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

[The PC Collector]

Okay, @Nick Thomadis Can you please explain to me how this ship which the funnel, more than half of of the guns, the engine room and the citadel BEHIND the centerline of the hull can possibly have a 52% fore weight offset?

Edited August 9, 2022 by The PC Collector

[ZorinW]

14 hours ago, imp44791 said:

Some serious thought must be given to checking the battle UI and the information it gives to the player. I'm not asking to be more accurate/damaging or to sink the enemy more easily, but if I'm told that my main guns have a 31% chance of hitting and are shown to be aimed, I would expect on average one in three salvoes to at least straddle, especially when the number of shells fired increase. I have done a crude test with very long range gunnery and pretty much emptying my magazines (so we're talking about a reasonable crack at the law of large numbers working its magic) and the realised probability is nowhere near that indicated in the UI (be that 1 in 3, or 1 in 10).

Agreed. The UI keeps showing me a 100% hit chance, yet my shells keep missing.

[SpardaSon21]

On 8/7/2022 at 2:49 PM, The PC Collector said:

This is plainly WRONG. That was the Washington Treaty definition of CL. Which, as it has been stated lots of times, even by devs, this game DON'T go for. Before the WT, light cruisers were defined by the armour, nor by the guns. Just as it is on the game.

Yep.  The Pensacola-class of cruisers were originally designed, built, and designated as light cruisers despite their 8" main armament but because of their thin armor, which is why unlike most US cruisers they also mounted a set of triple torpedo tubes on each side.  It wasn't until 1931, two years after their commissioning and eight years after the treaty took effect that they were redesignated as heavy cruisers.  The two ships were also laid down in 1926, so it wasn't like the USN was unaware of the treaty stipulations while they were building them.

Edited August 9, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[The PC Collector]

@Nick Thomadis Why the <insert here your favourite cussword> is this research even a thing??? There is not even a single CL hull in the game which allows this displacement!



Also, the cruiser research is absolutely ludicrous. I have been prioritising it for a decade (Since 1907 to 1917) and I have unlocked 5 BC hulls (and even obsoleted 3 of them, one of them even before the sole ship I built with it was even finished) but I have unlocked a whopping 1 (one!) CA hull, and no CL hull. Still stuck with pre dreadnought era CL hull and early dreadnought CA hull despite being at 1919 on that regard, according to the game information.

[TAKTCOM]

What the hell with the upkeep cost? 3*4.5 ton CL = 2*18.5 ton dreadnoughts?

[Skeksis]

After battle this taskforce below remained on station, with damage. But with every other battle/campaign, all the taskforce's were sent to port.

I've just notice the difference was I didn't change it from Sea Control. So maybe this bug occurs if the taskforce are set to Invade or Protect. Or even just occurs if mode changes.

During campaigns, I did have other taskforces set to Sea Control but not many, it's quite possible they just didn't come up for battle or when they did I didn't notice anything, no one has noticed. Also this explains why others are saying they have no problems because they don't actually change modes from Sea Control. This bug seems to chime in with when these modes were added/activated.

Anyway, very confusing when all taskforces previously are sent home after battle but then without any consistency one remains on station.

 

As an observation or just something to mention.
2) . The battle generator nearly always set missions for newly created taskforces. But for existing taskforces they seem to skip missions, except for newly create AI taskforces, they do engage those existing taskforces. It's like if and when a new taskforce is created then all taskforces are considered but if there are no new taskforces (on the turn) all existing taskforces miss consideration. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Skeksis

[SodaBit]

Got some feedback here, but it's a know issue so I won't go into too much detail.
The manner in which fleets are deployed needs serious work. 

We know that the AI can't fight effectively when commanding large formations, and I can't possibly imagine why. What I need for this battle is one line containing all my BB's, as they're all of the same class, and having them all in a single unit won't be an issue. Instead, I get this mess of a deployment. Sorting this out would probably be a private Hell for anyone who has actually commanded a unit in a real navy. Honestly, at this point, I won't mind the game just deploying all my ships in a single division. It'd be much easier for me, and probably a bit simpler from a coding perspective.

[o Barão]

6 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

What the hell with the upkeep cost? 3*4.5 ton CL = 2*18.5 ton dreadnoughts?

Can you compare both ship designs in these two parameters?

The operational range.

The maintenance cost in the overview section.

Maybe you will find something that will help explain the difference, or maybe not.

[ZorinW]

https://imgur.com/a/xwY8uU8

@Nick Thomadis Tilted turrets are a REAL issue!

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

The maintenance cost in the overview section.

Maybe you will find something that will help explain the difference, or maybe not.

I'm with Taktcom on this. CLs are way too expensive for their combat value, nearly as expensive as CAs. That's mainly the reason of why CLs essentially become obsolete once you get 1300 T DDs which can mount 4-5 5.9" guns.

Edited August 9, 2022 by The PC Collector

[The PC Collector]

To further prove the point on CLs, here are my latest CL and CA, the best I can build with my best tech and hulls.

Do anyone really think that this CL which is barely more than an overgrown DD armour and weaponry wise


Should be even remotely close on both production and maintenance cost to this CA which is essentially a pocket BC?


Bonus track: My current 1300t DD: 1/3rd of both the production and maintenance cost, much faster, and sporting 5x5.9" guns, which is more than enough to delete other DDs and CLs and can threaten CAs at normal combat ranges, just like the 7.9" on the CL does.


Conclussion: CLs on their current state don't have a place on the game, as either CAs and DDs are much more cost effective options. CL costs should be halved, to bring them closer to DDs, as their performance is closer to DDs than to CAs. On the early stages of the campaigns, when you only have TBs which explode if any crew member sneezes hard, CLs can have a marginal role as secondary scouts/convoy raiders. But once DDs capable of sporting 5" guns are unlocked, CLs simply become obsolete.

Alternatively, a not so big cost reduction of around 30/40% could be coupled with what have been proposed by me and others of allowing CLs to mount 8" guns. That will not only give CLs a better place on the game, allowing them to have an actual performance jump in terms of firepower from DDs, while not reaching CAs either, but will also give the 8" guns a place in the game, since currently that gun is sort of on a "no mans land" without a real place in the game, due to CLs being capped at 7" and CAs being allowed to use 9,10 and 11" guns.

Edited August 10, 2022 by The PC Collector

[TAKTCOM]

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

Can you compare both ship designs in these two parameters?

The operational range.

Sure.

And

I even made a refit with minimum operational range 

Literally, minus 500 tons of coal does not change anything in the overall picture. Which is quite historical, as for me.

You know, if it was CL 10,000 plus tons, I would understand. But this is literally a 4,500 ton small cruiser. It just doesn't make any sense.

[The PC Collector]

Okay, feedback about shipbuilding: That the AI only builds the newest design is a great step on the good direction, but that only really works if you also make sure that each new design is at least as good as the previous one (preferably better)

Practical example: The Austrians had this fairly good dreadnought, which was competent despite the comparatively small guns.



Then they decided to make this one, which is evidently worse, and they have been sticking to produce and use it instead of the other. As I said, that needs some work.



Also, they need to work on how frequently they make new designs, and on updating them regularly via refit. That secon BB was paired with this CA:



Both machines, while mediocre, where somewhat decent and challenging by 1913, when they debuted. By 1918, without even a miserable refit, they're hopelessly outdated and nothing else but practice targets even for my oldest ships.

Also, AI needs to improve on the speed department. I'm at 1919, and the fastest non TB/DD ship which I have seen as AI ship is a brit CL which makes 26.7 kn. Other than that I haven't seen a single cruiser which even exceeds 23 kn. While that speed is acceptable or even good for BBs, it is not for CA/CL. The AI seem to be designing all ships as if they were BBs speed wise.

[JeeWeeJ]

It seems the Austrians have already discovered the use of zombie crew? Or have the devs secretly added the Netherlands with their flying Dutchmen? 🤔

About 50% of the enemy fleet had no crew and the ships immediately surrendered at the start of the battle.

 

EDIT: I just noticed in the second screenshot two ships of my own fleet also surrendering. Those two ships were sunk in the previous battle! Something surely is off here...

Edited August 10, 2022 by JeeWeeJ

[o Barão]

16 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I'm with Taktcom on this. CLs are way too expensive for their combat value, nearly as expensive as CAs. That's mainly the reason of why CLs essentially become obsolete once you get 1300 T DDs which can mount 4-5 5.9" guns.

I agree 100%. If they could use bigger caliber casemate guns, as IRL, it would make them much more interesting (you mentioned this if I am not mistaken). Also, atm, we don't have any far theater of war.  If we had, then we would have a good reason to use CL with long range to patrol those waters.

 

6 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Sure.

And

I even made a refit with minimum operational range 

Literally, minus 500 tons of coal does not change anything in the overall picture. Which is quite historical, as for me.

You know, if it was CL 10,000 plus tons, I would understand. But this is literally a 4,500 ton small cruiser. It just doesn't make any sense.

"Literally, minus 500 tons of coal does not change anything in the overall picture. Which is quite historical, as for me."

Good call in making one with minimum operational range to see the difference. +1

 

From your fleet panel screenshot:

CL maintenance cost 1.9M

BB maintenance cost 2.7M

 

However, from your ship designs we see 1M CL and 2.1 for the BB (maintenance cost)

The only thing I see that can explain the cost difference is the fleet role.

- Your CL is with "sea control"

- Your BB is with "in Being"

 

If it is possible, change one BB to "sea control" or one CL to "in Being" status, and compare  the maintenance cost.

 

UPDATE!!!

No need. In the fleet screen, there is two BBs with "sea control" status.

The cost for those are much higher. 3.2 M and 4.4 M

 

The high maintenance cost it seems is related to the fleet status. However, I can't explain why one is 3.2M and the other one 4.4M. The crew is almost the same. Penalty cost for being in battle?

Edited August 10, 2022 by o Barão

[admiralsnackbar]

The pre-release builds did not come with as many instances (AFAICT) of ships getting sent into battle with 1% HP or 0% crew and instantly surrendering. I also notice that games that i load up seem to have the crew replenishment option set off even I am constantly going to have to reset that. 

IDK if it's because of the maintenance costs or the new crew rescue system doing something screwy to the ships, or something else. 

W.R.T crew replenishment, the devs need to consider which settings a player is most likely going to want by default, especially in lieu of a menu where defaults can be set. I would never opt to be so precise with managing $$$ that I would want to manually micro the replenishment of my fleets after every battle. 



 

[TAKTCOM]

46 minutes ago, o Barão said:

The high maintenance cost it seems is related to the fleet status. However, I can't explain why one is 3.2M and the other one 4.4M. The crew is almost the same. Penalty cost for being in battle?

I suppose it's because of the different home ports. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

We offer another small update with needed fixes and improvements according to your latest feedback. Please read below:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3379408125781513368 

[JeeWeeJ]

Anothing few things I noticed:

1. Ships joining divisions at random.
I have not been able to reliably reproduce it, but it goes a bit like this:

There are two division;
Division A: 3 BB's
Division B: 4 CA's set to follow division A

Battle is joined and one of the BB's is hit hard and slows down. For some reason this BB now joins division B and tries to join the end of the battleline.

Which pretty much messes up my organization of divisions.

I also noticed some divisions just...joining at random. I just had a division of pre-dread BB's join a division of transport ships...and my mouse hadn't even come close to those transport ships, let alone any order to join divisions being given.

Given how the AI is...quite terrible...when it comes to organizing divisions, this is less than ideal.

Suggested sollution: give players an option to have these ships leave the division and automatically follow their original division. (and make this optional, like a button in the UI menu)

 

2. Ships just stopping when divisions get messed up

I noticed a few times that when you try to reorganize divisions, ships just...stop and refuse to follow orders. They just sit still in the water no matter what order you give them. The only way it can be apparently fixed is to remove the ship from the division and add it again. All you have to do then is pray no other ships decide to get the derps.

This seems to happen at random, but happens more often in bigger battles.

[o Barão]

34 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

We offer another small update with needed fixes and improvements according to your latest feedback. Please read below:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3379408125781513368 

"When guns cannot fire due to their horizontal or vertical angle, a new indication appears. More similar indications to help players understand the combat situation will become available on the next major update."

Great!!! 

[Nick Thomadis]

There are some additional fixes not mentioned in the internal changelog:

• Weight adjustments for deck, turrets, barbettes. Deck armor is slightly lighter, with a more profound effect in large ships. Turret and Barbette armor limits are now more historically correct.
• Fixed "saved" battles bug, which caused ammo values to be corrupted if you loaded the same battle more than one time.

[Fangoriously]

That new angled mechanic is interesting, but i think it necessitates other changes. Perhaps lowering how bad of a list a ship can get above 50% flooded, very quickly a ship that sprung any sort of leak is nearly mission killed entirely. bow in they can some times still shoot but they quickly become unable to broadside whatsoever. perhaps a counter flooding mechanic, that once flooding stops and doesn't get any worse, you can right the ship with a penalty of lower float ability. how about being able to edit gun elevation like we can diameter and caliber as well? all those dual purpose looking secondaries should basically come standard with this maxed i would think.

[Fangoriously]

good lord, I know A-H is a bit starved for hulls and super structure components but i didn't think the problem was this bad!

[Nick Thomadis]

3 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

good lord, I know A-H is a bit starved for hulls and super structure components but i didn't think the problem was this bad!

Is this on a saved campaign? Can you send a bug report with the in-game button? This is a rare bug that was supposed to be fixed many updates before, but if you load an old save, it cannot be fixed.

[Fangoriously]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Is this on a saved campaign? Can you send a bug report with the in-game button? This is a rare bug that was supposed to be fixed many updates before, but if you load an old save, it cannot be fixed.

This is on a 1940 campaign I started maybe 2 weeks ago, haven't had a lot of time to play since then so I'm only like 3 years in, and there's been quite a few non save resetting patches in that time. This is a new design i haven't seen before so they would have only designed and built in the last year or so. Should i send a bug report next time i see one of just any time i'm logged into the campaign?