>>>v1.09+ Feedback<<<

[RNV]

Quote

5 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

These are the missions this campaign needs:

Blockade mission - Targets a specific port and blocks all trade. Any fleets in the port have to sortie a break out to be used elsewhere. Fleets outside can also try to lift the blockade but are not required to even if operating in the sea zone.  

Commerce Raid - Targets trade in the sea zone, benefits from recon stat. Attacker has the option but not the obligation to attack. if attacker declines the mission does not appear. Defender must either defend the convoy or abandon it (convoys get captured or destroyed in that case)

Fleet in Being - Stays in port, can deterministically attack attempts at blockading or can probabilistically get involved in defending the local sea zone if enemy task forces are spotted by scouts. May be forced to fight a battle if port strikes are made a thing in the game. 

Scout - Try to detect fleets operating in the area. Will only be forced to engage if they detect a fleet that is faster than they are. Nearby fleets in being or other scouting fleets can be pulled in to attack the fleet with some calculations made for the speed of the respective fleets. 

Convoy Escort - Protect convoys from subs or raiders in the sea zone. 

 

 

I would add to this that being able to explicitly indicate one or more sea zones where the mission should take place would be nice. Unless the sea zone or mission generation system is changed substantially which would surprise me at this point.

[Draco]

I'm just gonna mention casually (again) that deck pen on big guns are still about 3 times as good as their real world equivalents, which means you need an 18" deck in this game to "simulate" the effects of a 6" deck IRL.
I don't understand why this game is so deck-pen-ophillic...

Edited December 2, 2022 by Draco

[Bigbear1975Fin]

I had quite slow battle.. Enemy had over 200 ships. Need more PC power . Never seen that before 1.09

[baatsman]

Gas turbines would not use boilers, however . . . Gas Boilers could ...

It is very possible from a pure Technical view, to heat water(also in boilers) with Flamable Gasses. even it is not a common maritime contraption(Flashfire chance +5, Spreading +2000?) and I guess thats why.

It still is one of the most common ways in the world to make something boil, aka dinner, tea, coffe.

You would need tech: 'Canary from mines in service on board', to mitigate early leakage (be warned though: On board women,umbrellas,and animals - dogs excluded,  Curses any vessel!!  

 I recon before techs: compartmented flow, sensors surveilance and solenoid valves, makes it way safer than any bunkers and solar oils.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by baatsman

[Bigbear1975Fin]

On 11/28/2022 at 10:51 PM, Draco said:

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

None. I think it has something to do if your allies is defeated its own war. 

[Rectifier]

1 hour ago, baatsman said:

Gas turbines would not use boilers, however . . . Gas Boilers could ...

It is very possible from a pure Technical view, to heat water(also in boilers) with Flamable Gasses. even it is not a common maritime contraption(Flashfire chance +5, Spreading +2000?) and I guess thats why.

It still is one of the most common ways in the world to make something boil, aka dinner, tea, coffe.

You would need tech: 'Canary from mines in service on board', to mitigate early leakage (be warned though: On board women,umbrellas,and animals - dogs excluded,  Curses any vessel!!  

 I recon before techs: compartmented flow, sensors surveilance and solenoid valves, makes it way safer than any bunkers and solar oils.

 

I think there is a missunderstanding of the word gasturbine.

The word "gas" in gas turbine don't refer to the used "fuel". Gas turbines, also known as combustion turbines, are feeded with a big variety of different fueltyps. This can be: natural gas, hydrogen, gasoline, diesel, oil, jet fuel etc..

The term "gas" in gas turbine refers to the process. Basicly in the combustion chamber the fuel is burned and the hot GAS is used to power the turbine. The Term gas turbine goes back, to differ them form the steam turbines.

Even mechanical engineer students missused the term, as i recognized on the university

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

 

But this brings me back to your suggestion. Let's modify your Idea.

As i said, gas turbines can be fueled with a big variety of fuel types. It would be good to have at least es few fuel options for this typ of engine, with an noticeable impact on the turbine, like in real life.

And maybe you can use the boilerslot, but not for a boiler (cause there are no boiler), but for the combustion chamber type... This would be very easy to implement, cause it allready in the game and it would make the turbine a useable enginetyp - powerful but expensive - with some research options for the campain

 

[Lima]

I can't take Tsingtau (Kiautschou Bay province) from Germany

[Eirchirfir]

11 minutes ago, Lima said:

I can't take Tsingtau (Kiautschou Bay province) from Germany

I have also notice that you can not take Tsingtau but it is not the only port that can not be taken.

Both Fort Bayard (Kwang-Chou-Wan province) and Perth/Darwin (Western Australia province) can also not be taken.

[Sphere]

On 11/28/2022 at 3:35 PM, 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.

 You can get the bonuses from a boiler even with a Diesel engine if you first select a boiler-turbine power plant, but then switch to a diesel. 

I haven't tried in on the current version, but in past versions you could jack your engine efficiency through the roof. 

[admiralsnackbar]

2 hours ago, Eirchirfir said:

I have also notice that you can not take Tsingtau but it is not the only port that can not be taken.

Both Fort Bayard (Kwang-Chou-Wan province) and Perth/Darwin (Western Australia province) can also not be taken.

i have to wonder if this is deliberate to give each side a minimum number of ports in a given zone. 

[admiralsnackbar]

Before i forget. I have to revise a comment I made about single/triple turrets. I was wrong that the weight of the guns increases linearly, now it doesn't. So triples are more efficient. Thanks for fixing that. 

However I can't say the same about Funnels. Generally the best funnels are the smallest ones of the highest tier. Often times you have large funnels that take up more than double the space of a smaller funnel but are significantly less than double the funnel capacity. 

Similarly for torpedo tubes it looks like a single tube is less than half the weight of a double tube. I've also noticed that torpedoes fired from single tubes tend to travel more 'straight' then torpedoes fired from multiple tubes. **let me double check this and remove the comment if it's not the case. 

Another thing I noticed is that powders which increase the effective range of the shells increase the accuracy of the guns more than is offset by the reduction in the accuracy from a direct modifier. Perhaps this is because accuracy is shown at specific ranges whereas the accuracy formula is a function of the maximum range, so increasing max range shifts the accuracy function to the right. 

I wanted to elaborate on guns and the technology:

The "Mark" system of heavy guns becomes a problem after 1910-15:

Prior to that point you have 9,10,11,12, and 13 inch guns which go from mark 1 to mark 3. 12 inch guns are pretty much better than 9-11 but you have a reasonable trade off of weight and rate of fire. But that also depends on the existence of hulls where 11 inch. More importantly, at max research you can keep up with the tech, and the guns you have are heavy enough to penetrate armor (at least some of the time) with the right technologies. 

Once you get to 14 inch guns you have a problem, mark 1 guns of any size are vastly inferior to the mark 3 guns, but the lower tier guns can't keep up with armor developments. The game starts throwing mark IV at you as you are trying to get 14-16 inch up to mark III and then you start getting mark 1 17 and 18 inch guns. You can spend a decade without getting a gun that is both sufficiently powerful and reliable against other battleships. (though 12-13 inch are great for slapping cruisers)

This is roughly my impression of the tech level of the various 'marks' of guns, which also tends to roughly coincide with the different generations of warships. (battleship, early dreadnought, super dreadnought, early modern, modern)
1: 1880-1899 
2. 1900-1910 
3. 1910-1920 
4. 1920-1930 
5.  1930+

I am inclined to think that if you get the 14 and 15 inch guns they should be roughly at the tech level of the 12-13 inch guns that you already possess. So you might consider skipping mark 1-2 for 14-15 inch guns and above.  And as I already said, merging the heavy caliber guns 9-10, 11-12, 13-14, 15-16 can also take strain off of the tech tree which struggles to keep up. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[neph]

On 12/2/2022 at 4:10 AM, Draco said:

I'm just gonna mention casually (again) that deck pen on big guns are still about 3 times as good as their real world equivalents, which means you need an 18" deck in this game to "simulate" the effects of a 6" deck IRL.
I don't understand why this game is so deck-pen-ophillic...

Very true. Yet, at the same time, it's possible to fail to penetrate the deck of a vessel which is rolled nearly over to you, at point blank range.

Why?

Because the game calculates separate deck/belt pen values, based upon an assumed flat deck & standard ballistic arc. This worked fine in previous versions of the game, where roll from flooding was only a graphical effect. Now, it's entirely common for me to see a light cruiser resist point-blank 12" fire for 100s of rounds. When the ship builder decides you can only punch through 0.5" of deck armor (effective) at <1000 yards, that's what the game hears.

We need a unified "can penetrate this much armor" value & calculate whether or not it ricochets/partial pens/pens in realtime, instead of having precalculated deck/belt values based on now-faulty assumptions about the terminal relative angle.

 

Change deck/belt penetration values to--a single penetration value & the angle (from the horizontal) at which the shell will fall--for each given range.

[Draco]

6 hours ago, neph said:

Very true. Yet, at the same time, it's possible to fail to penetrate the deck of a vessel which is rolled nearly over to you, at point blank range.

Why?

Because the game calculates separate deck/belt pen values, based upon an assumed flat deck & standard ballistic arc. This worked fine in previous versions of the game, where roll from flooding was only a graphical effect. Now, it's entirely common for me to see a light cruiser resist point-blank 12" fire for 100s of rounds. When the ship builder decides you can only punch through 0.5" of deck armor (effective) at <1000 yards, that's what the game hears.

We need a unified "can penetrate this much armor" value & calculate whether or not it ricochets/partial pens/pens in realtime, instead of having precalculated deck/belt values based on now-faulty assumptions about the terminal relative angle.

 

Change deck/belt penetration values to--a single penetration value & the angle (from the horizontal) at which the shell will fall--for each given range.

I feel your frustration. I remember there was a version of the game where the ship hit indicator showed a chance to hit deck v belt based on current range and angle of fall of the specific gun, and it actually worked, deck hits were almost not a thing at close range for a short while, but then they went back to the version we have now where it's just a random chance that determines where you hit no matter angle and so forth, or at least it feels that way... don't know why.
There was also a version where the gun ballistics actually followed real world gun performance, with deck pens rising in efficiency more exponentially as you went out further, but for some reason they now have a "35km is best pen" rule for all guns which is just so weird... and you can get deck pen values that are better than your point blank belt penetration which is just such a gross misunderstanding of ballistic physics... I hope someone makes a realism mod for this game when it comes out for real.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Draco

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Draco said:

but for some reason they now have a "35km is best pen" rule for all guns which is just so weird

Interesting. I wasn't aware about this changes to the deck pen.

@Nick ThomadisThere is UI limitation with gun tables that don't add the new range values when changing the gun barrel length. However, it will update if you change the propellant. In other words, it is a BUG with the UI (report)

Funny bug with guns elevation

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by o Barão

[Eirchirfir]

In my Japanense campaign which currently is on year 1934 and I am the most andvanced navy in the world with USA being in seconed place. I have already taken every port I can from the US but keep getting into wars due to the US parking their navy on the west coast and sending ship through the panama cannel which I own leading to tenstion being generated.

This lead to another war with the US. In response so did I send a task force consisting of 2 BB armed with 4x4 400mm guns and radar with an escort of 1 CA and 4 DD to help my submarines with clearing the west coast of American ships.

I came into contact with an enemy task force of CA, CL and DD as I have taken all American BB in the last war. During the process of sinking the enemy task force so did I spot this relic:

This is a campaign start CL which was designed by the AI in the start of campaign generation which means 1886 in this case. I do not know how it survived for all these years but it did not survive this battle, but this brings me to the point that I have not seen the AI srcapped a single ship during the 1.09 uppdate. I have notice the AI send some task forces into ports but they have yet to scrapped any outdated ships which take up crew which could be used for better designs in this case.

[Aldaris]

An issue that remains incredibly frustrating is the ghost battles happening all the time.

Right now I'm in a war with the USA, and they run away every single battle. Doesn't matter what the force composition is, they will flee even when they have a distinct advantage.

In my opinion, the AI should NEVER flee at the start of the RTS battle.

If the enemy force is fast enough to run away and does not wish to fight, simlpy don't give me a battle. If I load into a battle, I want to fight, not set course, set times 30 and wait for "end battle" to appear 5 minutes later. I don't think there is any player out there who appreciates constant stern chases starting at 20km separation with a closing speed of 1 knot.

[Aurora]

I noticed a bug when building CAs:
If i build a fairly standard CA with both 8" main guns (best seen with at least 3 or 4 turrets) and a whole bunch of 2" guns, it often happens that the 8" guns fire very erratically if both kinds of guns are in range and can fire. The 2" guns will shoot at their full rate of fire without issues, while the 8" stay loaded and pointed at the target, only firing occasionally and far below their rate of fire. If i turn off secondaries, the 8" will instead start to fire normally.

AI ships are just as affected: i was fighting an enemy CA with a CL and their 8" main battery fired very rarely while their 2" and 3" secondaries kept peppering me, essentially turning the fight from an almost certain loss to an easy victory because their secondaries weren't powerful enough to kill me.

There's also something a bit weird with guns from 5" to 8": they seem to try to fire in sequence, but often will almost stall instead of firing all guns. It's especially noticeable if you build a CL with 4.9" guns and then compare it to one with 5" guns, the difference in how they fire is clear.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Aurora said:

I noticed a bug when building CAs:
If i build a fairly standard CA with both 8" main guns (best seen with at least 3 or 4 turrets) and a whole bunch of 2" guns, it often happens that the 8" guns fire very erratically if both kinds of guns are in range and can fire. The 2" guns will shoot at their full rate of fire without issues, while the 8" stay loaded and pointed at the target, only firing occasionally and far below their rate of fire. If i turn off secondaries, the 8" will instead start to fire normally.

AI ships are just as affected: i was fighting an enemy CA with a CL and their 8" main battery fired very rarely while their 2" and 3" secondaries kept peppering me, essentially turning the fight from an almost certain loss to an easy victory because their secondaries weren't powerful enough to kill me.

There's also something a bit weird with guns from 5" to 8": they seem to try to fire in sequence, but often will almost stall instead of firing all guns. It's especially noticeable if you build a CL with 4.9" guns and then compare it to one with 5" guns, the difference in how they fire is clear.

A pretty good post here by Painkiller. Following these "instructions" I have no issues with my guns

 

MDH

Edited December 5, 2022 by MDHansen

[Aldaris]

Another general campaign thing that has been mentioned, but bears repeating:

Task forces being continuously blocked from moving by engagements every turn really needs to be changed.

I have had cases where I ordered a task force back into a port that wasn't even 1000 km away, and they didn't make it for 7 months. There was a fight every turn, they were completely out of ammo, and yet, they refused to go back into port.

 

Suggestion: resolve any relevant engagements, but resolve movement afterwards. I get that movement normally happens between turns, but this complete blockage needs to go. If it is impossible to resolve movement and combat in one turn, disable engagements after one turn when movement has been ordered.

[Aurora]

3 hours ago, MDHansen said:

A pretty good post here by Painkiller. Following these "instructions" I have no issues with my guns

 

MDH

Thanks, i missed that post. Nice that i'm not the only one seeing this, it's a big annoyance but eventually maybe they'll fix it.

[PainKiller]

2 hours ago, Aurora said:

Thanks, i missed that post. Nice that i'm not the only one seeing this, it's a big annoyance but eventually maybe they'll fix it.

I have been wathing this gun behaviour for 3-4 months now i belive? Patch after patch, nothing happens about this. Devs don't even say anything. Everyone, if you see this, please keep sending in bug reports. They can't just ignore this forever. The more people voicing this the better. I'm sick of this bug. I'm not even gonna play until this gets patched. 

[Pappystein]

14 hours ago, Aldaris said:

An issue that remains incredibly frustrating is the ghost battles happening all the time.

Right now I'm in a war with the USA, and they run away every single battle. Doesn't matter what the force composition is, they will flee even when they have a distinct advantage.

In my opinion, the AI should NEVER flee at the start of the RTS battle.

If the enemy force is fast enough to run away and does not wish to fight, simlpy don't give me a battle. If I load into a battle, I want to fight, not set course, set times 30 and wait for "end battle" to appear 5 minutes later. I don't think there is any player out there who appreciates constant stern chases starting at 20km separation with a closing speed of 1 knot.

I have found, Reacently in two new campaigns that I have fought that since HF2 new careers haven't had this issue...   But I have also seen the Enemy isn't building Speedsters anymore and when they realize they can't outrun me they come to me to fight... so within 5 minutes of game start I am at the merge if you will.    My PRE HF2 carrers are all as you describe however.

 

Oh if it helps I choose NON Historical  (since my ships won't be historical...)   IDK but I though I would include that!

 

------------------------------

also that may not matter.   Many bugs seem to be almost "system dependant"   EG I have never had issues that many others have had... but I have had issues that no one else seems to report atleast in the forums.   So who knows!

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Pappystein

[neph]

15 hours ago, Aldaris said:

An issue that remains incredibly frustrating is the ghost battles happening all the time.

Right now I'm in a war with the USA, and they run away every single battle. Doesn't matter what the force composition is, they will flee even when they have a distinct advantage.

In my opinion, the AI should NEVER flee at the start of the RTS battle.

If the enemy force is fast enough to run away and does not wish to fight, simlpy don't give me a battle. If I load into a battle, I want to fight, not set course, set times 30 and wait for "end battle" to appear 5 minutes later. I don't think there is any player out there who appreciates constant stern chases starting at 20km separation with a closing speed of 1 knot.

Absolutely agree. The campaign/world AI & the battle AI needs to agree. If "my convoy is under attack" and I have to pop 30x & wait 5 minutes while you run away, that's just awful game design. Same for ambushes. Don't run your 7 destroyers away if you're going to give me a mission. Same with port raids, etc. Either don't run away or don't give me the mission.

 

Edit: at a minimum, say (on the world screen) "Opponent successfully withdrew" and never put us into the battle. That way I'll know I need to build faster ships.

Edited December 6, 2022 by neph

[kineuhansen]

any news

[Toby]

8 hours ago, kineuhansen said:

any news

Sadly with the power cuts now effecting kyiv and russia continuing to throw their toys out the pram and commit warcrimes o'clock the game is likely to see some delays in releases and patches for the forseeable future