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

[Zuikaku]

Dissolving issue is much better now. Now just tone down amount of wars AI nations tend to ignire. Make them very reluctant to enter another war if already waging one. 

[Aurora]

46 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The problem of path oscillation is very old, now shown evidently with the UI and has minimal effect in the gameplay This is why there is no need for overexcitement. We already look to fix everything that you, the players report, but overexcitement and drama adds nothing to the result you, the players, seek. We will fix everything according to what is possible.
Regarding the rudder, we remove until it can be stable, not causing any bugs. That is all there is to it.  

I disagree that the effect is minimal, because as you saw in the video it makes a ship incredibly inaccurate for a lot longer than it should (literal minutes of fishtailing). Also having one of the most basic parts of it not working like it should is, in my opinion, a very big deal; moving your ship in 1.9 felt smooth while in 1.10 you're fighting against your ship to make it go straight as it did before.

I think that the excitement over this stems from the feeling that your replies often seem dismissive even if you don't intend them that way. Even a simple "We see the issue, it's related to the path oscillation problems you've seen before, we're working on it" would have reduced a lot of the complaints and doomposting.

Still, you're clearly working hard on the game (hell, you even patched it on Christmas), so i'll happily wait for updates on it. At worst i'll keep badgering you

[admiralsnackbar]

4 minutes ago, PoB said:

I would tend to agree....it may not be specifcally worse now than it was before but the UI change makes it -feel- much worse. And given that if I right click a direction and a whacky waving arm inflatable tube man line is drawn indiicating, it makes it enormously hard to tell if my input "took". The tipsy snake may be, in fact, more accurate of a representation than the straight line but causes the issue to appear more pronounced at minimum. 

I'm also not sure if this is demonstrative or just observation on my part but I feel like the squiggles now impact the "maneuvering" debuff far more than I recall in the past. In particular for very slight court adjustments, say, when bow chasing and you're just inputting very slight course changes that "before" wouldn't throw off the a accuracy that now create can create havoc until the squiggle stops. 

 

I posted a follow up about this. 

TLDR: The squiggles of the lead ship is new to 1.10, 1.09 had a more stable lead ship. 

Ships in formation follow a smooth path in 1.10, much better than 1.09.

It is not just a UI thing, the UI is showing erratic movements of the lead ship in 1.10, but the movements of the lead ship in 1.09 are not erratic. 

[popcap200]

Oh, imo it's worth noting, to me it feels like the lead ship AI isn't taking into account rudder shift time.  It feels like it's assuming instantaneous rudder direction changed.

[PoB]

13 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I posted a follow up about this. 

TLDR: The squiggles of the lead ship is new to 1.10, 1.09 had a more stable lead ship. 

Ships in formation follow a smooth path in 1.10, much better than 1.09.

It is not just a UI thing, the UI is showing erratic movements of the lead ship in 1.10, but the movements of the lead ship in 1.09 are not erratic. 

Interesting....originally when I first saw the extra movement I thought "Oh they added dynamic weather!" because the map I was on had severe weather. Then I saw the same behavior on a calm weather map and was when I started noticing the issue. I have noticed that the trailing ships are a little better in formation now, thuogh. But that's only slight comfort given you struggle to direct the lead ship.

[Suribachi]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Guys, as I said, we already look to it, and as you have seen in the beta, we already have offered formation improvements/adjustments and we will continue to do so until the result is satisfying. So why all this negativity?

I think for many players, the negativity is coming from a few very distinct things that I will try to go into detail without involving emotions as best I can.  But let me be clear, both sides are at fault in some way.  I do not claim to be an expert in game development, quality control or naval development history.  These are my thoughts and observations alone.

This is going to be a very long post, but I think it is worth typing it out and worth the readers time.  The most important point will be the fourth point. So without further delay:

First, lack of common vocabulary and terms.  The players for the last month or so have been using terms like "drunk" to describe the behavior of the ships without the developers actually knowing what it meant.  In this situation, I would say the best thing that could be done by the developers is to ask the player base what the term means.  Earlier today when you @Nick Thomadis asked what the word "drunk" meant in context, that was perfect.  I want to see more of that.  On the flip side, there are things listed in the game that do not have a set vocabulary and it seems to change without giving context to the player.  An example of this:  What is a "large gun" in the gun layout tree (specifically referring to x6 or 8x large side mounted guns)?  We have "big gun" and "small gun" trees, nothing refers to "large gun" so it is up to the player to interpret what this means.  On top of that, another tree makes reference to "naval guns", even more confusion.  This is not good.  If you, a developer or a player, do not know what a word means, ASK!  This leads me to my second point.

Second, lack of transparency.  This can mean a lot of things, but in this context, for me at least, we as the players do not know if the developers have acknowledged an issue or are working on it.  Should the developers post the bug numbers in relation to issues?  Probably not, usually an entire team is devoted to something like this in order to not slow development, at least for AAA titles.  But it would be nice if the developers replied to an issue report given by a player if it is something new.  In this way, players can see that the bug reports are actually helping the developers find issues.  If the player reports something that the dev team thinks is already reported, send a confirmation.  "Hey, we noticed you reported this issue.  Is it similar to this issue that was reported earlier?"  The player could then look at what was reported earlier and then say yes or no.  Whatever the response, the developers have more information now than they had earlier, either on a new issue or more information on one that was previously known about.  I understand that for a small team like the one working on this game this is difficult.  But I think it would be worth doing if the team is able to.  This leads me to my third point.

Third, the game is a black box.  The players are given update with new mechanics that are not very well explained then receive backlash when we report back that the update made the game worse.  As an example, I will use the fire control update.  For this example, I will include every single note from the updates, noting what update they are and then give my thoughts on it below.  The reason I am doing it this way is it might help seeing everything together at once.

Quote

1.10 Beta Initial Release

Major New Features

- Improved Fire Control: Now the ships can effectively target multiple targets from both sides of the ship with the same weapon group.  Previously each weapon group, for example secondary guns of 3-inch caliber, could only lock into one target and so if another target was approaching from the other side, the 3-inch guns would switch to this target and stop firing at the previous one, creating a very abusive situation against battleships which could not utilize fully their multiple secondary guns against destroyers that surrounded them.  With this new feature, which was one of the oldest and most requested from the players, the fire control should be much more effective and realistic.

 

Quote

Hotfix Update 3

- Repaired Target reset issues and now left side guns can fire efficiently.  Manual aiming has been restored. (Fps lag when selecting own ships will be fixed).

 

Quote

Hotfix Update 4

- Fixed manual aiming not being able to reset after destroying a target or losing it in sight.

- Your manual aiming can now be reset with the combination of keys Ctrl + Space (It is also written in the targeting tooltip).

 

 

Quote

Update 5

- Fixed remaining large issues with targeting reset.  Please check if all is fine now.

- Battle AI adjustments following the targeting fixes, because the AI was affected negatively from the previous buggy state.

 

Quote

Hotfix Update 6

- Improved further the targeting code, and now all should work much better.

 

Quote

Hotfix Update 9

- Improved aiming mechanics after the bug fixes.

- Shell dispersion improved so that not so many shells land short of the target but also over it.

 

Quote

Update 10

- Fixed bugs of aiming that made aiming to not grow correctly, especially for guns of the left side.

- Improved further the shell dispersion mechanics.

 

This brings me to my thoughts on how the changes were communicated to the player.  Initially, all the player could infer about the new system is that the secondary gun group could now fire at 2 different targets, each on a different side of the ship.  However, this was not what was observed.  Instead, the secondary gun group would now engage 2 or more targets on its own regardless of what side of the ship the target was on at random, switching frequently, and the player could not designate a target.  The player base reported this and it has largely been handled.  However, subsequent hotfixes and patches really only contained phrases like "we made this better" without telling the players what was changed.  Many other games usually state what the bug is followed by what was done to address it.  I will use Hotfix Update 4 as an example.  This should have been written as 
 

Quote

Hotfix Update 4

- There was an issue with the new fire control system not changing targets after the current target was sunk or went beyond the ship's field of view.  We applied a fix that allows the guns to switch to a new target if one is available or reset if there are no valid targets.

 This statement here gives the player much more information about what was changed and what we need to look for so we can provide better feedback.  If the player knew how something worked, especially together with other systems like firing arcs and armor calculations, the player can understand the how and why and thus give better feedback.  Instead, players are forced to guess at how the system is working so, instead of providing feedback about what is actually there, a lot of players make posts about how they think the system should work which does not help the developers improve what is already in the game.  I am guilty of doing this as well as seen below:  

Unfortunately, the players not understanding what the mechanic is supposed to do can lead to frustration on the developers side which leads to the fourth point.

Fourth, a lack of mutual respect.  Finally getting around to the main point of the post.  When players do not understand what they are supposed to be looking for the reports to the developers can be not very helpful to the developers.  From a developer point of view, it would look like the player is just wasting their time reporting the same thing again and again even though they have already applied a fix.  From a player point of view, the developer is not taking their feedback seriously and are largely ignoring what the player has to say.  This leads to a situation like earlier, where one side will lose their cool and lash out and the other side responds, escalating the situation beyond what was needed.  To add to the situation, the players were then told that a feature they use constantly to combat the effects of what the players perceive as a bug was going to be taken away because it "is causing bugs" without any further elaboration.  And finally, the players were told that the development team thinks they are getting close to a final release candidate.  To the players this may have been seen as a betrayal and a general disregard of everything they have worked to report thus far.  Obviously, the development team did not mean to explicitly betray or insult the player base and would get frustrated at this backlash and defend their work and decisions.  But my military drill instructor had a saying, "Perception is reality.  What you observe to be the truth, is the truth."  This works both ways.  Clear and upfront intentions can go a very long way in resolving misunderstandings.


So what can be done to fix all of this.  I cannot say I have the answers, but I have some ideas. 

First, both the players and developers have to acknowledge both parties work and respect the time and dedication that everyone puts into this project.  I will not expand on this further since my emotions will get in the way, but I feel this is self explanatory.

Second, the development team needs to be more clear about the changes they are making, including what they are changing, how they are changing it and why they are changing it.  This helps the player understand how things work and help the player provide better feedback.

Third, and I recognize this one will have mixed responses, players need to provide feedback on the feedback thread and feature ideas and other topics need their own separate threads.  This will reduce the noise of having valuable feedback buried in the noise.  Maybe there could be an accompanying thread alongside the feedback thread, something like "what feature would you like to see in the next version?"


At this point, I think I will stop typing now.  My hands are shaking wondering if I should even post this at all.  But I feel this is something that needs to be said.  Like I said before, this is a game I love and I want it to succeed and will do everything I can to help make that happen.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Suribachi

[PhoenixLP44]

 

1 hour ago, Suribachi said:

I think for many players, the negativity is coming from a few very distinct things that I will try to go into detail without involving emotions as best I can.  But let me be clear, both sides are at fault in some way.  I do not claim to be an expert in game development, quality control or naval development history.  These are my thoughts and observations alone.

This is going to be a very long post, but I think it is worth typing it out and worth the readers time.  The most important point will be the fourth point. So without further delay:

First, lack of common vocabulary and terms.  The players for the last month or so have been using terms like "drunk" to describe the behavior of the ships without the developers actually knowing what it meant.  In this situation, I would say the best thing that could be done by the developers is to ask the player base what the term means.  Earlier today when you @Nick Thomadis asked what the word "drunk" meant in context, that was perfect.  I want to see more of that.  On the flip side, there are things listed in the game that do not have a set vocabulary and it seems to change without giving context to the player.  An example of this:  What is a "large gun" in the gun layout tree (specifically referring to x6 or 8x large side mounted guns)?  We have "big gun" and "small gun" trees, nothing refers to "large gun" so it is up to the player to interpret what this means.  On top of that, another tree makes reference to "naval guns", even more confusion.  This is not good.  If you, a developer or a player, do not know what a word means, ASK!  This leads me to my second point.

Second, lack of transparency.  This can mean a lot of things, but in this context, for me at least, we as the players do not know if the developers have acknowledged an issue or are working on it.  Should the developers post the bug numbers in relation to issues?  Probably not, usually an entire team is devoted to something like this in order to not slow development, at least for AAA titles.  But it would be nice if the developers replied to an issue report given by a player if it is something new.  In this way, players can see that the bug reports are actually helping the developers find issues.  If the player reports something that the dev team thinks is already reported, send a confirmation.  "Hey, we noticed you reported this issue.  Is it similar to this issue that was reported earlier?"  The player could then look at what was reported earlier and then say yes or no.  Whatever the response, the developers have more information now than they had earlier, either on a new issue or more information on one that was previously known about.  I understand that for a small team like the one working on this game this is difficult.  But I think it would be worth doing if the team is able to.  This leads me to my third point.

Third, the game is a black box.  The players are given update with new mechanics that are not very well explained then receive backlash when we report back that the update made the game worse.  As an example, I will use the fire control update.  For this example, I will include every single note from the updates, noting what update they are and then give my thoughts on it below.  The reason I am doing it this way is it might help seeing everything together at once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This brings me to my thoughts on how the changes were communicated to the player.  Initially, all the player could infer about the new system is that the secondary gun group could now fire at 2 different targets, each on a different side of the ship.  However, this was not what was observed.  Instead, the secondary gun group would now engage 2 or more targets on its own regardless of what side of the ship the target was on at random, switching frequently, and the player could not designate a target.  The player base reported this and it has largely been handled.  However, subsequent hotfixes and patches really only contained phrases like "we made this better" without telling the players what was changed.  Many other games usually state what the bug is followed by what was done to address it.  I will use Hotfix Update 4 as an example.  This should have been written as 
 

 This statement here gives the player much more information about what was changed and what we need to look for so we can provide better feedback.  If the player knew how something worked, especially together with other systems like firing arcs and armor calculations, the player can understand the how and why and thus give better feedback.  Instead, players are forced to guess at how the system is working so, instead of providing feedback about what is actually there, a lot of players make posts about how they think the system should work which does not help the developers improve what is already in the game.  I am guilty of doing this as well as seen below:  

Unfortunately, the players not understanding what the mechanic is supposed to do can lead to frustration on the developers side which leads to the fourth point.

Fourth, a lack of mutual respect.  Finally getting around to the main point of the post.  When players do not understand what they are supposed to be looking for the reports to the developers can be not very helpful to the developers.  From a developer point of view, it would look like the player is just wasting their time reporting the same thing again and again even though they have already applied a fix.  From a player point of view, the developer is not taking their feedback seriously and are largely ignoring what the player has to say.  This leads to a situation like earlier, where one side will lose their cool and lash out and the other side responds, escalating the situation beyond what was needed.  To add to the situation, the players were then told that a feature they use constantly to combat the effects of what the players perceive as a bug was going to be taken away because it "is causing bugs" without any further elaboration.  And finally, the players were told that the development team thinks they are getting close to a final release candidate.  To the players this may have been seen as a betrayal and a general disregard of everything they have worked to report thus far.  Obviously, the development team did not mean to explicitly betray or insult the player base and would get frustrated at this backlash and defend their work and decisions.  But my military drill instructor had a saying, "Perception is reality.  What you observe to be the truth, is the truth."  This works both ways.  Clear and upfront intentions can go a very long way in resolving misunderstandings.


So what can be done to fix all of this.  I cannot say I have the answers, but I have some ideas. 

First, both the players and developers have to acknowledge both parties work and respect the time and dedication that everyone puts into this project.  I will not expand on this further since my emotions will get in the way, but I feel this is self explanatory.

Second, the development team needs to be more clear about the changes they are making, including what they are changing, how they are changing it and why they are changing it.  This helps the player understand how things work and help the player provide better feedback.

Third, and I recognize this one will have mixed responses, players need to provide feedback on the feedback thread and feature ideas and other topics need their own separate threads.  This will reduce the noise of having valuable feedback buried in the noise.  Maybe there could be an accompanying thread alongside the feedback thread, something like "what feature would you like to see in the next version?"


At this point, I think I will stop typing now.  My hands are shaking wondering if I should even post this at all.  But I feel this is something that needs to be said.  Like I said before, this is a game I love and I want it to succeed and will do everything I can to help make that happen.

You have a very good point there, communication is very important and if this game is to ever succeed the devs need to communicate more with the community be it about bug reports, general questions or if something is working as intended.

Edited January 3, 2023 by PhoenixLP44

[IshPR7777]

6 minutes ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

 

You have a very good point there, communication is very important and if this game is to ever succeed the devs need to communicate more with the community be it about bug reports, general questions or if something is wroking as intended.

I agree with you two

[Thamplet]

so reading through the comments its all a bit worrying, i can understand that there has been some confusion but to my knowledge there are still 3 big bugs that prevent this version from being playable and would urge you not to consider a release any time soon
 

• ships oversteering in a turn when a course is set (as suggested it does indeed seem to be due to the helm position, it does not begin to center until the end of the turn is reached)
   
• the amount of time between turns, +5 mins is not uncommon (not sure on this one but it would seem to be linked to the amount of wars being fought and the amount of single ship taskforces on the map. either way the AI is insane and all campaigns degenerate into one almighty bun fight with everyone at war and most at war with multiple other nations)
   
• Lag/frame rate/stuttering during tactical battles (this is better than it was on release of 1.1 but is still way below the performance of earlier versions 1.08, 1.09 ect and its no fun trying to play a battle with so many freezes and so much stuttering)
  
  now there are of course a lot of other bugs, i myself have only experienced these as game breaking bugs but i am aware that there are other bugs people are experiencing that appear to be game breaking and also need fixing. we understand you dont have hours to test play the game just as we understand that beta's have bugs, what is confusing and concerning is that with so many people reporting the same game breaking issues, you as the developer believe that 1.1 is pretty much fixed and playable and only needs a few tweaks that arnt important enough to deserve patch notes.
  
  on a side note, i thought id share this bug too, these transports appear to be flush deckers and not need anything at all 😂

[PainKiller]

This is the ship design page.

What is an XX type ship? I did not make this. No data, no picture.

[PoB]

18 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

This is the ship design page.

What is an XX type ship? I did not make this. No data, no picture.

I had that happen recently but I'm a little foggy as to what the circumstances were. Might have been related so a minor ally's ship order or something. It went away, or more accurately I think I had to do a end task and it was gone upon relaunch.

[MDHansen]

division ships #2-> fall nciely in line when doing turns it seems, a minor correction here and there, but mostly pretty good. 

And; screens, I'm afraid to say this, but they seem to behave once they get in position. I do wish they fan out more. but atleast they dont hide 20km behind the BBs

 

Disclaimer: a few battles on a new beta#10 game

[Grandpa Canuck]

I would like some clarification here on the fishtailing steering.

 

NICK: does the weather affect the steering any? Either rough seas or higher winds? Are you coding in Weather Helm type effects? The sides of a ship and its superstructure can cause a similar effect to a wind powered vessel in this regard.

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

I don't see anyone commenting on any difference in calm or rough weather. Just wondering if this is the case as IRL it is harder to turn and maintain course with higher winds and rougher seas. So angle to the wind and seas is a factor on maintaining a steady course.  I will try to look at this in my next few battles.

[DieselPower]

1 hour ago, PainKiller said:

This is the ship design page.

What is an XX type ship? I did not make this. No data, no picture.

I have noticed this too, usually it occurs at the same time I loose the "YES" button functionality.

I think you also cannot go into a new design as well?

Have sent the reports in game, hope it gets cleared up soon.

[SodaBit]

I'm not sure if anyone's reported this yet, but there seems to be another bug with formations.
I ordered this line of 5 CL's to sail ahead at 35.5 knots in close formation, but instead...

They decided that this meant they should sail in an impractically loose formation, with each consecutive ship proceeding at a slow pace than the ship in front of them.
This has turned what should have been a line of 5 CL's in tight formation...

Into something that can't even be called a formation, just a collection of ships sailing in roughly the same direction SPREAD OUT OVER 18 KILOMETERS.
I can't think of a single example of a formation of ships covering this much ground, aside from maybe the British line at Jutland, but that was over 2 dozen battleships, and their escorts, setting up for the biggest gun-line battle in human history.
This is just 5 10,000 cruisers chasing down a lone DD. WHY?

[AdmiralKirk]

I streamed about three hours of a new campaign last night (Italy 1900), and I noticed a couple issues:

• I started in 1900 with over 140,000 tons maximum displacement and over 230,000 total tons construction capacity. I don't know if the second figure is larger than intended, but I'm sure I shouldn't be able to build supercarriers before Dreadnought battleships were invented.
• Despite ordering my fleets out into the Adriatic and the broader Mediterranean on Sea Control and stationing my navy at mostly Adriatic ports, I was unable to ever develop tension with Austria-Hungary, and in attempting to pursue a war with them I could only degrade relations using the Politics screen. I'm still not sure exactly how the tension mechanic works, maybe this is the intended behavior.
• Between turns, the UI info box at the bottom left reports battles twice. That is, it'll show the report of "X fleet clashes with Y: [order of battle]" twice in a row. Seems to do it every time. I don't know if it applies to player battles yet because I haven't gotten into a war so far.
• There seems to be no way to know the status of your relationship with the minor nations, or to influence it as far as I can tell. It would be nice to have a submenu of the Politics screen that deals with this—at least for your nation, if not anyone else. Alternately, there could just be an overview screen that appears when you click on a province controlled by a minor nation showing your status with them. What I'd really like (and what I've seen the AI player do occasionally) is the ability to deliberately plan wars or annexation against minor nations and take their ports, maybe at a big diplomatic penalty. Doesn't have to be a "Declare war!" button exactly, but the action chain I'd like to see is "I want to own the Bosporus Straits" > send huge fleet to Ottoman ports > Ottomans get mad and demand I withdraw > "lol no" > WAR > "I own the Bosporus Straits!" > "Wow, everybody hates me and thinks I'm a horrible bully, how did that happen?"
• Please, please, please make the world map wrap horizontally.

I have to say, I am really happy with this update so far. I was very excited and I'm not disappointed. The new Politics screen is massively improved, it's terrific to be able to see the composition of my opponents' fleets and to directly influence my relations with them. I really like the interactions with minor nations—forming alliances, selling them warships, it adds so much to the strategy layer. In this campaign there was a Russo-Japanese War in which Japan allied to the Ottomans—and I don't think it's fully implemented yet but I think that's supposed to close the Suez Canal and the Bosporus Straits to Russia, which is amazing (and hilarious).

[The PC Collector]

France has already failed to reappear twice on my campaign. It seems that, as they only have one province as they reappear, the game deems that their GDP is too low and instantly dissolve them alreade. Maybe a rule for reemerged mayors should be implemented.

[Suribachi]

12 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

France has already failed to reappear twice on my campaign. It seems that, as they only have one province as they reappear, the game deems that their GDP is too low and instantly dissolve them alreade. Maybe a rule for reemerged mayors should be implemented.

I agree.  Without straying too far into "this should be a feature" territory betraying my above post, perhaps when a major reemerges it does so at all home provinces at the same time so the GDP is above a limit preventing the immediate dissolution.  Or the major needs to be able to exist for a minimum amount of time before it dissolves again.

[Fangoriously]

Just about every text box for yes just doesn't work all the sudden. Move ship here? yes/no, build ship for 3rd party? yes/no exit to main menu because its been 15 minutes? yes/no.

The box darkens and makes the 'I've been pushed' noise, but nothing happens.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:

I streamed about three hours of a new campaign last night (Italy 1900), and I noticed a couple issues:

• I started in 1900 with over 140,000 tons maximum displacement and over 230,000 total tons construction capacity. I don't know if the second figure is larger than intended, but I'm sure I shouldn't be able to build supercarriers before Dreadnought battleships were invented.
•  

Looks like shipbuilding capacity may have been increased across the board. 

[Nick Thomadis]

*Update 11*
- Fixed reported bugs that caused campaign instability/crashes. Please continue to report to fix the rest.
- Fixed re-emerging nations bugs.
- Fixed naval invasion radius not being always visible.
- Fixed bugs related to naval invasion.
- Improved naval invasion losses mechanics so that it has more chances to succeed.
- Fixed bug that did not allow to calculate correctly the VP after conquering a province. This can help to stop wars sooner. Needs testing.
- Changed the German Nationalists flag to the German Naval War ensign of the 1930s.
- Disabled the Manual rudder because it could cause various formation bugs (we will add back only when we find time to fix those bugs).
- Improved overall the formation system by fixing various known problems. Needs testing. Please understand that you cannot expect to play in fast forward, change the movement direction of all ships at once and always get a consistent result. This cannot be achieved even in reality.
- Fixed ship overturning by fixing some old bugs and updating the ship physics model. which was the main cause of the problem in light and fast ships.
- Repairs in the ship movement arrow which should now work much more smoothly even in fast forward speeds.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Looks like shipbuilding capacity may have been increased across the board. 

This appears new... we will check.

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, SodaBit said:

I'm not sure if anyone's reported this yet, but there seems to be another bug with formations.
I ordered this line of 5 CL's to sail ahead at 35.5 knots in close formation, but instead...

They decided that this meant they should sail in an impractically loose formation, with each consecutive ship proceeding at a slow pace than the ship in front of them.
This has turned what should have been a line of 5 CL's in tight formation...

Into something that can't even be called a formation, just a collection of ships sailing in roughly the same direction SPREAD OUT OVER 18 KILOMETERS.
I can't think of a single example of a formation of ships covering this much ground, aside from maybe the British line at Jutland, but that was over 2 dozen battleships, and their escorts, setting up for the biggest gun-line battle in human history.
This is just 5 10,000 cruisers chasing down a lone DD. WHY?

The problems of too wide formations started when players did not want the automatic reduction of speed of the division leader, so now when the division leader travels at maximum speed, the following ship cannot catch him, unless the division leader slows down (no player will slow him down) or we add artificial aids so that the ships behind exceed their maximum speed in order to catch up.... realism over practicality, what do players want? 

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:

I streamed about three hours of a new campaign last night (Italy 1900), and I noticed a couple issues:

• I started in 1900 with over 140,000 tons maximum displacement and over 230,000 total tons construction capacity. I don't know if the second figure is larger than intended, but I'm sure I shouldn't be able to build supercarriers before Dreadnought battleships were invented.
•  

Did you have shared designs used in this campaign? Does someone else have this issue?

[The PC Collector]

Okay, I was VERY skeptical about the whole manual rudder issue, but ship control seems to have indeed dramatically improved. A couple of small corrections to adjust to trajectory seems reasonable.