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

[applegrcoug]

I can't seem to initiate an invasion anymore.  

[ZorinW]

2 hours ago, applegrcoug said:

I can't seem to initiate an invasion anymore.  

Or improve relations. In RC3 I can improve relations with one nation only and the rest are greyed out...

[o Barão]

@neph thank you for sharing that video. I just want to add that it is possible to get the same result by not having any armor.

The game also allows the player to stack bonus that remove any possibility to have an ammo detonation or flash fires. Another big issue that needs to be fixed by the devs.

 

The components list.

Armor values or lack of it. The 9-inch main belt is the minimum possible.

 

@Nick Thomadis please take this into consideration to rework the bonus values from hulls and components to remove any chance to use as an exploit to win the game easy.

 

[TiagoStein]

19 hours ago, o Barão said:

This is only a possibility. I have no idea if is the case or not. I am just guessing here.

 

The moment you hit copy, will apply all the benefits from the technologies researched since the time of the original design was made to the current, present time. A similar thing should happen if you choose the option to refit.

Still, 20% is a big difference, so maybe I am wrong and is a bug.

It happened for me also. Then you save the ship and try to rebuilt  it and the game said it was overweight. It is some condition regarding something becoming obsolete.

[TiagoStein]

17 hours ago, Lima said:

Regarding the calculation of ships under construction.

I'm a little tired of my army's attacks on Serbia, so the example is for the USSR.

I started building six BCs and suspend it. As you can see, even frozen ships, which are nothing more than a imagination, affect the parameters.

The most impressive part is Soviet Union as a Democracy

[Urst]

8 hours ago, neph said:

 

Penetration mechanics are broken.

1. Citadel layering apparently applies to unarmored portions of the ship outside the citadel.

2. Penetration overflow means guns that are too good do no damage even (especially) at point blank range.

3. Resistance stacking means you can become nearly immune to enemy fire.

4. Deck hits are extremely common at point blank range, especially when the enemy has rolled towards you. These magically deflect enemy fire.

Please watch this video, acknowledge the issues, and fix them before releasing 1.10.

These issues have been present for a very long time.

Point #2 is how armor piercing actually works IRL

Observe: Taffy 3, surviving 18" shells with destroyers because the Yamato loaded AP thinking that they were cruisers, and the shells just "harmlessly" passed through the ship, making easily patched holes.
Same for all of the cruisers that were with Yamato off Sumar.

[Urst]

52 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@neph thank you for sharing that video. I just want to add that it is possible to get the same result by not having any armor.

The game also allows the player to stack bonus that remove any possibility to have an ammo detonation or flash fires. Another big issue that needs to be fixed by the devs.

 

The components list.

Armor values or lack of it. The 9-inch main belt is the minimum possible.

 

@Nick Thomadis please take this into consideration to rework the bonus values from hulls and components to remove any chance to use as an exploit to win the game easy.

 

It is quite possible IRL. Proper storage and handling can prevent any chance of a flashfire OR ammo detonation, despite a shell detonating inside the powder magazine.

[o Barão]

35 minutes ago, Urst said:

It is quite possible IRL. Proper storage and handling can prevent any chance of a flashfire OR ammo detonation, despite a shell detonating inside the powder magazine.

Well, that for me is a bold claim, but it is possible that I am wrong. I fully agree that it is possible to lower the chance by a great magnitude, but to be 100% sure is just too much IMO. But maybe I am wrong, and I would like to know more about this.

 

Anyone has a source of information that supports this statement?

[TiagoStein]

1 hour ago, Urst said:

Point #2 is how armor piercing actually works IRL

Observe: Taffy 3, surviving 18" shells with destroyers because the Yamato loaded AP thinking that they were cruisers, and the shells just "harmlessly" passed through the ship, making easily patched holes.
Same for all of the cruisers that were with Yamato off Sumar.

I would use "easily" under  quotations because I bet their life on that day was nothing    close to easy.

[TiagoStein]

21 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Well, that for me is a bold claim, but it is possible that I am wrong. I fully agree that it is possible to lower the chance by a great magnitude, but to be 100% sure is just too much IMO. But maybe I am wrong, and I would like to know more about this.

 

Anyone has a source of information that supports this statement?

As far as I know no navy used propellant that was inert to heat (.ie. something that  could only detonate with electricity ) like C4 is.... so 100% reliability seems very very  far fetched.

Cordite is mostly nitoglicerin, and I think everyone knows how that reacts to  violence.

 

One woudl need to read this with  care and check each one in detail : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php

[Urst]

Just now, TiagoStein said:

I would use "easily" under  quotations because I bet their life on that day was nothing    close to easy.

Easily patched hole isn't hyperbole. It's quite easy to take a 24" spare plate, which those DDs had in abundance, and patch the holes those shells made. If it weren't the case then they'd have sunk from just those holes alone.

 

 

23 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Well, that for me is a bold claim, but it is possible that I am wrong. I fully agree that it is possible to lower the chance by a great magnitude, but to be 100% sure is just too much IMO. But maybe I am wrong, and I would like to know more about this.

 

Anyone has a source of information that supports this statement?

1 minute ago, TiagoStein said:

As far as I know no navy used propellant that was inert to heat (.ie. something that  could only detonate with electricity ) like C4 is.... so 100% reliability seems very very  far fetched.

Cordite is mostly nitoglicerin, and I think everyone knows how that reacts to  violence.

 

One woudl need to read this with  care and check each one in detail : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php

A combination of wet-storage, armored charge transport capsules, multi-compartment sealed storage areas, and well-trained, careful, handling render the chances of an actual magazine detonation as close to zero as is physically possible. Assuming that everyone does as they're supposed to.

[TiagoStein]

1 minute ago, Urst said:

A combination of wet-storage, armored charge transport capsules, multi-compartment sealed storage areas, and well-trained, careful, handling render the chances of an actual magazine detonation as close to zero as is physically possible. Assuming that everyone does as they're supposed to.

True, close to zero, but a direct penetration at any storage area would still   result  in a quite serious situation. Even a dozen  charges together  would have enough power to cause  non irrelevant  damage. Also  Nitroglicerin does not care much  if it is under water.. it explodes anyway when under direct  impact . The wet storage  helps avoid fire spreading in this case and  also some energy absorption.

[Nick Thomadis]

*RC4*
- Fixed major old bug that corrupted saved designs weight calculations.
- Fixed Naval invasion not altering victory points correctly.
- Fixed crash bug caused when we copied/cloned ship designs.

This can be a release. We will address more reported issues after the release of the patch.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[neph]

1 hour ago, Urst said:

Point #2 is how armor piercing actually works IRL

Observe: Taffy 3, surviving 18" shells with destroyers because the Yamato loaded AP thinking that they were cruisers, and the shells just "harmlessly" passed through the ship, making easily patched holes.
Same for all of the cruisers that were with Yamato off Sumar.

Certainly, if it were overpens. 0" of armor causes blocks & partial pens. 5" of armor causes blocks & partial pens--vs 18" APCBC at point-blank range! There's some kind of overflow occurring.

 

Overpens, aka "I punched a hole through your non-essential (for combat effectiveness) crew quarters & did not trigger the fuze" are one thing. Stopping like you met a brick wall because your calculation for "how much do I go through this" go to high because your calculating variables are poorly typed is another.

[neph]

9 hours ago, neph said:

 

Penetration mechanics are broken.

1. Citadel layering apparently applies to unarmored portions of the ship outside the citadel.

2. Penetration overflow means guns that are too good do no damage even (especially) at point blank range.

3. Resistance stacking means you can become nearly immune to enemy fire.

4. Deck hits are extremely common at point blank range, especially when the enemy has rolled towards you. These magically deflect enemy fire.

Please watch this video, acknowledge the issues, and fix them before releasing 1.10.

These issues have been present for a very long time.

Hey @Nick Thomadis just begging you to watch this video. If you don't have 45 minutes of your day, please just watch the first 15 minutes, or take a quick look at the following timestamps:

 

4:45 minutes

8:15 minutes

14:00 minutes

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

11 minutes ago, neph said:

Hey @Nick Thomadis just begging you to watch this video. If you don't have 45 minutes of your day, please just watch the first 15 minutes, or take a quick look at the following timestamps:

 

4:45 minutes

8:15 minutes

14:00 minutes

 

 

There are known issues on overpens bypassed in MainBelt, MainDeck hits, so this can lead to less probable hits in other sections of the hull and much smaller damage on average. We will address.

Additionally, when we hit a large hull we cannot expect to always overpen. It is wrong assumption that a shell which scratches an unarmored deck's surface of a large hull (due to almost flat angle) must overpen at all cases. A large hull is a thick steel construction of large width and by itself plays role in the ship's protection.

[o Barão]

5 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There are known issues on overpens bypassed in MainBelt, MainDeck hits, so this can lead to less probable hits in other sections of the hull and much smaller damage on average. We will address.

Additionally, when we hit a large hull we cannot expect to always overpen. It is wrong assumption that a shell which scratches an unarmored deck's surface of a large hull (due to almost flat angle) must overpen at all cases. A large hull is a thick steel construction of large width and by itself plays role in the ship's protection.

Ok, but there is also the issue with stacking resistance bonus to the point it becomes almost irrelevant to get pen or not, to have any armor or not.

-98% gun damage.

[Urst]

36 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

True, close to zero, but a direct penetration at any storage area would still   result  in a quite serious situation. Even a dozen  charges together  would have enough power to cause  non irrelevant  damage. Also  Nitroglicerin does not care much  if it is under water.. it explodes anyway when under direct  impact . The wet storage  helps avoid fire spreading in this case and  also some energy absorption.

Wet storage of munitions is accomplished with OIL not water. The intention is to prevent oxygen from being able to get to the spark, thus preventing a detonation.
If the detonation still occurs, the oil compresses, dampening the explosion.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Urst

[TiagoStein]

13 minutes ago, Urst said:

Wet storage of munitions is accomplished with OIL not water. The intention is to prevent oxygen from being able to get to the spark, thus preventing a detonation.
If the detonation still occurs, the oil compresses, dampening the explosion.

The  compression effect is true  and water also does it, in fact better due to its higher density than oil. Nitroglicerin (adnt herefore cordite) does not need spark to  explode. Cordite explode just by violently acceleration ( it can detonate being in the other side of a wall where an strong impact happened), and it is already  very loaded with oxygen within its composition. none of these propellants  need O2 from the atmosphere to  detonate partially (even a 20% detonation of   these things is  devastating). There is a reason such type of explosive was mostly abandoned after WW2.. they are never completely safe. What you can avoid is one detonation  to  start a chain reaction.

[madham82]

18 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Ok, but there is also the issue with stacking resistance bonus to the point it becomes almost irrelevant to get pen or not, to have any armor or not.

-98% gun damage.

Resistance values for hulls are a stat in search of a reason to exist. I can follow armor schemes adding it, but the idea that a hull is more resistant to damage than another is fantasy. The construction of said hull is what would make sense, so really should be tied to techs like ones that reduce ship flaws. 

But like your example, resistance needs balance more importantly. It should probably only impact the values "after" armor penetration. That way if you have no armor that the shell in hit in that section, no buff is applied.  

[madham82]

6 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

The  compression effect is true  and water also does it, in fact better due to its higher density than oil. Nitroglicerin (adnt herefore cordite) does not need spark to  explode. Cordite explode just by violently acceleration ( it can detonate being in the other side of a wall where an strong impact happened), and it is already  very loaded with oxygen within its composition. none of these propellants  need O2 from the atmosphere to  detonate partially (even a 20% detonation of   these things is  devastating). There is a reason such type of explosive was mostly abandoned after WW2.. they are never completely safe. What you can avoid is one detonation  to  start a chain reaction.

And enough heat can be generated by compression from an explosive shockwave. USS North Carolina was hit by a torpedo which didn't penetrate the bulge, but produced flash inside adjacent compartments. If I remember, one might have been a lower shell handling room. If the flash measures had not been in place, a detonation may have occurred according to the report. 

[o Barão]

7 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Resistance values for hulls are a stat in search of a reason to exist. I can follow armor schemes adding it, but the idea that a hull is more resistant to damage than another is fantasy.

It is to better differentiate how the damage would be applied to a specific hull according to "her" size. A smaller hull like a DD will always have lower resistance values if we compare with any BB hull of the same time period. So, as an example, a big BB with hundreds of compartments and armored bulkheads will have a better result to mitigating the damage caused by a shell in comparison with a small ship like a DD.

 

This is to take into account how the damage is registered in the game with the "cells". Since doesn't matter how big and wide is your ship, the hull will always have 30 cells.

 

The issue is when you compare modern DDs with old BBs.

Yes, the modern DD hull have better resistance values. Magic I guess.

[madham82]

16 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It is to better differentiate how the damage would be applied to a specific hull according to "her" size. A smaller hull like a DD will always have lower resistance values if we compare with any BB hull of the same time period. So, as an example, a big BB with hundreds of compartments and armored bulkheads will have a better result to mitigating the damage caused by a shell in comparison with a small ship like a DD.

 

This is to take into account how the damage is registered in the game with the "cells". Since doesn't matter how big and wide is your ship, the hull will always have 30 cells.

 

The issue is when you compare modern DDs with old BBs.

Yes, the modern DD hull have better resistance values. Magic I guess.

Yea that's why I think the hull resistance should be a tech thing. Then only newly constructed hulls would benefit for one (idea being your builders have learned to make stronger welds and etc...). Then balance according to size like you mentioned.

I know right now refits would apply this to an old hull, but think that is something that could be changed down the line. A lot of tech benefits that shouldn't apply to refits currently do. 

[Nick Thomadis]

*RC5*
- Addressed error in penetration calculations that made guns of large penetration to deal smaller damage than they should due to not applying the proper mechanics. Needs testing, any more important fixes can come after the release of the patch.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[TiagoStein]

27 minutes ago, o Barão said:

It is to better differentiate how the damage would be applied to a specific hull according to "her" size. A smaller hull like a DD will always have lower resistance values if we compare with any BB hull of the same time period. So, as an example, a big BB with hundreds of compartments and armored bulkheads will have a better result to mitigating the damage caused by a shell in comparison with a small ship like a DD.

 

 

Yes, the modern DD hull have better resistance values. Magic I guess.

That is coherent because  material rupture when under rapid exchange of energy is correlated to the energy transfer surpassing the receiving body capacity of handling it. A large hull dissipates energy better so it  handles the same impact better.