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

[o Barão]

Testing the new citadel and weight mechanics.

I placed all the guns and the only funnel in the middle to save weight and cost, but I still have some weight offset issues. I could solve this in many ways, but let's see what happens if I add some secondaries.

A tiny 2-inch gun is enough to make the weight offset go from 29% forward to 50% in the stern.

A tiny gun with an overall weight 3.9 ton is enough to cause this huge effect in a hull with 5672 tons total displacement.

[Skreezilla]

Campaign: 1940, Alliance with Italy and Germany I am Austro-Hungry. 
I click to next turn and all of a sudden I am fighting the Italians and aligned with France in war against Italy. very confused! 

[JeeWeeJ]

I saw it mentioned before on this forum, but in this hotfix the AI seems to once again get an insane accuracy "range found" bonus ranging between 420% and 636%.

Now, I know that the AI will happily keep building ships using just the most basic of basic technologies and just ignore stuff like rangefinders, but giving them an accuracy bonus like this is just stupid IMHO. I just had a ship get blow up which was superior in technology, armor, guns and crew, just because I could only top out on a 6% gun accuracy (it's a 1890s game) while the AI ship (with a green crew and without rangefinders I might add) topped out on 18%.

Instead of giving the AI bonusses like that, please make them build sensible ships as I don't mind getting my ass handed to me if my ships are just outclassed.

[ilguisco]

German 1890 campaign.

now i am on war vs France and myself!? we have traitors! :=)

i cant autoresolve, i have to fight my own fleet.

 

[Zombie1914]

Once more about the current balistics:

Target is a 14k ton CA at about 4km range and i am closing in rather slowly which makes it quite a good example.

As you can see from the gun stats they should have a rather flat trajectory at <4km range (maybe except for the 2").

In the screenshot above you can see that the target is not listing or in any way exposing the deck to me.

Of the logged 20 hits, there are only 2 hits on the belt, 1 hit on the main tower but 17x (!) Deck hits.

Yes, i am aware that this only logs pens or partial pens and the ricochet angle is rather high but still

I think this is at the very least questionable and should be double-checked.

PS: Closing in even more.

@<2k there is finally an increase in belt hits. Of 19 hits in the log, 8 hits to the belt, 1 to the main tower, 1 to sec gun and still 9 hits to the deck.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Zombie1914
added view from target with armor stats

[Plazma]

1 hour ago, JeeWeeJ said:

I saw it mentioned before on this forum, but in this hotfix the AI seems to once again get an insane accuracy "range found" bonus ranging between 420% and 636%.

Now, I know that the AI will happily keep building ships using just the most basic of basic technologies and just ignore stuff like rangefinders, but giving them an accuracy bonus like this is just stupid IMHO. I just had a ship get blow up which was superior in technology, armor, guns and crew, just because I could only top out on a 6% gun accuracy (it's a 1890s game) while the AI ship (with a green crew and without rangefinders I might add) topped out on 18%.

Instead of giving the AI bonusses like that, please make them build sensible ships as I don't mind getting my ass handed to me if my ships are just outclassed.

This applied to the player too. For some reasons you can get +600% range found bonus, with long barrels guns and aim accuracy you can  get 50% chance of hit by 12" gun mark II at range 9km. But this happens more often (for me) with DD and 2" guns. 

 

1 hour ago, Zombie1914 said:

Once more about the current balistics:

Target is a 14k ton CA at about 4km range and i am closing in rather slowly which makes it quite a good example.

As you can see from the gun stats they should have a rather flat trajectory at <4km range (maybe except for the 2").

In the screenshot above you can see that the target is not listing or in any way exposing the deck to me.

Of the logged 20 hits, there are only 2 hits on the belt, 1 hit on the main tower but 17x (!) Deck hits.

Yes, i am aware that this only logs pens or partial pens and the ricochet angle is rather high but still

I think this is at the very least questionable and should be double-checked.

PS: Closing in even more.

@<2k there is finally an increase in belt hits. Of 19 hits in the log, 8 hits to the belt, 1 to the main tower, 1 to sec gun and still 9 hits to the deck.

I have literally this same situation. This is funny especially when I have guns(12") long barrels what can have like 1" deck penetration at range 5km in 1910, but have 33" for penetrating belts... Not sure if Devs want this. I guess we need made guns for deck penetration now or for HE. 

 

Edit: Ye, no matter what 90% hits go in deck. Because of that "big guns" must have and sometimes is good to make sort barrel. No idea why, but veteran crew and +0.9" give us a big bonus to accuracy, so you don't need long barrel. Simply you can nuked enemy ship from orbit. I found that 12.9" +5% barrel length with veteran crew have 100% accuracy at range 8km + can pen around 6,5" of armor. Usually enemy don't have summary more than 6,5" armor on turret = flash fire.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Plazma

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, JeeWeeJ said:

but in this hotfix the AI seems to once again get an insane accuracy "range found" bonus ranging between 420% and 636%.

It is the same for the player and the AI. It is related to the crew level.

Veteran crew. 636%

Cadet crew. 41%

[Zombie1914]

On a side note:

1. The way the NPCs are able of keeping a high angle to improve their chance of ricocheting shots when you try to finish them off, even with damaged rudder and 1-3 damaged engines, is ridiculous and screams cheating to me. (hard to prove though)

2. The number of partial pens, even with high angle, when the guns have enough punch to go through bow to aft of the targets armor scheme is rather annoing. I could understand over-pens but partials with +50" pen @ 1k range just seems wrong.

PS: Just having something similar again, this time 7k range on a CL with 4.9" main belt, 3.2" fore and aft belt, very low ricochet (-1°) and my 12" guns only do partial pens on the belt with AP that has 35" pen at that range. Oh and o/c most of time its deck hits again.

Edited June 22, 2022 by Zombie1914
added 2. - added PS

[admiralsnackbar]

20 minutes ago, Zombie1914 said:

On a side note:

1. The way the NPCs are able of keeping a high angle to improve their chance of ricocheting shots when you try to finish them off, even with damaged rudder and 1-3 damaged engines, is ridiculous and screams cheating to me. (hard to prove though)

2. The number of partial pens, even with high angle, when the guns have enough punch to go through bow to aft of the targets armor scheme is rather annoing. I could understand over-pens but partials with +50" pen @ 1k range just seems wrong.

There are two factors here that the game can't or hasn't accounted for, I think. 

1. Damage taken above the waterline should affect flooding of damage at the waterline.
2. An armored belt typically doesn't extent the whole side of the ship but a relatively narrow band at the waterline. 
3. Not to reignite the debate about what actually sank bismark but that's a real historical example of a warship taking a massive pounding before being sunk. 

The way that I try to sink such vessels is either with torpedoes, or HE fire into the deck assuming my HE has sufficient pen. 
 

[Zombie1914]

49 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

2. An armored belt typically doesn't extent the whole side of the ship but a relatively narrow band at the waterline.

Absolutely true and that was the whole point for the turtelback and all-or-nothing armor scheme. Belt armor to protect from flooding hits and some extra protection for the vulnerable parts.

Until this is modelled ingame through we must asume that any hits on the hull are belt hits and only plunging fire can hit the deck, which is not working correctly from my point of view.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 minutes ago, Zombie1914 said:

Absolutely true and that was the whole point for the turtelback and all-or-nothing armor scheme. Belt armor to protect from flooding hits and some extra protection for the vulnerable parts.

Until this is modelled ingame through we must asume that any hits on the hull are belt hits and only plunging fire can hit the deck, which is not working correctly from my point of view.

I hedged my bets by saying "I think" because someone had posted a comment about how an unusually high portion of the hits were deck hits at close range, which made me think that maybe the hits on the citadel deck are classified as 'deck hits' which would actually suggest the armor modeling is working as intended. 

[Zombie1914]

8 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I hedged my bets by saying "I think" because someone had posted a comment about how an unusually high portion of the hits were deck hits at close range, which made me think that maybe the hits on the citadel deck are classified as 'deck hits' which would actually suggest the armor modeling is working as intended. 

Sure but i would expect such a thing (Deck = Hull != Belt) to be mentioned in the patch notes as that is quite major.

I rather suspect that the hit boxes are displaced due to the addition of the engine hit box or that the hit calculation is just borked and they tried to fix this with an even more borked accuracy calculation and range found bonus. (see above posts by JeeweeJ, Plazma and o Baro)

 

[Nagato]

There is a bug where France send ultimatum

first option cannot be pressed, leading only to one of two others which reduces funds. First option in any game i had against France, it cant be used, only second and third.

[Kiknurazz91]

Finally got to play a little bit of campaign then this happened. At the loading screen it finishes but the words loading game start flashing I click on the screen and the screen is gray but I can see a single smokestack and the direction arrow but nothing else anyone else encountered this? Graphical problem or game problem? Anyone know how to fix it or prevent it?

 

UPDATE: Got it working

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Kiknurazz91

[Carl_Bar]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I hedged my bets by saying "I think" because someone had posted a comment about how an unusually high portion of the hits were deck hits at close range, which made me think that maybe the hits on the citadel deck are classified as 'deck hits' which would actually suggest the armor modeling is working as intended. 

 

It's not that, i've got a screenshot of a BB taking a deck pen that setoff ammo from a 4.9" gun, The only way that would be possibble is if some part of the deck is being modelled as vertical as the horizontla pen wasn't enough to pen the belt and the vertical pen wasn't enough t pen the deck, but the the horizontal pen was sufficient to pen the deck.

 

 

[jejones19]

I have done some testing to figure out what is going on with the weird amount of deck pens. It seems to have something to do with the ballistics of shells being bugged. The game seems to have standardized the angles for incoming shells for all guns. Here are the guns that I tested so far. Will test more later.(I am testing guns with 1940s tech level)

16in mark 3s                       15in mark 4                          

20km+ = 89 degrees       20km+=72-89 degrees

20km = 75 degrees         20km= 70 degrees

15km = 54 degrees          15km = 49 degrees

10km = 34 degrees          10km = 31 degrees

5km = 16 degrees             5km = 15 degrees

1km = 3 degrees               1km=  3 degrees

To make sure I wasn't crazy, I also tested 3 different 16 in guns and made sure each gun had a different shell velocity from one another:

Gun 1                                  Gun2                                  Gun3

842m/s                               730m/s                             641m/s

20km+ = 89 degrees       20km+ = 89 degrees         20km+ = 89 degrees

20km = 75 degrees          20km = 75 degrees           20km = 75 degrees

15km = 54 degrees           15km = 54 degrees           15km = 54 degrees

10km = 34 degrees           10km = 34 degrees           10km = 34 degrees

5km = 16 degrees             5km = 16 degrees              5km = 16 degrees

1km = 3 degrees                1km = 3 degrees               1km = 3 degrees

I'm sure this confirms that something is going on here. 

PS: The game does tell you how steep a shell will impact a ship. The screenshot below shows how to find this stat. In the screenshot, the shell will impact the ship at a 54 degrees which equates to about a 13% chance to hit the belt and a 87% chance to hit the deck.

Edited June 23, 2022 by jejones19

[Aloeus]

Ok this is comical what I have to do to make this ship work: 

With the rear turret tucked back to where it should be: 

With the front turret where it should be: 

 

Moving the rear turret back adds about 3700 tons of weight. Somehow, despite adding this the rear of the ship, it makes the aft weight offset go down to 16.9%. 

Moving the fore turret forward adds 2800t of weight, and (accurately) reduces the aft weight offset down to only 2%. In order to balance this ship I have to have a citadel run almost the entire length and have turrets comically close the the edge, as well as waste about 6000t of weight. 

[AdmiralKirk]

I have to concur with these reports about center of gravity issues, update 16 changed the balancing system in a way that makes it really difficult not to have egregious longitudinal weight offsets, and often requires nonsensical choices and omission of secondary weapons which should weigh barely anything. I thought the way things were working in update 15's editor was completely functional and this made things a lot worse.

Honestly, I'd much prefer if the fore/aft and pitch/roll penalties were toned down a lot and only made a serious difference for designs that are really egregiously lopsided (like if you were to load all your engines and primary weapons forward of the center of buoyancy). The weight savings resulting from the compactness and position of the citadel and the defensive benefits associated with the location of the machinery spaces are sufficient to encourage reasonable ship layouts in my view, at least for player designs.

[Fangoriously]

Whats with single main gun penetrations hits of the main tower setting most of the ship on fire and causing 2k to 3k damage and taking up to 35% of a battleship's structural integrity, as if its an ammo detonation?

Whats with nearly every hit being to the deck now, causing the ship to always default to firing HE, no mater the range, or barrel length your guns might have?

*edit

Oh nice, a hit to my funnel dealt 1300 damage. Any more hits like that, and the load barring structural beams in the bowels of my ship will surly turn to dust.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Fangoriously

[kjg000]

On 6/21/2022 at 4:56 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Note2

- The beta is almost ready for a full release, probably by the end of this week, after adding the new hulls and fixing a few more bugs with the help of your continuous feedback.
Enjoy!
 

I very much would like this to be true but, given the current levels of frustrations shown by the beta testers, I think this would be in-advisable.

Many of us have suggested changes that we think should be made before 1.06 goes live and at least the easiest and quickest should be addressed (bearing in mind that we don't have access to the code and so may not know how difficult a particular task is) but, and more importantly, the issues dealing with balancing ships need to be addressed. Even a cursory examination of the last few days shows how frustrating this is to the beta players, imagine how it will be received by people expecting a higher quality from the live release.

Several of us have requested some sort of auto-balancing to finish off designs, as a way to mitigate the problem.

I realize that you will have milestones to achieve and all of us want the game to succeed and become more popular. Rushing a live release does not seem to be a good way to achieve this.

[Zombie1914]

1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:

Oh nice, a hit to my funnel dealt 1300 damage. Any more hits like that, and the load barring structural beams in the bowels of my ship will surly turn to dust.

If it was plunging fire hit to the funnel i might even call that realistic as it circumvents any armor and goes right through to the engines. At the distance seen on the screenshot i call BS though.

[Zombie1914]

4 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

I very much would like this to be true but, given the current levels of frustrations shown by the beta testers, I think this would be in-advisable.

Many of us have suggested changes that we think should be made before 1.06 goes live and at least the easiest and quickest should be addressed (bearing in mind that we don't have access to the code and so may not know how difficult a particular task is) but, and more importantly, the issues dealing with balancing ships need to be addressed. Even a cursory examination of the last few days shows how frustrating this is to the beta players, imagine how it will be received by people expecting a higher quality from the live release.

Several of us have requested some sort of auto-balancing to finish off designs, as a way to mitigate the problem.

I realize that you will have milestones to achieve and all of us want the game to succeed and become more popular. Rushing a live release does not seem to be a good way to achieve this.

I strongly suggest to only keep the campaing changes from the 1.06 beta for now. The other issues need a bit more work.

Campaing is the most important part of 1.06 from my pov and is at least good enough to go live.

[kjg000]

5 minutes ago, Zombie1914 said:

I strongly suggest to only keep the campaing changes from the 1.06 beta for now. The other issues need a bit more work.

Campaing is the most important part of 1.06 from my pov and is at least good enough to go live.

Almost, we need to stop having battles between allies or even between our own task forces first. (Long live the revolution!?).

[kjg000]

On 6/22/2022 at 1:18 PM, Dave P. said:

Not beta-specific, but IMHO the tech tree could use some greater flexibility, or at least a different structure for the tech topics with very, very long lists of topics to get (particularly guns.)

For instance, it kind of sucks that I have to research all the guns, in a specific order, to get larger guns to higher marks. If I have Mk4 9" guns, and Mk1 16" guns, why do I have to research all my 10-15" guns up to Mk4 before I can unlock 16" Mk4? My engineers obviously know how Mk4 guns work, and how 16" guns work - why can't they combine the two without taking a multiple-year detour to design/build intermediate calibers?

I'd honestly like something more akin to how the torpedo tech is laid out - with launcher tech, torp size, and propulsion/range as separate techs that I can focus on individually.

This is pie-in-the-sky, but if the entire research system were thrown out and done over, I'd like to be able to adjust individual spending amounts for each tech, rather than have just the three "priority" options and then the remaining resources split evenly. If I'm trying to rush a new DD design out the door before an impending war, money spent on researching armor is money wasted.

I tend to agree, but I think this could wait for 1.07 or later. For me this is a relatively minor annoyance at the moment and one I could live with.

The currant tech tree seems to be item based. that is, by this time you should be able to build these specific components. I'd like to see one that was technology or capability based. For example, if you research extraction fans for funnels, you should be able to apply this to all funnels; if you develop a new gun manufacturing technique, you should be able to apply this to all relevant guns etc.

[Grandpa Canuck]

Before 1.06 can go full release a few significant things have to be debugged. I am sure others can add a few more to my list as well.

1) Balancing is very very wrong right now. I can add a 3in gun near my rear tower and the fore/aft goes 30-40 points. Casemate guns placed closer to the bow/stern that a main turret do strange things. Moving a small gun on the aft of small tonnage ships is giving bad effects not understood by even experienced players.

2) The data report on wars is still inaccurate after the first war. I have been placed on the opposite side I was on, I have been made unable to go to war with a nation I am already at war with (in the decisions). There is no way for a player to know if a war has ended that they are not involved in directly displayed.

3) AI is still stacking more tonnage in ports than can fit.

4) If you are the second one to declare war on another nation and the first war is still ongoing you get no or very very few small battles. In my last attempt I was at war with France, they had 12 plus battleships in ports in the Mediterranean and as Italy with my fleet fully deployed in East/West Med and even a few in Atlantic and English Channel, for several months I had no encounters and the French lost no or limited transports. They meanwhile had a few small encounters with the Germans in areas with less ships.

Doing a full release with these sorts of bugs I fear will cause many STEAM bad reviews and opinion will plummet. I have STREAMED on Twitch all of the last many updates. Devs, please review these along with the bug reports sent during them to analyze the situation and find a way to overcome. Three close friends who have tried most of the updates now have given up till there is a full release of 1.06 and if the bugs are still there they will likely shelf the game and write a bad review.

Please don't release this with critical bugs this week. It has so much potential and many elements you have developed are wonderful.