>>> Beta 1.09 Feedback (Released)<<<

[Nagato]

On 10/21/2022 at 12:29 PM, o Barão said:

You already have that option in game.

No you dont. There is scenarios, battles that you cant decline. You can of course go auto but then risking to lose some ships. But you cant actually decline the battle.

[havaduck]

1 hour ago, aradragoon said:

This has been discussed to quite a lot in multiple posts and feedback. IIRC there are 3 diameters that give these results with 8in being one of them. I can't speak to why but it is already well known. Not sure if/when it will be addressed but as it really falls under balance it doesn't bother me if they finish adding features first.

 

Doesnt matter, its still not fixed. If its not brought up constantly we will get a barnacles-on-hull-mechanic before the magical guns are touched. Same with the AI.

 

Speaking of which. Started a new campagin as IJN in 1890. Took me 4 years till a war boke out (*yawn*) an then this on the very first battle:

 

AI ONCE AGAIN tunred around and ran from the beginning of the battle. They had Battleships ffs! Battleships against cruisers, and the AI chose to run, scared shittless.

 

I'd like to inquire which part of the AI actually need public testing if its version 6 and still on the first battle, massivly in their favour, the AI isnt willing to fight.  So again, Campaign unplayable, AI doesnt want to fight, wasted a couple of houres.

 

Just to reiterate: This didnt want to fight this? I am still not over the fact.

 

I probably could have catched them with the ships on AI but I was concerned  instead of driving to meet the foe, MY ships under AI would try to run. When I did it it was probably to late. That brings me to the fact that features that have actually asked for are still NOT in the game.

- Like to be able to see the smoke-plumes in the skybox.

- Or a button that just send your ships in the direction of enemy ships.

- Or you know a compas with 360 ° and then being told enemy smoke in 260-275 ° because sailors actually knew more than 8 directions even by medieval times with their compasses.

 

.......... but all this doesnt matter. Lets say I would catch them. Do I really want to "enjoy" all 4 ships perpetually asskiting me for enternity?

 

 

[Cobrakhan]

Anyone else having trouble causing any tension after update 6?  I started Germany 1890 and it's now August 1905.  As seen in the Politics SS, I've almost got USA to a negative value.  I have tried 30 BB death stack in Western Med to it have 0 affect for Spain, France, Italy, or UK.  I've spread 5 BBs to each sea zone on the map with the same results.

It seems that fleet tension isn't working.  Also, it would appear that there needs to be more options for damaging relations.

I started in 1890 to start with the early rubbish to be able to try to fight with it, research better stuff, and upgrade.  Currently have built 3 navies, just to scrap the 2 obsolete ones without firing a shot.

[mikekervin]

Feature request: gefechtskehrtwendung maneuver

Perhaps it would need to be researched in tactics first

[Lima]

Okay, this is a serious problem. After a long battle, all my ships have a frozen front turret.

[RosaAffe]

Got a critical Bug with my update 6 US campaign, where the Game becomes inresponsive on the "...update missions..." after clicking next turn, tried to delete, settings.json, still the save is lost.

[kjg000]

6 hours ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Feature request: Attacking undefended ports.

I think there should be a way to attack prots that are completely undefended. I had a "war" with Russia where all their ships were occupied by other enemies in the pacific and thus they had nothing in the baltic and black sea, safe for a single CA.

So I sent two task forces into the black sea and one into the baltic and nothing happened. I didn't sink any transports, naturally there weren't any battles against enemy fleets, since the their sole ship refused to sail out and so the "war" went on without a single event and Russia getting 250 VP every round until I lost.
Naturally I couldn't blockade them from just sieging their European posessions and the Pacific was just too far away.

Sorry for the strong language but that is total bullshit. If they have no defenders, why aren't my ships bombarding their ports or sinking transports? And why does Russia get 250 VP per month for doing absolutely nothing

So please add some way to attack ports even when there are no defending ships and remove this free VP gain mechanic. It's just way too frustrating. Even when it works in my favour and I am the one to get the free VP it's just frustrating that I win the war by doing absolutely nothing, rather than through my own actions.

(Talking about unoccupied ports not being available for attack) This is partly because the game is missing shore batteries and air power.

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

Oh, really? Well if that is the case the AI should do the same thing against you.

Imagine having your entire fleet in stationed in ports in fear of going out just for the AI to go and cause havoc to your ports. Not so fun anymore, right? Careful with things you wish for, they can come and bite you in the ...

 

And since the players usually build fewer but expensive ships in comparison with the AI will be very interesting to see you trying to defend all your ports. Would be the AI paradise situation. Congratulations, a great idea to make the AI more deadly in game.

Er, grater realism?

Yes it would need to be balanced but it would go some way to reducing the over-abundance of small vessels in death-stacks. Someone pointed out a while ago (sorry, don't remember when, about 1.06 I think) that the ratio of ships in death-stacks was about correct for the ratio of ships in (I think) the U.S. Navy circa 1940 (?) and others have mentioned than commanders would scrape up every available vessel for a major battle. Well, respectively, yes and no. Most vessels would have other duties such as port security, administrative functions etcetera, so only a subset would actually be available for battle.  This would go some way to replicating that.

Yes, we would have to learn to design cheap 'port defense' ships along with our 'fleet' ships, and/or relegate obsolescent ships to port defense after refitting to be cheaper. But, if balanced, this could enhance the game.

[kjg000]

Games-Labs:- Please stabilize the game before adding more features, even ones I, and others, have suggested and are eagerly waiting for.

[kjg000]

16 hours ago, Käptn_Flitschauge said:

The Greeks as well as Brazil/Argentinia/Chile would be nice too. But the bugs need to be dealt with first

scenarios such as 'South America' could make interesting campaign options.

[kjg000]

11 hours ago, mikekervin said:

As of update 6 I can confirm ships in a division can now adjust their speed properly to prevent a collision with the lead ship. However, they are still not capable of doing the most basic task of sailing in a straight line at divisional speed.

Unfortunately not. I had it happen less often, but it still happens. Also still getting ships 2 and 3 trying to turn into each other, presumably to regain position, resulting in them either sailing off into the never never or doing a suicide run into the enemy fleet.

[AdmiralKirk]

I played an American campaign up to the save reset, and I was really enjoying myself. Some of the issues I was having are things that have already been addressed/planned—resupply at allied ports, occupation of minor nations, turrets rotating into the superstructure. But for the US specifically, I was really missing appropriate hulls for flush-decked destroyers and standard-type battleships. Not sure what hulls you have planned to include in this update besides Maine, but I think those two things are really important to capturing the look of the early 20th century US Navy, and the standard type hulls would help a lot compared to the “South Carolina but bigger” options I had in this campaign.

[Max Sin]

Alas, the current version is UNPLAYABLE ! (for me)

I started once again with a new campaign, as always. Since 1892, no moves have been made. Completely freezes when "building ships". Restarting the game by killing the process (otherwise nothing) does not help, even several times. Previously, it was possible to move forward, now not.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Max Sin

[Abuse_Claws]

Great work on the update! The changes are really nice, however I ran into a few issues (don't know yet if they exist in 22.10 update, but the patch notes did not mention them.)

1) When in battle with low fuel (supply port waaaay too far), the max speed of ships changes depending on whether they are in a division or not
For example, a battlecruiser with normally 27.5kn max speed goes down to 18kn when alone and all the way to 8kn when in formation with 2 other battlecruisers (same class and also capable of doing 18kn when separated from the div)

2) AI seems to be *extremely* reluctant to scrap old ships. To the point where in 1926 I am the only nation with BCs (and without TBs) and haven't fought a single dreadnought-era ship (except maybe destroyers). According to the log, the AI designs new ships, builds them, discards old designs and yet only ships I actually encounter in battle are pre-dreadnoughts.

3) Even after the AI hoards 500+ ships, I can barely find any enemy ships on the map. And when I scroll the map searching for them, I find this (screenshot). And the rest of them in Balboa. All other US ports are virtually undefended (a stray destroyer here and there and that's it), there are very few US task forces on the map, all the US ships are just chilling in Panama for no apparent reason

PS: the campaign was played from 1890 all the way to 1926 before the saves got reset with the 22.10 update

Edited October 22, 2022 by Abuse_Claws

[Pappystein]

45 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

Unfortunately not. I had it happen less often, but it still happens. Also still getting ships 2 and 3 trying to turn into each other, presumably to regain position, resulting in them either sailing off into the never never or doing a suicide run into the enemy fleet.

I think you are mixing up two issues here.  Station keeping, and the Speed issue.   The speed issue, a specific issue in the general stationkeeping woes, was caused by the lead ship slowing down to follow new orders.  Other ships in formation wouldn't slow down as well and would ram the ship in front of them almost always.  THAT has been fixed.   Now the general station keeping AI is still in need of major TLC (as is the Scouting AI... never seen scouts ALWAYS behind the main force prior to this game )

 

AI Issues in order of severity (my opinion obviously)

Fear factor.   How quickly the Op4 tries to turn and run  Needs to be turned down signficantly

Scout Role:

•    Need to LEAD the fleet, not be behind it
•    On sighting of enemy, should turn and attempt to circle at max visual range the enemy target and on each new enemy sighting should alter course as needed to keep in sight but at max range.
• BOL launch torps even if near max range near 0% hit chance This should be a switchable option for the player and ON for the AI
• Should not attempt to close to best weapon range.    

Station Keeping.  

• Ships should individually follow "other ship avoidance"  Current this seems to only be enforced on the lead ship
• As needed squadrons should speed up or slow down to maintain position in regards to the Fleet flagship
• Screening forces should be AHEAD and to the sides of the Fleet Flagship not BEHIND and to the sides
• Only if there is one squadron screening a target should the squadron be split arround the target.   2 Squadrons would be "front arc, Rear arch"  Three would be Front Left Arc, Front Right Arc Rear Arc 4 would be the four quadrants etc...
• Units should not inter-mix with units of other friendly squadrons.  EG if two squadrons are screening the same target they should form up as a squadron on either side of the target... not each split apart and colliding with each other
• A station keeping "formation editor" would be a welcome inclusion but I fear we are too far down the pipe for that.   I really miss the Formation editor from Harpoon2&3 and Command

Ship Building:

AI needs to stop building pre-dreadnought ships after Dreadnoughts are unlocked  1x main caliber 2x secondary calibers max +1x Torpedo caliber if so fitted.   7.5" and up Need to be considered MAin gun calibers for BB/BC  7.4" and lower are 2ndary   (11-7 MAin for Heavy cruisers 6.9-1 Secondary)   7.9-4.0 main for Light Cruisers, 3.9 and under secondary... 

 

[Pappystein]

10 minutes ago, Max Sin said:

Alas, the current version is UNPLAYABLE ! (for me)

I started once again with a new campaign, as always. Since 1892, no moves have been made. Completely freezes when "building ships". Restarting the game by killing the process (otherwise nothing) does not help, even several times. Previously, it was possible to move forward, now not.

I have found shutting my computer off reduces the lock on Building ships.   IE I can get about 3 or 4 turns in before the lockup re-appears.   I am guessing there is something left in memory that isn't cleared out by default data trash cleaners?    But that is Just a guess.  

[Spitfire_97]

Wow, so umm... about those mines. Do the devs of this game understand what makes a game fun? Because the implementation of mines, aside from being completely opaque, buggy, unrealistic and overpowered, is just plain old fashioned boring. So you find out at the start of your turn that an arbitrary number of ships have taken an arbitrary percentage of damage? That's it? Absolutely no information on location of minefields, minesweeping progress, how to avoid them next turn etc, just a single notification that says "you have to turn your task force back now lololol". I genuinely couldn't think of a worse way to add a feature to the game. Zero player engagement, zero strategy, zero fun.

Man this game is a nightmare of the devs own making. Quantity of features over any semblance of quality. There needs to be a radical shift in the way this game if being developed, otherwise the end product is always going to be a cluster

[kjg000]

8 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I think you are mixing up two issues here.  Station keeping, and the Speed issue.   The speed issue, a specific issue in the general stationkeeping woes, was caused by the lead ship slowing down to follow new orders.  Other ships in formation wouldn't slow down as well and would ram the ship in front of them almost always.  THAT has been fixed.  

 

Improved, yes, fixed, no. I tend to emphasize speed and accuracy over armor and I am still finding the second ship, while not often hitting the first, comes close then swings wildly away and out of formation. typically for ships over about 30kts or so with standard spacing or tighter. I find loose spacing tends puts the last ship too far from the target and often too close to the enemy as it tries to keep formation.

13 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I have found shutting my computer off reduces the lock on Building ships.   IE I can get about 3 or 4 turns in before the lockup re-appears.   I am guessing there is something left in memory that isn't cleared out by default data trash cleaners?    But that is Just a guess.  

Hmm, looks like we need to go back to running performance diagnostics while playing again.

[kjg000]

8 minutes ago, Spitfire_97 said:

Wow, so umm... about those mines. Do the devs of this game understand what makes a game fun? Because the implementation of mines, aside from being completely opaque, buggy, unrealistic and overpowered, is just plain old fashioned boring. So you find out at the start of your turn that an arbitrary number of ships have taken an arbitrary percentage of damage? That's it? Absolutely no information on location of minefields, minesweeping progress, how to avoid them next turn etc, just a single notification that says "you have to turn your task force back now lololol". I genuinely couldn't think of a worse way to add a feature to the game. Zero player engagement, zero strategy, zero fun.

Man this game is a nightmare of the devs own making. Quantity of features over any semblance of quality. There needs to be a radical shift in the way this game if being developed, otherwise the end product is always going to be a cluster

This is one of the reasons I keep advocating for better explanations of events and a more strategic game. At the moment events and engagements seem largely random to me.

[Vanhal]

13 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

"PRE"Dreadnought lol

This do happen in the scenarios, when you choose the gun tech upgrade. Also some navies includin Russia have strange hull progression which add to wonkiness.

[Knobby]

Some feedback trying to play with USA 1900 start. 

It's pretty hard to get into a war with anybody. Using ships to raise tension with Spain in the Caribbean doesn't seem to work. Sending fleets to europe or asia means they are out of fuel when they arrive.

By always choosing max negative relation in random events I finally get a war with Russia in 1906.

Fuel is a major pain in the ass, so harsh it's actually mostly barring me from playing the game.

My designs have 3/4 range bar and I allied with Britain to have supply in Europe, max transport capacity. Even so I just can't fight a battle even right from the coast of portsmouth (my supply port) because my ships are limited to 6 knots.

In battle fuel consumption is also ridiculously high. My 13000+ range ship went from 69% fuel down to 39% in 20 minutes. Sure I was at full speed and not cruising speed but still, this is insane.

Already I'm too frustrated to keep playing USA. Maybe I will only play European nations, or not at all until this is brought into some kind of playability.
The whole fuel mechanism is just too untransparant and too much out of the players control to be anything but a barrier to actually playing the game. If patrolling around the main fleet costs fuel, then let me decide to do that or not. 

Please devs just copy rule the waves range mechanism, and have it be some kind of bonus to beneficial encounters, trade protection/raiding on the top end and don't let minimum range ships cross the pacific or atlantic at the bottom range.

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Knobby

[Lima]

44 minutes ago, Knobby said:

Some feedback trying to play with USA 1900 start. 

It's pretty hard to get into a war with anybody. Using ships to raise tension with Spain in the Caribbean doesn't seem to work. Sending fleets to europe or asia means they are out of fuel when they arrive.

By always choosing max negative relation in random events I finally get a war with Russia in 1906.

Fuel is a major pain in the ass, so harsh it's actually mostly barring me from playing the game.

My designs have 3/4 range bar and I allied with Britain to have supply in Europe, max transport capacity. Even so I just can't fight a battle even right from the coast of portsmouth (my supply port) because my ships are limited to 6 knots.

In battle fuel consumption is also ridiculously high. My 13000+ range ship went from 69% fuel down to 39% in 20 minutes. Sure I was at full speed and not cruising speed but still, this is insane.

Already I'm too frustrated to keep playing USA. Maybe I will only play European nations, or not at all until this is brought into some kind of playability.
The whole fuel mechanism is just too untransparant and too much out of the players control to be anything but a barrier to actually playing the game. If patrolling around the main fleet costs fuel, then let me decide to do that or not. 

Please devs just copy rule the waves range mechanism, and have it be some kind of bonus to beneficial encounters, trade protection/raiding on the top end and don't let minimum range ships cross the pacific or atlantic at the bottom range.

 

Yeah. The US campaign is so incredible frustrating. In fact, it is necessary to seize ports from Spain, but how to declare war on them with the help of this diplomacy?

[Max Sin]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I have found shutting my computer off reduces the lock on Building ships.   IE I can get about 3 or 4 turns in before the lockup re-appears.   I am guessing there is something left in memory that isn't cleared out by default data trash cleaners?    But that is Just a guess.  

Thanks ! This work !

[Ranggajati]

Hi, I've found a small issue with the latest beta release just now. There's a bug where the submarines I've renamed into other names revert back into their original names after i entered and exited the shipyard mode while designing new ships (e.g SS-11 renamed to USS Finback for example, then after i exit the shipyard it reverts back to SS-11). Might want to look at it. 

[mikekervin]

5 hours ago, kjg000 said:

Unfortunately not. I had it happen less often, but it still happens. Also still getting ships 2 and 3 trying to turn into each other, presumably to regain position, resulting in them either sailing off into the never never or doing a suicide run into the enemy fleet.

I mean they are reacting appropriately when on a collision course by changing their speed - previously they only adjusted course. However they still aren't able to follow divisional orders to maintain a course and speed.

[Cryadis]

5 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I have found shutting my computer off reduces the lock on Building ships.   IE I can get about 3 or 4 turns in before the lockup re-appears.   I am guessing there is something left in memory that isn't cleared out by default data trash cleaners?    But that is Just a guess.  

Personally this seems to be more a long round calculation less a lock of the turn. It depends on the system, i do have ocationally rounds that take rather long to calculate on that step, but it seems to pass in 30 to 60 seconds.

using a laptop with 32GB ram, i9 and a 3080 GTX though, but maybe useful for reference. If you wait long enough i suspect the round will pass.