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

[BELEW848]

will there be a way i can keep the look of the MK2 15in gun but have it be a MK4?

[Skeksis]

28 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

OK, I may have cracked this... or it could just be bullshit!

I think the pivot point for the pitch offset may be the center of the citadel, thus, in your first example while you have reduced the weight at the bow, you have also moved the center of balance towards the stern. Likewise in your second example, you have added weight to the stern, in the form of both moving a weight backwards and extending the citadel, however this also moved the center of balance towards the stern.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF THE CENTER OF BALANCE WAS INDICATED ON THE Sections VIEW (shouting intended.

)

 

This is tripping up even the more senior players!, maybe Dev's could show/add a gravity ball. 

[kjg000]

Things I would really like to see fixed before 1.06 goes live. Pleeeeaaaassse!

I have not had a chance to look at 1.06.16 yet so some of these may have already been addressed.

In decreasing order of preference. (more or less)

The center of balance used in offset calculations displayed in the “Sections” display in the Dockyard. Possibly not an easy fix but neither should it be particularly difficult.

When moving ships in the campaign world map the icon for the taskforce obscures the port/taskforce it is being moved from. This means in practice you can only move 1 TF from any location per turn. i.e. if I have 10 ships in a port and want to create 2 TF of 5 ships each, headed for different locations or with different missions, I have to do this over 2 turns. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to build ‘Refit’ designs directly from that design without needing to build the original design first. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to ‘Refit’ designs directly from the Fleet screen. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to carry out batch/group actions on many ships at once in the Fleet screen i.e. Scrap, Suspend etc. This is currently available for some, but not all, actions This should be an easy fix.

Scroll bars on all information boxes and popups. Many of these disappear off the bottom of the window or screen. In the worst cases this can require the player to quit and restart the game as the required response box has disappeared. In other cases useful information, such as the performance specs for a ships guns in a battle, are not visible. Possibly not an easy fix but neither should it be particularly difficult.

Moving TF near each other does not result in combining of the TF, especially if they have different missions. Merging TF should only happen if the receiving TF, or the destination of the receiving TF, is explicitly selected as the Move target of the second TF. The resulting TF should have the mission of the first TF. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to break alliances. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to use captured Ports. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to refit , within limits, Prize ships. (Refit highest priority to implement, limits secondary priority) This should be an easyish fix.

In the Dockyard, when placing a rotatable component, if mirroring is turned on, the complementary component should automatically be placed with the correct rotation, if it is a valid placement. Possibly not an easy fix but neither should it be particularly difficult.

Edit: In the Dockyard, mousing over any ships value at the top of the screen should show relevant information, i.e. pitch, roll, engine efficiency. Also mousing over weapons in the ship summary on the top right of screen should show that weapons details, just like d does in the armaments section. Having done this, you could consider removing the armaments section. This should be an easy fix.

Listing expected Tech year in already researched techs. This should be an easy fix.

The ability to delete ALL redundant designs at the players discretion, provided no such ship currently exists. This should be an easy fix.

VP awards accurate and explained if not obvious. This should be an easyish fix.

There is of course, a great deal more to add but I would assume are already being addressed or would be more difficult to fix, some of the latter are listed below.

Ensure the figures displayed for an action are in fact the figures used. I.e. some of the research goals promise, say, 68% reduction in ship construction time but only deliver a fraction of this, say 5%. (I would have thought the displayed figure would come directly from the variable involved. Thus if you change the variable you automatically change the text.)

Alliances work correctly, i.e. I’m not asked to engage my allies fleet in battle. More than one alliance or conflict should be displayed on the World Screen as required, and the players wars should be listed first.

The current tech being researched should be listed first when clicking on a tech box in the Research screen ans, as implied above, the list of techs has a scroll bar.

In the dockyard, when placing a rotated component, the component should be movable at the current rotation. Currently we have to move the component, rotate it to see if it will fit but if it doesn't start over again trying to guess if your have moved the component sufficiently. Often you will find that you are back in the first location you tried.

Edited June 21, 2022 by kjg000
add clarification and new points.

[ShakenU]

My update 16 Feedback:

Ship balance and weight offset is very difficult to get balanced right now. A gravity ball would be great, honestly.

Still can't build ships directly to a refit class. That's a big QOL. At the very least, add a row to the refit window that shows location.

Economy is utterly broken. In 10 years on Hard, I racked up 3bn in savings, easy. Maxed out all the sliders. I think this is BETTER but needs to be turned back by about 25%.

[kjg000]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

This is tripping up even the more senior players!, maybe Dev's could show/add a gravity ball. 

I agree. However I think this would take more work than a simple, dynamic, line added to the Sections display. So perhaps 1.06 Live - a line, 1.07 a gravity ball?

Edit: Actually, in the first instance, I think it could be a clearly visible dot, initially showing the longitudinal center of mass, as this is possibly the most critical and its lack seems to be causing the most frustration/distress. But eventually showing the height center of mass as well as this will influence both pitch and roll.

Edited June 21, 2022 by kjg000
additional thought.

[Aloeus]

If we get a center of mass indicator we also need a center of buoyancy indicator, as the difference between these two would determine the "weight offset." 

And, as it is right now the game does not appear to be calculating weight offsets correctly, but I've already made my case on that. 

[kjg000]

23 minutes ago, Aloeus said:

If we get a center of mass indicator we also need a center of buoyancy indicator, as the difference between these two would determine the "weight offset." 

And, as it is right now the game does not appear to be calculating weight offsets correctly, but I've already made my case on that. 

I may, possibly, have found an explanation for the difficulty people have had with this. If so a center of buoyancy indicator may not be needed, however, if you are correct, and this is used in the calculation, then it should definitely be included.

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, kjg000 said:

I think the pivot point for the pitch offset may be the center of the citadel, thus, in your first example while you have reduced the weight at the bow, you have also moved the center of balance towards the stern.

So if I move the center of balance towards the stern (by removing the A turret and reducing the citadel size and moving more to the back) then the fore weight offset should be lowered, but instead is higher.

Likewise in your second example, you have added weight to the stern, in the form of both moving a weight backwards and extending the citadel, however this also moved the center of balance towards the stern.

The issue is, in the second example, my DD already had from the start, 100% aft weight offset. But if I increase the citadel and add more weight in the stern, I will start to get a stable hull. Make sense?

 

I find very difficult to see a logic explanation to this.

 

[o Barão]

Weight offset test.

With the stern so heavy, we should expect to move the weight forward to get a balance hull, right? But what happens if I place more weight in the stern?

Interesting, now I get a stable ship. So following this logic, If I move more weight to the stern, I should increase the fore weight offset, right?

Nope. Now we get more aft weight offset. 🤪

[kjg000]

38 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Weight offset test.

With the stern so heavy, we should expect to move the weight forward to get a balance hull, right? But what happens if I place more weight in the stern?

Interesting, now I get a stable ship. So following this logic, If I move more weight to the stern, I should increase the fore weight offset, right?

Nope. Now we get more aft weight offset. 🤪

OK, looking at the Sections box on the right of your images.

In the first image I have marked the approximate center of the citadel with a yellow dot.

In the next image, after you have moved the last set of launchers to the stern, you have also moved the center of the citadel. So from the perspective of the new center of mass, you have more evenly distributed the mass of the ship around the CoM, thus improving the weight offset.

In the last image, you have moved a set of launchers within the citadel. So, from the perspective of the CoM you have moved a mass backwards without moving the CoM itself, hence reducing the balance of the design and increasing the aft offset.

Sorry, I got the file sizes wrong and so had to crop the last image.

So my theory seems to hold but it would be nice to get some confirmation from the Dev's that this is so. Also, if my theory is valid then this illustrates how useful a CoM indicator would be.

[o Barão]

49 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

OK, looking at the Sections box on the right of your images.

In the first image I have marked the approximate center of the citadel with a yellow dot.

In the next image, after you have moved the last set of launchers to the stern, you have also moved the center of the citadel. So from the perspective of the new center of mass, you have more evenly distributed the mass of the ship around the CoM, thus improving the weight offset.

In the last image, you have moved a set of launchers within the citadel. So, from the perspective of the CoM you have moved a mass backwards without moving the CoM itself, hence reducing the balance of the design and increasing the aft offset.

Sorry, I got the file sizes wrong and so had to crop the last image.

So my theory seems to hold but it would be nice to get some confirmation from the Dev's that this is so. Also, if my theory is valid then this illustrates how useful a CoM indicator would be.

"you have also moved the center of the citadel."

Ok, I understood what you are saying. But what happens if I remove all the armor? Now would be irrelevant the size of the citadel, right?

Still very difficult to see the logic here. Let's try a new approach. Taking the first image, let's add a tiny gun in the stern and another one in the bow. Still no armor in the ship, but now I stretched the citadel to cover the maximum length. So I added the same small weight in both ends. What we get?

A difference from 99% aft weight offset to only 12.4% aft weight offset. Still no armor. And this is tiny, single barrel 2 inches. The ship displacement is a maximum 2,886 tons and each tiny 2-inch gun weights 2.7 tons in total.

Very difficult for me, at least, to see a reason here.

UPDATE:

You are right.

I placed only the 2 tiny guns, and then move them to close to the center to see if there is a change in the ship displacement.

And there is a big change. So now we are getting a good reason why it works this way.

However, now there is another question.

If I am not using any armor, why should the citadel size have any impact on the ship weight?🤔

Edited June 21, 2022 by o Barão

[ZorinW]

Even in Update 16 Alliances and wars are still pretty much broken.

Wars are not displyed correctly, alliances switch from one turn to the next, battles vs. our Allies are created etc....

 

Don't see this going into release any time soon.

[kjg000]

10 hours ago, Scoundrel said:

Long time lurker, I've put in about 300 hours into 1.06 and firstly I have to say I love the game and the direction it is going. Definitely worth the money. If I may make a few observations and some hopefully constructive suggestions:

SHIP BUILDER

1. Displacement: The sliders are counter-intuitive and I understand that they are legacy from the earlier builds of the game. Draught/freeboard should be tied to displacement, not length. Displacement should not change with the other sliders, but rather the draught should change as length and beam are manipulated. This would make ship building much easier for people to grasp.
2. Gun Barrels: I am unsure how realistic the game is supposed to be, but "accuracy" (technically it should be precision) should drop off with longer barrel length, not increase. This is a multivariant issue: comp8unding machining tolerances in the gun drives (referred to as mount lash or pivot lash to engineers) coupled with muzzle inertia (due to ship movement) and vibrational nodes (which increase with shell mass and is the primary loss of precision) are the main factors in reducing precision in long barrel guns. The sole reasons to increase barrel length is to increase velocity (for penetration) and lengthen the maximum point blank range of the guns for direct fire. Also, for those who are curious, rate of fire is determined almost solely by heat as it directly affects barrel longevity. I could write a paper on this subject (based on 5" guns as that is my area of expertise) if I had the time.
3. CG and CB: On the paper diagram of the ship I would like to see a blue or green Center of Buoyancy (CB) crosshair on it, and a red or yellow Center of Gravity (CG) crosshair that updates in realtime as I slide parts around, much in the fashion of Kerbal Space Program (yes, I am that samesaid Scoundrel from those forums ). I feel this might alleviate some of the frustration we have in balancing out ships.
4. Range: Campaign-wise, I would like this to directly affect maintenance costs, say -12.5% to maintenance costs per slider stop. Ships that are intended for long range have far more robust systems and carry more spares as they have to operate independently for long periods of time. It would have the added benefit of players having to put more thought into their designs than just eating the marginal cost of minimizing range to enhance performance.

 

CAMPAIGN

*I must admit that most of my issues with the campaign have been addressed, so I will just hit the big things that in an ideal world I would like to see addressed.

1. Ship maintenance costs are way too high. The cost of maintaining a $100m Iowa class battleship at sea was roughly $500k per year in 1944 (less ammo expenditures). Of course, with supply vessels being abstracted this would be higher, so I accept that there is some additional costs that we as players would need to eat to keep our fleets at sea. Likewise repairs are crazy expensive for superficial damage (green damage). Would it be possible to re-examine these numbers and find a reasonable balance that fits within the context of the game?
2. The AI has issues with fleet building. Might I suggest having the AI build primary fleets for the zones that they operate in, such as Germany having a Baltic Fleet and a Northern Fleet, and perhaps a grand fleet for power projection? Then as they unlock new hulls they put the old ships in reserve, then do a check of any ships of that class in reserve that are older than the ones going into reserve, with the older ships then being scrapped. You could also have the AI refit and activate reserve ships when tensions with a country reach -60 (or whatever). This would reduce the amount of ship building the AI does while not leaving them vulnerable. Ports could also have flotillas of destroyers and TBs for coastal defense, which use the same system of reserves... or they could just be the most modern versions to make life easier for everyone. This system would have the additional benefit of the AI building fleets for zones they intend to go to war with, say Germany building a West Mediterranean Fleet.
3. I would love to see an Annual Intelligence Report button that summarizes the technologies that other countries have unlocked, as well as "speculated" ships that they are building, as well as the size of their transport pool. Speaking of which...
4. The transports slider is a little too abstract. I would love to see a transport pool or something of the sort that would make the "so-and-so loses 15 transports" have more meaning. If it could be linked to both GDP as well as ability to service fleets in a way that players could grasp, I think it would go a long way to giving us players a greater grasp of how the in-game economy works.
5. I also kind of feel that the AI is kind of suicidal in that they are a little too willing to draw out a war when their ability to wage war has been severely compromised, either economically or militarily. Might I suggest that 12 turns of consistent blockading lead to surrender? Likewise, are things like non-aggression pacts and cease-fire treaties planned? What about diplomatic fleet missions that do not spike tension?
6. Would it be possible to set ships in port to "escort" duties so I can set up ships and fleets specifically for escort missions? Likewise for commerce raiding? I feel like these need to be more specific than "protect" and "invade" settings for task forces.

All that said, I am looking forward to what the devs come up with next. I hope everyone has a fantastic week!

Cheers!

I kinda agree with most of your points, although it would be good to keep coding in mind. Otherwise:

2. There must be an optimum length, otherwise a length 0 gun would be the most precise. Given this, the devs would need to know this length for every barrel in order to calculate the effects of changing barrel length. From a practical perspective, the current system seems tolerable.

3. At this point in time, I don't see compelling evidence that center of buoyancy is being used in the code. For that matter I don't even think they are even using a true centre of mass, I think that they are using the centre of the citadel as a short cut for coding reasons. It would help reduce the confusion if the Devs explained exactly what they are doing.

Campaign points.

3. Could  be monthly or even just whenever something changes. Intel could also be reflected in estimates of enemy TF sizes and ships in ports as well as ths accuracy of enemy ships specifications. It could also indicate current enemy technology levels.

[kjg000]

17 minutes ago, o Barão said:

 

If I am not using any armor, why should the citadel size have any impact on the ship weight?🤔

Remember we are not talking about reality here, we're talking about how the Devs have represented this in their code. Many factors will influence how they do this, such as how much computer resources are available. After all we want the game to flow smoothly and not get held up with too many complex calculations. Every shortcut they take can improve the gamers experience of the game.

In this case I think that they are using the centre of the citadel as a convenient substitute for the centre of mass regardless of whether there is any armour or not. Even without armour, the ship has some sort of structure around the nominal CoM.

[kjg000]

11 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Ok this is odd, the wing and center line guns have vastly different stats in some critical areas

 

noticed the vastly different hit chances, then noticed that yes, centerlines were reloading twice as fast.

In the opening notes for 1.06 , the first post in this thread, the Devs mention something about penalties for mixed calibre guns and non-centerline guns. Perhaps this reflects that penalty? 

Not sure why non-centerline guns need a penalty though or why it should affect these specific values.

[ZorinW]

Can anyone else confirm that there is something funny going own with the firing arcs? Just had a battle of CA vs CL and no matter the distance between us (<1k - >5k) I always hit either deck or superstructure, never the belt.

[IshPR7777]

17 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Can anyone else confirm that there is something funny going own with the firing arcs? Just had a battle of CA vs CL and no matter the distance between us (<1k - >5k) I always hit either deck or superstructure, never the belt.

Don't forget about the funnels that they got hit or destroyed as well

[admiralsnackbar]

With the GDP growth bug fixed, the port capacity not being changed over time will become more of an issue. Consider having port capacity be a function of GDP per port. So if you keep ports constant and gdp doubles your port capacity should double as well. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, admiralsnackbar said:

With the GDP growth bug fixed, the port capacity not being changed over time will become more of an issue. Consider having port capacity be a function of GDP per port. So if you keep ports constant and gdp doubles your port capacity should double as well. 

It should be already working. Port capacity will have growth according to the GDP growth.

[admiralsnackbar]

6 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It should be already working. Port capacity will have growth according to the GDP growth.

ok, confirmed this is working. It changes turn to turn are small and i had thought the values of port size seemed small relative to what they would be if you started the campaign in that given year, but i should have double checked that. [i don't want to reset my campaign rn to check though lol]

[IshPR7777]

So Nick, in terms of adding new hulls, I request you to add Helgoland Class Battleship for Germany into the game

[Norbert Sattler]

Hmm... new campaign played to 1893 with my first war won and so far no sign of the infinite barrage bug and GDP looks good too.

The only thing that happened where I'm not entirely sure if it's a bug is the peace deal. I defeated France and demanded Tunisia and Corsica, but I only got Tunisia.

Speaking of peace deals, I think that provinces should cost more to take there.

Edit: I can now send my ships to my newly conquered province of Tunis, so that was fixed too.

A round later a French CL docked there, though... I hope that was just an order that was given before the ports were handed over, rather than how it was the previous verisons where the nations would keep using their former ports despite no longer owning them. I'll keep an eye on that.

Edit2: Correction, I can only dock my ships in Tunis. Bizerte is inaccessible to me. If I try to move ships there, the Move button is grayed out.

Edit3: Now a few years later my ships can't dock in Tunis anymore, even though they were able to earlier.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Zombie1914]

2 hours ago, ZorinW said:

Can anyone else confirm that there is something funny going own with the firing arcs? Just had a battle of CA vs CL and no matter the distance between us (<1k - >5k) I always hit either deck or superstructure, never the belt.

I can confirm this.

Had several fights with my BBs vs CA/CL/DD with small caliber guns which didnt have a chance against the belt armor (12"/18"/12") or even the super structure(8").

All damage taken, as shown in the logs, was from deck hits @ Range ~5k and closer most of the time.

My only explanation would be richochets from the super structure.😁

PS: Also happens with my own shells apparantly. CA @ 4-6km range, BB @ ~8km:

PPS: The number of partial pens with very low damage seems a bit high (e.g. 160DMG @ 65 hits taken). DMG notes with 0.x partial pen is also rather common for me and I suspect this is from the hostile ships spamming HE on me.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Zombie1914

[Norbert Sattler]

I kept a loot at my new, shiny Tunisian ports and after that initial CL, no further French ships docked there. And I can also confirm that the port-capacity is growing with my GDP. 👍

[Norbert Sattler]

Something seems a bit shot with the tension mechanic.

Early in my campaign I had one alliance with Italy, that didn't last long and a single war against France.

Ever since I beat France, everyone seems to love me to the point where it's a struggle to lower their opinion of me, but even when I manage to theoretically push past the -100, it tops out at -99 and I can't start a war.

And despite everyone loving me so much that if I don't actively sabotage our relationship, I'll rise to 99 over time, nobody seems to want to form an alliance either with the opinion toppping out at +99.

They even barely fight each other...