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

[Grayknight]

2 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

Oh wow, that's kind of dumb🤔

Why not have the AI change "personality" whenever they replace their head of the navy? Whiitch would make sense, if the previous guy performed so poorly he was expelled from the country, surely the next guy would not be too keen on repeating the same mistakes.

Its better to have them be put dynamicly or not put at all

[PainKiller]

I don't read the forum for a few days and hell break lose. Only thing i noticed is that i used to have sh*t ton of money, now I have to put my ships (In being) from (Sea Control) status when i'm not in war, but still making little positive income. I have never used that mothball thing ever, not in the past, not now. 

I don't understand what are you guys crying about, and why are you so rude to the devs here. I actually like that I'm not the richest country of the world. I'm still beating the crap out of everyone when I'm at war. 

Oh and one more thing. I'm the guy who said that you should try SAPBC insted of HE spam. So i'm not even using that to beat my opponents. I saw that you guys are comparing HE to APBC, of course you will get more consistent resoults with HE. APBC is the crappest shell i have ever put on my ships, never using them again. They either ricochet, or overpen causing very little damage. (APBC has even lower base damage value then regular AP, so any kind of pen/overpen/half penetration will cause less damage) I have been experimenting with SAP and SAPBC and I have been very satisfied with them. They have much more forgiving penetration angles then normal or APBC shells, rarely being blocked by armour or overpenning the armour. They are much more likely to cause full penetrations or half penetrations, and more likely to cause fire then a normal AP would. And of yourse they have 2-3x penetration power then HE usually.

Although I'm glad that i'm reading the forums. I have never tried using the research focus thingy. Can you really get radar I between the 1900-1910 years? I have to try that in my next campign  (If it not gets patched until then)

Maybe I'm the only lunatic here who is not using the "cheats" of this game (8.9 or 12 inch guns, He spam, early radar, mothballing....what else is there?) although i don't understand why the devs call cheating something that's in the game. I always thought that using third party softwares is cheating.

[SonicB]

16 hours ago, kjg000 said:

I'd like to agree with you but the game only let's you design ships based on historical examples, not based on the available tech. For example, I can't place a barbette anywhere I want even though the technology to do so exists. Instead I'm limited to the places the dev's have deemed suitable. I  can't place a barbette to have superfireing secondaries unless the specific hull allows it. Some superstructures have barbetts attached weather I want them or not and are presented as the only option.

If I research a new funnel technology it only applies to the specific hulls that can take that specific funnel.

If I have the technology to apply  something to any design then I should be able to apply it to all designs, providing there is no logical reason why not. For example placing torpedo tubes on the centre line of a capital ship.

Sure, some decisions will have appropriate penalties, but it should be my choice to make.

The game currently focuses on only allowing choices based on historical precedent, not on what is possible for a given technology level.

Oh, if we're talking about arbitrary restrictions the devs have decided upon for each individual hull, I totally agree with you. Those used to be incredibly restrictive in early beta and have been dialled back significantly, but they can still be frustrating on certain hulls.

It's my educated guess (and I believe it was confirmed one time by someone from the closed beta?) that these restrictions were basically put in to help the AI designer. If true, they would just add to the list of compromises we have to put up with (interchangeable hull segments, anyone?) because the AI still can't consistently design plausible ships and devs don't want to go to a template model.

[Revanchist95]

On 8/21/2022 at 6:36 AM, The PC Collector said:

And better not talk about gunboat CLs being able to best BBs in 1vs1 gunfighst by burning them down within minutes with HE spam and "sink due to extensive fire". Essentially, if the BB doesn't manage to disable the CL with the first 2 or 3 salvos, is done for.

I can honestly say I have never lost a battleship to extensive fire from a light cruiser. What build were you using to achieve this?

[admiralsnackbar]

1 hour ago, Revanchist95 said:

I can honestly say I have never lost a battleship to extensive fire from a light cruiser. What build were you using to achieve this?

my light cruisers can make short work of battleships in the early campaigns but the AI can't pull it off. 

I assume he's maximizing his fire rate and HE fire chance, with reasonably accurate guns a light cruiser can disable an early BB or even dreadnought. 

[o Barão]

Gun range bug

• 20km max range.
• The guns start firing at 17km +/-

 

[mikekervin]

On 8/20/2022 at 4:59 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

We will add an extra UI indication for the hull to show what is this limit

Thanks, this is a nice QOL improvement

8 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

A solution for the overpowering of the current tech focus, could be adding an "ahead of time" penalty which reduces the research speed when using focuses on ahead of time techs, and it escalates to the point to, where if the tech is 5 years ahead of time, it simply negates the effect of the focus. Other strategy games use systems like that to prevent the use of breakthrough techs too ahead of time with great success.

Alternatively, this could be coupled with a "behind of time bonus" to avoid techs to fall too back in time, regardless of it is being focused or not. This wouldn't be exploitable by using the focuses, as the "ahead of time" penalty prevents exploitation as it simply gets negated if the tech is too ahead of time.

I agree with this

[kjg000]

3 hours ago, SonicB said:

Oh, if we're talking about arbitrary restrictions the devs have decided upon for each individual hull, I totally agree with you. Those used to be incredibly restrictive in early beta and have been dialled back significantly, but they can still be frustrating on certain hulls.

It's my educated guess (and I believe it was confirmed one time by someone from the closed beta?) that these restrictions were basically put in to help the AI designer. If true, they would just add to the list of compromises we have to put up with (interchangeable hull segments, anyone?) because the AI still can't consistently design plausible ships and devs don't want to go to a template model.

Yes, I remember building a Russian BB with many floating single gun side turrets, about 10  12" I think, which  performed really well in a custom  battle! Things certainly have improved over the last 3 years or so. But I don't see why players should be restricted by whatever kludge is required for the AI to design ships. I remember a post similar to the one that you mentioned but even at the time I didn't understand why players would be exposed to the same restrictions as the AI. Hiding necessary complexity from users is what computing is all about.

I'd recommend using templates for the AI to modify, based on historical examples. The AI could modify the tonnage, beam, draft etcetera as well as gun calibre, gun numbers, any non- visual feature (RADAR,  speed, tonnage etcetera) and quickly and  reliably produce viable and functional designs. These should actually be worth taking as reparations during peace talks, especially if the player could refit them to keep them current. This as opposed to the current 'clown car' dilemma.

Any way I don't see why players should be limited by whatever restrictions must be applied to the AI. I'd recommend removing all non engineering based restrictions and use consequence based deterrents instead. You want to place a barbette there? Fine, we may give a warning, but otherwise you can! Of course your pitch and roll values are going to suffer wildly, but that's your choice. You want to stack 3 barbettes, yep, but your ship may capsize in rough weather or even if you fire a broadside, or at least take ages to re-stabilize. Also you may not be able to hit a nearby ship after your first salvo as these purbutations work themselves out, but again that's your choice.

What restrictions do apply should be zones, not points, except in circumstances, such as secondaries in superstructures, where there is a realistic need. Speaking of secondaries in such locations, the limits should be based on space required and weight able to be supported, not on calibre alone.

This, or something  similar, should help the game return to the early promise, hinted at in the, now infamous, promo. I think the Dev's have gotten lost by being too close to the problems and becoming too invested in past decisions, becoming closed minded in the process. Something like throwing good money after bad or committing to dead-end decisions in an attempt to save previous effort. Something well recognised in psychology. BTW this is not a slight at the Devs, if you are human you need to guard against this and most will fall into this trap many times. 

At any rate I don't see why the gamer needs to be restricted by, or even know about, the needs of the AI.

Edited August 22, 2022 by kjg000

[ZorinW]

Just a simple comparison of German hulls to highlight just how much is still basically wrong with the shipbuilding component. Just pay close attention to the ship sizes, component costs and weights for engines and boilers.

All stats have been set to minimum except for the same speed of 26 knots.

 

Modern Battleship I (Hullform: 150.7)

Modern Battlecruiser (Hullform: 131)

Modern Heavy Cruiser I (Hullform: 132.3)

Modern Light Cruiser (Hullform: 150.7)

Modern Destroyer (Hullform: 110)

 

In terms of dimensions the Modern Heavy Cruiser I and Modern Light Cruiser are the same ship with the CL only missing a 12.8m section of hull, yet its hull (see the stats) weighs 319 tons less!? Also it only needs 11 tons worth of engines and boilers (36.000 hp) compared to the CAs 90 tons (41.000 hp)?! On top it can go 1000 km further with almost 100 tons less fuel?! The maintenance for the CA costs more than twice as much as the CL's for a same sized ship with only an additional 49 crewmembers?!

And while the CLs 11 tons of engines and boilers can produce 36.000 hp the Modern Destroyers 9 tons can only generate ~6.500 hp?! The DDs engines are also more than twice as expensive!? And why do 400 tons of CL hull cost $471.000 and 319 tons of DD hull $1.038.000 !? Which makes it in turn more expensive in overall terms than the CL... Also the maintenance for the DD is twice as expensive as the CL for a smaller ship with a third of the crew?!

Also, why is the MINIMUM draught of the Modern Destroyer 5.9 meters?!

 

For a rough comparison the weights for Bismarck:

https://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

Edited August 22, 2022 by ZorinW

[kjg000]

2 hours ago, Revanchist95 said:

I can honestly say I have never lost a battleship to extensive fire from a light cruiser. What build were you using to achieve this?

Haven't lost one but sunk many. Another exploit the dev's seem happy with. My solution, build fast lightly armoured BB or BC with RADAR and 12" primaries 8" secondaries asap, sink anything fast enough to get close, be too fast to hit for anything with big guns!

Edited August 22, 2022 by kjg000
12" & 8", I forgot the 12" & 8" guns, you must have the 12" and 8" guns!

[kjg000]

22 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Just a simple comparison of German hulls to highlight just how much is still basically wrong with the shipbuilding component. Just pay close attention to the ship sizes, component costs and weights for engines and boilers.

All stats have been set to minimum except for the same speed of 26 knots.

 

Modern Battleship I (Hullform: 150.7)

Modern Battlecruiser (Hullform: 131)

Modern Heavy Cruiser I (Hullform: 132.3)

Modern Light Cruiser (Hullform: 150.7)

Modern Destroyer (Hullform: 110)

 

In terms of dimensions the Modern Heavy Cruiser I and Modern Light Cruiser are the same ship with the CL only missing a 17m section of hull, yet its hull (see the stats) weighs 319 tons less!? Also it only needs 11 tons worth of engines and boilers (36.000 hp) compared to the CAs 90 tons (41.000 hp)?! On top it can go 1000 km further with almost 100 tons less fuel?! The maintenance for the CA costs more than twice as much as the CL's for a same sized ships with only an additional 49 crewmembers?!

And while the CLs 11 tons of engines and boilers can produce 36.000 hp the Modern Destroyers 9 tons can only generate ~6.500 hp?! THE DDs engines are also more than twice as expensive!? And why do 400 tons of CL hull cost $471.000 and 319 tons of DD hull $1.038.000 !? Which makes it in turn more expensive in overall terms than the CL... Also the maintenance for the DD is twice as expensive than the CL for a smaller ships with a thrid of the crew?!

Also, why is the MINIMUM draught of the Modern Destroyer 5.9 meters?!

 

For a rough comparison the weights for Bismarck:

https://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

I see your point but are they virtually the same hulls? I don't have access to my computer just at the moment but could you compare the hull specifications for me  please? Things like hull form, hull resistance etcetera.

Edited August 22, 2022 by kjg000
Sorry, I didn't mean hull form, but the other specs please

[ZorinW]

53 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

I see your point but are they virtually the same hulls? I don't have access to my computer just at the moment but could you compare the hull specifications for me  please? Things like hull form, hull resistance etcetera.

The 3D is the same for starters, which is what the casual player will notice at once, and the only value of real difference is resistance, which is a third higher for the CA. Though that is a completely arbitrary value chosen by the developers to force an artificial  differentiation between the classes, which only exists to help the AI design ships. Players are perfectly capable to start from scratch and design different ships, which in turn will become part of what historically would have been a class of ship (CA, CL, BB, etc.).

As it stands now and going back to my example, you have two ships of which the 3D ship element (the hull) is identical, apart from the CL being 12.8m shorter, yet due to arbitrary values differ vastly in cost, engine weight and sizes and "resistance".

Edited August 22, 2022 by ZorinW

[kjg000]

12 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The issue here is that certain techs are game changing and others not so much. If you look at the effect of selecting a focus, you lose far more in months of research on the other techs then you gain in time saved off the focus selected tech. But that doesn't matter when the research you're getting is worth many times more than what you're losing. 

- many current tech groups do nothing [mines/subs/doctrines]
- Torpedoes in the current game iteration are meh because now they have so many points of failure: salvo misses completely, salvo is on target but torpedoes swerve, torpedoes don't swerve but they explode before they hit the target, torpedoes hit the target but are duds. And even if they do hit the target they're often not powerful enough to do significantly greater damage than would a well placed shell hit. This is true even though 'spotting mechanics' are unrealistically generous for wows style stealth DDS and torp boats
- hull construction, special machinery, and armor forging just give passive buffs that are nice but largely marginal to the large step ups you get from other upgrades. 

- Hull protection is unimportant RN since torp defense tech has huge weight costs and usually the best defense against torps is good secondary batteries and having your ships resistance and displacement outclass enemy torpedoes so that it takes half a dozen good hits to sink your ships. 
- internals protection is decent but with good armor strength levels you really shouldn't need more than 1 layer of citadel deck and belt protection. 


So the thinking man just knows to rush Krupp I, a dreadnought hull, and some mark 2 12 inch guns and they have a ship that can sink entire fleets of 1890s warships. After that it's just a matter of cycling through various gun, hull, and engine techs. 

Bismark Jr. ready in 1904 [1907 was a refit], obviously it took longer than your design,  but I want at least 8 guns and i really don't like wing turrets.  

Most research is wasted effort, either currently unused tech or tech you will never use. Think funnels or superstructures specific to hulls you will never use, or multiple centre line or side turrets beyond the number you will use. Also a lot of tech is unwanted, armour beyond krupp IV or other tech which bring more penalties than benefits, but can't be turned off.  Especially now with the current economy problems.

I find  focusing research essential as much for slowing unwanted research as for promoting wanted research. 

Currently the Devs balk at players designing super ships but make most hulls massively too large in their upper limits promoting super ships. They also prohibit building what they deem obsolete hulls and components forcing players to chase higher techs to fit the newer hulls.

[kjg000]

6 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

The 3D is the same for starters, which is what the casual player will notice at once, and the only value of real difference is resistance, which is a third higher for the CA. Though that is a completely arbitrary value chosen by the developers to force an artificial  differentiation between the classes, which only exists to help the AI design ships. Players are perfectly capable to start from scratch and design different ships, which in turn will become part of what historically would have been a class of ship (CA, CL, BB, etc.).

As it stands now and going back to my example, you have two ships of which the 3D ship element (the hull) is identical, apart from the CL being 12.8m shorter, yet due to arbitrary values differ vastly in cost, engine weight and sizes and "resistance".

Yes, and I  would assume casual players are where most of their income will come from.  I also agree with your implied point that the needs of the AI should not be affecting game play for gamers.

[ZorinW]

Another engine weight/boilers bug ALL Italian Heavy and Light Cruisers end up with almost zero weight and cost for their engines, when the beam or draught is reduced to the minimum.

Same bug with the Japanese Light Cruiser I, Scout Cruiser, Modern Heavy Cruiser IV, Modern Heavy Cruiser III, Modern Heavy Cruiser II and Heavy Scout Cruiser.

French: Heavy Cruiser I and II

Edited August 22, 2022 by ZorinW

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, ZorinW said:

Another engine weight/boilers bug ALL Italian Heavy and Light Cruisers end up with almost zero weight and cost for their engines, when the beam or draught is reduced to the minimum.

Same bug with the Japanese Light Cruiser I, Scout Cruiser, Modern Heavy Cruiser IV, Modern Heavy Cruiser III, Modern Heavy Cruiser II and Heavy Scout Cruiser.

French: Heavy Cruiser I and II

Nice finding!

[Revanchist95]

4 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

my light cruisers can make short work of battleships in the early campaigns but the AI can't pull it off. 

I assume he's maximizing his fire rate and HE fire chance, with reasonably accurate guns a light cruiser can disable an early BB or even dreadnought. 

That I've done I've just never had it happen the other way around. Maybe I just misunderstood him

[o Barão]

Design invalid bug

The solution was to delete my other designs saved from other class types, and design again the DD.

So maybe the game is taking into consideration the designs saved instead the current design? And because of this is giving this bug?

[mikekervin]

Feature Request

• Can we get a hotkey to close windows (such as the start of turn tension popup)
• Can we get a start of turn notification when shipyard upgrades are completed?

[mikekervin]

I notice building a ship is cheaper than maintaining it, is this intentional?

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

So, this is my current playthrough as of today (08/22/2022). I kept wondering why I was always getting dragged into wars with the Austro-Hungarian Empire...welp, problem solved. The fleet you are seeing there at Limassol has been there since 1910 (two wars and 10 years ago). What started out as a large task force of 2 BB, 8 CA, 10 CL and 14DD has just steadily grown to what you see below. They haven't moved in over 5 years. They aren't causing tension anymore (thank god, my economy couldn't handle back to back wars), but they aren't doing anything either. The only British ports that have ships in the are Limassol, Valletta (which is also over-filled with ships), and Plymouth.

With the exception of ONE (singular, lonely, one-and-only) battleship at Plymouth and ONE BB, ONE CA and ONE TB at Valletta...the entire Royal Navy has been sitting in the Western Mediterranean for nearly 7 years. And what's worse, they've started adding to it. The second they build a ship, they send it to the Mediterranean. They have 0 power projection everywhere but the Western Med.

I have the AI set to "historical," their economy is at least stable, and they are still able to build ships...so I don't know what's going on. I get that no AI is perfect, but come on. Something needs to be done about this. And to be honest, I don't know whether starting a war with them myself would be a good idea. Sure, I probably have the better ships, but I have less than 1/3 of their ships...they could literally just swarm me with numbers, and trying to fight a numbers game with somebody who outnumbers you by a minimum of 3 to 1 isn't exactly what I call "fun."

TL;DR The British have:
            >Barged into the Mediterranean
            >Gathered their ENTIRE FLEET
            >Didn't elaborate further
            >Refused to leave or do anything for almost 5 years

Devs, somebody....send halp

[ZorinW]

Has anyone tried to start a 1940 campaign? Waiting for an hour now and it's still on October 1938...

EDIT: IT TOOK THE GAME 2 HOURS TO START A 1940 CAMPAIGN!!

Edited August 22, 2022 by ZorinW

[Skeksis]

On 8/21/2022 at 10:38 PM, SonicB said:

roadmaps. - who are desperately trying to help

Quote

Future Campaign Features

• Full Global Map including important regions and colonies.
• Diplomacy options.
• Various political and economic events that will enrich the gameplay.
• Campaigns will last from 1890 up to 1940+.
• Technology tree improvements for ship design options, crew & officers.
• Additional warfare options including submarines and minelaying.
• New map mechanics will allow many more strategic options for your fleets.
• Other features based on your feedback.

Helps if you  READ MORE

[The PC Collector]

13 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Helps if you  READ MORE

Helps if you know what a roadmap is. That is rough and vague upcoming feature list, which is not the same as a roadmap.

A proper development roadmap has to include a detailed list of detailed features, with estimated ETAs, or at the very least have them sorted or categorised by priority and/or development status.

Edited August 23, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Vinrellren]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

Has anyone tried to start a 1940 campaign? Waiting for an hour now and it's still on October 1938...

I never started a campaign beyond 1920 start date due to the fact that it's soo close to the campaign end date and there is just not that much progress in terms of tech and shipbuilding.

15 hours ago, PainKiller said:

I don't understand what are you guys crying about, and why are you so rude to the devs here. I actually like that I'm not the richest country of the world. I'm still beating the crap out of everyone when I'm at war. 

Not rude, just give feedback that I think is necessary for this game to flourish. Also, the feedback I gave has been reported for months so it's just fair for the player who bought and plays all the builds the devs gave to complain about something that is  broken that has been in this game for a lot of time.

15 hours ago, PainKiller said:

Oh and one more thing. I'm the guy who said that you should try SAPBC insted of HE spam. So i'm not even using that to beat my opponents. I saw that you guys are comparing HE to APBC, of course you will get more consistent resoults with HE. APBC is the crappest shell i have ever put on my ships, never using them again. They either ricochet, or overpen causing very little damage. (APBC has even lower base damage value then regular AP, so any kind of pen/overpen/half penetration will cause less damage) I have been experimenting with SAP and SAPBC and I have been very satisfied with them. They have much more forgiving penetration angles then normal or APBC shells, rarely being blocked by armour or overpenning the armour. They are much more likely to cause full penetrations or half penetrations, and more likely to cause fire then a normal AP would. And of yourse they have 2-3x penetration power then HE usually.

The important thing is the HE filler, the more HE explosive mass you have the better, SAP has more explosive mass than normal AP (less pen) that which makes it better. It's the same reason why it's better to use HEI as the main shells, no matter how highly or lightly armored the AI ships are, they can be easily burnt down with all of those fire.

15 hours ago, PainKiller said:

Although I'm glad that i'm reading the forums. I have never tried using the research focus thingy. Can you really get radar I between the 1900-1910 years? I have to try that in my next campign  (If it not gets patched until then)

Maybe I'm the only lunatic here who is not using the "cheats" of this game (8.9 or 12 inch guns, He spam, early radar, mothballing....what else is there?) although i don't understand why the devs call cheating something that's in the game. I always thought that using third party softwares is cheating.

You could get RADAR I early on if you always use the priority focus. In my 1890 campaign, I probably got RADAR I in the late 1900s and early 1910s and with the addition of Control Station focus where you get a passive increase in accuracy, it's very broken indeed.

I probably will never know, the devs tell me that I am not playing the game right for combining all of the broken stats in a single BB and dubbed super BB.