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

[Lima]

The biggest problem for AI is the crew. Even a fairly bad ship with a good crew will be a threat. Even a Shared designs ship will be weak with a bad crew.

[ZorinW]

@Nick Thomadis Playing as Germany and holding Panama, Southern Alaska and the Marshall Islands my ships off the west coast of the US are listed as "too far from supply port". Could you please look into this.

[ZorinW]

9 minutes ago, Lima said:

The biggest problem for AI is the crew. Even a fairly bad ship with a good crew will be a threat. Even a Shared designs ship will be weak with a bad crew.

At least in my current war against the USA their crews are usually trained.

Edited January 7, 2023 by ZorinW

[Lima]

7 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

At least in my current war against the USA their crews are usually trained.

Seasoned/veterams can make a big difference. But AI never brings crews to such a state. It would be nice to have a setting so that AI crews can train up to this state. That would be a real problem.

[ZorinW]

6 minutes ago, Lima said:

Seasoned/veterams can make a big difference. But AI never brings crews to such a state. It would be nice to have a setting so that AI crews can train up to this state. That would be a real problem.

Well, since crews can only go beyond trained when they survive a battle that is where the AI crews suffer, since they usually all end up dead after an egagement 😅

[Sobakaa]

1 hour ago, Plazma said:

I must say these two fixes are not "slight" they are very good! Still I see some issues, but the improvement is great! Good job. At least somehow now we can play the game and accuracy matters. Still 4/10, but at least no 0/10

 

 

Btw. I started the A-H campaing 1900 and they have battleship I and some experimental CA. The Battleship I is little old hull with max displacement of 11,500t (I must double check) and in the same time the CA experimental have this same displacement and similar statistic. On the end these CA are better than BB, especially if you don't want go on 12" or 13" guns. In my opinion the CA is more like BB than CA and the BB is more like CA than BB. 

I spent a fair bit of time in shared designs, which is the fastest way now to test-build ships with a fast switch between years and factions, so i noticed quite a few of similar inconsistencies. For example in 1910 Japan's best BC hull is at 43k tons while their only BB is at 25k. BC's hull is also 9 knots faster by design. At least in your example there's a case for a BB due to its larger guns (not that they would ever fit, as most of the weight is already used up by some mysterious components).
I think the only fix for this problem is to add more hulls for A-H. At least Japan gets a proper Dreadnought by 1912, but A-H has nothing all the way up to 1905. Plus A-H lacks variety in hulls anyway.

[Norbert Sattler]

Can I attack neutral islands in any way? Do I just park a task force there and hope for RnG to throw me an event?

[admiralsnackbar]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

If you compare the shipyard expansion from 1890 via your gameplay with the initial shipyard when you start the campaign in 1910 it is expected to not match exactly, as the growth is simulated artificially.

When he's talking about shipyard he's talking about the capacity of the drydock (where 4000t means your drydock can build a ship 4000 tons heavier than before) I know that port capacity (the sum of the total tonnage a port can accommodate) increases automatically with gdp growth levels. 

is the idea here that the drydock expansion in a given campaign scales up as your port capacity grows? 

I haven't checked that carefully myself. But the OP seems to be saying that is isn't increasing and is fixed based on when you start your campaign  [4000t in 1890, for example] 

[ZorinW]

@Nick Thomadis If I am not mistaken, than the bug that ships are being refitted at sea has returned again. 

[anonusername]

@Nick ThomadisPlease either bring manual rudder control back or allow torpedo evasion to function for the lead ship in a formation. Manual rudder is required for effectively avoiding collisions with torpedo and (in early game at close ranges) potentially even enemy vessels. Trying to "trick" the autopilot into setting the rudder to 100% in a particular direction is tedious and unreliable. If the player can steer the ship more effectively than the AI, that is an issue with the AI *not* the player "abusing" the manual steering.

Maybe manual steering could just be disabled for all ships which aren't the lead in their formation?

EDIT: I think most of the negativity is the result of updates being pushed out of beta in an unstable state. It is great that your team is so passionate about adding new features to fulfill your vision of the game, but it is very frustrating for players when the previous features are not yet stable or balanced enough to offer an enjoyable experience. The biggest culprit here was 1.09, 1.1 after all the hotfixes is already a huge improvement. I don't mind bugs, even gamebreaking ones, when I am opting into a beta testing. However, when they are pushed into the stable branch it removes the ability of players to use the previous, stable branch.

EDIT2: I think the current formation spacing system is a big improvement over previous versions, and I agree the player should slow the lead ship if he wants to allow the others to catch up. However, this may not be obvious to all players. Maybe a UI indicator could be added to communicate this to the player, similar to the "Low Fuel" indicator.

Edited January 7, 2023 by anonusername

[Gsam]

Turns are taking SOOOOOOOOOO LONGGGGGGGGGG

[anonusername]

It would be great if we had some means of influencing the random naval/land invasion missions against minors. Doesn't need to be 100% control, just something like "spend prestige to say 'We need to invade Hawaii because it is a strategic port.'"

[Norbert Sattler]

I just had a case of one of my task forces being completely 100% full health, but then once the mission launched two of my CLs (which is half of the CLs I had in that mission) were at 20% structure and almost out of ammo, despite having never fought a single battle since they were built.

There was also no message about them hititng any mines.

The other two CLs and one BB in the task force were completely undamaged as they were supposed to be, despite having sailed with the near dead ships from the moment they left port together.

I also reported this ingame.

This needs to stop. Ships should not be randomly near-death at the start of a mission just because the mission profile says so. It wasn't even a straggler mission or anything, just a regular "Meeting" mission.

[Sobakaa]

Do custom battles take forever to load for anyone else?
I wanted to do a quick test of the Japanese 1910 BC, so i designed a 1v1 fight and launched a battle with my pre-created saved "shared" design. I've been waiting for a "1/1 force" with my ship name on it to load for about 15 minutes at which point i gave up and had to go Alt+F4.
Was unable to send a bug report in game for obvious reasons.

[Plazma]

Found another interesting bug.

The AI don't care about damage sometimes. In the example below the CL have 20.7kn max speed, the CL actual speed is 20,5kn, but the CL in this same time is badly damaged. Half of the ship flooded  and only one engine! The damage was a some time ago, so I expect that the CL should have something like 7kn of speed, not almost full speed.

[Suribachi]

13 minutes ago, Plazma said:

Found another interesting bug.

The AI don't care about damage sometimes. In the example below the CL have 20.7kn max speed, the CL actual speed is 20,5kn, but the CL in this same time is badly damaged. Half of the ship flooded  and only one engine! The damage was a some time ago, so I expect that the CL should have something like 7kn of speed, not almost full speed.

Depends on if they borrowed the repair crew from CV-6 or not.

Joking aside, I feel that higher speeds should actually speed up flooding of the ship because the water is being literally forced into the hull breach.  This would make it a very good idea to slow way down when flooding like that until repairs are complete and even then not go to full speed.

[kineuhansen]

one of my biggest wish for uad  i would love to choose my battles like if the enemy had a task force of 1 battleship and a few cruisers i would love to be able to send out a battleship to hunt the enemy ships down with out my battleship end up in a battle with a doom fleet

[Plazma]

1 hour ago, Suribachi said:

Joking aside, I feel that higher speeds should actually speed up flooding of the ship because the water is being literally forced into the hull breach.

For me the "open hull" is like one big break or "It's like towing a car with a flat tire". I remember ghost ship movie when they shortly explained that and create a story about it, that they need first repair ship to move it. 

1 hour ago, Suribachi said:

Depends on if they borrowed the repair crew from CV-6 or not.

Could you give me something except the wiki about it? I don't get the joke, but I had the feel that is some creasy story about  it  

[The PC Collector]

7 hours ago, Lima said:

The biggest problem for AI is the crew. Even a fairly bad ship with a good crew will be a threat. Even a Shared designs ship will be weak with a bad crew.

I've been saying since 1.03 that crew bonuses/penalties are way too big. If the difference in experience is too big, how good each side's ships are becomes nearly irrelevant. I've had state of the art ships trashed by AI clown cars just because I had the bad luck of facing the extremely rare veteran crewed AI ship, and I have trashed fairly good ships with 25 YO pre dreds just because my crew was way better.

In my opinion, crew bonuses/penalties should be halved at the very least. No sane navy would put in the sea a ship crewed by people which would give it so big penalties as we see in game.

Also, we should be able to somehow select with what do we want to crew our ships. Because in any sensible navy, the best crews would go the the best ships/fleets. Maybe with a check which was something like "prioritise experienced crew" in the fleet screen. But that's a different discussion. Maybe the crew button should have more options besides the number of crew, like specifying a minimum/maximum level of crew.

[Fangoriously]

If you want to know what the effect of a highly trained crew in combat is, besides the constant +30 for vets, pause the game and mouse over the target once your ship is zeroed in on it, and you will often find an accuracy bonus over +1000 listed, all thanks to maxed crew training. Even regular status will give you a high hundreds bonus, huge advantage over the mostly cadet ai crew. Any tool tip you mouse over, espesualy on the realy large guns, that's only showing you what cadets can do with them.

 

Complaints that 8in or 12in guns are OP and 17+ are terrible just by looking at raw stats, ok sure with cadets maybe, throw a +1700 range found bonus from your vet crew on any huge gun Salvo, and you will still get hits very often. I only ever build capital ships with 12 of the biggest mk3 guns I can fit, with the barrels choped to give me at most 20klm range, never skimp on crew training and decimate everything with close range plunging fire.

[Fun Police]

I don't know if its intentional or not, but my fast ships (battlecruisers and destroyers) are doing drifts when making high speed turns. I honestly think its hilarious, even if torpedoes seem to fly off in random directions 

[Skeksis]

Stationary bug (or clustering bug?) but this time on the AI side. Human player can get their ships going again but the AI can't, it's putting the AI at a real disadvantage. 

These examples are of a single battle where 3 ships are sunk while in a stationary position, they are sitting ducks...

All destroyed before details were available, but to interpret screenshots, all 3 ships don't show any propeller wake, so they're stationary.

And I'm missing manual rudder (maybe everyone), you can't zig-zag ships or do a fleet wide u-turn effectively anymore. Putting player at a disadvantage.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Skeksis

[admiralsnackbar]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

In my opinion, crew bonuses/penalties should be halved at the very least. No sane navy would put in the sea a ship crewed by people which would give it so big penalties as we see in game.

 

The British Battlecruisers at Jutland and the 2nd pacific squadron at Tsushima, and the battle of Yalu River kinda shows just how big of an impact having poorly/improperly trained crew despite theoretically having technical superiority has on the outcome of a battle. I don't think the multipliers for crew training are that severe all things considered, provided that it's relatively easy to get out of the very low training levels and relatively hard to get into the very highest training levels. 

The accuracy bonuses from crew training at max are something are 30%, you have tons of other bonuses and maluses active at the same time (the sum total of which i think leads to hit rates that range from insanely poor to impossibly accurate) which are equal to or in a few cases greater than 30%

 

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

Stationary bug (or clustering bug?) but this time on the AI side. Human player can get their ships going again but the AI can't, it's putting the AI at a real disadvantage. 

These examples are of a single battle where 3 ship are stunk while in a stationary position, they are sitting ducks...

All destroyed before details were available, but to interpret screenshots, all 3 ships don't show any propeller wake, so they're stationary.

And I'm missing manual rudder (maybe everyone), you can't zig-zag ships or do a fleet wide u-turn effectively anymore. Putting player at a disadvantage. Can't word next remark nice enough [...].

Yes i think manual rudder was finally removed as Nick said they planned on doing once the ship turning was set to a level they thought acceptable. 

[Pappystein]

8 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The British Battlecruisers at Jutland

 

The British losses were due to shock transmitted through the hull to the magazines and spontaneous detonation of the propellant from the shock.   It was an un-intended design feature of the powder (stable when new, after time with heat breaks down into something akin to nitroglycerin AKA highly volatile and easy to explode)...   Not the training of the crews that caused most of the Battlecruiser losses.

 

They were lost because their chemists were less than good at testing their products over time, and the ships didn't have Air Conditioning.

15 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

Yes i think manual rudder was finally removed as Nick said they planned on doing once the ship turning was set to a level they thought acceptable. 

Patch notes said it was because the manual rudder was CAUSING some of the Formation Bugs/collisions and it would re-appear in a future update once the formation bugs have been reduced/solved. (my understanding)

 

[admiralsnackbar]

17 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The British losses were due to shock transmitted through the hull to the magazines and spontaneous detonation of the propellant from the shock.   It was an un-intended design feature of the powder (stable when new, after time with heat breaks down into something akin to nitroglycerin AKA highly volatile and easy to explode)...   Not the training of the crews that caused most of the Battlecruiser losses.

 

They were lost because their chemists were less than good at testing their products over time, and the ships didn't have Air Conditioning.

Patch notes said it was because the manual rudder was CAUSING some of the Formation Bugs/collisions and it would re-appear in a future update once the formation bugs have been reduced/solved. (my understanding)

 

in the context of jutland I was talking more about the poor accuracy and ammunition handling practices. Good catch on the patch notes.