>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Urst]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Things I hope will be fixed in the next patch...

Taskforces sitting for months not receiving missions even though sea area has enemies.

• AI or any nation should not be allowed to escape just because player/nation dominates a particular sea area.
• This includes taskforces travelling through occupied sea areas. E.g. I had a taskforce sitting in the Indian Ocean near the Gulf of Aden - i.e. blocking, multiple enemies pasted by monthly, I suspect they were looking up into the sky and enjoying the sunny weather, not a single battle for 24 months.
• Idle taskforces are detrimental to the game.

Submarine missions not listing.

Allied ports not refueling taskforces, and then, refuels 100% close to enemy's ports (refueling was working 1.09.0).

Multi-selecting submarines, to set port, isn’t working.

Arctic Ocean doesn’t add fleets into its info tab. And part of this is activating the Arctic into a warring sea area.

When starting new campaign, 1910+, America doesn’t have any foreign ports or control any provinces outside of its northern continent. America is alittle disadvantaged. 

America home sea areas never get any emeries dispatched to it.

• Or it’s very rare, after 11-year campaign, just one battle in the Gulf of Mexico (btw, that enemy never sailed over any oceans, battle just pop into existent all on its own).
• This includes centre Northern Atlantic (rarely) and the Northern Pacific (never).
• I suspect part of the issue (considering everything is still a WIP) is the AI is skimping on range to build cheaper ships. So not only battle generator issues but also AI design strategies are too problematic.
• With the larger oceans, maybe we need to split them up into more localized sea areas. 

Convoy attack battles ends with last visible escort destroyed but while enemy transports are still visible. It's just not a good way to end the battle.

Can’t adjust armor on 3” guns (very old bug).

Hopefully Hotfix soon...

Game stalling/hanging at 'update missions' when nation warring against dissolves and still has taskforces active/travelling.

 

There are some hulls where lifeboats don't disable for gun placements. They have been listed way back in version........ well just way back.

There are also many MANY collision issues with American and German casemate guns, especially with towers.

Would be nice to be able to purchase territories from allied nations, as well as to take over the ports of a nation that has collapsed by your hands. Also to be able to use neutral ports of minor powers for fuel and repairs, since they can't be hostile to you right now.

[SodaBit]

2 things,

First, the homeless fleet bug caused by economic collapse that causes the turn to hang indefinitely still appears to be present. Given that this issue was first reported a few days ago, I wasn't expecting it to be fixed this quickly, but it's worth mentioning that not all issues regarding turn delays have been fixed yet.

Second, and this given the speed options for torpedos this was bound to come up eventually, AI ships don't appear to be able to dodge their own torpedos very well.


Due to the very low speed of electric torpedos,(35 knts) and the extremely high speed of late game CL's (regularly in excess of 36, some times up to 40 knts,) this Russian warship has, in fact, gone and f***ed itself.

[Lima]

3 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Things I hope will be fixed in the next patch...

Taskforces sitting for months not receiving missions even though sea area has enemies.

• AI or any nation should not be allowed to escape just because player/nation dominates a particular sea area.
• This includes taskforces travelling through occupied sea areas. E.g. I had a taskforce sitting in the Indian Ocean near the Gulf of Aden - i.e. blocking, multiple enemies pasted by monthly, I suspect they were looking up into the sky and enjoying the sunny weather, not a single battle for 24 months.
• Idle taskforces are detrimental to the game.

The problem is that sometimes TF work, even too well. And I just don't understand what it depends on. These are my poor old DD minelayers, which have been generating a battle for 3 turns. And they are just trying to get to Gibraltar. Meanwhile, there are four TF on both sides of Gibraltar, two consist of 1BC 4 DD and two of 2CL 4DD, they just don't care.

[Skeksis]

14 hours ago, Lima said:

The problem is that sometimes TF work, even too well. And I just don't understand what it depends on. These are my poor old DD minelayers, which have been generating a battle for 3 turns. And they are just trying to get to Gibraltar. Meanwhile, there are four TF on both sides of Gibraltar, two consist of 1BC 4 DD and two of 2CL 4DD, they just don't care.

We're all saying the same thing.

When taskforces was first introduced, blocking was a thing, natural, but it would seem that Dev's have moved away from this, actually in that very next update!

By Nick comments, Dev's have a bunch of sliders to adjust aggressiveness. So 'blocking' in the form of a slider, could be an aggressiveness level slider for taskforce dominance, where if a taskforce is large enough, i.e. dominant, it will intercept enemies travelling through its sea area.

Whatever the coding is, taskforces shouldn't be idle giving enemies a free pass!

Edited November 11, 2022 by Skeksis

[ZorinW]

6 hours ago, Pappystein said:

At a granular level I do not think this is a bad thing.  At a "Time does not make sense level" you are exactly right.

If the turns were smaller periods... and you started in 1890, you would literally spend weeks or months IRL depending on play time, to get to 1940 let alone 1950 with a map this big.  I think because of that One month at a time makes sense.  

But the Time in the game DOES NOT MAKE SENSE... so from that aspect sure your idea has merit....   But for casual players I think switching to this would be a big determent and turn-off.

I think it could work in a way that time slows down to say a werk per turn during war and is sped up during peace time to a month like it is now.

So a month (one turn) becomes four weeks (four turns). That is still quite unrealistically fast (long) given what can happen in a week, but at least would make the game feel a lot more realistic.

Same goes for the travel time.

[Zuikaku]

8 hours ago, Kane said:

I have to say, I am getting to the point of being incredibly pissed-off about torpedoes in this game.

I just lost 6 top-of-the-line destroyers against 1 woefully behind battleship.
I nailed this battleship seven times with, 21-inch torpedoes.
Every damn one of them was a dud.  Both my lines of torpedo research are far enough along that I no longer have any new torps to research, I am simply researching the end-game upgrades.

I should not have a 100% failure rate on 7 successful hits.  Especially when half my torpedoes veer wildly off-course, or explode before they even get to the target.  Nor should it be when my research is this far along.  I've maxed out the research, the things should be pretty damn reliable by now.

This needs to be re-balanced, significantly.  Especially when the AI never seems to have this problem.

Actually that is pretty much realistic. 

[Max Sin]

On 11/9/2022 at 12:50 AM, Fangoriously said:

x10 speed when fighting at that close of a range? Your moded game is buged? no way!

NO ! Speed x10 is due to the large distance of the bugged outbound ship. The game thinks that the ships are far from you and yes, I noticed that it allows you to turn on x10.

On 11/9/2022 at 1:32 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Have you noticed this to any of player controlled ships or only to AI-Controlled? (Enemy or AI Assist).

Only AI. Normally, such a battle can be won if you have time to kill a fast ship. Rotations do not interfere with play, shells fly along a winding one and eventually sink ships. Or if you do not engage in battle, but use automatic resolve. Otherwise, the game crashes to the desktop. In general, such bugs are very rare, and for me they do not affect the global gameplay.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Max Sin

[Kane]

48 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Actually that is pretty much realistic. 

1)  No it isn't.  Maybe for 1800's, not for someone in mid 1940's.

2)  Even if it were, by the time one has researched all torpedo technology, this problem should not be happening.

3)  IDGAF if it is realistic, when the AI seems to have less than 1/10th the dud rate I do, even when I'm far more advanced in my torpedo tech.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Kane

[Admiral Donuts]

What does the AI know that I don't?

A lot apparently. For instance, in the last couple campaigns I have not seen an AI ship with anything 'better' than compound armor. Now, I've been in several fights in which I simply cannot penetrate that armor. The last battle I had a duel between one of my CAs armed with KruppII and 11 inch guns, versus a Japanese battleship with compound armor, no superstructure armor, and 9 inch guns.

I was sunk very quickly, sitting within 1 km of the target, and unable to pen. That ship was antiquated it should have surrendered as it spotted me.

Furthermore, these museum pieces managed to sail to the Baltic Sea where they engaged me there. *shrug*

Japan surrendered to me eventually. They ate such a big loss that their naval funds were at -$2 billion, and sat that way for more than a year, while their Admiral was warned every month, but they eventually recovered. I thought that was the condition for a nation's elimination.

edit - nope I lied - just saw harvey armor out there

Edited November 11, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Zuikaku]

OK, didn't realised you are in '40s. In 1890's expected dud rate was 80-90%. By 40's dud rate fell at about 10%.

[ZorinW]

Even after the latest patch the enemy still gains 250 VPs for doing nothing- Four month in they have 1000 VPs and I have none....

[ZorinW]

Ships are being refitted while at sea and being in range of a supply port still means nothing....

[PainKiller]

Am i supposed to get this much VP? Is this intended? The patch before this, 15 ships sunk would have been around 300 VP

[Eirchirfir]

16 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

Am i supposed to get this much VP? Is this intended? The patch before this, 15 ships sunk would have been around 300 VP

VP gain seams to change depending on how many ships each side has active so if the 15 ships sunk is a sizeball amount of the american fleet then it whould give a lot of VP for sinking them.

[Doomed]

15 hours ago, Narbar said:

Does anyone else feel that the accuracy of ships have become a little to high? I can be in a full blown turn in my 1915 BB at 7km and it still stays at 100%.  Battles feel more like a execution rather than a brawl 

I'm seeing the same both for me and the AI.

Just had a battle where an Japanese CA had 100% to hit despite smokescreens and according to the display both Flooding and Damage penalties

The range was short but the crew was only Trained

[ZorinW]

Got 87.000(!) VP for sinking transports.

[Lima]

Yes I also noticed that VP were fixed. One doombattle = 30K VP. Thanks.

[ZorinW]

7 minutes ago, Lima said:

Yes I also noticed that VP were fixed. One doombattle = 30K VP. Thanks.

I wouldn't go that far. 87.000 VP for 12-16 transports is too much. It was the first "battle" of the war and afterwards Japan asked for peace and threw all their money at me.

Edited November 11, 2022 by ZorinW

[Nick Thomadis]

There are remaining issues with VP, known, that we will either fix with a small update or in the next major update. 

As always, it will help to use the in-game report when you notice something not working right for VP.

[Lima]

10 hours ago, Lima said:

The problem is that sometimes TF work, even too well. And I just don't understand what it depends on. These are my poor old DD minelayers, which have been generating a battle for 3 turns. And they are just trying to get to Gibraltar. Meanwhile, there are four TF on both sides of Gibraltar, two consist of 1BC 4 DD and two of 2CL 4DD, they just don't care.

Yeah, maybe the difference between the versions is too high (these battles occurred with a difference of one turn)

[Admiral Donuts]

250 VPs for doing nothing.

It's not a bad concept. But the burden should always fall on the alliance that sent the ultimatum in the first place. The aggressors need to be the ones that overcome, not the defenders.

[Eirchirfir]

So I am fighting France for control of the southeast aisa region and got into a battle with the frence doomstak which resultet in this:

Considering this is 2/3 of the frence fleet which have just been sunk makes the amount of VP gain from this battle alone seam fair due to how badly this is for a setback for the Frence navy.

The only surving ships of this battle is 5 CL and 8 TB so the frence doomstak hade 135 ships vs my 14 ships and my 7 CL controled by the AI did not try to fight so it was fought by my CAs and BBs. My damage control on Musashi prove to be good to make sure the ship did not burn down during the heavy concetration of the frence firepower.

[RNV]

Hello,

After about a year playing the game I finally decided to make an account and post here to signal a couple of issues that I was hoping would be addressed in the official 1.09 release and to make 1 suggestion for the future.

Number 1 - [BUG] Fleets going back to random ports after missions

This issue was solved in one of the last Betas (I think on Release Candidate 1 or even earlier) but suddenly resurfaced in the official release, at least for me.

To put is simply, my understanding of how the system is supposed to work is as follows:

1. Ships 1, 2 and 3 appear in a mission in Sea Province Alpha; 
2. The battle is over, the closes port to the coordinates of the battle is Port 1, Home port of the ships is Port 2 and is either less or more than 1 turn of movement away from the coordinates;
3. If Port 2 is less than 1 turn away, Ships 1, 2 and 3 go back to Port 2, otherwise they go back to Port 1;
4. What I see in the current version of the game is Ships 1, 2 and 3 go to Port 3, or Port 4 that might be on Sea Province Alpha or Beta or Gamma, apparently randomly.

Now, this is first a major issue for countries like Britain, Spain o France that have extensive oversea territories at game start, but is also extremely frustrating for people like me that like to organise fleets neatly. I don't know if the fix in the beta branch was a temporary fix used as a stop gap before Task Forces and fleet management are fully fledged, but if that's the case, I would kindly ask the developers to re-fix it in a hotfix.

I have made 2 or maybe 3 bug reports in game about this I think.

Number 2 - [BUG] Ports and Map

I know the map is WIP, and I believe this has already been brought to your attention, but when 2 ports are close to each other on the map, it is sometimes impossible to send ships to one of them because the game thinks you clicked on the other.

Number 3 -  [SUGGESTION]

This is more of a broad suggestion regarding the way convoy warfare is done and creating incentives for players to strive to strategically acquire naval bases around the world.

As of now, my impression is that convoy raiding missions and convoy sinking in general can happen only in Sea Provinces where the enemy has a port. While this makes sort of sense, there is little player agency in the whole thing. What I would imagine would make the mechanic more fun, would be to have countries have "sea routes" between ports along which trade happens, and on which the intensity of traffic is determined by starting and destination port capacity, GDP of the destination province and, maybe an abstract cruise speed of convoys. What this would mean is that 1) you'd have to actually protect specific routes (maybe even have the ability to interdict sea tiles like in HoI IV?) and if raiding you would have a specific target in mind; 2) it would make chokepoints, like Bab el Mandeb, Suez, Gibraltar, the Channel or Panama meaningful and real strategic positions; 3) it would tie the amount a country has to spend on convoys not just to its GDP but also to the extent of its colonial empire.

 

Overall, I think there is good potential to make the whole campaign experience feel more alive and give players more agency while keeping the core concept of "you're the admiralty not the government". I think the ship designer has gotten much much better over the past year and that the AI designs are better. 

 

[Cryadis]

Vp seems better so far with new patch, thanks.

Also since the game has a tendancy to generate a mission and once you load in, the AI just retreats, i had an idea:

* If all AI ships are retreating / are set to retreat, have a popup along the line of: the enemy is retreating, do you want to chase them ? Yes / No (if No end the battle as it is).

I am aware this is no Bug, but quite a pain point to try chase or retreat yourself to get the "End Battle" button to end up in a  draw.

Edit: Obviously it would be better that on missions where the enemy engages (Port strike, convoy attack etc) to be locked out of retreating for some time, but most likely waaay harder to implement.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Cryadis

[Pawnmaker]

Squadrons of ships are really weaving back and forth again.  Even if I turn off the avoid collisions button.