in two separate wars at the same time...oh the bugs that will be...

 

10 hours ago, beepboop6 said:

This is not on the most recent update released in the past hour, 

First off, I also encountered the issue where the other side got the VP for a battle I won, which especially hurt because in that battle I had destroyed their entire fleet of 8 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers and some smaller ships, resulting in a 40000vp win😩, but I see above that someone else reported this and a fix was in the works

The main thing Im mentioning here is that, the ship counts arent accurate. As can be seen from the attached image, AH has 3 BB in the port of Spalato, however in the list on the left they only have 2 BB total

AH has ports and ships that are all messed up. I have screens above showing how they packed 100,000+ tons in a 40,000 ton port. It doesn't surprise me they somehow came up with an extra battleship. Maybe the Germans are just sheltering one there?

 

9 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Please. For the love of god, the 1890-1910 campaign are just unfun playing as the Central Powers. The new french light cruisers torpedo spam with this kind of 8km visibility at midday is just not even logical, let alone realistic. And on top of that, just with a tiny difference in weather like overcast, and somehow I can't see a cruiser until 6km in. By that time, yea 4 fast torpedoes in 1910 with 100% accuracy might as well be a magic beam from Warhammer universe for all I care.

Please, make spotting how it is IRL. There have been a million posts about this mechanic...
 

All we can do is wait and hope. I got them to say in writing a soft-commitment on this one time. Once we have visuals and weather, I think we can begin with spotting some day. If for no other reason, we need some changes because many Steam plebs who weren't around for the alpha have no idea they are being hit with invisible weather/time maluses...

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, Urst said:

The U.S. Dreadnought II hull refuses to allow for any gun to be placed in the 4 rear-most positions on the upper deck (this is a 4", but it doesn't work for a 2" either)
and the Large Cagemast IV refuses to allow for any gun larger than 2" to be placed on it, despite saying that up to a 4" gun can go on it.

The position under the side-wings, where I've placed a 4" gun in the bottom picture also doesn't allow for anything to be placed there (despite having a barbette slot) and has no supports, so maybe just fill that in if nothing goes there? At least put a beam to support it.
I'd also like to request that the side-guns be allowed to go up to AT LEAST 6". It's silly that they can't support anything larger than a 5" gun in the most stable sponsons, especially when I can put an 8" gun in the end sponsons

There are also other towers which have special side mounts which do not always fit. These mounts can be used in flat decks, if those towers are present. You can use the CTRL+Mouse to add turrets near where they can be mounted.

The casemate guns on the towers will be checked.

[beepboop6]

Are the ships behind the lead ship of a group supposed to be zigzagging when in line ahead formation?

[Jyson]

So the biggest issue I have atm is ship not avoiding torps despite the button to do so is on. IMO if you tell a div to avoid torps, they all should avoid torps (or at least try). Especially if they are screening or scouting as you have no direct control

[beepboop6]

After refitting a ship, is it possible to build a new ship directly to the refit standard, the build ship button is greyed out for the refit designs, but not for the original design. 

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Jyson said:

So the biggest issue I have atm is ship not avoiding torps despite the button to do so is on. IMO if you tell a div to avoid torps, they all should avoid torps (or at least try). Especially if they are screening or scouting as you have no direct control

Divison controls have always sucked unfortunately. Just micromanage everything on slow speed. Setting ships to screen and such never seems to work very well for me.

[Nick Thomadis]

Update: 9 (26/3/2022) available

- Fine tuning of auto-design for BC. AI Battlecruisers should focus more on speed, on average
- Fine tuning of targeting & shell dispersion.
- Penetration mechanics slight adjustments (you should more often see hits overriding ricochet/blocks to cause at least a partial pen).
- Campaign Auto-Resolve became more decisive for the victor.
- Some hull repairs (South Carolina towers/mounts fixes, Improved Von der Tann Crane Funnel to allow cross-fire via the boats etc.)

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Update: 9 (26/3/2022) available

- Fine tuning of auto-design for BC. AI Battlecruisers should focus more on speed, on average
- Fine tuning of targeting & shell dispersion.
- Penetration mechanics slight adjustments (you should more often see hits overriding ricochet/blocks to cause at least a partial pen).
- Campaign Auto-Resolve became more decisive for the victor.
- Some hull repairs (South Carolina towers/mounts fixes, Improved Von der Tann Crane Funnel to allow cross-fire via the boats etc.)

Does this affect the game I just started on Update 8 and overwrite the save?

Also my feedback as of U8:

- AI auto-design is at at last getting smarter and more intelligent. I just fought an enemy CA who's only con was having a little bow/aft weight imbalance. But it had period-appropriate armor type and thickness, as well as sufficient primary and secondary armament, torpedoes, speed, and range

- Austria-Hungary actually respects their own port tonnage limits and doesn't somehow cram tens of thousands of extra tons into each port, so thank you Nick for fixing this

- AH also doesn't magically get funds for far more ships than the other nations

- Longstanding question/complaint: why do battles raiding TRs end when you destroy the last warship? Many enemy TRs escape that I easily would have destroyed now that they are defenseless. I don't understand why we are forced to quit right when we can go on a killing spree of helpless transports....

Overall this is much better though, and thank you for the fast updates.

[Phelidai]

The mechanics that decide refit time culd use some attention in upcoming updates/patches. Times are often wildly low or high for major or minor changes respectively. For example, I had a light crusiser with an improper loadout of HE/AP shell ratio. The time it took to change that (with no new techs researched that could have been cause for larger changes) was... 9 months. Nine months to offload some HE shells and load up some AP shells is nothing short of ridiculous.

[Dave P.]

5 hours ago, Littorio said:

The issue with diplomacy will be this: what reason do we have to fight? This will be more complex than many players realize. As it stands, we fight because we have to, we are already locked in. But deciding to go to war when we have a choice? That will require more stuff on the backend to incentivize us. I am talking about logistics and economic factors. Right now that is all very barebones and opaque. We will need to see that stuff fleshed out a bit before we can have any meaningful campaign. Plus...I dread to see what happens if you are in two separate wars at the same time...oh the bugs that will be...

War between great powers was... they usually didn't have very good reasons. Or it came down to money.

But since you don't need a "good" reason, you can make the mechanism pretty simple. Something like:

1. Every region has a "dominant" power that considers it theirs.
2. You can have a naval presence in every region.
3. You can have a trade/economic presence in every region, established based on naval presence.
4. Economic presence boost GDP and naval budget.
5. Everybody wants more money.

If you have low/zero presence in a region, powers that "own" those regions will be friendlier towards you.

As your economic, technological, or tonnage advantage grows in an area, AIs will start to ally against you.

You can only grow your presence to a certain point without fighting the dominant power(s) of the region. So the players' incentive to start wars is to increase their economic share of a zone.

If your naval presence in a given region drops too much relative to your economic presence, any non-allies that consider it "their" region will attack you.

When the AI declares war, it sets a political/economic goal. (e.g., Reduce German economic presence to <10% in Western Med.) If it achieves that goal, even if it's winning, it will ask for a peace treaty. If you continue a war when the AI wants peace, your allies will start to make separate peaces and maybe even attack you too.

Meanwhile, your allies will be inclined to drag you into their wars, and/or ask you for approval (if your navy is bigger than theirs) to attack ABC empire because XYZ.

If you want to make things more interesting, allow screening forces (TB/DD/CL) to occasionally attack you w/o starting a war. If you beat them back, the AI apologizes for the miscommunication and pays an indemnity. If they win, well... who knows.

[neph]

Just lost half my crew randomly? I wasn't fast enough to catch it in the event feed, but a message popped up "CL lost 298 crew" with no associated major hit. Sure enough, almost half my crew are dead. No clue what that's about.

https://imgur.com/apdBU1R

[jtjohn1]

Multiple battles since this last patch and unless they spawn right on top of me the enemy just runs away.  Even when the tonnage is really close or they have the advantage.

Also massive 17/18" armed capital ships with decent armor shouldn't be able to steam at 38+ knots.  It's a VERY steep curve once you reach a certain speed.  The amount of HP needed to go from 33 knots to 35 knots should be immense. 

Speed, Armor or Firepower.  Pick any two If you have Max

firepower the other two will suffer.  If you have great armor and great speed then Firepower must suffer etc etc.  

Not sure about accuracy though since I still have cadets but it seems like you have to be almost right on top of them to achieve any hits right now (1940s with Radar III etcI

[Danz_Von_Luck]

After a few battles in a new campaign the reverse VP seems to be no more