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

[Lima]

@Nick Thomadis

RNG damage after battle

In short: after a battle, ships that were already damaged before this battle receive new damage.

20% damage in battle, this damage was received in the previous battle on auto-resolve.

After the battle - 66% damage. In this particular battle, no damage was taken. Confirmation below.

Video. These are not mines. There are no Russian ports around.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Lima
Video

[Norbert Sattler]

I just had a rather baffling formation bug and reported it ingame too.

My three (undamaged) CAs started the battle in a neat line ahead formation... but for some reason the middle ship was the formation leader, with the ship in front being the last ship in the formation, naturally causing them to wildly manouver at the start.

[TiagoStein]

One new (for me) bug. Frequently If I  dismantle a formation any ship that is in the middle of a maneuver to  get in formation of adjust distance gets forever stuck at the same direction ignoring my controls. I have to  turn AI on on them because it is the only thing that can  make them turn after that point

[Norbert Sattler]

Did you try to toggle the collision avoidance twice?

I didn't encounter this issue in the current patch, but in past versions this often made them controllable again, when they got stuck.

[The PC Collector]

Okay, I have finally been able to play long enough to test how the task force limit works, and I have to say that, while it is certainly a step in the good direction, I still feel that, in adittion to it, a hard cap in the limit of ships a taskforce can contain is needed.

Even without taking into account the fact that, in the current iteration of the game, the engine can't really handle a battle with more than 30-40 ships without performance degrading noticeably, even in computers with specs way above average and way above what you stated as required, I think I speak for a significant part of the community when I say that fighting a taskforce which has 40+ TBs/DDs as screen, or even worse, which that's all what the taskforce has, is one of the most unenjoyable and chore-feeling tasks in this game.

The same that a tonnage/crew limit was needed in the task force limit to prevent it being abused with BB/BC spam, a hard cap in number of ships is needed to prevent TB/DD spam.

Edited January 14, 2023 by The PC Collector

[AdmiralBert]

5 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, I have finally been able to play long enough to test how the task force limit works, and I have to say that, while it is certainly a step in the good direction, I still feel that, in adittion to it, a hard cap in the limit of ships a taskforce can contain is needed.

Even without taking into account the fact that, in the current iteration of the game, the engine can't really handle a battle with more than 30-40 ships without performance degrading noticeably, even in computers with specs way above average and way above what you stated as required, I think I speak for a significant part of the community when I say that fighting a taskforce which has 40+ TBs/DDs as screen, or even worse, which that's all what the taskforce has, is one of the most unenjoyable and chore-feeling tasks in this game.

The same that a tonnage/crew limit was needed in the task force limit to prevent it being abused with BB/BC spam, a hard cap in number of ships is needed to prevent TB/DD spam.

Counterpoint: by 1916 at Jutland, the British brought a total of 151 ships while the Germans brought 99. That wasn't spamming, or swarming, that was the size of a large BB formation plus their supporting elements. If you cap the number of hulls, you either get a silly mechanic where one BB = one CA = one DD etc, or an incredibly arbitary metric where a given squadron magically can't have an extra DD because it offends a ratio somewhere. While the max crew limit is a on that sort of spectrum of silly, it at least has a good rationale to it (namely, that your navy lacks the logistical means and practical experience to manage that many people at sea in one operational unit).

[SpardaSon21]

20 hours ago, Lima said:

Now AI is suffering very much from mines. AI does not prioritize mine hunter kit and the capacity of the shipyards is limited, so there are a lot of damaged ships and they are slowly being repaired. I decided to make a lot of destroyers for my new campaign and everything was fine until I got to STALINIUM GUN. Russian 102-127mm mk4-5 guns have a huge weight. No one has that much weight.

I love destroyers, and there are not so many unique hulls for them. The Russians have a beautiful hulls (italian), but this STALINIUM GUN is attached to it. I just can't watch a good hull suffer because of this wunderwaffe.

Noticed the same issue with USA 5" guns, too.

[Alnitak]

Oh my gosh torpedo TR

[The PC Collector]

3 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

Counterpoint: by 1916 at Jutland, the British brought a total of 151 ships while the Germans brought 99. That wasn't spamming, or swarming, that was the size of a large BB formation plus their supporting elements. If you cap the number of hulls, you either get a silly mechanic where one BB = one CA = one DD etc, or an incredibly arbitary metric where a given squadron magically can't have an extra DD because it offends a ratio somewhere. While the max crew limit is a on that sort of spectrum of silly, it at least has a good rationale to it (namely, that your navy lacks the logistical means and practical experience to manage that many people at sea in one operational unit).

Jutland is not a valid example, as it is something which has happened ONCE in the whole history. In the game happens every single turn. Task forces need a hard cap, with larger battles being event battles. Besides, even if Jutland was something common, there os still the issue of the game simply not being able to handle it.

Edited January 14, 2023 by The PC Collector

[Lima]

18 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Noticed the same issue with USA 5" guns, too.

Which hull and what mk? I designed the destroyers yesterday and didn't notice any problems there.

[TiagoStein]

20 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Jutland is not a valid example, as it is something which has happened ONCE in the whole history. In the game happens every single turn. Task forces need a hard cap, with larger battles being event battles. Besides, even if Jutland was something common, there os still the issue of the game simply not being able to handle it.

 What age you have been playing.  Usually I never find a battle with more than 30 -25 ships before I conquer the whole damn world (I can handle 40 ship battles with a my Ryzen 1, as long as I close the weapon status subwindow that uses 70% of the CPU of the game)

[AdmiralBert]

18 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Jutland is not a valid example, as it is something which has happened ONCE in the whole history. In the game happens every single turn. Task forces need a hard cap, with larger battles being event battles. Besides, even if Jutland was something common, there os still the issue of the game simply not being able to handle it.

Not a valid example? Both the Germans & British sortied multiple times out into the North Sea on multiple occasions attempting to engineer a favourable decisive action. While the scale of action would've been smaller thanks to the interwar naval treaties, the Japanese doctrine going into WW2 called for a large scale decisive action to crush the American fleet in the Pacific (after suitable attrition from submarines and naval aviation to bring them into parity, ofc).

Setting aside those situations, we also can't discount the Jeune Ecole approach of having *lots* of smaller vessels. Sure, it didn't play out in real life, but isn't that the point of a video game?

[The PC Collector]

15 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

but isn't that the point of a video game?

Exactly, and as such its point isn't being annoying. Maybe you have fun playing those battles, but there is a lot of people who don't. That's what difficulty and realism options are for.

Edited January 14, 2023 by The PC Collector

[Abuse_Claws]

The year is 1903. This is about 1/3 of IJN in a single TF. I would say this is a doomstack, although certainly much less terrible than what we used to see before the TF limit. I'd say we need either stricter TF limits, or an actual limit on number of ships in a TF

[Lima]

My biggest problem with the minor allies is that their ships are hopelessly outdated, but this is not a problem for them. And they really want to "help" with these ships, just by taking a place in battle.

Here my Korean allies are trying to help me in the fight with Japan. With ships that were sold to them more than 20 years ago.

[Urst]

5 minutes ago, Lima said:

My biggest problem with the minor allies is that their ships are hopelessly outdated, but this is not a problem for them. And they really want to "help" with these ships, just by taking a place in battle.

Here my Korean allies are trying to help me in the fight with Japan. With ships that were sold to them more than 20 years ago.

Extra guns are extra guns. Load HE if AP can't pen.
Extra ships are extra targets. Have them body-block for your own fleet. They'll buy more, newer, ships after the old ones go down.

[TiagoStein]

27 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

The year is 1903. This is about 1/3 of IJN in a single TF. I would say this is a doomstack, although certainly much less terrible than what we used to see before the TF limit. I'd say we need either stricter TF limits, or an actual limit on number of ships in a TF

The counter issue is, without these numbers the AI is completely unable to compete. Notice that AI  always produe cheaper less techy ships than the players. They need the numbers.

 

Yesterday  in 1906 AH empire has 71 battleships in their control. I was weary but went for a war with them with my 5 battleships. Well, their battleships were 7000 tons  class while mine were 22000 tons class, and my  cruisers were heavier than his battleships.

 

What I think we need is AI  be a bit more biased towards  trying to  upgrade their fleet with more advanced and powerful stuff. The result woudl be that their economy can support less ships.

[Lima]

11 minutes ago, Urst said:

Extra guns are extra guns. Load HE if AP can't pen.
Extra ships are extra targets. Have them body-block for your own fleet. They'll buy more, newer, ships after the old ones go down.

The combat value of these ships is extremely small. Meat shields, yes. But I don't like to send anything under my command to death, even if it's profitable for business.

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Which hull and what mk? I designed the destroyers yesterday and didn't notice any problems there.

Mark 2 and 3, on all hulls near as I can tell.

[Lima]

11 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Mark 2 and 3, on all hulls near as I can tell.

BRUH.

CL

CA

BB/BC

USA/Germany

I have a very strong feeling that some models of Chinese guns may have the same problems.

@Nick Thomadis

[TiagoStein]

44 minutes ago, Lima said:

The combat value of these ships is extremely small. Meat shields, yes. But I don't like to send anything under my command to death, even if it's profitable for business.

So you  mean you are too soft to be a first admiral of the fleet? Your enemies will surely take note of that

[Lima]

2 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

So you  mean you are too soft to be a first admiral of the fleet? Your enemies will surely take note of that

There is a difference between a fight and a massacre. I don't like to massacre my subordinates.

[Lima]

Chinese 5" mk2

CA

CL

Comparsion

[admiralsnackbar]

10 minutes ago, Lima said:

Chinese 5" mk2

CA

CL

Comparsion

This was sort of the point I made earlier. The weight differences actually make a bit of sense. The twin 5 inch guns on iowa weighed something like 77 tons, lighter single versions could weigh less than half that. The problem is when two countries get fairly similar cruisers and destroyers and one faction can use the guns on the right and the other is stuck trying to arm their ship with turrets on the left. 

The calculation for the 5-6-7 inch guns is weird though. (Also in game there's a massive leap in size from 5-6 for the chinese turrets that doesn't occur for the german shielded mounts) 


The chinese MK1 model for single guns [which IIRC is a shielded mount]  should probably be carried over to mk2, for now. 

[SpardaSon21]

6 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The twin 5 inch guns on iowa weighed something like 77 tons,

That's because they had all-elevation power loading for use as DP mounts.  The twin SP mounts such as Porter and Somers used weighed a mere 35 tons for an automatic loading twin mount and all they gave up to save that weight was 50 degrees of elevation, 10.3 degrees a second of traverse rate, and 4.6 seconds of elevation rate.