>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[Bigbear1975Fin]

Why this keeps happening? 

[Zuikaku]

Bismarck expended quite amount of main gun ammo trying to fend off cruisers and destroyers shadowing her. Result was 0 hits. Taking into account Bismarck had radar and excellent fire control, gunnery in the game is laughable. Battleships score hits after first or second salvo at fast moving destroyers obscured by smokescreens. In early era gunnery vs. small targets is also extremely efficient. This needs some tweaking.

[o Barão]

51 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Bismarck expended quite amount of main gun ammo trying to fend off cruisers and destroyers shadowing her. Result was 0 hits. Taking into account Bismarck had radar and excellent fire control, gunnery in the game is laughable. Battleships score hits after first or second salvo at fast moving destroyers obscured by smokescreens. In early era gunnery vs. small targets is also extremely efficient. This needs some tweaking.

Bismark radar was disabled since the first encounter.

Edited November 28, 2022 by o Barão

[Lima]

47 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Bismarck expended quite amount of main gun ammo trying to fend off cruisers and destroyers shadowing her. Result was 0 hits. Taking into account Bismarck had radar and excellent fire control, gunnery in the game is laughable. Battleships score hits after first or second salvo at fast moving destroyers obscured by smokescreens. In early era gunnery vs. small targets is also extremely efficient. This needs some tweaking.

Even without radar, Bismarck in the game can destroy dozens of destroyers with main guns. At the same time , some DD/CL can do 40+ knots and they are very difficult to hit. It's funny to see how whole fleet is shooting behind/ahead of the target.

[Zuikaku]

"Bismarck" in the game can achieve 70%-80% hit rate with her main guns on DDs, CLs and BBs at 25km range. That is with trained crew and 1934 tech. Her secondaries are well above 50% hit rate vs. DDs at 10km range. If that is not overpowered than I don't know what is.

[o Barão]

11 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

"Bismarck" in the game can achieve 70%-80% hit rate with her main guns on DDs, CLs and BBs at 25km range. That is with trained crew and 1934 tech. Her secondaries are well above 50% hit rate vs. DDs at 10km range. If that is not overpowered than I don't know what is.

70% hit rate against a DD at 25km away? I will need a screenshot.

 

But I agree with you about the accuracy values in game are unrealistic. But if you want to blame someone about this. Blame the players, not the devs. What we have now is the result of many players complaining how hard it was to hit anything without having any idea how it was IRL. And it was also an easy solution to balance the capital ships against torpedoes in a time we didn't have the dud mechanics in the game. Then we got the long barrel mechanic and everything got hello kittyed.

[Draco]

Just finished a campaign from 1930 to 1950, here are some thoughts.

Japan is way too easy to blockade right now, you only need naval superiority in east asia, maybe split it into two naval regions, IE east china sea being it's own thing so japan has a better chance to defend itself against blockade?
Similarly, I think the AI needs to learn to not declare war again until they have built a new and stronger fleet.
I sank japan's fleet in a doomfleet battle in like 1933 and they never had a chance to rebuild as they kept declaring war on me again before they had time to build anything substantial and just got stuck in a perpetual blockade and building subs from 1933 until the game was over. Not very challenging.
Generally there was a feeling of "beat them once and they will never recover" as it was pretty much the same story for the austrians and russians, although they did occasionally maintain peace long enough for there to be at least a few BBs to sink when the war turned hot again.
Overall the AI seems to have learned to train their crews to at least trained/regular status now, kudos! Now they just need to learn to design ships that pose a challenge.
I subscribe to the idea of player designs being used by the AI. At least as a temporary solution until the machine learning algorithm starts pumping out AI designs that are a true challenge. Should be easily doable through the steam workshop, and I can even envision a tree of potential refits for the AI to use depending on which techs they unlock first.
The AI should also be made more likely to refit their ships. Battleships in 1945 with mk.I guns need to be abolished!
Finally, it would really reduce tediousness if there were no time restrictions at all. Chasing fleeing enemies gets so boring once you get stuck on x10 or x5.
Apart from that though, very enjoyable and engaging campaign overall, especially the doombattles feel like reliving some of my old HOI4 glory campaigns again, although in real time, which is nothing short of amazing!

[Admiral Donuts]

I'm thinking the real problem with economic woes in the mid-to-late game is the exorbitant cost of engines. Other parts contribute as well. Most parts never are reduced in size and cost as technology increases. For example the Turbo-Electric Drive is 90x the cost. Just maintaining a small fleet becomes outrageously expensive very quickly.

[admiralsnackbar]

1.9 Feedback from me: 

The Good: Looks like some of the gun modules have been rebalanced, plus the addition of hulls that fill in some of the gaps from before. So 2.9 inch guns are no longer king. 

The Bad: 

The campaign mission / fleet management system is not good enough for the inclusion of submarines and minesweepers at this time. I would also strongly advise against having minelaying as a way to randomly damage enemy ships anywhere in the map, but instead a way to protect ports from direct blockades or strikes. 

And no that's not the only problem with the campaign, but every other problem with the campaign are problems that existed in 1.8 and previous campaigns. I kept up a list of them, and I'm not including stuff like "These guns are too accurate" 

Outstanding issues:

1. (Game breaking issue) Campaign AI too beligerent, does not factor in the strength of its fleet or economy in decision to go to war 

2. (Probable bug) Inexplicable false peace deals (enemy sues for peace, "the war continues", etc.) that really make you want to commit horrible war crimes on your perfidious enemies. 

3. (QOL)  Tedious management system of fleets on the campaign map, please just let us build our divisions and fleets using some kind of drag drop and/or collapsible menus. At a glance we should be able to see what ships are in each division, what divisions are in each fleet, and where these fleets and divisions are and what missions they are set on. Bonus points if we get some basic insights into the health/fuel/ammo state of the ships within the divisions.  Look at Grand tactician civil war's "Army/Corps/Division" or Hoi4's naval UI as examples. I imagine this would take some time to build so I don't expect to see it for a long time, but I wouldn't recommend calling the game released that uses the current, highly wonky system. 

4. (QOL & somewhat game breaking) Battle AI and Campaign AI  disagree about whether to attack or run away. Campaign AI attacks your fleet, battle AI decides to run away the instant they load in. 

5. QOL - Battles could use more leeway in time compression for ending boring stern chases. 

6. (Balance) - Tech tree research is too slow, even with funds maxed out at all times you won't be able to keep up with what was historically feasible. I don't know if the research times are set manually for each item or done by formula. I would recommend some sort of time ahead and time behind penalty. Have research and focuses not simply increase 'speed' but blunt the ahead penalties. 

6b. Related to the above you might consider compressing the number of tech tree items on guns by pairing them up (2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, 15-16, 17-18, 19-20) -- Also consider removing the low mark tiers for higher gun calibers. (It's not as if you invent a 16 inch gun with 1890s technology in 1920)

7. (QOL/Game breaking issues) -- 1890s and 1900s fleets feature excessive numbers of surface ships, and the AI tends to doomstack them.  It's kind of fun having your 1st and second gen dreadnoughts literally destroy 300 surface ships in a single battle, but that single battle tends to play like a slide show. It makes starcitizen look like a smooth gameplay experience. 

8. (Balance, low priority IMO) turret weight should not be directly proportional to the number of guns. 3 guns in a single triple turret right now weighs as much as 3 separate turrets. 

9. (QOL, low priority) The game right now has a ridiculous number of barbettes. I would consider designing barbettes specifically for certain turret rights and/or specifying in the name what turret size it's used for.

10. Port capacity - Ports and naval bases are not really the same thing. Port capacity is supposed to increase organically over time, but in reality the displacement of ships and fleets tends to grow too quickly. Since we can increase dock size I would recommend separating ports (for trade) from naval bases, and give players the ability to invest $$ to increase the capacity of the naval bases. 
 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

 

"I would also strongly advise against having minelaying as a way to randomly damage enemy ships anywhere in the map, but instead a way to protect ports from direct blockades or strikes. "

+1

"2. (Probable bug) Inexplicable false peace deals (enemy sues for peace, "the war continues", etc.) that really make you want to commit horrible war crimes on your perfidious enemies.  "

It seems that it is your government that wants to go on with the war. Not a bug IMO.

[admiralsnackbar]

10 minutes ago, o Barão said:

"I would also strongly advise against having minelaying as a way to randomly damage enemy ships anywhere in the map, but instead a way to protect ports from direct blockades or strikes. "

+1

"2. (Probable bug) Inexplicable false peace deals (enemy sues for peace, "the war continues", etc.) that really make you want to commit horrible war crimes on your perfidious enemies.  "

It seems that it is your government that wants to go on with the war. Not a bug IMO.

I would definitely change the text associated with that then. 

[Zuikaku]

5 hours ago, o Barão said:

70% hit rate against a DD at 25km away? I will need a screenshot.

 

But I agree with you about the accuracy values in game are unrealistic. But if you want to blame someone about this. Blame the players, not the devs. What we have now is the result of many players complaining how hard it was to hit anything without having any idea how it was IRL. And it was also an easy solution to balance the capital ships against torpedoes in a time we didn't have the dud mechanics in the game. Then we got the long barrel mechanic and everything got hello kittyed.

I know. I witnessed players spoiled with WoWs express their horror by their ships not being able to hit fast moving destroyers with first salvo. They just wanted sniper carriers and they got ones. I like historical gameplay more and in this way game is ruined for me. I'll suggest again what I gave before- give us realistic options menu. The ability to set the game we want so each of us can have fun. Turn of realistic gunnery to obliterate destroyers easily. Turn off dud torpedoes to have overpowered destroyers. Or have realistic gunnery where 10% hit rate is excellent result.

[Sphere]

On 11/27/2022 at 7:59 AM, Lima said:

Designer bug - a gas turbine engine do not use boiler, but is it so?

Let's choose turbines with natural boilers.

Then choose gas turbines.

Now. Let's go back to the turbines, choose balanced boilers and then choose gas turbines again.

-100% boiler weight, but as you can see, balanced boilers affects on weight and engine efficiency.

Edit: the same bug applies to diesels. It's just not so noticeable because of their high efficiency.

Damn ... someone reported it.

[Lima]

29 minutes ago, Sphere said:

Damn ... someone reported it.

This bug opens up new perspectives, but it's still a bug. There are already a hell of a lot of bugs in this game.

[neph]

War & tension system is very frustrating. I am Japan & I want the Philippines. I have been dutifully stationing modest fleets in Oceania, the Caribbean, and Southern Asia. I have been steadily getting that -2.1 relation per theater, each turn. Slowly yet steadily I work my relations with Spain down to 0... and then...

 

 

They go to war with the US, and they got to war with Russia. Boom, we're back up to 50 relations.

Now, the amount of tension you get seems to be a function of your existing relation. So now, we're going to be earning no tension, or we'll even been increasing our relationship by having fleets there.

 

THIS HAS HAPPENED EIGHT TIMES

 

Any time Spain, or one of her allies, or one of her friends goes to war with one of my enemies, I get a relationship boost that is worth months or years of tension building. It's expensive to have those fleets out there.

 

Devs: Please eliminate or substantially reduce the secondary tension/relation modifier caused when nations go to war.

[Lima]

19 minutes ago, neph said:

War & tension system is very frustrating. I am Japan & I want the Philippines. I have been dutifully stationing modest fleets in Oceania, the Caribbean, and Southern Asia. I have been steadily getting that -2.1 relation per theater, each turn. Slowly yet steadily I work my relations with Spain down to 0... and then...

 

 

They go to war with the US, and they got to war with Russia. Boom, we're back up to 50 relations.

Now, the amount of tension you get seems to be a function of your existing relation. So now, we're going to be earning no tension, or we'll even been increasing our relationship by having fleets there.

 

THIS HAS HAPPENED EIGHT TIMES

 

Any time Spain, or one of her allies, or one of her friends goes to war with one of my enemies, I get a relationship boost that is worth months or years of tension building. It's expensive to have those fleets out there.

 

Devs: Please eliminate or substantially reduce the secondary tension/relation modifier caused when nations go to war.

Meanwhile, almost the whole world loves me, although I have repeatedly destroyed their fleet and set their economy back decades. Just because we have neighboring colonies and there are no ships there.

[Draco]

10 hours ago, Bigbear1975Fin said:

Why this keeps happening? 

The screen says low victory points, did you lose a lot of ships?

[Lima]

I'm in the peace, and I've finally been able to watch online how the magical weighting of my ships happens. Like I said, it's wrong and it's just nonsense.

Well, some guys came up with a cool idea. And immediately, in one second, all my ships received it. By the way, this is a very complicated tech, for use it you need to rebuild the ship. But magically all my old ships get it. It was just worth the smart guys to think and the hulls of my ships changed. Fantastic.

I'm not saying that you need to remove bad modifiers from technologies. Obviously, it is necessary. BUT. Don't touch my old ships. When it is necessary, I will make a refit and apply all new technologies there.

The funny thing is that positive weight modifiers are applied during refit, and negative ones are obtained immediately. Why?

Edit: My God, it's going on. Just stop it. Enough. +3.Х hull weight is a LOT. Other technologies are simply not able to compensate for these brilliant scientists. Remind me, when was the last time a torpedo hit my ship? Like in 1910?

Edited November 28, 2022 by Lima

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, Sphere said:

Damn ... someone reported it.

Sorry, not understandable where is the bug. If boilers are not active, then boiler weight is -100%. Boilers do not exist and you cannot use any modifiers related with a boiler component because none is active. That is not something bad or good, it is a situation.

EDIT:
You see different weight in the same status? We will see if this is happening or something else is activated which affects the weight.

[Lima]

7 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Sorry, not understandable where is the bug. If boilers are not active, then boiler weight is -100%. Boilers do not exist and you cannot use any modifiers related with a boiler component because none is active. That is not something bad or good, it is a situation.

I think everything is obvious, no? I showed everything. You can get an efficiency boost for gas turbines using non-existent boiler. I mean, just look at the numbers. Just take a look. Try it yourself, choose different boilers on conventional turbines, then go to gas turbines.

+same on diesels

Just a hull with a funnel and turbines, natural boiler

Natural boiler + gas turbines

Balanced boiler + turbines

Balanced boiler + gas turbines

As you can see, the choice of the boiler on the turbines affects the gas turbines, although there should not be a boiler.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Lima
diesels

[Lima]

47 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Sorry, not understandable where is the bug. If boilers are not active, then boiler weight is -100%. Boilers do not exist and you cannot use any modifiers related with a boiler component because none is active. That is not something bad or good, it is a situation.

EDIT:
You see different weight in the same status? We will see if this is happening or something else is activated which affects the weight.

Edit answer: Yes, it happens because of the _boiler_. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. There is no reason for me to invent bugs, there are enough of them here already.

In addition, I chose an absolutely clean hull. What else could give boost to the gas turbines? Nothing.

[kineuhansen]

just had the idea for an supply transport ship we could design in campaing and it would supply our ships with fuel and ammo and it will show up in 3d battles we can be abble to choose if we want more fuel or ammo or 50 50 of each or diffrent version one with fuel and one with ammo and in battle the ship will show a circle arround the ship where you can sail one of your ship into and it will getnew supply but it only jave limited sheels and fuels so you wont spam shellsby just having ships sit in side the circle ps i dont know how offen a ship or fleet got re subbly at sea like today

[Capilla]

Nothing to see here. Tried to delete a post.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Capilla

[Canito]

I have a couple of recommendations/bug fixes: First off, I think fleets are way too big in some cases and cause the game to lag and basically cause a ton of chaos when in battle. I would recommend a fleet size limit to get past this. Second, when a ship cuts in front of another ship the shells seem to be almost drawn to it and hit almost at 90% it can easily be exploited. Third, I would recommend more randomizing on how shells hit around a target. Sometimes you see 10 shells hit in a row at the same spot next to a ship. It would be more realistic if they hit a random areas around the ship instead.

[Lima]

Notes from endame

For four years now (1938-1942) I have been at peace and let the game play itself. Of course, there is a world war XXX edition. 

The game counts "Update missions" for a very long time. I think it started with the appearance of a large number of submarines. However, there are no critical freezes.

I used to think that AI was suffering because of mines because of me. However, now the AI is destroying itself without my help.

Yes, this is the entire Italian battlefleet

At this point, after closing the first window with a report on mines, a second one appeared.

I thought that the reason was the too large size of the Italian fleet, but it seems that the reason is different. It seems that each such window shows damage from mines placed by different nations. I can get four such windows per turn. Yes, I've never seen this before, because my minesweepers removed all the mines.

Speaking of which, the main reason for AI problems is that it can place mines, but does not know how to deal with them.

AI doesn't realize that it needs a lot of destroyers. Also, as I showed the designs of the AI destroyers, it does not prioritize minesweeping equipment. In addition, AI constantly sends large ships without escort (single ships - reverse doomfleet).

Perhaps only Japan has a good situation with destroyers, but...I bonk them so hard that they don't attack anyone, but just move their 60 destroyers (and about 100s subs) around Japan. Other countries send their fleets to fight, but not Japan. Finally, when the Germans sailed to Japan, there was a battle, the Japanese doomfleet broke up and they got their brains back. Now they are building different types of ships and it looks like they will soon be at war with me. 

In general, mines and submarines need a lot of refinement. In the last war, it was very difficult for my 5000 ASW destroyers to fight against submarines. Everything requires ateention - generation of missions with submarines, auto-resolve, VP for subs. Now the enemy's submarines are just cancer, you press auto-resolve dozens of turns without much result. When you finally manage to sink a submarine, you get practically nothing for it, while your ship is very often damaged (yes, this destroyers with 5000 ASW).

Mines have the same problems (apart from the fact that AI does not know how to deal with them). Just no VP. I think it's not right to give full points for ships sunk by mines, but some points need to be awarded.

What was done with the blockade is both good and requires improvement. On the one hand, yes, now the effect of the blockade is significant. On the other hand, this way you can completely destroy a nation without getting its colonies. I halved Britain's GDP during the blockade, and it continued to decline for a long time (more than a year) after that. I think that with such an effect on the economy, they had to give everything so that I would stop blockade. Need something more than just 250 points for the very fact of the blockade, need to take into account the effect of the blockade (duration, damage for GDP).

It seems that three revolutions have already taken place in Britain this year. It is very strange, since this is the only AI country with a positive fleet prestige.

Minor visual bugs. Since I paid attention to the technology, I noticed it.

The same numbers for both the developed technologies and for the latest technology. When it is developed, the numbers will be correct, it's just a visual bug. Also, 1932 for remains for 7/8/9 super torpedo protection.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Lima