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

[Norbert Sattler]

I also just noticed that in a peace-deal you can only demand ships from the defeated side's active roster. Their mothballed ships are not considered.

Which is a shame. I wanted to take some enemy BBs, but due to crew shortages the enemy had them all mothballed and went with a Juene Ecole approach instead.

It'd also be nice if we could take over territories from eliminated factions.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Norbert Sattler]

Usually when I refit an already refitted design I can delete the old design once I upgraded all my existing ships of that template.
Now I made a 1896 and later an 1909 refit. After upgrading all my existing ships of that class to the 1909, I am unable to delete the 1896 design, but I can "refit" the 1909 ships into the older design...

Speaking of which, I would once again like to ask kindly for the ability to delete ANY design of which there is currently not a single ship, not just those that have been refitted or where no ship has ever been built.

[Norbert Sattler]

After some more observation it seems like when the player and an AI are at war with the same enemy, whoever declared the war first gets massive priority when it comes to the generation of battles and the second one just gets some left-over missions every once in a blue moon so to say.

When I was the one to declare war on France and Germany joined later, I got lots of battles, Germany barely any. At the time I thought it was due to distance and that Germany was also fighting the UK.

Now the UK and Germany are both gone and it's just my AUH, Ita and France. The French have been at war with Italy for a while, I went to war with Ita some time after them (without any alliances). And now I once again barely get any battles, but at least I am able to blockade Italy and sink their convoys, which was not the case in my previous campaign where I was allied with everyone except one sole enemy.

Edit: After about 3 years of war, I still have yet to see a single engagement with the Italians, even though the French had no active ships for the last 3 month with which to hog the engagements.

Edit 2: Now the French have made peace with the Italians leaving the latter only at war with me. And the very next month I got five encounters with the Italians in the same round, right off the bat, after years of nothing at all.
But for some reason all five were against my modernized pre-dreadnoughts rather than my dreadnoughts, even though I had equal numbers of both...

Edited June 16, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Norbert Sattler]

As Austria-Hungary (1890 start) I researched 4 barrel secondary guns... but I have not a single one of them available.

Please either give the Austro-Hungarians access to quad secondaries, or remove the technology from their tech-tree.

[Norbert Sattler]

Is it intentional for Italy to not be able to give away any provinces when they lose? I'd have expected them to at least be able to lose Sardinia, maybe even Sicily.

[SpecTRe_X]

5 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

No, because all your pics are of shielded open mounts.  Just because they had 2" thick gun shields to protect the crews that doesn't make them turrets.

From Merriam-Websters:
Turret noun
2 a (1): A revolving armored structure on a warship that protects one or more guns mounted in it
      (2): A similar upper structure usually for one gun on a tank
      (3): A gunner's fixed or movable enclosure in an airplane

From Wikipedia:
"A gun turret (or simply turret) is a mounting platform from which weapons can be fired that affords protection, visibility and ability to turn and aim."

A turret speaks to the overall assembly rather than a single component. A turret may be either pedestal or barbette mounted, may be totally enclosed or not enclosed at all, and may or may not employ a rotating platform or cage for the crew to stand/sit on while operating the turret. You seem to be conflating the gun house, the armored box used to protect large guns, with the turret itself. The gun house is part of a turret assembly but it alone is not the turret.

[jtjohn1]

The biggest gripe I have with the campaign that really effects the game play is the lack of forces available at legendary level to my enemies.

I carefully maneuvered the UK thru the 10s and into the 20s building up technology before building a good fleet and when I finally went to war with Germany they had very few ships available to fight.  If you look in their harbor though they had almost 40BBs and the smaller ships to go with it.  They just never were active.

At least in legendary mode these ships need to be active (Not to the point where it's immediate blockade!! Or if you do get to that point then when you sink enough of their old designs to even things out the blockade needs to go away)

Just for giggles I have played it out thru the late 20s into the late 30s with one battle against one battleship while every other nation slowly goes bankrupt.  This REALLY needs to be fixed.

[Norbert Sattler]

Do convoy ship take crew from the crew-pool too?

I am currently at "war" with the French and they have not a single active ship. I've been keeping an eye on their crew-pool and dispite it saying x (+253) it looks more like they get 10 recruits per month. BUT it does not accumulate until they activate a ship. Instead when it reaches about 50 the crew just disappears and they stay at permanent 0 ships.

But hey, at least this Update around they aren't blowing the entirety of their money on stockpiling uncrewed ships, but keep at least a couple of million in reserve.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[SodaBit]

A bit of gun/design feedback here.
I've started making what the Germans would call "Scout Cruisers," DD's armed with 150mm guns, and in my opinion, they're way too effective. 

July, 1944, 2 such units were assigned to protect a convoy, along with one of the fleet's oldest units, a BB from 1910. Whilst the fire control systems might not be the best on a pre-war superdreadnought, that doesn't really justify the two "DD's" managing to tear apart 2 CAs, a CL, and a DD, pretty much on their own, without taking a single hit in return.
The 6 150/50 guns equipped on these DD's, despite only weighing just over 2,500t total, with about ~%30 pitch and ~%15 roll, had no accuracy issues whatsoever. In fact, the opposite was often the case, with truly remarkable accuracy being achieved as the range closed, the combination of a 6 second reload, and over %50 accuracy resulting in the enemy rapidly being overwhelmed by dozens of fires. In contrast, these units took no damage in return, the small target profile and high speed confounding even the more experienced crews on the enemy's side, with no gun on any British ship achieving over %1 accuracy during the battle.

While this battle did take place during 1944, I'm not sure the success of these units can be chalked up to technological superiority. Even if this is realistic, the damage ratio of every enemy ship destroyed without a single hit being taken in return is not going to fly from a game balance perspective. 

[SodaBit]

Some very quick campaign feedback here
I know I've already talk a fair bit about this, but the overbuilding problem seems to be worse than I originally thought.
I've got Liverpool blockaded by a gaggle of DD's, all well and dandy seeing as the Royal Navy doesn't exist any more...
Except there's one problem.

The Royal Navy does still exist, and the contingent based in Liverpool is more than capable of breaking the blockade in a matter of minutes. Unfortunately, these ships are all for show, there's nobody aboard to actually crew them, and the Royal Navy is allocating enough resources to keep hull watertight, and nothing else. HM's government has spend millions of pounds in tax payer money to build the largest fleet in human history, only for it to sit around gathering barnacles when the British people need it the most. That's got to be the most British thing I've heard all week.

[Dangerfreak]

In my opinion, the development is going in the wrong direction.
1. Rudder commands absolutely unrealistic
2. Formations badly implemented
3. Research should be adapted to the historical conditions in the respective countries
4. Detonations of turrets and torpedoes are absolutely unrealistic
5. The quality of the updates irritates me; here they are rotated, there they are screwed - I miss a quality control.

 

[Plazma]

1890-1900 the TB and DD are too powerfull! 

TB 1890 coins:

-short distance around 6000km

-survivability

But they can rip apart any ship including BB, maybe no 1 vs 1 (always), but 3-4 TB what cost summary 1 mln is able to sunk a BB what cost 4 mln, rarely taking loses (in ships). Low crew and cost alowe you to spam TB and build example 160 while the enemy for this same cost have problem with building 10 BB. CL, CA have similar problems... 

DD 1900 coins:

-Cost (if you lose ship, that happens you lose a lot of money)

-Short gun range (I believe in late 1900 campaign the range will be not sufficient) 

But right now I have battle while I have 7 DD vs 2 BB 1 CA, my ships don't have big problem with taking it down. Only 3 DD was hit and because they are; heavy, medium and light damaged. What is more funny that eneamy BB and CA was sunk because of fire. 

 

https://imgur.com/a/ll4KMRI

 

Right now I think...

3-4 DD can sunk BB

2-3 DD can sunk CA

1-2 DD can sunk CL

The cost of building my DD is 1,8mln and 130 crew, the cost of BB of Britain is 8,2 mln and 1000 crew. The most problematic part right now is no the money, but the crew and here is 7:1 for DD, cost 5:1. With DD I can always run away and the operating range is 15,000km. 

 

Conclusion DD and TB are OP.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Plazma

[ColonelHenry]

1 hour ago, Plazma said:

1890-1900 the TB and DD are too powerfull! 

TB 1890 coins:

-short distance around 6000km

-survivability

But they can rip apart any ship including BB, maybe no 1 vs 1 (always), but 3-4 TB what cost summary 1 mln is able to sunk a BB what cost 4 mln, rarely taking loses (in ships). Low crew and cost alowe you to spam TB and build example 160 while the enemy for this same cost have problem with building 10 BB. CL, CA have similar problems... 

DD 1900 coins:

-Cost (if you lose ship, that happens you lose a lot of money)

-Short gun range (I believe in late 1900 campaign the range will be not sufficient) 

But right now I have battle while I have 7 DD vs 2 BB 1 CA, my ships don't have big problem with taking it down. Only 3 DD was hit and because they are; heavy, medium and light damaged. What is more funny that eneamy BB and CA was sunk because of fire. 

 

https://imgur.com/a/ll4KMRI

 

Right now I think...

3-4 DD can sunk BB

2-3 DD can sunk CA

1-2 DD can sunk CL

The cost of building my DD is 1,8mln and 130 crew, the cost of BB of Britain is 8,2 mln and 1000 crew. The most problematic part right now is no the money, but the crew and here is 7:1 for DD, cost 5:1. With DD I can always run away and the operating range is 15,000km. 

 

Conclusion DD and TB are OP.

YOUR DD and TB might be OP, but the AI's DD and TB sucks so bad the only time they actually do any damage is if you get bullshit unlucky with the current spotting system and random weather conditions working together to make you completely blind. If you nerf them even more... the enemy ships would just be useless, and they already are with the French Jeune Ecole playstyle being completely useless in the campaign for the AI and the French AI usually just get shit on even against Italy or A-H despite having like 110 ships in 1901.

[Jyson]

Either the AI needs to space their shipbuilding more to allow for crew to accrue, or all nations need to accrue crew faster

[SiWi]

Personally I think both the player as well the AI, should have options to increase recruitment or make "recruitment drives".

 

It could work this way:

for either Money, Prestige or both, you could make a one time recruitment that gives you lets say, 2000 crewmen, lowest rank. This would have a cool down of lets say 12 months.

Similar things could be done to boot other things: Research, money, Prestige... Overall I think the campaign could use some more things to do outside of battles.

 

Another option would be that the recruitment budget could have one more sliders beneath it.

Those would control how many of your training budget goes to training new crew and the other to improve current crew (which still gets you up to "veteran" btw). This way one could either focus on getting more crew (because you just finished a bunch of new cruisers) or train the crews you have because you have enough crew for your liking in reserve.

 

Both this way could give both player but also AI more way to get more crew.

Thou in the AI case it also has to be another problem, aka bug.

[havaduck]

3 hours ago, Plazma said:

1890-1900 the TB and DD are too powerfull! 

Conclusion DD and TB are OP.

 

Really? I mostly play 1890 to 1900 nowadays it seems because I dont want to get burnt out on the later also intersting periods. However previously I would have agreed. Nowaday you cant even get into torpdo distance. Welll maybe if you dont mind loosing a hideous amount of ships. It takes a lot of torps with the (needed) changes to sink a BB due to duds, misses or the BB just keep on kiting.  Meanwhile abuse of 2,9"/L+20% makes you completely TB proof. Usuually when I take one, its because I was gready an got to close to a cruiser I thought would be dead by now. The AI could use tactics of overwhelmning and rushing, but it never does that. 

Ive lagerely switched to BB and CA as a result. BB to soak up damage and against enemy BB and CA as damage dealers and to increas numbers. The thing is, I hardly ever loose a ship with this, unlike TBs which are very risky, depriving the AI of VP. I cant even immagine nowadays using 20 TBs (maybe even using divisions and formations! lol!) and rushing into 40-70 enemy ships.

The next thing thats garbage are the light cruisers. They are getting ripped apart by those secondaries and in ammo- and torpedo explosions like a firework. Its ok for the timeline, this period was about the quick firing guns after all. However you can roflstomp the AI with CLs and TB, its not even funny.

 

Bottom line: Are you sure its the current beta you are talking about? It seems spot on for the previous version.

[SiWi]

4 hours ago, Plazma said:

1890-1900 the TB and DD are too powerfull! 

TB 1890 coins:

-short distance around 6000km

-survivability

But they can rip apart any ship including BB, maybe no 1 vs 1 (always), but 3-4 TB what cost summary 1 mln is able to sunk a BB what cost 4 mln, rarely taking loses (in ships). Low crew and cost alowe you to spam TB and build example 160 while the enemy for this same cost have problem with building 10 BB. CL, CA have similar problems... 

DD 1900 coins:

-Cost (if you lose ship, that happens you lose a lot of money)

-Short gun range (I believe in late 1900 campaign the range will be not sufficient) 

But right now I have battle while I have 7 DD vs 2 BB 1 CA, my ships don't have big problem with taking it down. Only 3 DD was hit and because they are; heavy, medium and light damaged. What is more funny that eneamy BB and CA was sunk because of fire. 

 

https://imgur.com/a/ll4KMRI

 

Right now I think...

3-4 DD can sunk BB

2-3 DD can sunk CA

1-2 DD can sunk CL

The cost of building my DD is 1,8mln and 130 crew, the cost of BB of Britain is 8,2 mln and 1000 crew. The most problematic part right now is no the money, but the crew and here is 7:1 for DD, cost 5:1. With DD I can always run away and the operating range is 15,000km. 

 

Conclusion DD and TB are OP.

Really? I stop building TB because they didn't seem worth it... Always got killed, usually before the chance to fire torps. Maybe things are different with the patches again, but I only bothered with DD to hunt down any my TB's, since that was all the enemy had left.

[Jyson]

TB are worth their cost as two or three can cripple a BB, making it an easier target if not outright sink it. You just need to be willing to lose one or all of them, and must micro-manage so that they actually launch torps at a proper angle

 

[Erukanu Senpai]

I would like to see that the years behind the technologies stay, after their research.

This would make it much easier to see what technologies are behind and what are too far ahead.


Currently, when the research on the tech is done, the year behind it vanishes.

Maybe green and red arrows and an orange circle next to the technology to have an overview of what is behind, and what is ahead of the current campaign year?

Example below

Edited June 16, 2022 by Erukanu Senpai

[SiWi]

14 minutes ago, Jyson said:

TB are worth their cost as two or three can cripple a BB, making it an easier target if not outright sink it. You just need to be willing to lose one or all of them, and must micro-manage so that they actually launch torps at a proper angle

 

or I skip all that and build only cruiser and BB's and suffer almost never ships sunk and hence keep the money i spend building them including the crew...

 

And my experience with TB, as Germany fighting the UK, was that against Veteran enemy crews you never actually have a chance to use TB's, because even with max bulkheads something hits them and if not sinking them then it cripples them so they can't get in range anymore.

Again, this was a couple of patches ago (I simply couldn't be bother to design them anymore), so maybe it changed again. 

[jkl]

16 minutes ago, SiWi said:

And my experience with TB, as Germany fighting the UK, was that against Veteran enemy crews you never actually have a chance to use TB's, because even with max bulkheads something hits them and if not sinking them then it cripples them so they can't get in range anymore.

Well, i think there's need a luck with bad weather and some micro, but TB definetely can be terrifying.

 

[Littorio]

2 hours ago, Jyson said:

Either the AI needs to space their shipbuilding more to allow for crew to accrue, or all nations need to accrue crew faster

Agreed, it is clear the campaign will never truly be "stable" and "balanced" as long as the AI nations are mis-allocating extremely large amounts of resources to maintain mothball fleets that are never used, and could never be used under current conditions. Worse, it is not simply as if the AI is keeping old hulls, it is actively producing new ones to go straight to the mothball fleet. Obviously, this is idiotic and severely affects economic stability and the notion of fighting competitive AI opponents.

 

36 minutes ago, Erukanu Senpai said:

I would like to see that the years behind the technologies stay, after their research.

This would make it much easier to see what technologies are behind and what are too far ahead.


Currently, when the research on the tech is done, the year behind it vanishes.

Maybe green and red arrows and an orange circle next to the technology to have an overview of what is behind, and what is ahead of the current campaign year?

Example below

 

The research UI in general drastically needs a UI facelift. This is not a bad idea. Anything that adds life to this tab is welcome.

[Jyson]

Perhaps a solution for the gloat of ships is have the AI not build a type of ship if one of that type is already mothballed. Would at least reduce the number of mothballed ships IMO

 

[Nick Thomadis]

*UPDATE 13 * (17/6/2022)

- Fixed campaign battles inactivity which was happening when Task Forces were trying to retreat from larger forces and eventually became trapped inside the zone of an enemy with no interaction. The stuck Task Force confused the whole battle system and no missions were generated. Now Task Forces that fail to escape will automatically generate a battle for the current turn (you can seriously overwhelm or be overwhelmed by other forces this way).
- Improved campaign events: Now the funds discussed in an event may actually be transferred to the involved nations. Previously any cost was just deducted but the amount was not sent to the mentioned nation.
- Fixed bugs that could cause wrong "Straggle" type of battles, which are continuation battles from a previous engagement.
- Fixed issue with peace treaties not happening in prolonged wars between AI nations. Now if a nation has negative growth and is losing in VP and war has dragged on for more than 2 years, it will ask for a peace treaty.
-  New Mark 1 French Guns from 9-inch to 16-inch caliber, replacing some older variants where applicable.
- New Mark 2/Mark 3 French Guns from 6-inch to 16-inch caliber.
- Further improved shell ballistics.
- Fixed bug of guns not following the current turret caliber size when cloned.
- Fixed major bug which made players overpowered vs the AI, as the ships designed in manual way, did not contain tonnage costs related with the citadel, resulting in thousands of tonnage advantage, allocated in firepower and protection.
- Finalized the new Engine section system inside the citadel and its interaction with the weight system.
- Various other minor fixes/improvements.

==Please restart Steam to receive the update (Saves had to be reset, any old save will surely break due to new ship models and weight mechanics, resulting in endless turns and crashes)==

[SiWi]

No crew fix yet? Well can't have all at once.