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

[The PC Collector]

Seeing the promising changelog and the long campaing, I've played a game for the first time in months, and I have to say that I'm sorely disappointed. The only thing which right now matters something is the "crew" slider. No matter how good your ships are nor how many you have. If your crew aren't veterans you're going to lose. And the AI ALWAYS has veterans no matter what.

However other than problem that should be adressed ASAP, the direction the development is going looks promining.

[o Barão]

13 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

If your crew aren't veterans you're going to lose.

What? No.

The recent updates by the devs made the AI more capable in battle, and this is great. But to say you are going to lose just because you don't have veterans crews is completely wrong. You can still design better ships or use superior tactics to overcome the enemy.

[The PC Collector]

34 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You can still design better ships or use superior tactics to overcome the enemy.

While I don't doubt it, that's not the impression I've gotten. Even using all of my skill, and having 3 times as many ships in certain engagements, I have still lost, mainly because of them having veteran crews which completely obiterated my ships at an impossible to survive pace.

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, The PC Collector said:

While I don't doubt it, that's not the impression I've gotten. Even using all of my skill, and having 3 times as many ships in certain engagements, I have still lost, mainly because of them having veteran crews which completely obiterated my ships at an impossible to survive pace.

Quick test.

3 vs 2

I let the AI design the ship, and I simply added veteran crews.

In this example is a good example why having unrealistic info about the enemy makes everything easier for the player. Auto targeting want to focus on the nearest target, but I know all the main guns are disabled.

Also, every time I lose the target solution, I would simply click again in a target. The player have access to many tools and exploits to beat the AI.

My two BBs with regular crews.

A win. More difficult if comparing to the game a few months ago? Yes of course. Is this is a bad thing? No!! It is great to have a challenge. Make everything more interesting.

[Norbert Sattler]

In regards to the inability to cause tension, why not rework the tension caused by task force stances a bit?

Right now according to the tooltip Sea Control causes "maximum tension in peacetimes"... except it doesn't really.

My suggestion is as follows:

Invasion causes significant tension to all nations in that sea zone, regardless of current relationship
Sea Control causes a middling amount of tension, reactive to current relationship values (so basically like it is right now)
Protection causes little or maybe even no tension.

Whether alliance members should be completely exempt from this is actually good question... on one hand I want a way to piss of Austria-Hungary without pissing off Italy - which is rather difficult considering that Austria's sole sea-zone also borders Italy - but at the same time I want a way to break an alliance intentionally in some way, rather than being stuck until for some arcane reason the alliance dissovles itself without you being told it happened or why.
 

[Norbert Sattler]

Seems like the issues with the battleship unlock progression of Austria-Hungary has been solved (at least up to Dreadnought 3, I haven't gotten to Dread 4 and beyond yet).

Though there is one thing that buggs me: Austria Hungary can only get a single pre-dreadnought hull with up to 11.500 tons maximum displacement. But the historical Radetzky class had 14500 empty and 15800 tonns displacement when fully loaded.

I would appreciate it if Austria-Hungary got a Battleship 2 hull inserted that allows for a 16000ish tonns pre-dreadnought to re-create the Radetzky. Even if it's not the actual Radetzky hull, at least give us something in the weight-class please.

[The PC Collector]

12 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Though there is one thing that buggs me: Austria Hungary can only get a single pre-dreadnought hull with up to 11.500 tons maximum displacement. But the historical Radetzky class had 14500 empty and 15800 tonns displacement when fully loaded.

That might have something to do with the fact that the Radetzky wasn't exactly a Pre-Dreadnough, but a "semi-dreadnought": It had a dreadnought hull, and the speed of a dreadnought, as it was supposed to be similar to the Nassau/Helgoland classes. But at the moment, A-H couldn build ships as big as the Helgoland, and to save weight the all big, multi caliber main battery was used instead of a single caliber one.

[The PC Collector]

Say what you want, @o Barão. Please explain to me how do you counter the fact that the enemy is landin 4 to 5 times more shots than I do through tactics.

[The PC Collector]

The bug of me being able to control ships that have been transferred to the enemy as war reparations is still present.

[o Barão]

38 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Say what you want, @o Barão. Please explain to me how do you counter the fact that the enemy is landin 4 to 5 times more shots than I do through tactics.

That is more related to the quality in your ship designs and not so much with tactics.

 

Tactics:

- Sail in a straight line for the most part.

- If turning, do long and gentle turns to not lose the target solution. Rudder slider is good for this.

- Cruise speed.

 

Design:

- Hull with the best stability value.

- Maximum beam. Minimum draught.

- Long barrels.

- Good range finder component, if possible also radar.

- Cordite I or other propellant that increase the range. (more range, better the accuracy)

- Minimum weight offset.

- Low pitch and roll values.

- The bigger the hull, the more stable it is.

- 12-inch guns are the most accurate guns.

- Super heavy shells.

- Low smoke interference.

- Best tower.

Same image to show that my ships with regular crews had better accuracy values in comparison with the AI veterans crews. And this was with 10% barrel increase, not 20%.

Update: going to add the exploit line.

- If losing the target solution to the target, simply click again. You will only lose one salvo to acquire the solution again.

Edited July 8, 2022 by o Barão

[Plazma]

11 hours ago, Littorio said:

Formations are still garbage and collision avoidance makes things worse, because ships do full 180s and then run parallel to each other far, far out of formation and away from the fleet. The stupid "cloudy fog" that in no way models the supposed conditions on the field makes it annoying to try and see your forces and how close they are, and only exists in-game to give cover to their nonsensical "fog of war" which is not real fog as discussed ad infinitum. We need real weather visually modeled.

Yes, with big battles vs doomstack first what I do is disable collision and formations next I try directly control +15 ships... as soon as I have possible to end the battle I do it. 

 

11 hours ago, Littorio said:

All this, I and others have stated countless times. Besides the obvious need for a spotting overhaul, the UI/UX is just horrid. It's depressing trying to build ships and being unable to compare designs side-by-side. It is a pain to switch behind 2 different classes 100x trying to compare stats and weights. It is idiotic to have to build ships to ancient designs only to refit them.

One of small features what we ask and nothing. With better address torpedo visibility for player after like month+ we don't have any promise to address these 2 issue. This don't change gameplay, this doesn't change mechanic, this only change player game experience, because right now players must remember the layout of ship or pay extra for refit ship and remember where the torps are going, sometimes even waiting for torps in x1 time speed. Because of that some battles in real live need 1h of playing or more. If you find a doomstack with torpedo spam you have 3 options:

-spend half day to fight this nightmare

-auto-resolve the battle

-yolo and lost most of the ships

4 hours ago, VanillaBryce said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again - many light ships are currently way, way, waaaay too tanky.

I found if you make beam and draught max +10% +16,5% the ship get a lot of "hp"(from my point of view like 50% more damage can take) but they are much bigger target. Also even if you hit DD with 12" gun in broken component (red) not too much happens like -1/2% of structure, but if you hit 2" gun in the healthy funnel is like -10% structure. 

For me not urgent and easy to fix problem. Can wait...

 

4 hours ago, VanillaBryce said:

I'd also like to add that the 8" guns the enemy fleet was using were somehow ridiculously accurate for 1910. They often had more than 40% chance to hit at 5-7 km range, while my own 11 inch guns had closer to a 7% chance to hit... Supposedly the 11 inch were supposed to be far more accurate...

8" are broken man. Right now 8" gun have this same accuracy like 12" and after that we have nothing after that we have 16,15,14,13,11,10,9,17,18,19,20,6,7,5,4,2,3 guns... (or something like that.) I want only mention that 2" and 4" are one of the best, because they are light and very accuracy on short distance and fast. 5" 6" are much heavier than 4" and need a little better technology to shoot and aim in nice time, but probably 1910 are enough for these gun to use. 

If you make 8" gun long and 8.9" you will get sniper rifle what can hit anything on any range. Try it

This need a fix ASAP.

50 minutes ago, o Barão said:

- Cruise speed.

- Maximum beam. Minimum draught.

- 12-inch guns are the most accurate guns.

 

Somehow I tested few things and Cruise speed is good for CA, BC, BB and for ships what are not a target.

I am not big fun of max beam, the cost increasing a lot, range decreasing and you need bigger engine etc. With minimum draught your ship is very vulnerable for torps and have a less "hp". So for me that depends. 

12.9 guns are the most accurate guns with support of 8.9" and 4.9" are good something between 8-2 and also 2.9" are deadly compared to the cost/mass. Sometimes (1890-1900) I prefer 8.9 because for me 12.9 are too slow, too heavy for early ships. 

 

[o Barão]

9 minutes ago, Plazma said:

 I am not big fun of max beam, the cost increasing a lot, range decreasing and you need bigger engine etc. With minimum draught your ship is very vulnerable for torps and have a less "hp". So for me that depends.

100% correct.

[Norbert Sattler]

Still max beam can come with a good reduction of pitch and roll depending on the hull. And some hulls desperately need every bit of reduced pitch and/or roll they can get, unless you want to make a very underarmed block of solid armour.

[Vanhal]

For a change some positive feedback: so far, the battle matchmaker seems to be best ever, i'm getting quite a lot of fun skirmishes, with occasional major battle. No 1 vs 20 nonsense. Good job!

Edited July 8, 2022 by Vanhal

[mikekervin]

I observe frequently the second ship in a formation is unable to reduce speed to match the lead ship, leading to the formation becoming uncontrollable - I see both ramming and wild oscillations occur.

I think this is related to how the speed penalty for turning is applied. I notice this frequently with fast ships using unbalanced rudder.

[mikekervin]

I played with it some more, it looks like the second ship will lose distance from the first when making sharp manuevars. Then it increases it's speed to catch up to the formation, but doesn't cut the engines in time for how long it takes to decelerate.

[mikekervin]

When you have an encounter between large fleets the spotting mechanism doesn't provide enough information. For example saying "smoke spotted to the south". South of which ship? I assume the flagship, but it's not always in the position where it would have been the one to spot it.

The spotters will also keep reporting the position of sinking ships instead of the fleeing ones.

[mikekervin]

Ships in the ionian sea are still not counted for tension or power projection

[Rucki]

I reported it multiple times in 1.06 beta patch and was told multiple times that its fixed...

Bug Report from a 1910 campaign war:

My BC Kaiserin Elisabeth shoots CA Taurea with 330mm AP and hits the Fore Belt Deck (must be a very shallow angle at this distance, basically impossible for how I do undersand ballistics), but does a full deck penetration.

My guns Deck penetration with AP is between 90mm and 132mm at this distance (keep in mind that this would also only be true at a perfect angle).

The CA Taureaus Fore Deck armor is 586mm strong !

 

 

I will make a second post, righter after this post to upload the other 2 screenshots, because its not allowed to upload more than 4mb per post.

Edit: Somehow I could not upload the pictures even on a second post, so I uploaded them somewhere else:

 

The CA armor values:

 

 

The 330mm guns penetrations values:

 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Rucki

[Norbert Sattler]

I like that the port capacity grows at something more than the pace of an inebriated snail now, but I think you overdid it a little.

I just saw a French port with over a million capacity in 1929...

[mikekervin]

Relationship penalties seem not to be applied from either fleets or events when the relationship value is above a certain level.

[ZorinW]

The single most annoying thing during a campaign is the absolute boatload of stupid X vs 1 DD/TB battles. Especially so, cause the auto resolve doesn't work AT ALL. No matter if I control my ships or leave them on AI, I will always win against the AI, but the auto resolve will most of the time be in favour of the AI, which is utter BS.

[jtjohn1]

The build ships lock up is a lot better.  BUT  I am seeing a lot more "Mission Updates" locking up than during Beta.

 

I get many doom stacks (I play Germany 1920 usually) where it lags like 15FPS.  Since I don't take in smaller ships that require a lot of control (8 BBs vs 135 DDs/CLs 15 CAs and 3 BBs FTW!!.  Can you say TACTICS!!  Keep away from them and strafe them down to size!!) but it's still playable.  Just can't do as much fine tune control.

I have been at war with multiple nations

I have had many many battles

I haven't locked up coming out of the ship designer

It does get laggy the longer you have been running the game.

[Nick Thomadis]

4 hours ago, Rucki said:

I reported it multiple times in 1.06 beta patch and was told multiple times that its fixed...

Bug Report from a 1910 campaign war:

My BC Kaiserin Elisabeth shoots CA Taurea with 330mm AP and hits the Fore Belt Deck (must be a very shallow angle at this distance, basically impossible for how I do undersand ballistics), but does a full deck penetration.

My guns Deck penetration with AP is between 90mm and 132mm at this distance (keep in mind that this would also only be true at a perfect angle).

The CA Taureaus Fore Deck armor is 586mm strong !

 

 

I will make a second post, righter after this post to upload the other 2 screenshots, because its not allowed to upload more than 4mb per post.

Edit: Somehow I could not upload the pictures even on a second post, so I uploaded them somewhere else:

 

The CA armor values:

 

 

The 330mm guns penetrations values:

 

One personal thing from my side:

I have no problem if bug fixing takes a long time ( although the ballistics worked before 1.06 )
But please dont write anymore in the patch logs that the ballistics "got improved" or "fixed" if the described bugs are cleary not (and Im posting basically all the time exactly the same bug, with clear screenshots and text what happend, just look in my post history).

Writing these bug reports, uploading all screenshots takes a lot of time and everytime the devs are posting that "it got improved or fixed" I make a new test campaign just to write basically the exact same bug report as 5 times before.......

Noting down to check it, thank you.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,
A new hotfix has become available. We are aware of some bugs you report to us regarding alliances. We will fix them on the next week.

*v1.08 Hotfix*
- Fixed issue with war reparations that made the old owner of a province to still use its ports.
- Fixed a memory allocation problem when exiting the Ship Design in campaign (might significantly reduce the chance of a crash).
- Task Force adjustments (Merging/Engage Distances improved).
- Fleet withdraw chance relation from speed intensified.
- Task Forces in defense now always have a “Withdraw” ability (except in Port Strike battles).
- Increased the ship maintenance by +30%, to balance out the potential size of fleets.
- Increased slightly the exponential engine weight according to speed to disallow unrealistic speed abuse in old hulls.
- Some propellant availability adjustments to have less obsolete propellants in a specific time period
- Dual Secondary guns for capital ships / Secondary guns for cruisers can be researched sooner.

Note: It is advised to start a new campaign because multiple things can break, saved ships can become overweight and their refit can take longer, making turns to lag.

Have a good weekend!
The Game-Labs Team