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

[Suribachi]

Will do an in game report as well.

Just tested this myself in a custom battle 1940 -- US.  7x triple 9" Mk 5 with auto II on aggressive and Radar Gen III with veteran crew, no other changes to ship.

Gun in use specs:  9.4 second reload, rate of fire 6.4 r/min  (accuracy and damage do not matter for this test)

(Time given is in game seconds played at 1x speed)
Expected behavior:  full or ripple fire broadside -- 9.4 seconds pass -- full or ripple fire broadside -- 9.4 seconds pass -- and repeat until target dead.

Observed behavior:  7 turrets fire in random order over the course of 23 seconds -- 20 seconds pass -- next salvo begins


While all turrets eventually fire, there is no way in heck they are firing their full rate of fire right now.

This tells me it is useless to design ships with guns whose combined rate of fire is above a certain amount because your most wanted guns may never fire.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Suribachi

[DableUTeeF]

7 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Will do an in game report as well.

Just tested this myself in a custom battle 1940 -- US.  7x triple 9" Mk 5 with auto II on aggressive and Radar Gen III with veteran crew, no other changes to ship.

Gun in use specs:  9.4 second reload, rate of fire 6.4 r/min  (accuracy and damage do not matter for this test)

(Time given is in game seconds played at 1x speed)
Expected behavior:  full or ripple fire broadside -- 13.5 seconds pass -- full or ripple fire broadside -- 13.5 seconds pass -- and repeat until target dead.

Observed behavior:  7 turrets fire in random order over the course of 23 seconds -- 20 seconds pass -- next salvo begins


While all turrets eventually fire, there is no way in heck they are firing their full rate of fire right now.

This tells me it is useless to design ships with guns whose combined rate of fire is above a certain amount because your most wanted guns may never fire.

I thought about suggesting putting priority on bigger guns but then realize sometime I may want more advanced mark 4 secondary guns to fire at the nearby destoryer instead of the slighly-less-accurate-at-close-range mark 3 main guns.

[SodaBit]

I've got some quick map feedback here, in regards to one of the quietest places in the world.
Nome, Alaska, is a sleepy little town on the southern side of Alaska's central peninsula. As of today, it's population is less than 4,000, so I can forgive the devs if they get the exact location of this little hamlet wrong.

But placing it here probably isn't going to work very well. It's tied to the Bering Sea region, which is technically correct given it's actual location irl, but if we look over at the Bering Sea,

There's no Nome. What we do have is Provideniya, almost directly across from where Nome should be. Interestingly, despite being along the coast of the Bering Sea both in game, and irl, this port is tied to the Sea of Okhotsk region. 

Which is over here, south-west of the Bering Sea, past the Kamchatka Peninsula. Nome, Alaska, again featured.
I get that this part of the map doesn't see a lot of action, but it still needs to be accurate. 
There are still more pressing issues at hand, such as the ones discussed in the last few posts, that should be addressed first. Get battles working properly, then we can worry about where they can take place.

[PainKiller]

Doesn't seems to be true, just run my ship with a single turret 1 barreled 50mm gun for secundary, with my 3x3 200mm as mains. The secundary gun has a 1.1 sec reload this time, which means 54 shells/ minute -> we are at 0.909 shells/sec. This is under your suggested 2-3 round/sec limit. The main guns still has problem firing.

(I hope shell = round, sorry for not knowing correct english)

I'm just gonna hope that this is the resetting targetting solution thing, what just Nick said. Interesting that the gun UI still indicates 100% accuracy, and not goes to 0%, which i would expect for a targetting solution problem.  

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by PainKiller

[Suribachi]

1 minute ago, DableUTeeF said:

I thought about suggesting putting priority on bigger guns but then realize sometime I may want more advanced mark 4 secondary guns to fire at the nearby destoryer instead of the slighly-less-accurate-at-close-range mark 3 main guns.

I say this next bit with absolutely no knowledge of how the dev team does it or how to code it but:

I kind of figured that what needs to be done is to have 2 separate fire control systems. 

One controlling the main guns sitting there, after the initial ranging shot going "is turret A loaded and aimed? if yes, fire. is turret b loaded and aimed?  if yes, fire." going until you reach the last main gun on your design then resetting back to turret a.

Then separately, you have the secondary gun system.  This one needs to work a bit different due to the mission of the secondary guns versus the main guns.  The main guns targeted specific threats, usually larger ones especially in the case of BBs.  The secondary guns targeted anything that "got too close" or the main guns could not track due to angle or speed or other factors.  So, after threats have been prioritized, he system would do something like this: system goes "what gun is loaded and has best chance to hit?  fire that.  and repeat".


Just my uneducated take on how the system should work.

[DableUTeeF]

10 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

I say this next bit with absolutely no knowledge of how the dev team does it or how to code it but:

I kind of figured that what needs to be done is to have 2 separate fire control systems. 

One controlling the main guns sitting there, after the initial ranging shot going "is turret A loaded and aimed? if yes, fire. is turret b loaded and aimed?  if yes, fire." going until you reach the last main gun on your design then resetting back to turret a.

Then separately, you have the secondary gun system.  This one needs to work a bit different due to the mission of the secondary guns versus the main guns.  The main guns targeted specific threats, usually larger ones especially in the case of BBs.  The secondary guns targeted anything that "got too close" or the main guns could not track due to angle or speed or other factors.  So, after threats have been prioritized, he system would do something like this: system goes "what gun is loaded and has best chance to hit?  fire that.  and repeat".


Just my uneducated take on how the system should work.

I personally I hate this "auto targetting system" since I find it absolutely abysmal currently. Also more often than not 2" guns are actually the most accurate below 5km and also devastating against torpedo boats. But may not do anything against bow-tanking torpedo equiped light cruiser other than setting the paint on fire.

Edited December 28, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[DableUTeeF]

33 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

Doesn't seems to be true, just run my ship with a single turret 1 barreled 50mm gun for secundary, with my 3x3 200mm as mains. The secundary gun has a 1.1 sec reload this time, which means 54 shells/ minute -> we are at 0.909 shells/sec. This is under your suggested 2-3 round/sec limit. The main guns still has problem firing.

(I hope shell = round, sorry for not knowing correct english)

I'm just gonna hope that this is the resetting targetting solution thing, what just Nick said. Interesting that the gun UI still indicates 100% accuracy, and not goes to 0%, which i would expect for a targetting solution problem.  

 

Like I said I don't have the code to look at myself, just a speculation from a programmer.

The 2-3 rounds per second I said was because, correct me if I'm wrong, months ago when I tested this the ships were only firing a single gun at a time. There's a slight delay before a turret can fire all 3 guns instead of firing the whole turret like the current patch.

The current patch feels like the limitation is how many turret was firing than how many barrels.

Again just a speculation.

Edited December 28, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Adm.Hawklyn]

So, firing at full rate of fire from my understanding is not a very normal occurrence as historically, a portion of any loading mechanism is dependent upon humanity. This will generally ensure an average rate of fire, the optimal or full RoF will always be on paper and generally not in practice. 

With that said, thank you devs for continuing to work on this, ironing out the issues as best you can while not necessarily being under the best circumstances. Stay safe.

[DableUTeeF]

3 minutes ago, Adm.Hawklyn said:

So, firing at full rate of fire from my understanding is not a very normal occurrence as historically, a portion of any loading mechanism is dependent upon humanity. This will generally ensure an average rate of fire, the optimal or full RoF will always be on paper and generally not in practice. 

With that said, thank you devs for continuing to work on this, ironing out the issues as best you can while not necessarily being under the best circumstances. Stay safe.

IRL is differed from in game since if you have only 1 turret firing you get near enough the full rate of fire.

[PainKiller]

 

15 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

Also more often than not 2" guns are actually the most accurate below 5km and ver devastating against torpedo boats.

Yep this is the other occuring problem running in the game for a long time. 2" guns being more accurate than 3", 12" being more accurate than 11", or 13", not belonging to the linear pattern we are expecting. But thiese are just a "few" % more accurate than they supposed to be. Thiese two example is nothing compared to making 8" guns to 8.9", giving it a drastic, almost broken accuracy bonus. Feels like cheating in game, but actually the game itself letting me do this.  I'm not going to change the lenght of the barrels.Sorry for my poor paint job lol. As you can see this is a 8"    8.9"     9" inch guns

If this was a linear growth in accuracy, i would be expecting for the 8.9" guns to be slightly below 9" guns (yes i see it's a mark5), something like 1km=100%, 2.5km=52%, 5km= 18%. Yet, we have more then double of that, making 8.9" guns the most broken of them all, literally rivaling the 12" gun in efficiency. 

I'm pretty sure devs know about this, just wanted to show you if you didn't. There are interesting things about the guns  This is not game breaking.....but definietly not healthy in the long term. 

This 8.9" gun is the actual reason i still have sanity playing the game. When this gun actually decides to fire every minute instead of 10-15 secounds, at least it hits it's target lol. ( i did not use this in my testing earlier, this is just for the campaign so i can progress. doesn't matter since it suffers from the same bug.)

[DableUTeeF]

3 minutes ago, PainKiller said:

 

Yep this is the other occuring problem running in the game for a long time. 2" guns being more accurate than 3", 12" being more accurate than 11", or 13", not belonging to the linear pattern we are expecting. But thiese are just a "few" % more accurate than they supposed to be. Thiese two example is nothing compared to making 8" guns to 8.9", giving it a drastic, almost broken accuracy bonus. Feels like cheating in game, but actually the game itself letting me do this.  I'm not going to change the lenght of the barrels.Sorry for my poor paint job lol. As you can see this is a 8"    8.9"     9" inch guns

If this was a linear growth in accuracy, i would be expecting for the 8.9" guns to be slightly below 9" guns (yes i see it's a mark5), something like 1km=100%, 2.5km=52%, 5km= 18%. Yet, we have more then double of that, making 8.9" guns the most broken of them all, literally rivaling the 12" gun in efficiency. 

I'm pretty sure devs know about this, just wanted to show you if you didn't. There are interesting things about the guns  This is not game breaking.....but definietly not healthy in the long term. 

This 8.9" gun is the actual reason i still have sanity playing the game. When this gun actually decides to fire every minute instead of 10-15 secounds, at least it hits it's target lol. ( i did not use this in my testing earlier, this is just for the campaign so i can progress. doesn't matter since it suffers from the same bug.)

The funny thing is that. Mark 2 4.9 inch turret weight the same as 6.9 inch which is also significantly lighter than 7 inch. While 5.9 inch is also slightly heavier than 6 inch but less insane than 4.9.

My passing guess is float to integer conversion screwup somewhere. Both weight, armor penetration, and accuracy.

[Lima]

War, war never changes II

France is attacking from three sides, with such a loss ratio on each arrow

Typical

And finally the guys who were able to carry out an attack above zero...

[Suribachi]

8 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

I personally I hate this "auto targetting system" since I find it absolutely abysmal currently. Also more often than not 2" guns are actually the most accurate below 5km and also devastating against torpedo boats. But may not do anything against bow-tanking torpedo equiped light cruiser other than setting things on fire.

This will be a strawman example but I hope it will get the point across for how I think the auto targetting system should operate without any input from the player.

Let's pretend for a moment that you have a BB with armament as follows:
16" main guns, range 30 km

5" secondary guns, range 15 km

3" secondary guns, range 8 km

2" secondary guns, range 5 km

 

BB sails along and spots an enemy group, one BB and two CLs on its starboard beam.  Enemy BB is staying at 25 km, 16" swing to target and begin to engage.  Meanwhile, secondary guns swing to track and follow enemy CLs that are sailing on an intercept course.  CLs stray into 5" range and those guns open fire.  The CL that the 5" guns continues to advance (hence referred to as CL 1) while the other swings to stay at around 12 km (hence referred to as CL 2).  CL 1 strays within 3" range and those begin to open up.  At this point, CL 1 is "handed off" from the 5" to the 3", so the 5" swing back to engage CL 2 which is at a range more suited to the 5".  CL 1 continues to advance and has now strayed inside 5 km, 2" now opens up.

Here is where the bread and butter of my strawman example kicks in.

Earlier in the engagement, the player decided that the exclusion zone around their ship is 4 km.  Once CL 1 strays within 4 km, all secondary guns, no matter the caliber, swing to engage that threat at a rate of fire that can only be described as "DAKKA!!!".  CL 1 now sinks.  Standard priority takes over again, so 5" swings back out to engage CL 2 again with 3" and 2" swinging to track CL 2 but not fire as it is out of range of these guns.

 

This process should happen on both sides of the ship, independent of each other, with one exception.  If, for the sake of argument, CL 1 was moving to cross your BBs "T", basically move to go to the other side, your BBs port secondary guns should start tracking that target at a certain angle off your bow and stern (say 30 degrees for this example) assuming no other targets on port side to track and engage already.  So if your T was crossed, your port guns are already ready and aimed to engage.


As stated earlier, this is a strawman argument using arbitrary numbers for examples.  Obviously, if the player provides some kind of input, that should override the auto behavior.  In this example, if the player designated CL 1 as the secondary target, 5" would continue to track that target no matter the distance until out of sight or sunk, at which time auto should kick in again.

Additionally, the second part of this example assumes a feature that is not currently in the game, an "exclusion zone", where ships will have their secondary guns abandon all other targets to take care of that single threat.  Just something tossed in there as a "well what if..." scenario.

By no means do I think this is the definitive solution and am open to further discussion on it.

[PainKiller]

7 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

By no means do I think this is the definitive solution and am open to further discussion on it.

Very nice post, would be lovely if it worked like that. We somehow also need to see, if it is meaningful to target an enemy ship, as it has enough % for that gun to hit it's target. I know AI don't do this, but let's say it knows about game mechanics. According to your design, we can lock up all the secundary guns. We get the enemy dd to sail  into the 4km range of your ship, and at full speed, full rudder to one side, start going in circles. The secundary guns would get a huge -whatever% debuff to accuracy, probably making them below 0.1%, and they will just track the dd going circles, but will not fire on it. Even if i make them fire with agressive, it would be just a waste of ammo. Yes i know this would not happen, but it's a possibility.

[DableUTeeF]

44 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

This will be a strawman example but I hope it will get the point across for how I think the auto targetting system should operate without any input from the player.

Let's pretend for a moment that you have a BB with armament as follows:
16" main guns, range 30 km

5" secondary guns, range 15 km

3" secondary guns, range 8 km

2" secondary guns, range 5 km

 

BB sails along and spots an enemy group, one BB and two CLs on its starboard beam.  Enemy BB is staying at 25 km, 16" swing to target and begin to engage.  Meanwhile, secondary guns swing to track and follow enemy CLs that are sailing on an intercept course.  CLs stray into 5" range and those guns open fire.  The CL that the 5" guns continues to advance (hence referred to as CL 1) while the other swings to stay at around 12 km (hence referred to as CL 2).  CL 1 strays within 3" range and those begin to open up.  At this point, CL 1 is "handed off" from the 5" to the 3", so the 5" swing back to engage CL 2 which is at a range more suited to the 5".  CL 1 continues to advance and has now strayed inside 5 km, 2" now opens up.

Here is where the bread and butter of my strawman example kicks in.

Earlier in the engagement, the player decided that the exclusion zone around their ship is 4 km.  Once CL 1 strays within 4 km, all secondary guns, no matter the caliber, swing to engage that threat at a rate of fire that can only be described as "DAKKA!!!".  CL 1 now sinks.  Standard priority takes over again, so 5" swings back out to engage CL 2 again with 3" and 2" swinging to track CL 2 but not fire as it is out of range of these guns.

 

This process should happen on both sides of the ship, independent of each other, with one exception.  If, for the sake of argument, CL 1 was moving to cross your BBs "T", basically move to go to the other side, your BBs port secondary guns should start tracking that target at a certain angle off your bow and stern (say 30 degrees for this example) assuming no other targets on port side to track and engage already.  So if your T was crossed, your port guns are already ready and aimed to engage.


As stated earlier, this is a strawman argument using arbitrary numbers for examples.  Obviously, if the player provides some kind of input, that should override the auto behavior.  In this example, if the player designated CL 1 as the secondary target, 5" would continue to track that target no matter the distance until out of sight or sunk, at which time auto should kick in again.

Additionally, the second part of this example assumes a feature that is not currently in the game, an "exclusion zone", where ships will have their secondary guns abandon all other targets to take care of that single threat.  Just something tossed in there as a "well what if..." scenario.

By no means do I think this is the definitive solution and am open to further discussion on it.

That is certainly better than the current "automatically select the target by threat" that just pick a torpedo boat 20km away just because I told a cruiser from another division to shoot it.

Although it'll probably have a fun time when more than one target is in the zone of the same side. Like, should it track the closest target that already dropped torpedoes or the second target that is closing in? But I can see this work with some fine tune.

Just hope the "if the player provides some kind of input, that should override the auto behavior" stays intact unlike the recent one.

Edited December 28, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Norbert Sattler]

I'm getting really tired of getting attacked by the AI only for them to bail. Can't you put in some check that the AI will not force engagements they will free from anyway?

[Nick Thomadis]

4 hours ago, neph said:

The ships' movement screams poorly tuned PID to me. The effect is worsened when ships are following one another--perturbations in the lead vessel(s) course amplify oscillations in the following vessels'.

 

Currently, it's common to see behavior like this when commanding a turn in a line of vessels.

 

It seems like this behavior is due to following ships trying to maintain a constant distance from their lead ships. It means that the second ship will begin to turn late, since the distance opens up only when the lead ship is in the maximum of its turn, and then because of ship handling characteristic the second ship will not be in the maximum of its turn until after the lead ship has settled into its new course.

This causes a yet further delay for the course change of third & later following ships, meaning that the effect is exacerbated going down the line. It leads to a whip-lash effect and the third and later ships usually greatly overshoot, fall out of formation, and have to complete a long and slow 360° turn to return eventually to formation. It's almost impossible to keep ships in lines longer than 2, even through very very simple maneuvers. 

 

I propose than instead of each ship only looking at the distance from the one before it, an iterative process that amplifies perturbations and quickly leads to bad behavior in high-inertia/slowly-handling ships, we try a different method.

Have behind the lead ship a "ghost division" of calculated ship positions--where ships should be if they followed perfectly (had perfect handling & no delay). Each ship instead will simply try to minimize their distance to the corresponding element of the ghost division.

This should minimize whip-lash and keep ships in formation through simple turns.

Thishttps://imgur.com/j4DueZB

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

[admiralsnackbar]

I have an alliance with Syria, the description mentioned something about being able to dock my own ships in their ports, did it not? I was not able to make use of this feature. I'm in a situation where I (china) cannot supply my fleets in the mediterranean and neither can italy/austria who happen to be at war with me get to Asia. 

Has anyone been able to use minor ports for resupply?

[The PC Collector]

7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Regarding the so called "Drunken movement" it is just a visual representation of the movement path estimation which utilizes ship's velocity.

The ship's velocity is not static but pulsates because of waves (there is calculation involved) so the estimated path changes accordingly with oscillation. Ships will steer straight whatsoever if the ship is not steering too much. In reality do ships straight in absolute straight lines?

So, according to you, ships not being controllable at all, not responding to movement orders, not responding to speed change orders, is a feature? We have been complaining about that, and you have done absolutely nothing at all, the game is unplayable because the most basic thing as is controlling our damn ships DOESN'T WORK.

Por the last 4 hotfixes my testing has been:

- Launch software
- Go to custom battle
- See that nothing at all has been improved and ships are still pretty much uncontrollable
- Close software and wait for next update.

I can understand the wobbling thing, as it sorts of makes sense. What doesn't makes any sense is that we can barely set the overall direction we want to sail to. Besides, last time I tested in custom battles, it was a 30000 T BB. Unless in a severe storm, the impact of waves on the handling of such a heavy warship should be negligible. So even if it is an intended feature, is clearly detrimental for gameplay, and as such should be discarded.

[Alnitak]

14 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There will be no advance if the attacker does not cause enough losses to the defender on a turn so this can happen. However in your last example Ethiopia should have been pushed back. We will check.

So what about this error.🤣

Land War is really a good idea and do well before hotfix4😂. Just need to let the war end after peace sign ，army can push back and need to weaken the Soviet and china.They are too strong.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Alnitak

[neph]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

Why would this occur in ships with identical handling characteristics as the leader?

 

Also: instead of overriding the physical properties, could we possibly have a control to artificially lower maneuverability, the way we can speed?

I often find myself setting formation speed lower than the maximum, so that straggling ships can catch up. Could we have a control to set formation turning lower than the maximum, so that ships can execute maneuvers effectively?

[RedHerring]

Thanks to the devs for their hard work! I really like a lot of the new features in 1.1 and look forward to testing them out.

I haven’t done much with this yet because battles are hard to play due to ship control issues. I haven't had any new issues with speed control like some others, but since v1.1 release I have had the heading control issue that others have talked about. It isn’t a formation keeping problem because I have the same problem with a single ship. When a heading order is given, the ship turns in that direction with full rudder. But when it reaches the new heading, it still has full rudder input and so it overshoots the heading by a fair margin. (sometimes as much as 45 degrees) After overshooting, the ship attempts to correct to the ordered heading, but does the same thing in the other direction, over shooting again. I have had ships continue to s-turn like this 15 or more times before  stabilizing on the new course. This is a new problem as of v1.1. (I reverted to the non-Beta branch to check and it is not an issue there). It seems that whatever function tells the ship to take out the rudder input at the correct time to stabilize on the new course broke in the update to 1.1.

 

Here we give the sip a new heading...

The ship reaches the new heading but is still turning, so it overshoots...

After overshooting, the ship corects back...

...and overshoots the other direction.

Please fix this! I'd really like to test this build but battles are practicaly unplayable right now. Thanks!

[Admiral Donuts]

In a series of new features in one battle, a Chinese torpedo boat, sailed up right next to my Dreadnought bristling with guns but never hit it once, torpedoed it once because it can't maneuver properly, and flooded it out entirely and sank it through Torpedo Protection III and Anti-Flooding III.

If that was my first experience with the game, I'd hate it as much as I do right now.

You're ruining this game.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Admiral Donuts]

And I'll tell you why you're ruining it in plain terms.

You keep adding features that the player has no control over. I can't even control my task forces in battle anymore. For example, why do I have to suffer your Drunk Ships feature when the AI doesn't? Why can none of my ships turn left?

The AI declares war on a country or I go broke and lose. It then invades said country, by itself, by choosing a province to send troops. It tells me the sea zone that affects that invasion - when I deploy a task force it does nothing to help that invasion. The invasion goes off and when I WIN - I gain 54 unrest for the game's efforts. So I'm penalized for it. And that's all I get. Not even the satisfaction of having accomplished something. It did it entirely on its own!

I can design ships, I can deploy ships.

The rest is decided by the game itself as it plays itself, and that is how it's going to end up.

Playing itself.

[Alnitak]

20 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:

In a series of new features in one battle, a Chinese torpedo boat, sailed up right next to my Dreadnought bristling with guns but never hit it once, torpedoed it once because it can't maneuver properly, and flooded it out entirely and sank it through Torpedo Protection III and Anti-Flooding III.

If that was my first experience with the game, I'd hate it as much as I do right now.

You're ruining this game.

 

You must have played the year of 1890-1930,the year of TB.

ps：But in v1.1 gun accuracy worse than in v1.09.In v1.1 even the year 1940 you have to go into 20km to keep accuracy,it very dangerous because the torpedo range is 20km.So that l cant let the BB stay in 27km,BC in 20km and CA in 15km，they all  must stay within 20km like in v1.09.it make me hard to control my fleet to avoid torpedo now.