>>> Update v1.05 Feedback<<<

[Nick Thomadis]

39 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

There are multiple points I can't get across here.

1. The ship was 100% before getting hit by 7" shell at the main deck from ~10km, and around 98% before getting hit by 5" shell at the main belt. So no it wasn't because low structural integrity that resulted in small shell penetration which then destroy the engine. It the tiny shells hit armor and then the fire almost sunk the ship.

2. It was standard bulkhead.

3. I'm not sure what is "component used for fire extinguishing" but if you mean sufficient bulkhead then refer to 2).

The fire enough to destroy 3 engines and rudder but the remaining crew is 80%. Regardless of how many bulkhead. A perfectly intact (Struct: 100%) ship getting almost sunk by 2 tiny shells hitting the main belt and main deck being "realistic" is questionable at the best.

Here are two components which you need to consider always for fire extinguishing and overall ship protection:

The game is too complex to advise an optimal solution, but as in reality, unexpected events that can sink a warship should always be a possibility. If your ship was not adequately protected, you lost 21% of your valuable crew (Historically the German Battlecruiser Seydlitz suffered about 15% crew casualties, which are considered the highest for a surviving warship) the game must simulate a related effect. Armor should not be the only way to protect a ship in a game that strives to reflect realism.
 

31 minutes ago, Suts said:

There's a popular thread here all about the wild and wacky things the AI can come up with, as for an example here's Germany's Armoured Cruiser of choice, it isn't especially egregious compared to other cruisers I've seen the AI build (try a 1910s Light Cruiser hull, with the deck absolutely covered in an absurd amount of 5" guns.)
 

Compared to my Light Cruiser design of choice which vaguely resembles a squashed Leander with a rally big mast, but overall much more capable, 11 years older and on a much smaller displacement, something that I firmly believe needs to be balanced going forward.

 

Here's the stat card for the German BB design for this campaign, much less capable and half the price of my own BB design, so on further reflection the economy doesn't seem to be as bad as I had first thought, but this is also not my regular approach for a 1920s campaign, going for a pseudo-fast Battleship and forgoing Battlecruisers, for comparison the AI's BC is around 32million per unit as well.

End of the day hope this feedback is at least useful in some way.

 

Comparing an outdated armored cruiser of 1906, the only one remaining in Germany's roster with a light cruiser of 1915, is not a helpful comparison. The indicated German Armored Cruiser can have many other good variations for the AI, but it will always be an armored cruiser with side guns and characteristics different from the ship you created. The AI could create a similar ship as yours if it has this option. It would be ideal to show something equal, but I can get your point. 

Regarding the money, if a player is able to create overpowered ships with no money limit, then the game becomes too easy for him and he complains for a different reason. In the end, we will find a better balance, if it is needed, after more testing.

[Spitfire109]

1 hour ago, DableUTeeF said:

My BC with 14" belt and 7" deck got hit by a 7" and a 5" shell. And absolutely nothing else.

And somehow the fire destroy all engines and rudder.

This on top of accuracy and spotting issue it almost feels like you guys make this just to irritate players. And we losers can't do anything, not even refund.

So you want cruisers to have no real chance against a capital ship? Or are you just salty your crappy BC got wrecked by a ship half it's tonnage? The only loser here seems to be the 'Flora'.

[mohis]

I have amassed some data about starting funds.  The following are all ITA(myself) vs A-H, starting in 1910.

For context, several updates ago:

ITA start: $589,248,000, A-H start: $456,599,898

 

update before release version:

ITA start: 202,176,000

   BB: 2) 30,698,680

   BC: 2) 23,879,530

   CA: 4) 16,723,960

   CL: 2) 9,208,362

   DD: 1) 4,305,542

A-H start: 556,450,483

   BB: 11) 25,901,640

   BC: 1) 23,653,390

   CA: 27) 7,444,383

   CL: 5) 6,792,666

   DD: 7) 1,845,346

blockaded March, 1910

release (current version)

ITA start:  262,656,000

   BB: 3) 26,760,700

   BC: 1) 31,213,630

   CA: 😎 13,684,030

   CL:  2) 8,341,342

   DD: 9) 2,561,947

A-H start: 541,174,443 + 1 BC

   BB: 14) 16,571,830

   BC: 1) unknown

   CA: 32) 8,029,936

   CL: 7) 5,576,327

   DD: 8 ) 1,646,948

blockaded April, 1910

 

ITA start: $290,304,000

   BB: 4) 25,858,180

   BC: 1) 31,284,770

   CA: 6) 14,494,970

   CL: 3) 10,136,880

   DD: 23) 1,654,615

A-H start: $550,297,430

   BB: 13) 15,402,370

   BC: 1) 21,962,410

   CA: 32) 8,283,043

   CL: 6) 7,229,759

   DD: 8 ) 2,458,535

[DableUTeeF]

5 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Here are two components which you need to consider always for fire extinguishing and overall ship protection:

The game is too complex to advise an optimal solution, but as in reality, unexpected events that can sink a warship should always be a possibility. If your ship was not adequately protected, you lost 21% of your valuable crew (Historically the German Battlecruiser Seydlitz suffered about 15% crew casualties, which are considered the highest for a surviving warship) the game must simulate a related effect. Armor should not be the only way to protect a ship in a game that strives to reflect realism.
 

Comparing an outdated armored cruiser of 1906, the only one remaining in Germany's roster with a light cruiser of 1915, is not a helpful comparison. The indicated German Armored Cruiser can have many other good variations for the AI, but it will always be an armored cruiser with side guns and characteristics different from the ship you created. The AI could create a similar ship as yours if it has this option. It would be ideal to show something equal, but I can get your point. 

Regarding the money, if a player is able to create overpowered ships with no money limit, then the game becomes too easy for him and he complains for a different reason. In the end, we will find a better balance, if it is needed, after more testing.

1. So my ship was just as you show in the picture, standard bulkhead. Anti-flood was only 1 but that isn't relevance here since we're talking about fire.

2. I didn't mean 20% was too much loss, I thought it was too few considering the ship had 9% Struct left and all engine were gone along with the rudder. Every compartment aft of the main tower was destroyed so I can't see how 80% crew manage to survive but the fire doesn't get put out.

3. Seydlitz was hit by 13.5" shell at the turret that penetrate the armor and cause flash-fire. We can simulate bulkhead issue here though since the bulkhead was left open. But my case on the hand it was 7" and 5" shells that hit the "main" belt and main deck. And my ship also had significantly thicker armor than Seydlitz.

Which means my concerns still stand, 92% damage to a capital ship with 2 light shells hitting main belt and main deck doesn't make sense. And 80% crews manage to survive but nobody managed to put out the fire also weird.

[DableUTeeF]

11 minutes ago, Spitfire109 said:

So you want cruisers to have no real chance against a capital ship? Or are you just salty your crappy BC got wrecked by a ship half it's tonnage? The only loser here seems to be the 'Flora'.

Could your enormous brain elaborate which part needed to be fixed?

Although my crappy BC lost to a cruiser half it's tonnage if your brain is even half of a dog you should be able to see where's the problem right? But you apparently don't.

# PS

I don't think I can intelligently communicate with you but if Nick or someone else were to read, this could be even worse since a destroyer could do the same thing.

Edited April 13, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Nick Thomadis]

5 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

2. I didn't mean 20% was too much loss, I thought it was too few considering the ship had 9% Struct left and all engine were gone along with the rudder. Every compartment aft of the main tower was destroyed so I can't see how 80% crew manage to survive but the fire doesn't get put out.

3. Seydlitz was hit by 13.5" shell at the turret that penetrate the armor and cause flash-fire. We can simulate bulkhead issue here though since the bulkhead was left open. But my case on the hand it was 7" and 5" shells that hit the "main" belt and main deck. And my ship also had significantly thicker armor than Seydlitz.

Which means my concerns still stand, 92% damage to a capital ship with 2 light shells hitting main belt and main deck doesn't make sense. And 80% crews manage to survive but nobody managed to put out the fire also weird.

Exactly, you think it is too few losses compared to the structure integrity of the ship.. while I gave you a similar real life example with a MORE battered ship which had LESS casualties than yours. Anyways, if there is a broad issue with fires, we can look to it, but there should be not. Surely, the new HE shell types can cause more fires and more partial pens than previously, and so some ships will be more vulnerable to them. Previously heavily armored ships could move forward "bow in" as tanks and destroy everything which was very unrealistic. The game should now ask from player to use more realistic tactics than just move in without considering any risks.

[DableUTeeF]

11 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Exactly, you think it is too few losses compared to the structure integrity of the ship.. while I gave you a similar real life example with a MORE battered ship which had LESS casualties than yours. Anyways, if there is a broad issue with fires, we can look to it, but there should be not. Surely, the new HE shell types can cause more fires and more partial pens than previously, and so some ships will be more vulnerable to them. Previously heavily armored ships could move forward "bow in" as tanks and destroy everything which was very unrealistic. The game should now ask from player to use more realistic tactics than just move in without considering any risks.

Although, I think the amount of fire caused by partial pen from light shell worth some adjustment. The 5" had what? 4kg explosive or something?

I kinda question whether or not that amount of explosive + kinetic energy can fully penetrate the 14" Krupp 3 armor, I mean why would there a fire inside if all explosion was outside.

Edited April 13, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Drenzul]

49 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

Although, I think the amount of fire caused by partial pen from light shell worth some adjustment. The 5" had what? 4kg explosive or something?

I kinda question whether or not that amount of explosive + kinetic energy can fully penetrate the 14" Krupp 3 armor, I mean why would there a fire inside if all explosion was outside.

Because when stuff outside burns, it makes things hot inside, which then ignite.

And I've played this game a fair bit and never seen anything like what you are describing with a well designed ship.
Did you have any anti-flood at all installed? If not your sailors are basically hauling buckets of water to try and put
out a metal/gunpowder/oil fire which isn't fun at all!

Also the log is only showing shots that directly did damage unless you also select 'low' on the log level. 
How many shots hammered the ship and didn't cause damage but did start fires?
I'm guessing quite a few.

[Cryadis]

Regarding that fire topic of getting hit and ship burned down (mostly):

The main quition to consider a change would be: How frequent does this happen ? (personally something like that occured to me once with a transporter i had to defend).

I single occurence would be more a case of bad luck, although without any components helping there plus if i read the screen correctly the crew was at cadet level there might be a slim chance for that to occur. One of Drachinifel videos on damage control had an example where a wrong decision caused the japanese ship to get lost to fire / explosion.

On the other hand if that happens frequently / often some tuning might be required.

 

[Urst]

I would like to request that this never happen during the campaign if it's not night-time and stormy.
It was day-time and only cloudy.

This was the starting position, not where I'd sailed to.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Urst

[Nick Thomadis]

6 minutes ago, Urst said:

I would like to request that this never happen during the campaign if it's not night-time and stormy.
It was day-time and only cloudy.

This was the starting position, not where I'd sailed to.

Please, if you have this save, or if this happens again, send a bug report, to reproduce and fix it.

[mk4m]

Are there any plans to correct the models of the turrets of the main caliber guns of the French pre-dreadnouths?

Edited April 13, 2022 by mk4m

[Maty83]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you please elaborate "Clown cars"? Maybe show what you consider clown and what anti-clown and use as example one of your own designs? Regarding the initial money, can you check how many millions does it cost the average battleship of Germany, in your example image?

 

I let the AI run rampant on some designs for the French, here are the.... "interesting" ideas it came up with.
Exhibit 1: Terrible firing angles due to secondaries being added in bad spots. Also, despite the stats this ship only has 12.4" belt.... WITH 20-inch guns! You should really be able to fire at least over the 4" quads....

Exhibit 2: It needed some time to happen here, but I've seen it before. Looking at the armament section, the AI doesn't weigh specific turret types it used before as more valuable. Oh and the first turret needlessly uses a barbette, wasting a neat total of 300t. Some of the large cruisers also had better belt than the super-battleship above.

Exhibit 3: Fore weight offset and 2" gun spam. I'm deliberately using shorter hulls because it makes the AI make more mistakes in its build. It should also be noted the design only needed one funnel out of the three seen here. Armour is definitely also lacking as seen on the picture.

Exhibit 4 Aft weight offset, 2-inch guns heavily blocking firing angles on torpedoes:

For the CL I had a design where the AI decided a 58% funnel efficiency was enough, but otherwise it seems apart from its enthusiasm at putting 2" secondaries everywhere the AI can do a reasonably good job with those.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Maty83

[SodaBit]

I've got some quick campaign battle feed-back here.
This is actually an issue from a previous patch, but low behold, it's back.

The dreaded cold shoulder of a lone AI ship.
It has taken me over an hour to find this little bugger, but now that I've found him, it is impossible for him to escape without engaging.
The only way that this enemy is making it out of this fight alive is if he wins it. I have a 5 knot speed advantage over him, so simply running away like he is now isn't going to work. What the AI needs to do in this situation is close the distance, cripple/destroy my ship, and then run away. The longer it spends giving me the cold shoulder, the more opportunities I have to cripple/destroy his ship, as I have longer range guns, and 60 oxy-torps with his name on them, and he'll have no opportunities to return the favor until I get within range of his guns and torpedos. The latter will happen eventually, but there's every chance that several critical systems might be disabled by that point, leaving the AI at a disadvantage when the actual fight starts. So, from a tactical perspective, this is just a bad move on the AI's part, but that's not the end of it.

For the next 20 minutes or so, I'll be clicking on the enemy ship to ensure my own vessel closes the range as fast as possible, with no further input required on my part. Beyond minute course adjustments, I don't have to do anything, no dodging torps, no repositioning in relation to other units, just one ship chasing down a single, stubborn opponent who is only delaying the inevitable. I shouldn't have to tell you that it's boring. Extremely. F***ing. Boring. However, I don't really have any other options, as I'm under a blockade at the moment, and need to take out every enemy I can to lift it. So, I have no choice as to what I'll be doing for the next 20 minutes of gameplay if I want to win the campaign.

[Toby]

i dont really have much to say as the update seems basically fine by me. so @Nick Thomadiswhat is next for the game? also how is the team and all their families is everyone still safe or as safe as can be?

[Lastreaumont]

I'd like to give to the AI my congratulations for the creation of this very efficient CL (1930):

Lovers or torpedo cruisers will probably scream strongly.  😄😄😄😄

I didn't take screenshot of the multi crossed salvos launched by a group of 4 of these CL because I was too concentrate to try dodge them. The worst torpedoes swarm I ever see. The ability of this cruiser to launch small salvoes instead of a big one is very efficient. 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Lastreaumont

[UnleashtheKraken]

Re-posting, because I haven't seen any sign the devs have seen this.  My months-old thread about a problem with fire accuracy against an enemy ship that crosses the firing path to another enemy ship being unnaturally high (near 100% accuracy when firing ship is showing >5%, for example) has not received any dev response.  After this I'll just drop it because it seems like I'm being ignored and I'm not going to bash my head against this wall.

If the problem is that I posted in the wrong part of the forum, I REQUESTED that a mod move this to the issues/problems section.  Plenty of other players have also posted that this is affecting their game.  As of playtesting during campaign, about 12 hours ago, with the latest update, it is still a thing.  The chance of it happening is small, but not nil.  @Nick Thomadis, if your team is aware of this, can you at least say so?  And if you haven't seen this, I get it, you're busy.  I'd just really like to know the devs are aware, or have been made aware.  Thanks!

[SodaBit]

Okay, I've got more campaign feed-back here.
The amount of funds granted when starting a campaign is a bit too low. There's been a significant decline in how many ships you can get at the start of a campaign to the point where it might be a challenge creating a combat ready taskforce, let alone a competent fleet.
Comparison as follows, designs are the same over both patches.
1.05 Beta:
Kriegsmarine: 4 H39's 2 BC's (Bismarck doing 35 knts, lmao) 3 CB/PzShf (9x11", 30 knts) 5 Admiral Hipper's 1 CL (8x7", 35 knts)
Marine Nationale: 4 BB's (12x17", 30knts) 2 BC's (12x15", 35 knts) 6 CA's (9x9", 35 knts)
Royal Navy: 6 Yamato's at 30 knts, 3 Hood's, 8 CA's (8x11", 35 knts)

1.05 Live:
Kriegsmarine: 4 H39's 2 BC's imagine having cruisers lmao
Marine Nationale: 2 BB's 1 CA 1 CL (12x6", 35 knts)
Royal Navy: 6 Yammy's. That's it.

I'll admit, 6 Yamato's is a pretty threatening force, but as for France, their force is pretty meager, and Germany is going to have a very tough time getting through the first year.
An increase in player funds would not be unwelcome, even on legendary difficulty.

[Captain Basilone]

I must say that funding is very lacking all of a sudden. Playing as Britian in 1920s campaign i could barely scrape 28 ships together. Meantime France has a whopping 78. Granted i do use the components heavily but before the update i could play this same campaign and field nearly 100 ships to fight both Austria Hungry and Germany at the same time. 

[Spitfire109]

8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you please elaborate "Clown cars"? Maybe show what you consider clown and what anti-clown and use as example one of your own designs? Regarding the initial money, can you check how many millions does it cost the average battleship of Germany, in your example image?

Please check if one of the other ships in the list of your fleet are "red" incomplete. Just auto-design them to progress fast, you cannot enter the battle with incomplete ships for your fleet.

In your image your ships is barely floating with 9% structure integrity. We cannot make ship internals totally impervious to fire. It would be unrealistic, don't you think?

So here is the issue persisting. All the ships seen don't have any visual errors or red. I have other screenshots of the Italian ships in this fight I tried to make but the images were toooo big its seems. I can provide more if that would help. I also made sure that DD was gonna be AI generated and the one on the other team was hand built.

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, Spitfire109 said:

So here is the issue persisting. All the ships seen don't have any visual errors or red. I have other screenshots of the Italian ships in this fight I tried to make but the images were toooo big its seems. I can provide more if that would help. I also made sure that DD was gonna be AI generated and the one on the other team was hand built.

 

 

Can you switch to Enemy pressing the "You" button. Is there an incomplete ship for the AI? There was a related bug that was fixed, but maybe it persists. Please send a bug report to check if the save is corrupted somehow.

[Hellstrike]

Due to the Yamato-style mounts, it is impossible to place secondary guns on a lot of Japanese heavy cruisers, even with +10% beam. Some other nations also have that issue, but usually it is possible to at least fit some secondaries. Although 5 inch ones are impossible for most nations.

[o Barão]

1910 italian campaign.

Armored cruiser IV visual issue. The hull we see in the panel, in the right is not the same.

[Spitfire109]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you switch to Enemy pressing the "You" button. Is there an incomplete ship for the AI? There was a related bug that was fixed, but maybe it persists. Please send a bug report to check if the save is corrupted somehow.

Oh that IS the enemy ship actually. Yes I shall send a report.

On my team all the ships have no read parts and the game says they are complete but the launch button insists something is broken.

[jtjohn1]

This is all based off my experience as Germany 1940 campaign since that's what I mostly play on legendary and usually will win.

With regards to the low initial funds It just makes me plan things out a lot more.   You have to max out the ships that take the longest to build in the beginning.  Don't worry about trying to start with a balanced fleet since you will be lucky if any additional battleships actually hit the water before the end of the game.

If there is nothing useful close to being finished in the research areas then zero out the research.  There is no way your going to complete the research and then actually be able to use it before you win or lose one way or another.   You need that money to build up to hold you over if you get blockaded.  After the first turn start building your smaller ships that you now have the budget for.  These will most likely hit the water in time to be useful. 

I actually like it a smidge better because the games seem to last longer since I can't really start out with an overwhelming fleet.

I don't let torpedo boats close to me even if I have battleships shooting at me I stop and kill the cruisers/destroyers before they get into torpedo range.  If they do manage to get in range never EVER sail a straight line CONSTANTLY be turning your formations.  I keep the auto evade off until I see that they are shooting somewhere down my line.

I also usually will try to have at least dual 8" secondary's because they are the most effective against the smaller stuff with enough range to keep anything but those carrying 20+KM torps.

I haven't played the non beta much yet but what I have noticed is that it's taking a lot longer to kill things than it normally would.  So far the penalty for having cadets is very annoying (I have 7 BBs all armed with 12 16" guns and 15 8" per broadside all shooting at the same cruiser all banging away and hitting absolutely nothing...)  

I would tend to agree with some of the things said above though.  If I have 18" of the highest level Krupp armor and a CA or CL shoots 7/8" or smaller at me and even partially pen my belt armor I am going DANG!!  But then again it would be kind of boring to be completely invulnerable to the smaller ships (Except for torps) 

I will post more after I play the non beta more