>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)

[The PC Collector]

4 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It seems to be intentional. We are moving large critical rooms inside the hull (magazines, boilers), it should have a limit IMO.

Oh, it is okay if it is intentional. Just wanted a confirmation. Although I think you should be able to rebuild ships however you want if you're willing to pay the cost. However, probably this is easier to make cost calculations for unreasonable refits.

[Norbert Sattler]

There are still massive performance issues in the ship designer once all-or-nothing scheme is used.

Clicking on another ship and back temporarily gets rid of this, but since that is no longer an option when refitting ships...

[The PC Collector]

5 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

There are still massive performance issues in the ship designer once all-or-nothing scheme is used.

Clicking on another ship and back temporarily gets rid of this, but since that is no longer an option when refitting ships...

While I agree that the performance problems should be solved, I fail to see why anyone would like to use that scheme or to build Nelson-like battleships. The only reason those existed at all was the Washinton naval treaty, which doesn't existe here.

[itolan1752]

some feedback tech research

first time I can actually play so far from 1900 to 1942.(I want to build over-100,000t BB, if I start in 1890 it will be too late)

TECH:

I must say research speed is better than I thought before (still need many improve)

most techs are into final Recurring passive tech after 1930s. but according to game show me, most of these should start before 1936s, maybe I can thought the research speed is slower than developer think?

(boiler show 1936, but I research it in 1939. fire control II show 1930, I research it in 1936)

it really need a icon to show which tech is behind and how behind it is.

gun techs are totally behind too. I want to use 16" mk3, but after 1940 I can finally use it, and it show I should research in 1930s, 17~20" is useless because they are mk1, too long reload and bad accuracy to use in battle.
I don't really need some mk4/5 gun that I don't use.

BUG:

maybe it just happened to old save, but AI still inactive a few turns sometimes, don't build ship, don't move fleet, don't increase crew pool (it was 0,but can't get additional crew cause some reason.)

others bug are mentioned by The PC Collector.

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Minor bugs found

- Captured ships display their original ship faction instead of the flag of the faction they serve now.

Major bugs found

- Signing peace still fails like half of times. Often you simply get the "war continues" message despite agreeing to sign peace.

- War reparations still work erratically. As in the sense as you usually don't get all you asked for. While I agree that can be reallistic, there should be some negotiation, instead of the AI outright giving you whatever they want.

- Sunk ships count as still active, thus preventing designs to be deleted. This make the design tab cluttered and barely usable on long campaigns, and better not talk about the "designs" section on the ship builder. I suspect this bug might be related to the one which made AI crew to be permanently empty as they lost ships.

Edited July 17, 2022 by itolan1752

[Norbert Sattler]

  

22 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

While I agree that the performance problems should be solved, I fail to see why anyone would like to use that scheme or to build Nelson-like battleships. The only reason those existed at all was the Washinton naval treaty, which doesn't existe here.

 

I mean all-or-nothing as in Citadel V.

It is the best at preventing engine damage, ammo detonation and flash fires, even though it comes with less resistance than Citadel IV, so it has it's merits.

Also with on my ships Cit V usually weighs less than Cit IV, even with the extra third inner layers.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[The PC Collector]

20 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

I mean all-or-nothing as in Citadel V.

My bad. I haven't reached that far into a campaign yet, so I didn't really know that

[Drenzul]

3 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

The "range" of torpedoes is not the maximum travel distance, but the distance at which the ships are able to launch them. In a much earlier patch I observed that a torpedo will travel for round-amout 3 times it's "range" once it's in the water, provided it doesn't hit anything or prematurely detonates of course.
Mind you I have not really looked at this again since, so the factor how far they can travel might well have changed in the torpedo rework, but it would fit what you discribe.

So by your discription I'd say your cruisers were the actual targets of the torpedoes, since they were close enough for the AI to launch at them and then the torps just kept going.

Yep, they were almost certainly launched at the cruisers, but they are meant to expire at their max range... otherwise what does range mean in this context? 

Otherwise I should be able to fire them at their actual max range not some arbitrary limit. It's not like they need to lock onto anything...

[havaduck]

I did test the new version and I can only describe it as frustrating.

 

I cant use the tension mechanic at all. It simply doesn work. At best relations are not going up but thats it. Events occure, but they dont influence shit as they are to few in between and spread over several powers to counteract the relations going up. In fact looking how the germans are the one that can start a war for me, they have been an utter waste of money and time. The game is basically gaslighting you to create the illusion you can influence shit.

 

So finally the German-English-French chain reactions starts and altough I am not in any alliance, NOW and only NOW relations with with the french go down (with GB it switched over 100! relations magically within a turn, which I hade better relations with than the germans! What a load of random BS)

 

Natually the battlemaker is absolut shit. The AI is again waiting for something is can throw it doomstacks again. So to not actually die of boredom I divided my fleet into 3 parts:

1. going up to the british to cause a war (one can still hope.... ).

2. Making sore the french dont get free convoy kills over the endturm.

3. Port for power projection, reserve and hupefully the battlemake to generate some actually fun missions from.

 

The result:

 

First battle: Jutland.

 

Second battle (same turn): Jutland.

 

So that was a truly absolutely not exiting war with the french loosing the 71 % !!! of their ships in the initial engagments, which I didnt enjoy at all because Jutland in this game is just shit. 

 

But wait, theres more:  Thats the french fleet at the end of my turn. They asked for peace which I recommended accepting (hoping to get a few battles out of the british).

As you con see most of they ships are scattered and their fleet wouldnt pose a threat to the undamaged ships I have in reseve (with so long of absolutely nothing happening and naval cookie clicker one builds ships to not die of boredom)

 

Next turn:  The Italians shoot the remaining french ships into drydock over the endturn.

 

"War continous" - what a load of random BS. With what? What the actual hell I am supposed to fight? Like why the hell have things like convoy defences/attacks, port strike etc even been developed if its only going to be shitty jutland battles followed by massive fleets against single random ships.

 

And since diplomacy ist still superfúcked and you cant got to war with anyone else except the chosen 1 and 2 powers over and over again, thats it. Like, this makes Fighting Steel hypothetical campaigns seem super progressive and futuristic.

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by havaduck

[Norbert Sattler]

I just encountered a German task force consisting of a ship with a name made up of numbers and "BB <Class>" and the "CA <Class>".

Did the Germans even run out of numbers after running out of proper names, or is this a new bug?

[havaduck]

Anything bigger than 2,8" (for example 2,9" or plain old 3 or 3,9") in spot of the bow cassemate guns are blocking the forwared main turret on the heavy cruiser I.

 

With:

 

Without:

[Vinrellren]

The crew training fixes did work, but now all of my ships crew stuck at Trained level although I already won 2 wars.

[Norbert Sattler]

My ships do train up, albeit rather slowly.

I managed to get a couple of ships to regular, but nothing beyond that yet, so I agree that the in-battle training rate is a bit too low right now.

Speaking of which, how is that experience calculated anyway? Is it just a flat amount per battle? Does it depends on how many ships were sunk in a battle? Or something else?

I hope it's not just a single flat value per battle, because hunting down a single TB and annihilating an entire doomstack should not give the same amount of experience...

Edited July 17, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[PainKiller]

I would like to mention here what i have experienced in battle now, about the "main guns not firing while secundary guns are shooting" bug.

I don't think it has anything to do with that it's a secundary or main battery category, but rather what the caliber is.

example one: 1890 light cruiser design, 4 piece of 150mm centerline gun, 4 piece of 120mm guns, 2-2 on sides, and the usual secundary guns, 4 piece of 98mm 2-2 on the sides. So the broadside looks like 4 150mm, 2 120mm, 2 90mm. The 90 and 120mm guns seems to be firing all the time when loaded, and has clear view of the target, but the 150mm guns refuse to fire constantly. What i usually see is that 1 of the 150mm guns fires, reloads, than waits a few secound, and fires agan.

secund example: (this is why i'm sure it has to do something with caliber) is my 1908ish dd design. As you probably know it only has main gun category, from the 50 to 127mm, and of course the extension. My design was 4 piece of 149.9mm and 3 piece of 76mm guns, all centerline. I have intented to use them as a support CA, CL killers, especially when they have someone in front of them tanking the damage. But they unfurtunatly have the same problem as my light cruiser mentioned before. My 3 76mm guns firing all the time no problem, but the 149mm guns behave the same way. 1gun fires once, reloads, waits a few secound, then fires again. I am really sad seeing this, since the 149mm guns are supposed to be the main damage dealer, the 76mm guns are not enough on it's own. AND when the 76mm guns run out of ammo (similar to when you disable the secundary guns on bigger ship) THEN the 149mm guns FINALLY starts working as they should. All firing immidiatly as they reload.

Now let's not even mention that i have to fight doomsday Jutland battles as well, and my CA, CL ships are only using their secundary guns basicly because of this bug, which is very frustrating.....( I can still beat them, but it would be quicker if my guns would work :_D ) 

My new heavy cruiser with 270mm guns, and 100mm secundarys seems to be woring as they should, every gun firing. My previous design had 170mm guns, and they had the same problem as well. Happy that i got rid of them. 

I will try to refit my DD, so that it only has either 149mm guns, or at least guns only using the same caliber. At least until this bug gets repaired. I would have loved to use both the 149 and 76mm guns, since against dds close range, the 76mm are superior because of the fire rate, that's why i gave them those.

[Drenzul]

Seriously need torp max range fixing....

Just got hit by torps (max 14.8km according to their ship screen), hit my BCs at over 20km away.

And of course I got zero warning since the torps had been spotted by my CLs before they got close to them, so travelled beyond their max range after beene spotted and hit my BCs several minutes later.

Zero way to realistically spot them unless all you do all battle is look for torps which isn't a fun game. Please
1> Actually make torps obey max range listed (some variation is fine per torp, but max +/- 20%, not 2x+)
2> Actually highlight spotted torps, friendly AND enemy so they are visible.... this is one of the main jobs of your command team to keep an eye on hazards like this.

Other things really annoying.
Can't even keep anything like a decent overview on larger battles to co-ordinate groups. Trying to keep stuff arranged right is nearly impossible when you can't even see the enemy ships due to distance. Need to always display all ships even if just as markers on the horizon not just have them disappear entirely or add a tactical map view so you can see everything from overhead or something like that like most strategy games do.

Armour effectiveness seems way down, blocked/ricochettes seem much less common. I'd expect a 7" gun to not do much vs 20" thick plate most of the time. Also whenever a secondary weapon is hit it seems to do damage as if the ship had no armour  beyond the secondaries' weapon's armour in that spot, so does a lot more damage in addition to destroying the gun. It's like the 7" armoured deck it's sitting on doesn't help at all, hits to the deck from the same gun do partial pens for like 20 damage but then hits the secondary and does 200+ damage.
 

[jkl]

I play with my started ships on legendary. No single ship builded during campaign, no single lost, but still able win every wars (and take ships as contribution if i need).

In the end i just have lack of time for wipe picrelated blob, but anyway England surrender after this single battle.

On top on this i was should 3 times restart game since "ships building" stuck, and one with "generation mission" or something.

And ship components still not balanced, so need to check effeciency every single time.

Is it fun? Barely.

I think i need to wait more.

[mikekervin]

We need to be able to chamge recruiting without affecting the training level. My crew pool is like 50,000 above what I realistically need, but just by reducing my new recruits to 1000 per month all my ships went back down to cadets.

In other cases when countries have mothballed ships it doesn't make sense not to throw in barely trained sailors in to learn on the job instead of waiting many months when the nation is under threat.

[The PC Collector]

Doom stacks needs to be worked upon. Not that I do not enjoy fighting them (I really do, even if I'm the only person here who does) but they make the AI nations run out of ships in a few battles. So, maybe as a temporary fix, we could address it by hard capping the task forces? As in limiting the max number of ships a task force can have to maybe 10-15?

I personlly would set it that way: If the destination is another port (because you're moving ships or whatever) then the number can remain unlimited. But if the destination is the sea (to make the task force active) then the limit applies.

[Skeksis]

37 minutes ago, mikekervin said:

We need to be able to chamge recruiting without affecting the training level. My crew pool is like 50,000 above what I realistically need, but just by reducing my new recruits to 1000 per month all my ships went back down to cadets.

In other cases when countries have mothballed ships it doesn't make sense not to throw in barely trained sailors in to learn on the job instead of waiting many months when the nation is under threat.

I think the problem lies with the player not losing ships, player always wins, so no need to use up too much crew.

The AI however, loses all the time, AI vs AI too, so the AI needs more and/or even runs out of crew, e.g. mothballed ships. It’s the same for funds, player can amass billions, AI just enough.

Penalizing player just because they’re winning seems alittle off too.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

32 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Doom stacks needs to be worked upon. Not that I do not enjoy fighting them (I really do, even if I'm the only person here who does) but they make the AI nations run out of ships in a few battles. So, maybe as a temporary fix, we could address it by hard capping the task forces? As in limiting the max number of ships a task force can have to maybe 10-15?

I personlly would set it that way: If the destination is another port (because you're moving ships or whatever) then the number can remain unlimited. But if the destination is the sea (to make the task force active) then the limit applies.

Dev’s have put doomstacks cause down to cheat engines, therefore such reports are invalid.  

Edited July 17, 2022 by Skeksis

[The PC Collector]

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Dev’s have put doomstacks cause down to cheat engines, therefore such reports are invalid. 

So you're saying that doomstacks are intentional?

[mikekervin]

Guns that have very large degrees of rotation can get "stuck" trying to rotate the wrong way through a solid object when manuevers make the angle on the enemy ship very close to the maximum rotation on the other side. It is then necesarry to turn the ship 180 degrees for the affected turrets to begin moving again.

[Kiknurazz91]

still having issues with he ship designer in campaign mode freezing after exiting. Seems to only do it after placing secondary's what should take 10 to 20 min takes an hr. cause you got to get out of a froze game and come back in and redesign the same ship AGAIN because it did not save. Please fix!

[Skeksis]

On 7/17/2022 at 12:31 AM, brothermunro said:

What you have there is what I call “The Target Lock Bug”. It used to be a huge problem, then it got fixed, and then reappeared during the 1.06 beta. As far as I can tell what happens is a ship makes a turn and one of your gun turrets loses line of sight. The game then applies a massive negative modifier to the aiming progress and it ends up at -40,000% or some similar ludicrous figure. That number isn’t really supposed to go negative so the game gets confused and the progress gets stuck at zero. If you manually retarget the enemy ship it will fix the problem (but that is annoying to do).

I noticed once or twice when one of the back turrets lost line of sight, the aiming jams, I did recall that it was the first placed turret. Not the forwardmost turret as first placed.

If some parameters are sought for but the game uses the first placed turret and not the first index turret (if indexed forwardmost to aftmost), then you would get a floating number, because all checks (to zero out) could be done on the first index turret, correctly, and not the first placed turret.

However I can’t reproduce it, exactly - sometimes I get it to occur but then next test it doesn't, some other parameter involved.

Just observations.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Skeksis

[The PC Collector]

Okay, the mistery of the Destroyer II with Austria has been resolved. The reason why the hull didn't appeared, was because the minumum tonnage of that hull was 1300t, which I couldn't build before. And instead of beeing displayed in gray, like before, it was simply hidden. Could you please revert that to the previous system? Knowing the hull is there would be useful, even if I can't build it yet.

Also, an option to escalate the UI would be desirable, to make it more functional on old/small screens which have native resolutions lower than 1920x1080. Like, for example, in most laptops.

Edited July 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Grayknight]

3 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Dev’s have put doomstacks cause down to cheat engines, therefore such reports are invalid.  

Well i do not use aby cheat engine or save editing and i do Still have doom stacks like mamy others so devs must know its a issue