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

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Fixed issues of Targeting and shell dispersion.

 

I run a few tests and the shell dispersion seems better now.

EDIT: Sadly a few more tests and the problem show up again.

 

If possible, can you consider implementing a solution to the ladder aiming/cheating method?

In summary, the problem is:

- Is normal to get target acquired solution after the 1st salvo.

- However, if the ship makes a hard turn, the target acquired can be lost and the ship will start using the ladder aiming method.

- The player can cheat and skip the ladder aiming by clicking again at the target.

- But we can ask why is the ship using ladder aiming when doing a hard turn and not in the first time it locked on the target?

-  If the ship is using radar, why is using the ladder method? The radar is not enough to give a good distance measurement and target solution to the target from the start?

- All the ships not using radar should be forced to use ladder method all the time to acquire the target? If yes, how would this impact the gameplay? Some players would probably be annoyed to see the ladder aiming method all the time when switching targets. Maybe is possible to mitigate this by making the ladder method quicker to acquire the target?

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by o Barão

[Nick Thomadis]

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

 

I run a few tests and the shell dispersion seems better now.

EDIT: Sadly a few more tests and the problem show up again.

 

If possible, can you consider implementing a solution to the ladder aiming/cheating method?

In summary, the problem is:

- Is normal to get target acquired solution after the 1st salvo.

- However, if the ship makes a hard turn, the target acquired can be lost and the ship will start using the ladder aiming method.

- The player can cheat and skip the ladder aiming by clicking again at the target.

- But we can ask why is the ship using ladder aiming when doing a hard turn and not in the first time it locked on the target?

-  If the ship is using radar, why is using the ladder method? The radar is not enough to give a good distance measurement and target solution to the target from the start?

- All the ships not using radar should be forced to use ladder method all the time to acquire the target? If yes, how would this impact the gameplay? Some players would probably be annoyed to see the ladder aiming method all the time when switching targets. Maybe is possible to mitigate this by making the ladder method quicker to acquire the target?

 

 

The guns may aim too much offset, they do not home always in the center of the target which was not realistic. The shells also do not spray all over the target but concentrate on a radius. Not sure what else can be done, we cannot lose more time on this feature.

[o Barão]

27 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The guns may aim too much offset, they do not home always in the center of the target which was not realistic. The shells also do not spray all over the target but concentrate on a radius. Not sure what else can be done, we cannot lose more time on this feature.

Image above. 2 enemy BBs targeting my ship. Shells from the both ships are falling in the same bearing, if one shell is coming in the middle then is 100% certain that is going to be a hit. (will not fly over the ship or fall short)

 

Now i am trying to find what is causing the issue. And a possibility can be multiple ships targeting the same ship. If is a 1 vs 1 i can't find any issue. If is 2 or more ships in a division targeting the same ship, then is when the problem starts? i will need to run more tests to confirm this.

 

"...we cannot lose more time on this feature."

Sure, i understand, and until i run more tests I can't say with 100% confidence what is causing this issue.

[SonicB]

On 3/24/2022 at 3:54 PM, The PC Collector said:

About the new ships and model: I like what I see. But since I went to look at the new spanish hulls, I noticed two things: The flag on the hull is still the 1978 one (incorrect one) and the naming list for spanish ships is simply ATROCIOUS!

There should be at least two name lists for different time periods - for instance, 1890-1918 and 1918-1940.

Plenty of names are perfectly good for early warships but sound anachronistic at best for newer ones (such as royal or aristocratic names for German and Russian ships.)

Other times we find early warships named after people who are either children or just not born at that time.

I really second the suggestion that you look to native language speakers with a good understanding of their country's naval history in order to populate both lists. For instance if you provided the UK names for each ship type I would be happy to sort them and suggest a few changes.

[Urst]

29 minutes ago, SonicB said:

Plenty of names are perfectly good for early warships but sound anachronistic at best for newer ones (such as royal or aristocratic names for German and Russian ships.)

Well, the Russians don't turn into the Soviet Union, they stay the Russian Empire.
The Germans don't become the Third Reich, they stay the Kaiser Reich. Additionally, the Third Reich still used names of German Royals. One of the planned H-Class battleships was the Friedrich Der Grosse, for instance.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Urst

[Toby]

so at this point the patch seems to me atleast to be basically ready for the release. at the moment the thign that i feel must be in the next patch is diplomacy. at this point we have enough vessels and map space to have a small but half decent little campaign so i feel that now the game needs to start on diplomacy and if the team are really determined then maybe add the few european nations on the current map but not playable

 

[SonicB]

1 hour ago, Urst said:

Well, the Russians don't turn into the Soviet Union, they stay the Russian Empire.
The Germans don't become the Third Reich, they stay the Kaiser Reich. Additionally, the Third Reich still used names of German Royals. One of the planned H-Class battleships was the Friedrich Der Grosse, for instance.

well actually Friedrich II was an 18th-century king of Prussia whom the Nazi regime celebrated for his achievements as a war leader and military theorist, not for his birth or title. Similarly, the only actual Nazi warship with an aristocratic title in the name was the Admiral Graf (Count) Spee - more famed for the Battle of Coronel than his relatively lowly title.

So older battleship names rooted in aristocracy for its own sake, such as Grosser Kurfürst, Markgraf, Prinzregent Luitpold and so on, would never have been considered.

As for the alt-history perspective, well, even if we ignore that it just feels anachronistic, I would point out there are other names that just don't fit in the later period. I'm more an expert on British warship names and a 1940s ship called Royal Albert (originally named in the mid-19th century to suck up to Queen Victoria) just feels weird.

Edited March 31, 2022 by SonicB
edit for clarity

[Urst]

2 minutes ago, SonicB said:

well actually Friedrich II was an 18th-century king of Prussia whom the Nazi regime celebrated for his achievements as a war leader and military theorist, not for his royal birth or title. Similarly, the only actual Nazi warship named after an aristocrat was the Admiral Graf (Count) Spee - more famed for the Battle of Coronel than his relatively lowly title.

So older battleship names rooted in aristocracy for its own sake, such as Grosser Kurfürst, Markgraf, Prinzregent Luitpold and so on, would never have been considered.

As for the alt-history perspective, well, even if we ignore that it just feels anachronistic, I would point out there are other names that just don't fit in the later period. I'm more an expert on British warship names and a 1940s ship called Royal Albert (originally named in the mid-19th century to suck up to Queen Victoria) just feels weird.

Reminder that Anachronism is something being portrayed before its invention

Edited March 31, 2022 by Urst

[SonicB]

1 minute ago, Urst said:

Reminder that Anachronism is something being portrayed before its invention

Nope, not necessarily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism

[vyprestrike]

The IJN is still critically broken in custom battles; it's not possible to make ships of certain classes. 

There's nothing wrong with this DD. It's an IJN DD hull, all required modules are in place, no save editing was done. I don't know what I'm doing wrong when the game tells me a hull that's called "Experiment Destroyer" doesn't fit the required type for a Destroyer.

[Littorio]

On 3/29/2022 at 9:43 PM, beepboop6 said:

Do we know what the game is actually doing as it goes through the whole five years pre campaign?

Making ships for all the AI nations.

On 3/29/2022 at 10:30 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

- Now the ships can be lost due to casualties: When a ship receives more than 70% casualties it surrenders, which is considered a ship loss, during combat.

- Fixed sinking animation jitter (ships changing to sinking animation effect instantly, losing frames).

- Fixed Opposite VP bug of the campaign (definite fix).

Thank you for these Nick. The jitter needed to go and you listened to us. Thank god the VP bug is fixed. I'm excited to test out the casualty mechanic.

On 3/29/2022 at 10:54 PM, Werwaz said:

Does anyone else notice that in the campaign that Austria always spams small battleships with the biggest possible guns and torp laden heavy cruisers?

I always wondered how they were able to quickly replace losses, since they get their battleships back in only a year and it takes mine 3 years to build

No, what year are you playing? In 1890 they tend to make weirdly under-armed CLs and heavily armed CAs, but the latter don't always have torps. Hell, sometimes the CLs don't even have them.

On 3/29/2022 at 11:16 PM, AurumCorvus said:

Also, a more dynamic skybox would be necessary to make this really work. Nonetheless, as a placeholder mechanic, I can kinda accept the timer. 

Skybox updates are desperately needed, plus physical weather.

On 3/30/2022 at 12:14 AM, neph said:

Okay: bug report time. If the first hit on a ship is BLOCKED, it seems to deal an unusually high number of casualties. Thanks for taking a look!

Also: casualty % death is amazing. Thank you! Perhaps it should be slightly varied by crew size? eg: spacious quarters mean you need to lose more to die, & cramped less?

This is a something I have heard other people report, but never seen myself. I will keep an eye open. Also the idea of losing more or less crew based on quarters is interesting...

4 hours ago, Toby said:

so at this point the patch seems to me atleast to be basically ready for the release. at the moment the thign that i feel must be in the next patch is diplomacy. at this point we have enough vessels and map space to have a small but half decent little campaign so i feel that now the game needs to start on diplomacy and if the team are really determined then maybe add the few european nations on the current map but not playable

 

Not at the expense of mechanics. Diplomacy and map extension should not be undertaken just for it's own sake. It should not be rushed.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Littorio

[Urst]

7 minutes ago, Littorio said:

No, what year are you playing? In 1890 they tend to make weirdly under-armed CLs and heavily armed CAs, but the latter don't always have torps. Hell, sometimes the CLs don't even have them.

I started in 1900 and Austro-Hungary had 56 battleships and 32 Heavy Cruisers.
The next year they had ~25 battleships.

[Skeksis]

On 3/30/2022 at 6:15 AM, Littorio said:

You can't have it both ways

Considering beam/draft customization and ally battle involvement has virtually gone through without any major hiccups (in hindsight), it wouldn’t surprise me that we might get an interim release with diplomacy based on the current 5 nations. With a full campaign you’ll still get waring and allying nations between the current 5, like 5 could be enough.

Continuous campaign issue discovery must be next on the agenda, though it probably a given that diplomacy will be in the next version anyway.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Skeksis

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Considering beam/draft customization and ally battle involvement has virtually gone through without any major hiccups (in hindsight), it wouldn’t surprise me that we might get an interim release with diplomacy based on the current 5 nations. With a full campaign you’ll still get waring and allying nations between the current 5, like 5 could be enough.

Continuous campaign issue discovery must be next on the agenda, though it probably a given that diplomacy will be in the next version anyway.

Well then I guess we must agree to disagree. I don't believe that further developments in this area do anything concrete to help the game for long, but instead offer a illusion to the masses. In other words, further expansion before refinement only helps Steam ratings.

[Fishyfish]

With just about every "new" hull I played with this happened with all parts. Towers, guns, stacks, they mount in the air above the hull as seen, that is the part clicked into place.

Also major audio error of two perhaps three instances of the background music playing over each other.

Just updated to the most recent beta. 

 

"New hulls" See lots of copy paste.  

 

[o Barão]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The guns may aim too much offset, they do not home always in the center of the target which was not realistic. The shells also do not spray all over the target but concentrate on a radius. Not sure what else can be done, we cannot lose more time on this feature.

I recorded a small video. I hope this help in understanding the issue i am talking about. In this example my 2 BB are targeting the enemy BB . In all salvos the shells majority will land in an area to the target port side. The exception are the shells coming from the middle. This ones will always hit the target.

 

[SodaBit]

I have some quick auto designer feedback here:
Chinese Empire took a bit long to auto-design a BB, and so they sent this into battle:

I'm not entirely against this design, but I'm not sure how well it is going to do without a main tower. This isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing, it only tends to happen when the auto-designer takes a long, long time in designing a certain ship that it'll just start breaking rules.

[Littorio]

Issue Feedback as of Update 12:

1. I have noticed that shells at close ranges are passing right through enemies sometimes. They are not overpens, they just pass physically through the models without interaction. I know that this must be some bug from all the tweaks to shell dispersion and inherent to the fact that each projectile is not a physical object using in-game physics, but essentially nothing more than a image.

2. Torpedoes at times can do this too. I have seen certain ships "survive" contact with 2-3 torps from different directions and angles. They just pass right through the model without physically interacting with it at all and continue on their course.

3. Cowardly enemies seem to be slowly returning. While not quite as bad as it had been in the past, ships of various types seem to be fleeing very early again. BBs and CAs run from CLs, and I suspect it's the torpedo logic. But some of these vessels are supposed to be protecting TRs and they just steam away leaving the TRs defenseless.

4. Austria-Hungary breaking their own port tonnage limits at game start with overcrowded ports was fixed before, but in this most recent update the new campaign I started had all three of their ports in the red and around 10,000 tons overweight.

5. There have been some graphical issues on the battle maps the last few updates. I have noticed that the green "directional lines" and arrows, whatever you want to call them, are often almost completely obscured. At first, I didn't know what was causing this, but then I noticed it happens to be the sea itself that covers them. The lines clip in and out of the sea surface, moving with the plane of the hull itself. As the ship dips lower in the water, so too does the green graphical indicators. You can also see this happen with the weapon range circles. The bug is not consistent and happens intermittently.

6. Please make the Strait of Messina passable to vessels. This was a fundamentally very important waterway for all of Mediterranean naval history. Maybe it doesn't matter for time of travel as far as the game is concerned, but it is visually very off-putting to see a ship traveling from Messina to need to route all the way around the entire island of Sicily vs. simply sailing south through the Strait........

7. And once again I just feel the pressing need to reiterate this point - no matter what you add or not in the next coming updates, please strongly consider changing how ships return to port, whether damaged or not. It is extremely annoying and time consuming to spend the beginning and end of every turn (after fighting the battles I am forced into), to have to check each port in my country to see where my ships decided to steam off to after their latest engagements. It is completely nonsensical where some of these ships end up, and it has real effects as far as power projection is concerned because they end up in different bodies of water.

Even if this were not true, it is extremely annoying and tedious to the point of not making things fun. I don't want to spend multiple periods each turn finding ships and moving them back where I originally wanted them. I know you are afraid of overcrowding ports past tonnage limits [except for A-H it seems ;)], but this would not be a problem if every ship simply returned to where it departed. If a ship leaves Taranto, it should always return to there unless it is sunk, or else you are modeling that it is too badly damaged to make it that far, and so thus must return to Bari (or Ancona) instead.

In this case, make it so that a ship normally assigned to Bari will instead return home to Taranto, essentially performing a 1-1 swap of port placement. You can justify this logically in your head as the admiral calling that ship on the radio and informing the captain that a sistership needed to take their normal berth in port for emergency repairs, so since they are still at sea and thus mobile, to please route to the next closest friendly port. This can be temporary if desired, until the first ship finishes the emergency repairs, or else permanent, a swap of these two vessels among divisions and squadrons of the same class of vessel.

But this port jumping between ships of all types after every mission needs to end. Sometimes ships return to distant ports 1000s of km away from where they started, for literally no reason...as in, they were never in that sea, never on patrol there, never fighting there. Instead, they just decided to f@@@ off and go on a little pleasure cruise and vacation. I can't see any logic to this system as currently designed, and it is my largest issue with the campaign since day 1.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Littorio

[beepboop6]

The french destroyer leaders towers are missing their smoke interference values

[Candle_86]

I do have to say letting AI ships join me in battle is just annoying, the ships arn't even comparable to what I build, either slower, under armored or under gunned, and the only smart thing to do wtih the AI's ships is to kick them out of my formation and order them to retreat, can we just get an option to prevent the AI from joining our fleets, they are more a hinderance than a help, and if not can we at least keep them in their own divisions, have my 33kn Torpedo boats grouped with Frances 28kn boats that felt need 3 4in guns and 6 3in guns and a single torpedo with no reloads means i have to dismiss it then have my torpedo boats regroup right into a line before i can make an attack run for instance.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Candle_86

[The PC Collector]

13 hours ago, SonicB said:

As for the alt-history perspective, well, even if we ignore that it just feels anachronistic

I disagree. If the German Reich keeps being the German Reich, then the old aristocratic names still fit. Only is there is a change of government, it could make sense, and as far as it goes for historical figures, not even then.

As an example, a real situation: When the II republic happened in Spain, the Alfonso XIII España-Class battelship, which was named after the king which has been deposed, was renamed as España (the original España had been lost a few years earlier) but her sister ship the Jaime I, named after a historical XII Century king, retained her original name. And that happened in 1931.

[DableUTeeF]

On 3/31/2022 at 5:40 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

The guns may aim too much offset, they do not home always in the center of the target which was not realistic. The shells also do not spray all over the target but concentrate on a radius. Not sure what else can be done, we cannot lose more time on this feature.

I observed that sometime, actually most of the time at long range, I hit ships around the target instead of the target itself. Which means it is already possible to shoot at the sea and see if the shells hit something.

Currently the bullets are calculated whether they'd hit the aimed target or not BEFORE they even leave the barrels. And this is the start of the whole problem.

So I'm curious if it is possible to just remove the "hit probability" entirely and have the ship just lead the target at the current velocity vector and the shells just stays in the circle around that area?

Or maybe have the current "hit probability" as bonus chance while the shells spread more realistically.

I Just bought the game recently and haven't read all previous discussion so apologize if this has been discussed before and if possible please point me to the previous discussion so I can read it.

While I understand that it is difficult to waste so much time on a single feature but for every player this is clearly a bug.

Also about 4 barrels turret being less accurate. Did anybody ever heard of the original plan for the USN North Carolina class back when the London naval treaty still limiting the gun caliber to 14 inch? The US clearly chose 3x four barrel 14" turrets, which can be changed to three barrel 16", instead of three barrel 14" and two barrel 16" which they even already have. While I saw some explanation but none of that make enough sense to me.

I love the core concept of the game but these accuracy and spotting rules ruined all the fun.

Edited April 1, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[SonicB]

8 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I disagree. If the German Reich keeps being the German Reich, then the old aristocratic names still fit. Only is there is a change of government, it could make sense, and as far as it goes for historical figures, not even then.

As an example, a real situation: When the II republic happened in Spain, the Alfonso XIII España-Class battelship, which was named after the king which has been deposed, was renamed as España (the original España had been lost a few years earlier) but her sister ship the Jaime I, named after a historical XII Century king, retained her original name. And that happened in 1931.

If anything, that proves the point I made about German ship names in the Nazi period. Alfonso XIII was named after a recent monarch because he was a monarch currently or recently in power. Jaime I was named after a much earlier monarch because of his accomplishments as a historical figure.

Therefore it makes perfect sense for 1930s Germany to have a Friedrich der Grosse or Kaiser Barbarossa, but not a Kaiser Wilhelm II or the other examples I mentioned. Similarly, a post-revolutionary Russian ship could be named Alexander Nevsky in spite of his bourgeois, degenerate noble title simply because he was very good at killing Germans.

Even if the monarchy continues, aristocratic names change. The pre-dreadnought HMS King Edward VIII was named after the current monarch when she was launched. No-one seriously thought about re-using the name in the 1930s. Instead they chose HMS King George V after the current ruler's father.

Plus there are non-aristocratic ship names that just fall out of fashion and seem anachronistic (specifically, parachronistic - thank you @Urst ) For example, HMS Terrible, for the non-English native speakers, used to mean 'fear-inspiring' but later came to mean 'very bad.'

[DableUTeeF]

Issue feedback on Mar 31 update.

1910 German campaign.

My armored cruisers with battlecruiser grade armor get hit by less than 10 small guns just randomly sunk due to extensive fire despite that damage supposed to be categorized as "light" after the battle.

This happened after the update since I played this exact campaign before last week and I built almost identical cruisers.

I can't reproduce the problem with other nations but can make similar German cruisers and get the same result.

Also,

AI is now a lot worse, more prone to run away without even spotting anything. And for god sake remove that stupid spotting range already!!

.

Edited April 1, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, SonicB said:

Similarly, a post-revolutionary Russian ship could be named Alexander Nevsky 

Nay, this is against Soviet naval traditions. Before the Second World War, Soviet ships were usually named after famous heroes of the revolution, not necessarily Russians heroes. Revolutionary events were also popular, such as the Paris Commune, the Communist International, or the October Revolution itself. Less popular, but more familiar to the world, was the manner of naming ships according to the regions of the country. For example, cruiser Red Caucasus  or battleship Soviet Union.