>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Plazma]

My opinion what need to do in the next patch is this same as Stealth17:

 

[Lima]

17 minutes ago, Plazma said:

My opinion what need to do in the next patch is this same as Stealth17:

 

Ah yes, my favorite bug - death spiral. When your TF freezes on 1 DD/sub and slowly dies. Incredibly noticeable on the US/Britan/Russia.

[Suribachi]

I saw some passing mentions in this thread, but didn't find any hard posts with screenshots and the like on AI using canals when they should not be able to so I will provide my screenshots and examples down below.  In the following screenshots, both the Kiel and Panama canals are already built in the campaign.

As Germany, when the Kiel canal gets built, you get a message that Germany can use this to transition from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea without having to hike it around Denmark.  I take this message as something that Germany only can use unless I am grossly misunderstanding something.  However, both neutral countries and countries I am at war with are able to pass through the canal.  In my opinion, this canal either should be exclusive to German ships or give the player a toggle to allow allied or neutral ships to pass through.  Obviously, countries at war with Germany should not be able to use the canal unless they control the province to which the Kiel canal belongs.

For the second example, I am still Germany.  After defeating the United States in a war, I received Panama as war compensation.  However, the US and everyone under the sun is still able to use the canal.  Later on, the US had to pay a toll via the minefields that I laid at the mouth of the canal, but it should not get to that point.

Proposed Solution:  On the backend, logic can be used for "is the canal built?  boolean (yes or no)" and then separately  "is the canal open to this faction?  boolean (yes or no)".  This logic should be able to account for alliances or player preference.  This would allow the player and AI to have realistic travel routes and make holding canals strategic and more significant in the campaign.

Screenshot descriptions:
Screenshot 1:  country at war with canal holder able to use canal freely
Screenshot 2: (sorry for the loading screen)  neutral country able to use canal freely
Screenshot 3: country at war with canal holder able to use canal freely
 

[kineuhansen]

i just uninstalled my game for now its full of bug like a couble of times i have seen heavy damaged ships not move even when they have speed left i have also seen dd move but not turn

[Zuikaku]

I only play small custom battles at this point. 

[Lima]

Doombatlle is still a thing. The enemy has 318 ships. Download takes 6 minutes. In battle, even at the first speed, the game freezes and stops working steadily (5 times already). Literally unplayable.

No seriously, this doombattle broke my campaign.

Fix it. Your game simply can't stand such things.

By the way, this is a new campaign. Almost all nations contain most of the fleet in one pile.

Edit: This time (9) I managed to face the enemy, but it is quite logical that when drawing 300 ships, the game also crashed (thanks radar). And there is simply no way out of this, AI loves doomstacks.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Lima
Fix. Damn. Doombattles.

[Marshall99]

I want to talk about the fuel consumption. I built long range ships in the french campaign (around 10000kms for BBs, CAs and minimum 8000 km for CLs) in 1912. 

Now my problem is not with the ships range, but the enormous fuel consumption in battle. If you are engaging enemy fleet in the middle of the ocean, you have to pray that you have at least 70% fuel. Why?

Because ships are just eating fuels in battles. I looked at the statistics and the fuel % is went down very very fast. 

I had some very bad situations because of this high fuel consumption. When you are low on fuel your speed is dropping radically. As for my example: My long range battleship with 21 knots went down to 13 knots. My CAs from 23 kn ton 8 kn if I remember correctly. 

Why is this an issue? Well of course without speed you won't maneuver. You won't dodge torps if the enemy DD is russhing towards you. Easy prey. 

Fuel consumption is a very good feature in this game, and it is a must for realistic reasons. But I feel that currently in the battle, ships are burning fuel too fast.

[Fangoriously]

My 1920 to 1927 so far USA campaign has been incredibly dull. The entire world is in the iorn grip of my squadrons of battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers, my 70 destroyers ether screening against submarines or mining my home ports or the dozes of ports I've won in the medateranian, Africa, gulf of Mexico, the pacific or south east Asia. At every choke point a pair of cruser subs spills blood constantly.

What battles actually play out? Well, every month there are about 6-10 sub auto resolve missions, 2 1v1 destroyer fights, and every 4 months a heavy cruiser might get to shoot at a convoy. In 7 years I've fought battles involving my BCs maybe 4 times, and had a battle involving 2 of my BBs once, that didn't involve them magically being severely damaged out of nowhere and having almost no ammo. The USA campain in that video is actually less bugged out than mine. My capital ships might just be so good that not even a doom stack can match what ever the game considers their points value, I'll explain why.

Was really looking forward to seeing my short barrel/long range optomizing in action. The combination of those predreadnought cage masts the USA can use into the 20s are perfect for this, they cost and weigh almost nothing but have a huge long range accuracy bonus. Those and stereoscopic range finders paired with -15% barrel length main guns is the best setup from my testing. All the weight saveing from those towers lets you have between 12 and 15 barrels too. With that setup, your 1920 mk3 14in gun's range tops out at about 20km, so what the game considers 'long range' seems to be between 20 and 15 km as a result, and it's nothing but plunging fire, and great accuracy despite how bad the stats might look when you mouse over the guns. That over ~1000 'range found' accuracy bonus from decent crew training, invalidates the terrible base stats on large caliber guns or short barrles for the most part, the guns even reload faster. Stay at about 15km range and your mains will deck pen everything for 3k to 10k damage per salvo. I see exactly 0 point in long barrel main guns right now, you only hit the stronger belt armor, the weight and cost goes way up, the reload time massively increases, and the single digit accuracy increses is made pointless by the 4 digit range found bonus. You aren't gunna hit or even see anything at that 30-40 km range your long barrel guns would have anyway.

[o Barão]

51 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I want to talk about the fuel consumption. I built long range ships in the french campaign (around 10000kms for BBs, CAs and minimum 8000 km for CLs) in 1912. 

Now my problem is not with the ships range, but the enormous fuel consumption in battle. If you are engaging enemy fleet in the middle of the ocean, you have to pray that you have at least 70% fuel. Why?

Because ships are just eating fuels in battles. I looked at the statistics and the fuel % is went down very very fast. 

I had some very bad situations because of this high fuel consumption. When you are low on fuel your speed is dropping radically. As for my example: My long range battleship with 21 knots went down to 13 knots. My CAs from 23 kn ton 8 kn if I remember correctly. 

Why is this an issue? Well of course without speed you won't maneuver. You won't dodge torps if the enemy DD is russhing towards you. Easy prey. 

Fuel consumption is a very good feature in this game, and it is a must for realistic reasons. But I feel that currently in the battle, ships are burning fuel too fast.

I run a quick test to know if the ship speed would make any difference to the fuel consumption in battle. IMO ship sailing at cruise speed or less should have big savings to fuel consumption, but that is only my opinion. Anyway this are my results.

test:

- two equal ships.

- one is sailing at cruise speed and the other is sailing at flank speed.

- both started with 61% fuel. (custom battle)

after 45 minutes...

cruise speed 49%

flank speed 48%

 

So only 1% difference. This for me is not right. Not only there is no meaningful difference in fuel consumption between the two ships with the different speeds, the ship sailing in cruise speed lost 12% in 45 minutes. So how is it possible to travel long journeys this way?

Edited November 19, 2022 by o Barão

[Makko]

Tactical battle consumption is probably calculated differently than campaign map

[Marshall99]

19 minutes ago, o Barão said:

So only 1% difference. This for me is not right. Not only there is no meaningful difference in fuel consumption between the two ships with the different speeds, the ship sailing in cruise speed lost 12% in 45 minutes. So how is it possible to travel long journeys this way?

Exactly! This was in my mind too. 5-6000 km journey--> no problem

30-50 min battle-->oh no, low on fuel

This is what makes it unrealistic for me.

[Admiral Donuts]

Germany can't build the 700t torpedo boat when it becomes available.

[UncleAi]

Issues I have met:

1. Doomstack still exists sometimes. 

2. Fuel problem in the battle. In real world there will be ally port or tanker in the fleet.

3. Tension system still weird. Even normal deployment can cause -10 relation every turn. And it become war-tension-war cycle. We need more active diplomatic system like HOI, not RTW. 

4. Need closer starting distance. Really hate play the "smoke on West" "smoke on North-West" for 10 min. My Semi Dreadnought can only spot enemy 6 km away🙄 

5. Hope in the future we can build port defence and manually increase port capacity.

[UncleAi]

I think in diplomatic system should have:

1. Declare war. If you don't have navy advantage or you want to declare war to a friendly country, you need to use Naval Prestige to persuade your government. 

2. Improve relation. Use money to improve relation to another county. Eventually can make ally.

3. Port access. You can use their port to resupply or fix.

4. Tech communication. Accelerate your research or even buy tech.

5. Spy. Get intel like design or deployment. Steal tech.

6. Insult. Worsen your relation.

7. Peace agreement. Except current province, ship and money term. We need a 3 or 5 year armistice. Who break it will face severe prestige and unrest cost.

[Admiral Donuts]

10,000 ton heavy cruisers still all have 9,500 ton displacement.

[Ribba]

6 hours ago, UncleAi said:

2. Fuel problem in the battle. In real world there will be ally port or tanker in the fleet.

Isn't there simulated such a feature in the game? Maybe I remember wrongly, since I've stopped playing this game now and I don't bother to check if I remember correctly (I'm waiting for an update that makes this game playable again before I'll start up the game again), but I recall that if you leave your fleet standing still for one turn, the ships are refueled and/or ammo is restocked. 

[Lima]

12 hours ago, o Barão said:

I run a quick test to know if the ship speed would make any difference to the fuel consumption in battle. IMO ship sailing at cruise speed or less should have big savings to fuel consumption, but that is only my opinion. Anyway this are my results.

test:

- two equal ships.

- one is sailing at cruise speed and the other is sailing at flank speed.

- both started with 61% fuel. (custom battle)

after 45 minutes...

cruise speed 49%

flank speed 48%

 

So only 1% difference. This for me is not right. Not only there is no meaningful difference in fuel consumption between the two ships with the different speeds, the ship sailing in cruise speed lost 12% in 45 minutes. So how is it possible to travel long journeys this way?

Thanks I hate it. I constantly use cruising speed in combat to "save" fuel🙃

[DableUTeeF]

Obsoleting the hull by discovering the new technology and/or limiting the hull minimum displacement need some revision.

In this case Japan most likely doesn't have dockyard size to build new battleships and all cruiser and destroyer hulls are already obsolete but haven't discover a new one yet. At one point they had like 40 BC but literally nothing else.

But, battlecruiser? An 18 knots ship with 2 twin 12 inch and 2 twin 9 inch?

[Ribba]

5 hours ago, UncleAi said:

I think in diplomatic system should have:

1. Declare war. If you don't have navy advantage or you want to declare war to a friendly country, you need to use Naval Prestige to persuade your government. 

2. Improve relation. Use money to improve relation to another county. Eventually can make ally.

3. Port access. You can use their port to resupply or fix.

4. Tech communication. Accelerate your research or even buy tech.

5. Spy. Get intel like design or deployment. Steal tech.

6. Insult. Worsen your relation.

7. Peace agreement. Except current province, ship and money term. We need a 3 or 5 year armistice. Who break it will face severe prestige and unrest cost.

Lot of good ideas here, which I like to explore a bit more. 

1. I think it would be extremely difficult for the head of the admiralty to persuade the leaders of the government to attack a friendly country. At best, you could over time lower the standing between the countries. But if you could do false flag operation against that country, then it could be more plausible for you to persuade your government to declare war against a now former friendly country. So For instance, you could spend a little naval prestige to lower the relations with a friendly country, but you could also conduct a said false flag operation, which cost a lot of money, but with no cost of naval prestige. If your false flag operation is not exposed as a false flag operation, that is.

Because it should always be a risk of someone finding out the truth, maybe the risk is evaluated by how much money you have spent on the operation. And if the truth gets out, you lose a lot of naval prestige. If you have enough prestige left to keep your job, you'll still get your war, except that it's the country that you launched the false flag operation at, who will declare war. Also, all friendly and neutral countries towards that said country will increase tension towards your country, meaning you may end up in a bigger war then you intended to.

2. Maybe also offer tech or giving away ships to improve relations?

3. and 4. Nothing to add here.

5. Not only adding spies, but also adding intelligence branches into the game. With added fog of war on the strategic map, intelligence will be a vital part of collecting information about where enemy fleets are and what their intendent mission is.

6. This should come as an expense towards your naval prestige, since you're the head of the admiralty and are likely insulting other countries outside the normal diplomatic channels. 

7. White peace should also be an option. 

But I would prefer if the devs are prioritizing on fixing the game as it is now, rather then add new features like this. Even if this is something a would like to see in the game in the future.

[DableUTeeF]

The current mission assignment is just as painful as this "Dead Stack". I have 14 capital ships in another task force right next to this one but somehow the game choose the smallest task force displace less than a single new battleship to fight a dead stack of 8 battleship and 1 battlecruiser along with literally more than 100 smaller ships.

[DableUTeeF]

6 minutes ago, Ribba said:

Lot of good ideas here, which I like to explore a bit more. 

1. I think it would be extremely difficult for the head of the admiralty to persuade the leaders of the government to attack a friendly country. At best, you could over time lower the standing between the countries. But if you could do false flag operation against that country, then it could be more plausible for you to persuade your government to declare war against a now former friendly country. So For instance, you could spend a little naval prestige to lower the relations with a friendly country, but you could also conduct a said false flag operation, which cost a lot of money, but with no cost of naval prestige. If your false flag operation is not exposed as a false flag operation, that is.

Because it should always be a risk of someone finding out the truth, maybe the risk is evaluated by how much money you have spent on the operation. And if the truth gets out, you lose a lot of naval prestige. If you have enough prestige left to keep your job, you'll still get your war, except that it's the country that you launched the false flag operation at, who will declare war. Also, all friendly and neutral countries towards that said country will increase tension towards your country, meaning you may end up in a bigger war then you intended to.

2. Maybe also offer tech or giving away ships to improve relations?

3. and 4. Nothing to add here.

5. Not only adding spies, but also adding intelligence branches into the game. With added fog of war on the strategic map, intelligence will be a vital part of collecting information about where enemy fleets are and what their intendent mission is.

6. This should come as an expense towards your naval prestige, since you're the head of the admiralty and are likely insulting other countries outside the normal diplomatic channels. 

7. White peace should also be an option. 

But I would prefer if the devs are prioritizing on fixing the game as it is now, rather then add new features like this. Even if this is something a would like to see in the game in the future.

I wholeheartly agree that current bugs should be fixed first before adding new features.

However, do you really think we need a realistic diplomatic simulator on a naval battle game where a coal firing torpedo boats cannot be spotted by a battleship from further than 3 km away? Or 2 destroyers on parallel course less than 200 meters away with less than a knot speed different and the weather was flat calm cannot hit each other with any gun of any caliber?

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Thanks I hate it. I constantly use cruising speed in combat to "save" fuel🙃

👍

I also went on to research historical data about fuel consumption to have a better picture.

Many USA BB fuel consumption data from WWII in this link:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/Fuel-BB.html

 

As an example, BB 55 (North Carolina)

DATA PERIOD 1944-1945	BB 55 CLASS Table I.--WAR LOGISTICS DATA FOR STEADY STEAMING BASED ON RADIUS OIL*	SHIPS IN CLASS BB 55, 56

 

PROP. SPEED	FUEL RATE			ENDURANCE		SPEED	RADIUS	SPEED	RADIUS	FUEL RATE	WORK COLUMN
	MEAN	NORMAL RANGE	DAILY
	Mean displacement 45,700 tons†					Mean displacement 40,700 tons		Mean displacement 45,700 tons†
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)
R.P.M.	Gal./hr.	Gal./hr.	Bbl./day	Hours	Daft	Knots	Engine miles	Knots	Engine miles	Gal./eng. mi.
85	1,426	1,263-1,602	815±36	1,231±11	51.3	12.7±0.1	16,230±270	12.6±0.1	15,510±270	113.2
								13.0	15,160	115.9
90	1,568	1,389-1,761	896±40	1,120±10	46.7	13.5±.1	15,700±260	13.3 ±.1	14,900±250	117.9
								14.0	14,440	121.7
95	1,723	1,526-1,935	985±44	1,019±10	42.5	14.2±.1	15,020±250	14.1±.1	14,370±250	122.2
100	1,894	1,678-2,127	1,082±48	927±9	38.6	14.9±.1	14 330±240	14.8±.1	13,720±240	128.0
								15.0	13,530	129.8
105	2,082	1,844-2,338	1,190±53	843±9	35.1	15.6±.1	13,670±240	15.5±.1	13,070±240	134.3
								16.0	12,610	139.2
110	2,288	2,027-2,570	1,307±58	767±8	32.0	16.3±.1	12,990±240	16.2±.1	12,430±240	141.2
115	2,515	2,228-2,825	1,437±64	698±8	29.1	17.0±.1	12,320±240	16.9±.1	11,800±240	148.8
								17.0	11,710	150.0
120	2,765	2,449-3,105	1,580±70	635±8	26.5	17.7 ±.1	11,660±240	17.6 ±.1	11,180±240	157.1
								18.0	10,840	162.2
125	3,039	2,692-3,413	1,737±77	578±7	24.1	18.4 ±.1	11,040±240	18.3 ±.1	10,580±240	166.1
130	3,340	2,958-3,751	1,909±84	526±7	21.9	19.1±.1	10,430±240	18.9 ±.2	9,940±240	176.7
								19.0	9,860	175.2
135	3,671	3,252-4,123	2,098±93	478±7	19.9	19.8±.2	9.840±240	19.6±.2	9,370±240	187.3
								20.0	9,060	194.0
140	4,035	3,574-4,532	2,306±102	435±7	18.1	20.5±.2	9,270±240	20.3±.2	8,830±240	199.0
145	4,436	3,929-4,982	2,535±112	396±6	16.5	21.1±.2	8,670±210	20.9±.2	8,280±210	212.2
								21.0	8,190	214.6
150	4,875	4,318-5,475	2,786±123	360±6	15.0	21.8±.2	8,150±210	21.5±.2	7,740±210	226.7
								22.0	7,410	237.2
155	5,359	4,747-6,019	3,062±135	328±6	13.7	22.4±.2	7,620±210	22.2±.2	7,280±200	241.4
160	5,890	6,217-6,615	3,366±149	298±5	12.4	23.0±.2	7,130±210	22.8±.2	6,790±180	258.3
								23.0	6,600	266.1
165	6,474	5,734-7,271	3,699±163	271±5	11.3	23.5±.2	6,630±180	23.3±.2	6,310±180	277.9
170	7,116	6,303-7,992	4,066±180	247±5	10.3	24.0±.2	6,140±180	23.8±.2	5,880±170	299.0
								24.0	5,700	308.2
175	7,821	6,928-8,784	4,469±197	224±5	9.3	24.5±.2	5,710±180	24.3±.2	5,440±170	321.9
180	8,597	7,615-9,655	4,913±217	204±5	8.5	24.9±.2	5,280±170	24.7±.2	5,040±170	348.1
								25.0	4,760	369.4
185	9,449	8,370-10,612	5,399±239	186±4	7.8	25.3±.2	4,880±170	25.1±.2	4 670±160	376.5
190	10,386	9,200-11,665	5,935±262	169±4	7.0	25.8±.2	4,540±160	25.5±.2	4,310±160	407.3
195	11,416	10,112-12,821	6,523±288	154±4	6.4	26.2±.3	4,190±160	25.9±.3	3,990±160	440.8
								26.0	3,910	449.9
200	12,548	11,115-14,093	7,170±317	140±4	5.8	26.6±.3	3,860±160	26.3±.3	3,680±150	477.1
204	13,534	11,988-15,200	7,734±342	130±4	5.4	27.0±.3	3,640±150	‡26.7±.3	3,470±150	506.9

 

* See table V.
† Mean displacement during data period.
‡ Estimated speed at designed shaft horsepower (121,000 s.h.p.).

 

So we can see a big difference.

As an example, at flank speed 26.7 knots there is 13,534 gallons consumed per hour or 506.9 per nautical mile

At 20.9 knots (cruise speed in UAD?) there is 4,436 gallons consumed per hour or 212.2 per nautical mile

At 12.6 knots there is 1,426 gallons consumed per hour or 113.2 per nautical mile.

 

Table IA.--WAR LOGISTICS DATA FOR STEADY STEAMING
BASED ON MAXIMUM CAPACITY (95%)*

[NOTE: Fueling beyond the radius oil capacity increases radius at the expense of resistance to underwater damage.
This table is made available to the commander as a supplement to table I for use when increased radius and
decreased resistance to underwater damage are factors in a decision.]

Speed	Radius	Endurance	Fuel rate
	Mean displacement 46,700 tons
Knots	Engine miles	Days	Bbl./day
13	18,290	58.8	861
14	17,420	51.9	974
15	16,320	45.4	1,113
16	15,210	39.7	1,274
17	14,130	34.6	1,457
18	13,080	30.3	1,670
19	11,900	26.1	1,936
20	10,930	22.8	2,217
21	9,880	19.5	2,577
22	8,940	17.0	2,983
23	7,960	14.5	3,499
24	6,880	11.9	4,227
25	5,740	9.7	5,278
26	4,720	7.5	6,685

 

Also, there is this chart but to be fair, is a little confusing for me. Maybe is interesting for you guys, so...

And I learned the difference in weight between diesel and fuel 👍

Conversion factors:

Diesel oil:	314 gallons =	1 ton.
Fuel oil:	277 gallons =	1 ton.

 

1 US gallon = 3.78541178 liter

Edited November 20, 2022 by o Barão

[Ribba]

28 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

I wholeheartly agree that current bugs should be fixed first before adding new features.

However, do you really think we need a realistic diplomatic simulator on a naval battle game where a coal firing torpedo boats cannot be spotted by a battleship from further than 3 km away? Or 2 destroyers on parallel course less than 200 meters away with less than a knot speed different and the weather was flat calm cannot hit each other with any gun of any caliber?

I don't need this to be a realistic diplomatic simulator, but I do want to have some control with who I'm gonna fight and who I don't want to fight. So some diplomatic options would need to be implemented in the game for me to be really happy with this game.

And then, to make the game more immersive, the narrative has to feel plausible. So you do not necessarily have to change much to the game mechanic to make a story feel more realistic, you can do it you formulate yourself. 

For instance, when a ship has too many casualties, they surrender. Nothing wrong with that, but in the cases that they do surrender and the enemy is 30 seconds having their last ship being sunk, the story suddenly feels unrealistic. But if you phrase the sentence  to that your captain order the crew to abandon the ship due to massive losses and damage to the ship, the story suddenly is much more plausible again. And you do that without changing any game mechanic. 

So I would be satisficed having a light hearted in the game, but the narrative have to be well written. And all options for the player don't necessarily have to be an option for the AI. For instance, false flag operations for an AI is not something I feel should be implemented in the game, since it would probably give the player a less feel of control of the game if friendly nations suddenly launch a false flag operation against you.

Edit:
Also, if another nation do want to go to war against me against my wishes, I want it feel that it's plausible and that there is an agenda behind it to why they are doing it. I don't want them to go to war just because the are angry at me. So if an enemy are going for long lasting war, they should have an agenda for why they entered this war. If the only went to war because of high tension, a peace treaty should be rather easy to get, especially if they are democratic countries.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Ribba

[Lastreaumont]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:03 PM, Pappystein said:

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)

Sorry, I was too unprecize (I wanted to do it short). I didn't talk about the problem you mentionned with the 1/12th scale B29 that need an internal structure with very different capabilities compared to the one of its big brother at scale 1. I was focused only on the aerodynamic form of the plane, that can be less efficient if scaled too far away from its original size. This is a question of turbulences size according too plane parts sizes if I remember correctly. Sadly I din't remember the source and didn't find it again. Sorry. 
Starting from this, I assumed that if it can append into fluid dynamics in air, it can also append into fluid dynamics in water. But maybe I'm wrong. 
 

[Draco]

Feedback for this patch:

Formations are actually doing okay now... at least compared to what they used to be... just need to fix the zig-zagging and have a look at those "randomly stops moving" and "randomly gets restricted to half or even 1/4th speed" bugs.

Citadel armour is kind off a mess. I have no idea what inner plates do mechanically. Is the first inner plate a wrongly named de-capping/arming plate? Does citadel armour add a percentage decrease to the damage done by pens? does it buff the outer plates? Does it turn pens into partials? The description in the ship designer is highly nebulous, and could use clarification.

AI needs to learn to train their crews. Doesn't matter that you put your game on legendary difficulty and face 10x your own numbers when the enemy ships are crewed by hello kittying schoolgirls who can't hit the broad side of a barn at point blank... Makes the campaign replayability extremely low rn.

Same with mines. AI needs to learn how to not lose BB after BB to mines.

And please, for the love of god, sometimes ships can shoot at max range and sometimes no. I've fought so many battleships that had a max range of 40km and opened up at exactly 40km, while my own ships had to wait until they were inside 1/4th max range or whatever, except sometimes they too get to shoot at max range, completely at random from battle to battle and ship to ship.
Very frustrating.

Rest is amply covered in stealth17s latest campaign. The VP bugs, the ships surrendering in spite of victory, damaged ships suddenly not being damaged anymore when battle starts and vice versa.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Draco
Accidentally used the american spelling of armour, yuck!