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

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, jtjohn1 said:

I am curious what a crew has to do to go beyond trained?  I have fought several major battles and my crew hasn't progressed from trained to seasoned)  Shouldn't a crew that has been at sea or together for a long period of time at least reach seasoned (Not veteran because that would take combat)

If you put a ship in mothballs do you have to start over with a trained crew (Even though you keep your crews funded?)

It's getting hard to keep ships in port or at sea due to a lack of funds during peacetime.  About the only thing I can do is mothball most of my fleet.

Could you share a bit more information about your navy? Cause even on legendary I never struggle to have enough funds with all sliders on maximum and a fleet mostly made up of high maintenance BBs and BCs. I even paid Germany for almost 10 years to not bother me with their lust for war.

[havaduck]

I really beginn to hate this version .... like, its not only still broken its outright unplayable.

 

Tension mechanic doesnt work at all! Explain this to me: Its a net positive of 8,3! Are you shitting me?

Lets look at those regions, shall we?

 

Western mediteranean: Brisish got a port there but no ships obviously and despite me outnumbering them infinitely tensions go down. Maybe with no opposition tensions go down, which is ofc absolute bullshit otherwise the term gunboat diplomacy wouldnt exist.

 

Eastern Mediteranean: Nothing. Now I could accept that as tension going down because of no ships there, but then if there are plenty of ships staring at each other  ....

 

Shitton of ships in a region I have no business being in, 4 times their power projection, they (still) hate me (magical dipolamatic switch due to france declaring war on me) and thats worth only a miserable -3,6. Are you for real?

Best of all, it took basically all those ships to EVEN GET a negative number going.

 

 

French ships are still unsinkable:

5 battleships went as close as 0,2 km, still couldnt get any meaningful penetration, then just cicled it. Main gun hit rate is way lower for what the game gives as hit % and if not for 2,9"L+20% abuse + Nose Fuse HE spam these things would be completely unsinkable. This is with a detonation of the submerged torpedoes (which caused the only flooding despite fore and aft belts getting penetrated). It has 12,2" of belt armor.

 

 

[mikekervin]

When ships are under repair the maintenance penalty for ports over capacity isn't applied.

[Fangoriously]

7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In your image the two frontal guns cannot shoot at all and only your rear gun contributes to the aiming, which makes it much more difficult to eventually find the range and have progress in the aiming procedure. 
In order to gain aiming in a steady manner, you need to keep a parallel course to the target, utilize all main guns and try to keep the distance as much as possible steady.

When players move their ships erratically or away from their target at high speed, the guns will usually lose their aiming.

I was holding a steady course as much as possible, and making slight course corrections to keep all main guns in arc, they have extremely good fireing arcs but at that precise moment of the screenshot the front guns might not have been able to shoot. But this is one screen shot among a few hours of hopeless gunnery on a class of ship that should have impeccable accuracy, and in previous game versions even with a mediocre crew, having such high hull stability & towers meant your ship could acquire and hit targets very reliably. Its acting more like a 1900 design with a hull stability & tower score of 0, not over 100.

In several missions Id watch countless 9 gun salvos go out at only medium range targets, and aiming progress wouldn't move from 0%, it would even show -100% progress some times. Chance to hit in the single digits, wile an AI BB with abysmal stats, 50+ weight offset, pitch in the 30s, and 2 salvos of fire from like 4 guns and they had me locked with a 20% chance to hit. My ships spend 80% of a battle not sighted in on anything and are easily overwhelmed by smaller ships they used to be able to in annihilate in older versions.

 

I'm abandoning this campaign, these BBs I build for this campaign are helpless despite how good their stats are and how well built they are. gonna try again with 15in based guns next time, on top of whatever other bugs there might be, 16in+ guns even at mk3 are nearly unusable because of how bad their base stats are. I only used them this time because the tower stats and pitch score of only 17 should have made them usable. it didn't.

more screenshots

[UncleAi]

9 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:

I think the economy issue that makes this possible for the AI applies to the player too, especially if you build mediocre ships and don’t max out crew/transports/research (as most of us do). If everybody had considerably less money or monthly costs for construction, repair, and maintenance were a lot higher, such a fleet would cause the AI to bankrupt itself. As it is there’s practically nothing stopping me from building absurd numbers of even the biggest ships. 

Not to mention in my experience with 1.08 each of those 260+ CLs can tank more shells than Warspite…

One other suggestion for (possibly) fixing this problem and imposing an interesting constraint on the strategy layer is to limit the number of ships you can actually build of a particular size range. Currently you have a maximum size allowed and unlimited slipways and drydocks within that size; if I can build up to 100,000 tons, then *everything* I build can be that size, with budget being the only constraint. But in real life there are physical limits on what individual yards can build, which require new construction or structural changes to increase. So it would be both realistic and interesting to break down your construction capacity in terms of individual yards—maybe even localized to particular ports!—so that you could have, say, five really big yards capable of producing or repairing a BB, ten big enough to build cruisers, and twenty only big enough to build DDs (all these limited by length or tonnage or both). This might be implemented by overhauling the Ship Design screen with an overview of what’s being constructed, which slipways are in use/available, and which designs you’ve made.

Yeah I support this idea but I think this should be in long term update.

The limitation of enough big shipyard is real in history. Like I have two 35,000 ton shipyard in Kiel, I can build two BB at the same time. By this we can also control where the ship spawn. And I think ship under 10,000 do not have this limit.

But I am afraid add new system will just make more chaos. This need a lot number balancing and AI balancing. The current priority I think is doomstack and spotting.

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, UncleAi said:

The limitation of enough big shipyard is real in history. Like I have two 35,000 ton shipyard in Kiel, I can build two BB at the same time. By this we can also control where the ship spawn. And I think ship under 10,000 do not have this limit.

While this could be nice, I think it would cause a whole new set of problems. Namely that, for example, most of the big ships of A-H where built on places which aren't represented in the game (Trieste and Budapest). So might be hard to balance this.

[AdmiralKirk]

I certainly agree that altering the ship construction logistics and interface is a huge change, and it doesn't make sense to implement it in the short term even if it were simple to write the code—and I do not by any means assume such. Developing the balance for something like that would take a whole round of beta testing by itself.

In the short term a band-aid solution to the fleet stacking problems most players are having seems necessary (I would add in another report of massive opposing fleets in both overall numbers and size of individual engagements, despite having made no modifications to UAD besides the reshade package used in the devs' own promotional material). I just think in the long term this game has the potential to do much better than simply artificially restricting number/type/size/cost of ships in either the player or ai fleets from the top down.

[BuckleUpBones]

Secondaries jamming. I don't think this is the classic target lock bug but something new. Secondaries won't firer against the DD but straightaway firer on the CL. Take note at 0.31, 5.9" guns are still loading but stop at the trigger point and note all the penalties targeting the DD. Campaign game.

Edited July 19, 2022 by BuckleUpBones

[The PC Collector]

Okay. More feedback: Definitely finishing ships is too hard. A CA with 34% structure and 6% bouyancy shouldn't be able to take like 400 shells before sinking. And furtermore, a with the same crew remaining, a ship with 34% structure shouldn't be able to fight the same way as an undamaged ship does. Penalties to combat effectiveness should work in an exponetial way. And definitely ships with less than 40% structure should be worthless in combat.

[ZorinW]

38 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay. More feedback: Definitely finishing ships is too hard. A CA with 34% structure and 6% bouyancy shouldn't be able to take like 400 shells before sinking. And furtermore, a with the same crew remaining, a ship with 34% structure shouldn't be able to fight the same way as an undamaged ship does. Penalties to combat effectiveness should work in an exponetial way. And definitely ships with less than 40% structure should be worthless in combat.

But that is what damage instability does and is actually working pretty good from what I can tell. 

The one big issue that is still present though is the AIs ability, even with all engines dead and a destroyed rudder, to make 360° turns on the spot to avoid showing their broadside. 

[Vinrellren]

Big guns research are kinda useless due to how long it is, playing from 1910 to 1941 just got 20 inch mark 2, and only mark 5 12 inch. 

[PainKiller]

3 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:

Secondaries jamming. I don't think this is the classic target lock bug but something new. Secondaries won't firer against the DD but straightaway firer on the CL. Take note at 0.31, 5.9" guns are still loading but stop at the trigger point and note all the penalties targeting the DD. Campaign game.

Have you tried putting your guns to agressive? If the hit chances are too low on normal, they will not fire. That dd seems to be very fast, so i can imagine this is your problem.

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, ZorinW said:

But that is what damage instability does and is actually working pretty good from what I can tell. 

The one big issue that is still present though is the AIs ability, even with all engines dead and a destroyed rudder, to make 360° turns on the spot to avoid showing their broadside

A ship at 6% bouyancy shouln't be able to tank several hundred shells before finally sinking anyways, so my point still stands. And the issue about the dead turning, I think it is a bug related with the "retreat" order.

[kineuhansen]

here is some feedback 

[The PC Collector]

I'm afraid that the AI crew pool black hole bug might be back... since I started my current war with Italy and France, neither of them are gaining any crew pool... and neither of them are building ships... Even more, France has only 5 ships and is building none... 800+ sailors per month and no crew pool being built.

[ZorinW]

3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

A ship at 6% bouyancy shouln't be able to tank several hundred shells before finally sinking anyways, so my point still stands. And the issue about the dead turning, I think it is a bug related with the "retreat" order.

I agree with the tankiness. In the case of CLs it is due to the fact that they are allowed 150 mm armor for belt, deck, tower and super structure, which is of course complete nonsense and needs to be fixed ASAP.

[ZorinW]

On 7/18/2022 at 3:52 PM, AdmiralKirk said:

I think the economy issue that makes this possible for the AI applies to the player too, especially if you build mediocre ships and don’t max out crew/transports/research (as most of us do). If everybody had considerably less money or monthly costs for construction, repair, and maintenance were a lot higher, such a fleet would cause the AI to bankrupt itself. As it is there’s practically nothing stopping me from building absurd numbers of even the biggest ships. 

Not to mention in my experience with 1.08 each of those 260+ CLs can tank more shells than Warspite…

One other suggestion for (possibly) fixing this problem and imposing an interesting constraint on the strategy layer is to limit the number of ships you can actually build of a particular size range. Currently you have a maximum size allowed and unlimited slipways and drydocks within that size; if I can build up to 100,000 tons, then *everything* I build can be that size, with budget being the only constraint. But in real life there are physical limits on what individual yards can build, which require new construction or structural changes to increase. So it would be both realistic and interesting to break down your construction capacity in terms of individual yards—maybe even localized to particular ports!—so that you could have, say, five really big yards capable of producing or repairing a BB, ten big enough to build cruisers, and twenty only big enough to build DDs (all these limited by length or tonnage or both). This might be implemented by overhauling the Ship Design screen with an overview of what’s being constructed, which slipways are in use/available, and which designs you’ve made.

I totall yagree with you. There needs to be a hard cap at least for the short term and the whole conomic system reworked in the long run.

In this case the Germans are on the same tech level as I am, so their tech slider must be on 100% all the time, they also have similar economic strength, which means their transport slider is on 100% and they are manning 600+ ships, so their crew slider msut be on full also. So those costs are fixed and should be similar to mine, plus they make about 1 billion "profit" that goes towards their naval funds.

So if we take their monthly balance of $5.430.675.000 and deduce the cost for tech, crew and transports of around $3.340.000.000 they have $2.090.675.000 left. Now also deduce the $1.000.000.000 "profit" they make and they have $1.090.675.000 left to maintain their fleet of 617 ships, repair 24 ships and build another 44 ships.

It takes me roughly $141.000.000 to maintain my 66 ships, so given that the AI usually builds ships that have lower maintenance costs it is fairly obvious, why they can have a fleet of 600+ ships. Heck, even I could have one with my high cost ships and still make a small profit that's how low the maintenance costs are at the moment!

 

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by ZorinW

[Eirchirfir]

3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I'm afraid that the AI crew pool black hole bug might be back... since I started my current war with Italy and France, neither of them are gaining any crew pool... and neither of them are building ships... Even more, France has only 5 ships and is building none... 800+ sailors per month and no crew pool being built.

I do not think the crew pool bug is back. I have seen AI nations lossing their crew pool and all ships during war. When the ability to lose crew is gone when the AI has no ships or during peace will result in the crew pool staring to regenerate and new ships being laid down.

The AI seems to have a hard time keeping crew around during war due to losses from players and other AI nations but will recover when they can no longer loss crew faster than they get new crew.

[Toby]

Hello @Nick Thomadisand team
so far barrring a small issue that is the issue with not being able to either improve or destroy relations with factions when i am super freindly with all but one faction i have another reason for writing here today.
 

have you got any idea what the next main patch is going to contain or any word yet on a rough schedule for its release? the last patch added so much that i cant wait for the enxt one and dont midn admitting im impatiently waiting for it.

[Baboulinet]

I'm sorry to be maybe a little harsh, but the majority of bugs listed in the last hotfixes are still lurking there.
The minor ones seem ok, but the majors absolutely not :

- AI Economic, diplomatic, and crew managements can get whacky, and they can turn from invincible armada to sudden death in a few turns. We still get multiple-sides or phantom wars, also
- Turn times were finally "ok" at release but got worse than ever. My game eats 8GB of RAM when sitting idle on the campaign map...
- Doomstacks could be enjoyable if they didn't kill whatever computer we have, and if the AI was capable of handling them. I tend to micromanage every ship as AI handling of formations is a little better than before but still painful to watch. So if I want to bring enough ships to fight a doomstack, it doesn't help neither the performance of the game nor its gameplay.
- Like so many others have mentioned, guns being stuck and not firing are quite common. (I don't remember this particular one a few weeks in the past).

I stated earlier that I didn't see the point of releasing the patch in its current state, as after 3 hotfixes it's still what would most people consider a rough beta stage. It quite saddens me because the few negative reviews on steam are pointing for most of them towards the buggy state of the releases. It doesn't help the various streamers which could help the game thrive, something we all want !

PS : obviously no CE or save editing involved. I used to edit saves (after having reported the bugs that I found in a patch) essentially in order to fix AI problems and make the campaign enjoyable more than a couple of months !

Edited July 19, 2022 by Baboulinet

[ZorinW]

For all who missed it, a topic about the research progress during a campaign (with google spread sheet):

 

[Skeksis]

57 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

For all who missed it, a topic about the research progress during a campaign (with google spread sheet):

 

Those spreadsheet tech dates don’t align with any campaign I’ve run, they all messed up. But mostly I start 1910 anyways so that could be the difference. Every campaign start randomizes research and possibly research advance rate and on top of that research boost will change everything again.

IMO vanilla version research is not bad.  

Anyway, you’ll be best to use Custom Battles as the baseline, it doesn’t have different rates or any randomization.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Skeksis

[ZorinW]

3 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Those spreadsheet tech dates don’t align with any campaign I’ve run, they all messed up. But mostly I start 1910 anyways so that could be the difference. Every campaign start randomizes research and possibly research advance rate and on top of that research boost will change everything again.

IMO vanilla version research is not bad.  

Anyway, you’ll be best to use Custom Battles as the baseline, it doesn’t have different rates, user inputs or any randomization.

You starting in 1910 is the one reason why they are not the same. 

What I am showing here is what happens without interfering with the system at 100% funding, which should result in at least the tech being available at the correct date.

[Skeksis]

13 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

You starting in 1910 is the one reason why they are not the same. 

What I am showing here is what happens without interfering with the system at 100% funding, which should result in at least the tech being available at the correct date.

Yeah, funds changes everything again. So if it doesn’t have a baseline reference, it’s borderline misinformation – meaning no one could expect those dates everytime, to which they may.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Skeksis

[ZorinW]

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Yeah, funds changes everything again. So if it doesn’t have a baseline reference, it’s borderline misinformation – meaning no one could expect those dates everytime, to which they may.

It is set to 100% to show how bad the system is. I could have done it on 50% funding or 0% funding, but in the end that would just ended up with even longer times between new techs, but the proportions of the gaps would stay the same.