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

[Norbert Sattler]

When I have allied ships under my control, they are often shown on the enemy's side in the after-battle report box (though not in the one before battle).

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

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

They are not your subordinates, they are your today allies subordinates, think it in future investment in case you change your political alignment.

[ZorinW]

5 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

Check what I wrote above. It is interface, more specifically the winow where the weapon and ships stats are shown . Minimize (hide) them and game runs ok.

Found that out too. Needs a fix asap. @Nick Thomadis

[applegrcoug]

Ugg, ever since the latest update it seems I can barely score a hit at point blank range let alone 2000m+.

 

I just torpedoed a CL and it was dead in the water and hanging by a thread.  Could I land a knock out blow from 3000m with my CA (in 1921 now)?  Nope.  The AI managed to torpedo me and sink my CA first.  Not going to risk my DD.

[Norbert Sattler]

As Austria-Hungary I managed to get Tajikistan from the Russians in a war (among some other areas)... now my country is launching an invasion from Tajikistan with about 50k soldiers against a Chinese porvince defended by 1.9 million men.

I have to say my country's generals are certainly not lacking in bravery and ambition.

[Zuikaku]

You are making too risky moves

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Chinese 5" mk2

CA

CL

Comparsion

Keep in mind that you have to place the guns on deck to get accurate values. The ones listed in the selectiontab before placement on the hull are ALWAYS wrong.

[Lima]

7 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Keep in mind that you have to place the guns on deck to get accurate values. The ones listed in the selectiontab before placement on the hull are ALWAYS wrong.

The guns in the comparison pictures are located on the deck. I do this for a clearer comparison and also remove the armor. The selection window gives a more general picture.

[ZorinW]

10 minutes ago, Lima said:

The guns in the comparison pictures are located on the deck. I do this for a clearer comparison and also remove the armor. The selection window gives a more general picture.

The ammo type and caliber are also the same? Cause I just checked the 5" guns for Germany 1910 and the caliber is the trouble maker. Without setting them to a similar length on CL and CA the guns are pretty close in weight (difference can be explained by different gun shield type)

BB

 

CA

 

CL

 

DD

 

After adjusting the caliber of the 5" gun on the CA to match the gun on the CL taht one is way heavier! @Nick Thomadis

Edited January 14, 2023 by ZorinW

[Lima]

1 minute ago, ZorinW said:

The ammo type and caliber are also the same? Cause I just checked the 5" guns for Germany 1910 and the caliber is the trouble maker. Without setting them to a similar lenght on CL and CA the guns are pretty close in weight (difference can be explained by different gun shield type)

 

Now the gun on the CL is way heavier! @Nick Thomadis

As you can see, the calibers are almost identical, everything else is by default.

[ZorinW]

20 minutes ago, Lima said:

As you can see, the calibers are almost identical, everything else is by default.

I know. I just wanted to make it clear that in this case the caliber is what effects the gun weight to be out of line.

Along with this the price is also too low on the CA/BB gun, the base accuracy is also not similar as well as RoF, muzzle velocity and range. All four guns should have exaclty the same stats, but they don't. @Nick Thomadis

Edited January 14, 2023 by ZorinW

[ZorinW]

Okay, just looked at the 2" MK 5, which, on all ship classes, has a caliber of 38 by default. All stats match accept accuracy, though all hulls have different pitch and roll values, which would explain that difference.

EDIT:

On second thought, pitch and roll do not explain the difference in accuracy:

BB

stability: +30% 

pitch: -3,2%

roll: -2,2%

beam: -10%

draught: +13%

sum = +27,6%%

 

accuracy modifier: +32,5%

 

Accuracy at 1000m: 72%

 

CL

stability: +6,7% (<- why is this so low?!)

pitch: -3,7%

roll: -5,6%

beam: -10%

draught: +13%

sum = +0,4%

 

accuracy modifier: +32,5%

 

Accuracy at 1000m: 57%

 

DD

stability: +21%

pitch: -5,3%

roll: -4,4%

beam: -10%

draught: +13%

sum = 14,3%

 

accuracy modifier: +32,5%

 

Accuracy at 1000m: 64%

 

No clue how the math here is supposed to work....

Edited January 14, 2023 by ZorinW

[Abuse_Claws]

3 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

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.

True to some extent

However, AI can't handle a large number of ships either, and usually they end up in a giant blob virtually unable to move. Quite often, 1-3 well-designed BBs with enough ammo can easily take out a giant doomstack, while fewer ships that AI actually is able to control would at least try and torp-rush my BBs

 

[TiagoStein]

4 minutes ago, Abuse_Claws said:

True to some extent

However, AI can't handle a large number of ships either, and usually they end up in a giant blob virtually unable to move. Quite often, 1-3 well-designed BBs with enough ammo can easily take out a giant doomstack, while fewer ships that AI actually is able to control would at least try and torp-rush my BBs

 

In both instances  AI would need to  have a bias towards  fewer but more powerful ships. Also for some reason their ships miss much more than the player's (maybe they have no clue on the conditions to maximize their hit chances? )

[Stephensan]

also, i might be very high, can people tell me what american BB's that the hauls can correlate before 1915..

 

i couldn't think of a single american battleship while looking at the hauls, let alone the weights.. i been trying to build historical ships for the USA and its almost impossible the entire time.

[Norbert Sattler]

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

You are making too risky moves

Tell it to the AI. I certainly didn't expect to make any land attack there. For me Tajikistan was just a buffer-state so to say, while I defeated the Chinese at sea.

[admiralsnackbar]

17 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

also, i might be very high, can people tell me what american BB's that the hauls can correlate before 1915..

 

i couldn't think of a single american battleship while looking at the hauls, let alone the weights.. i been trying to build historical ships for the USA and its almost impossible the entire time.

USA gets 2 dreadnought hulls, one is based on the south Carolina, the first American dreadnought but it kinda resembles an elongated armored cruiser.  USA Dreadnought II is not based on anything AFAICT. It's just a giant SC. 

I have a note to try and give the USA a german dreadnought II style hull which will allow you to, kinda, sorta the make the Delaware, Florida, Wyoming, and New York classes. The closest hulls to resemble the american standard battleships are dreadnought IV [France] 

1 hour ago, applegrcoug said:

Ugg, ever since the latest update it seems I can barely score a hit at point blank range let alone 2000m+.

 

I just torpedoed a CL and it was dead in the water and hanging by a thread.  Could I land a knock out blow from 3000m with my CA (in 1921 now)?  Nope.  The AI managed to torpedo me and sink my CA first.  Not going to risk my DD.

It's because the aiming progress keeps getting reset. 

[ZorinW]

Just watch @brothermunro latest video Bismarck vs. Yamato.

I setup a test to see what is wrong with these deck pens.

 

DD vs DD, both with 0 armor all around. So every hit with my 127mm gun should be an over-pen. Well, let's see:

EVERY belt pen was an over-pen, as it should be, but EVERY deck pen was a penetration! So there must be something wrong with the penetration calculation for deck hits. VS 0 armor there should not be penetrations that arm the  shells. @Nick Thomadis

[admiralsnackbar]

13 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Just watch @brothermunro latest video Bismarck vs. Yamato.

I setup a test to see what is wrong with these deck pens.

 

DD vs DD, both with 0 armor all around. So every hit with my 127mm gun should be an over-pen. Well, let's see:

EVERY belt pen was an over-pen, as it should be, but EVERY deck pen was a penetration! So there must be something wrong with the penetration calculation for deck hits. VS 0 armor there should not be penetrations that arm the  shells. @Nick Thomadis

2 things:

In the game's parameters:

over_penetration_min_armor,25.4,minimal amount of armor always present to track over-penetration (mm),25,,,,,,

In other words, everything in the game gets 1 inch of armor, no matter what. [I'm curious if this value factors in whether you are using, like, krupp IV or not, because then it's effectively 2 inches of armor]. I also don't know if adding an extra inch of armor causes you to get 2 inches or if it's a true minimum and you don't see extra armor until you give yourself >1 inch of armor.

overpenetrations occur in this game if the penetration of the shell at the range fired > 2x the armor value that was struck. I assume the armor value factors in the angle of fall but I don't know at what point the angle is factored. [The existence of penetration tables suggests it pre-calculates]

Also, how close are you to your target when you hit them in the deck? Because if you're shooting them at very close range the shells are coming in at an angle, reducing the likelihood of overpenetrations [or penetrations in general] 



 

Edited January 14, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[ZorinW]

3 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

2 things:

In the game's parameters:

over_penetration_min_armor,25.4,minimal amount of armor always present to track over-penetration (mm),25,,,,,,

In other words, everything in the game gets 1 inch of armor, no matter what. [I'm curious if this value factors in whether you are using, like, krupp IV or not, because then it's effectively 2 inches of armor]

overpenetrations occur in this game if the penetration of the shell at the range fired > 2x the armor value that was struck. I assume the armor value factors in the angle of obliquity [how far off of perpendicular the shell is to the armor plate] 

Also, how close are you to your target when you hit them in the deck? Because if you're shooting them at very close range the shells are coming in at an angle, reducing the likelihood of overpenetrations [or penetrations in general] 



 

Distance is around 500 - 750m.

That 1 inch would then also apply to the belt, but it doesn't otherwise there would bat least occur partial-pens, right?

[admiralsnackbar]

1 minute ago, ZorinW said:

Distance is around 500 - 750m.

That 1 inch would then also apply to the belt, but it doesn't otherwise there would bat least occur partial-pens, right?

a 5 inch gun should be able to penetrate 1 inch of armor at 500-750m with most non-HE ammo types, in fact it would probably overpenetrate. A good rule of thumb is that an X inch gun can penetrate ~X inches of 100% strength armor at a reasonable combat range, and for a 5 inch gun <1km is closer than that. 

You're overpenning 1 inch because you're super close so the trajectory to the belt is flat. 

You're penning the deck because at that range and angle of fall a hit to the deck can penetrate more than 1 but less than 2 inches. 




 

[Kowalskicore]

I'm kinda curious, does anyone else have massive frame rate drops in battles? Especially when ships are retargeting.

[admiralsnackbar]

5 minutes ago, Kowalskicore said:

I'm kinda curious, does anyone else have massive frame rate drops in battles? Especially when ships are retargeting.

Yes, known issue due to trying to get secondary's to prioritize targets. 

[ZorinW]

23 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

a 5 inch gun should be able to penetrate 1 inch of armor at 500-750m with most non-HE ammo types, in fact it would probably overpenetrate. A good rule of thumb is that an X inch gun can penetrate ~X inches of 100% strength armor at a reasonable combat range, and for a 5 inch gun <1km is closer than that. 

You're overpenning 1 inch because you're super close so the trajectory to the belt is flat. 

You're penning the deck because at that range and angle of fall a hit to the deck can penetrate more than 1 but less than 2 inches. 




 

There were also a number of high angle hits to the belt. They didn't trigger a partial-pen or pen either. Always over-pens. When I increased the belt armor to 25mm on the enemy DD then I got over-pens, parrtial-pens and pens depending on angle on the belt, as it should be.

 

Also, these extremly flat angle hits to the deck should result in a ricochet then or is there some hidden stats about those too?

 

And how is this avg pen of 257.8 mm  vs 0 mm (1mm min as you pointed out) to be explained?

 

Another issue, super structure hits. The super structure is also set to have 0 armor, yet the second highest hit pen was vs the funnel!

Edited January 14, 2023 by ZorinW

[Kowalskicore]

9 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Yes, known issue due to trying to get secondary's to prioritize targets. 

Ouch, no wonder it gets real, real bad when I encounter fleets with 40+ TBs. Hopefully this gets fixed soon, it's honestly borderline unplayable sometimes.