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

[SpardaSon21]

5 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I am not sure if the current game even has normalization when calculating armor penetration. 
A krupp steel 6 inch plate can stop a 12 inch shell at a sufficient angle and difference, the penetration values I saw seemed reasonable, but the fact that you can put 6 inches of belt armor  [plus citadel armor] around a light cruiser to parry 12 inch shells might be the bigger issue. I find it relatively easy to armor up my light cruisers in the early game to the point where they are immune from all conventional penetration damage save hits from bigger caliber BBs at relatively close range. 

An old post from 2019 mentioned that the basic Iron Plate armor in the game (yes, the starter 1890 armor), has performance on-par with IRL USA Class B armor from WW2.  Yes, that homogenous Class B armor, arguably the finest homogenous armor in the world.  And we only improve quality from there, dramatically.  The issue isn't that light cruisers can mount 6" of armor, but that 6" of armor can stop all but the largest shells.

[musicbox]

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Try reducing friendly AI speed to ‘cruising’, or even less.  

Listen smartass, it absolutely matters hello kitty-all what speed the ship is going. It appears the A.I absolutely REFUSES to fire on targets that are "ahead", I can even see the torpedo tubes swivel and then suddenly stop mid-action and stay that way until the target has sailed well past and to the absolute rear limits of the torpedo's firing arcs. THEN it fires.



What used to be a mere mop-up job is now near-suicide mission on the latest version.
The A.I is completely hello kittyed.

[Carl_Bar]

26 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

 The issue isn't that light cruisers can mount 6" of armor, but that 6" of armor can stop all but the largest shells.

 

Except this isn't true. 12" Mk II guns with a resonable shell type can go through such armour at a steep angle starting at 10,000m. Armour is inflated compared to IRL, but so is penetration. The Penetration of that 12" MkII gun horizontally is pretty much identical to the IRL values of the end of WW2 US 16" 50/Cal guns firing Super Heavy APCBC shells.

[Hangar18]

This seems to be a lot of ram...

Bugs

• Gun length does not update in the UI when reducing gun length below 0%
• USN Large cruiser secondary towers cannot house funnels and guns, seems to be a collider issue

Feedback

• Noticed lots of small fixes in the ship builder. 305s are once again possible on the usn large cruiser, 127s are also functional again.
• Center of mass, citadel and sections tool is great. If a bit subtle.

[Sturmalex]

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE 20* (30/6/2022)
....

Any ETA on a fix to Crew Training? Right now crews can be trained to Veteran without combat simply with the slider. That makes a) veteran ships less "valuable" because everyone got them and b) turn the game into a snipefest.

This issue affects AI and the Player

 

Thanks

Edited June 30, 2022 by Sturmalex

[Norbert Sattler]

7 hours ago, Sturmalex said:

Any ETA on a fix to Crew Training? Right now crews can be trained to Veteran without combat simply with the slider. That makes a) veteran ships less "valuable" because everyone got them and b) turn the game into a snipefest.

This issue affects AI and the Player

 

Thanks

Also I'd really like to have a de-coupling of the crew training slider. Quality and Quantity of recruits should be seperate sliders.

Right now you either have poorly trained ships or tens of thousands of unused sailors.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[imp44791]

This is half a question, half a request.

Is there a way to switch off "tracer" effects on travelling shells? By all means show the actual travelling rounds if you wish, but these comet like trails feel a bit arcade-y for a game that is otherwise admirably striving to be historical. I looked in the settings but I couldn't find something obvious.

If there is currently no way to do this, can we add it as a (low priority) cosmetic option?

In the various Total War games (Empire, Napoleon), users came up with an easy mod to get rid of tracers.

[Norbert Sattler]

Sometimes the game is just outright trolling... I just shot two salvoes, the first with supposedly 100% chance to his and only 2 out of the 4 shells hit.

Then came a salvo at 85 % that managed to full miss all four shells...

I know there is always a variance... but come on! This degree is just ridiculous.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[SodaBit]

I know I've already touched on this issue, but it is so game braking that I think it should be made a priority for future fixes.
Speed tanks are exceptionally powerful right now for one simple reason.
They Can Prevent The Enemy From Firing. Not By Disabling Guns, But Because The Enemy Doesn't Want To Waste Ammo On An Impossible Target.

15 minutes into battle, enemy has only fired ~30 shells. The reason for this is because they're trying to take out Lebe, but she's too small a target, moving too quickly, and at too long a range.
This last part here is really critical, especially since the enemy is trying to open the range.

If you can't hit your target, the oldest trick in the book is to get closer, not run the other way. I'd assume they're doing this to get out of range of the 530mm guns on my BB, but that's much easier said then done, with those guns having a maximum range of over 55km.
If this is the case, then by using super-heavy guns and very fast light forces, you can essentially neuter the AI's offensive capabilities. If they target your light forces while trying to run away, all while waiting for a better firing solution on your light forces, despite the fact that they're only going to get harder to hit as the range opens, then you can basically trick the AI into not firing at all, making them a literal free kill.

Update with the result:

30 minutes and hundreds of dead later, still not a single shot has been fired in return.

Edited June 30, 2022 by SodaBit

[Norbert Sattler]

I am at war with France and in an alliance with Italy.
While France and Italy are not currently at war with each other, they do not like each other either (-85 rep).

For some reason the game is generating battles of me vs Italy... my ALLY!

When I fight a battle manually, I have to actually fight the italians, but the VP get added to my fight against France.

The next round I auto-resovled a battle where I was supposed to fight against a mix of Italian and French ships, but on the result it listed the Italians as my allies... oO

Something is still completely shot with the enemy/ally mechanic.

Edit: Nevermind the bit about the VP... for sinking Italian ships I don't get VP. There must have been some French ones mixed in.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[VanillaBryce]

Devs,

I have to say that the work you're doing is pretty stellar for an indie company. I have started doing some game development as part of my contracting work, so I can appreciate the fantastic amount of detail already in the game. Most people can't even begin to understand how complicated some of the simplest projects can become in game dev. With that said, there is always room for improvement and your team seems to have the skills to make great games.

 

I'm glad that 1.06 is nerfing torpedoes a bit. They were way too easy to use, way too reliable, and they didn't really pose a risk to the ships they were deployed on in 1.05. Seriously, awesome improvements. I haven't experimented enough with the deck torpedo detonation mechanic, but it would be cool if the damage on the explosion even was tied to the reload percentage using a round-down operation. For example, a quad launcher would explode with the force of one torpedo on the destruction event if it was 47% reloaded (4 torps / launcher -> 25% / torpedo -> 1 torp fully loaded '@ destruction ) I'm not sure what the current detonation mechanic is, so if this is already the case, then ignore it.

 

I also have to say that sea mines are a bit of a missed opportunity at the moment. They may not be as glamorous as torpedoes in the pages of history, but they have sunk more ships. It would be cool if ships could deploy mines. I don't think it would be necessary for mine-laying to be part of the RTS battles, because they are a strategic, defensive weapon. A "Mine" stance would be a fantastic addition to the fleet stances.

• All small ships could optionally field a mine-laying station:
  • The station could simply be part of the hull options along with bulkheads, rangefinder, etc. - modeling of the station would be cool, but isn't necessary.
  • The mine-laying station could have options for size and type, just like torpedoes.
• A fleet engaging an enemy in the mining stance would be able to detect the mines based upon their acoustics, spotting, or some combination of the two.
• Fleets that fail to detect mines would obviously take some RNG-based damage before a battle starts.

I feel like this would greatly increase the amount of strategy involved in the narrower portions of the campaign map. It would also add a lot more viability to Austria Hungary and Italy because they could play more defensively. With the current budget balance, it is nearly impossible to start the campaign with a fleet of more than 25 decent ships...

 

The AI easily outnumbers the player by 3:1 or 4:1, which makes even minor losses very frustrating... Yeah, I'm winning by TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND POINTS and haven't lost a battle, but half of my 22 ships need repairs, Italy is coming for that booty with 10 battleships, and it's 4 months before I get my next... destroyer... great. Mines would make the early game build-up much less of a grind. They'd help the player avoid taking on entire enemy fleets at full health with a paltry taskforce of three ships that somehow managed to blunder its way into conflict. The AI could also use mines to prevent the player from just steamrolling their ports.

 

 

[Norbert Sattler]

And now my "ally" Italy is blockading me...

[Norbert Sattler]

I get's even weirder. Now I - Austria-Hungary - got a message from Austria-Hungary where "they" ask "me" for a peace deal.

Appartently I am at war with myself and that's why my ally fought against me... because I did too?

What? oO

[RegamusMaximis]

Quote

7 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:

Launched my normal Germany 1920 campaign.  Set everything up.  July 1920 (So 6 turns in) it locked up on Ship building again.  Gave it my normal 2-3 minutes of waiting then closed it.  Is there someway to indicate that it's actually doing something?  That way I will just wait and not wonder if it's locked up for good this time.

I've taken up to clicking as soon as I suspect it's crashed. It'll crash sooner, and tbh it's faster to just crash reload and end turn again than to wait to see if it resolves itself

 

[Norbert Sattler]

I accepted the peace deal with myself, which brought up the negotiations window with the French.

And while the war with the French ended, I did not get Corsica, even though that was a condition for the peace...

Well, at least I'm no longer fighting myself and my ally....

Also captured ports seem to have been fixed. They remain useable instead of becoming unusable a few month later.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Norbert Sattler]

Now the British have declared war on me, forcing me once again to somehow fight my Italian allies...

[hangma]

The speed of research on the main gun technology is too slow.

[Rucki]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE 20* (30/6/2022)

- Fixed issues of ballistics to evaluate angle of hit better, affecting mainly the deck hits which previously could often cause full penetrations or overpenetrations at a small angle of hit.

Thanks for the update, the Pitch stats seems to be improved now, but unfortunately the ballistics issue seems to be unchanged. I just tested it and exactly the same behaviour happens in Patch 20 like I described in Patch 19.

Also, lots of shots which only partial penetrates, although they have 100 - 300 pen more as needed.

19 hours ago, Rucki said:

I could not find a better example to show that the current ballistics are out of place.

How can my BB Szent Istvan make a shot with 305mm AP over a distance of only 2.1 Km and overpenetrate the fore deck armor of the enemy BB ? The enemy BB does have "only" 72mm foredeck armor (with -22% quality), but at this distance and angle the AP shot would rather strive the foredeck, how could it penetrate anything ? It should clearly be a "fore deck hit=ricochett)

The only way I can imagine that this can happen is if my BB would shoot straight in the air, so the that AP shot come down in an 90° angle, just 2.1 Km away, must be experimental turrets I got there 🤣

Edit: Just looked up the Deck Penetration value for the 305mm gun, which is 43.8mm @ 2.5 Km. So that deck armor overpen should have been impossible, even if we ignore the angle.

 

[o Barão]

10 hours ago, kjg000 said:

Have you considered the weather? Are the shadows changing because it's overcast?

It should not make any difference. But is a possibility. Thank you for the tip, I will test this.

[Kebla]

I have a question:

at the moment the mechanics of tension means that if I am Italy, for example, I will always go to war with France and England, sooner or later. This will be changed and will we be able to decide with whom to have relations of peace and with whom of war or to have hostile relations with everyone etc.?

sorry if there is any translation error

[Rucki]

To add something more to the current ballistic issues:

Hovering over my 330mm guns ingame I see a whole lot of partial pens against f.e. 30mm when fighting at a distance about 2.5 Km, but according to my understanding that should be absolute impossible ?

I just make a quick draw in Paint, how I would understand (roughly) how penetration should work.

How does it work ingame ? How can a 400mm penetration gun make partial pens against 30mm ? If those were shot at an angle, so that the effective armor is higher, bigger than the pen value, then this should be displayed and not the "flat" armor value, right ?

 

Shouldnt it be much more displayed and calculated like this ? (the values and angles are made up by me of course) :

[RegamusMaximis]

Is this right for the 1920's?

Just faced these CL's which were armoured to the point, even the biggest gun I could put on a French CA couldn't penetrate the deck armour unless at maximum range. You seem to be able to out armour the periods capability to pen it atm. Pics for example  

If I understand how you work out armour values right, 6 deck everywhere + 1.3 citadel armour = 7.3 x 143% armour bonus giving 17.6'' deck armour. Even with the build 100% towards penetration, a CA's biggest gun only stands a chance at max range with a lucky hit

Edited June 30, 2022 by RegamusMaximis

[SiWi]

the "main tower penetration cause massive damage" thing doesn't seem fixed.

[Norbert Sattler]

Something seems a bit off with GDP growth.

As Austria-Hungary I conquered Tunisia, Corsica, Cyprus, Malta and Gibraltar. I am taking every GDP growth decision as they come and yet Italy and the UK manage to stay pretty much at the exact same lead to myself, always 3 and 6 bil more than my own GDP respectively.

I'm used to the UK being able to just go up and away, so being able to keep up with them, albeit always some steps behind is already an improvement. But how is Italy staying ahead of me when I'm supposed to grow faster with annexed territories? In past patches I was consistently able to out-grow Italy's GDP even when the annexed areas didn't add to GDP.

Also please make Sardinia capturable.

[itolan1752]

4 hours ago, hangma said:

The speed of research on the main gun technology is too slow.

This post   propose the same problem.

a little irony is developer slow down research speed at some 1.06 update.(2 or 3 times?)

EDIT:

 

I like these ideas, may help player to know research speed.

Edited June 30, 2022 by itolan1752