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

[The PC Collector]

Well, I don't use any modification for the game, and save editing is not a thing anymore, and yet I'm getting an average of 30-50 ships stacked per battle. So, as it is not my fault, I plan to keep reporting that I should be solved.

Edited July 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Hangar18]

On 7/16/2022 at 9:27 AM, CAR DOOR said:

Small caliber main batteries (9.9" and smaller) on cruisers are still having issues firing consistently when secondaries are also firing on a target.

The main guns of the affected caliber dramatically lose out on fire rate while the ship also has secondaries weapons actively firing on something, making them significantly less effective than expected at shorter ranges. This can be reproduced easily by building any cruiser - light or heavy - arm it with 9" or lower guns as well as secondaries guns. When a ship is in range for both and firing both, main guns fire dramatically less often while secondaries behave normally. turn off secondaries and main gun fire rate returns to normal. guns of 10" and higher behave as they should even with secondaries firing.

here is an example. its from the 1.06 Beta but this issue has not changed in the newest version. most notable at 0:25

To add on, this is affecting CLs too.

memory leak is still present, and eating as much RAM as DCS

[Norbert Sattler]

I too have doomstacks in pretty much every single campaign and don't use any third party software.

[Fangoriously]

These extremely stable and balanced 1930 British battleships of mine are having a hell of a time hitting anything, they are always at 0% aimed on their main guns. They have over a 100 for their hull stability & towers score, mk3 16in main guns, have a reload time of 55 seconds, at the range we are fighting at they should be sighted in immediately and almost none of my shots should miss that enemy BB after me.

[The PC Collector]

I have, for the first time, experienced the infamous "main guns not firing when secondarieas are firing". I have noticed that guns need a bit of time to fire after other guns have fire (as if to simulate having to wait for the shock of the fumes to dissipate or wathever). And the bugh seems to be caused by extremely small secondaries with extreme rate of fire. As if it made that "wait" system collapse and didn't let other guns with longer wait times to fire.

[The PC Collector]

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.

 

[o Barão]

Main battery firing issue. Disable secondaries?

 

Issue details:

• 8x2 8-inch guns per broadside.
• The ship have issues in using all the main guns.
• If I disable the secondaries, the ship will use all the main guns.

[The PC Collector]

16 minutes ago, o Barão said:

• 8x2 8-inch guns per broadside.
• The ship have issues in using all the main guns.
• If I disable the secondaries, the ship will use all the main guns.

After having tested it on my own, I'm positive that the 2"/51mm guns are the ones causing the issue.

[mk4m]

31 minutes ago, 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.

 

I have same problems, no cheats. Never used cheats in this game 

[TAKTCOM]

Does anyone use 6 inch guns as secondary? I successfully used 3-5-inch, as well as 7-8-inch, but the attempt to use 6'' it completely failed. For a fight with dozens of targets, 6-inch weapons from 3 BB could not cause damage even in the amount of 10k, while the 13-inch  dealt more than 50k damage, which is ridiculous in comparison. 

57 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

So, according to the devs, this is normal?

This is archetypal for 1.08.

Edited July 18, 2022 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[The PC Collector]

5 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Does anyone use 6 inch guns as secondary? I successfully used 3-5-inch, as well as 7-8-inch, but the attempt to use it completely failed. For a fight with dozens of targets, 6-inch weapons from 3 BB could not cause damage even in the amount of 10k, while the 13-inch  dealt more than 50k damage, which is ridiculous in comparison. 

I've been using them on my dreadnoughts since I got them and they've been effective, in my experience. Try making the barrel a bit longer than the default.

 

5 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

This is archetypal for 1.08.

Well, then I suppose that I'll have to bleed the italians with the good ol' randomly generated missions. Or do what I did to save my super dreadnought, which was using the same tactic as the AI does when they consider they can't win: 180 degrees on the opposite direction and wait until the game lets me end the battle.

Edited July 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[o Barão]

27 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

After having tested it on my own, I'm positive that the 2"/51mm guns are the ones causing the issue.

I run a quick test with a similar build without those 2"/51mm guns and I had the same issue.

[The PC Collector]

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I run a quick test with a similar build without those 2"/51mm guns and I had the same issue.

Oh, well. Then I suppose I'm just lucky. My dreadnoughts equipped with 10 twin 128 mm and 12 casemate 152 mm guns, or similar builds, have no problem firing all their guns. My only issues have been with my heavy cruisers equipped with a mix of 240 mm and 210 mm main guns and 60 mm secondaries

Edited July 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[ZorinW]

9 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

I too have doomstacks in pretty much every single campaign and don't use any third party software.

Same for me and with enemy nations having this many ships, it is absolutely the norm for them to doom stack them!

 

Seriously, how hard is it to program a BASIC economy model? The maintenance cost should eat these guys alive and absolutely prohibit them from building this many ships in the first place. Germany is building up to have 500+ ships and still have a positive balance of 2.5 billion 🤣🤣🤣

Total maintenance = x % of monthly budget. If result in total maintenance > then x = DON'T BUILD IT or SCRAP/MOTHBALL SHIPS

I programmed more complex stuff 22 years ago in high school...

Edited July 18, 2022 by ZorinW

[AdmiralKirk]

4 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

I think the economy issue that makes this possible for the AI applies to the player too, especially if you build mediocre ships and don’t max out crew/transports/research (as most of us do). If everybody had considerably less money or monthly costs for construction, repair, and maintenance were a lot higher, such a fleet would cause the AI to bankrupt itself. As it is there’s practically nothing stopping me from building absurd numbers of even the biggest ships. 

Not to mention in my experience with 1.08 each of those 260+ CLs can tank more shells than Warspite…

One other suggestion for (possibly) fixing this problem and imposing an interesting constraint on the strategy layer is to limit the number of ships you can actually build of a particular size range. Currently you have a maximum size allowed and unlimited slipways and drydocks within that size; if I can build up to 100,000 tons, then *everything* I build can be that size, with budget being the only constraint. But in real life there are physical limits on what individual yards can build, which require new construction or structural changes to increase. So it would be both realistic and interesting to break down your construction capacity in terms of individual yards—maybe even localized to particular ports!—so that you could have, say, five really big yards capable of producing or repairing a BB, ten big enough to build cruisers, and twenty only big enough to build DDs (all these limited by length or tonnage or both). This might be implemented by overhauling the Ship Design screen with an overview of what’s being constructed, which slipways are in use/available, and which designs you’ve made.

[Kiknurazz91]

12 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Well, I don't use any modification for the game, and save editing is not a thing anymore, and yet I'm getting an average of 30-50 ships stacked per battle. So, as it is not my fault, I plan to keep reporting that I should be solved.

same thing for me no modifications or cheats.

[Grandpa Canuck]

1 hour ago, AdmiralKirk said:

One other suggestion for (possibly) fixing this problem and imposing an interesting constraint on the strategy layer is to limit the number of ships you can actually build of a particular size range. Currently you have a maximum size allowed and unlimited slipways and drydocks within that size; if I can build up to 100,000 tons, then *everything* I build can be that size, with budget being the only constraint. But in real life there are physical limits on what individual yards can build, which require new construction or structural changes to increase. So it would be both realistic and interesting to break down your construction capacity in terms of individual yards—maybe even localized to particular ports!—so that you could have, say, five really big yards capable of producing or repairing a BB, ten big enough to build cruisers, and twenty only big enough to build DDs (all these limited by length or tonnage or both). This might be implemented by overhauling the Ship Design screen with an overview of what’s being constructed, which slipways are in use/available, and which designs you’ve made.

I have suggested before that ports have more than one rating. Each port should have a supply size, a repair size and a repair amount volume limit. Also hopefully the player will be able to control the growth of these individually for each port rather than just one shipyard increase choice. For instance Taranto in southern Italy starts in 1890 as a relatively average/small port and IRL by 1940 this was a major port compared to others. It grew a lot more, not uniformly with others over the years. Hopefully something like this is planed as we are still in the early stages of development of this type of feature in the game. Time will tell in 3-4 more updates.

[Nick Thomadis]

10 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

These extremely stable and balanced 1930 British battleships of mine are having a hell of a time hitting anything, they are always at 0% aimed on their main guns. They have over a 100 for their hull stability & towers score, mk3 16in main guns, have a reload time of 55 seconds, at the range we are fighting at they should be sighted in immediately and almost none of my shots should miss that enemy BB after me.

In your image the two frontal guns cannot shoot at all and only your rear gun contributes to the aiming, which makes it much more difficult to eventually find the range and have progress in the aiming procedure. 
In order to gain aiming in a steady manner, you need to keep a parallel course to the target, utilize all main guns and try to keep the distance as much as possible steady.

When players move their ships erratically or away from their target at high speed, the guns will usually lose their aiming.

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:

One other suggestion for (possibly) fixing this problem and imposing an interesting constraint on the strategy layer is to limit the number of ships you can actually build of a particular size range. Currently you have a maximum size allowed and unlimited slipways and drydocks within that size; if I can build up to 100,000 tons, then *everything* I build can be that size, with budget being the only constraint. But in real life there are physical limits on what individual yards can build, which require new construction or structural changes to increase. So it would be both realistic and interesting to break down your construction capacity in terms of individual yards—maybe even localized to particular ports!—so that you could have, say, five really big yards capable of producing or repairing a BB, ten big enough to build cruisers, and twenty only big enough to build DDs (all these limited by length or tonnage or both). This might be implemented by overhauling the Ship Design screen with an overview of what’s being constructed, which slipways are in use/available, and which designs you’ve made.

 

53 minutes ago, Grandpa Canuck said:

I have suggested before that ports have more than one rating. Each port should have a supply size, a repair size and a repair amount volume limit. Also hopefully the player will be able to control the growth of these individually for each port rather than just one shipyard increase choice. For instance Taranto in southern Italy starts in 1890 as a relatively average/small port and IRL by 1940 this was a major port compared to others. It grew a lot more, not uniformly with others over the years. Hopefully something like this is planed as we are still in the early stages of development of this type of feature in the game. Time will tell in 3-4 more updates.

While those would be ideal, they could be slow and hard to implement. And we need a solution for this now. Just to keep the game more or less playable. Not only because doomstacks are not fun and can even kill computers, but they also mean that AI runs out of ships in a couple of battles.

So, as a short term fix, the easiest and most effective way is hardcapping the maximum number of ships which a taskforce can have, setting a maximum between 10 and 20.

Edited July 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[mikekervin]

Nations that you are not at war with can blockade you.

[Iuvenalis]

@Nick ThomadisWith the latest update, "building ships" is taking several minutes between turns. The new campaign also took about 10 minutes to load, with each "month" during the loading taking 15-20 seconds. After it got past the first 3 years or so, it ripped through the other months in a moment. This was all instantaneous for me before the last hotfix.

 

EDIT: After the first 4 months or so, it was down to 15-20 seconds, but now it is inconsistent with some turns taking far longer than other. Also, again, turns were taking 2-5 seconds to cycle last week before the update.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Iuvenalis
Update

[mikekervin]

Ships in a division adjust their rudder much too late to maintain their formation. This is very apparent when steering technology is not maxed out on a large ship. As there is also a bug with division speeds being adjusted to late I suspect whatever triggers the course adjustments has an error.

[jtjohn1]

I am curious what a crew has to do to go beyond trained?  I have fought several major battles and my crew hasn't progressed from trained to seasoned)  Shouldn't a crew that has been at sea or together for a long period of time at least reach seasoned (Not veteran because that would take combat)

If you put a ship in mothballs do you have to start over with a trained crew (Even though you keep your crews funded?)

It's getting hard to keep ships in port or at sea due to a lack of funds during peacetime.  About the only thing I can do is mothball most of my fleet.

[Dave P.]

23 minutes ago, jtjohn1 said:

I am curious what a crew has to do to go beyond trained?  I have fought several major battles and my crew hasn't progressed from trained to seasoned)  Shouldn't a crew that has been at sea or together for a long period of time at least reach seasoned (Not veteran because that would take combat)

If you put a ship in mothballs do you have to start over with a trained crew (Even though you keep your crews funded?)

It's getting hard to keep ships in port or at sea due to a lack of funds during peacetime.  About the only thing I can do is mothball most of my fleet.

It's shown in the after action screen. Doing damage gives a ship more EXP, losing crew removes EXP. So if a ship participates in several battles and does a lot of damage without taking many crew losses, their level will increase.

[Dave P.]

On 7/16/2022 at 8:30 PM, Dave P. said:

Since when does the AI get to put barbettes wherever they want and we don't? Or did I miss a patch note?

OK so this appears to be a side effect of specific Italian towers. They add mounting hardpoints for barbettes to either side of themselves.

That's hardly fair, is it?

/proceeds to install MOAR DAKKA