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

[SodaBit]

5 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Do you remember if they hit any mines before the fight?  From the results screen, it looks suspiciously like the ships were already damaged and not at full strength.  RIP to the sailor that fell overboard when they turned to flee

I remember seeing that several British ships had taken mine damage, and I'd assumed this group was among those who had been damaged. If they were badly damaged enough, I should have been able to run down at least some of them. The DD's were rather old units iirc, they only had a top speed of about 32 knots, and wouldn't have been able to run even at full HP. Looking back at it, I think this has more to do with AI ships going full speed despite being damaged enough that they should lose at least half their speed, rather than the AI not being aggressive enough.

[Suribachi]

8 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

I remember seeing that several British ships had taken mine damage, and I'd assumed this group was among those who had been damaged. If they were badly damaged enough, I should have been able to run down at least some of them. The DD's were rather old units iirc, they only had a top speed of about 32 knots, and wouldn't have been able to run even at full HP. Looking back at it, I think this has more to do with AI ships going full speed despite being damaged enough that they should lose at least half their speed, rather than the AI not being aggressive enough.

Oh I completely agree that you should have been able to chase down older, damaged hulls.  Not disputing that.  Was just trying to explain the red damage at the end.

In my opinion, at the very least, AI should close to visual or radar range before deciding to flee.  In my case, I usually start in 1890, so radar is not a thing for decades.  In that case, visual range should be mandatory before the AI decides to cut and run.

[Nick Thomadis]

*Update 20*
- Fixed aiming bug of the new fire control that made it impossible for auto-targeting to fire with more than one gun group if there were multiple targets. Previously a torpedo boat could approach your ship and only the main guns would target it, while the secondary guns would prefer to fire at distant enemies.
- Overall polish to the targeting mechanics and Battle AI.
- Further formation bug fixes. This version is considered the best we can offer for the upcoming patch, but we will value any report that shows specific remaining problems.
- Fixed issues that caused part placement errors and as a result delays and problems in the auto-design processes. The AI designs should now be in their best shape than all previous versions of the game.
- Fixed some UI problems that were reported.
- Fixed more bugs of the campaign that were reported. A few more are needed to make the campaign stable enough for the release of the patch.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Norbert Sattler]

I just had what I assume to be a variable overflow.

I had ludicrous amounts of money and then all of a sudden I had negative 200 million. Thankfully my monthly income was big enough that I was able to weather it by pushing sliders low.

[The PC Collector]

Wow, I'm legit impressed. For the first time I have the feeling you're taking your time into actually making the update functional before release, instead of rushing it to live the second it is stable enough to make the game not CTD upon load like some of the previous ones. This is definitely the way of making this game achieve the potential it could get.

Keep this good work!

[Sobakaa]

@Nick Thomadis Is the auto-design using the same algorithm as the AI's ship generation in the campaign? If it is, may i suggest to look at some particular areas:

1. The algorithm does not seem to understand how to properly buff up engine efficiency.
Example: German BB, optimal hull speed: 25 knots. AI cranks it to 26, but then, instead of increasing the number of funnels, it uses draught to make it slightly more efficient. It can go all the way to -10% and below.
I've seen it consider two funnels at the design stage but it always throws the second one away in favor of other things.

2. The algorithm would much rather make ship wider than fiddle with placing of secondary guns.
My guess is it can only use predetermined hardpoints (the yellow "+" things) to consider where to place secondaries. So if a secondary gun doesn't fit it'll try cranking the beam all the way up to +15%, even though a player would be able to fit perfectly fine, just not on that exact spot.
I'm not sure you can fix it, without making the AI consider the entire ship surface for secondaries placement and it'll be a nightmare... Perhaps more hardpoints or dynamic hardpoints can be introduced?

3. The algorithm in many cases refuses to just wiggle the things it chose in order to achieve a better weight distribution.
In almost 20 cases out of ~40 i had an auto-generated ship with its aft or fore offset going all the way to 30%+. 15 seconds of fiddling with the positioning of parts would almost always produce a single digit result, no changes to the amount or quality of components or armor.
The AI is perfectly willing to leave a gap in between a funnel and a rear tower, for example, when simply eliminating it would reduce an offset by 2-5%.  Not to mention that these empty spaces in between components make citadel larger and armor thinner.
This, i think, you should be able to fix as the AI is already capable of placing all the components and considers the offset, just doesn't make enough passes to finalize it, i believe.

[mrfox1918]

"Drunken helmsman" is still very much a thing post update 20.

[SpardaSon21]

17 minutes ago, Sobakaa said:

I'm not sure you can fix it, without making the AI consider the entire ship surface for secondaries placement and it'll be a nightmare... Perhaps more hardpoints or dynamic hardpoints can be introduced?

Hardpoints, especially secondary hardpoints, are a major problem.  Especially when it comes to placing secondary barbettes because on 90% of the hulls the placement of the barbette hardpoint is too close to the side of the ship, and the barbette overlaps with the hull as a result and can't be placed.

Edited January 13, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[admiralsnackbar]

33 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Hardpoints, especially secondary hardpoints, are a major problem.  Especially when it comes to placing secondary barbettes because on 90% of the hulls the placement of the barbette hardpoint is too close to the side of the ship, and the barbette overlaps with the hull as a result and can't be placed.

There are a ton of cases where hardpoints exist on hulls but can't be used because the fit isn't quite right. [Be it secondary guns or secondary barbettes] -- The question is whether this restriction is a necessary evil to keep the AI from going insane and planting secondaries everywhere like it used to. 

[Urst]

3 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

There are a ton of cases where hardpoints exist on hulls but can't be used because the fit isn't quite right. [Be it secondary guns or secondary barbettes] -- The question is whether this restriction is a necessary evil to keep the AI from going insane and planting secondaries everywhere like it used to. 

Need more secondaries
If I don't have at least 50 3" guns on the ship, how can I be safe from torpedo boats?!

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

There are a ton of cases where hardpoints exist on hulls but can't be used because the fit isn't quite right. [Be it secondary guns or secondary barbettes] -- The question is whether this restriction is a necessary evil to keep the AI from going insane and planting secondaries everywhere like it used to. 

Even if that's the case, considering how barbettes are locked to hardpoints it means the player can't simply ctrl+click one in place.

Just now, Urst said:

Need more secondaries
If I don't have at least 50 3" guns on the ship, how can I be safe from torpedo boats?!

Someone's thinking like the Bureau of Construction and Repair.

[Urst]

24 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Even if that's the case, considering how barbettes are locked to hardpoints it means the player can't simply ctrl+click one in place.

Someone's thinking like the Bureau of Construction and Repair.

Listen, all I'm saying is that we could've fit more 6" guns on the USS St. Louis.
14's clearly not enough.

[Norbert Sattler]

I just got a wonderful choice to make: Either go to war with italy or pay literally ALL of my money.

Who's bright idea was it to make an event that takes 100% of your funds?

[Alnitak]

The gun accuracy is now in a mess.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Alnitak

[Alnitak]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*Update 20*
- Fixed aiming bug of the new fire control that made it impossible for auto-targeting to fire with more than one gun group if there were multiple targets. Previously a torpedo boat could approach your ship and only the main guns would target it, while the secondary guns would prefer to fire at distant enemies.
- Overall polish to the targeting mechanics and Battle AI.
- Further formation bug fixes. This version is considered the best we can offer for the upcoming patch, but we will value any report that shows specific remaining problems.
- Fixed issues that caused part placement errors and as a result delays and problems in the auto-design processes. The AI designs should now be in their best shape than all previous versions of the game.
- Fixed some UI problems that were reported.
- Fixed more bugs of the campaign that were reported. A few more are needed to make the campaign stable enough for the release of the patch.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

The 'range found' buff has been weakened, leaving only 10% of the original.And now gun is difficult to 'target acquire'.The gun accuracy is now in a mess.Is this part of your aiming improvement？

Edited January 13, 2023 by Alnitak

[The PC Collector]

Okay. Important things which remain to be tackled:

- Not getting anything when a country collapses while at war. We should still get reparations. Right now this makes extremely frustrating to play.

- Not being able to launch offensives over ungoverned territory nor minors. At least being able to influence the government would be a huge step ahead on playability.

Update won't be ready for launch gameplay wise until at least the first part is adressed.

Edited January 13, 2023 by The PC Collector

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, Alnitak said:

The 'range found' buff has been weakened, leaving only 10% of the original.And now it is difficult to target acquire.The gun accuracy is now in a mess.Is this part of your aiming improvement？

Great news!!! I had to run for a custom battle to see these changes. Much better now.

@Nick Thomadis Thank you!! However, the ladder issue is still present.

After I made a turn, my crew lost the range to target, and then it fails to acquire again. It is stuck at 41%. To make this whole situation more funny, the moment the target get in range of my secondaries, they will work with range find bonus. So my secondaries gunners have the target solution, but my main gunners are stuck in the ladder aiming. And the target is the same.

Edited January 13, 2023 by o Barão

[Alnitak]

55 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Great news!!! I had to run for a custom battle to see these changes. Much better now.

@Nick Thomadis Thank you!!!

'range found' and 'target acquire' are buffs that will Impact gun accuracy.It's disgusting to set off fireworks at each other.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Alnitak

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, Alnitak said:

'range found' and 'target acquire' are buffs that will Impact gun accuracy.

We know. That is why it is so good to finally have them balance to more reasonable values.

Many players never notice this. But we had many issues with previous buff values.

1.  Unrealistic hit rates for the time period.
2.  Unrealistic, crazy difference in performance between cadets and veteran crews that ruins the gameplay.
3.  This new changes also fix the exploit in rushing the improved range finders in the tech tree.

[The PC Collector]

12 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

'range found' and 'target acquire' are buffs that will Impact gun accuracy.It's disgusting to set off fireworks at each other.

They should have a significant impact, but not to the point of negating every single other buff/debuff once your crew is good enough. Balance was needed there, which doesn't mean that further balancing might not be needed.

[Lima]

This problem interferes with testing, it's hard to say how good the balance is

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

So my secondaries gunners have the target solution, but my main gunners are stuck in the ladder aiming.

 

[Alnitak]

12 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

They should have a significant impact, but not to the point of negating every single other buff/debuff once your crew is good enough. Balance was needed there, which doesn't mean that further balancing might not be needed.

Balance？When will the author be able to balance the torpedo along with it.It is a fact that even battleships are setting off fireworks at each other, and torpedoes are absolutely strong now. This situation is really ridiculous.

[The PC Collector]

On the topick of aiming, anyone else is getting trouble with main guns simply refusing to acquire target when manually targeting, no matter how long you keep shooting at the target?

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by The PC Collector

[o Barão]

12 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

and torpedoes are absolutely strong now.

This is good, not bad. When the dud mechanics were implemented, the torpedoes were nerfed to the ground. To a point that it was almost a handicap to use them in battle unless you were using them in TBs in early years. The nerf was so bad that I remember launching 15 oxygen torpedoes at 20 km range in my tests, and not a single one could reach the target. Now it seems more reasonable to what they could do IRL.

[Alnitak]

59 minutes ago, o Barão said:

This is good, not bad. When the dud mechanics were implemented, the torpedoes were nerfed to the ground. To a point that it was almost a handicap to use them in battle unless you were using them in TBs in early years. The nerf was so bad that I remember launching 15 oxygen torpedoes at 20 km range in my tests, and not a single one could reach the target. Now it seems more reasonable to what they could do IRL.

Why do you expect a 20km torpedoes to hit? I don't understand. But you know fear when the enemy's large fleet torpedoes your attacking fleet at 20km and you have no effective way to fight back.AI can control multiple ships at the same time but you can't. obstacle? No, the most effective way to kill battleships in the current version is torpedoes instead. There are two main ways to kill battleships: direct damage and armor damage, both of which are based on a large number of effective hits. However, in the current version, it is possible that the large-sized torpedo of the high-speed battleship directly hits water leakage in melee combat is the best solution. Once one side drags the knife, it will be a torture.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Alnitak