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

[Nick Thomadis]

27 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

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?

Please send, yes, but better you try on a new campaign, if possible, as old campaigns may get bugs from an update which altered colliders, weights etc.

[Kiknurazz91]

I was awarded 189,217,700 dollars in reparations and the war was declared a minor victory. This is ridiculous I had so many more VP than them at the end of the war. Its almost not worth going to war in the campaign you don't get anything significant from it. I have never got enough to get territory or even their best ships. Why is it always so low even though you wipe them out!

[Nick Thomadis]

On 8/9/2022 at 6:38 AM, The PC Collector said:

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?

There is an initial weight offset taken from the hull. This hull, as other, has a frontal weight offset inherited by its unique shape. By adding more turrets, high turrets, casemate guns at the front, it increases the offset.
The weight offset is not fully centered in all hulls as it used to be in older patches. The whole system is much more detailed, so players must not insist on trying to make their ships unnaturally balanced. There is no ship with zero offset, zero pitch/roll in reality, so there is not in this game too.

[o Barão]

It seems there were some rebalances to the length barrel mechanic lately. I already looked careful, and I must admit I like a lot of the changes made. Many thanks, this was one feature that was upsetting me. Now feels good, with clear trade-offs by going one route or the other.

@Nick Thomadis

Is it possible to change the default barrel length number designation on the big gun calibers, to be more historical accurate? No need to be the exact numbers, but to feel more accurate.

 

Going to use the Yamato guns as an example.

SOURCE

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php

One good thing when applying the same gun caliber and gun barrel length, with veteran crews, Auto reloading II, we can get a time to reload very close to what was possible IRL, however two things.

- The range drops from the historical 42 km to 24 km - 26 km (light / SH shells).

- The barrel 3D model looks small in comparison.

If we go with the standard length.

- The 3D models looks more close to what was implemented, but now the barrel length is incorrect. 46.1cm/56  when the 3D model in this example should be closer to the 46.1cm/45

- The range is closer to what was possible, but now the reload is higher if we compare the barrel length 3D model to the real gun.

 

The American 16-inch guns

- The reload is ok

- However, the range drops to 28 km from the historical 38 km.

- And the barrel 3D model looks small.

SOURCE

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

 

It seems to be an issue with the default barrel length 3D model in game. With big guns in late years, the default barrel length is always xx/56 or xx/55 when it should be xx/50 +/-, to be more accurate.

The solution seems to apply the range and accuracy values from the default xx/56 and the reload times from the xx/50  into the default gun barrel length 3D model to have a more accurate representation based on real data.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 minute ago, o Barão said:

It seems there were some rebalances to the length barrel mechanic lately. I already looked careful, and I must admit I like a lot of the changes made. Many thanks, this was one feature that was upsetting me. Now feels good, with clear trade-offs by going one route or the other.

@Nick Thomadis

Is it possible to change the default barrel length number designation on the big gun calibers, to be more historical accurate? No need to be the exact numbers, but to feel more accurate.

 

Going to use the Yamato guns as an example.

SOURCE

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_18-45_t94.php

One good thing when applying the same gun caliber and gun barrel length, with veteran crews, Auto reloading II, we can get a time to reload very close to what was possible IRL, however two things.

- The range drops from the historical 42 km to 24 km - 26 km (light / SH shells).

- The barrel 3D model looks small in comparison.

If we go with the standard length.

- The 3D models looks more close to what was implemented, but now the barrel length is incorrect. 46.1cm/56  when the 3D model in this example should be closer to the 46.1cm/45

- The range is closer to what was possible, but now the reload is higher if we compare the barrel length 3D model to the real gun.

 

The American 16-inch guns

- The reload is ok

- However, the range drops to 28 km from the historical 38 km.

- And the barrel 3D model looks small.

SOURCE

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

 

It seems to be an issue with the default barrel length 3D model in game. With big guns in late years, the default barrel length is always xx/56 or xx/55 when it should be xx/50 +/-, to be more accurate.

The solution seems to apply the range and accuracy values from the default xx/56 and the reload times from the xx/50  into the default gun barrel length 3D model to have a more accurate representation based on real data.

I realize what you mean. It can be checked for the next major update but it is something that can unbalance combat a lot, since the caliber indication is not just a nbr, it is something that affects a lot the ballistics of the game.
The next major update will have so many new features to work with, that this will be a very low priority, but it is kept in mind.

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I realize what you mean. It can be checked for the next major update but it is something that can unbalance combat a lot, since the caliber indication is not just a nbr, it is something that affects a lot the ballistics of the game.
The next major update will have so many new features to work with, that this will be a very low priority, but it is kept in mind.

Yes, I fully understand that messing with the guns tables values at this moment can be a nightmare with many variables being applied to the guns and to keep them balance in game. I am glad to know that you are aware of this situation and will look to improve in a future update.

 

Thanks!

[LeoA]

Yet another campaign in, though keep in mind I'm yet to download today's update. What I noticed:

 

The AI is considerably better at staying competitive production wise. They're not as bad as before. Ideal? Hardly, in a 1910 start Germany campaign I hit 'Very Advanced' by 1915. I have refrained from abusing the 'Focus Research' option and I still insist it is absolutely broken. At least until the AI can use it, and use it well, it needs a massive nerf. Due to the changes regarding scrapping I don't see as many ancient ships around, though I do recall that, once in 1913, a 11k ton BB was sent against a 20k ton BB of mine. It was UK's, and UK had a better BB design by that time. The system was certainly a shift in the right direction, but it still needs some work.        

Despite the many changes in this regard nerfing ship costs/maintenance, I was still nowhere being close to having money issues. If maintenance is too high as some have reported, then maybe the neft should shift to income. I never felt constrained by lack of funds, not once, and so picking GDP options is always the way to go, which tends to snowball this problem further. In this particular campaign, the only fleet to have 100+ ships was UK's, and they, too, weren't constrained by lack of money. I think losing a modern (for any given time period) BB should be cause for concern because they should be expensive, maybe prohibitively so. This gives value to screening and smaller vessels able to down BBs for a fraction of their cost. Right now what constrains any warship, of any class, isn't price but displacement. I don't think anyone even thinks about cost anymore. If costs are somewhat realistic and maintenance is getting too high, I can only think that income is way too boosted for things to work as they should.

Also, some QoL changes would go a long way. Fixed taskforces, setting where a ship should be built before building it, and some others that have been already pointed out. I have suggested a truce mechanic before and I will do so again, since wars are too frequent and meaningless. In battle, a ship's name should probably be accompanied by its class somewhere in the HUD. Maybe right alongside the name, maybe under it, maybe elsewhere. But somewhere. 

[imp44791]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

• Fixed "saved" battles bug, which caused ammo values to be corrupted if you loaded the same battle more than one time.

Thank you! It's gratifying to see that bug reports get noticed and acted on.

[Panzergraf]

I haven't checked if it's still possible in 1.08.9, but in .8 it was possible to refit ships while at sea, and the refit would be instantly applied the next turn, even if the same refit would take several months to be completed on a ship of the same class in port. I did send a bug report a few days ago.


The cost per month of a ship refitting at sea would also be mere pocket change, compared to even regular maintenance on a ship in-being in port. Like a BB costing me $10m just to sit in port would cost maybe $100k while refitting at sea, something I only noticed after sending in the bug report.

I tried not to exploit this too much, but it's definitely exploitable. Peace time budget making it hard for you to keep the fleet in service? Just send all ships to sea and apply some minor refits every month.

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is an initial weight offset taken from the hull. This hull, as other, has a frontal weight offset inherited by its unique shape. By adding more turrets, high turrets, casemate guns at the front, it increases the offset.
The weight offset is not fully centered in all hulls as it used to be in older patches. The whole system is much more detailed, so players must not insist on trying to make their ships unnaturally balanced. There is no ship with zero offset, zero pitch/roll in reality, so there is not in this game too.

I do understand that no pefectly balanced ship exists. But you haven't really answered to my question: How a ship which has more than half of the added weight behind the center of the hull, as it is clearly shown on the diagram, can possibly have a 52% fore weight offset?

5 main turrets, 3 of them behind the centreline. More than half of the citadel behind of the centreline. More than half of the engine room behind the centreline. More than half of the sec guns behind the centreline. If with all that, it still has a 52% of fore offset, the bare hull would simply capsize. That's simply impossible.

Besides, I went to that hull. It has a base 0% offset when bare. How can possibly mostly adding weight to the rear give such a massive fore weight offset?

[Fangoriously]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Please send, yes, but better you try on a new campaign, if possible, as old campaigns may get bugs from an update which altered colliders, weights etc.

War ended before I could see it again in action, but I was able to claim it as a prize and examine it here in the ship builder.

sent a bug report from this screen here. looks like it was refit to look like this, with the (1941) in the name.

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is an initial weight offset taken from the hull. This hull, as other, has a frontal weight offset inherited by its unique shape. By adding more turrets, high turrets, casemate guns at the front, it increases the offset.
The weight offset is not fully centered in all hulls as it used to be in older patches. The whole system is much more detailed, so players must not insist on trying to make their ships unnaturally balanced. There is no ship with zero offset, zero pitch/roll in reality, so there is not in this game too.

On hulls like that, and most of the late french hulls, if some kind of slider could be added that could stretch or shrink the length of the tallest deck, that would help tremendously in building functional, balanced and historical looking ships. it can be very difficult to make a decent design on any hull that isn't entirely flat.

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I realize what you mean. It can be checked for the next major update but it is something that can unbalance combat a lot, since the caliber indication is not just a nbr, it is something that affects a lot the ballistics of the game.
The next major update will have so many new features to work with, that this will be a very low priority, but it is kept in mind.

If you guys do anything with gun turrets for the next branch, please make turret models with less that 3 barrels more narrow.

[alanschu]

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I do understand that no pefectly balanced ship exists. But you haven't really answered to my question: How a ship which has more than half of the added weight behind the center of the hull, as it is clearly shown on the diagram, can possibly have a 52% fore weight offset?

5 main turrets, 3 of them behind the centreline. More than half of the citadel behind of the centreline. More than half of the engine room behind the centreline. More than half of the sec guns behind the centreline. If with all that, it still has a 52% of fore offset, the bare hull would simply capsize. That's simply impossible.

Besides, I went to that hull. It has a base 0% offset when bare. How can possibly mostly adding weight to the rear give such a massive fore weight offset?

I did some experimenting with the Dreadnought III hull to see if I could figure some stuff out. I roughly got your ship though it's twin 14" guns, but I can replicate the extreme weight shift.

First off, the "centerline" for the hull seems to be roughly where this red line is, based on not getting any weight shift if I add a casemate right there. So off the cuff with the engine being parity, the funnel a bit forward, a very heavy front tower structure and the forward turrets being further, I have a bit of a front shift which is maybe high, but doesn't strike me (a pleb who knows little) as overly offensive.

The drama happens when I add casemates/secondaries. Adding one 5" casemate to the front most mount has added about 70 tons to the ship, but has significantly altered the weight offset much more than I would expect. It's like adding the casemate has caused the ship trim to be heavily shifted! I suspect that there is something wonky happening with how weight gets distributed in some cases. Not sure if it's for all hull types or just this one, but something to keep in mine when building (preliminary tests on other dreadnoughts does make it seem like small weaponry still significantly impacts the weight offsets, especially the smaller ones)

Unsurprisingly with most of the casemates forward facing, it gets heavily emphasized if I fill out the casemates. 5" Casemates wholly unbalancing the ship and give me 60% fore weight offset!

Adding a single 2 ton 2" gun at the front part of the ship can shift the weight offset by 5% even on an empty hull. Adding a 250 ton 8" triple turret in the same spot puts my offset to 16.6%. 2 tons is .01% of the weight so I think the effects are a bit exaggerated for secondary guns at this point.

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by alanschu

[lordcmdr]

4 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I do understand that no pefectly balanced ship exists. But you haven't really answered to my question: How a ship which has more than half of the added weight behind the center of the hull, as it is clearly shown on the diagram, can possibly have a 52% fore weight offset?

5 main turrets, 3 of them behind the centreline. More than half of the citadel behind of the centreline. More than half of the engine room behind the centreline. More than half of the sec guns behind the centreline. If with all that, it still has a 52% of fore offset, the bare hull would simply capsize. That's simply impossible.

Besides, I went to that hull. It has a base 0% offset when bare. How can possibly mostly adding weight to the rear give such a massive fore weight offset?

Try taking off the frontal casemate guns.

[UncleAi]

A. Flat deck

B. Forecastle

C. Long Forecastle

D. Bridge 

E. Long Bridge 

F. Aftercastle

G. Forecastle and Aftercastle

"Long" means the part is longer than 1/3 of the total length.

Forecastle is designed to reduce deck wetness and gain extra room. 

The 52% offset is still ridiculous. Long Forecastle is a widely used hull type. And in real world those warships are not such an unstable platform.

[IshPR7777]

7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I realize what you mean. It can be checked for the next major update but it is something that can unbalance combat a lot, since the caliber indication is not just a nbr, it is something that affects a lot the ballistics of the game.
The next major update will have so many new features to work with, that this will be a very low priority, but it is kept in mind.

And don't forget the historical caliber indication about Bismarck's 15 inch guns which is 52 caliber

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, lordcmdr said:

Try taking off the frontal casemate guns.

If a measly 100/200t, which is not even a 1% of the whole displacement, can give such a massive weight offset, then it won't disprove my point, but further prove it: There is something messed up with that hull, or with the way the gam calculates the mass center. Or both.

[Skeksis]

On 8/10/2022 at 6:38 AM, Skeksis said:

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. 

Following up...

February Screenshot shows 5 taskforces deployed...

Next, March shows a newly created taskforce number 6, I'm sending ships to reinforce the English Channel taskforce. Also war against France has just been declared...

Now April the battle generator has generated a battle against a newly created taskforce, number 6. All other taskforces have been ignored. The English Channel taskforce should have had a battle generated against it first, it has a denial zone...

This...

'Denial Zones' should have applied for the English Channel taskforce and anything in the North Sea before number 6 taskforce.

Battle generator isn't accounting for older taskforces. Those taskforces should be pulling ships out of those ports regardless of there condition or assigned modes or at very least engaging any new enemy taskforces.

'Denial Zones' haven't worked since 1.06.3.

Oh and why hasn't Britain been blockaded yet. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Skeksis

[Fangoriously]

2 hours ago, UncleAi said:

A. Flat deck

B. Forecastle

C. Long Forecastle

D. Bridge 

E. Long Bridge 

F. Aftercastle

G. Forecastle and Aftercastle

"Long" means the part is longer than 1/3 of the total length.

Forecastle is designed to reduce deck wetness and gain extra room. 

The 52% offset is still ridiculous. Long Forecastle is a widely used hull type. And in real world those warships are not such an unstable platform.

Forecastle, etc, that's the word I was looking for. Yes every hull that isn't flat, if we could have some kind of slider or something to lengthen or shorten these, we could fix all the weight offset imbalance issues when trying to make designs on these hulls.

[UnleashtheKraken]

On 7/6/2022 at 6:09 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Definite fix of turret rotation bugs. Now the turrets will not fire at impossible angles and will follow the ship listing left or right. If the turrets are not able to fire due to horizontal/vertical angle then this will appear on the respective gun info.

Bravo for this.

[kineuhansen]

2 damns thing they need to fix for 1.09 is the freeking slow campaign loading times been stuck on february 1906 for 10 mins and the other damn thing yoy need to fix is next turn freeze those 2 thing make the campaign unwanted

[Vinrellren]

Winning a war and gaining the war reparation seems not worth the effort at all, 30k VP difference but only gain around 200 million, especially against a country that has no provinces to take like AH.

In total, 200 million is far lower than how much my monthly balance builds up during the duration of the war (in some cases it could reach around 200 million per month during my only BB playthrough). 

I could take their ships as my war prize but although they do have a pretty good ships, most of them do not fit my doctrine/tactics and quite useless against my ships.

Blockade also seems useless, I blockaded Italy for a year and sunk more than 10 of their transport each month but their GDP still has a comfortable growth like any other nations. It started to take effect around year 2 or year 3 but by that time Italian navy are practically gone and there is no reason for me to stay at war with them.

[Nick Thomadis]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Following up...

February Screenshot shows 5 taskforces deployed...

Next, March shows a newly created taskforce number 6, I'm sending ships to reinforce the English Channel taskforce. Also war against France has just been declared...

Now April the battle generator has generated a battle against a newly created taskforce, number 6. All other taskforces have been ignored. The English Channel taskforce should have had a battle generated against it first, it has a denial zone...

This...

'Denial Zones' should have applied for the English Channel taskforce and anything in the North Sea before number 6 taskforce.

Battle generator isn't accounting for older taskforces. Those taskforces should be pulling ships out of those ports regardless of there condition or assigned modes or at very least engaging any new enemy taskforces.

'Denial Zones' haven't worked since 1.06.3.

Oh and why hasn't Britain been blockaded yet. 

In order to have a blockade you must block all home ports. Britain has ports in the Irish Sea, English Channel and the North Sea. Task Force battles, arguably, happen very frequently and promptly in 99% of occasions (compared to what we had before several patches). Any remaining issues will be fixed in the new map with the updated nav mesh.

11 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I do understand that no pefectly balanced ship exists. But you haven't really answered to my question: How a ship which has more than half of the added weight behind the center of the hull, as it is clearly shown on the diagram, can possibly have a 52% fore weight offset?

5 main turrets, 3 of them behind the centreline. More than half of the citadel behind of the centreline. More than half of the engine room behind the centreline. More than half of the sec guns behind the centreline. If with all that, it still has a 52% of fore offset, the bare hull would simply capsize. That's simply impossible.

Besides, I went to that hull. It has a base 0% offset when bare. How can possibly mostly adding weight to the rear give such a massive fore weight offset?

The difference of weight offset is measured when we add parts on the hull or armor or anything extra on the ship. So the inherited tendency to have a different weight offset fore or aft will show up only in practice, after using the hull.

Try to remove frontal bow armor, or armor the aft section more, use your extra displacement fully, add weight to the hull on the center in engine, there are ways to balance further, but in some hulls, you cannot do more that you would desire. We cannot expect zeroing everything.

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We cannot expect zeroing everything.

I don't expect zeroing anything. I just expect the game physics work like they should. I have managed to do reasonably balanced ships with that hull. You're getting to the specific case, instead of getting the big picture of my point. Maybe I haven't explained myself properly, so I will try once more.

Forget the specific case, forget the specific hull. The main issue is that there a lot of hulls (that one is not the only one) which no matter how much weight you try to add to the rear part, they still give you fore weight offset, which is absurd, and shows that there is something messed up with the way the game calculates the mass center for those hulls. And that's what you should look up, since there has been a lot of hulls with similar problems reported. Only from memory, and on my current campaign (germany) I can recall Battleship I, Battleship 2, Large armoured Cruiser, and at least one or two of the first BC hulls.

In case I haven't been clear enough this time, stop trying to fix the specific ship I showed. She's not the real problem. I was only using her as an extreme example of what the problem is.

Edited August 11, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Eirchirfir]

So I was playing a German 1920 campaign and I came arcoss this british heavy cruiser:

Is that a 15,7cm(6.2inch) casemate on a heavy cruiser. The main gun on the ship is 16,7cm (6,6inch) so it can not be a single main gun as it too whould be a 16,7cm (6,6inch) gun. The only thing now is to make sure the a casemate can be put in that locaktion of the ship which is hard to tell from this image as that part is under water.

Was able to get this image before the screen tored to black after winning the battle. In this image is is clear to see the 15,7cm(6,2inch) guns are casemate mounted in the front of the hull. I whent into the custom battle to check which hull where used to make this heavy cruiser.

The hull used to make the heavy cruiser with the casemate is armoured cruiser hull IV and it do have a point were it could mount a casemate in the front of the ship. Could not use a 15,2cm(6inch) casemate to show as casemate main guns does not exist in the current version of the game. How the AI was able to mount a main gun case mate is unknown. I am going to try to get a hold of one of this heavy cruiser in a peace deal if any of the heavy cruisers survive the war.

[Urst]

2 hours ago, Eirchirfir said:

So I was playing a German 1920 campaign and I came arcoss this british heavy cruiser:

Is that a 15,7cm(6.2inch) casemate on a heavy cruiser. The main gun on the ship is 16,7cm (6,6inch) so it can not be a single main gun as it too whould be a 16,7cm (6,6inch) gun. The only thing now is to make sure the a casemate can be put in that locaktion of the ship which is hard to tell from this image as that part is under water.

Was able to get this image before the screen tored to black after winning the battle. In this image is is clear to see the 15,7cm(6,2inch) guns are casemate mounted in the front of the hull. I whent into the custom battle to check which hull where used to make this heavy cruiser.

The hull used to make the heavy cruiser with the casemate is armoured cruiser hull IV and it do have a point were it could mount a casemate in the front of the ship. Could not use a 15,2cm(6inch) casemate to show as casemate main guns does not exist in the current version of the game. How the AI was able to mount a main gun case mate is unknown. I am going to try to get a hold of one of this heavy cruiser in a peace deal if any of the heavy cruisers survive the war.

We should be able to put 6" guns there. I want to make USS St. Louis (though she's a protected/heavy cruiser, you still can't put 6" guns into the casemates of any American heavy cruiser hulls in 1900 in the game).