>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)

[Littorio]

14 minutes ago, neph said:

 

torpedos don't stretch the citadel. boilers (funnels) do. guns do. You have citadel extending fore but not aft--huge weight offset. dunno why TBs have citadels...

Yeah so I played around with it more, and it is indeed this, but more specifically how far the "citadel" (TBs should not have one but the tooltip suggests that the shaded area might be reinforced for guns and engines...) extends past the vertical bulkhead lines. You can be sitting at a low fore/aft offset, and then move it one increment, but that increment might put it past a bulkhead. What exactly this models at the moment I am unsure, but it is causing the effect.

Frankly this idea is a bit odd. The torpedo launchers weigh more than a 2" gun mount, and the hull of the TB shouldn't have to be "reinforced" so much for a single gun to the point that it is...

Also in Beta 7 A-H ports are back to the old bug of being overcapacity...

[Traslo]

Campaign is still technically unwinnable once a big war with multiple nations breaks out. I was UK in a UK/France vs Germany/Austria/Italy war, peaced out Italy and they stay in the war, but then it asks me if I want war with Italy and I say no andi t removes me from the war panel. There's no way to actually win a war unless it's 1v1 which never really happens due to the way relations immediately shift once war declarations happen.

[SpecTRe_X]

54 minutes ago, Traslo said:

Campaign is still technically unwinnable once a big war with multiple nations breaks out. I was UK in a UK/France vs Germany/Austria/Italy war, peaced out Italy and they stay in the war, but then it asks me if I want war with Italy and I say no andi t removes me from the war panel. There's no way to actually win a war unless it's 1v1 which never really happens due to the way relations immediately shift once war declarations happen.

I'm having trouble decreasing relations with other countries after playing as Germany from 1890 to 1910 as a pacifist.

Has anyone tried starting a campaign with the "design fleet" option but then simply starting the campaign without designing/building one? I wouldn't expect this to break anything but who knows? I don't really feel like starting a new campaign with a pre-built fleet, scrapping it, then spending the next 4 hours clicking end turn to find out.

[Traslo]

13 minutes ago, SpecTRe_X said:

I'm having trouble decreasing relations with other countries after playing as Germany from 1890 to 1910 as a pacifist.

Has anyone tried starting a campaign with the "design fleet" option but then simply starting the campaign without designing/building one? I wouldn't expect this to break anything but who knows? I don't really feel like starting a new campaign with a pre-built fleet, scrapping it, then spending the next 4 hours clicking end turn to find out.

I've done this as each nation and it generally breaks the game. The AI economies die off in their perpetual war (France seems to die even if their side is winning, I can't even save them as Britain when I'm blockading everyone else). The easiest way to play right now is just refuse alliances and then keep teching up as the AI goes broke. Pacifist Italy in 1890 is hilariously strong, you just tech up with a full 100% budget until like 1915 and then come out swinging with late dreadnoughts and decent techs all around

If the AI could actually peace out with each other and if the peace was between sides and not individuals it might be less broken, but there's still the issue that tension automatically restarts once you're technically at peace with someone.

Peace deals still basically never happen as accepting peace never really works so just have to wait for more 1.06 patches.

[Vanhal]

11 hours ago, o Barão said:

 9x accuracy multiplier

Problem is that without you don't hit shit, at least with bigger guns and the accuracy is generally shit for a game that is supposed to be kinda arcadey because it is not fun to have game battles taking hours of real time.

And suddenly they introduce modifier that is not weighted against trade offs but simply MUST HAVE. Like anyone in this forum ever made ships with shortest barrels and though "it is ok, i will build ships like that"? Anyone?

 

EDIT: I just tested the short barrels. It is as bad as i expected, accuracies for 356mm guns are around 1% at 4 kilometeters.

Beyond. Any. Parody.

I am now convinced that this entire barrel lenght feature, already proven almost impossible to balance not only do not add to the game, but deduct from it, being either must have or utterly pointless and making guns too hard to balance overall.

Therefore i propose to either scrap it, or at least remove accuracy entirely from it (though i don't even know what would be the point of it then).

Edited June 8, 2022 by Vanhal

[SpecTRe_X]

10 minutes ago, Traslo said:

I've done this as each nation and it generally breaks the game. The AI economies die off in their perpetual war (France seems to die even if their side is winning, I can't even save them as Britain when I'm blockading everyone else). The easiest way to play right now is just refuse alliances and then keep teching up as the AI goes broke. Pacifist Italy in 1890 is hilariously strong, you just tech up with a full 100% budget until like 1915 and then come out swinging with late dreadnoughts and decent techs all around

If the AI could actually peace out with each other and if the peace was between sides and not individuals it might be less broken, but there's still the issue that tension automatically restarts once you're technically at peace with someone.

Peace deals still basically never happen as accepting peace never really works so just have to wait for more 1.06 patches.

Tension only increases if your ships are 1) in close proximity to other countries and 2) not mothballed.

I've either mothballed or scrapped ships when I want a lasting peace as that's the only way to maintain it. Simply having your ships docked and set to "limited" doesn't do anything tension wise.

In my 1.06.7 attempt no one has even been to war yet. There's been peace all around for 20 years now.

[SpardaSon21]

Speaking of pitch and stability with big guns mounted forwards:

Man, I can't think of anyone who would consider putting a 3" or larger gun up on a forecastle.

Nobody at all...

Literally nobody.

Edited June 8, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Traslo]

21 minutes ago, SpecTRe_X said:

Tension only increases if your ships are 1) in close proximity to other countries and 2) not mothballed.

I've either mothballed or scrapped ships when I want a lasting peace as that's the only way to maintain it. Simply having your ships docked and set to "limited" doesn't do anything tension wise.

In my 1.06.7 attempt no one has even been to war yet. There's been peace all around for 20 years now.

A big problem though is countries like France sign their death warrant by forcing tension. France will go to war with germany in a 1v1, but this makes them deploy task forces in the south which creates tension with Italy and Austria-Hungary and suddenly they get 3v1'd whilst Britain isn't ready yet.

[o Barão]

59 minutes ago, Vanhal said:

Like anyone in this forum ever made ships with shortest barrels and though "it is ok, i will build ships like that"? Anyone?

I would like to have that option. If the mechanic was balanced, it could be a lot of fun and interesting to go with short barrels, mainly in the early campaigns. (1890-1900)

Let's say the difference in accuracy from going from the shortest barrel to the longest barrel is, at most, a 3x accuracy multiplier.

Yes I will lose 66% accuracy, yes I will lose some pen, yes I will lose some range. But if I manage to get really close with the enemy, I would get the rewards by using a gun with a much higher rate of fire, and at very short distances, the accuracy and penetration disadvantages would not be a big issue anymore. A system that rewards both an aggressive style of gameplay with short barrels, and a cautious style of gameplay with long barrels.

A balanced mechanic.

 

The interesting part, is that we have this mechanic in Naval Action. Carronades vs mediums vs long guns. And all options are viable in combat. More choices, more interesting for the player to try new things. Here is atm, all about long guns, with slow reload and keep your distance.

Edited June 8, 2022 by o Barão

[o Barão]

8 minutes ago, o Barão said:

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by o Barão

[SodaBit]

Some quick campaign feedback here.
Franco-Italian war's not going well for the French. It's so bad that they've elected to scrap their entire navy.

They didn't do it all at once, but the fact they managed it at all is not a good sign.
It's not all doom and gloom though, the Austrians have followed suit.

Edited June 8, 2022 by SodaBit

[SpecTRe_X]

19 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I would like to have that option. If the mechanic was balanced, it could be a lot of fun and interesting to go with short barrels, mainly in the early campaigns. (1890-1900)

Let's say the difference in accuracy from going from the shortest barrel to the longest barrel is, at most, a 3x accuracy multiplier.

Yes I will lose 66% accuracy, yes I will lose some pen, yes I will lose some range. But if I manage to get really close with the enemy, I would get the rewards by using a gun with a much higher rate of fire, and at very short distances, the accuracy and penetration disadvantages would not be a big issue anymore. A system that rewards both an aggressive style of gameplay with short barrels, and a cautious style of gameplay with long barrels.

A balanced mechanic.

 

The interesting part, is that we have this mechanic in Naval Action. Carronades vs mediums vs long guns. And all options are viable in combat. More choices, more interesting for the player to try new things. Here is atm, all about long guns, with slow reload and keep your distance.

At those range barrel length wouldn't matter though since the elevation required would be minimal at best so you wouldn't actually gain any reload bonus from a realism standpoint. Beyond that, you're simply trading turret weight for belt/citadel weight since the closer range now means better armor to make sure some of your ships return after wandering so close to the enemy.

11 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Some quick campaign feedback here.
Franco-Italian war's not going well for the French. It's so bad that they've elected to scrap their entire navy.

They didn't do it all at once, but the fact they managed it at all is not a good sign.
It's not all doom and gloom though, the Austrians have followed suit.

"Peace in our time" lol

[BuckleUpBones]

19 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Some quick campaign feedback here.
Franco-Italian war's not going well for the French. It's so bad that they've elected to scrap their entire navy.

They didn't do it all at once, but the fact they managed it at all is not a good sign.
It's not all doom and gloom though, the Austrians have followed suit.

Your shipyard size is 141,150 tons, the only way I can see that happening is that you have modified the save file. 

Is this a fake? 

[o Barão]

5 minutes ago, SpecTRe_X said:

 Beyond that, you're simply trading turret weight for belt/citadel weight since the closer range now means better armor to make sure some of your ships return after wandering so close to the enemy.

And more speed. Unless the AI is kind enough to let me get close to them.

[SodaBit]

3 minutes ago, BuckleUpBones said:

Your shipyard size is 141,150 tons, the only way I can see that happening is that you have modified the save file. 

Is this a fake? 

Update 7 doubled the speed you can increase the size of your shipyards at. I'll admit I was a bit surprised that I managed that before I got the tech for super BB's. I also started in 1920, so that's enough time for 5 whole upgrade cycles.

Edited June 8, 2022 by SodaBit

[BuckleUpBones]

14 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Update 7 doubled the speed you can increase the size of your shipyards at. I'll admit I was a bit surprised that I managed that before I got the tech for super BB's. I also started in 1920, so that's enough time for 5 whole upgrade cycles.

that explains a lot. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by BuckleUpBones

[SpardaSon21]

8 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I would like to have that option. If the mechanic was balanced, it could be a lot of fun and interesting to go with short barrels, mainly in the early campaigns. (1890-1900)

Let's say the difference in accuracy from going from the shortest barrel to the longest barrel is, at most, a 3x accuracy multiplier.

Yes I will lose 66% accuracy, yes I will lose some pen, yes I will lose some range. But if I manage to get really close with the enemy, I would get the rewards by using a gun with a much higher rate of fire, and at very short distances, the accuracy and penetration disadvantages would not be a big issue anymore. A system that rewards both an aggressive style of gameplay with short barrels, and a cautious style of gameplay with long barrels.

A balanced mechanic.

 

Would be nice, but so long as accuracy is so heavily tied to range we won't get that.  The fact the developers insist on maximum range contributing to accuracy at all range brackets, even point-blank, is going to seriously hurt this game long-term.  Game Labs has the major issue of basing things around the way they think they are or think they should be just as bad if not worse than a major AAA developer, and the way they calculate and scale gun accuracy is a major issue they have been repeatedly told is not viable, and yet they refuse to address any of our concerns.

 

1 hour ago, Vanhal said:

EDIT: I just tested the short barrels. It is as bad as i expected, accuracies for 356mm guns are around 1% at 4 kilometeters.

Beyond. Any. Parody.

I am now convinced that this entire barrel lenght feature, already proven almost impossible to balance not only do not add to the game, but deduct from it, being either must have or utterly pointless and making guns too hard to balance overall.

Therefore i propose to either scrap it, or at least remove accuracy entirely from it (though i don't even know what would be the point of it then).

Range would be the point, but they absolutely need to reduce or eliminate the reload penalty in that case in favor of serious weight increase.  The 5"/38 guns I love talking about were by themselves quite light... but their overall mounts were extremely heavy to accommodate the all-elevation semi-auto loading system and electro-hydro traverse that gave the SP twin mounts a ridiculous 14.7 degrees a second of traverse rate.

 

Realistically speaking though, big guns didn't vary a whole lot in barrel length, the biggest changes being 12" guns going from L/25 or L/30 to L/50 right before they were replaced.  Big guns were generally built as long as technology allowed for obvious reasons, but smaller guns  had a lot more variation between nations, especially in similar time periods.  Even so, you run into diminishing returns once you hit L/50 or so as the powder can't sustainably burn for the whole length, not without adding enough powder to risk dangerously unsafe chamber pressures.  There's a reason nobody made serious attempts at super-long tank guns after WW2 ended, and the issues there are only magnified as you go up in shell size.

[Sovereign757]

Ive found a bit of a game breaking bug, whenever I launch a campaign with create own fleet, when i leave the ship designer the game gets stuck on a loading screen and then crashes.

[TiagoStein]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 

Note: Using Cheat Engines and doing any kind of back up to not use the latest save version, will result in game breaking  even cause the VP bug you report. Please do not report bugs if you know that you edit files yourself,  as it does not help us at all.

I never edited a file, I never saved a backup  I even REINSTALLED the game  from scratch (starting a new campaign)  and the VP  bugs still appears. It is NOT SOLELY related to the  things you believe them to be.

[admiralsnackbar]

Barrel length:

My suggestion would be to separate bore diameter and barrel length such that you select the length of the gun in calibers and then the bore increases as normally by intervals of .1".

Bore changes cause all of the stats to simply interpolate between the two adjacent bore sizes as others have suggested. Upgrading the guns left to right also seems to change the caliber. I don't know if the modifiers to statistics are based on adjustments to some caliber rating that is base for the gun or if the caliber itself decides but the base caliber for different guns is different. 

From a 'keeping track of game balance' perspective, I think having a base caliber with adjustments will be easier, though from a coding perspective it could be an entirely different story. 

Barbette: Since barbette armor is now a thing I think removing the "barbette" module can be safely done. Maybe use a flash protection module instead that affects turret rotation and gun reload idk. 

Screenshot & gun accuracy: 

I'm including a screenshot of a large battle I fought to show you how powerful combining the accuracy of the 2" gun is with the bonuses you get from increasing caliber and bore diameter. Note that the 12", 8", and 5" guns whose stats are also shown are also maxed out in diameter and length. 

There are some noticeably 'peaks' in performance for certain guns regardless of the mark rating.

The 8 inch gun seems to be more accurate than the 9 inch gun beyond 5km, the ROF is a bit slower but i think that's because you get mark III 9 inch. 

The 12 inch gun also seems to outperform the 13 inch gun in terms of accuracy up to 12.5km when the two balance out. 

5.9 inch is also used on my light cruisers mostly because you can make light cruisers with 6 inches of belt armor, 24kts, and a broadside of 5-8 5.9" guns that can easily put out way more firepower then most light cruisers that opt for 2 6-7 inch guns. 

Also the 5 inch guns just *look* cooler. 

2 inch wunderwaffen:

I mentioned awhile back how I thought that the 2" gun should have lower base accuracy then the higher level guns but firing quicker allows it to hone in on targets faster. Nick actually replied to that post saying that that's already what was the case. The tooltip in the builder consistently shows 2" guns having the highest 1km accuracy of the small caliber guns.  Against destroyers and lighter I found 2.9" better than 5.9". You hit them so many more times with 2.9 that a ship armed with lots of 2.9's and reasonable speed (20-24kts) can destroy waves of torpedo boats indefinitely. 

Obviously the performance of the gun depends on the fleet composition. The enemy has lots of destroyer and below type ships so the 2.9 does the lions share of damage. Notice that the average damage per shot for the 2.9 is about 49, but that's a combination of partial pens that do virtually no damage and other hits that seem more effective at causing module explosions. 

The 5.9 is doing more damage per shot, about 153, and I'll accept the argument that a 5.9 might be too big to efficiently use against torpedo boats and small destroyers, especially at .5-2km, but the 3 inch gun should theoretically have *almost* the same stats as a 2.9, but as you can see in the screenshots below comparing 2 to 3 that it's not even close. Damage and ROF are about the same between 2.9 and 3 but accuracy is way way higher on the 2.9. 

I am including a copy of stats on guns at the start of a  from a 1910 campaign without selecting any adjustments for barrel length, shell type, or fire control. 

I am also going to show a few comparisons between the 2,9 and 3 inch gun. I adjust calibers a bit to see what happens if I set the calibers equal vs. if i set the 'length' modifiers to 0. Base for 2 and 3 inch are 33 and 38 calibers respectively. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[Nick Thomadis]

23 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

I never edited a file, I never saved a backup  I even REINSTALLED the game  from scratch (starting a new campaign)  and the VP  bugs still appears. It is NOT SOLELY related to the  things you believe them to be.

True it is not. But unfortunately there is a large amount of reports that include some kind of false editing by users, creating all kind of problems to the game. 

[Norbert Sattler]

I like that now committing to two full years of shipyard construction gives bigger returns than doing 4 seperate half-year stints. That's a nice change.

I still think that a more dynamic increase of the size of each construction project would be good as well in addition to that, either tied directly to the current year or decade or by making a technology that boosts how many tonns are added to a shipyard "per tick" of construction.

[kineuhansen]

dont if if anyone else have this bug but in my last campaign before update 7 removed it i played as the british and i know i sunk at least 4 enemy bb but in the entire campaign the game sad germany had 6 bb also the peace treaty bug its still there they ask me about 3 times

[Lima]

I really want to try to get the provinces under the peace treaty, but...

There is an old bug with assigning victory points to the opponent. For example, when I fight as Italy with France 1 on 1, everything is fine, I get points for victories. But as soon as someone else enters the war (England/Germany/Austria, whatever), my opponents start getting points for my victories. I just can't finish the campaign because if I destroy the enemy ships, they will win.

Last time I managed to defeat France 1 on 1, but this happens extremely rarely, usually the war turns into a massacre, and it is impossible to end it.

[Lima]

Oh my God, I did it. I didn't get ships, but look, it is Italian Helgoland) 

This is a great feature. If warscore bug will be fixed, campaign will already be very interesting to play.