>>>Beta v1.1 Feedback<<< [RC 6]

[DableUTeeF]

But in short, what you have to do is construct a path that make the ships in the division follow the vector of the "ghost ship" as desripbed by @neph.

And more importantly. Stop the turn BEFORE it pass the line, not just let the ship overshot the line then reverse the turn. The whole problem we have previously about the ship inthe division can't go straight is entirely because you make it stop turning too late.

Edited December 29, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Knobby]

Agreed, features that take control away from players are no fun. Why else would you play a game?

And we also desperately need a write up of how the existing mechanisms are supposed to work, even if, or actually especially when it's something we as a player have no control over. How else are we to test stuff?

I'm sure it will prevent lots of rage against AI decisions if we know what factors decide that decision. It will also certainly lighten the dev workload if we can stop reporting stuff as broken when we know how it's supposed to work and thus if something actually broken or not.

One example that I just noticed in my current game: Fuel costs.

As Britain I have a pretty big fleet. But I'm at peace and 90% of that fleet is sitting in port at 'limited'. I have 3 cruisers at sea relocating to another port, and a bunch of ships in port (limited) that are not at 100% fuel so presumably are getting refueled at this time.

Yet my fuel costs are nearly 37 million!

As Britain I'm literally swimming in naval funds so it's not that big a deal, but in other campaigns with less affluent nations this would be, and has been, a major problem. One that would most likely cripple my tech budget.

In fact, I just put my entire fleet of 90 ships on sea control and refueling these 15 ships, one 6th of my entire fleet, still costs more to refuel than the maintenance of my entire fleet!

Now I feel that 37m is way way excessive. But I don't know.

And why? Well, because like nearly every new feature since 1.8 we have never gotten any concrete information on how it should work.

I think that is pretty bad and the devs can save themselves lots of work and grief if they would just give a good explanation (with numbers!) of how all these features are supposed to work.

[PainKiller]

Guys stop. They are working on ship control / turning, this is not what is going in the live version. Writing here that the ships are uncontrollable and having ideas how can be improved is okay, calling the devs incompetent is not okay. 

1 hour ago, Alnitak said:

I konw you're not asking for this.What i mean is destroyers rule the battlefield before 1930 is the truth in this game.

Are we playing the same game? I'm in 1900 now, there are lot of battles where my 3bb 3ca (example) task force gets attack by 10dd, 10cl and few bigger ships, and i have absolutely no problem shooting down dds, using pre dreadnaugh bb with 11inch mains and 5inch secs. I'm corious what can be the difference. I hope you are not using auto-created fleet.

[Suribachi]

22 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

Guys stop. [...] Writing here that the ships are uncontrollable and having ideas how can be improved is okay, calling the devs incompetent is not okay. 

Agreed.  Let's keep it to constructive criticism.  I know everyone is frustrated, but if the devs continue to be hounded and torn down, there is a very good chance of burnout or worse.

[Alnitak]

51 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

Guys stop. They are working on ship control / turning, this is not what is going in the live version. Writing here that the ships are uncontrollable and having ideas how can be improved is okay, calling the devs incompetent is not okay. 

Are we playing the same game? I'm in 1900 now, there are lot of battles where my 3bb 3ca (example) task force gets attack by 10dd, 10cl and few bigger ships, and i have absolutely no problem shooting down dds, using pre dreadnaugh bb with 11inch mains and 5inch secs. I'm corious what can be the difference. I hope you are not using auto-created fleet.

Unfortunately, your example is an unequal battle. You should face at least 81 destroyers.

Or you can use 81 high-speed destroyers to encircle the enemy's 3BB and 3CA. It must be a massacre.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Alnitak

[PainKiller]

5 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

You should face at least 81 destroyers.

Fair play I haven't met with such force, sorry for doubting you.

[The PC Collector]

People is again misunderstanding. Of course a large force of destroyers should massacre a lone BB. But on a 1 VS 1 situation, which is what AdmiralDonut was describing, the BB should win 99 out of 100 times, with the DD only having a real option if it manages to reach torpedo shooting range undetected. If this doesn't happen, then the game is not properly balanced, period.

I agree that secondaries shouldn't be snipers or have godlike accuracy, but if a BB loaded with dozens of secondary guns can't fend off a measly DD, then what's the point of even having secondaries at all?

Edited December 29, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Zuikaku]

Just had couple of campaign battles in 1892. Mostly some 10 TBs of mine vs. A lonely enemy ship (CA or BB). In each engagement I pressed hard with agressive torpedo attacks at 30kt speed and lost from 3-6 TBs per mission. So, nothing wrong with secondary guns 

[Zuikaku]

9 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

People is again misunderstanding. Of course a large force of destroyers should massacre a lone BB. But on a 1 VS 1 situation, which is what AdmiralDonut was describing, the BB should win 99 out of 100 times, with the DD only having a real option if it manages to reach torpedo shooting range undetected. If this doesn't happen, then the game is not properly balanced, period.

I agree that secondaries shouldn't be snipers or have godlike accuracy, but if a BB loaded with dozens of secondary guns can't fend off a measly DD, then what's the point of even having secondaries at all?

All the time or sometimes?

[DableUTeeF]

1 hour ago, PainKiller said:

Guys stop. They are working on ship control / turning, this is not what is going in the live version. Writing here that the ships are uncontrollable and having ideas how can be improved is okay, calling the devs incompetent is not okay.

While I do agree that calling them "incompetent" is a bit strong on my part. I stand by my words because Nick's attitude of "Our algorithm is already the most realistic way to handle this and any change to it is unrealistic" is unacceptable.

It's not even because the current handlig characteristic is bad that I called them that. The first step to solve any problem is to accept that there's a problem to begin with. Continuous denying can only be described by that one word.

Edited December 29, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Alnitak]

4 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

All the time or sometimes?

Yes, the dd has been weakened for countless times, but it is still very strong. It can only be said that the dreadnought is too weak.

ps:if now is v1.0 you can build torpedo boat at 40kt.It's really God of War😆

[Zuikaku]

26 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

Yes, the dd has been weakened for countless times, but it is still very strong. It can only be said that the dreadnought is too weak.

ps:if now is v1.0 you can build torpedo boat at 40kt.It's really God of War😆

DDs shoul'd be as strong as skillfully being used. Dreadnoughts also. Asking "bristling with guns" to be equal to inpunity or guarantee that no DD can commence torpedo run and to be blasted from surface right away is just WoW arcade shooter school. Read about Taffy and Leyte. High tech dreadnoughts with gun stabilisation and top of the noch directors had hard time hitting fast moving DDs and TBs. Dreadnought ancient or modern without escort is just a sitting duck and disaster waiting to happen. They were designed to slug with other heavies at long range- not fast moving small targets closing in.

Also casemate and deck gun secondary (unturreted) mounts were not discontinued for no reason.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Zuikaku

[DieselPower]

Something that I think we all can agree on needing fixed is the menus not responding during the campaign. I know it's been reported before, but bears repeating.

 

Seems to mainly occur after a battle, and seems to usually affect the "Yes" button not functioning. When this happens, there is no way to exit the game other than via task manager.

 

Usually after a battle I'm presented with requests to build ships for minor allies, which I cannot accept, then I cannot exit to the main menu.

 

Hope this can get sorted out quickly, as it is quite the nuisance.

[admiralsnackbar]

4 hours ago, PainKiller said:

Guys stop. They are working on ship control / turning, this is not what is going in the live version. Writing here that the ships are uncontrollable and having ideas how can be improved is okay, calling the devs incompetent is not okay. 

Are we playing the same game? I'm in 1900 now, there are lot of battles where my 3bb 3ca (example) task force gets attack by 10dd, 10cl and few bigger ships, and i have absolutely no problem shooting down dds, using pre dreadnaugh bb with 11inch mains and 5inch secs. I'm corious what can be the difference. I hope you are not using auto-created fleet.

I also noticed in one of my battles that the accuracy of my ships was significantly lower than what I was normally accustomed to. Turns out that it was raining and the seastate was horrible. If you put a player in bad weather, don't keep the ships in a straight line on cruise mode, and the enemy is charging you and maneuvering with their smokescreens active the chance of hitting them is practically nill. 

(I should say that this is a reasonable balance since the reverse is true)

I was able to win in a single dreadnought still but only by taking advantage of the fact that the enemy was the Austrians whose torpedoes were too short range/slow to be launched at me as long as I was steaming away from the enemy. Eventually they *do* take secondary hits, slowing them down and causing them to eventually die. 



 

Edited December 29, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[Suribachi]

19 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I also noticed in one of my battles that the accuracy of my ships was significantly lower than what I was normally accustomed to. Turns out that it was raining and the seastate was horrible.

Maybe it needs to be a serious consideration to make it more opaque what the weather conditions are other than a tool tip tucked away in the corner.  I cannot speak for everyone, but I normally only check the conditions if my ships are in a considerably noticeable chop (ships are bobbing back and forth like a cork).  Even something as simple as including the conditions on the initial You Vs These Guys screen would be a welcome change. Many, many players posting about accuracy do not make mention of the conditions so it is entirely possible that many do not actually know that there are different conditions being that the render of the battlefield is always identical.

More information for the player as feedback to what is happening means more accurate information provided to devs means issues can be identified and fixed faster.

[admiralsnackbar]

9 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Maybe it needs to be a serious consideration to make it more opaque what the weather conditions are other than a tool tip tucked away in the corner.  I cannot speak for everyone, but I normally only check the conditions if my ships are in a considerably noticeable chop (ships are bobbing back and forth like a cork).  Even something as simple as including the conditions on the initial You Vs These Guys screen would be a welcome change. Many, many players posting about accuracy do not make mention of the conditions so it is entirely possible that many do not actually know that there are different conditions being that the render of the battlefield is always identical.

More information for the player as feedback to what is happening means more accurate information provided to devs means issues can be identified and fixed faster.

RN it's the testers responsibility to at least mouse over the weather icon in the top left at the start of a match. 

Long term the link between the sea state and the visuals on the battle map could be improved. Right now pretty much every battle is 'grey fog' 

[Suribachi]

10 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

RN it's the testers responsibility to at least mouse over the weather icon in the top left at the start of a match. 

Long term the link between the sea state and the visuals on the battle map could be improved. Right now pretty much every battle is 'grey fog' 

Completely fair for testing in the now.  I am not very good at distinguishing what I want for the now vs long term.  In my earlier statement, I was talking more long term.  I will try to be more clear in the future.

[Lima]

Land warfare report (Glory of France)

The glorious Maginot Line vs. dumb German generals

wE'll dO It aGaiN

This 1 percent is all that Brits have managed to achieve

The next month they were repulsed!

Stand no matter what

Meanwhile, the French army is making the only successful offensive in this game.

In general, I watched this for quite a long time and all the offensives except the last example failed. Austria-Hungary also failed to capture Serbia, too long in the red advance.

[Lima]

Austro-Hungarian magic (Space Marines)

Between them are independent Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania.

Edit: as expected

France has collapsed, Italy is trying to take its colonies, but...

Edited December 29, 2022 by Lima

[neph]

To be clear: the issues with ship movement are not an issue with the model. The MODEL is good. Ships being hard to turn is good. Ships being slow to accelerate and slow is good. The rudder its own inertia and being slow to turn is good.

The issues we have are with CONTROL. These are classical control (link) problems, and they're fundamentally the same as any 2nd-order control problem involving an object with inertia (in this case, also including a rotational moment). This could be a servo, trying to move an arm to a desired position and desired final velocity (0). This could be an autopilot, trying to achieve a desired elevation, heading, roll angle, and rate of climb. This could be a commercial cruise control, trying to maintain a target speed over varied grade despite the inertia of a heavy internal combustion engine prone to overrevving. This could be the regulation of an electrical signal in an induction-prone circuit.

 

All these cases are EXTREMELY WELL STUDIED. Control of a single ship is the same problem. The least sophisticated (yet possibly most efficient) solution is a PID controller.

When the player orders a heading change, that's a step signal. First, we were going one way & immediately, we need to be going another.

As of 1.10.4, we are severely underdamped (see the black line stating Ki=2), resulting in oscillations about the target that take a long time to settle down. We would like to be critically damped (the green line) or even overdamped (the red line), please!

Grab your favorite local engineer or bum a look off their textbooks. This is an elementary problem, and should be very simple to solve, if you take the time to do the math & create a tuning model based on ship handling parameters that will automatically tune the controller for each design.

Barring that, please let us modify the control coefficients (how hard the ship will start to turn, how soon it will turn the rudder back the other way, etc etc) ourselves in the ship editor.

Right now, there's no finesse. The control system is naive, and its resulting in bad behavior.

 

EDIT: While this was written to address the heading control issues, it is just as true of issues with fast ships maintaining speed in slow formations. Barring extremes (a light lead ship stopping short & a following heavy ship unable to slow in time to avoid collision) It can be done, with proper control systems & tuning of those systems.

Edited December 29, 2022 by neph

[Norbert Sattler]

On 12/26/2022 at 6:38 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Additionally, if you mothball some of your ships, you should receive orders for them too, has anybody noticed this

That does not seem to work.

I had 4 mothballed CLs. I got a buy request from my minor ally for two such cruisers, but instead of the mothballed ships being sold, I am now building two new ships for them.

[admiralsnackbar]

On 12/26/2022 at 12:38 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you not decline the sales offer?
 

Additionally, if you mothball some of your ships, you should receive orders for them too, has anybody noticed this?

The amount of ships that can be ordered by minor allies is limited by their port capacity. If you notice extreme examples where the Minor Ally has too many ships, please report with an image.

I wonder whether the AI's purchase decisions are influenced by the currently used capacity. perhaps they are ordering lots of ships because they haven't affected the existing port capacity, yet.

 

[Lima]

5 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I wonder whether the AI's purchase decisions are influenced by the currently used capacity. perhaps they are ordering lots of ships because they haven't affected the existing port capacity, yet.

 

That's right. Most of my allies have exceeded the allowable port capacity, but such allies no longer order ships.

[Zuikaku]

It is becoming increasingly boring/tiresome to fight with the same graphical representstion of weather all the time. Before it was allways daytime, now it is dusk. It is raining and cloudy? No, it is dusk. Daytime battle with clear weather. No, you are fighting in dusk.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Zuikaku

[Norbert Sattler]

Okay, I'm confident that this time I nailed both the cause and the solution for the bug that locks the speed.

This only happens when I set a group of ships to AI control and then deactivate that with the same button (albeit only rarely). If the bug occurs the speed slider can no longer be moved.

However the moment I make any manual course correction, the speed slider comes back to life and can be used normally again.

Edit: While the game is unpaused.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Norbert Sattler