>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Scorpion]

A minor bug I discovered: when choosing the engines, in the Multiple Expansion Engine 1, the stat line says the engine cost per weight increases by 100% and in the next line says it increases by 170%.

[o Barão]

52 minutes ago, Makko said:

I had assumed that the penetration values were against vertical and horizontal armor for belt and deck respectively, factoring in the trajectory of the shell at the given range. That's why deck penetration is so bad at short ranges. Otherwise that deck penetration value makes no sense whatsoever. 

I am well aware that hitting at less than perpendicular will increase the amount of armor that has to be  penetrated, but in these circumstances I am talking about where they are roughly perpendicular it should not matter. It's not increasing it by 250% for the majority of shots. 
 

 

Overall I don't really care if the ballistics and armor are not 1 to 1 accurate to real life as long as the overall result is roughly accurate, but it is very much not.

Armor is far too effective and hard to penetrate and far to easy to apply to ships. 

6 and 8 inch guns are largely ineffective

 

CLs and CAs just don't seem to work like they should, I built a CA with 12 rapid fire advanced 9 inch guns (almost 60 shells per minute) with the most advanced anti armor rounds I could get and a veteran crew and good coincidence fire control. This should absolutely shred CLs with 5 inches of belt armor and a couple inches on the front and back at ranges of sub 10km, these vessels were weak to 5, 6 and 8 inch guns historically. Somehow though it takes dozens of hits to cripple a ship, and the majority of direct hits  to the broadside at approximately 90 degrees inflict minimal to no damage at all. 

 

It ends up that this ship is worse at killing lightly armored CLs than conventional battleship with slow firing ~15 inch guns, which... does not make any sense realistically. 

"...with the most advanced anti armor rounds...."

and..

"Somehow though it takes dozens of hits to cripple a ship, and the majority of direct hits  to the broadside at approximately 90 degrees inflict minimal to no damage at all. "

 

It seems you are talking about this:

Improved APBC.

- Best pen possible

- Worst damage possible.

Let's compare with, is IMO the best choice possible against a CL using 9 inches guns.

- The best damage possible.

- The best ricochet angle and chance values.

- The worst pen values, however against CLs this is irrelevant.

 

Notice the 80% damage difference

144 dmg with improved APBC

298 with SAP. So is more than x2. The 80% difference in stats is wrong, it seems. Anyway, is a BIG difference.

*all the other components are default.

 

My suggestion would be to run a custom battle, between your CA 9 inch guns vs a random CL using SAP. See if you note any difference.

[Makko]

The problem is that I am not penetrating the ship. 

 

A secondary problem I haven't mentioned is that CLs can do donuts at 40 knots and become almost impossible to hit even at point blank ranges 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Makko

[Admiral Donuts]

I just had 1 war ended in victory, and another offered as a victory with the victory point totals on the right correct, and losing by 100k in the war score box. I assume the war score box has been disabled.

MUCH BETTER.

[ZorinW]

This is a loose spread according to the currnt state of the game.

[Makko]

17 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

This is a loose spread according to the currnt state of the game.

 I wish we had a slider for spread distance 

[Admiral Donuts]

1 hour ago, ZorinW said:

This is a loose spread according to the currnt state of the game.

Only, it seems, with the main division and only if it's battleships.

[Nick Thomadis]

13 hours ago, ZorinW said:

This is a loose spread according to the currnt state of the game.

Placing ships in AI control makes them to not use player desired formation or speed. The reason is... they are AI controlled. 
General advice for all players:
If you want to keep the formation, you need to trust the auto-evade options and not try to move ships often through other formations. Additionally, please note that by switching to tight/loose formation in the middle of combat will not necessarily switch slow moving vessels to reach the desired points in a few seconds.

[ZorinW]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Placing ships in AI control makes them to not use player desired formation or speed. The reason is... they are AI controlled. 
General advice for all players:
If you want to keep the formation, you need to trust the auto-evade options and not try to move ships often through other formations. Additionally, please note that by switching to tight/loose formation in the middle of combat will not necessarily switch slow moving vessels to reach the desired points in a few seconds.

I will only tell you this once more. STOP trying to make your testers look stupid! 

This happens no matter if the division is controlled by AI or player! No matter if avoid is on or not. Fix your game and play your game beofre you blame your testers!

Between the screenshots a real life minute passed while the game ran at speed 10x!

Edited November 14, 2022 by ZorinW

[Admiral Donuts]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Placing ships in AI control makes them to not use player desired formation or speed. The reason is... they are AI controlled. 
General advice for all players:
If you want to keep the formation, you need to trust the auto-evade options and not try to move ships often through other formations. Additionally, please note that by switching to tight/loose formation in the middle of combat will not necessarily switch slow moving vessels to reach the desired points in a few seconds.

Our problem with that isn't trust that the AI will execute what it will. Our problem has been that, if left alone, those ships will mill about in the rear while the lead formation is kilometers ahead and making contact. As it is, if avoid ships is turned off, the ships will get in formation quickly. If turned on they will not.

AI control on the lead formation is just to get a quick fix on enemy direction. It's not meant to be left on.

[Pappystein]

17 hours ago, Makko said:

The problem is that I am not penetrating the ship. 

 

A secondary problem I haven't mentioned is that CLs can do donuts at 40 knots and become almost impossible to hit even at point blank ranges 

I am not seeing this issue...   I currently have MK III 8.5"/45 cannons on my Heavy cruiser fleet and I am sinking enemy Battleships with gunfire alone.     (I am technologically Advanced compared to the enemy so that means they have Harvey or Krupp I armor.)    I tend to sink them at long range.   So plunging fire and higher % of Deck penetrations.

My main Battle Line is equipped with Mk IV 13.5"/55.   Which tend to kill enemy ships at closer ranges than the 8.5"ers do.  (Longer barrel = more Side shots than deck shots)

My entire fleet is currently in a modernization program to modern Cruisers (US)  Sadly I am stuck on the old early Dreadnought hull due to the US restrictions...   Entire battlefleet goal is to recycle to 28+kts speed ATM.    My new Light Cruiser 30kt Scout Cruiser II boats are commissioning right now.. and my 28Kt (Modern I HEavy Cruiser) boats start to  commission in 5 months with 4 boats every month for 6 months at which time my entire fleet of 23kt Armored Cruisers will be scrapped.  My destroyer force had to choose between 34kt and 5" guns (I went 31kt and 5"ers)  

I say this not to brag, but rather to point out, if you are facing off against 40kt enemy Light Cruisers you sound BEHIND the technology curve.   Your whole problem could be one of aiming.   After all if you can't hit them you can't penetrate them.   I have noticed that a ***PERCIEVED*** issue is that the more accurate your aiming vs the speed of the enemy ship ***SEEMS*** to increase the penetration damage.       Or to be clear, the slower the enemy and the higher my Rangefinder abilities (in my case Stereo IV Rangeclock, Dewey Tables and RadioDirectionFinding vs sub 26kt enemy ships)  I SEEM to have a lot of big penetration hits.

When the enemy is going fast I SEEM to not penetrate at all.    Those enemy destroyers took a lot of hits.     Fact of the matter here is that is a FALSE perception.   You hit the faster ship less so you *THINK* you penetrate it less...  alternatively you hit the slower ship more often thus you THINK you are penetrating it more often.    In both cases it is a function of your aiming, not the quality of the gun you are using.   Which leads me to....

 

I guess what I am saying is what I say about a completely different game.   "Floaties LIE Read the damn logs."   In this case the Floaties being the various in game damage presentations that fly by quick in fasted paced combat.

   On the subject of that other game I have been saying that since 2018...  And I have had access to real logs showing what is going on since 2018-2019 (Prior to that I sounded much like you "Game be Cheating/Bugged")  

I have spent a tiny bit of time trying to find a readable battle log that covers every shot like in the other game I mention above.  It might require a mod maker to create a mod to see them however (They are not in the Save file location nor the core game files... that I could see.)

Because seeing a fast scrolling battle log in game does not tell you EVERYTHING... and too many assumptions are being made by the community that a real combat log would clear up.    I freely admit I am making my own assumptions when I say this, and thus ***I COULD BE WRONG***.   

 

 

[Admiral Donuts]

Game crashed early in battle, after a German <?> flew past me like a missile.

2nd attempt, German battle fleet hurting badly, AI CL went zipping past my lead formation and off to the horizon, followed by game CTD.

Just for once I'd like to finish a Japanese campaign without it totally wigging out. Now, with all sliders set to half, I can't stop bleeding money. I'm losing $100 million per month now, not under blockade, with no cruisers, and the strongest economy on Earth. The Germans have developed warp drive and use it to reset time every time that battle fleet gets scrapped.

The AI is cheating I tell you cheating!

<Battle Start>

Brother in law: "What the hell was that?" Me: "Looked like a missile." Him: "Can't be!" ....game stopped responding...

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Admiral Donuts]

So I returned to my Russian campaign. For some reason in that campaign, it will not let me fight a battle. My only option is auto resolve. Let it run about six months and as many battles, didn't clear up.

So that's two campaigns ruined within the hour from game breaking bugs.

Frustrating having to start over yet again.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

2 hours ago, ZorinW said:

I will only tell you this once more. STOP trying to make your testers look stupid! 

This happens no matter if the division is controlled by AI or player! No matter if avoid is on or not. Fix your game and play your game beofre you blame your testers!

Between the screenshots a real life minute passed while the game ran at speed 10x!

In fairness in those two screenshot I wouldn't expect anything to change how do you expect the ships to close up to the lead when at top speed

Edited November 14, 2022 by Danz_Von_Luck

[Pappystein]

11 minutes ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

In fairness in those two screenshot I wouldn't expect anything to change how do you expect the ships to close up to the lead when at top speed

Yep, my only way of getting formations to "form up" correctly is to maneuver side to side at below maximum speed

[Admiral Donuts]

Started new China campaign. Game will not allow me to fight battles.

[Pappystein]

31 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:

Started new China campaign. Game will not allow me to fight battles.

Refesh your steam install.   This sounds like a file might be corrupt in your game.  *total WAG*

[jw62]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

I will only tell you this once more. STOP trying to make your testers look stupid! 

This happens no matter if the division is controlled by AI or player! No matter if avoid is on or not. Fix your game and play your game beofre you blame your testers!

Between the screenshots a real life minute passed while the game ran at speed 10x!

They swerve like that because they cannot adjust their speed instantly. It certainly looks weird, but its realer than you think. It takes time for a formation to all get to exactly the same speed, and there are no brakes. So just like a ski slope, you've got no choice but to slalom down that "hill" or hit that big steel ass in front of you

[aradragoon]

21 minutes ago, jw62 said:

They swerve like that because they cannot adjust their speed instantly. It certainly looks weird, but its realer than you think. It takes time for a formation to all get to exactly the same speed, and there are no brakes. So just like a ski slope, you've got no choice but to slalom down that "hill" or hit that big steel ass in front of you

I have gone into a battle and had this type of swerving occur from the start from 2 ships of the same class without course or speed changes, which makes the problem more significant. Put it on x10 for 5 to 10m IRL (trying to chase enemies) and the ships are still swerving back and forth so it isn't just your explanation.

[Makko]

4 hours ago, Pappystein said:

words   

I am not behind the tech curve, my ships are more advanced then the enemies, we are in the late 1920s and I have radar already and MKV 9 inch guns and veteran crews, I check the components list of every enemy ship I encounter to make sure I am at least at parity with tech and modernize my ships every couple years. 

 

My problem is not hitting, as I've said repeatedly  the issue is partial penetrations that should be full or over penetrations. The rate of hits is entirely irrelevant and the issue still occurred against the terrible ~20 knot CLs the enemy has been using for a decade. 

It is rather difficult to get a partial penetration against belt armor with a miss. 

Given the decent sized sample of hits against lightly armored opponents with highly penetrating weapons, the proportion of partial penetrations is completely out of line with what should be occurring.

It is possible I am getting absurdly unlucky, but we are now into the hundreds of hits on CLs that are approximately perpendicular and hitting thin belt armor. 

I don't want to be super rude but you appear to be typing a lot more than you are reading. 

 

Update: After writing the above I wanted to check something; and the results are interesting.. in custom battles I cannot recreate the issue I have in campaign. The amount of penetrations of CL belt armor (3-6 inches approximately 150% quality) severely overmatched by the 9inch guns (standard length, MK5 APBC1/2 at a range of 10km or less) are in line with what I would expect. The majority of roughly perpendicular non blocked/non ricochet hits (I don't really understand what causes those, hull resistance? anyways as long as its a minority I don't mind much) penetrate or over penetrate. Almost no partial penetrations.

 

Side note: The portion of deck hits at very close range seems ridiculously high, something like 1/3 despite the deck armor being what...  something like 5% of the visible surface area at close ranges?

 

This means one of two things:

- I have gotten very unlucky and/or have not correctly perceived what is happening in my battles

- There is some kind of campaign specific factor that is influencing penetration. Maybe accumulation of techs? Maybe something about the design of the French CLs I've been fighting? I've noticed the issue most against them.  

Edited November 14, 2022 by Makko

[aradragoon]

I want to start this with I sincerely appreciate the game devs and all the work you put in. I have done programming and I know how long it can take to do things and track down bugs.

Now I posted this feedback on steam but I find it gets more attention via this forum, though I know its said that each forum is given the same attention.

My feedback/suggestions, and please note I have extensive time in the game and this patch as well. Please also note that more information might be needed, and could be provided, but if I included everything relevant for full information I feel that this would make my post significantly longer.

-Fix mines as they are not currently balanced. A small fleet (2 BBs, 2CAs, and 6 DD's where all DD's have minesweeping 4), all of my ships go into combat half damaged. I start to retreat and the next turn I get intercepted by a third nation. Half of my ships surrender at the start.

The mine sweeping equipment seems like it does nothing, especially when DD's with the equipment are also being ALL hit, though I haven't taken the time to make similar fleets with the only difference being mine-sweeping equipment to calculate actual differences; the damage is incredibly high (seriously my BB's with triple bottom hulls, max anti-flood, and 18in of belt armor having 50% damage from the start in the first engagement as they approached Japan's mainland is ridiculous. Most mines would have minimal impacts against modern (late 1920's/early 30's and beyond) battleships. It also does not blend well with the crew surrender system at all. This mechanic needs a complete overhaul. Second to this, and maybe I am misremembering, when my ships are hit by mines, the floatability of my ships is still full... it seems the opposite of how they should function

- Given movement speeds on the campaign map, it seems slow. My suggestion is to increase the movement slightly, and also I would recommend moving turns from 1 turn = 1 month to 1 turn = 2 weeks. I know this would require a significant amount of rework on multiple systems but after considering this over multiple patches and seeing the implementation of the full world map, I am convinced it would be the right way to go for multiple reasons. Though for brevity, I will say it boils down to making the game more fluid.  (I can go into more depth as to why if needed.) Also because taking 6 - 8 months between 1910 - 1920 to get from Japan to Europe seems excessive. (That is with 20 - 22 knots cruising speed and 20 - 30k km ranges.)

- Research still doesn't seem quite right. While I don't expect to get every tech at 1940 in every game, it still seems a bit slow, and without priorities, I feel that, by date, I am slightly behind and it would take 3 to 5 years after 1940 to get all 1940s tech. While problematic on its own this leads to my biggest complaint: research priorities. It feels like priorities are too much of a downside. With priorities I manage to get tech about a year or 2 early at most, in long campaigns, before I am supposed to, not taking into account the random tech distribution which occasionally places a tech in the list early, while placing most of my techs 4 or 5 years behind. I don't have a fleshed-out idea, but something to consider is changing the priorities into another feature. Something like older Hearts of Iron would be having scientists with specialties where you could choose 1 to 3 scientists that give buffs and debuffs. A possible example would be a scientist that favored using traditional naval artillery (say 1in to 14in) and gives a slight debuff to the artillery of a higher caliber and a higher debuff to things like submarines. This could be balanced with options that give bigger buffs to specific things with similar debuffs or smaller buffs with smaller/less debuffs. This could also be done by picking supporting admirals instead of scientists. This could be supplemented by also allowing different naval doctrines that could give different buffs/debuffs not only for research but for ship types and fleet compositions.

- Long term I feel like invasion might be important to add as something that players can have more control over, as opposed to just bombing or blockading ports.

- Alliances don't feel well integrated. When allied with another nation, say the UK, I can get into their wars as they start, and if an allied ship or fleet is nearby, I can fight with that fleet. Outside of this, alliances feel a bit empty. I can't coordinate with allies; if they are defeated, it feels like there isn't any real impact on my navy or country.

- Treaties would be good to add. Beyond war reparations, the ability to enforce timed peace (say 1, 2 or 3 years though I know this would be a recommendation from the player and the government, read rng, gets the final deciding factor). Also, things like the types of treaties similar to the London naval treaty.

- Nationwide projects such as canals that take time and money, similar to building shipyards, would be nice to be in player control. Possibly also with tonnage limitations that, again, like shipyards, could be increased.

- Fixing the formations to properly follow seems like it would be important around this time, given the state of the game. My units going back and forth because they can't calculate the proper speed, heading, and distance from the ship in front all the time makes it tedious to control larger fleets.
- Adding to the comment before, please add a fleet formation window for fleets that are set out together.

-A more realistic mode, either optional by the player or tied to higher difficulty, that at the least doesn't show the ship information before the battle. I.E. not seeing before the battle that the enemy is engaging with BBs that have 18in armor and 16in artillery and a BC with 12in armor and 12in artillery.

-Fix the VP system, as it seems to give the enemy VP points for damage your ships take from mines before the battle. I don't know if this is intentional, but when entering battle damaged, even after having fought previous battles while damaged, the AI gets VP points multiple times from the same damage. I.E. I get damaged by mines before battle 1. The enemy gets credit for that damage, let us say 20%. I take no further damage in the battle and go into battle 2 with the same damage, and the enemy does no damage but still seems to get credit again for the same 20%.

- Speed seems a bit too important. Enemies seem very reluctant to engage unless they have massively superior numbers. I find myself having to make ships as fast as I reasonably can. This isn't the worst but I also can't tend to make accurate ships, like 21 - 22 knot ships circa 1900 - 1915 as the enemy still tends to try to run away. I have had engagements where the enemy has a BB and some CA's compared to my BC and a few DDs, and while my ships are slightly more advanced, the enemy makes a fighting retreat. It wouldn't bother me if this were a tactic based on various factors. However, I still find a disproportionate number of battles find me doing this unless the enemy has overwhelming numerical superiority. I don't have a complete fix because I also don't want the AI to play stupidly and just suicide. That being said, I think a possibility would be to indicate "immunity zones" for each ship relative to similar armament for their class:
Option 1 might be to calculate this based on their naval artillery. I.E. a CA has 9in naval artillery, so a calculator will do basic calculations to determine if that ship was facing its armament at what range would it be immune to fire for the belt/deck and try to stay at that range.
Option 2 might be to use standard gun size based on the decade. I.E. in 1920 immunity zones for DD's are calculated by standard 5in, CLs by 6in, CA's by 8in, BC's by 12in, and BB's by 14in.
Note 1: This would be voided if a ship makes a torpedo run.
Note 2: This would also have to be balanced with the AI determining at what range they can penetrate the enemy ship and deciding based on the enemy's immunity zone vs their immunity zone.

Edited for clarity, grammar, and spelling

Edited November 14, 2022 by aradragoon

[Pappystein]

RIP USS Kentucky Class   Biggest QOL bug in game at the moment as far as I am concerned... You upgrade your ship and you are FORCED to upgrade the turrets....  Those 13.5/50s got BIG

 

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, aradragoon said:

- Alliances don't feel well integrated. When allied with another nation, say the UK, I can get into their wars as they start, and if an allied ship or fleet is nearby, I can fight with that fleet. Outside of this, alliances feel a bit empty. I can't coordinate with allies; if they are defeated, it feels like there isn't any real impact on my navy or country.

- Treaties would be good to add. Beyond war reparations, the ability to enforce timed peace (say 1, 2 or 3 years though I know this would be a recommendation from the player and the government, read rng, gets the final deciding factor). Also, things like the types of treaties similar to the London naval treaty.

What's needed is another level of alliance, ‘Military Pack’, where units in each other’s territory doesn’t raise tension.

So, if have alliance for x months then a Military Pack is offered:

E.g.

• 3 Months – 100, 000, 000.
• 6 Months – 250, 000, 000.
• 12 Months – 450, 000, 000.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

Got the VP bug fighting RUS as UK

[beepboop6]

couple of Small Suggestions,

can we get the option to build new ships of refit classes. At the moment there is a workaround of viewing the ship, then copying and saving to a new design, but surely it wouldn't be too much of a change to just be able to build new ships directly to the refit design.


Also, would it be possible for us to get some sort of ui as to which specific torpedoes are reloaded/how far through reloading they are. Can be especially hard to tell on ships with underwater launchers