What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*

[Littorio]

5 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Nobody misses the weather effects and nightbattles? Nobody misses representation of sea state and wind? Imagine trying do do battleship ambush missions during the night and snowstorm. 

I have mentioned this many times, and most recently above. It should be a priority over many of the other things they have done/are doing.

[Mr Vidicord]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:33 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

- The different guns on diameter and length caliber will also vary according to the 3D model used for them. Guns of different nations that are large or have a shorter barrel than others of the same caliber and technology, will not be identical as now, but will have different stats accordingly.

Does that mean we can change what gun model to use?

[elkev]

More control on torpedos may help with both player and AI usage.

 

While a prior post suggested multiple launch profiles ( narrow, normal, wide) and the ability to launch a single torp from a multi torp launcher. The counter to that was that the player would get an advantage over the AI. I think adding all those options would be too much at this time.

 

I think just updating fire control per mount would help in general. Have each deck launcher a separate launcher control like primary and secondary guns are split up.

 

In earlier years where you have only a 1k range but may have 2-3 double launchers you arent sending 4-6 torps into a CL when you only need 2. Also if a CL was blocking you from a run on a BB you could launch one mount and still have a chance to go after the BB with the remaining loaded mounts.

 

In later years if programed so it may help break up the AI from launching all at once in one massive wave from 9k away. Could also prevent the "fake out" move drawn on the other post. Lets say you fake out a big launch and then run your big guns into closer range only to find out several of the enemy ships held back a mount or two and launch a second smaller wave.

[Hyperion]

On 4/28/2022 at 10:29 AM, Littorio said:

These are all well and good, for sure, and I am most excited about the detailed citadels. Anything that improves shipbuilding to make it more realistic is a fine addition. However, I still see an overall emphasis on adding new things versus fixing existing things. What we need most is a pause in this mentality of build build build to improve what already is in game. Namely:

- I have said it many times and must state it again. We need an overhaul on how ships return to ports, whether alone, or in task force, whether damaged or not. The current system is completely illogical, even for it's stated purpose of preventing "overfull" ports with too much tonnage in them. There are simple ways to prevent this. The current system of port-shuffling most of your ships every turn is extremely tedious, wastes time, and is the #1 factor making me not want to actively play this game. I am tired of figuring out which distant port my vessels have steamed off to every single turn.

- Naval Intelligence anyone? This should be a priority for campaign as it is, far more than simple "expansion." As it stands, test an intelligence system while the game is still relatively small, and uncomplicated. Expansion will just make it harder on the engine, more to keep track of. We need to be able to know what to build against, what vessels the enemy might have in which ports. This was crucial to naval warfare historically, and should be a top priority over simply making the game larger to appease Steam people dreaming of a world war...

- Lastly, I would still like to see, and have been pushing for since the autumn, an overhaul to visual backgrounds/weather. This is crucial in it's own right for full immersion and for the game to make sense (penalties to accuracy for being in a "full gale" while the sky and sea look normal???). But, it is also a stepping stone on the path to the mythical spotting redo that we all want to see someday. How can we have a true naval wargame with barely any visual differentiation and no true weather?

No, they are doing a good job already.

 

This game is focused on building. 

[Zuikaku]

9 hours ago, Littorio said:

I have mentioned this many times, and most recently above. It should be a priority over many of the other things they have done/are doing.

Implementing representation of the weather would solve many complaints on spotting. While weather is somewhat represented, we see nice ,clear, blue sky and calm sea. And then a destroyer pops out of nowhere 3km from your battleship. Yes, somewhere up and left there is info that visibility is low and it is dusk and sea is not calm, but all you can see is your ships on the bright sunny day. You can not see fog or wind. Immersion killer! 

And regarding wind, does it have any impact on targeting?

[Nagato]

Is anyone know when 1:06 patch is to be released? I hope soon.

Really hope that with exception of long campaign will bring lot more. Is there gonna be change in map design? Will it include eventually rest of the world?

What kind of hulls will be added as well if there will be more superstructures, funnels and turrets.

And i really hope they fix this bug with AI. I mean recent game, i played with Britain in 1900. I got dreadnoughts and battlecruisers but AI still holds to original starting ships. It didn't had any battlecruiser despite i unlock it? I played in normal mode and even with cheats (using WeMod, purley for fun) nothing AI remains on its standard ships. Even if you use cheats for example enemy should still need to follow your tech, it doesnt.

[o Barão]

11 hours ago, Littorio said:

I have mentioned this many times, and most recently above. It should be a priority over many of the other things they have done/are doing.

The top priority is the full campaign experience. Diplomacy, alliances, peace time mechanics. This is without any doubt the most important thing right now, and is what is coming in the next update (1st version). After that then I agree battle improvements should be considered: weather/night battles, high resolution sky textures, shell dispersion fix, formations and AI improvements, etc...

[Nagato]

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

The top priority is the full campaign experience. Diplomacy, alliances, peace time mechanics. This is without any doubt the most important thing right now, and is what is coming in the next update (1st version). After that then I agree battle improvements should be considered: weather/night battles, high resolution sky textures, shell dispersion fix, formations and AI improvements, etc...

That is important yes but then we need more countries (and their campaigns) and more hulls, superstructures, funnels, guns/turrets...

[TiagoStein]

Every time one of these updates release my own development company suffer since I tend to pass  too many hours playing the game

[TiagoStein]

On 5/7/2022 at 11:52 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

If this is happening then this is a bug that we must fix. AI must develop new designs and built them.

It happens  but not as absolute stagnation as he implies. The AI is evolving, but  what I think he meant is, if we make a breakthrough, like for example  the dreadnought, then  other nations should get a bonus to develop that (as in real world everyone   noticed that some of these ideas were too good to ignore) The AI seems now to continue evolving in a random way even when someone else had a breakthrough that changed the game completely.

[vyprestrike]

On 4/29/2022 at 1:54 AM, Zuikaku said:

Dud torpedoes are going to devalue destroyers? No, they are going to put them in the right place. Torpedoe attacks were hard to conduct but devastating with a bit of luck. What you want is the guarantee that any risk you undertake with destroyers will pay off all the time. Well, luckilly no more! 

Also sea state should also affect torpedo performance. 

Torpedo attacks in this game are a joke. There are Russian and Austro-Hungarian Super BB hulls that can take less than 100 damage from 24 inch torp hits with minimal flooding. Taking a risk with destroyers does not pay off against these hulls and with dud torpedoes the problem will be even worse. I have no clue where you got this idea of torpedoes being devastating from, but I've gotten to a point now where I don't even have hydro or sonar on my battleships because torpedoes don't do enough damage to justify the extra weight.

[Nagato]

7 hours ago, vyprestrike said:

Torpedo attacks in this game are a joke. There are Russian and Austro-Hungarian Super BB hulls that can take less than 100 damage from 24 inch torp hits with minimal flooding. Taking a risk with destroyers does not pay off against these hulls and with dud torpedoes the problem will be even worse. I have no clue where you got this idea of torpedoes being devastating from, but I've gotten to a point now where I don't even have hydro or sonar on my battleships because torpedoes don't do enough damage to justify the extra weight.

Yep once in 1930 or 1940 camapigns AI spam torps like crazy. I got entire battlegroup in tight formation get to close to enemy and got a massive swarm of torpedoes, from eight ships, two instantly sunked, two sunked due heavy flooding, and other two heavily damaged. AI love torps little bit to much. I wonder what will be once mines were introduced. Oooh it will be quite interesting.

[SpardaSon21]

7 hours ago, vyprestrike said:

Torpedo attacks in this game are a joke. There are Russian and Austro-Hungarian Super BB hulls that can take less than 100 damage from 24 inch torp hits with minimal flooding. Taking a risk with destroyers does not pay off against these hulls and with dud torpedoes the problem will be even worse. I have no clue where you got this idea of torpedoes being devastating from, but I've gotten to a point now where I don't even have hydro or sonar on my battleships because torpedoes don't do enough damage to justify the extra weight.

If you don't have one of those ridiculously OP super-BB hulls that can get up to 98% damage reduction for gunfire, assuming of course you can actually pen them thanks to their ricochet chances, yes, torpedoes are horrifying since there's more fish in the water from AI fleets than if you were to visit an aquarium.

[Nagato]

If you encounter enemy fleet that have larger number of destroyers and cruisers of course those would spam torpedoes en mass. Without sonar, it is basically death trap. I usually keep light cruisers facing closest to enemy fleet to shield my battleships and battlecruisers and heavy cruisers between light and big ships so that even if torps came and hit my defense units they dont hit my heavy ones.

But its not only torps, 1940 campaigns enemy battleships often have quite big caliber guns on their BB's. I recently start new camapgin with Germany set in 1940, my BBs have only 15' and 16' calibers, British BBs had 19' and French 18' could you imagine my surprise when those beasts start shelling my fleet, not only avoding torps but also massive 18 and 19' shells, it forced me to built an H class battleship in response:) making litterally my 15-16' bbs obsolete (although i did kept all six of them since they were still quite usefull in cleaning DD's and CLs).

[Skeksis]

Ports with shipyards and construction capacity.

At the  moment every port can construct ships with unlimited capacity. I.e. deploy them anywhere into the campaign without consequence. The only governor is finances or the monthly balance.

I was wondering if this should change to only selective ports to have shipyards and those shipyards to have a construction capacity limit and/or varying class ability.

The results should be:

• Adds a strategic layer where the player has to consider where they can build ships and there actual fleet assignment or movement thereafter.
• Regulates capacity.
• Adds important levels to ports, i.e. considering which ones to acquire, shipyard or not.
• With varying class ability, only some ports can construct battleships, or only destroyers. As a limited resource.
• When shipyards are at max construction capacity the player/nation has to build ships elsewhere or purchase dock space from allies or wait until there are some free space/docks.
• When ships are completed, they then may have to travel through hostile waters to join fleets.

Campaign-wise, there should be a limit on how nations deploy ships, especially with ports/shipyards acquired on the other side of the world.

PS, but ports without shipyards should have better economic returns, better cargo shipping capacity, like trade ports, giving choices to the player or headaches!  

Edited May 11, 2022 by Skeksis

[MiWe]

20 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Ports with shipyards and construction capacity.

At the  moment every port can construct ships with unlimited capacity. I.e. deploy them anywhere into the campaign without consequence. The only governor is finances or the monthly balance.

I was wondering if this should change to only selective ports to have shipyards and those shipyards to have a construction capacity limit and/or varying class ability.

The results should be:

• Adds a strategic layer where the player has to consider where they can build ships and there actual fleet assignment or movement thereafter.
• Regulates capacity.
• Adds important levels to ports, i.e. considering which ones to acquire, shipyard or not.
• With varying class ability, only some ports can construct battleships, or only destroyers. As a limited resource.
• When shipyards are at max construction capacity the player/nation has to build ships elsewhere or purchase dock space from allies or wait until there are some free space/docks.
• When ships are completed, they then may have to travel through hostile waters to join fleets.

Campaign-wise, there should be a limit on how nations deploy ships, especially with ports/shipyards acquired on the other side of the world.

PS, but ports without shipyards should have better economic returns, better cargo shipping capacity, like trade ports, giving choices to the player or headaches!  

I like the idea with limited slipways for bigger ships. If this can implemented for players and AI it would limit that massive AI construction spree in the early campaign start dates. No more 100+ cruisers for austria, two years into a 1900 campaign!

[Traslo]

22 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Ports with shipyards and construction capacity.

At the  moment every port can construct ships with unlimited capacity. I.e. deploy them anywhere into the campaign without consequence. The only governor is finances or the monthly balance.

I was wondering if this should change to only selective ports to have shipyards and those shipyards to have a construction capacity limit and/or varying class ability.

The results should be:

• Adds a strategic layer where the player has to consider where they can build ships and there actual fleet assignment or movement thereafter.
• Regulates capacity.
• Adds important levels to ports, i.e. considering which ones to acquire, shipyard or not.
• With varying class ability, only some ports can construct battleships, or only destroyers. As a limited resource.
• When shipyards are at max construction capacity the player/nation has to build ships elsewhere or purchase dock space from allies or wait until there are some free space/docks.
• When ships are completed, they then may have to travel through hostile waters to join fleets.

Campaign-wise, there should be a limit on how nations deploy ships, especially with ports/shipyards acquired on the other side of the world.

PS, but ports without shipyards should have better economic returns, better cargo shipping capacity, like trade ports, giving choices to the player or headaches!  

I think Britain can't even repair ships in Gibraltar/Malta/Cyprus so I'm guessing under the hood they've already started supporting something akin to this?

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

On 5/10/2022 at 3:22 AM, SpardaSon21 said:

If you don't have one of those ridiculously OP super-BB hulls that can get up to 98% damage reduction for gunfire, assuming of course you can actually pen them thanks to their ricochet chances, yes, torpedoes are horrifying since there's more fish in the water from AI fleets than if you were to visit an aquarium.

Can you even create those in campaign?

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, Traslo said:

I think Britain can't even repair ships in Gibraltar/Malta/Cyprus so I'm guessing under the hood they've already started supporting something akin to this?

Concur, it also means that the game has to choose ports with shipyards when sending ships for repair and only shipyards that are class capable, placing ships a long way from there operational area.

Plus maybe putting repairs on hold until space/docks are available. That then leads into decisions for players (and AI) to use up all space/docks for new ships or leave some space free for repairing. Including refits. Would also limit how many ships get repaired at once. If ships end up in repair ques, then it might force out decisions by players to avoid battles, putting more emphasis on tactical abilities.

Alittle change here but it could be a dynamic change for the campaign gameplay overall. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Skeksis

[Grandpa Canuck]

I agree some sort of port rating other than supply is needed. I am hoping for some sort of capacity rating for size of hull that can be serviced in a port. As well total tonnage that can be serviced for repairs or refits.

Maybe then we could upgrade specific ports for supply or drydock size or service capacity. I see ports then having 3 ratings ie:

Port Name: Supply-100,000 tonnes. Drydock size-15,000 tonnes. Service Capacity-20,000 tonnes.

With this type of system you would be able to hopefully direct ships to certain ports for refit or repair as well as when starting a ship choose where it will be built. Of course you should be able to lease out any of these to another nation.

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Grandpa Canuck said:

I agree some sort of port rating other than supply is needed. I am hoping for some sort of capacity rating for size of hull that can be serviced in a port. As well total tonnage that can be serviced for repairs or refits.

Maybe then we could upgrade specific ports for supply or drydock size or service capacity. I see ports then having 3 ratings ie:

Port Name: Supply-100,000 tonnes. Drydock size-15,000 tonnes. Service Capacity-20,000 tonnes.

With this type of system you would be able to hopefully direct ships to certain ports for refit or repair as well as when starting a ship choose where it will be built. Of course you should be able to lease out any of these to another nation.

Like having shipyards in every port but they’re govern by their induvial capacities, “supply”, “drydock size” and “service”, 3 entities each, and all upgradable.

This is a very good proposal.

But I would make it costly to upgrade each entity or make it either/or so the port will specialize only one way. Should force selective upgrades thus keeping 'importance' on capturing specific ports. If the game is looking for money sinks, this can be one of them.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Skeksis

[Grandpa Canuck]

You will not make drydocks or construction slips everywhere I'd assume as they should be very expensive. But I can see making a few ports able to build or repair larger CAs and maybe 1-2 colony ports to repair/build a CL or DD. I would think the lower start rate would be higher than the increase as the starting of a drydock is a lot harder than expanding one. So with my idea you may support BBs from any port with Supply high enough but not make or repair them there. Also I see a port able to have say a drydock of 15,000 but a Service Capacity of 45,000 thus it could repair 3 15,000 ton CAs but not even an older 18,000 ton BB could repair there. Remember ships don't have to be in a drydock for all refit or repairs so servicing a few CAs, if enough support things are available in the port, is possible. Also building does not always happen in a drydock so construction size and size of a repair drydock are IRL 2 totally different things.

[Dave P.]

It would be nice if, when you have central and side-mounted main battery guns of the same caliber, they would aim and fire together, share the same ammo pool, etc.

[Littorio]

On 5/9/2022 at 1:15 AM, Hyperion said:

No, they are doing a good job already.

 

This game is focused on building. 

 

I don't quite know what you mean by that statement. Building what? Itself? They should be focused on building the missing pieces to what they have already made.

 

On 5/9/2022 at 2:09 AM, Zuikaku said:

Implementing representation of the weather would solve many complaints on spotting. While weather is somewhat represented, we see nice ,clear, blue sky and calm sea. And then a destroyer pops out of nowhere 3km from your battleship. Yes, somewhere up and left there is info that visibility is low and it is dusk and sea is not calm, but all you can see is your ships on the bright sunny day. You can not see fog or wind. Immersion killer! 

And regarding wind, does it have any impact on targeting?

 

I agree totally, it is horrible for immersion. Sometimes you can get a 50-60% malus (or more rarely a 5-10% bonus) to accuracy and you wouldn't even know why unless you moused over that odd green thermometer thing (which is horribly textured). I don't think wind is independently modeled in any way physically, but it is part of the effects that go into the malus/bonus to accuracy. There are four components to this: Time of day, "weather" as in rain, wind, and sea state.

 

On 5/9/2022 at 3:48 AM, o Barão said:

The top priority is the full campaign experience. Diplomacy, alliances, peace time mechanics. This is without any doubt the most important thing right now, and is what is coming in the next update (1st version). After that then I agree battle improvements should be considered: weather/night battles, high resolution sky textures, shell dispersion fix, formations and AI improvements, etc...

 

Well I disagree in full. If we could wait years for campaign mechanics at all, I don't see why it needs to be continuously rushed out the door now that we finally have something to play with. They are being rushed at the expense of basic gameplay factors, such as the things I outlined above earlier. Having another few country options and some start/end to wars won't make we want to play this game right now. Ending the unholy abomination that is port-shuffling your ships every single turn to all corners of the empire, will.

 

On 5/10/2022 at 3:03 PM, Skeksis said:

Ports with shipyards and construction capacity.

At the  moment every port can construct ships with unlimited capacity. I.e. deploy them anywhere into the campaign without consequence. The only governor is finances or the monthly balance.

I was wondering if this should change to only selective ports to have shipyards and those shipyards to have a construction capacity limit and/or varying class ability.

The results should be:

• Adds a strategic layer where the player has to consider where they can build ships and there actual fleet assignment or movement thereafter.
• Regulates capacity.
• Adds important levels to ports, i.e. considering which ones to acquire, shipyard or not.
• With varying class ability, only some ports can construct battleships, or only destroyers. As a limited resource.
• When shipyards are at max construction capacity the player/nation has to build ships elsewhere or purchase dock space from allies or wait until there are some free space/docks.
• When ships are completed, they then may have to travel through hostile waters to join fleets.

Campaign-wise, there should be a limit on how nations deploy ships, especially with ports/shipyards acquired on the other side of the world.

PS, but ports without shipyards should have better economic returns, better cargo shipping capacity, like trade ports, giving choices to the player or headaches!  

Totally agree that infrastructure changes to ports should be very high on the list of things to do. This will have many beneficial effects to the nature of the war(s) and how they are fought. Coincidentally, this is one of the sort of things I would love to see the devs implement now before madly rushing off pell-mell in order to further expand and widen the campaign...

Edited May 13, 2022 by Littorio

[Carl_Bar]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

I don't quite know what you mean by that statement. Building what? Itself? They should be focused on building the missing pieces to what they have already made.

 

My read was that he was saying the focus of the game is on ship design not strategic layer stuff.

 

Given the amount of focus dev time wise the campaign is getting i hard disagree.

 

 

One thing i hope the citadel internal armour brings is end armour and proper simulation of it. Right now it's not simulated and a shell can't penetrate through the bow/stern into the citadel and to compensate currently damage can propagate along the length of the ship without limit creating a situation where a ship firing large calibre guns can do more damage with a low pen high damage shell than a high pen low damage shell against a ship with a heavily armoured citadel but a weekly armoured bow/stern.