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

[Alnitak]

42 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, it needs further testing, but in the same battle I aborted yesterday, ships now seem able to consitently hit more than one Km away.

And, despite my insistence in that torpedoes should have an OPTION to limit them (There are people who find torpedo spam annoying and a game should not be annoying) I think they should stay relevant as base. And that should be the player's decission if they want to deal with them or not.

For the torpedo zealots: This is not a "git gud" issue. I know how to deal with torpedo spam. I just don't want to because I find it the exact opposite of fun. And a game is supposed to be fun. Dealing with torpedo spam swarms feels like an annoying chore, and I have enough of these in real life.

And then they will tell you that you should fxxk off.Because your request is unrealistic.🤣

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[The PC Collector]

1 minute ago, Alnitak said:

And then they will tell you that you should fxxk off.This is unrealistic.🤣

To be fair, I don't care too much about what torpedo zealots say. I'm 100% sure that if devs don't do it, once game is fully released a modder will eventually do it.

[Lastreaumont]

This demonstration of torpedoes tanking is interesting. I'm going to investigate this concept with lighter designs from previous decades. 

[The PC Collector]

Aiming still neds tweaks. Call me crazy, but id say that a Mk III 11" gun in a 1918 tech ship and a regular crew should have more than a 28% hit chance at 1.8 km.

The ladder aiming bug for which guns take ages (one of my CAs in the last battle spent its whole ammo supply trying) or even refuse to aquire target is still present.

Seriously, ladder aiming is one of the most useless, frustrating and troublesome features you ever added to this game, why do you keep insisting on it instead of looking for other way to simulate the target aquiring process?

[Alnitak]

32 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

To be fair, I don't care too much about what torpedo zealots say. I'm 100% sure that if devs don't do it, once game is fully released a modder will eventually do it.

No they are not torpedo zealots.They just act like torpedo zealots.Please don't insult torpedo zealots.A real torpedo zealots will require adding more attributes to the torpedo.To really realize the sense of reality.Instead of simple and violent torpedoes.They may just desperate to insist on what they think is right.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[Fangoriously]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is no change in the durability of Destroyers or any ship. AI auto-designs better protected ships. like a human often does.

I'll refer you to the pictures on the first post of page 61, a destroyer taking 3 tops for a total of 175 damage, needing 20k additional gun damage to destroy. Another taking 6 tops and controlling its flooding well enough to stay aflot and need to be finished off with guns as well.

 

Im not sure which hull this is, or how long this hull has been this durable, but I've only just now noticed it. These British destroyers looked to be a large, modern destroyer leader, and are as durrable as battleships with only a max of 1.5 inchs of armor on any surface and more resistant to torps than a BB with anti torp V equiped. My battleships were able to sink them easily enough with thier 13.9 inch main guns, but its an absolutly hurculean task for a light cruiser to counter them.

[SodaBit]

So I did some experimenting, and I'm pretty sure I've figured out what the most cost-effective ASW escort looks like.
It's this.

7,149.13 ASW points on 1354 tons at $13,626,860. If the enemy decides to go Submarine Only (which it does sometimes, for some reason) just use this.
The reason why it's so good at ASW is the same reason why it's so bad at surface combat. All that fancy equipment you need for gun fights out on the surface increases your target profile, meaning the more of it you have, the harder it'll be for you to fight subs, as they'll have an easier time spotting and tracking you. If I built the DD I'd actually want to use in a surface engagement, the ASW score would be significantly lower. 
I'm not sure if this is intentional, making it so that units that a good at surface engagements are crap at ASW, but I'm pretty sure I've got some issues with the way things are set up for ASW right now. For the purposes of ASW/Submarine warfare, a ship's target profile should be dictated by its dimensions, not the equipment you've slapped on the hull. You're more likely to spot a ship based solely on its hull and superstructure, rather than the size of its main battery, or how many torpedo tubes it has on it.

[Plazma]

12 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

This small battle looked like it could make for an excellent vidio to document the effects of the literal order of magnitude nerf to the crew training bonus from "Range found", a stat that displays when you mouse over your targets, and your guns have the "aimed" condition. Currently this yields a tiny +138.1% with these seasoned, nearly veteran, crew. Before, id expect a bonus like that, with a 0 on the end with crew this experienced, 1380% would be about right. What complaints were there that guns seemed to accurate? The hit rate i was getting with my very well built ship and expert crew aided by radar assisted firing control felt just about right to me, now the best i can pull off is sub 'great war' gunnery at most.

I had to engage these heavy cruisers at under 5000km to have any hope of hitting them with these large main guns, acting out a battle from the 1890s, before i would have stayed between 15k to 20k km and had them both dead in 5 minutes, not 15.

oh great *Nick Thomadis has replied    Show Reply* just posted a huge patch right as I'm about to post this, wonder if this has all been improved and is no longer an issue.

*edit

Its no better of course, the most gigantic nerf in the games history lives on, with no compensation for this loss in any other area or stat pool. At least the weapons tab doesn't lag the game to death anymore.

I am not sure what kind of accuracy was in real life, but somewhere I heard that the crew of 8.8cm (3.46") "anti-tank" cannon in 1945 have shot:kill ratio around 5%-10% (21-10 shots to kill) (please remember the one penetration was fatal for the tank crew). At range 1km. (check on yt "Flak 88: One-Shot Kill? How Effective was it really?")

but that is about tanks and ground fighting, the ships are different, but in my opinion the minimum accuracy should be 10% at range of 5km / 5% at range 10km for 16.9" gun. 

Plus in my opinion the range find should maybe even increase accuracy x2 or even x3, but should be build via 2-3 salvos/volleys. Plus no idea, how fast the "range found" should decrease if the distance is changing, maybe after the distance will be different from original by 10%? Example the ship will move from the range 10km to 11km? 

In other hand, I see often the effective range for 16" guns was around 28km? 

 

For me problem with DD is that, you have always more DD, the DD can handle by guns the CL, even CA, via torps damage hard the BB, BC, CA, raid convoys, clear mines, put mines, fight vs subs and you have more and more DD, fast building, cheap etc. 

Ofc DD vs BB most often the DD lose

Ofc when you build BB anti-DD you can handle a big amount of DD.

In the 1940 if you want you can build 40 DD at the cost of 1 BB. 

Even if the DD doesn't win, you have a pretty good results (compared to cost) 

[Gsam]

12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*RC 1*
- Finalized new formation code and fixed all major bugs.
- Targeting / Fire Control further optimizations.
- Auto-Design further optimizations.
- Battle performance optimizations.
- Various campaign UI fixes / optimizations.
- Various campaign bug fixes.
- Campaign calcs optimizations, turns should pass faster.
- Fixed issues that could cause allied ports to not supply the allied fleets.
- Improved Transport Capacity mechanics so that transport capacity upkeep becomes much cheaper when it reaches its limit while it grows faster when it reaches its minimum. In this way nations who invest in transport capacity have real gains after a number of turns (because transport capacity does not cost so much as before)  while there is a better chance to overcome the transport destruction during war(simulating a larger effort to grow the transport fleet in an emergency situation). This change also aids the AI economics in such a way to not cause the AI to collapse economically so easily as before.

The campaigns are advised to be restarted. All shared designs should pass an inspection for inconsistencies or just delete them all (they can cause errors in campaigns if they are invalid).

This build is considered a release candidate. Some minor fixes will follow according to your urgent feedback.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

 

EDIT: 
- Some changes not mentioned in changelog, for example overweight gun fixes for some late tech medium caliber turrets.

Does this mean you have fixed the bug where BB's and BCs are constantly resetting accrued firing solutions and have like a 3-4% hit chance on ships that are 1-3 KM away?

[Kowalskicore]

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Bug Report: Avoid Torpedoes is sometimes making ships other than the lead ship to freeze in place after evaing torpedoes.

Torpedo Avoidance is kinda buggy anyway, I've noticed my ships sometimes sail off to who knows where after evading torpedoes instead of returning to formation.

[Suribachi]

29 minutes ago, Plazma said:

I am not sure what kind of accuracy was in real life [...]

I will sum this up really quickly.

In 1890, around the time of the Spanish-American war, and I am paraphrasing from Drachinifel's video here, "There are multiple examples from that conflict [that] show 2 relatively decent gunnery crews blazing away at each other at just over a fraction over a 1,000 yards scoring minimal to no hits".  As he said earlier in his video, "[That range] being comfortably well within the capabilities of a late 17th century ship of the line, although they would prefer to fight closer where at all possible".

As for 1945, I will use the results of a 1987 test of the 16" Mark 7, which essentially is a Mark 5 with a chromium lined barrel and sensors on the end of the barrel to measure velocity of the shells for follow up shots.  These guns were originally designed in 1939 and put into service in 1943 so I think they are valid for this comparison.
 

Quote

For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

Sources:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

Drachinifel's video:  

EDIT: Hope this helps!

Edited January 17, 2023 by Suribachi

[Fun Police]

Ladder aiming still doesnt work. I can get hits when it does for short moments, but I'm getting swarmed by smoked topedo boats, and my accuracy drops from a workable 30 down to 2 after the first volley. 

[applegrcoug]

44 minutes ago, Kowalskicore said:

Torpedo Avoidance is kinda buggy anyway, I've noticed my ships sometimes sail off to who knows where after evading torpedoes instead of returning to formation.

 

Bug Report reported in Game.

 

I was in a battle with a line of four DDs with torpedo avoidance set to "on."  Torpedoes were fired and the last to DDs circled around sailed off to who knows where to evade.  I detached them from the original group of four considering there were way off from the action.  Despite taking no damage, DD #3 would not steer.  I then detached #4 from #3 and set #4 to head back toward the action, which it did.  As for #3, it continued to steam away.  Disabling torpedo avoidance, or avoid other ships, setting to AI on/off had no effect; it would not steer.  Speed remained adjustable.

[applegrcoug]

Another thing I have noticed, especially now that I seem to be at war with everyone....specifically AH and Italy.

I thought the RN controlled the Suez and Gibraltar.  The Suez is a regular freeway of activity of enemy ships entering the Mediterranean.  Gibraltar seems to be avoided...

Not only that, I have a TF sitting at the entrance to the Red Sea to intercept enemy forces and the sail right on by.

 

 

[Sobakaa]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*RC 1*
...
- Auto-Design further optimizations.
...

I think i noticed the improvements of the Auto-Designer, however there are still some issues that i think may be addressed:
1. I assume you tweaked the willingness of the AI to sacrifice stuff for more armor. A good change as it used to be the opposite. However, i feel like using the absolute smallest range on ships to achieve that is not the way to go, especially for some nations. While it might look sensible for Austria-Hungary or Italy, Japan or USA should be more inclined to sacrifice protection and armament in favor of range. Perhaps a national bias or a bias based on farthest colony can be introduced at a later date?
2. Still on some hulls the AI almost all the time refuses to use more than one funnel, even though efficiency can go into low 20's and beam/draught sliders are already at their limit. Sometimes the AI doesn't use anything but Natural boilers, sometimes it goes for Diesel, sometimes it cranks speed a couple knots too high, the result is the same. It almost feels like this issue is a bit too complex for the current algorithm.
3. The AI still can't get its head around weight distribution. It loves to put small barbettes in the middle of the ship and then is very shy about making it compact. Not only does this make citadel heavier than it needs to be, it also makes the chance of a horrible offset pretty high. A simple example below:

Before i removed one of the barbettes in the middle and bundled all the structures together it had an offset of 68%. Now it's not that bad.
And this one is completely auto-generated. Perfect weight (however, notice poor efficiency), since the AI decided to ditch the barbette in the middle.

Perhaps the effects, such as range, weight distribution, etc. can be disabled for the AI in the campaign for the time being? I don't feel like fighting the cripples the AI comes up with a lot of the time.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Sobakaa

[Plazma]

@Nick ThomadisI see still bug when the accuracy go up to 100% no matter what, because of bug with range found.

This is critical bug for you or is chance that the live patch will have it? 

[Nick Thomadis]

*RC 2*
- Aiming formulas update, so that overall the aiming progress, ladder aiming and accuracy are working as realistically as possible.
- Shell dispersion mechanics optimization, affecting the above.
- False Overweight bug that did not allow designed ships to be used is fixed.
- A few more bug fixes and optimizations.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Lima]

YES. Very noticeable changes. Gunnery has become much better.

[ЬЬФЛ]

I am sorry if anybody already asked it. I restarted Steam several times. I still have 1.09.3 live. Please suggest how to get latest...

[ZorinW]

VP bug is back...

Just started a war (first turn) and as in both previous wars my enemy, France in this case, gets VP points and I don't.

[Thamplet]

so i started a campaign as russia to test out the RC's and there seems to be a very annoying bug, if a ships engine(s) get hit the ship will instantly stop dead in the water instead of slowing down and stopping, not sure if anyone else is seeing this, as far as i can tell it might only be effecting the player and not the AI, i have no idea if this is happening with other nations as well 

 

[Fangoriously]

48 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*RC 2*
- Aiming formulas update, so that overall the aiming progress, ladder aiming and accuracy are working as realistically as possible.
- Shell dispersion mechanics optimization, affecting the above.
- False Overweight bug that did not allow designed ships to be used is fixed.
- A few more bug fixes and optimizations.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

Pre patch this ship's with this seasoned crew would have had bout +140 range found bonus, now its up to +513, the nerf looks to be walked back about half way. Aiming seemed to hold more steady, wouldn't flicker on and off as easily or randomly. we'll see how it plays like this i guess.

As for the too durable destroyers ive harped on about, they are big boys and cost more to build and run than my light cruisers. This one took 15k damage from my BB's main guns to go down. I then went into custom battles and built the largest destroyer i could, everything maxed out at 4500 tons, faced it off against 10 other destroyers to see how many torps and damage it would to to kill it, and the results are a bit shocking

First of all, it is REALLY hard to intentionally get hit by torpedoes lol. Anyway destroyers, with max beam and draft and at the 4500 ton max, get ridiculous with their ability to resist damage, in the build screen this ship had a -11% to torp damage on the stat column on the right. This one is alive, though soon to sink, having ate 15 23in torps and over 100 5in shell, with 55% structural remaining. Even at only 3000 tons like the one I've encountered in the campaign they are over the top. Just an FYI i guess, that the resistance curve approaches infinity when destroyers are scaled to their max.

[Lima]

40 minutes ago, Thamplet said:

so i started a campaign as russia to test out the RC's and there seems to be a very annoying bug, if a ships engine(s) get hit the ship will instantly stop dead in the water instead of slowing down and stopping, not sure if anyone else is seeing this, as far as i can tell it might only be effecting the player and not the AI, i have no idea if this is happening with other nations as well 

 

+ If the division leader gets a lot of damage, she freezes and waits until the next ship passes, then starts moving.

[camelith]

Encountering a issue present in both RC1 and RC2 where refitting a ship to add a second barbette or attempting to refit a ship that already has two results in an error. 

 

[Zuikaku]

17 minutes ago, camelith said:

Encountering a issue present in both RC1 and RC2 where refitting a ship to add a second barbette or attempting to refit a ship that already has two results in an error. 

 

Well, refiting is limited with previous component placing. You can not just move parts left and right during the refit. It is a modernisation, not building brand new ships where you can rearrange turrets and towers in completely different way.