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

[Vinrellren]

14 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Helps if you  READ MORE

Is that even can be considered a roadmap? 

[Vinrellren]

FEATURES

BUILD THE BATTLESHIPS THE WAY YOU WANT
Become the architect of powerful warships, from small torpedo boats to mighty Battleships! Recreate famous ships such as the HMS Dreadnought and countless speculative designs. Pick turret layout, armor scheme, funnel placement, tower variations making each ship look and feel unique. Their hull characteristics, internal upgrade selection and weight distribution not only modifies their speed and maneuverability but also their weapon effectiveness. Every design detail of your warships has a significant effect on the combat capability of your ships.

Funny how the steam page says "Build the BBs the way the player want" and I build a super BB and then the devs said "no that's not how you supposed to play the game!" Ironic isn't it?

 

[The PC Collector]

2 minutes ago, Vinrellren said:

Is that even can be considered a roadmap? 

As someone who had to do a dev project for his grade, and who has worked as a dev, I can answer: No, it can't.

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

That is rough and vague upcoming feature list

That's as good as any roadmap from GameLabs. Here's the last one...

Both outline upcoming features, no difference. 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Skeksis

[Admiral Donuts]

First time...my game is currently hung up at Updating Missions. Latest build at dot9 R2.

[SodaBit]

So about the whole AP ammo being worthless thing. Turn's out that might not actually be the case. Semi- Armor Piercing is actually pretty damn good, because as it turns out penetrating the enemy's armor doesn't actually matter that much. 
Case in point: This poor bugger.

The average armor thickness my shells had to deal with was 2 feet, something they were never going to be able to get through with my current build, but the enemy is still very, very dead. By using High Capacity HE for the main guns, and SAP for the secondaries, I was able to insure that each hit did as much damage as possible, without any shell malfunctions. No big citadel hits necessary, no worrying about the enemy's angle, just click on target, make sure your ships' on the right course, and let the gunners do their work. It should also be noted that HCHE and SAP are some of the cheaper shell options with regard to weight, making them an even better option to pick. There's also the fact that SAP actually got an indirect buff recently, thanks to the armor weight rebalancing. With less armor over ships' vitals, turrets in particular, it's still possible to get full penetrations with SAP, and thanks to the +55% damage modifier of SAP, those full pens are going to hurt more than stepping on a Lego. 
All that is to say that maximizing your gun's penetrative abilities is a fools' errand. You'll be hard pressed to make up for what SAP brings to the table by penetrating an enemy's main belt with a APBC2 shell.

[Vinrellren]

Use HEI shells for an extra burning feeling for your enemy (very recommended)

But yeah, using only AP (Not APCBC) or SAP is worth it due to the damage and more explosive mass they had. Right now the most important thing is not only to pen the enemy but also to pen and burn the enemy to ashes

[Grayknight]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

That's as good as any roadmap from GameLabs. Here's the last one...

Both outline upcoming features, no difference. 

I support devs and agree with their updates and changes but even with being 💯 on board with where they are taking the game i have to call bs on what you wrote. Road map would be planed major or minor but game changing features or fixes not loose planed feature list that can be interpreted in 💯 different ways. The fact this does not egzist suggest to me that devs themselfs have more... Ahm fluid style of game design which would be 💯 ok if they told us what features we requested they accept as features they will be testing. 

 

While there is alot of badmouthing the changes as they fundamentalny change the way gamę plays IT is mainly the problem becouse change seam random and pointless. If we had info that we will be limiting drydocks so the player can only build set amounts of ships then i think many players would be enthusiastic about the change as IT Has a point other then restricting player due to the fact that code is spaghetti and ai cannot operator without limiting the player. 

 

Right now i was taken a back by the update but remained quiet becouse i will judge IT based upon next major update but if i were to comment what was heapening with the game without assuming that there is a plan to IT i would have to say WTF?

Edited August 23, 2022 by Grayknight
Grma

[o Barão]

Shell dispersion issue returns 😒

 

[SodaBit]

Once again, I have some feedback here, but it's pretty old news at this point.
However, this doesn't make it irrelevant. If anything, the age of this issue just makes things worse.
That issue is the absolute state of speed-tanking. I've decided to take the fastest ship I can make (46.2 knts,) and throw it up against 50 BB's.

The result? Well, it's been a hot minute since I started this little experiment, but here's how things have gone so far.
30 Minutes In.

Not much going on. Due to the excellent mobility stats of the IJN's Heavy Scout Cruiser, the loss of speed while turning is completely negligible at a mere 5%.
1 Hour In.

The AI has sent a few salvos my way, but none of them achieved any hits. It's not that the guns are inaccurate, in fact the opposite is true. These are some of the best guns I've seen the AI use in a while, their accuracy actually surpasses that of some of my own capital ships, even if the broadside weight is rather low for a ship of this tonnage.
3 Hours In.

Still nothing. This simply shouldn't be the case. The fire-control systems onboard the AI's ships, while not perfect, is still competitive by 1940's standards. A single CA has been sailing in circles in front of 50 BB's for 3 hours now, and hasn't taken a single hit. Here's why.
A 186% Accuracy De-buff Caused By Maneuver Alone.

Thank god we don't have multiplayer in the game at this point, I'd have a f***ing aneurism trying to fight with that kind of handicap. I don't think any amount of crew training or fire-control improvements can make up for that kind of de-buff. Imagine spending so much time on a design, running numerous tests on it during mock battles, improving it as you go, only for some meme-lord to come along with a clown-car that can outrun a long lance and sail around in circles until the battle timer expires. Sounds like an amazing, well balanced experience to be sure.
 

I'll update this post when the battle is over. I'm hoping the AI eventually manages to sink the damn thing, but at this rate, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

[o Barão]

UAD academy mission feedback

- Target practice

"27.9 cm maximum belt armor"

30 cm main belt...

With Krupp II! 😑

- Hurry up

Hurry up by having the starting fleet position facing the wrong way? This is my 4 time I am doing all the academy mission in the last 3 years, and I am sure this issue is the first time I see it in this mission.

Edited August 23, 2022 by o Barão

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

Once again, I have some feedback here, but it's pretty old news at this point.
However, this doesn't make it irrelevant. If anything, the age of this issue just makes things worse.
That issue is the absolute state of speed-tanking. I've decided to take the fastest ship I can make (46.2 knts,) and throw it up against 50 BB's.

The result? Well, it's been a hot minute since I started this little experiment, but here's how things have gone so far.
30 Minutes In.

Not much going on. Due to the excellent mobility stats of the IJN's Heavy Scout Cruiser, the loss of speed while turning is completely negligible at a mere 5%.
1 Hour In.

The AI has sent a few salvos my way, but none of them achieved any hits. It's not that the guns are inaccurate, in fact the opposite is true. These are some of the best guns I've seen the AI use in a while, their accuracy actually surpasses that of some of my own capital ships, even if the broadside weight is rather low for a ship of this tonnage.
3 Hours In.

Still nothing. This simply shouldn't be the case. The fire-control systems onboard the AI's ships, while not perfect, is still competitive by 1940's standards. A single CA has been sailing in circles in front of 50 BB's for 3 hours now, and hasn't taken a single hit. Here's why.
A 186% Accuracy De-buff Caused By Maneuver Alone.

Thank god we don't have multiplayer in the game at this point, I'd have a f***ing aneurism trying to fight with that kind of handicap. I don't think any amount of crew training or fire-control improvements can make up for that kind of de-buff. Imagine spending so much time on a design, running numerous tests on it during mock battles, improving it as you go, only for some meme-lord to come along with a clown-car that can outrun a long lance and sail around in circles until the battle timer expires. Sounds like an amazing, well balanced experience to be sure.
 

I'll update this post when the battle is over. I'm hoping the AI eventually manages to sink the damn thing, but at this rate, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

The AI probably does not even fire at you, correct? Maybe he cannot even spot you at this distance. You can spend 1x life time doing circles at 50 knots and going away from the slower enemy. He will not spend his shells at you. Arguably, the game should make the AI try to fire at you not save ammo, but alas, we cannot think why a player would like to spend his time doing this. 

EDIT: Joking aside, I would have an aneurism if I spent my time doing circles like this and not try to enjoy a game.

[Nick Thomadis]

36 minutes ago, o Barão said:

UAD academy mission feedback

- Target practice

"27.9 cm maximum belt armor"

30 cm main belt...

With Krupp II! 😑

- Hurry up

Hurry up by having the starting fleet position facing the wrong way? This is my 4 time I am doing all the academy mission in the last 3 years, and I am sure this issue is the first time I see it in this mission.

The wrong direction will be checked and fixed. Regarding the mission armor limit which can be overridden, seems minor, we will look to it, thanks.

[Vinrellren]

IIRC, the devs are indeed correct. The AI will probably not fire a single shot if they are not certain that there will be a chance to hit. In reality, it is indeed almost impossible to predict where the ship goes during a battle in real life because shells are unguided. The debuff? Well there are thousands of more important things to solve like the @o Barãoposts and these debuffs would probably not be at the top of the list to fix/polish and right now it's probably the best thing we have.

[SodaBit]

17 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The AI probably does not even fire at you, correct? Maybe he cannot even spot you at this distance. You can spend 1x life time doing circles at 50 knots and going away from the slower enemy. He will not spend his shells at you. Arguably, the game should make the AI try to fire at you not save ammo, but alas, we cannot think why a player would like to spend his time doing this. 

EDIT: Joking aside, I would have an aneurism if I spent my time doing circles like this and not try to enjoy a game.

Well, I did get bored after 9 and a half hours of sailing around in circles. Thank god for the x5 speed option. Range was about 15km, and they did have me spotted. The instant I stopped turning all Hell broke loose, with every gun the AI had opening up at the same time. I still think it's an issue that a single CA can spend 9 and a half hours in front of 50 BB's with out them trying to kill it, because they've had their accuracy so badly limited by maneuver de-buffs. If there was some way to limit the amount your accuracy can be reduced by due to an enemy's maneuvers, like a -65% cap, that'd be great, as the -186% I was able to achieve is way, way too high. 

Also, on a side note about conserving ammo. If I was commanding a ship on death's door, I wouldn't particularly care much if there was almost no chance of actually hitting a target, when the only way to save the ship is to destroy said target. Would it be possible to implement a "Fight For Your Life" mode for ships on low HP, where the crew tires to get as many shells down range as humanly possible in attempt to claw victory from the jaws of defeat? There's been more than a few occasions where I was simply able to gun down an enemy vessel without them actually fighting back, essentially having a BB go out with a whimper rather than a roar.

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

why a player would like to spend his time doing this. 

The issue is this can be exploited in battle to bait the AI to target one ship, and farm the AI fleet with the remaining ships.

• Tech 1940
• Doing 360 turns like a maniac at 2 km away from the enemy (5 BBs)
• The AI gunners goes crazy trying to aim at that speed devil

 

The issue here IMO is related to how much speed a ship can have doing tight turns.

After waiting for some time, the speed remains stable at 37 knots from the original 44 knots.

• For a ship with only 55% engine efficiency
• 58.5 sustained speed while turning (% value from the maximum speed?)

• Or maybe is the crazy acceleration value that is the source of this witchcraft?
• Maybe a combination of all the values?

Anyway, in conclusion, two issues:

A - Seems difficult to believe that ships with 1940 technology would have issues to land hits against a cruiser, doing 360 at 2 km away from them in a clear weather day.

B - There is an issue with ships maintaining very high top speeds doing tight turns without having the engine efficiency to support this sea motion. If they have 100% "EE", I would still have many troubles to believe. The reason is the fact is not any more only the bow that is cutting the ocean, now we have the entire hull side of the ship pushing the ocean away. An incredible amount of drag, IMO. But I am no naval engineer and I don't have the numbers to support this view.

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The AI probably does not even fire at you, correct? Maybe he cannot even spot you at this distance. You can spend 1x life time doing circles at 50 knots and going away from the slower enemy. He will not spend his shells at you. Arguably, the game should make the AI try to fire at you not save ammo, but alas, we cannot think why a player would like to spend his time doing this. 

EDIT: Joking aside, I would have an aneurism if I spent my time doing circles like this and not try to enjoy a game.

Again, what's with the attitude towards people who payed YOU to have a job in the first place and who are spending their time testing the product you deliver? 

By this point there are still many bugs presents in the game and the campaign is basically stale so people will try to make the most of what is there and if that leads to finding more bugs or possible exploits YOU should be GRATEFUL and not ridicule them!

[SodaBit]

11 minutes ago, o Barão said:

The issue is this can be exploited in battle to bait the AI to target one ship, and farm the AI fleet with the remaining ships.

• Tech 1940
• Doing 360 turns like a maniac at 2 km away from the enemy (5 BBs)
• The AI gunners goes crazy trying to aim at that speed devil

 

The issue here IMO is related to how much speed a ship can have doing tight turns.

After waiting for some time, the speed remains stable at 37 knots from the original 44 knots.

• For a ship with only 55% engine efficiency
• 58.5 sustained speed while turning (% value from the maximum speed?)

• Or maybe is the crazy acceleration value that is the source of this witchcraft?
• Maybe a combination of all the values?

Anyway, in conclusion, two issues:

A - Seems difficult to believe that ships with 1940 technology would have issues to land hits against a cruiser, doing 360 at 2 km away from them in a clear weather day.

B - There is an issue with ships maintaining very high top speeds doing tight turns without having the engine efficiency to support this sea motion. If they have 100% "EE", I would still have many troubles to believe. The reason is the fact is not any more only the bow that is cutting the ocean, now we have the entire hull side of the ship pushing the ocean away. An incredible amount of drag, IMO. But I am no naval engineer and I don't have the numbers to support this view.

This is pretty much what I was getting at. The longer the "bait" lasts, the more time you have to do what ever it is you need to do. So, having bait that can last several hours can be a pretty massive problem. IMO, the AI should strike a balance between what is the biggest threat to it, and what it can realistically kill. A squadron of BB's should be able to dispatch a single cruiser with ease, but doing so might not be in that unit's best interest if an enemy battle-squadron is actively engaging them. The problem with the AI's squadron in the video is that they're doing almost the exact opposite of that, engaging a unit that they can't realistically kill, and that posses less of a threat to them than the BB's that are currently firing on them for free. While the CL can ram one of the BB's, at least it'd be sunk, and the BB it rammed would probably survive, albeit significantly worse for wear. So, seeing as it has no torpedos, a single 4 inch gun, and no real way to sink a BB without being sunk in the process, letting the CL do whatever it wants is probably the best option the AI has at this point. Instead, they're focusing all their efforts on sinking the obvious bait in front of them, rather than dealing with the real threats present.
In order to improve the AI, either they have to be able to deal with the bait in an efficient manner, or ignore the bait outright.

[SonicB]

14 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Helps if you  READ MORE

Are you trolling?

That list is in no way helpful for beta testers to give meaningful feedback on gameplay issues, which was the point I was making.

It helps if you read what I write before trying to be snarky.

[o Barão]

47 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

IMO, the AI should strike a balance between what is the biggest threat to it, and what it can realistically kill. A squadron of BB's should be able to dispatch a single cruiser with ease, but doing so might not be in that unit's best interest if an enemy battle-squadron is actively engaging them. The problem with the AI's squadron in the video is that they're doing almost the exact opposite of that, engaging a unit that they can't realistically kill, and that posses less of a threat to them than the BB's that are currently firing on them for free. While the CL can ram one of the BB's, at least it'd be sunk, and the BB it rammed would probably survive, albeit significantly worse for wear. So, seeing as it has no torpedos, a single 4 inch gun, and no real way to sink a BB without being sunk in the process, letting the CL do whatever it wants is probably the best option the AI has at this point.

To be fair, in this situation, I need to praise the AI decision. I am running circles at 2 km away from them because they ignore me all the time when I was closing the distance. Only the secondaries were targeting my CL because they didn't had the range to target my BBs far away. The moment I got very close to them, around 4 km away (+/-), then they switched priorities and started to target the CL with the main guns.

Taking into consideration that my CL only had one small gun, seems to be a good decision.

 

[Fangoriously]

i've noticed a few times some AI built light cruisers that can maintain speeds near 40 knots being very nearly immune to incoming fire, every knot above 35 decreases hit chance by orders of magnitude.

[Kiknurazz91]

While in custom battle during my design of a US super battleship I noticed before changing anything the pitch was at 16.9% and the roll was at 3.4% that is ridiculous no matter how much I tried I could never get the pitch below 28%. Why is that! It seems impossible to get below that 25% pitch.

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, SonicB said:

That list is in no way helpful for beta testers to give meaningful feedback on gameplay issues, which was the point I was making.

What, you don’t find anything of that interesting or helpful?

Like Diplomacy options. Is this not what players have been asking for? Is it not published improvements based on feedback to which more feedback can be posted. Yes it’s not labelled specifically as a roadmap but nonetheless it is a minor one. A few other interesting items too.

Something has happen over on the steam forum, 1) A major increase in the volume of partisans, this can give some weight to issues, compelling Dev’s to act. 2) Not so many shit posts either, to which steam is famous for, they are creditable. There’s alittle bit more info over on steam than here.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Skeksis

[aznfoo]

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

Shell dispersion issue returns 😒

 

not an issue with dispersion but more like your turret accuracy was sub 10%, which is an extremely low hit chance

[o Barão]

So about the speed in tight turns.

This ship is able to maintain a 49 knot speed forever (from a maximum 51 knots) with only 9.7 % engine efficiency.

Looking at the stats, I found what can be the reason. So many buffs to acceleration. Those are:

• hull form 53%
• gas turbine 35%
• electric batteries II 20%
• advanced propeller shaft 15%
• beam 15%
• draugth 15%
•  longitudinal weight offset 0%
•  transverse weight offset 0%
•  pitch -11%
•  roll -10%

For a total 122% + value.

Also, this bonus:

• hull form +14% speed at max turning rate
• Sustained speed while turning, -9.8%  (ship details/hull section)

For a total 4.2% + value

 

My only suggestion about this would be to force the player if he wishes to go speeding like a maniac doing tight turns that he would need to invest more in engine efficiency. In the current state, I see many players, me included, not investing in engine efficiency. Since the more  engine efficiency the ship have, will produce more smoke which will affect the accuracy, so the players have a tendency to ignore this and go with low values. Now, if a ship could lose speed doing maneuvers because of the low engine efficiency, then the players would have a good reason to invest in high engine efficiency in their ships.