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

[Eirchirfir]

29 minutes ago, Urst said:

We should be able to put 6" guns there. I want to make USS St. Louis (though she's a protected/heavy cruiser, you still can't put 6" guns into the casemates of any American heavy cruiser hulls in 1900 in the game).

Indead we should be able to use casemate main gun, the AI proves the hulls are able to mount main guns casemate. The only thing in the way of casemate main guns is that there is no option to use main gun casemate in the designer.

I was able to get 5 of the heavy cruiser with the main gun casemate and the 15,7cm (6,2inch) is labeled under casemate.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Repair x1: Fixed minor issues with Deck Hit Ratio on tall ships.
Please Restart Steam to get the minor fix.

[alanschu]

23 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is an initial weight offset taken from the hull. This hull, as other, has a frontal weight offset inherited by its unique shape. By adding more turrets, high turrets, casemate guns at the front, it increases the offset.
The weight offset is not fully centered in all hulls as it used to be in older patches. The whole system is much more detailed, so players must not insist on trying to make their ships unnaturally balanced. There is no ship with zero offset, zero pitch/roll in reality, so there is not in this game too.

I do just want to make sure I'm understanding the system, as it *feels* like something is off, though concede feels are often wrong.

I have this ship that is an otherwise empty hull but with a lot of armor to just up the weight. 50,736 tons, and it looks like the center of mass on the ship is indeed a bit to the stern of the ship when I played around with putting a single 2" gun on the hull. That makes sense.

But adding a single 2" gun to the front of the ship, which adds about 4t of weight to the ship, ends up creating a 4.2% weight offset. I've seen this with other dreadnought hulls as well.

 

I understand that leverage/force will increase the further we get from our center of mass pivot point, but it feels odd that such a small weight increase can create such an imbalance. Enough so that adding an 1800t turret to the rear still has a small offset to the fore:

 

Now if I put that rear turret on a barbette (only a twin turret, so it actually has less weight on that point of the ship) I *do* get an aft offset, which indicates that height plays a role in the weight offsets.

 

My physics is a bit rusty, but I'm not sure that this would make sense, especially given the huge difference in actual weights. Should height actually play a role in the weight offsets because I'm not sure why it would. I could understand some of the pitching and rolling being impacted by height, but I'm not sure why the weight balance would be overly impacted simply by the height.

Just thinking of "if I had the same weight in a giant, thin, vertical tube, I wouldn't expect the hull's ability to balance that weight to be any different, but this physics model would indicate that it does." (It's been about 15ish years or so since I took my physics courses so I will concede I could be missing something!)

[kineuhansen]

here is some feedback the game wont let me end battle in campaign and reason 2 hello kittying light cruiser need to fix that asap lets say the player has sunk all enemy ships bigger then a light cruiser the game will give the end battle so the player dont have to spend a hello kittying hour after the player has sunk most ships bigget then a light cruiser

[Karlchen]

8 hours ago, kineuhansen said:

here is some feedback the game wont let me end battle in campaign and reason 2 hello kittying light cruiser need to fix that asap lets say the player has sunk all enemy ships bigger then a light cruiser the game will give the end battle so the player dont have to spend a hello kittying hour after the player has sunk most ships bigget then a light cruiser

? What? 

[Hibbidyhai]

10 hours ago, kineuhansen said:

here is some feedback the game wont let me end battle in campaign and reason 2 hello kittying light cruiser need to fix that asap lets say the player has sunk all enemy ships bigger then a light cruiser the game will give the end battle so the player dont have to spend a hello kittying hour after the player has sunk most ships bigget then a light cruiser

First, what is a 'hello kittying hour' and second the game only automatically ends the battle if there are only enemy transports left. If there were any adjustments to the game, I would like the option of delaying the end of battle if the enemy transports are within sight when the last enemy warship is sunk. And if we can't do that, then automatically assume that I sunk all of the transports when, if the battle lasted just a minute or two longer, I would have. This shouldn't apply if they aren't within sight though (at least not until you have radar/sonar tech).

[kineuhansen]

1 hour ago, Hibbidyhai said:

First, what is a 'hello kittying hour' and second the game only automatically ends the battle if there are only enemy transports left. If there were any adjustments to the game, I would like the option of delaying the end of battle if the enemy transports are within sight when the last enemy warship is sunk. And if we can't do that, then automatically assume that I sunk all of the transports when, if the battle lasted just a minute or two longer, I would have. This shouldn't apply if they aren't within sight though (at least not until you have radar/sonar tech).

there where no transports in the battle only that damn light cruiser that always stayed out of view range so i could not end the batlle and i had to let the time run out and my ships where heavy damage with a speed of 11 knots

[Danz_Von_Luck]

55 minutes ago, kineuhansen said:

there where no transports in the battle only that damn light cruiser that always stayed out of view range so i could not end the batlle and i had to let the time run out and my ships where heavy damage with a speed of 11 knots

So move away from it to open the distance then it can end

[admiralsnackbar]

1. noticed UK hordes it's fleet in cyprus, assuming going over the displacement limit hurts the AI economy as much as it does the player, that's got to be painful for their finances, but they do it anyway. 

2. AI does not appear to be scrapping its clearly outdated ships and replacing them. the UK had more than 2 dozen capital ships at the beginning of the 1890 campaign and by 1925 they still have a few pre dreadnoughts floating around. I was trying to test things by attempting to destroy as many of their ships as possible to see what the newer generations would look like. 

We're talking about AI on legendary who should in theory have enough finances to pay for research. Perhaps the combination of the diplo system making AI belligerently suicidal and the fact that they concentrate their entire fleet in a single port is draining the coffers. 

3. Even I with my economy generally in good shape and being able to keep max research available at all times, It doesn't feel like I can stay ahead technologically. If there is some sort of year ahead penalty should there not be some kind of year-behind bonus for those techs that have not been researched or have already been researched by others?

Edited August 13, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[kineuhansen]

ok one major thing they need to get rid off is the ai love of using cordite and dunnite  and the ai homing shells

[The PC Collector]

4 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Even I with my economy generally in good shape and being able to keep max research available at all times, It doesn't feel like I can stay ahead technologically. If there is some sort of year ahead penalty should there not be some kind of year-behind bonus for those techs that have not been researched or have already been researched by others?

That's due to how priority works. You get significant bonuses to the three techs that you are prioritising, but also get huge penalties to everything else. So while these three techs will get way ahead of time, the other 30+ techs will lag far behind, and thus will your overall tech level.

[The PC Collector]

Also... I never thought I'd join this trend, but a truce system is needed to ensure AI nations don't overexhaust themselves. In my current campaign, by 1923, all the AI nations are so exhausted from being constantly at war, that nobody can build ships anymore due to the massive crew pool holes they have. And due to the economy penalties of war, even on legendary a couple of them are managing to sink their economies.

So, I think that a truce system which enforces that during at time twice as long as the duration of the war, to a maximum of 5 years to not waste the very time limited campaign, countries shouldn't be able to go at war with each other again, so ensure that the countries get some peacetime from time to time to restore their economies and crew pools.

Edited August 13, 2022 by The PC Collector

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

That's due to how priority works. You get significant bonuses to the three techs that you are prioritising, but also get huge penalties to everything else. So while these three techs will get way ahead of time, the other 30+ techs will lag far behind, and thus will your overall tech level.

No, as I have shown in my thread on the topic you will never be ahead of the real world tech development.

The whole behind, average, advanced, very advanced is just there to shownhow many technologies you have researched compared to the other nations.

With the tech slider always on 100% you will be behind several years or even decades on key technologies.

[The PC Collector]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

With the tech slider always on 100% you will be behind several years or even decades on key technologies.

My campaigns routinely giving me access to the dreadnoguht hull on 1903 disagree. Without the use of priorities.

[ZorinW]

13 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

My campaigns routinely giving me access to the dreadnoguht hull on 1903 disagree. Without the use of priorities.

Do you start in 1890?

 

Anyway, this result can be repeated again and again when starting in 1890: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qBSDTWOqmd9RjPwd13QxO-8rBdUz1cPkI5Ol5FsYf7Q/edit#gid=100101671

[admiralsnackbar]

20 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Do you start in 1890?

 

Anyway, this result can be repeated again and again when starting in 1890: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qBSDTWOqmd9RjPwd13QxO-8rBdUz1cPkI5Ol5FsYf7Q/edit#gid=100101671

for curiosity sake is that at max allocation or average?

[Suts]

Interesting bug, what was a perfectly fine Destroyer starting the battle with 0% structural integrity. I guess what people say about the structural integrity of post WW1 German Destroyers is true.

[ZorinW]

57 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

for curiosity sake is that at max allocation or average?

100% all the time

[admiralsnackbar]

7 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

100% all the time

hmm that's roughly my impression. at 100% you are on time early on but eventually the tech gets ahead of you. 

[Hale]

The highlighted items are the only ones selectable in my game.  I haven't researched the technology for any of these yet, but these are the default and only option. 

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Hale said:

The highlighted items are the only ones selectable in my game.  I haven't researched the technology for any of these yet, but these are the default and only option. 

The last update messed up the the tech tree, because they implemented some things that were intended to come in the next major update with the full tech tree

[Grayknight]

Ohhh are they gooing to add subs and mines...? OMG imagine the forum if they will 😂😂😂😂😂

 

I really hope that new hulls are added we desperetly need atleast 2 hulls style s early game 1890-1905 

 

I would also love to see how oficer system will influence the whole task force size reserch menagment and ship operations. I would assume that this would be more important then subs and mines but i may be wrong. The strategic level of ai operations need to be improved, atleast that what seams to be the case 

Spoting system needs a bit of worku still, especialy on the calm weather, bb should spot smaller ships far easier then they do now. 

 

 

Cannot wait for the update. You are doing awesome work with game. Do not worry if you get few things wrong, IT heapens. 😁😉

[The PC Collector]

I think there is still something wrong with the AI crew pools, this ends happening in all the campaings. It always reaches a point where the AI doens't build any crew pool anymore, or it takes ages to.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Just wondering is there going to be a beta for the next update? 

[The PC Collector]

Gonna say this once again: AI needs to stop focusing on armour and focus on firepower, as of right now, heavy armour is worthless, since due to how the fire chances mechanics work you can simply switch to HE and ignore the armour. Right now I had a fight against a BB with a 900+ mm effective armour, which should have been challenging as it was a coastal defence fight and my most powerful ship had only outdated 305 mm guns which had no hope of piercing that even at point blank range.

Well, the outcome of the battle has been a super easy fight which ended with the enemy BB sunk by extensive fire with no ships on my side even sustaining significative damage. Which, once more, proves the point that I've been defending that right now, once you have enough armour to prevent full HE pens from comparable size ships, any further armour is only wasted displacement and money, as the current HE partial pen mechanics allows to simply ignore the enemy armour.

In order to balance that, the chances of fire from partial pens should be lowered to 1/10th of what they are currently, and their chances of creating internal fires or damaging/destroying internal modules should be zero. Until that is done, heavy armour will keep being useless.