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

[Urst]

16 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

what is with the odd naming convention of ships now...

CL CL 2275 
BB BB 1956

Are there not enough ship names that we get these odd things? 

Yeah. If you have too many ships then you'll run out.

[UncleAi]

@Nick Thomadis Nick, can you give us a clear answer: Do devs still insist doomstack is caused by player using cheat? If not, are you working on solving that problem? 

 

[Hangar18]

On 7/18/2022 at 3:05 AM, The PC Collector said:

So, according to the devs, this is normal? No cheat engines, no save editing, no nothing. I insist that taskforces should have a hard cap on the number of ships. My computer couldn't even run the battle.

 

The solution to this is making ship smore expensive.

[The PC Collector]

59 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

The solution to this is making ship smore expensive.

No. The solution is teaching the AI proper fleet management and, as an stopgap measure until that is done, hardcapping the number of ships on a taskforce.

[Urst]

8 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

The solution to this is making ship smore expensive.

No, the solution is to either: force the AI to not make throw-away ships OR force taskforces to be capped (probably by ship type) until it's been fixed.

If limited by type, I would cap BBs/BCs at 3 (one squadron) and then 2 CAs for each BB/BC, 2-4 CLs for each CA, 2-6 DDs/TBs for each CL

[Vinrellren]

British sailors sure do love Cyprus weather because half of the RN just sat there

[Panzergraf]

14 hours ago, Urst said:

Yeah. If you have too many ships then you'll run out.

The Germans in the British 1900 campaign I'm playing (now 1919) have run into that issue. Why won't they just recycle names?
I sunk pre-dreads named Tirpitz and Bismarck and such almost 20 years ago, surely those names should be available again.

[The PC Collector]

5 hours ago, Vinrellren said:

British sailors sure do love Cyprus weather because half of the RN just sat there

That's only half? Jesus Christ, how many ships does the Royal Navy have?

[Kane]

59 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

That's only half? Jesus Christ, how many ships does the Royal Navy have?

In my current campaign, before I dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Navy and subjected them to a decade of blockade (through which they had 10 years of positive economic growth).

They had over 400 ships, 200+ of which were battleships.  This was around 1915-1920 somewhere in there, don't remember exact date.  Fortunately for me I was so far out ahead of them technologically, that it was basically 400 targets.  But still...a lot of ships.

My first major battle with them had the frame rate of a flipbook as my fleet of 12 battleships plus escorts took out their fleet of 128 battleships plus escort.

So yeah.  Some...interesting things going on with AI economy and shipbuilding.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,
Please be informed that another important update has just become available to improve the gameplay and fix some longstanding issues with the long campaign turns or slow Campaign generation time.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3379406856653944586

 

[mikekervin]

On 8/1/2022 at 5:17 PM, Urst said:

Something can be poorly optimized for newer machines but well optimized for older ones, leading to the older machines having better performance.

This is why I only prioritize single core performance for play hex and counter games -. I guess something in my system agrees with the coding here too.

[mikekervin]

Quote

The game now can run on the background (by disabling “Full Screen” mode from the settings), so you can Alt+Tab and work with other applications while the game loads or does a lengthy procedure.

Thank you for this!

[aznfoo]

hitboxes are currently broken 

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, mikekervin said:

Thank you for this!

That was already possible for some time now.

[jtjohn1]

I will admit a cap of some sort is probably needed (Though a high cap of say 250 AI ships or so) 

Just did a battle where the AI had 545 ships to my 20.  Took 21 minutes to load the battle (Had to load it twice because the first time it was going to be 545 to 4 so there was 40 minutes waisted....) then on a very powerful laptop (9th Gen core i7, Nvidia 2060, 16GB of ram and a Samsung EVO 860 SSD) I was getting maybe a frame every 2 -3 seconds when the battle was joined (Before that I was getting about a frame a second)  There was literally nothing I could do except the odd course change for my ships.  I wound up taking 19BBs that are optimized for long range high diddle diddle straight up the middle loosing two (Of course to ammo explosions or flash fire due to torp hits.  Here is a hint for you.  A Torp lets in water almost immediately if it penitrates the TDS.  You can't really have a flash fire in flooded spaces...)

It was basically unplayeable for almost an hour (I didn't want to exit out because I would then have to go back in and wait another 20 minutes to load the game.

Edited August 3, 2022 by jtjohn1

[Lakel]

2 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:

A Torp lets in water almost immediately if it penitrates the TDS.  You can't really have a flash fire in flooded spaces...)

Hardly impossible, have a historic account from I-19 vs North Carolina:

"The torpedo punctured some fuel tanks and started a fire, which got into the lower handling room of Turret II. The fuel was actually burning on the floor of the projectile room. The sprinklers were activated and the turret crew came streaming out the hatch with the smoke in swift pursuit."

"The WASP was hit about two minutes before us. The last time I saw her she was a floating hull. Reports said three torpedoes went into her port side starting huge fires."

Turns out they are an explosion of fire and flames, not a needle that just pokes a hole.

And the summary report from this particular attac

"On September 15, 1942, Japanese submarine I-19 quickly fired six long-range torpedoes at the U.S. carrier WASP. Three torpedoes struck their target causing such damage that the task force commander ordered WASP to be sunk that night. The remaining three torpedoes raced on across several miles into a second carrier force. One torpedo slammed into the U.S. destroyer O’BRIEN that would break up several weeks later due to severe hull damage.

Another torpedo blasted NORTH CAROLINA on her port (left) side just forward of the thick armor belt designed to protect her from torpedoes. The enormous blast shook the Ship and crew and sent tons of oil and water skyward. Tons more water quickly flooded into the resulting 32 by 18 foot hole causing the Ship to lean, a situation the crew quickly corrected by purposefully flooding compartments on the opposite side. Five men were killed and 23 were wounded."

Random note, also a case for DDs surviving a torpedo hit,albeit severely damaged.

https://www.battleshipnc.com/torpedo-hit/

Edited August 3, 2022 by Lakel
adding source

[Vinrellren]

12 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

That's only half? Jesus Christ, how many ships does the Royal Navy have?

You would be suprised how many ships the RN have kept operational in 30+ year long campaign. By 1940 75% of RN fleet are old dreadnought with poor armor and mk1 guns, and all of them are in Cyprus...

[jtjohn1]

I know all about North Carolina's torpedo hit.  A 35K Ton treaty battleship hit in the worst possible spot by a torpedo much bigger than what the TDS was designed to defeat resulting in a small fuel fire in a lower handling room (Pucker factor maxed out!!) but the systems worked and no magazine detonation.

This game I have had multiple immediate detonations of magazines on 98K Ton battleships by smaller torps going thru the TDS of these mammoth ships to the tune of about a 40-50% chance of having this happen.  

Can it happen?  In a universe where there is Chaos theory of course it can.  Historically it never did but it certainly could.  But not at that rate.  Heck USS Savannah had a Fritz X go OFF in the lower handling room and not have the magazine explode (Because of the water rushing in from the hole in the bottom and side of the ship)  All of the other torp hits on battleships from the hunt for the Bismarck to  Pearl thru Operation Ten Go in the Pacific and none resulted in a magazine explosion.

[Lakel]

Bare minimum being, it can start fires, and those fires are no different than any other fire beyond the fact they start far closer to vital spots than above deck fires.

If you are getting  lots of magazine detonations due to that, stop cheaping out on  bulkheads and citadel protection. If you arent doing that, then start sacrificing something to your choice of deity because you have some of the crappiest luck.

In my case ive never seen a magazine  go off from a torpedo hit in game. Honestly I'd say torpedoes are on the weak side again, but then I always run max bulkheads and at least TPS II when available.

[Kane]

44 minutes ago, Lakel said:

Bare minimum being, it can start fires, and those fires are no different than any other fire beyond the fact they start far closer to vital spots than above deck fires.

If you are getting  lots of magazine detonations due to that, stop cheaping out on  bulkheads and citadel protection. If you arent doing that, then start sacrificing something to your choice of deity because you have some of the crappiest luck.

In my case ive never seen a magazine  go off from a torpedo hit in game. Honestly I'd say torpedoes are on the weak side again, but then I always run max bulkheads and at least TPS II when available.

My experience has been the opposite.
I can't think of a time I ever had a flash-fire due to enemy guns.  But I've had many due to torpedoes, even on ships with very low chances.  While I do think the largest torpedoes (23-inch, 24-inch) are weaker than they should be, torpedoes are the only things that make me fear flash-fire.  And I always have maximum bulkheads and citadel protection.

Also due to the jacked-up weights of many of the other systems in this game, its nearly impossible to have a torpedo belt equal to what a ship should have, without making sacrifices in gun size, or armor that are bigger than what is justified in order to gain the torpedo protection.

Of course before, straight armor was really all we had.  With the rework on armor we've had recently.  It would be great if someone like @Nick Thomadiscould give us an idea of what the penetration-reduction formula is when shells pass through armored layers.  Make it a lot easier to intelligently armor our ships.
 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Kane

[LeoA]

So finishing up my campaign on previous patch as Italy, it was a 1890 start, by 1909 I hit 'advanced' tech status and anything I could output just steamrolled the AI, which still fielded very outdated designs. I only ever played with 'historical' ON and therefore I can't say whether it being on or off effects anything in this regard.

My suggestion is to script the AI, until a better solution is found at least, to immediately start updating its ships, oldest first, as it obtains new tech. Things that can't be updated (Hulls) need to be retired. For instance, I am fielding Dreadnought IVs with 400mm of belt armor, some 800mm effective armor, 356mm main batteries and as many secondaries as the hull can possibly fit. The AI is fielding early Battleship hulls, with all the terrible accuracy and few guns they can offer. I can send a single BB and it would absolutely run down a 10 BB enemy fleet. The AI should try much harder to field only modern designs, and to update their old stuff as soon as possible, to avoid this kind of scenario. It's not that France doesn't have Dreadnought tech - they do, but all I've seen from them are extremely outdated designs.

Unfortunately, for this reason, I find the campaign to be unplayable over longer periods of time. By 10 years of campaign the AI starts lagging behind, by 20 it is completely outclassed. The Focus Research feature is still overpowered, and the AI doesn't seem particularly concerned with updating their ships. 

[BigoleSeaTurtle]

First post to the forum, but I have some feedback to offer, or rather a question: is it in the roadmap to offer a true endgame tech level for Custom Battle? I like playing random scenarios, and being stymied by Mark 3 guns on anything above 15 inch feels awful when I KNOW that Mark 5s exist, locked behind years of research in campaign. Having the full retinue of guns that already exist in the game to choose from would be a fantastic option for me, and I am sure others could get some enjoyment from that as well. Could it be as straightrforward as just adding a "1950" option in the year selector for Custom Battle?

[admiralsnackbar]

1. I have been away from the forums for a few weeks since the more general release of 1.06, I see a lot of patches related to length of turn time. I noticed that when a turn is 'stuck' in building or designing ships or w/e, if I hit escape and select 'go to main menu' then hit 'no' on the confirmation [returning me to the game] the turn usually finishes. Has anyone else noticed/tried this?

2. I'm not going to make anymore comments on the campaign or the battle system. A lot of what I say gets repeated by others. It's hard to tell aside from obvious bugs which issues are acknowledged as such and which are not. It's been awhile since there's been a post outlining 'feature requests' -- what I would suggest instead is a list of game issues that the developers are at least conscious of as such. It should not be construed as a commitment when or even if something gets changed. I would rather know something that I or others consider an 'issue' is not considered one by the devs, or alternatively something is known about so unless feedback is solicited there's no need to make lengthy and time consuming posts about it. 

[TAKTCOM]

40 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

 I noticed that when a turn is 'stuck' in building or designing ships or w/e, if I hit escape and select 'go to main menu' then hit 'no' on the confirmation [returning me to the game] the turn usually finishes. Has anyone else noticed/tried this?

Sure. I, however, did not write about it.

[IshPR7777]

5 hours ago, BigoleSeaTurtle said:

First post to the forum, but I have some feedback to offer, or rather a question: is it in the roadmap to offer a true endgame tech level for Custom Battle? I like playing random scenarios, and being stymied by Mark 3 guns on anything above 15 inch feels awful when I KNOW that Mark 5s exist, locked behind years of research in campaign. Having the full retinue of guns that already exist in the game to choose from would be a fantastic option for me, and I am sure others could get some enjoyment from that as well. Could it be as straightrforward as just adding a "1950" option in the year selector for Custom Battle?

That's a good idea to add "1950" option in the year selection for Custom Battle. When it does that happen in the game, I was proposing the same thing about this one. Will the "1950" option would become available for Campaign? What new nations would be like in 1950s campaign? I heard a lot about the history of Cold War that involves on Africa, Middle East, Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Caribbean, Central America, South America and Korean Peninsula that happened in real life. And will the endgame date for campaign would be "1960"?

Edited August 3, 2022 by IsmaelMolina2021