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

[Aldaris]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

Dunno, so far I've only had one instance of the AI running away in a situation in which I think they shouldn't. The rest of the times they have, it was in situations in which it would have made sense for them to run away.

Even if it makes sense - don't make me load into a battle then. It's a binary thing really. Is the AI fleet fast enough to get away? In that case - no battle, they escaped. Is it too slow to get away? Give me a battle and make the AI fight. 10 minute long, 10x times compression stern chases are simply not fun.

[Lima]

I do not receive reports on the battle (a sheet where such and such a ship is damaged, such and such is sunk). I usually didn't care about that, but then an incident happened...

My 16 CAs 4CLs are stationed near the port on an invasion mission. They were attacked by ONE destroyer. I didn't get the battle report, but I got a long crew rescue sheet...When I looked at the state of the TF, I was horrified. More than half of the ships are heavily damaged. I don't even know if they sank that destroyer.

Meanwhile

This is the last major US navy TF. I have a TF of 2BBs 4CAs 4CLs 12DDs and they are not able to notice the US Navy.

And of course the super DD attacked my fleet again. I did the fight manually, she run away. Now most of my fleet has 90% damage.

FIX THE BUG WITH RNG DAMAGE, PLEASE.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Lima

[AdmiralBert]

Auto-resolve damage is a bit nuts, to be certain especially when TBs/DDs are involved. Cruiser vs cruiser or mixed BB/BC/CA/CL battles seem to be a bit more sensible however.

One or two quality of life changes I would like, if only to stop self-inflicted headaches:

Ship Design page: When deleting a ship design, would it be possible to add a prompt if there are ship(s) either being built or in operation using the design? I may or may not have inadvertantly deleted the plans for ships in active service, and while you can work around the problem (create new design with the same name, create refit design, apply refit design to existing ships) the workaround itself feels like a bug and is a waste of time.

It would also be nice to have a select all checkbox when refiting ships, rather than having to select each vessel individually.

Fleet page: We need more checkboxes, or controls which influence all ships. It would be nice to have a button which sets all vessels to a given state (so when War Were Declared, I can push one button to set all ships to Sea Control etc). It would also be nice if, when scrapping ships, you'd get a confirmation pop up listing the number and type of ships to be deleted. I may have accidentally scrapped some battleships, rather than the aged CAs, due to them being in the same port and my suffering blindness from the class names overspilling (long name + refit year appended to the end = WORDSWORDSWORD).

[Suribachi]

20 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

It would also be nice to have a select all checkbox when refiting ships, rather than having to select each vessel individually.

Left click top ship, then Shift + Click bottom ship.  Witness select all goodness!

[TiagoStein]

The only weird things I saw, both in  1890 campaigns,  USA and UK  going NUTS on production and bankrupting themselves within 3 years. Seriously they have more than 900 ships each., they woudl lose like 50-80 per montha nd rebuild  100 each month.

Second japan kept sending tasks forces way way  beyond their effective range, just to be slaughtered  for the no fuel condition.

[Suribachi]

Just now, TiagoStein said:

Second japan kept sending tasks forces way way  beyond their effective range, just to be slaughtered  for the no fuel condition.

Because the AI does this, when I play as Japan, I blatantly ignore Italy and A-H.  Spain and German give me an excuse to invade the Oceania islands and Phillippines.

[TiagoStein]

20 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I think it's the targeting of secondaries being constantly altered in very brief intervals [lag is most extreme when selecting 1 ship and mousing over another]

That is exactly what I experienced.  I somewhat think it is related to the interface since it agravates  a lot when you hover onto some other ship.

[Lima]

My fleet was attacked by one destroyer. This time I did the battle manually. She was running. I found out that for some reason all my ships, except battleships, abandoned the TF. Why?

Naval invasions are hell. All the problems that we have been talking about for a long time are coming together into one.

1. Something absolutely incredible is happening with TFs. You can't be sure whether your ships will be at the right point on the next turn or not. You don't know how they will behave. They don't care about orders.
2. RNG damage bug. If there is a TF that will obey orders and hold a position, this bug will destroy it. The enemy just needs to scratch your ships, and then run away.
3. Submarines. They stop your ships and take very little damage.
4. Mines. Okay, in general, this aspect works well. However, there is one problem. When a ship is laying mines inside a port, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. They're just invulnerable, and you can't attack the port. Even if this port is being invaded right now.

[Lima]

After many years of preparation and destruction of the entire US fleet, I was able to make a landing. And I lost, for the third time. I do not know what else needs to be done to win.

Of course, my army is smaller. But I can't do anything about it.

Just look at this nonsense.

I just don't have the words. What else should I do?

Edited January 9, 2023 by Lima

[Suribachi]

I could not find anything in the help files so I am asking here.  @Nick Thomadis Can you explain what the "Army Logistics" stat is under the Politics tab?  What does it do?  How can we influence it?

[TiagoStein]

28 minutes ago, Lima said:

After many years of preparation and destruction of the entire US fleet, I was able to make a landing. And I lost, for the third time. I do not know what else needs to be done to win.

Of course, my army is smaller. But I can't do anything about it.

Just look at this nonsense.

I just don't have the words. What else should I do?

Well tht is quite realistic. Spain woudl never succeed in invading USA.. no matter how amazing their admirals were.

[Urst]

34 minutes ago, Lima said:

After many years of preparation and destruction of the entire US fleet, I was able to make a landing. And I lost, for the third time. I do not know what else needs to be done to win.

Of course, my army is smaller. But I can't do anything about it.

Just look at this nonsense.

I just don't have the words. What else should I do?

My dude, your entire population is smaller than the recruitment pool for the U.S. at any given time. You'd have to invade literally EVERY territory at the same time, and even then you'd loose.

[Lima]

6 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

Well tht is quite realistic. Spain woudl never succeed in invading USA.. no matter how amazing their admirals were.

With the full support of a fleet consisting of all possible classes of ships, with qualitative superiority, I expect to capture at least the coast. No one is asking the army to run into positions with their bare hands. But my losses speak as if that's what they're doing. 

7 minutes ago, Urst said:

My dude, your entire population is smaller than the recruitment pool for the U.S. at any given time. You'd have to invade literally EVERY territory at the same time, and even then you'd loose.

This does not mean that their army in this particular place will be larger than mine. It's impossible to get them all to Florida. Thanks to the supply from the sea, my logistics should be much better.

History example - Second Sino-Japanese War. You can say bruh, the US is much stronger than China. Historically, obviously yes. But in this game, the US has lost four wars since 1890, and SPain feels great. My GDP is larger than that of the US.

[Urst]

39 minutes ago, Lima said:

With the full support of a fleet consisting of all possible classes of ships, with qualitative superiority, I expect to capture at least the coast. No one is asking the army to run into positions with their bare hands. But my losses speak as if that's what they're doing. 

This does not mean that their army in this particular place will be larger than mine. It's impossible to get them all to Florida. Thanks to the supply from the sea, my logistics should be much better.

History example - Second Sino-Japanese War. You can say bruh, the US is much stronger than China. Historically, obviously yes. But in this game, the US has lost four wars since 1890, and SPain feels great. My GDP is larger than that of the US.

It's quite impossible for you to get enough men into Florida to counter the number of Americans in Florida. The population of Florida that can fight you is larger than you can land. Also remember: The U.S., UK, and Canada nearly LOST at Normandy historically. Had the Germans had full support of the local population and had moved up their armor when the commanders wanted to then we could've been pushed off the beaches.

[popcap200]

I wish we had a tech tree to improve land battles, or I wish we had more influence on them from bombardment.  Maybe give us aircraft carriers that work the same way as submarines to give support to land battles or something, but the current system doesn't feel fleshed out quite yet imo.

[Lima]

23 minutes ago, Urst said:

It's quite impossible for you to get enough men into Florida to counter the number of Americans in Florida. The population of Florida that can fight you is larger than you can land. Also remember: The U.S., UK, and Canada nearly LOST at Normandy historically. Had the Germans had full support of the local population and had moved up their armor when the commanders wanted to then we could've been pushed off the beaches.

I understand that the struggle inside Florida will be a HUGE problem. But I don't need to capture the center, I need ports. Then, I think the population will support me. My empire has a stable economy, and theirs...Yes, communism. Also, the coastal fortifications of the US are not comparable to what was in Normandy. There are a lot of unprotected beaches.

But in any case, on the seventh landing, the empire of Pain won. My losses are huge, but it doesn't matter, now the entire population of the Gulf is Spanish.

I am very surprised that they are not trying to throw me into the sea. I expected an attack from all sides, but the US does not make a counterattack, and neither does my army. So I decided to make another massacre called the landing.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Lima

[Suribachi]

43 minutes ago, popcap200 said:

I wish we had a tech tree to improve land battles, or I wish we had more influence on them from bombardment.  Maybe give us aircraft carriers that work the same way as submarines to give support to land battles or something, but the current system doesn't feel fleshed out quite yet imo.

I made another thread discussing this so that talk about a feature does not get mixed in with a dedicated feedback thread.  Several others have already discussed some points, including a tech tree.  Would be great to hear your thoughts on it.
 

 

[Lima]

European bordergore, 1912 (1890 start).

In fact, this is far from the worst map I've seen. In this one country has not captured so much. 

Only the southern provinces and Galicia remained of the "Austro-Hungarian Empire", their army is 5 times inferior to the French, but every French offensive in Galicia ends in one turn.

This massacre has been going on for 6 years, they have few battles at sea and few VP, although the French fleet is the second most powerful in the world (after mine).

Germany and Italy tried to revive many times, but immediately disintegrated. Perhaps this is because parts of these countries have been captured. Britain was reborn 4 years after its collapse.

[Suribachi]

Already reported in game, but the use of the Japanese Light Cruiser III hull is all but useless due to engine inefficiency alone.  With 11 Compact Funnel II's, Steam M-Exp II engine, Induced Boilers, the ship's engine efficiency at 29.5 knots, the listed ideal speed for the hull, is 72.8% with smoke interference at an eye-watering 358!

[PainKiller]

2 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Already reported in game, but the use of the Japanese Light Cruiser III hull is all but useless due to engine inefficiency alone.  With 11 Compact Funnel II's, Steam M-Exp II engine, Induced Boilers, the ship's engine efficiency at 29.5 knots, the listed ideal speed for the hull, is 72.8% with smoke interference at an eye-watering 358!

Isn't that the same light cruiser hull that other nations also get? The one where you try to put guns on it's side but the life boat's don't go away so you have limited fire arcs? I see that it has a 29.5 written on it, but that does not mean it's supposed to have good engine efficiency. If my memory is correct, that number stands for how much speed you can have without the engine weight increase starts to be exponential. Just to demonstrate with this same hull, if i check the weight&cost tab in ship builder, i got:

• at 23knts   647t
• at 25knts   950t      (+47%)
• at 27knts   1492t    (+57%)
• at 29knts   2105t    (+41%)
• at 31knts   3601t    (+71%)
• at 33knts   12470t (+246%)

As we can see, after 30 knots, the engine weight increase start to be very big. But this number never meant to represent engine efficiency!!! You need better technology to be more efficient, like oil instead of coal (helps a lot), or forced boilers instead of inducted. You mentioned Steam M-Exp II, but changing engine type does nothing with engine efficiency. Altough, historically, fast ships always used some kind of turbine engine, and it does help with engine weight, which IS represented in the game.

So sorry for saying this, but depending on you current year -> technology, you need to make sacrifices, if engine efficiency and smoke interfierence number is important to you. Now you probably want to go with around 25-26 knots, and in 5-10 year refit your ship with better tech, so you can make it faster.

This is not a bug, it's working as intended. If i was not correct here i'm sorry, did not want to spread misinformation.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by PainKiller

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, PainKiller said:

Isn't that the same light cruiser hull that other nations also get? The one where you try to put guns on it's side but the life boat's don't go away so you have limited fire arcs? I see that it has a 29.5 written on it, but that does not mean it's supposed to have good engine efficiency. If my memory is correct, that number stands for how much speed you can have without the engine weight increase starts to be exponential. Just to demonstrate with this same hull, if i check the weight&cost tab in ship builder, i got:

• at 23knts   647t
• at 25knts   950t      (+47%)
• at 27knts   1492t    (+57%)
• at 29knts   2105t    (+41%)
• at 31knts   3601t    (+71%)
• at 33knts   12470t (+246%)

As we can see, after 30 knots, the engine weight increase start to be very big. But this number never meant to represent engine efficiency!!! You need better technology to be more efficient, like oil instead of coal (helps a lot), or forced boilers instead of inducted. You mentioned Steam M-Exp II, but changing engine type does nothing with engine efficiency. Altough, historically, fast ships always used some kind of turbine engine, and it does help with engine weight, which IS represented in the game.

So sorry for saying this, but depending on you current year -> technology, you need to make sacrifices, if engine efficiency and smoke interfierence number is important to you. Now you probably want to go with around 25-26 knots, and in 5-10 year refit your ship with better tech, so you can make it faster.

This is not a bug, it's working as intended. If i was not correct here i'm sorry, did not want to spread misinformation.

 

You're probably right.  Just if I were to build what I consider a combat capable platform on that hull, I would be looking at somewhere like 20-30% engine efficiency.  Which I guess is not too bad if I allow them to just sail in straight lines and never turn  

[Nick Thomadis]

*Update 17*
- Several campaign optimizations and bug fixes. Campaign should run smoother. More improvements will follow.
- Fixed  max.shipyard development that was not progressively increasing in output according to technology year.
- Fixed several bugs of governments that caused errors in party percentage calculations and thus not correct governments to win the elections.
- Shell dispersion optimizations.
- Battle AI optimizations.
- Formation optimizations. More work will follow from tomorrow, with a final fix at initial formations.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Suribachi]

9 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*Update 17*
- Several campaign optimizations and bug fixes. Campaign should run smoother. More improvements will follow.
- Fixed  max.shipyard development that was not progressively increasing in output according to technology year.
- Fixed several bugs of governments that caused errors in party percentage calculations and thus not correct governments to win the elections.
- Shell dispersion optimizations.
- Battle AI optimizations.
- Formation optimizations. More work will follow from tomorrow, with a final fix at initial formations.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

Right as I am posting a bug report about the convoy battles ending when the defenders are sunk, this gets posted.  Got to do a new campaign now  

Edited January 10, 2023 by Suribachi

[demigrifo]

10 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*Update 17*
- Several campaign optimizations and bug fixes. Campaign should run smoother. More improvements will follow.
- Fixed  max.shipyard development that was not progressively increasing in output according to technology year.
- Fixed several bugs of governments that caused errors in party percentage calculations and thus not correct governments to win the elections.
- Shell dispersion optimizations.
- Battle AI optimizations.
- Formation optimizations. More work will follow from tomorrow, with a final fix at initial formations.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

There's still a long way to go, but it's great to see these hotfixes coming in thick and fast. I appreciate your hard work!

[Suribachi]

31 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Fixed  max.shipyard development that was not progressively increasing in output according to technology year.

Confirmed to be working!!!!
Tested with 1890 USA.  1890 expansion was 4,000t.  1892 expansion was 5,120t.

Nice job developers!  Looking forward to more goodies.