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

[Danvanthevacuumman]

Guess ill wait another year...

[Grayknight]

Please add limit to the ship amount in task force based on communication technology and give us a reason to have a radio

please give time limit on ship after wich AI scraps it (10to15 years)

I do not think underwater torpedo tubes should be destroyed and exploded by 2inch 3inch guns? I mean we are talking about guns that are what 50mm? 75mm? 4 inch should be about 110mm? Ignoring the fact that them hiting torpedo tube would be unlikely when shells are AP,  shells should explode soon after hitting water if they are HE rather harmlessly.

As for now all bbs with UNDERWATER torpedo tubes explode in the start of the battle due to the ridiciuluse amount of fire poured by the AI doomstack (i personaly fought few battles against only 80 ships so not that big of amount compered to some here but it is still stupid and over all sadly... not fun

Edited July 7, 2022 by Grayknight
spelling

[kjg000]

3 minutes ago, Grayknight said:

Please add limit to the ship amount in task force based on communication technology and give us a reason to have a radio

please give time limit on ship after wich AI scraps it (10to15 years)

I do not think underwater torpedo tubes should be destroyed and exploded by 2inch 3inch guns? I mean we are talking about gungs that are what 50mm? 75mm? 4 inch should be about 110mm? Ignoring the fact that they hiting torpedo tube would be unlikely when shells are AP,  shells should explode soon after hitting water if they are HE rather harmlessly.

As for now all bbs with UNDERWATER torpedo tubes explode in the start of the battle due to the ridiciuluse amount of fire poured by the AI doomstack (i personaly fought few battles against only 80 ships so not that big of amount compered to some here but it is still stupid and over all sadly... not fun

Submerged tubes need to be more robust and deck tubes should only be placed on low decks, and near the edge. Not on the centre line of a high capital ship deck like a  primary turret. More like the tubes on Scharnhorst.

Good idea about using the communication values to determine TF size. 

[havaduck]

I have been busy with work so I couldnt test the latest versions and also hadnt time to lay my hands on the current update but anyway: CG on the update. Still much work to do but that was a marathon!

[Grayknight]

7 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

Submerged tubes need to be more robust and deck tubes should only be placed on low decks, and near the edge. Not on the centre line of a high capital ship deck like a  primary turret. More like the tubes on Scharnhorst.

Good idea about using the communication values to determine TF size. 

I think there should be point limit to the task force size lets say starting limit 40

with each ship value dependent on the class and lowered with better radio on it. Lets say: BB with nothing 10 points, with signal officer (new potential technology, or with flag pole) 8 - points, With basic radio 7 points but to do soo you would need to actually rebalance weight of commponents and towers


This say i must admit that i think this update is awesome and huge in its scope. GJ team

Edited July 7, 2022 by Grayknight

[kjg000]

3 minutes ago, Grayknight said:

I think there should be point limit to the task force size lets say starting limit 40

with each ship value dependent on the class and lowered with better radio on it. Lets say: BB with nothing 10 points, with signal officer (new potential technology, or with flag pole) 8 - points, With basic radio 7 points but to do soo you would need to actually rebalance weight of commponents and towers


This say i must admit that i think this update is awesome and huge in its scope. GJ team

Good idea, but I think if you're going to count a BB as 10 points, then you'll need more than 40 points per TF. 

Actually I think the Devs will need to work out what the AI can reasonably run and then work it out from there.  Possibly allowing the player a slider so they can adjust to taste. 

[Plazma]

1 hour ago, GDFKTT said:

I understand that the torpedo boats needed a nerf, but the 1890 gun accuracy has been increased so much they're practically useless outside of running down convoy freighters.  It's almost impossible to run a squadron of anything less than five or six boats at 31 knts in against a single BB or CA opponent and survive, making them a completely cost ineffective option.  I'd recommend a solution where a 3"QF unlock in the tech tree serves as the catalyst (As it did historically) to start to change the paradigm but until then gives the TBs a brief but enjoyable reign as the terror they were before naval gunnery improvements caught up with them.  I don't have a problem with the damage model updates to TBs that make them floating Ronson lighters - that portion is almost perfect imho.

Could you show my your TB? 

 

For me TB are not as strong as DD or CA in 1890, but respected and what worse, after MK2 2" gun they are start to be a very effective ships. I experiment little with it and to be honest they need a huge nerf on 1890 at the beginning they need a huge buff because the accuracy go down to 0, but in 1900 DD are the strongest kind of ship. 

[Littorio]

So I haven't done a full playthrough yet and will save my full overview for later, but to respond to some of these points:

13 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Yep, just lost another great 1930 battleship design forever, that i spent the last 45 minutes designing, because the game cannot exit the ship designer properly at turn 0 of the campaign, were nothing has even happened yet. If the devs do anything next, fix this, at least actually save the design, it doesn't even do that unless it loads successfully.

Yes, for whatever reason, leaving the designer on your first turn, turn 0, takes a long time. I can't figure out why, because the AI has already built their ships, and you haven't told the game how many of yours to make yet. What is in the code that makes it hang up taking your designs to the campaign initially?

12 hours ago, Aloeus said:

So conning tower armor is now limited? This wasn't the case in the betas, and I'm not sure why its limited, for instance french exp dread BB hull is limited to 13.6" max. That's a little thin for what I normally like to use for my BB conning towers. 

Big point. Conning tower armor has always seemed very limited to me, once again by these stupid, gamey towers. Now it seems worse than ever. Before, I could routinely, even on 1890, get way more deck and/or superstructure armor than the conning tower. But now the conning tower values are even lower. I'm guessing these were tweaked to helped balance the designs and prevent the crazy offsets from the beta?

Regardless, the conning tower was supposed to be substantially more-armored that the deck/superstructure, not less (whether most officers actually used them is another issue). The values now available to us are piddling, 1.5-3" depending on cruiser type in 1890, but hull armor can be over 10"+ for the same vessel!

8 hours ago, VanillaBryce said:

The new barrel length and diameter features are really cool with this patch, but holy mother of g o d, please revisit the doom-stacking of AI fleets. I just faced OVER HALF OF THE BRITISH FLEET IN THE FIRST BATTLE OF THE WAR:

Oh, and I can't forget to mention that they are fielding ridiculous speed-tank destroyers that are traveling at OVER 37 KNOTS IN 1912:

These suckers even took multiple 12 inch rounds at point-blank range and wouldn't sink. I don't see how this is reasonable at all in this era...

The Russian Novik could go just over 37 knots in 1910, but it also had some 40% more displacement than this smolboy, British race-car. It was also a single ship... Pretty sure they didn't have 35 of them... Most destroyers weren't going more than 35 knots even around 1920.

I could not run away because they were so insanely fast, so their nine battleships were able to shell me from over 17 km because the DDs could spot me. Very frustrating. I had to leave the battle.

Please work to fix the doom stacks as soon as possible. Situations like this could theoretically occur, but they don't make for very good battles. The performance is terrible, the fleet management is a nightmare, and it is nearly impossible to fight. We really shouldn't face more than 3:1 odds...

The fleet I was using was very reasonable, and I would have happily fought a battle against 20-30 ships, but 60 is just insane. I would have just surrendered in such a position in real life... Realistically, I just never would have gotten within 10km of a fleet more than 4 times the size of my own... That's suicide.

Can confirm, Austrians put almost their entire 68-vessel navy in one doomstack. Granted it isn't war yet but it remains to be seen if they beak it up...

6 hours ago, Nagato said:

So 1.06 is finally out, now, when will we see 1.07 topic? Is there chance we will have new nations in the 1.07, like US or Japan?

2 hours ago, Tréville said:

The game could really do with a round of fixing and polishing what's already there instead of bolting more features and content onto it.

No, no expansion is needed. US/Japan/Spain/Russia can wait a bit. We need far more polishing and fixing. Perhaps the most important thing that everyone can agree on is a UI/UX patch. The way elements move and work on screen needs some refinement. Having lots of ship refits in the UI is annoying, and it drags down the UX when we are unable to directly make refits.

Also, why can't I copy a design and then change some of it's modules, like armor type? Why can I only manipulate the sliders and armor values themselves? There are so many little things like this that would go a long way to making the game better. For that matter, why does the politics tab still list everyone as a democracy lol? Little UI features so players that devs care.

In addition, the devs have stated on several issues that reported problems were just from an "incorrect UI not displaying the truth." Fixing the UI will result in less erroneous error reports and help make development smoother and faster, with time not being wasted by bogus complaints. There is much backend code that needs reviewing for us to have a better UI and thus UX, and I don't want to see that dragged down by more rounds of stupid campaign bugs and misfiring events, VP issues, etc...

Edited July 7, 2022 by Littorio

[Kiknurazz91]

Massive memory issue every time I'm in ship design for more than 5 min. Just lost a cruiser that took 20min to design because game froze upon exiting designer. None of my games on my pc take up this much memory at anytime. This is ridiculous every time my game freezes this massive amount of memory is being used almost 100% of my memory is being taken up by UA Dreadnoughts.

[mikekervin]

Something weird going on with GDP growth. France had 1% growth prior to blockading them, but after 1 year blockaded their GDP growth increased to 9%. 

[mikekervin]

Ship classes seem to be overweighted in calculating victory points. For example, losing an expensive modern high tonnage CA seems to hurt much less than losing an obselete, cheap, low tonnage BB.

[mikekervin]

Ship formation logic seems to be built around steering to where the next ship "is" rather than to where it "will be". This leads to oscillating course corrections when rearranging a division that increases to many kilometers by the rear ship rather than efficiently steering towards their place in the column. I think this is also what causes ships to be uncontrollable when the avoid collision logic is enabled.

[SodaBit]

I've got some quick ship designer feedback here.
I'm doing the usual post-patch rebuilds for all my 1940's designs, and I've noticed something a bit off. I'm pretty damn sure at this point that the weight offset calculations aren't working as intended.
Here's why. I'm working on Amagi atm, and in previous patches this design usually had about ~20% aft weight offset, but now it's got this.

Damn near 100% forward weight offset. It seems pretty nonsensical, so I did the math. With the center of gravity appearing to be at the base of the foremost 140mm barbettes, I've excluded those 140mm mounts and the main tower itself as "neutral" weights, given the 140's sit right atop the center of gravity, and the L shape of the main tower should distribute the weight rather evenly across this area.
So, forward of the apparent center of gravity, we've got 2 410mm mounts, a barbette, and 10 40mm mounts, and the forward armor belt and deck for a total of 5,322 tons.
Aft of the apparent center of gravity, we've got 3 410mm mounts, 4 140mm mounts, 4 40mm mounts, the rear tower, the funnel, and the aft armor belt and deck at 9,640.8 tons.

I don't have a degree in engineering, but I'm pretty sure that should result in a significant aft weight offset, rather than a near-total forward weight offset. Even when we add in the previously excluded 140mm mounts and the main tower, that just brings the weights forward of the center of gravity up to 8,955 tons, closer to even with the aft weights, not surpassing it by leaps and bounds. There's also the issue of the main protection of the ship, which, in accordance with the layout of the ship's armaments, is concentrated more to the rear of the center of gravity, with 4,341 tons of deck armor, and 3,810 tons of belt armor to add to the equation. We also must consider the engineering spaces, another 982 tons, which, in correlation to the location of the funnel, is concentrated in the same manner as the main armor systems. 

Again, I'm not a professional engineer, nor particularly good with math to begin with, but this doesn't seem right. I've removed weights high in the main tower, getting rid of 40mm mounts, radar, and range finders, and it still didn't fix the issue. I've added 2 more 410mm mounts behind Z turret, over 5,000 tons of additional weight on the rear, and it still didn't fix the issue. 
This wasn't an issue in previous patches. I understand that not every design players want to build is going to be viable, but this sort of design isn't even that crazy. If I was making a super Richelieu with 4 turrets head of the main tower, then sure, give me a 100% forward weight offset. But a design that actually existed, that could have seen service in the second World War if things had gone a bit differently? That's a bit much. Even if the 100% forward offset is 100% realistic, and totally would have been an issue in real life had the Amagi's and Tosa's been completed as originally designed, giving them a massive penalty in the name of "realism" is not something I'd like to see in game.

[Plazma]

A moment ago 1.8" gun at range 1.8km was able to penetrate ~~1.9 of deck armor via normal AP Shell from 1890. I don't care about understand that logic...

 

Somehow the balance between beta version and official 1.06 was amazing! First time I enjoy the battle! Not perfect, but playable finally! And somehow we back to the point when HE are too strong, but 2" gun are not as strong as on the beginning of 1.06. Also the AI are much better in building ships or I had luck  

 

The bug with veteran crew I have also, but are you sure this is bug? 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Plazma

[Skeksis]

[havaduck]

Is this intentional? I tried a AH 1890 start. Build my fleet: 6 BB and 3 TB initially and laid down 6 CA, 6 CL 9 TB  afterwards. Tried a balanced fleet to test the new patch.

 

So this is Oktober 1890, failed to piss the French off. Figured maybe I need a bigger fleet.

 

Now its Oktober 1891:

 

I had bunch of event lowering relation as I choose to piss off the French on purpose except for 2: The very first event I didnt realise it would be like this and I wanted shipbuilding time and the very latest as it was a good deal.

 

I havent been able to generate tension with the french via my fleets at all. Nobody gives a shit no matter if I sit in port, in the Mediteranean or the Atlantic. In fact if I sit in the Atlantic relations with the British do go up while in port the are simply stable.

 

Is my campaign dead already? Or is it now generally through event and I need to be patient? Do I need more ships?

Like in beta I expect testing but this kind of guessing game on a live release alienates me a bit I gotta say.

Edited July 7, 2022 by havaduck

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,
We just deployed the following small update.

*1.07 Hotfix*
- Fixed issues that could greatly delay the campaign turns ("Building Turns" Lag).
- Fixed bug that could cause crew training to become higher than "trained" without combat.
- Total Crew pool will now depend on population and will not increase infinitely.
- Adjusted Tension to be caused a little more easily.
- Fixed issue that caused Conning Tower armor limit to be very low.
- Campaign AI will scrap ships or delete old designs more efficiently (AI fleets should become stronger in the long term).

Enjoy!

The Game-Labs Team

[Norbert Sattler]

Speaking of deleting designs? Are there any plans to allow us to delete designs of ships once there isn't a single one in existence anymore?

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, Norbert Sattler said:

Speaking of deleting designs? Are there any plans to allow us to delete designs of ships once there isn't a single one in existence anymore?

We will see to fix any inconsistency on that.

[Darth Khyron]

Ah, tried to start a new campaign. Constructed my ships. Game could not leave the shipyard, so all designs are lost. hm. Since formations do not seem to be any better, I am out for a while until these are a bit more fixed.

[havaduck]

Thankfully my campaign isnt dead but I havent been able to get any tension trough ships on sea controll at all.

 

Another year (Oct. 1892), I was able to get the French down even more:

 

1st war of the game.

 

Finally! I pumped all my reserves into events that pissed the French off and this is Feb. 1893.

 

In March they will sent an ultimatum that will lead to war. I dont have anything against this being more event driven but I still dont know wheter its intentional but hasnt been communicated or if its bugged?

 

€: I just read the hotfix, well that explains a thing or two. Also noticed my BBs have like only 7 " on the conning tower max, but I was preoccupied with the whole tension thing and figured this could wait/was intentional. But a fix on that one is good too.

Edited July 7, 2022 by havaduck

[itolan1752]

May I ask about shipyard size increase?

some people talk about it at 1.06 beta:

So..., do we still not able build the biggest battleship (130,000t) if we start in 1890?

[brothermunro]

11 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:

Ah, tried to start a new campaign. Constructed my ships. Game could not leave the shipyard, so all designs are lost. hm. Since formations do not seem to be any better, I am out for a while until these are a bit more fixed.

I’ve had this happen as well (I’ve reported it in game) when I had a large number of designs - going back from the designer to the campaign view between each ship fixed it for me.

[Kebla]

4 hours ago, Tréville said:

Il gioco potrebbe davvero fare un giro di aggiustamento e lucidatura di ciò che è già presente invece di inserire più funzionalità e contenuti su di esso.

I totally agree, I much prefer an update that permanently fixes some aspects of the game instead of one that adds new features and things that may not work the best, clearly better yet both

[mikekervin]

After 9 years (7 of them at war) I'm not getting any events: no decisions, no tension with other countries, and no battles except 1 DD vs my entire fleet.

Somehow the enemy managers to continue destroying my transports though, despite not really having any ships and being blockaded.