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

[ZorinW]

23 minutes ago, M3rky1 said:

You have a high aft weight offset because your center of mass is really far forward (where your citadel is) and you have a lot of secondaries behind it. Try putting a main gun behind your towers to balance the center of mass. 

The whole point the devs about the new citadel mechanic was to make it easier to design ships like the Nelsons. Putting a gun aft would defeat that point completely.

[M3rky1]

6 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

The whole point the devs about the new citadel mechanic was to make it easier to design ships like the Nelsons. Putting a gun aft would defeat that point completely.

If you want to build a Nelson type ship you need to move your towers and guns further back so that your citadel is centered on the middle of the ship. It looks like you just made a normal ship but didn't build any rear turret's. Idk if that will fix the offset problem but it's worth a try.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Fixed tooltip buggy offset in 4K resolution monitors.

- Added hull "center of mass" indication in the design phase and fixed various bugs in the instability mechanics. Now you will be able to design your ship with the help of this accurate indicator and understand how the mass of the hull is centered and why weight offset is created on one side.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD (Saves are reset - Please note that the full release must delay because we need to make further fixes)

Many thanks! I see good changes (the new center of mass is a great add-on), but there is something not right.

This is an extreme example and should not be possible. It is a Mogami firepower in 4k ton CL hull. Complete unrealistic, but is good to show the issue about the "draught".

"A taller and consequently a larger hull is a less stable shooting platform...."

I increased the draught slider to the maximum and I got a more stable shooting platform.

I get the penalties related to the gun accuracy by increasing the draught, but I get a more stable shooting platform. Something is not right.

Edited June 23, 2022 by o Barão

[Aloeus]

53 minutes ago, M3rky1 said:

You have a high aft weight offset because your center of mass is really far forward (where your citadel is) and you have a lot of secondaries behind it. Try putting a main gun behind your towers to balance the center of mass. 

How do you have an aft weight offset when all your mass is really far forward? That's not how balancing ships should work. 

 

Since we can't change the hull, we should have a fixed center of buoyancy. This is the effective vector from the forces of buoyancy on the hull. This should be a fixed point when we consider it in the build screen, dependent on the shape of the hull. 

The center of mass is just that, the single vector that represents all the gravitational forces on the ship. It doesn't matter if you have some light secondaries far away from it, the center of mass is the center of mass (it does change if you change the weights around, like moving turrets farther out, but there's no inherent imbalance with weights far away from another). 

The difference between these two vectors will create a moment, a twisting force. This should be what the game considers longitudinal offset, or rather the effect of this moment will create the offset. When you put a ship with a difference between the buoyancy vector and the weight vector in the water, the ship will sink rotationally until enough extra hull is in the water such that it has moved the buoyancy vector (by displacing more water on one side and less on the other side) to meet and counteract the weight vector. 

 

I'm not sure if this is how the game actually calculated weight offset, but I'm inclined to think at least right now it doesn't. 

[Plazma]

51% fore offset

0,1% fore offset

 

I don't understand, center of mass in second example is more forward, but 0 offset, but in first pic we have 51% offset! 

 

I try around half hour balance Italy BB, I can do it, but with small gun on fore deck and big one on aft + armor on aft belt and aft deck. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Plazma

[Nick Thomadis]

8 minutes ago, Plazma said:

51% fore offset

0,1% fore offset

 

I don't understand, center of mass in second example is more forward, but 0 offset, but in first pic we have 51% offset! 

 

I try around half hour balance Italy BB, I can do it, but with small gun on fore deck and big one on aft + armor on aft belt and aft deck. 

Please read the tooltips. It is the center of mass of the "HULL" not considering the parts you add on it.

[o Barão]

Two small errors

Japanese "Modern heavy cruiser IIII"

- Is not possible to place guns in this location.

- Is not IIII. Is III. IIII is not a roman number. 4 is IV and we already have a japanese Modern heavy cruiser IV and II but not a III.

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, o Barão said:

Two small errors

Japanese "Modern heavy cruiser IIII"

- Is not possible to place guns in this location.

- Is not IIII. Is III. IIII is not a roman number. 4 is IV and we already have a japanese Modern heavy cruiser IV and II but not a III.

We will check and fix it, thanks.

[Plazma]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Please read the tooltips. It is the center of mass of the "HULL" not considering the parts you add on it.

Sorry, but I don't get it. I can set center of mass of the hull by moving the funnel. But in this case everything after funnel will contribute as fore offset, main tower, main guns... If I put my funnel on the end of ship everything will be contribute as fore offset but low values, when I put my funnel forward I have a lack of space and everything after funnel heavy impact fore offset. This is very strange... and some hulls are not balanced, because of the shape of the hull.  

 

 

[SodaBit]

I've got some quick Battle AI/Targeting feedback here.
While there have been improvements, the AI still has issues with target selection with regards to battlefield realities.

Our friend here has been *trying* to shoot at one of my light ships with no avail, not because the shots it fired missed, but because it' hasn't fired at all. The target is too fast, too far away, and the base accuracy of the guns is less that 100% at 1km, the bare minimum I'd shoot for on any weapon of any caliber. This inaction against hostile ships has cost this BB quite badly, as an unending torrent of fire has poured into the ship, with the crew refusing to reply, as the accuracy isn't good enough to waste shells, and they need to wait until the target gets into range in order to fire at it with some hope of actually doing any damage.

However, there's one massive problem with this course of action.

The target is player controlled, and even if this wasn't the case, the ship has no incentive to move any closer, as her own gun's accuracy is more than sufficient at this range.

The result of the predicament is entirely predictable. The enemy BB has been Hit Over 500 Times Without Reply. With just over 2,000 hits scored on the ship, the fact that she has only sent 157 shots back at the enemy is simply unacceptable. Whilst the main guns have taken substantial damage, with one turret knocked out of action completely, the BB's secondary battery is mostly intact, with plenty of ammo left, and several targets in range, including...

An 82,500t BB steaming along at 30 knots. A much easier target than a 2,500t DD at almost 40knts, and significantly more deadly, as said DD has already fired her torpedos, all of which motored on harmlessly past the the AI's ships.

The course of action for the AI BB should be fairly obvious at this point. With her powerplant entirely knocked out, a dead rudder, and fires and flooding weakening the ship further, it's pretty clear that this ship won't be making it back to port, and should attempt to do as much damage as humanly possible on her way to the bottom. Instead, she's going to continue using the foolhardy tactics that got her into this scenario in the first place, waiting to line up the perfect shot on a less than ideal target, a shot that will never come.

Edit: Attached is the scoreboard from the battle.

As you can see, the only ship that was actually hit on my side was my BB, all the others emerged without so much as a scratch in the paint. 
Focusing fire on Leberecht Maass was completely unjustified in the end, with this unit having come in 4th place on damage on my team, with only the M class CL doing worse, probably on account of the comparatively poor accuracy of the 200mm guns she uses. Whilst the BC did the best of all units on my side, it's got a max speed equivalent to that of Maass at 39.6 knots, so hitting it would still be something of a challenge at longer ranges. Again, the most viable target in both hit probability and threat level was the BB, as it carried 8 16.5" guns, and could be reliably hit from ~18km due to her large profile. 

Edited June 23, 2022 by SodaBit
Post Battle Results

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, ZorinW said:

The whole point the devs about the new citadel mechanic was to make it easier to design ships like the Nelsons. Putting a gun aft would defeat that point completely.

Sadly, the new stability mechanics doesn't help. In fact, it makes everything more difficult.

A Nelson as example.

Pitch 76% and 51% roll. Terrible.

What if happens if we change components location to a more traditional layout?

Pitch 42% and 26% roll. Still bad.

And we got 300ton plus more armor.

Well, what if we increase more the citadel?

Pitch 27% and 14% roll. ok

 

So in conclusion, the new stability mechanics does not like to see small citadels. You will get terrible penalties by going down that route.

And if the Nelson is a nightmare to design in 1.06, you need to try to design a Tone class cruiser to see the true horror.😝

Edited June 23, 2022 by o Barão

[itolan1752]

dose it possible to break the Alliance now?(1.06 update 17)

Not only player & AI' but also AI & AI' alliance.

or it already can but I don't know how to do?

[M3rky1]

39 minutes ago, Plazma said:

Sorry, but I don't get it. I can set center of mass of the hull by moving the funnel. But in this case everything after funnel will contribute as fore offset, main tower, main guns... If I put my funnel on the end of ship everything will be contribute as fore offset but low values, when I put my funnel forward I have a lack of space and everything after funnel heavy impact fore offset. This is very strange... and some hulls are not balanced, because of the shape of the hull.  

 

 

So is it that the center of mass is of the hull and citadel but the guns don't get calculated in that? So adding a gun changes the offset of the center off mass but doesn't affect the center of mass itself. However adding a main gun changes the size of the citadel and that citadel change is what's calculated. Idk if I am explaining it very well. Gun weight affects weight offset but citadel size affects center of mass?

[AdmiralObvious]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Fixed rare bug that caused fast "ping pong" damage to a ship until it got sunk.

Unfortunately, this was not fixed completely. I encountered this using an increased caliber. Increased length 13 inch gun firing SAP at a variety of ships. The shell initially hit a partial penetration of the deck of a CA, and then it generated 1000 more hits on that target. This then happened immediately again upon first hit of the next ship after the CA sunk until the battle inevitably ended.

Edited June 23, 2022 by AdmiralObvious

[Grizli60rus]

Hello! It may have happened before and I don't know if it's a bug or not. But in versions 16 and 17, I noticed that sometimes some guns do not fire for some time, although they are reloaded and the angle allows. In this case, if you right-click on the target, a volley occurs. I observed this with guns from 6 "and more. Small guns always hit when they can. Although I'm not sure here, I didn't follow them. An example of such volleys with a "delay" and only after pressing the right mouse button on the target is in a short video:

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Grizli60rus

[SodaBit]

9 minutes ago, Grizli60rus said:

Hello! It may have happened before and I don't know if it's a bug or not. But in versions 16 and 17, I noticed that sometimes some guns do not fire for some time, although they are reloaded and the angle allows. In this case, if you right-click on the target, a volley occurs. I observed this with guns from 6 "and more. Small guns always hit when they can. Although I'm not sure here, I didn't follow them. An example of such volleys with a "delay" and only after pressing the right mouse button on the target is in a short video:

 

Well, this is one bug I had hoped would never come back. This seems to be caused by the guns "waiting for all guns of the same caliber to be able to fire on target." It's pretty annoying, and I'm not sure how to fix it other than wiggling the ship left to right in hopes of tricking the guns into firing.

[Grizli60rus]

I checked again, yes, there is such a bug and with small-caliber guns. Checked for 43mm. Also periodically "hung" and 152mm and others. Activated by the left mouse button, made several volleys (different number) and again "hung". At the same time, if you do not press the mouse buttons, after some time they begin to fire again, and then they can stop it again for a while. I recorded another little video about this, but for now I think it makes no sense to upload it.

Maybe it has something to do with the acceleration of time, or the maneuvers of the ship, or something else?

 

1 minute ago, SodaBit said:

Well, this is one bug I had hoped would never come back. This seems to be caused by the guns "waiting for all guns of the same caliber to be able to fire on target." It's pretty annoying, and I'm not sure how to fix it other than wiggling the ship left to right in hopes of tricking the guns into firing.

It helps me to click the left mouse button on the target. Then comes the volley. But this is possible if there are 1 or 2 ships under control, but if there are more of them, it is unrealistic to do this with everyone. Whether the guns are waiting until everyone is ready or able to shoot is not clear, because the ship fires normally (both in turn with guns and not full salvos), then it starts to "yawn" like that.

[M3rky1]

56 minutes ago, itolan1752 said:

dose it possible to break the Alliance now?(1.06 update 17)

Not only player & AI' but also AI & AI' alliance.

or it already can but I don't know how to do?

This would be nice if we could manually request or break an alliance. Same goes for peace treaties. It would be nice if we could request that our opponent surrender or if we could to them. I was stuck in a war for over a year with a country that had zero ships. Because I was sinking them as fast as they built them. They therefore had lots of money because they had zero maintenance costs.

I also ended up with them having the ghost fleet bug (zero crew with lots of mothballed ships). 

[admiralsnackbar]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE 17 * (23/6/2022)

- Fixed bug that could cause AI to overbuild ships.

Wait you mean those giant fleets was a bug and not a feature?
I enjoyed fighting battles like this:

[jw62]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Please read the tooltips. It is the center of mass of the "HULL" not considering the parts you add on it.

Are we talking about Center of Flotation or buoyancy and not Center of Mass? Every vessel has a center of Buoyancy for a given trim. If you want your decks level then the center has to be in one spot and if you want your decks kicked back or nose-down then you want that forward. Since we want level decks both fore and aft and sideways what we are trying to do is balance the boat around it's center for that trim only, ie, we have picked the trim, now we want to balance the boat around it. In the bad old days I used to calculate foot pounds out from the center, now I just press a button. I actually can get a well balanced destroyer or Battleship by 1895 by maxing the tech slider and going right for boilers and engines. That's me on a Pushboat I designed and built 25.5'LOA 18"Beam 7"2" Draft, 36' Keel to brow (Tall) not including light mast or stacks, 112,000 Lbs, Twin 500HP running a pair of 46" wheels in front of a pair of Barn door rudders. Balance and Trim. Back to the game: assuming a 0deg trim is decks level, then the weight offset in the game is nose down or nose up in real world, but not simulated in the game visual 3d mechanics, however to some degree it is simulated in sinking mechanics and gun accuracy, maybe steering, although in real life a nose heavy boat turns great but tracks wild and a stern heavy boat tracks (steers straight) and can be made to steer well by "cutting away" the underbody fore and aft to some extent, but that's not useful for this game unless you want to add a fun layer to the flooding mechanics. I have not tried the very latest patch so I have not seen the gravity ball, but it should be centered dead over the center of flotation for a decks level trim to the hull, and even if you don't make the boat in the game simulation go out of trim, you should show it on a profile over the gravity ball. Truthfully I'm recovering from covid and an early heart attack and then I dropped dead for a little bit but came back and I've been playing this game to keep from moving around and hello kittying up my recovery (while trying to get a third boat in the water and getting a few more built for clients, I suck at recovery) so thanks for the excellent diversion, but this argument over trim was missing something. PS I have Sea trial videos of all my bigger midgets and that tub of steel handles like a maserati right up to her max of 7.8kts, will turn in half her length at full speed and not fall over. Will also handle barges in excess of 300'

[TheSublimeGoose]

4 hours ago, AdmiralObvious said:

Unfortunately, this was not fixed completely. I encountered this using an increased caliber. Increased length 13 inch gun firing SAP at a variety of ships. The shell initially hit a partial penetration of the deck of a CA, and then it generated 1000 more hits on that target. This then happened immediately again upon first hit of the next ship after the CA sunk until the battle inevitably ended.

Yeah, this was absolutely not fixed. I've experienced it in every other game I've played, and I can't seem to pin it down to anything.

[hangma]

Why doesn't protectct work?

[Norbert Sattler]

Somehow in my current campaign the French managed to get themselves into a state of war with everyone else, even the British, at the same time...

[Grizli60rus]

37 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Somehow in my current campaign the French managed to get themselves into a state of war with everyone else, even the British, at the same time...

I just started playing for France yesterday. He spoiled relations with Italy, the war began, then a couple of months later Austria-Hungary entered the war and a few more later Germany (during the war with Italy, relations with them continued to worsen). And already fighting with them, I received an event for -30 relations with Britain. I had to sacrifice money so as not to fight with them as well (there was a choice in the event). Probably, if we are at war with someone and send our squadrons to regions where there are other powers, relations with them also deteriorate (in wartime). I don’t know if this is intended, in the events before the war I was always given a choice: either -30 to relations and war or -50% of the budget, but +30 to relations and there will be no war (at least for a while). Maybe it's right. And maybe the bot also gets into a war with everything

[Lastreaumont]

I thought a long time about the Nelson example presented by o Barão, because I didn't understand how the design changes could have a so strong impact on roll and pitch. Why the big citadel have to create a more stable ship. And I found a possible explanation. Look at the center of mass position on the Z axis on o Barão's ships pictures: it is very high for the Nelson style design, quite high for the small citadel classical design and low on the big citadel design. So, the smallest your citadel is, the higher the center of mass is, and the higher the center of mass is, the more unstable your ship is, because too many heavy things are on the top. 
So, reducing the citadel to save more weight for other things is a good solution only if the saved weight is used to add things that don't increase the center of mass height, or if your center of mass is already very low.  
This is consistent with the stability problems of my SSTO designs in Kerbal Space Program, if I don't take care of center of mass position regarding center of lift position regarding center of propulsion position.