>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Abuse_Claws said:

Aaand yet another issue (seemingly?)
So I have noticed that training level for all my ships except two (two BBs were somehow spared by this stupidity plague) just plunged to Cadets
Including the ships that just annihilated a US doomstack of 8 BBs and like 3 dozen smaller ships
Including the 'museum' 1890 CL that I have on "defend" role for literally decades (since mothballing doesn't work anymore and I don't want to scrap it, as it did some amazing work in its time)
What's even more weird, I still have 4,623 men in the crew pool... And their training level is 'Cadets' as well. What??? Isn't Cadets basically "untrained" in this game? Why are those men considered my crew pool if they are not trained?

Edit: I have re-read the tooltips in-game and I understand now that this might not be a bug, as I did reduce the crew training funds drastically in the last few months. But I still don't understand how veterans turn into cadets in a matter of months

Likely a simulation of "Turnover"   Old crew retire/die and quit over you cutting their funds.    But yes it might be too abrupt

 

[aradragoon]

22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

IMO.

BBs/large hulls are still turning on a dime. It’s related to Auto-Avoid Torps, it enables ships to turn a smaller radius than designed capability, especially prevalent when AI avoiding player torps. Also damaged engines/rudder does not affect or diminish Auto-Avoid. Totally unrealistic and very damaging to the game’s image, i.e. looks too arcady. Also weakens AI when player turns on.

AI places/designs one off caliber guns and/or multiple calibers, breaks game maker own rules of shell splashes accuracy effect and penalties apply. Weaken AI.

AI designing superfast CAs, sacrificing armor/survivability, frustrating to hit and when hit, too easily destroyed and AI is penalized by fast turns. Weaken AI, Unrealistic, Image damaging.

VPs added to tally for pre battle damage or unrelated damage. Just frustrating.

DDs or minesweeping tech is not working or having minimal effect, player side. If working as intended then we need info or event message to say, “x number of mines cleared by #”, i.e. ships were saved!

AI not investing in minesweeping tech for designs, inclusion should not be minimized. AI suffering huge losses. Also weakens battle AI – as and when entering battle after such damage.

BBs only TF not dying to submarine (x3) TF. This is very Unrealistic.

DD TF vs SS TF, seems randomized, DDs should have decisive advantage. Maybe ASW not working fully, yet.

We can't see the damage of our ships in the world view pre mission/ship info tab. We need to know this for selecting options, especially needed post turn with ‘meetings’ but we are lockout of viewing such general information.

It seems like the ASW and mine sweeping either aren't fully implemented or aren't balanced against each other. My guess is the latter. Will take a good bit of work to get all the systems into a good state to work with each other.

While understandable that things won't be balanced at this point it can make things hard in campaigns to test other features.

Edited November 15, 2022 by aradragoon

[Skeksis]

25 minutes ago, aradragoon said:

It seems like the ASW and mine sweeping either aren't fully implemented or aren't balanced against each other. My guess is the latter. Will take a good bit of work to get all the systems into a good state to work with each other.

While understandable that things won't be balanced at this point it can make things hard in campaigns to test other features.

Yeah, that’s right, while features do need to go through the beta process, campaign damaging features needs to stop at beta.

I’m of the view that the game has suffered some image damage through this live version. Dev’s really need to start thinking about proofing/polishing live versions.

[jw62]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:34 PM, aradragoon said:

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.

It evens out after a little bit. It's not a real driver or even an AI, it's just an algorithm, give it a break

I think it's something they can tweak a bit more, I think the lead ship may have a slightly slower speed to allow the rest of the ships to adjust, but the rest of the ships may be starting out a quarter knot higher at full or cruise. The ships are modeled pretty good in a lot of ways, but each battle-line has to base off the leader, and it just takes some time to adjust until they are all running smoothly together. It could be raw processing power makes it run smoother faster, my coding skill is limited and way out of date but I am running a monster, and it evens out over time for me, usually before I get to engagement range.

[jw62]

20 hours ago, beepboop6 said:

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
 

Someone said to copy your refit and rename it to the original. And Yes, here's how I do it:

Make your refit at any stage. Go out and delete your original build but not the refits. View your latest refit, use it now or after, but make your copy and then rename it to the original. Save out, go build a new ship, on the Fleet page double click on the name of the newly building ship and change it so you don't have two "Boaty McBoatFace" Destroyers,,because there can be only One, just sayin. ok, you can have two if you want

[jw62]

13 hours ago, Admiral Donuts said:

New campaign, US 1890. It's 1906, at war with both Russia and China.

I have mine laying 4 and at least half a dozen of those CLs in Balboa. The Russians and Chinese both, on the same turn, with a 24 ship task force at the Canal, just passed through both ends of it. Took no damage from mines, were not intercepted. You would think they would be both. I'm checking the map and there are 0 minefields being layed anywhere my mine-layers are parked.

It's working for me. Same campaign, When I put mine layers on my ships and left them in port for couple of turns the yelow minefields appeared, more DDs, more mines, more radius. The Brits gave me Gibralter (OK, Gave might not be the right word) and every enemy fleet takes damage. Do enough and the minefield disappears, to reappear 2-3 turns later, I really have not paid attention to that. I can then send my DDs out and some of those minefields are still around after a decade, unless the enemy comes by. I have so many purpose built DDs in Panama that the AI gave up trying to come through, I think the field said 234km radius and 1200 mines when I check last night. I have cheaper purpose built minimal disp boats with 3.9's for defence and full mine, sweep,asw but 30kts.

It may end up being a game breaker, or at least need to be turned down below an "Iron Man" level, but the ai only just discovered mines and I have a lot of minesweeping3 dds, we'll find out.

try leaving them in port for 3 turns.

[aradragoon]

29 minutes ago, jw62 said:

It evens out after a little bit. It's not a real driver or even an AI, it's just an algorithm, give it a break

I think it's something they can tweak a bit more, I think the lead ship may have a slightly slower speed to allow the rest of the ships to adjust, but the rest of the ships may be starting out a quarter knot higher at full or cruise. The ships are modeled pretty good in a lot of ways, but each battle-line has to base off the leader, and it just takes some time to adjust until they are all running smoothly together. It could be raw processing power makes it run smoother faster, my coding skill is limited and way out of date but I am running a monster, and it evens out over time for me, usually before I get to engagement range.

Glad it works for you, honestly, but I have not once seen it even out for me. If by running a monster you mean a computer, I am as well. 5900X with 64gb of RAM @ 3600mhz and a 3080. Also, running the game from a gigabyte nvme pcie gen 4 drive.

Have chased the enemy for 2 and a half in-game hours and they kept swerving back and forth. (2 BCs supposed to be going at 28 knots.) It gets even worse when there are course and speed changes from the lead ship, which should theoretically take just as long to slow down, let alone if this happens in battle, though at that point it can also become problematic from other factors like avoiding torpedoes.

My present fix is if they are doing this as I get to engagement range then I split them off and manually control each ship. Though this won't work well with larger fleets.

Edited November 15, 2022 by aradragoon

[jw62]

3 hours ago, Abuse_Claws said:

Aaand yet another issue (seemingly?)
So I have noticed that training level for all my ships except two (two BBs were somehow spared by this stupidity plague) just plunged to Cadets
Including the ships that just annihilated a US doomstack of 8 BBs and like 3 dozen smaller ships
Including the 'museum' 1890 CL that I have on "defend" role for literally decades (since mothballing doesn't work anymore and I don't want to scrap it, as it did some amazing work in its time)
What's even more weird, I still have 4,623 men in the crew pool... And their training level is 'Cadets' as well. What??? Isn't Cadets basically "untrained" in this game? Why are those men considered my crew pool if they are not trained?

Edit: I have re-read the tooltips in-game and I understand now that this might not be a bug, as I did reduce the crew training funds drastically in the last few months. But I still don't understand how veterans turn into cadets in a matter of months

never drop crew funding below 60%. Always scavenge every crewmember when scrapping ships. At the end of my last playthrough I always had full crews of regular trained and lots of them

[Admiral Donuts]

3 minutes ago, jw62 said:

It's working for me. Same campaign, When I put mine layers on my ships and left them in port for couple of turns the yelow minefields appeared, more DDs, more mines, more radius. The Brits gave me Gibralter (OK, Gave might not be the right word) and every enemy fleet takes damage. Do enough and the minefield disappears, to reappear 2-3 turns later, I really have not paid attention to that. I can then send my DDs out and some of those minefields are still around after a decade, unless the enemy comes by. I have so many purpose built DDs in Panama that the AI gave up trying to come through, I think the field said 234km radius and 1200 mines when I check last night. I have cheaper purpose built minimal disp boats with 3.9's for defence and full mine, sweep,asw but 30kts.

It may end up being a game breaker, or at least need to be turned down below an "Iron Man" level, but the ai only just discovered mines and I have a lot of minesweeping3 dds, we'll find out.

try leaving them in port for 3 turns.

They were in ports the entire war, and just before that war occurred as I anticipated it. At the time this happened, a year into the conflict, none of those ports contained the minefield circles. They DID, just the month before, then they didn't. Now they do again. Cheating AI....

 

[jw62]

Just now, Admiral Donuts said:

They were in ports the entire war, and just before that war occurred as I anticipated it. At the time this happened, a year into the conflict, none of those ports contained the minefield circles. They DID, just the month before, then they didn't. Now they do again. Cheating AI....

 

It is a very complicated plate of spaghetti code for sure

[jw62]

3 minutes ago, aradragoon said:

Glad it works for you, honestly, but I have not once seen it even out for me. If by running a monster you mean a computer, I am as well. 5900X with 64gb of RAM @ 3600mhz and a 3080. Also, running the game from a gigabyte nvme pcie gen 4 drive.

Have chased the enemy for 2 and a half in-game hours and they kept swerving back and forth. (2 BCs supposed to be going at 28 knots.) It gets even worse when there are course and speed changes from the lead ship, which should theoretically take just as long to slow down, let alone if this happens in battle, though at that point it can also become problematic from other factors like avoiding torpedoes.

My present fix is if they are doing this as I get to engagement range then I split them off and manually control each ship. Though this won't work well with larger fleets.

Well maybe my machine is just Ok then, but I really don't find it to be that bad a wiggle. I have noticed that with DD's the lead ships always fire more and that's because on high speed runs the little ships to bounce around quite a bit and so they don't fire as much, that's probably true to life, could also use a little tweaking. But the swerving thing is because the old turbines can't change RPM that fast, should be better with diesel DDs and my turboelectric dreadnoughts have incredibly fine motor control, won't stop quite on a dime anymore, but try that on a few ships

[DableUTeeF]

Can't select my task force because enemy is on top of it

Edited November 16, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[DableUTeeF]

Same problem. The program simply choose the first thing that is in the range rather than the closest target.

This can be very easily solved by let the player choose from a simple drop-down-list or a popup window. It should be similar to the "Move Ships" window anyway. 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Skeksis]

Replace top-left tab with a taskforce list...

Where double clicking on any one of them and the game will select and scroll to. Would be better use of that UI space.  

[Skeksis]

If you mothball a ship, the next turn the game starts immediately re-commissioning it.

In my campaign 1910-1923 Nov, I've ended up with no wars. That means -250 million per turn because of a large and modern fleet. So, I need to mothball most of my fleet to get back into the black.
But the game then re-commissions every single ship, putting costs back to -250 million. 

Obviously, the campaign is over, it can't sustain those losses.

This bug was reported early beta 1.09, very very very disappointing to see such a simple fix not done.

Hope you don't miss this report/feedback.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Skeksis

[Danz_Von_Luck]

27 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

If you mothball a ship, the next turn the game starts immediately re-commissioning it.

In my campaign 1910-1923 Nov, I've ended up with no wars. That means -250 million per turn because of a large and modern fleet. So, I need to mothball most of my fleet to get back into the black.
But the game then re-commissions every single ship, putting costs back to -250 million. 

Obviously, the campaign is over, it can't sustain those losses.

This bug was reported early beta 1.09, very very very disappointing to see such a simple fix not done.

Hope you don't miss this report/

Turn off the add crew button in the fleet tab and they stay mothballed. 

Works for me

[idontfckingknow]

I cant hit Light Cruisers even at close range. What's worst is they can hit me at pinpoint accuracy. I tested it by using my own CLs; my cruisers have a higher speed, same tonnage, and have all upgrades focused on accuracy and reload. 

i can even hit DDs much easier at distance. 

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Turn off the add crew button in the fleet tab and they stay mothballed. 

Works for me

Nothing says so in the help, frustration remains!

Assumption and initial purpose were 'Add Crew' automatically adds for crew loses. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

2455) You can only mothball one ship at a time, after 150 that just sucks. Needed is multi-selecting 'Set Crew'.

2456) Each nation should have one sea area of its own, so player/nation can target a sole nation for raising tension. E.g. I want to start a war with France only, but all of its sea areas are bordering other nations.

2457) 'Add Crew' for automatically adding crew for crew loses doesn't work for submarines. Either have 'Add Crew' working for both fleet and submarines or submarines tab has its own 'Add Crew' checkbox.

Submarines above didn't get crews added even though 'Add Crew' fleet tab was ticked.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Skeksis

[Lima]

Make it possible to refit captured ships. I understand that it's probably not that easy and it's not the most critical at the moment, but it would be great.

[Grizli60rus]

Probably, this has been written about more than once, but the game is greatly hampered by two more conventions of the rules:
1) The mandatory presence of two towers of the main caliber. Why? For example, 1890. I want to make a cruise with two tubes (high engine efficiency) and one main caliber turret. The game does not allow you to do this and you have to put two towers of the maincaliber. For example, on the nose. Can only make one tower of the main caliber mandatory?

2) I want to upgrade ships with separate elements, and not in automatic mode. Example: I studied induction boilers and 2" 51mm guns at the same time. I only want to replace the boilers, but don't touch the guns! Because the new guns just don't fit into the ship's design:

Is it possible to make a manual upgrade in one of the following updates ? Or leave the opportunity to put outdated equipment and guns on ships? (a separate selection list of old equipment or something like that)? Or make a choice: shield or turret gun.

[DableUTeeF]

The lack of any attempt to solve the Death Stack but instead adding more and more bugs (read features) baffles me. How exactly could this be harder than  just

if (this.owner == "ai" && this.num_total > 20){
    this.ai_dissolve();
}

 

[Marshall99]

41 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

The lack of any attempt to solve the Death Stack but instead adding more and more bugs (read features) baffles me. How exactly could this be harder than  just

if (this.owner == "ai" && this.num_total > 20){
    this.ai_dissolve();
}

 

I just encountered a death stack again, with my french fleet. I sailed away so fast that I did not have time to raise my white flags xd

But seriously, this have to be solved asap. My PC can't handle such a large fleet. Not to mention managing such a large fleet at once, is impossible (at least for me).

I never sail with 50+ ships at once. I always have maximum 15 ship fleets. 1-4 BBs, 2-4 CAs, 3-5 CLs and the rest is TB or DD. Small but effective groups. This way the distribution of the whole 120 ships I have is nice and easy, and also effective. 

[Stealth17]

EDIT: Disregard

Edited November 16, 2022 by Stealth17
Found the reason

[Ribba]

2 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I just encountered a death stack again, with my french fleet. I sailed away so fast that I did not have time to raise my white flags xd

But seriously, this have to be solved asap. My PC can't handle such a large fleet. Not to mention managing such a large fleet at once, is impossible (at least for me).

I never sail with 50+ ships at once. I always have maximum 15 ship fleets. 1-4 BBs, 2-4 CAs, 3-5 CLs and the rest is TB or DD. Small but effective groups. This way the distribution of the whole 120 ships I have is nice and easy, and also effective. 

My personal opinion is that there should be allowed to have big fleets, but there should be a time and place for choosing to put together such fleets. It should not be the norm as it seems today. But if you seek a decisive battle or if you are supporting a big amphibious landing or want to raise tension fast and furiously, you should be able to put together a big fleet. But putting together such a fleet should come with big consequences, such as higher risk for accidents, slower movements and less able to perform maneuvers making the task force less responsive to ambushes and so on. Also, if you leaves all your other territories without any ships, your enemies should be able to exploit this. 

But I see your problem regarding hardware limitations for players. 

So my idea, to both have the possibilities for big fleet action and at the same time make the game more friendly towards lower spec PC's, is to implement a third type of map. Today, we have two maps, the strategic and the tactical map, but I think it could be beneficial to also implementing a map on an operational level. This could be a grid map, for instance 10x10, 16x16 or something else, and every square/hex has a maximum number of ships that can occupy that square/hex. The number should be customizable by the player. This way, if there is a big fleet engagement, the player and AI have to spread their ships over multiple squares/hexes. 

After you and the AI have put your ships on the "table", a turn based battle begins on an operational level, with a fixed number of turns to completions. Here the player/AI moves their smaller fleet around the grid, and if two opposite fleets enter the same square/hex, the real time tactical battle begins. If one of the fleets in the tactical battle retreats, you re-enter the operational map, which may lead to other engagements. The size of the individual square/hex should be based on the current technology level. 

The appeal with having an operational level between the strategic and tactical level, is that you are able to a lot of things you cannot do today effectively. For instance today, when the AI retreats immediately after contact, and you do not have a speed advantage, they will escape. And it gets boring rather fast since there is nothing you can do. But if you have an operational phase both before and after the tactical engagement, you will have the opportunity plan for such events, by setting up traps or maneuvering in such a way that you can encircle them. So if you had already anticipated that they would retreat, you could, in the turned based combat, move a fleet to cut of a potential escape route. Or you could use a portion of your fleet to heard/lure the enemies into a trap. Think the Battle of Jutland. 

So there is a lot of exciting battles which can be fought with implementing a third type of map. Especially if you put in a few "realistic" elements which could challenge your tactical planning. One such element is a more realistic type of moving your fleet. In the early days, with no wireless radios, you have to pre-plan the movement for all your fleets other then your main fleet. Only if they are in a neighbor square/hex can you give them new orders. That also means that if you have a scout fleet far from your main fleet, and they end up in a battle, they have no way to signal you about that battle. So you then have to make a choice manually fight the battle, meaning you cease control of your main fleet, or you may keep control of your main fleet, but having an autobattle for the fleet that's entering battle.

After radio are put in use, you still have to pre-plan for your other fleets, but now you have the possibility to redirect those fleets, with the consequence of the enemies using RDF to "spot" your main fleet. And if one of your scout fleets now end up in a battle, you now have the possibility to react to that situation, and redirect all your fleets (who have radios), and bring them reinforcement or set up an encirclement. But with radios, you no longer have to cease over control if you want to lead a smaller real time engagement. 

And of course, fog of war should be mandatory. And it should also be implemented on the strategic map. Intelligence should also be implemented in the game.

But first the devs should prioritizing fixing existing bugs. So an quick fix that sets hard limits how many ships may stack up in a fleet, is something the seriously consider. But on the longer term, I hope that big battles are a possibility. Just not the norm. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Ribba