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

[kjg000]

1 hour ago, ColonelHenry said:

This game has the ship building mechanic and instead of expanding on how it would interact with the campaign... they opted for something too straight-forward. In my opinion, the technology that we research should be influence directly by the type of ships that we build or the planning of ships. Instead of just waiting for technology just randomly get better, we should be pushing technology toward a direction by drawing up ship blueprints. It's more work for the devs: like we would need to break up some tech nodes for this to work like separate gun house and the gun itself as an example. But the result would be glorious.

I doubt that it will happen, but I'd like to see technology based on capabilities not objects. For instance, developing wire wound guns would let you build larger or longer guns. Better extraction for funnels could be applied to all funnels and so on. 

At the moment we have to research the same thing for small ships then medium ships then large ships. Also we have to research the same thing for each version of the hull. Why, it's the same technology, it should be able to be applied to the same class of the thing with little or no further research. 

So maybe 1000 points to research assisted extraction for small funnels, then only 100 points to apply that to medium then large funnels. 

[Hangar18]

On 6/30/2022 at 12:18 AM, Hangar18 said:

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.

@Nick ThomadisThere does appear to be a memory leak! Hard crashed with 64gb of ram @ 3200. Starting in ship builder with about 700-900mb used, within minutes i'm at 7gb. Going into battle creeps to 14gbs, and once i return to builder it stays at 11gb.

Bugs:

• USN large cruiser guns still have collider issues (you fixed the 305s, but the larger ones also have the issue in the AB config). The secondary tower still cant house a funnel when a secondary battery is used on it.
• Shots from the same gun are  7km short/long with high prob of hit. cannot be intentional
• When reversing manual rudder does not work, and the ships course is fixed.
• When more than 4 main centerline guns are used, they do not fire properly, as if there is a que, and the spot is always taken.
• Post battle results always shows an impossibly high top speed for ships.

 

Feedback:

• Ships feel spongy. You need to fill every inch of the ship with holes for it to sink. Please consider allowing flooded compartments to spread like fires do if the neighboring compartment is destroyed. 
• Armor is kinda OP, you get a resistance bonus, and then on top of that it's lighter so you just smack more on top of that. This causes armor values to bloom very quickly. Feels like having the highest graded AP shell possible is the only way to get anything done unless you have a doom cannon.
• You cant really tell when your prop is supposed to be reversing, the icon is very ambiguous.
• Getting really strange partial pens, 25mm of deck armor vs a 460mm shell at 35km is a partial pen?

[Skeksis]

@ColonelHenry @Littorio

Gaming first, historical depository second. But equally the game is founded in historical principles and replicates them.

Overcoming fog of war challenges is content. If players have to charge into the fog and take losses then that is content. Losses are a part of war. Visibility mechanics are setup perfectly to produce such content.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Skeksis

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

@ColonelHenry @Littorio

Gaming first, historical depository second. But equally the game is founded in historical principles and replicates them.

Overcoming fog of war challenges is content. If players have to charge into the fog and take losses then that is content. Losses are a part of war. Visibility mechanics are setup perfectly to produce such content.

But this doesn't even enhance gameplay at all...It is a continual drag on the player that contributes to infinite rounds of chasing "smoke sighted" (with no bearings mind you, other than the four cardinal directions). It does nothing to make battles more interesting, and inherently contradicts itself, as I have pointed out numerous times, because enemy class and loadout was already identified BEFORE you begin battle! This information is (again, unrealistically I may add) given to you as a literal gift on the campaign layer battle markers. The current setup just does not make any sense, not from a gameplay perspective, not from a historical perspective, and certainly not from a logical perspective. It loses no matter what.

You have done nothing to rebut my points but insist everything is fine without backing. Perhaps "...the game is founded in historical principles and replicates them" in SOME areas of play, but certainly NOT in this one. On one hand, you seem to be arguing against historical realism, but now on the other you seem to be saying "no wait it's actually historical, all is well."

"Fog of war" is not literal fog, it is uncertainty in combat based on a lack of real-time information! You do not need an artificial fog to replicate this. In fact, besides the fake fog, the game does everything it possibly can to NOT REPLICATE FOG OF WAR. It gives you every possible stat and figure for every enemy once fully-identified in battle (even though that was already given before on the campaign layer marker).

Essentially, like your argument, it is a contradictory design that accomplishes neither fun, nor satisfaction. It is a pointless compromise that pleases no one and is illogical. I would rather see a fully arcade game then this random, haphazard blend of principles. At least we then know what we are getting.

No one is looking at this system and saying: "Wow I need to plan ahead and 'charge into the fog and take losses which are part of war' in order to win!"

They are looking at this and saying: "Wow I can literally see the shells leaving the invisible barrels but because their ship has some magic tower giving them 1600 spotting mana points, and mine only has a magic tower granting me 1500 spotting mana points, they can see and shoot me from slightly longer distance! How ahistorical, gamey, and utterly, rotely annoying!"

It's not like this scenario is more challenging. The AI still can't shoot worth a damn. It isn't a significant challenge or makes things more dangerous. It is purely poor design influenced by conflicting philosophies and people like you who urge them to build the campaign "bigger and wider and faster and cooler and neater" all the while neglecting the basic systems of the game that (would) make it enjoyable in the first place!

[imp44791]

I have mentioned before that I am a very new player. I am also, above everything else, annoyed to death at the invisible ships and the gamey responses (=suiciding/charging DDs to sight the enemy, thereby telepathically transmitting visibility to my battle line behind) that are necessary to combat them.

Let me go beyond this: I actually don't give two figs about the campaign, and regret all the effort put into it, which seems to be futile from what I see from the bug reports after 22 (!) patches. I want to have a fun skirmish sandbox and, if possible at some point in the future, a set of historical battles to play. I'd love to try to win Dogger Bank as the Germans (or wipe the Germans out completely as the British), or Tsushima with the Russians and so on. Aren't such counterfactuals what draw people like us to historical gaming? In fact, when I bought the game I was attracted by the possibility at some point of having a modern version of the old Dreadnoughts early 90s game which did try to do this with historical scenarios, as much as by the -truly novel and hugely fun- shipbuidling part of the game.

To bring this back to spotting: I am not complaining that these historical scenarios are not created yet - I can wait and hope. What I AM complaining about is that with the game design as is, these can never be made properly, since the game system necessitates breaking out of formation and suiciding light ships to gain a sighting advantage. The sighting system needs a complete overhaul and the player must be given tools to understand what is causing the visibility situation. Now, beyond having (or not) radar/RDF and general weather, we have no clue why in some case we can see the enemy or not AND WHY HE CAN SEE US. Is it our target signature? Is it our smoke interference? Are we showing against a setting sun a la Jutland? And what about starshells or searchlights? What about gun flashes? I still have no clue why in the Pocket Battleship scenario I can't see the enemy but he can see me. I imagine that he spawns with DDs close to me and they see my masts, but I (battleships and DDs alike) can't see him - then his DDs telepathically transmit my position to his BBs, and down rain the shells. How is this (pick one) historical/fun/strategic? And why isn't the player given any rules to understand what is happening, but is forced to random guessing, gamey behaviour? How is reloading to try something differently random fun/strategic?

Unfortunately, the intense efforts of what is after all a small studio with limited resources seem to be wrongly directed to the hopeless chimera of the campaign, while the base of what makes the game fun (the shipbuilding and the actual sea fighting) takes a back seat. Witness all the bugs that are reported and don't seem to be addressed; in my short time with the game I have pointed out two-three possibilities myself (the ammo non-reset at reload, the possible memory leaks at the "loading battle" stage) and they are still around after 10 patches

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Can someone explain to me in what universe this war is not going well, I've literally sunk the entire Italian fleet without loss

and yet...

[o Barão]

41 minutes ago, imp44791 said:

...and the player must be given tools to understand what is causing the visibility situation. Now, beyond having (or not) radar/RDF and general weather, we have no clue why in some case we can see the enemy or not AND WHY HE CAN SEE US. Is it our target signature? Is it our smoke interference?

Well for the most part, we have the tools, however I agree that without a tutorial or a better manual it can be very hard for a player to understand. And there are some things I can't explain. Really needs an improvement.

Each hull have a surface visibility number.

The manual explains what is the surface visibility number does.

In the ship details, you can see the target signature and the impact in your ship design.

In the "detection" section, you can see the changes.

Also, the spotting ranges.

Here you can make a quick comparison to the changes by adding a tower. I suggest play around with the components and see what changes.

Here I made a BB with 16.5 km spotting range and start a battle against a DD at 15 km. I spotted the DD at 13.2 km away. Why the difference? Don't know.

Here we can see a DD hull with 3450 surface visibility. But in the detection section we have only 2346m. Why the difference? Don't know.

Is it our smoke interference? Are we showing against a setting sun a la Jutland? And what about starshells or searchlights? What about gun flashes?

Smoke interference only affects gun's accuracy. Starshells and searchlights we don't have . Gun flashes doesn't have any impact in the battlefield.

[ZorinW]

@Nick Thomadis Can we please get a hit point count displayed in battle? Cause I feel that that would give quite a bit of insight regarding what effects certain techs have. In my 1890 French campaign I just encountered a TB boat with almost 19.000 hit points!

[SodaBit]

55 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

@Nick Thomadis Can we please get a hit point count displayed in battle? Cause I feel that that would give quite a bit of insight regarding what effects certain techs have. In my 1890 French campaign I just encountered a TB boat with almost 19.000 hit points!

The HP of a ship isn't set in stone. It's completely possible to "Overkill" a target, e.g. hitting a DD with a large caliber HE shell. It's also possible for a ship to take a truly insane amount of damage depending on where you hit it, e.g. hitting a ship in the bow after all bow sections have been completely destroyed will still display a damage number, but won't actually do any damage to the structure of the ship, meaning you'll need to hit other parts of the ship in order to sink it.

[admiralsnackbar]

A comment about the big guns and the tech tree:

Right now once you get beyond 1905 or so you get to a point where the mark III guns for 9-12, from 1905-1915 you can probably also get the mark III 13 and 14 inch guns. But after 1915 you have an issue where the tech tree is trying to unlock 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, then 16 as well as 17 which start at mark I. By the 1920s you can start getting mark V tech so from we're talking about 2 upgrade levels for 9-12 and 3-4 upgrade  levels for 13-14 and 5 upgrade levels for 15+

You can be well into the late 1920s and still have mark I guns because the RNG is screwing you over. 

Also the fact that the 12 inch gun is head and shoulders superior to other guns and remains so for a very long time in part because of the way the upgrades work. 

Getting good gun tech for the light guns in a reasonable time is realistic, but with the big guns it's a genuine slog. 

 

[kjg000]

Something for 1.07, smoke is highly unrealistic, it shrouds the generating ship in a way that would only happen in a dead calm with a stationary ship, yet it works in all weather and wind speeds.

I can live with it as it is, I am just curious why no one has mentioned it before?

Edited July 5, 2022 by kjg000
Add "stationery ship"

[kjg000]

3 hours ago, imp44791 said:

I have mentioned before that I am a very new player. I am also, above everything else, annoyed to death at the invisible ships and the gamey responses (=suiciding/charging DDs to sight the enemy, thereby telepathically transmitting visibility to my battle line behind) that are necessary to combat them.

Let me go beyond this: I actually don't give two figs about the campaign, and regret all the effort put into it, which seems to be futile from what I see from the bug reports after 22 (!) patches. I want to have a fun skirmish sandbox and, if possible at some point in the future, a set of historical battles to play. I'd love to try to win Dogger Bank as the Germans (or wipe the Germans out completely as the British), or Tsushima with the Russians and so on. Aren't such counterfactuals what draw people like us to historical gaming? In fact, when I bought the game I was attracted by the possibility at some point of having a modern version of the old Dreadnoughts early 90s game which did try to do this with historical scenarios, as much as by the -truly novel and hugely fun- shipbuidling part of the game.

To bring this back to spotting: I am not complaining that these historical scenarios are not created yet - I can wait and hope. What I AM complaining about is that with the game design as is, these can never be made properly, since the game system necessitates breaking out of formation and suiciding light ships to gain a sighting advantage. The sighting system needs a complete overhaul and the player must be given tools to understand what is causing the visibility situation. Now, beyond having (or not) radar/RDF and general weather, we have no clue why in some case we can see the enemy or not AND WHY HE CAN SEE US. Is it our target signature? Is it our smoke interference? Are we showing against a setting sun a la Jutland? And what about starshells or searchlights? What about gun flashes? I still have no clue why in the Pocket Battleship scenario I can't see the enemy but he can see me. I imagine that he spawns with DDs close to me and they see my masts, but I (battleships and DDs alike) can't see him - then his DDs telepathically transmit my position to his BBs, and down rain the shells. How is this (pick one) historical/fun/strategic? And why isn't the player given any rules to understand what is happening, but is forced to random guessing, gamey behaviour? How is reloading to try something differently random fun/strategic?

Unfortunately, the intense efforts of what is after all a small studio with limited resources seem to be wrongly directed to the hopeless chimera of the campaign, while the base of what makes the game fun (the shipbuilding and the actual sea fighting) takes a back seat. Witness all the bugs that are reported and don't seem to be addressed; in my short time with the game I have pointed out two-three possibilities myself (the ammo non-reset at reload, the possible memory leaks at the "loading battle" stage) and they are still around after 10 patches

1. Its early days, hopefully the features you want are coming. 

2. For many people the campaign is what makes the game worthwhile. Without it there is no context to the battles, which become repetitive and dull. 

Of course your views are valid, but the game needs to appeal to a wide audience to be a success. 

[UnleashtheKraken]

26 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

Something for 1.07, smoke is highly unrealistic, it shrouds the generating ship in a way that would only happen in a dead calm, yet it works in all weather and wind speeds.

I can live with it as it is, I am just curious why no one has mentioned it before?

I've seen the 'mobile smoke cloud' mentioned before but so much else needs work, tuning, tweaking, and to be implemented in the first place...it's probably on a list.

[kjg000]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

A comment about the big guns and the tech tree:

Right now once you get beyond 1905 or so you get to a point where the mark III guns for 9-12, from 1905-1915 you can probably also get the mark III 13 and 14 inch guns. But after 1915 you have an issue where the tech tree is trying to unlock 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, then 16 as well as 17 which start at mark I. By the 1920s you can start getting mark V tech so from we're talking about 2 upgrade levels for 9-12 and 3-4 upgrade  levels for 13-14 and 5 upgrade levels for 15+

You can be well into the late 1920s and still have mark I guns because the RNG is screwing you over. 

Also the fact that the 12 inch gun is head and shoulders superior to other guns and remains so for a very long time in part because of the way the upgrades work. 

Getting good gun tech for the light guns in a reasonable time is realistic, but with the big guns it's a genuine slog. 

 

I'd actually like to see 17" and above as an optional branch, not the default. They were rare or only proposed, so great as an option but, with only a very few exceptions, no great historical loss.

[Nick Thomadis]

*UPDATE 23* (5/7/2022)

- Fixed critical bug of gun ranges not being actual in campaign battles.
- Fixed an occasional critical bug causing no maintenance cost when ships were built and entered the sea as Task Forces on the same turn.
- Fixed bug that allowed an ally to deny declaring war against an enemy of the alliance and continue to be an ally.
- Fixed some bugs related with the ship instability calculations.
- Fixed campaign intro text not appearing in 4K monitors.
- Fixed after battle stats showing inaccurate speed status.
- Auto-Design improvement.
- Battle AI improvement.
- Minor shell penetration mechanics adjustments to make AP more worthwhile.
- Fixed collider unwanted interference for guns with other guns on barbettes.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD (Saves are reset - We now make minor fixes - The release might come tomorrow)

[Carl_Bar]

8 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Feedback:

• Ships feel spongy. You need to fill every inch of the ship with holes for it to sink. Please consider allowing flooded compartments to spread like fires do if the neighboring compartment is destroyed. 
• Armor is kinda OP, you get a resistance bonus, and then on top of that it's lighter so you just smack more on top of that. This causes armor values to bloom very quickly. Feels like having the highest graded AP shell possible is the only way to get anything done unless you have a doom cannon.
• You cant really tell when your prop is supposed to be reversing, the icon is very ambiguous.
• Getting really strange partial pens, 25mm of deck armor vs a 460mm shell at 35km is a partial pen?

 

there's just been a patch so we'l have to see how that tweaks things but the issue at the time of your writing this seems to be an overly high ratio of deck hits to side hits coupled with some weird incorrect pen value usage at various points resulting shells being able to pen the deck when they shouldn't and a difficulty hitting the sides of the ship in general.

[Skeksis]

9 hours ago, Littorio said:

But this doesn't even enhance gameplay at all...It is a continual drag on the player that contributes to infinite rounds of chasing "smoke sighted" (with no bearings mind you, other than the four cardinal directions). It does nothing to make battles more interesting, and inherently contradicts itself, as I have pointed out numerous times, because enemy class and loadout was already identified BEFORE you begin battle! This information is (again, unrealistically I may add) given to you as a literal gift on the campaign layer battle markers. The current setup just does not make any sense, not from a gameplay perspective, not from a historical perspective, and certainly not from a logical perspective. It loses no matter what.

You have done nothing to rebut my points but insist everything is fine without backing. Perhaps "...the game is founded in historical principles and replicates them" in SOME areas of play, but certainly NOT in this one. On one hand, you seem to be arguing against historical realism, but now on the other you seem to be saying "no wait it's actually historical, all is well."

"Fog of war" is not literal fog, it is uncertainty in combat based on a lack of real-time information! You do not need an artificial fog to replicate this. In fact, besides the fake fog, the game does everything it possibly can to NOT REPLICATE FOG OF WAR. It gives you every possible stat and figure for every enemy once fully-identified in battle (even though that was already given before on the campaign layer marker).

Essentially, like your argument, it is a contradictory design that accomplishes neither fun, nor satisfaction. It is a pointless compromise that pleases no one and is illogical. I would rather see a fully arcade game then this random, haphazard blend of principles. At least we then know what we are getting.

No one is looking at this system and saying: "Wow I need to plan ahead and 'charge into the fog and take losses which are part of war' in order to win!"

They are looking at this and saying: "Wow I can literally see the shells leaving the invisible barrels but because their ship has some magic tower giving them 1600 spotting mana points, and mine only has a magic tower granting me 1500 spotting mana points, they can see and shoot me from slightly longer distance! How ahistorical, gamey, and utterly, rotely annoying!"

It's not like this scenario is more challenging. The AI still can't shoot worth a damn. It isn't a significant challenge or makes things more dangerous. It is purely poor design influenced by conflicting philosophies and people like you who urge them to build the campaign "bigger and wider and faster and cooler and neater" all the while neglecting the basic systems of the game that (would) make it enjoyable in the first place!

You’re right, very little in the way of blind-firing damage, but psychological, yeah that is having a big impact.

But also wrong in actual damage, firstly humans are designing horrendously large 'signatured' ships for the AI to shoot at and secondly, after the player decides he’s had enough and charges in, he will suffer subsequent damage.

Do you really think Dev’s (or anyone for that matter) are going to create an AI equal to that of a human. Because that is what it’s going to take, isn’t it, to perform on an open ocean, horizon to horizon, simulating the order of battle, to create an AI to operate in realistic visible environment, and be effective. ha.

Sorry to burst your bubble but AIs aren’t that great, they’ll be nothing more than mindless zombies being pick off one by one. In fact pc gaming AIs are very limited in how they can reproduce human behavior. Could never mimic Jutland – that's a dream.

Though Dev's have done an excellent job with what they have.

No, the fog of war gives the AI a chance, gives the AI as much advantage as possible. Lets the AI  approach the player uncontested, creates a close combat zone and then lets the AI duck for cover then remerge to attack again. From this the game can produce good content.

You’re asking the Dev’s for the impossible. What we have is the historic probable.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Skeksis

[Werwaz]

AI Clown car being dispatched by 19"/62 guns

 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Werwaz

[kjg000]

18 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

You’re right, very little in the way of blind-firing damage, but psychological, yeah that is having a big impact.

But also wrong in actual damage, firstly humans are designing horrendously large 'signatured' ships for the AI to shoot at and secondly, after the player decides he’s had enough and charges in, he will suffer subsidence damage.

Do you really think Dev’s (or anyone for that matter) are going to create an AI equal to that of a human. Because that is what it’s going to take, isn’t it, to perform on an open ocean, horizon to horizon, simulating the order of battle, to create an AI to operate in realistic visible environment, and be effective. ha.

Sorry to burst your bubble but AIs aren’t that great, they’ll be nothing more than mindless zombies being pick off one by one. In fact pc gaming AIs are very limited in how they can reproduce human behavior. Could never mimic Jutland – that's a dream.

Though Dev's have done an excellent job with what they have.

No, the fog of war gives the AI a chance, gives the AI as much advantage as possible. Lets the AI  approach the player uncontested, creates a close combat zone and then lets the AI duck for cover then remerge to attack again. From this the game can produce good content.

You’re asking the Dev’s for the impossible. What we have is the historic probable.

Yes, AIs are limited, yes, the Devs need to find a way to compensate for this that doesn't rely on massive amounts of computer resources, but I can't agree that the current spotting system is a good, or even acceptable, solution to the problem.

A major contributor to the problem is that the spotting ranges are far too short. It merely makes the game tedious and unrewarding, especially as the system uses an 8 cardinal point system but often reports the direction incorrectly, as can be seen when using RADAR. NE reported as N etc. A 16 point system, reported accurately would at least lessen the problem. 

I'm currently looking out my windows at a small (2-3m) grey fishing boat at least 8km away without any optical aids. I regularly see tankers 30+km away on overcast days, limited by the horizon, not by visibility. 

I also frequently read of naval actions in WW l where the protagonists had to steam towards each other to come within range, having spotted, and identified, the other ships well outside the range of their primaries. 

At best the current system merely forces a race to get RADAR.

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, kjg000 said:

Yes, AIs are limited, yes, the Devs need to find a way to compensate for this that doesn't rely on massive amounts of computer resources, but I can't agree that the current spotting system is a good, or even acceptable, solution to the problem.

A major contributor to the problem is that the spotting ranges are far too short. It merely makes the game tedious and unrewarding, especially as the system uses an 8 cardinal point system but often reports the direction incorrectly, as can be seen when using RADAR. NE reported as N etc. A 16 point system, reported accurately would at least lessen the problem. 

I'm currently looking out my windows at a small (2-3m) grey fishing boat at least 8km away without any optical aids. I regularly see tankers 30+km away on overcast days, limited by the horizon, not by visibility. 

I also frequently read of naval actions in WW l where the protagonists had to steam towards each other to come within range, having spotted, and identified, the other ships well outside the range of their primaries. 

At best the current system merely forces a race to get RADAR.

I agree, once!...

But after 2 years, 5 months and 2 days, you gotta run with what we have.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Skeksis

[kjg000]

Anyone else having memory problems with 1.06.23? My memory usage is regularly and quickly going to >75% of 32Gb. I thought it was from Shipbuilder but now it happens soon after starting the game. Also experiencing long "Building New Ship" delays compared to 1.06.22

[ZorinW]

10 hours ago, SodaBit said:

The HP of a ship isn't set in stone. It's completely possible to "Overkill" a target, e.g. hitting a DD with a large caliber HE shell. It's also possible for a ship to take a truly insane amount of damage depending on where you hit it, e.g. hitting a ship in the bow after all bow sections have been completely destroyed will still display a damage number, but won't actually do any damage to the structure of the ship, meaning you'll need to hit other parts of the ship in order to sink it.

I took it down to 0% structural, so no matter what, I had to deal 19k damage to sink it. That's my point, it is 1890 and I needed to generate 19k damage to take a torpedo boat to 0% strcutural. A 1890 TB has ZERO tech on it. All you can change is beam, draught and bulkheads and I want to know how these ALONE are able to take a TB to 19k health.

[Rucki]

Im not going to further test anything until the ballistics are fixed, this is a major problem for me. Why testing the campaign if the combat simply doesnt work.
 

-Over and partial pens when they shouldnt (deck and belt)
-Deck hits at very close distance (and then sometime even overpens)

I (and lots of other) wrote detailed bug reports with pictures here in this thread and it got totally ignored so far.
 

[Baboulinet]

Things are improving but we still have a lot of bugs to contend with.

- Penetrations are still a mess, especially when a ship is already half under water

- Nations collapsing without due reason a few years after campaign start (seems to happen more on random AI personalities)

- When you lose a war and the enemy takes some of your ships, they keep them in your ports

- Multiple wars can be a clusterf***. I was in a war, officially against France but unofficially against italy. When I sank Italian ships no VP were awarded. AI wars drag for too long, and it seems if you join them, they have to finish it before you can get battles.

- I lost some convoys in a war and got a huge (around 33% budget) hit on income, when at 83% transport capacity. I'm fine with that but i was stuck with the same penalty until I got it back to 100%. Maybe make this progressive ? (It may be the reason AI nations collapse ?)

Performance is worse than ever, memory leaks happening every few turns

Minor ones :

Tech spread is better but needs refining

Shipyard building is different if you choose different start dates, but doesn't change when you actually manage to get a campaign moving decades. Maybe add some incremental increase, like GDP, over the years ?

 

All these things make it very hard and random to get a long and meaningful campaign, I don't know if the regular playerbase will like it !

[TiagoStein]

13 hours ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Can someone explain to me in what universe this war is not going well, I've literally sunk the entire Italian fleet without loss

and yet...

Your army clearly got out of their pasta supplies and is revolting.