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

[Urst]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Wouldn't it be better if some of this stuff was beta tested here first before going live.

If not or the team has decided to go general listing, then maybe the game should list different steam betas/versions so players could roll back if needed.  

The live shit's the beta, though? We're the alpha for the beta.

[MKsuper]

Noticed that on naval academy missions the ai is now exceptionally skittish when outnumbered even when the missions state "*ai will not retreat" since the most recent patch. I assumed not retreating would mean falling back to at least the maximum range of the largest gun not hightailing it in the other direction with 60% ammo remaining.

I will note that ai being overly scared of torpedoes has been much improved and issues of guns not firing well within range is a lot less frequent.

Edited August 6, 2022 by MKsuper

[The PC Collector]

Balance Feedback:

- (Minor) Allowing CLs to use 8" guns should be seriously considered to give them more variety of viable weaponry, specially on mid and late game (1910 and later). As it stands currently, the only viable main weaponry for CLs in that era are 7,9"/200 mm, as lighter armed cruisers become obsolete as soon as DDs get on the 1200/1300 T area and can mount 4/5x5-5.9" guns. Not by raw performance, but because said DDs cost around 1/3rd or less, which makes them much more cost effective.

- (Mayor) Variable calliber mechanics need tweaking. Some guns get very inconsistent parameters when upscaled. For example, 5,9"/15cm weights nearly as twice as 6"/152, while being just a bit worse, that's a huged blow to anyone wanting to use historically accurate 15 cm german/austrian guns. Or 8"/203 mm, which when maxed gets their base accuracy boosted from less than 10% to nearly 50% (talking of Mk Is here, but similar stuff happens for all gens)

[Hale]

Hi there!  Playing 1.08.8.   I see the ship avoidance changes and they are an improvement on what we had before, I'm going to play it for a while before I comment on it, but I appreciate the effort put in to improve the system.

Submerged torpedoes explode way too much, I can see deck mounted torps blowing up, but torpedoes below the water line shouldn't explode nearly as much as they are.   Flooding the torpedo suite I can understand but they explode way too much.   Plus they are located right in your machinery spaces so an explosion there guts your ship.  This makes putting torps on ships of any size not worth it and I don't think its realistic.  Thanks!

Edited August 7, 2022 by Hale

[Hale]

Follow up question.  How can I build a battleship, say 1892 or so.   Come back in a year to do a minor refit, and its 2000 tons overweight?

[Danz_Von_Luck]

14 minutes ago, Hale said:

Follow up question.  How can I build a battleship, say 1892 or so.   Come back in a year to do a minor refit, and its 2000 tons overweight?

Did you build the ship before the last patch? 

[Hale]

Almost certainly, I've been playing the 1.08 version and I've seen 3 patches in one day.   I was guessing that was the case but I wasn't sure.  My ships always seems to get heaver, never lighter.  I guess that's art imitating life. 

[Hangar18]

18 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, since the devs for some stupid reason are actively deciding to ignore something as easy to fix as the triples weight, which should be way lower weight per barrel than twins, as the experience in all the naval warfare from 1910 to 1950 proved, I'm going to spam this every day until it gets solved.

THIS


Should be way lighter than THIS


But right now is the other way around, making triples worthless.

take the barbettes out. You have barbette 3, and added two barbettes. Remove the barbettes and im betting it is lighter.

[The PC Collector]

13 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

take the barbettes out. You have barbette 3, and added two barbettes. Remove the barbettes and im betting it is lighter.

It is irrelevant. That applies even if you don't have actual barbettes, because the barbette also cover the internal part of the same. It adds insult to the injury.

But, as a counter argument:

There, a Gangut-Like 12 gun BB. No added barbettes. Still heavier than the Helgoland-Like counterpart (I copied my Helgoland to use it as basis to make sure all techs are the same)


THIS shouldn't be happening, whatever the devs think.

Currently, the 6x2 (speaking only about the turrets) are around 600 T lighter than the 4x3, when it should be the other way around. Which, if you check, would be enough to make either of the designs work. I'm not asking for anyting crazy, just asking for things to work like they should.

Edited August 7, 2022 by The PC Collector

[admiralsnackbar]

16 hours ago, Jockel said:

Have you considered the barbettes weight on which the turrets are mounted?

The weight of the turret is visible when you select the gun type, the barbettes are mounted separately and have separate weights. 

in current UAD:

1. the turrets are of identical size regardless of whether your turret houses 1, 2, 3, or 4 guns
2. The turret weight increases linearly as you add guns. So 1 4 gun quad is equal in weight to 4 turrets mounting a single gun 

Neither of these things makes much sense except in the sense that it's probably easier to code for the devs. 

[Hangar18]

34 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The weight of the turret is visible when you select the gun type, the barbettes are mounted separately and have separate weights. 

in current UAD:

1. the turrets are of identical size regardless of whether your turret houses 1, 2, 3, or 4 guns
2. The turret weight increases linearly as you add guns. So 1 4 gun quad is equal in weight to 4 turrets mounting a single gun 

Neither of these things makes much sense except in the sense that it's probably easier to code for the devs. 

you have barbettes 3 which adds a percentile to the turrets weight. 

 

It's been awhile since i've been in algebra class. but you seem to be suggesting making a graph for f(x) = x is harder than f(x) = sqrt{x}

Doesn't mean this isn't a issue. 
 

[Zyw]

19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You can copy a refit and then use this design to build. 

I know we can do that, but it's a cumbersome method, and unless you change the new design name to match the previous class you get 2 different update path.

Example:

You have a BB of the Bismark class, you make a 1941 refit, copy that refit to a new design to build it. Now if you don't name that design "Bismark" you have 2 diffent class of ships that must be refitted separately, exacerbating the problem.

So the question remain: why we can't just build refit and get over with?

[JeeWeeJ]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (if so, couldn't find it and my apologies) but in my recent 1890 game with Austria-Hungary I noticed that the first new BB hull you get...is the dreadnought hull?

That...doesn't feel right? Shouldn't there at least be a BB2 or BB3 hull before that? Let alone that it's massively unbalanced given the AI is still happily building pre-dreads. (I am ignoring that it's totally not in line with the progress you make on the other tech lines)

[admiralsnackbar]

19 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Balance Feedback:

- (Minor) Allowing CLs to use 8" guns should be seriously considered to give them more variety of viable weaponry, specially on mid and late game (1910 and later). As it stands currently, the only viable main weaponry for CLs in that era are 7,9"/200 mm, as lighter armed cruisers become obsolete as soon as DDs get on the 1200/1300 T area and can mount 4/5x5-5.9" guns. Not by raw performance, but because said DDs cost around 1/3rd or less, which makes them much more cost effective.

- (Mayor) Variable calliber mechanics need tweaking. Some guns get very inconsistent parameters when upscaled. For example, 5,9"/15cm weights nearly as twice as 6"/152, while being just a bit worse, that's a huged blow to anyone wanting to use historically accurate 15 cm german/austrian guns. Or 8"/203 mm, which when maxed gets their base accuracy boosted from less than 10% to nearly 50% (talking of Mk Is here, but similar stuff happens for all gens)

Light cruisers are sort of defined by the fact that they were limited to 6 inch guns. The main perk to a light cruiser is that they can be armored to be mostly immune to the kinds of guns fielded by destroyers. 

Agree with the second part

[Hale]

I was refitting one of my fat pre-dreadnaughts to see if I could get a rangefinder in, I saw that reinforced bulkheads 2 is an option, but not one, and not standard.   I'm guessing this is a bug.   I didn't see any other options that looked out of place.

I did a new build and reinforced bulkheads is my only option. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Hale

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Light cruisers are sort of defined by the fact that they were limited to 6 inch guns.

This is plainly WRONG. That was the Washington Treaty definition of CL. Which, as it has been stated lots of times, even by devs, this game DON'T go for. Before the WT, light cruisers were defined by the armour, nor by the guns. Just as it is on the game.
 

 

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The main perk to a light cruiser is that they can be armored to be mostly immune to the kinds of guns fielded by destroyers. 

If you say this, you played very little the game. A 5" (even without upscalling it to 5.9") will cut through the max armour a CL can boast like a hot knife through butter at normal combat ranges. The only real advantage of a CL armed with that kind of guns (5-6") is that it can have more guns than a DD. But on the other hand, for the same price of a single CL, you can build 3-4 DDs, which will absolutely shred to pieces a CL. Wether you see it or not, In the game 6" CLs become simply too expensive for their combat value once DDs are a thing. Another solution, however, could be reducing the costs of CLs, which if you ask me are too high in general.

[Fangoriously]

Another vote for the in game light cruiser type toping out at what would be considered treaty heavy cruisers, 8 in guns and all. While the heavy cruiser type is for restrictionless designs and pocket battleships, with a 12 in gun limit in some cases.

[Panzergraf]

I think once (if?) a larger campaign map is introduced, the CL's with their superior range will find a niche as escorts and commerce raiders far, far away from home.

For now I use them as scouts, as they have better tower spotting than DD's and are not spotted as easily as CA's and bigger ships. I don't have many of them.

[TAKTCOM]

13 hours ago, JeeWeeJ said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned before (if so, couldn't find it and my apologies) but in my recent 1890 game with Austria-Hungary I noticed that the first new BB hull you get...is the dreadnought hull?

Yep. Austria-Hungary also receives the first destroyer hull in 1911. Just don't play them, AH are extremely bad with hulls for now. They have received 1-2 hulls since the open beta test, I guess. This is probably the worst indicator among all the factions.

[The PC Collector]

While the AI shipbuilding has improved a lot lately, they still tend to make everything other than DDs extremely slow

Also, I'm going to keep saying it: The curring spotting system doesn't work. It makes TBs and DDs completely overpowered. Especially on bad weather conditions, you don't spot them until they have already deleted you with a torpedo salvo.

[ZorinW]

https://ibb.co/Pjnv2s5

Anyone else have tilting turrets?

 

[ZorinW]

And what is this new post battle info about "salvaged crew"??

[Sphere]

On 8/6/2022 at 10:57 AM, Ninja said:

Is anyone else seeing guns just not firing regardless of clear shot or decent accuracy chance? I'm seeing this on both main guns, secondaries and Torps. Been happening the last couple of patches but the one from today is by far the worst, I have entire sections of a fleet just refusing to fire even if set to aggressive.

Very frustrating! If anyone knows of a mechanic reason why this is happening I'd love to hear it, but it feels like a bug that has crept in recently. 

I think this is a known bug with mains getting interrupted by secondaries. If you aim your secondaries at a different target it should keep your mains firing on schedule. Same thing for torps.

[imp44791]

Some serious thought must be given to checking the battle UI and the information it gives to the player. I'm not asking to be more accurate/damaging or to sink the enemy more easily, but if I'm told that my main guns have a 31% chance of hitting and are shown to be aimed, I would expect on average one in three salvoes to at least straddle, especially when the number of shells fired increase. I have done a crude test with very long range gunnery and pretty much emptying my magazines (so we're talking about a reasonable crack at the law of large numbers working its magic) and the realised probability is nowhere near that indicated in the UI (be that 1 in 3, or 1 in 10).

[Skeksis]

On 8/7/2022 at 9:05 AM, Urst said:

The live shit's the beta, though? We're the alpha for the beta.

E.g. Maintenance costs are, IMO, killing the game. Players will just stop playing and wait for the next improved version.

Throwing a series of hotfixes for hotly added features onto the live version causes discontent. This doesn't need to happen. So my feedback is to stick to a well and tried tested format, beta test everything first, then release live.

v1.08.8 is a very good version (except for maintenance costs). It's quite possible the game may take a different direction now. I.e. start shutting down the full enterprises that we have experience up until now - though take this with a huge grain of salt! - purely perspective. 

Whatever happens there's going to be better versions than others, there's no doubt of this IMO, therefore players should be able to choose their version preference. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Skeksis