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

[itolan1752]

3 hours ago, Rucki said:

But I do not have a problem with any of the points you mentioned.
My only problems with ballistics are those I already tried to explain as good as I can (english is not my native language, so I hope its understandable enough).

Please see here:

And here:

 

And those things didnt happend in the patches before, I think they were introduced with the citadel upgrade, although Im not sure about that one. 

I also dont want to criticize to much, im very happy with the very high amount of patches we got, especially considering the hard circumstances at moment. Its just that as long as the ballistics are not functioning I personally dont see a point in play testing the campaign. The battles are the most important part in my opinion, I still dont demand them to be 100% realistic and that every shot must be understandable, but if a 305mm gun cant penetrate a thin CL armor at very close distance and perfect angle (like in my example, even the ingame "penetration info display" shows everything green and 100%  penetration value), then something is too much wrong at the moment.

Is there any possible that the "Deck hit" is not actually hit the "Deck" but "Inner Deck"?

if AI use at least "Citadel 1", maybe we can consider AI's ship always have "1st Inner Deck"

then like this paint:

shell penetrate belt armor and inner deck, but game think this is "Deck hit" by some reason.

I know this assumption might be very stupid. because I don't even know where is "Inner Deck".

[Nick Thomadis]

*UPDATE FINAL* (5/7/2022)

- Improved Auto-Design speed/memory usage. (Campaign turns will pass faster, in general the auto-design will be faster and equally effective).
- Lessened greatly some penetration randomization factors which could create unfavorable shell hit results.
- Added temporary extra mechanic for Game Over: When all non-allied major nations are totally defeated, then the game ends. (Previously it would continue forever with small chance to break alliance). In the next update we will add more mechanics to prolong the campaign further.
- Crew Pool Reserve cost will become minimized when it reaches a certain ratio vs the amount of crew used in ships. In this way, any excessive crew not used, will act as a cost-effective reserve.
- Increased Port Capacity Growth.
- Crew damage from HE penetrations and Fire lessened.

THIS IS THE FINAL BETA UPDATE (WE WILL RELEASE THE LIVE BUILD IN A FEW HOURS - WE CAN FIX ANYTHING ELSE YOU FIND CRITICAL IN A HOTFIX)

[IshPR7777]

12 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE FINAL* (5/7/2022)

- Improved Auto-Design speed/memory usage. (Campaign turns will pass faster, in general the auto-design will be faster and equally effective).
- Lessened greatly some penetration randomization factors which could create unfavorable shell hit results.
- Added temporary extra mechanic for Game Over: When all non-allied major nations are totally defeated, then the game ends. (Previously it would continue forever with small chance to break alliance). In the next update we will add more mechanics to prolong the campaign further.
- Crew Pool Reserve cost will become minimized when it reaches a certain ratio vs the amount of crew used in ships. In this way, any excessive crew not used, will act as a cost-effective reserve.
- Increased Port Capacity Growth.
- Crew damage from HE penetrations and Fire lessened.

THIS IS THE FINAL BETA UPDATE (WE WILL RELEASE THE LIVE BUILD IN A FEW HOURS - WE CAN FIX ANYTHING ELSE YOU FIND CRITICAL IN A HOTFIX)

This is it, the live 1.06 update is coming! I'm proud of you, Nick

[Werwaz]

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE FINAL* (5/7/2022)

- Improved Auto-Design speed/memory usage. (Campaign turns will pass faster, in general the auto-design will be faster and equally effective).
- Lessened greatly some penetration randomization factors which could create unfavorable shell hit results.
- Added temporary extra mechanic for Game Over: When all non-allied major nations are totally defeated, then the game ends. (Previously it would continue forever with small chance to break alliance). In the next update we will add more mechanics to prolong the campaign further.
- Crew Pool Reserve cost will become minimized when it reaches a certain ratio vs the amount of crew used in ships. In this way, any excessive crew not used, will act as a cost-effective reserve.
- Increased Port Capacity Growth.
- Crew damage from HE penetrations and Fire lessened.

THIS IS THE FINAL BETA UPDATE (WE WILL RELEASE THE LIVE BUILD IN A FEW HOURS - WE CAN FIX ANYTHING ELSE YOU FIND CRITICAL IN A HOTFIX)

I still notice the AI heavily leans on a 3X2 gun layout that is usually outclassed by ships with more numerous guns. 

[lordcmdr]

Woot! Thank you Nick.

[aradragoon]

52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*UPDATE FINAL* (5/7/2022)

- Improved Auto-Design speed/memory usage. (Campaign turns will pass faster, in general the auto-design will be faster and equally effective).
- Lessened greatly some penetration randomization factors which could create unfavorable shell hit results.
- Added temporary extra mechanic for Game Over: When all non-allied major nations are totally defeated, then the game ends. (Previously it would continue forever with small chance to break alliance). In the next update we will add more mechanics to prolong the campaign further.
- Crew Pool Reserve cost will become minimized when it reaches a certain ratio vs the amount of crew used in ships. In this way, any excessive crew not used, will act as a cost-effective reserve.
- Increased Port Capacity Growth.
- Crew damage from HE penetrations and Fire lessened.

THIS IS THE FINAL BETA UPDATE (WE WILL RELEASE THE LIVE BUILD IN A FEW HOURS - WE CAN FIX ANYTHING ELSE YOU FIND CRITICAL IN A HOTFIX)

Appreciate all the work you and your team have put in. I know people want to see more fixes and changes but this isn't the final full game release yet and I do think overall the game is shaping up overall. Look forward to what the finished product will look like and what we might be able to see added after the game leaves early access/beta status.

[Sacro321]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Did other large ports have growth? Can you check that?

EDIT: It works normally but growth can be too small if GDP is low and initial port capacity is small. We will increase the growth.

Oh, I made a mistake. I meant Shipyard size not port capacity - sorry about that - it's the Shipyard build amount that stays at the default 4000t for the 1890 start.

I quickly started a new 1890 campaign again to confirm, and yes the Shipyard amount you can build stays at 4000t (I went until 1905, and always build the Shipyard up). If you start in 1900 instead, the Shipyard amount you can build is 9600t.

So is it intended to stay at 4000t or is it supposed to grow?

[Nick Thomadis]

3 minutes ago, Sacro321 said:

Oh, I made a mistake. I meant Shipyard size not port capacity - sorry about that - it's the Shipyard build amount that stays at the default 4000t for the 1890 start.

I quickly started a new 1890 campaign again to confirm, and yes the Shipyard amount you can build stays at 4000t (I went until 1905, and always build the Shipyard up). If you start in 1900 instead, the Shipyard amount you can build is 9600t.

So is it intended to stay at 4000t or is it supposed to grow?

You need to build it yourself in the Finances window.

[Baboulinet]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You need to build it yourself in the Finances window.

What he's saying and have already been reported, is the amount of tons that you can build at once. It's higher the later the campaign start date, but if you begin in 1890 it doesn't evolves.

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, Baboulinet said:

What he's saying and have already been reported, is the amount of tons that you can build at once. It's higher the later the campaign start date, but if you begin in 1890 it doesn't evolves.

In 1890 is the minimum date you start the campaign, so the potential development is minimum, smaller than the next years.

[Baboulinet]

Just now, Nick Thomadis said:

In 1890 is the minimum date you start the campaign, so the potential development is minimum, smaller than the next years.

It makes perfect sense, but if you manage to keep the campaign going into, let's say, 1930, you can still increase the shipyard by 4000t. However if you start at 1930, it's far higher. It's not a major issue as it's very difficult to have a campaign going that long with current diplomacy and AI economic management, but still it's quite unbalanced !

Maybe every decade the amount of "tons per build" could be increased progressively ? 

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, Baboulinet said:

It makes perfect sense, but if you manage to keep the campaign going into, let's say, 1930, you can still increase the shipyard by 4000t. However if you start at 1930, it's far higher. It's not a major issue as it's very difficult to have a campaign going that long with current diplomacy and AI economic management, but still it's quite unbalanced !

Maybe every decade the amount of "tons per build" could be increased progressively ? 

The starting years we offer now, it is uncertain if they will stay as is. We offer now a way to start at different years, so that people can enjoy and play-test more easily the tech eras, which would otherwise be unplayable, as the campaign now is not having all the necessary features to prolong for many years with guaranteed consistency. Therefore, a new balance will come later.

[Baboulinet]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The starting years we offer now, it is uncertain if they will stay as is. We offer now a way to start at different years, so that people can enjoy and play-test more easily the tech eras, which would otherwise be unplayable, as the campaign now is not having all the necessary features to prolong for many years with guaranteed consistency. Therefore, a new balance will come later.

Fine with it ! Anyway 4000t increase means 20K per decade, which is enough for me. I'm going to test the last fix RN and report if the campaign turn pass are still trouble

[Sacro321]

2 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You need to build it yourself in the Finances window.

Yes, and starting from 1890 I always build up the shipyard size by the maximum amount (4000t with 24 month build time) - but the 4000t that you can build in 24 months don't change.

If you start in 1890 you can always only add 4000t in 24 months, but if you start in 1900 you can add 9600t every 24 months. 1910 again has a higher shipyard amount you can add in 24 months etc.

For example: If you want to build a super battleship with the maximum size (which I think is 117.000t) then if you start in 1890 you can only do that after 53 years (so 1943) (if you always immediately build up your shipyard every 24 months)

If you start in 1900 instead, you can build a 117.000 super battleship around the 1920s instead (or at least you'll have the shipyard size for it) since you start with a 20.500t shipyard and can add 9600t every 24 months.

So if campaigns are actually supposed to eventually be able to run from 1890 to 1950, I think making the amount you can build grow as the years progress may be a good idea in the future. Would also help the AI, since if they don't immediately build up their shipyards everytime like a player may do, they may just be outpaced in pure ship size - especially if they're stuck with only being able to add 4000t every 2 years.

[itolan1752]

11 hours ago, Sacro321 said:

If you want to build a super battleship with the maximum size (which I think is 117.000t) then if you start in 1890 you can only do that after 53 years (so 1943) (if you always immediately build up your shipyard every 24 months)

I didn't calculate it before, but that is later than I thought (I thought it might be 1930s).

BTW, the biggest BB in game is 130,000t, it seem that is impossible to build and use it when player start in 1890.

Edited July 6, 2022 by itolan1752

[SodaBit]

I've got some quick campaign feedback here, and I know I've already touched on this subject before but holy f*** this is absolutely ridiculous
I've gotten into another war with the French because they had a unit in the North Sea causing boatloads of tension every month

The cause of all this tension?
The Feint Smell of Cheese.

I Had To Choose Between Constantly Being Extorted By The French Or Starting A World War
BECAUSE OF A SINGLE DD

ONE
F***ING
DESTROYER
JUST CAUSED A WORLD WAR

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THIS BEFORE 1.06 GOES LIVE
PLEASE

[Urst]

17 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

I've got some quick campaign feedback here, and I know I've already touched on this subject before but holy f*** this is absolutely ridiculous
I've gotten into another war with the French because they had a unit in the North Sea causing boatloads of tension every month

The cause of all this tension?
The Feint Smell of Cheese.

I Had To Choose Between Constantly Being Extorted By The French Or Starting A World War
BECAUSE OF A SINGLE DD

ONE
F***ING
DESTROYER
JUST CAUSED A WORLD WAR

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THIS BEFORE 1.06 GOES LIVE
PLEASE

Spanish-American war, U.S. Entry into WW1, U.S. Entry into Vietnam.R 

[SodaBit]

Just now, Urst said:

Spanish-American war, U.S. Entry into WW1, U.S. Entry into Vietnam.R 

Those conflicts were started by much, much more than a single DD roaming around less than 200km from home. The reasons being suspected sabotage of a major warship, murder of US civilians on the high seas, and a rather brazen attack on a US formation at sea. These Frenchie's have not attacked German naval assets, nor harmed German civilians. While the possibility is there, the French are very much doing laps in their own swimming pool, and do not pose a major threat to anyone in the North sea at the moment. There is no excuse for such an insignificant formation to raise so many alarms across such a large area, when it is completely within the rights of the French military to move units this close to home waters.

[Carl_Bar]

@Nick Thomadis With the disclaimer i haven't tested for a few updates. Are you saying the in game shell trails are actually acurratte to the simulated shell ballistics? Given some other things in patch notes i'd dismissed them as strictly visual fluff with the actual shell trajectories worked out behind the scenes being completely seperate.

 

As noted a few posts back i don't think the major cause of the problem is in the ballistics as transports take hits as expected whilst warships don't. But if the shell trajectories are supposed to be acurratte it probably helps a little in explaining the difference between what people are expecting if my suspicions about them are right, (i need to do some testing to say for sure).

[Nick Thomadis]

The Patch is going to be released tomorrow, with potentially some hotfixes based on your continuous feedback. Thank you all!

[aznfoo]

35 minutes ago, Carl_Bar said:

@Nick Thomadis With the disclaimer i haven't tested for a few updates. Are you saying the in game shell trails are actually acurratte to the simulated shell ballistics? Given some other things in patch notes i'd dismissed them as strictly visual fluff with the actual shell trajectories worked out behind the scenes being completely seperate.

 

As noted a few posts back i don't think the major cause of the problem is in the ballistics as transports take hits as expected whilst warships don't. But if the shell trajectories are supposed to be acurratte it probably helps a little in explaining the difference between what people are expecting if my suspicions about them are right, (i need to do some testing to say for sure).

the issue for me was that shells were impacting the deck more than the belt at medium to extremely close distances, leading to less damaging hits even on a broadside target

[IshPR7777]

22 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The Patch is going to be released tomorrow, with potentially some hotfixes based on your continuous feedback. Thank you all!

Good. I'll be waiting for this update to become available

[jtjohn1]

Just an FYI while the build ship bug is much better it's still there.  I have had to hard reset the game 4 times (Though in 10 years worth of turns) this time UK 1910-1920

[Laldy]

Since the 1st release of 1.06, I have been unable to play the game because it always crashes with a memory leak when I exit the ship designer. The "game" hangs on the "game loading" screen before returning to the campaign map.

This is constant.

It is especially prone to this behaviour whenever I'm trying to design a CL or DD. After several attempts to repair the installion or reinstall the problems persists. Task manager shows the program consuming 97% of my memory after less that 15 minutes use.

Fix the showstoppers before adding any more features ffs. Right now, your code is a total waste of space to me.

[kjg000]

Probably for 1.07, but maybe a 1.06 hotfix if one happens?

Just trying to finish a 1.06.23 campaign before updating so this may have been done. 

I still can't delete all of my old designs, some just hang around cluttering the menu and causing confusion.  Many times I have refitted a design, checking several times to ensure I have selected the correct upgrade, only to find that I have ended up with an old version.

Several old refits apply to ships I can no longer build and no longer exist but still cannot delete the design. 

1. Please allow us to delete any design! Use a trash bin type arrangement if you must. 

2. Please let us build directly from a refit design.