>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Skeksis]

‘Add Crew’ is used within two functions.

Turned On:

• Automatically re-crews for damaged ships.
• Automatically re-commissions any ship that’s mothballed.

Turned Off:

• Stops re-crewing for damaged ships.
• Stops automatically re-commissioning mothballed ships.

If a player/nation has both mothballed ships and ships returning to port for repairs, then either state suits only one function and disables the other. If player wants to re-crew damaged ships automatically, all mothballed will start commissioning. But if turned off, player has to manually Set Crew for each damaged ship returning to port – nobody wants to do that. And how much trouble is this causing the AI.

Suggestion, this checkbox to be split into two:

                ✔️ Re-Commission all ships.

                ✔️ Re-Crew all repairing ships.

Also, there’s a third associated function, automatically commission newly constructed ships, though this is defaulted to automatic, regardless of Add Crew state. And this is still valid.

Maybe submarines should have their own checkboxes too.

In general, the two states for two functions, are incompatible. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Skeksis

[jw62]

22 hours 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.

it was a little worse with the DDs last night, but still straightened out before i got to engagement range

[Admiral Donuts]

US campaign running now from 1890 to 1930. No issues that I can tell.

edit - spoke too soon. I'm now getting the bug where my submarines attack a task force and it won't auto resolve.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Ribba]

Something very strange happened. I have been at war with AH for some time, but we only had one very small engagement, which I won easily. At this stage (June 1899), the VP was about 9000 vs 7 in my favor based on the information box on the right side, and it look like my VP increased about 250 pr. turn vs 0 for AH.

But the next turn (July 1899), the information box about war suddenly appears in the upper left side of the screen, and there the score says 124671 vs 307520 in AH's favor. So now my government thinks I losing badly and insist on making peace. 

Apparently China declared war on AH this turn, so I don't know if that is a factor. France also wanted to have an alliance, but I declined.

So what did happen here. I don't want to sail into the Mediterranean Sea, because he has a task force consisting of 9 BB, 21 CA, 49 CL and 4 TB.  

 

Edit: Just for fun, I did send in a big fleet to the Mediterranean Sea. And what was excepted to happen, happened. Italy got mad and declared war on me. Didn't bother to fight the AH manually, so auto battled the battle, which resulted in big losses on both sides, but ultimately they lost more. They appealed for peace the turn after. 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Ribba

[Lima]

Japanese: we invented a super doomstack

2 submarines: hold my vodka

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

Why does the German AI feel the need to move their *entire* battleship fleet to Eastern Asia?

Edited November 17, 2022 by Käptn_Flitschauge

[MasterBurte]

I currently play japan from 1890 to 1919. There are several bugs and gameplay issues i found so far.

BUGS:

- My CL with deck torpedos gets hit and one deck torpedo launcher is destroyed. No ammo explosion whatsoever but now all my torpedo ammo is gone and all my other deck torpedo launchers can't fire anymore. First the ammo shouldn't be gone and second even if my ammo blows up the other deck launchers should be pre loaded and ready to fire at least one salvo.

- Ship damage isn't saved after battles. When my ship for example gets 20% structural damage and all systems are working normal the game just recognises the ship damage in %. In the next battle the game will randomly destroy vital ship systems which can rander a perfectly oberational ship into useless junk.

RESEARCH:

- It doesn't make sense that you research double or triple barrel turrets for specific ship classes. When you have the technology to build them you should be able to build them for every ship.

- Allow to use older mark turrets on new or refited ships. There are superstructers with gun emplacements that won't fit the new tech turrets due to their bigger footprint (example 2" inch mk3 to mk4). Or find a way to have standalone barrels without the fully enclosed turret as an option even on the higher marks.

- Add 1" guns and remove the ability to make the subcaliber 2" guns. This gives more flexibility for superstructure mounts.

ARMAMENT:

- Should be per gun type and not universal for all guns on the ship. Often the settings for burst charge/powder/shell type/etc. are a compromise and oriented on the main guns, even when they don's make sense for the smaller guns at all.

- 8" and 12" guns are much better than the other calibers. That doesn't make sense. Even when you think that they where very polular and produced in big numbers IRL they player may have a nonhistorical fleet that focuses on other calibers. So make them equal to give more reason to use other calibers in the game.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS:

- When refiting ships the game doesn't want us to build guns or barbettes to far away from original positions which restricts the player a lot. It's unrealistic too because IRL there are many examples of ships that got completely rebuild even into other ship classes (cruisers to carrier).

- Allow free of center placement of barbettes. The game only allows to build side barbettes on fixed positions (left/right of the main tower) where they doesn't fit correctly even when having max beam on the hull.

- Gun caliber is currently very restricted per ship class even so that you can't even build historical ships (CL with 8" guns or bigger). We should have no restrictions in this regard (if it fits it fits). The natural limitation is the tonnage and size of the ship.

- Armor thickness is very restricted for some ship classes. CL have 6" max armor thickness. Again the limitation is already given due to tonnage of the hull. Doesn't make sense that a late CL with the same tonnage as an early BB can't have the same guns and/or armor.

- To adress the last to points i suggest to rework the class system completely. Just research hull forms with no ship class assigned to them. Then let the player freely build a ship and have the game or player afterwars assign a ship class according to parameters. We wouldn't need so many identical hull in multiple ship classes too.

Edited November 17, 2022 by MasterBurte

[Marshall99]

I am I the only one, having lots of dud torpedoes recently? 

I mean, it is a very cool feature! But they happen way too often in my opinion. 

[Ribba]

3 hours ago, MasterBurte said:

- Armor thickness is very restricted for some ship classes. CL have 6" max armor thickness. Again the limitation is already given due to tonnage of the hull. Doesn't make sense that a late CL with the same tonnage as an early BB can't have the same guns and/or armor.

Maybe. But if you give your CL the same guns and armor as an early BB had, your CL isn't a CL anymore, but a CA or a BC.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

5 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I am I the only one, having lots of dud torpedoes recently? 

I mean, it is a very cool feature! But they happen way too often in my opinion. 

What year are you at?

[Urst]

1 hour ago, Ribba said:

Maybe. But if you give your CL the same guns and armor as an early BB had, your CL isn't a CL anymore, but a CA or a BC.

Sure, but honestly, I'd rather be rid of the class restrictions entirely. Have the game call your ship something based on what you end up with. Replace the weight slider with a length slider and uncap it. If I can build a 10,000 ton battleship then I have the tech to make a 10,000 ton armored cruiser. The difference is that the CA has a LOT more range and can go faster and has a different mission entirely.

This is to say: a ship class is defined by its mission, not its equipment or size, no matter what the Washington and London naval treaties say.

[DableUTeeF]

America kept 105 ships around Cuba since who knows how long. None of them had a single shell left. Most but the 2 torpedo boats that managed to slipped away didn't have enough coal to run either. Some had torpedoes at least.

[UncleAi]

Yes. Mission should be decided by speed, position and recon. If I build a CA Killer like Alaska, it shouldn't participate in those "BC Duels".

[Marshall99]

8 hours ago, Käptn_Flitschauge said:

What year are you at?

I am at 1908

I had lots of dud torpedoes earlier but it was fine due to the very early technology. 

[Ribba]

7 hours ago, Urst said:

Sure, but honestly, I'd rather be rid of the class restrictions entirely. Have the game call your ship something based on what you end up with. Replace the weight slider with a length slider and uncap it. If I can build a 10,000 ton battleship then I have the tech to make a 10,000 ton armored cruiser. The difference is that the CA has a LOT more range and can go faster and has a different mission entirely.

This is to say: a ship class is defined by its mission, not its equipment or size, no matter what the Washington and London naval treaties say.

 

I agree that ships class is defined are to a big degree decided by it missions. But in this game, we do have specific hulls available to us, and those are following the class restrictions. And those classes gives indications on how hull specific bonuses/penalties are defined. 

So both in this game, and realistically, a light cruiser hull is a hull designed based on the expected missions the ship would conduct. This means that a light cruiser hull, which isn't designed to carry as big a load as an battleship would, would simply not have the internal strength to carry so much load as a similarly sized battleship. That's why a light cruiser hull is much, much lighter then a similar sized battleship hull. Also, the hull form of an cruiser is different from a battleship, since the cruiser would have a longer length to width ratio. So choosing a specific hull, you have already made the most important statement on which type of mission parameters your ship is meant to perform. 

To put it another way, if you want to design a big luxury SUV, you wouldn't base it on a formula one chassis. 

So if you look at the game as it is now, and you were allowed to throw as much armor and big armament on a light cruiser hull as you want, with only the tonnage as a limit, your build would have been allowed much more armor and much more heavier armament then a similarly sized battleship would have been allowed. And your ship would also be able to sail much faster and having a longer cruising range. And on top of that, it would also been more stealthy. Basically, it would be an ridiculous exploit for players to have. 

Of course you could have had a more dynamic way of calculating the stats of a hull. For instance, if you increase the armor or armament of a ship, the hulls base weight is automatically increased in a way to simulate that the internal hull strength has to be increased. And this way the limitations of a hulls armament and armor are calculated, and it's up to the player to balance it.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Ribba

[Anthropoid]

On 11/4/2022 at 10:31 PM, MKsuper said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBDlmr_dQMY
Boats did death-spin and were ignored by my ships for being too hard to hit from their speed. Other than that AI is overall much better than before 👍

I too have seen this bug. But never two boats at once.

[DableUTeeF]

37 minutes ago, Ribba said:

 

I agree that ships class is defined are to a big degree decided by it missions. But in this game, we do have specific hulls available to us, and those are following the class restrictions. And those classes gives indications on how hull specific bonuses/penalties are defined. 

So both in this game, and realistically, a light cruiser hull is a hull designed based on the expected missions the ship would conduct. This means that a light cruiser hull, which isn't designed to carry as big a load as an battleship would, would simply not have the internal strength to carry so much load as a similarly sized battleship. That's why a light cruiser hull is much, much lighter then a similar sized battleship hull. Also, the hull form of an cruiser is different from a battleship, since the cruiser would have a longer length to width ratio. So choosing a specific hull, you have already made the most important statement on which type of mission parameters your ship is meant to perform. 

To put it another way, if you want to design a big luxury SUV, you wouldn't base it on a formula one chassis. 

So if you look at the game as it is now, and you were allowed to throw as much armor and big armament on a light cruiser hull as you want, with only the tonnage as a limit, your build would have been allowed much more armor and much more heavier armament then a similarly sized battleship would have been allowed. And your ship would also be able to sail much faster and having a longer cruising range. And on top of that, it would also been more stealthy. Basically, it would be an ridiculous exploit for players to have. 

Of course you could have had a more dynamic way of calculating the stats of a hull. For instance, if you increase the armor or armament of a ship, the hulls base weight is automatically increased in a way to simulate that the internal hull strength has to be increased. And this way the limitations of a hulls armament and armor are calculated, and it's up to the player to balance it.

1. Real world. You can indeed design an SUV based of a Crossover chassis. Since you use "form of an cruiser" I supposed you originally meant "armored" cruiser and the differences between armored cruisers and battleships are not anywhere close to SUV and F1. The only different you listed was literally just length-to-beam ratio. Look at the Scharnhorst class and the Deutschland class (the pre WW1 version). You yourself know making a ship 20 meters longer and a meter narrower doesn't need composite meterial technology to be unlocked.

2. Game stats. That is the problem everybody is complaining. Having stats modifier for each type of hull when they also attempted to make it realistic is a stupid idea to begin with. It's one thing to restrict the gun size since that needs increased hull strength (Courageous class and Königsberg class). If you put the same armorment, same protection, and same speed on a similar sized ship they have to weight the same regardless of the type. There's already size and displacement of the ship, I just don't understand why they don't put battle modifiers relative to these number. As a programmer I fail to see how is that even difficult.

[Lastreaumont]

1 hour ago, DableUTeeF said:

2. Game stats. That is the problem everybody is complaining.

Not everybody. As far as I'm concerned, I don't complain about this. This game gives me some "Lego" pieces and some rules to use them. I take that as it is and look for how to build what I want with that. The game design rules are just a model. All models are false. Because I am not a mechanical, structural, thermodynamic, materials, and electrical engineer specialized in ships design (I probably missed some engineering specialities usefull to fully design a ship), I trust the game developpers about their model choices. I'm not sure that "more realistic" always rimates with "more fun".

[Urst]

1 hour ago, Lastreaumont said:

Not everybody. As far as I'm concerned, I don't complain about this. This game gives me some "Lego" pieces and some rules to use them. I take that as it is and look for how to build what I want with that. The game design rules are just a model. All models are false. Because I am not a mechanical, structural, thermodynamic, materials, and electrical engineer specialized in ships design (I probably missed some engineering specialities usefull to fully design a ship), I trust the game developpers about their model choices. I'm not sure that "more realistic" always rimates with "more fun".

Rather than specifically "more realistic" I'm looking to remove the restrictions on the "legos," so-to-speak. I want to scale down a "battleship hull" to use it for a destroyer. I want to scale up a "light cruiser" hull and use it for a battleship.

[Ribba]

3 hours ago, DableUTeeF said:

1. Real world. You can indeed design an SUV based of a Crossover chassis. Since you use "form of an cruiser" I supposed you originally meant "armored" cruiser and the differences between armored cruisers and battleships are not anywhere close to SUV and F1. The only different you listed was literally just length-to-beam ratio. Look at the Scharnhorst class and the Deutschland class (the pre WW1 version). You yourself know making a ship 20 meters longer and a meter narrower doesn't need composite meterial technology to be unlocked.

2. Game stats. That is the problem everybody is complaining. Having stats modifier for each type of hull when they also attempted to make it realistic is a stupid idea to begin with. It's one thing to restrict the gun size since that needs increased hull strength (Courageous class and Königsberg class). If you put the same armorment, same protection, and same speed on a similar sized ship they have to weight the same regardless of the type. There's already size and displacement of the ship, I just don't understand why they don't put battle modifiers relative to these number. As a programmer I fail to see how is that even difficult.

Listen, you can build an SUV based on any ordinary car of a similar size, simply because an SUV, barring a few exceptions, are based on ordinary cars. But that was not my point. My point was that there is a huge different between a battleship design and a cruiser design (especially CL), just like it is between a open racer vs a family car. And it's not only about about length and width, but the whole internal ship is fundamentally different. 

The battleship is designed from scratch to have an internal structure that can hold big armor plates, huge turrets and so on. A light cruiser isn't designed this way. You cannot take a light cruiser design and add massive amounts of armor plates or put huge turrets on top of the ship, because the ship would simply break up under the sheer weight of all those extra armor and armament. 

So, if you have that light cruiser design and wish to put a lot of armor and armament on, you have to reinforce the internal structure of that ship, which means increasing the base weight of the hull. And if you use the same dimensions, you will have less buoyancy left to use on adding armor and armament. So the only way to increase buoyancy, it's to make the ship bigger. And that is something you probably had to anyway, since increase the size for the guns also would require bigger space for shells and propellant. Especially since you are designing this ship to be a cruiser, with the intended mission to be at cruising around at, it would be nice to have more then a couple of rounds laying around in the magazine. And the extra weight would also require the ship to carry more fuel to carry out it's mission, which again means adding more weight and require more space. And all this means, if you don't want to sacrifice speed, you have to add bigger engines. And bigger engines and bigger magazines requires more space. So either you kick out the crew or make them sleep on the deck, or you have to make this ship bigger. Which, if you want a cruiser design, mostly increase length wise. That means your armor scheme also have to be increased so it can cover the extra length the engine rooms, boiler rooms and magazines, which means adding even more weight. Of course you can make the ship wider, but then you end up with a design more reminiscence of a battleship, not a light cruiser.

So no. If it was possible to build a light cruiser with heavy armor and huge armament, and still keep good speed, maneuverability and a long cruising range, it would have been done. Because all the great nations wanted such a ship, but they were never able to build such a ship. Simply, it wasn't possible. There was, and still is, always compromises to be made, and you cannot have the best of both worlds. Either you go for an efficient ship with good speed and maneuverability (light cruiser), but carries less firepower and armor, or you go for massive firepower and armor, but get less speed and maneuverability and worse efficiency (battleship). Or you may do a compromise and sacrificing both firepower, armor, speed and maneuverability and go for a BC or a CA. But you will never get one perfect design.

And this is where the big luxury SUV vs an F1 car comes in to play. Both a big SUV and a formula one car have about the same footprint, about 11 square meters. But since they are designed for two completely different tasks, you would be foolish to use the base of one design to try to make a better version of the other design. It's better to use the design of the formula one car if you want a race car, and the design of the SUV if you want a large family car. The same with these ships. 

Regarding the game stats, with predetermined stats for the different hulls, the are mostly logical. Battleships are usually more sturdy, so the can take a bigger beating. They are also usually more stable so they are a better gun platform, but the compromise is that they are also often less efficient and maneuverable. And the other hull types also have mostly logical stats that represents how the intended design of the hull is meant to be used. Basically. If you want a ship with cruiser-like properties, you'll choose a cruiser. If you want a ship with more battleship properties, you choose a battleship hull. So I think these stats is a good way to show which types of mission the different hull designs are well/less suited for.

Again, this could also have been sorted by using dynamic stats, where the player chances values in all different ways and the stats reacts accordingly, letting the player make ships customizable completely to their own design. And I'm not against it, but it would give the game a less historic feel then it have today. Especially if the players would get totally free reigns. Then, if we exaggerate a bit, you could end up meeting a 90000 ton ship based on a torpedo boat design. I don't personally see the appeal in that.

Also, if the player get to much customizability, how would the AI handle ship design?  

Edited November 18, 2022 by Ribba

[Lastreaumont]

1 hour ago, Urst said:

Rather than specifically "more realistic" I'm looking to remove the restrictions on the "legos," so-to-speak. I want to scale down a "battleship hull" to use it for a destroyer. I want to scale up a "light cruiser" hull and use it for a battleship.

Ok, why not, but this would be less realistic than the current model. According to my knowledge, you can't rescale a plane too much without deteriorating its performances. I assume this is the same for a ship. 

Another way to see this is you wanna new "Lego" pieces because the actual ones don't satisfy you. 😉

Edited November 18, 2022 by Lastreaumont
correcting mistakes

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

Ok, why not, but this would be less realistic than the current model. According to my knowledge, you can't rescale a plane too much without deteriorating its performances. I assume this is the same for a ship. 

Another way to see this is you wanna new "Lego" pieces because the actual ones don't satisfy you. 😉

That is a partial fallacy.  You CAN re-scale a plane or boat pretty easily.  You CAN'T re-scale their medium of travel (water, air) and THAT is where issues arrive.   EG if you built a 1/12th scale B-29 Bomber the internal structure would have to be much stronger and much lighter than a simple re-scale.   THAT is where the issues lie.   So in effect, a re-scale is not related to the original ship/plane at all except in looks (yes I am looking at you F/A-18E/F Super NOT a Hornet)

 

HOWEVER Re-scaling a ship designed for stability and structural strength down from say BB to Destroyer size as a @Urst suggested means you have a slow to accelerate and un-maneuverable destroyer that is an exceptional gun platform.       Scaling a destroyer up to a BB means you have a very UNSTABLE gun platform that is not super strong but has all the go fast juice and can turn much more effectively than any other Battleship and might be more maneuverable than either an Armored or Heavy Cruiser.

Hence the classes.  

 

I think the crux of the problem is the forced obsolescence of specific hulls, and to a lesser extent the max tonnage limitation on a hull design. 

Forcing the AI to abandon old tech is a good thing for the AI (or it will always choose the old tech because cheaper)   Forcing the player to do so I think is actually a huge issue.    We humans can choose better what things to compromise and what things to go "all in" on.   For example, I will take mediocre armor if I can get good speed, and amazing range-finding for my big guns.   I mean I am running 28-30kt Battleships in 1917 right now!    Mind you it was blind stupid luck that allowed me to get such a jump on tech... One small war within the first 20 years of an 1890 game for me.

[Admiral Donuts]

Game crashed during battle after spotting a missile...

edit - 2nd attempt - battle seems to want to allow me 30x speed while fighting, and doing anything at all at that point causes the game to crash to desktop.

Auto resolved it and moved on, manual battles are still on the table.

I have now suffered two wars with russia in which I won every engagement, and lost by a frightful amount due to free VPs. The last time they also stole all my battleships. Have lost Eritrea and Somalia because of it. Doesn't seem to be anything I can do to work around that problem at this point...

 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[kineuhansen]

damn i wish we got a major hot fix for the campaign i asume they cant atm

 

[Admiral Donuts]

Can't seem to move my ships to Taranto.

Well, I'm in my third war with Russia in which I will not intercept them, and even camping a fleet out in the Black Sea they do not lose any transports. As a result I'm down 3,000 VPs already.

I have now eaten my third loss to the stinking Russians who cannot sink my ships, but they sure get freebies and steal half my fleet every time. It doesn't matter I have vast superiority in technology over them, my fleet just will not intercept them even when they are camping out within sight of it, either at my ports or at sea. It doesn't matter I'm the only nation on earth with submarines, that will not sink any transports even when a dozen each are patrolling either side of the Suez Canal, the Black Sea and Gibraltar.

My government makes peace anyway even though I insist we have the advantage and my friggin fleet disappears from under me every time and I lose territory.

I've concluded that all of this adds up to a situation that sucks, plain and simple. And YET ANOTHER campaign ruined by bullship free VPs.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Admiral Donuts