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

[lordcmdr]

8 minutes ago, applegrcoug said:

 

The time between turns isn't very bad for me, but I am running a 5950x.  Does anyone know if this game utilizes more than one core/thread or is it pretty much single threaded?

As others have noted, when I get in battle there are times when it gets really laggy with low FPS.

Last time I checked I believe it’s mostly single core. So you want a high speed cpu with lots of cache.

[Fangoriously]

Those german ships also in the naval invasion circle just bumped up the tonnage to over 700k, last turn it was just a bit over 500k with just my ships there. in game bug report sent.

[Narbar]

A cooling off period between wars would be good

[Suribachi]

27 minutes ago, applegrcoug said:

The time between turns isn't very bad for me, but I am running a 5950x.  Does anyone know if this game utilizes more than one core/thread or is it pretty much single threaded?

As others have noted, when I get in battle there are times when it gets really laggy with low FPS.

As others have noted, yeah, single core for now.  Your 5950x is probably handling the same turn better than my 4790k though.

As for the battle FPS, a lot of it is due to the changes in fire control logic.  Now that the secondary guns can fire at separate targets on either side of the ship it can cause some processing issues.  For example, in my own testing incomplete as it is, if the secondary guns cannot decide what to target very well and the player interferes by selecting a target for the guns, it messes up the processing causing the FPS dip.  I cannot say this for certain because as soon as you deselect both enemy ships and your own, the FPS comes back.  Also adding to this is the fact that the Chance to Hit percentage when mousing over a ship is calculated in real time instead of a momentary grab of the value to display.  To me, if they wish to keep it like this, they need to change the polling rate from the 1000's to the 10's at minimum.

[admiralsnackbar]

I was able to support my own military in an uprising using naval bombardment, the campaign UI showed the progress in terms of turns being filled correctly. However I still lost the province. 

[Suribachi]

9 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I was able to support my own military in an uprising using naval bombardment, the campaign UI showed the progress in terms of turns being filled correctly. However I still lost the province. 

In the end, there still is RNG if the invasion is successful or not.  But having the turn process and needed tonnage to keep the invasion going is a big step in the right direction.

[applegrcoug]

48 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

As others have noted, yeah, single core for now.  Your 5950x is probably handling the same turn better than my 4790k though.

As for the battle FPS, a lot of it is due to the changes in fire control logic.  Now that the secondary guns can fire at separate targets on either side of the ship it can cause some processing issues.  For example, in my own testing incomplete as it is, if the secondary guns cannot decide what to target very well and the player interferes by selecting a target for the guns, it messes up the processing causing the FPS dip.  I cannot say this for certain because as soon as you deselect both enemy ships and your own, the FPS comes back.  Also adding to this is the fact that the Chance to Hit percentage when mousing over a ship is calculated in real time instead of a momentary grab of the value to display.  To me, if they wish to keep it like this, they need to change the polling rate from the 1000's to the 10's at minimum.

The I7-4790K is still fairly respectable in single core with a passmark single core of 2465.  I had one that I put an hyper evo 212 on and got it overclocked up a bit.  Heck, that regular 4790k still beats out a ryzen 2600...wasn't until the 3600 were they able to surpass it and even then, not by much.  I only hope my 5950x will last as long.

[admiralsnackbar]

Update to that russian campaign, I had a revolution in 1911 [-9 naval prestige, 0 unrest] that ended my campaign. 

[anonusername]

The ship and battle mechanics have improved a lot during the beta, but the politics and diplomacy are still questionable. I see three big issues.
1. Nations getting stuck as Nationalist or Communist.
2. Nations ending up at war with too many countries.
2a. Nations will happily start a new war while already occupied with 1, 2, or even 3+.
2b. Nations get a massive tension penalty with neutral nations who share a sea region with blockaded enemies.
3. No way to deliberately trigger a naval invasion of a minor. This is a particular problem for nations like the US or Japan who may want to acquire foreign ports for supply lines before fighting another major. It should also be possible to "peacefully" annex a minor partner with high enough relations. e.g. Hawaii

I think that the nation dissolving mechanic should be replaced with a "collapse of government" mechanic. When a country is losing a war or has extreme unrest and their GDP is in shambles, they should give an "unconditional surrender" and switch government types. i.e.
1. All ships and non-core territories are distributed to their enemies based on how much VP each has. i.e. Each enemy gets to "peace out" in order of their amount of VP. Any remaining ships are scuttled, and any remaining non-core territory is given independence.
2. Government switches to a different alignment, with a high chance for either communist or nationalist. Communist and Nationalist become very rare outside of this event.

This would also solve the issue where dissolving a major power prevents the player from taking any of their territories. In my current game, much of the world is not controlled by anyone because first Spain dissolved, then Germany conquered most of British Africa prior to dissolving.

[The PC Collector]

14 minutes ago, anonusername said:

The ship and battle mechanics have improved a lot during the beta, but the politics and diplomacy are still questionable. I see three big issues.
1. Nations getting stuck as Nationalist or Communist.
2. Nations ending up at war with too many countries.
2a. Nations will happily start a new war while already occupied with 1, 2, or even 3+.
2b. Nations get a massive tension penalty with neutral nations who share a sea region with blockaded enemies.
3. No way to deliberately trigger a naval invasion of a minor. This is a particular problem for nations like the US or Japan who may want to acquire foreign ports for supply lines before fighting another major. It should also be possible to "peacefully" annex a minor partner with high enough relations. e.g. Hawaii

I think that the nation dissolving mechanic should be replaced with a "collapse of government" mechanic. When a country is losing a war or has extreme unrest and their GDP is in shambles, they should give an "unconditional surrender" and switch government types. i.e.
1. All ships and non-core territories are distributed to their enemies based on how much VP each has. i.e. Each enemy gets to "peace out" in order of their amount of VP. Any remaining ships are scuttled, and any remaining non-core territory is given independence.
2. Government switches to a different alignment, with a high chance for either communist or nationalist. Communist and Nationalist become very rare outside of this event.

This would also solve the issue where dissolving a major power prevents the player from taking any of their territories. In my current game, much of the world is not controlled by anyone because first Spain dissolved, then Germany conquered most of British Africa prior to dissolving.

I couldn't agree more with all of this. If we can't control the land army, we should already be allowed to suggest land operations. And the ungoverned land is really a problem.

[admiralsnackbar]

After losing my russian campaign to a revolution i went back to playing as china. one thing i noticed is that rus/france really keeping fleets of any appreciable size in the pacific generally. 

[Fangoriously]

This is the state of the 3 way invasion on the last turn before it failed, where my commie forces outnumbered the commie Germans at least 5 to 1. imagine D-day x100, with naval fire support from ~100 ~17in gun barrels, and instead of 23000 paratroopers, there was instead 3 million man armies marching from home territories flanking those holding off the beach invasion. All of which was completely blunted with minor casualties from the defender.

This outcome is absolute bullshit. This is the battle hardened army that steamrolled over 50% of colonized Africa, controls 90% of Mediterranean ports and territory, and caused Brittan, France and Spain to cease to exist at least once each. My Italy has been at constant war for 10 years, has a 131,000,000 gdp, 8 minor allies, produces 23000 barrels of oil, has a 100% content population, controls 30 provinces and has an almost 5,000,000 man army, all of these stats are double what Germany has. No amount of bad rolls or RNG can account for this outcome.

[Lima]

19 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

This is the state of the 3 way invasion

The thing is that I did not notice that an invasion from different directions into the same province somehow affected the effectiveness of the battle. It's all like different battles that are completely unrelated to each other. I mean, if the army had invaded with 5 million soldiers from one direction, it would have achieved more success.

[The PC Collector]

Okay, bug report: Santiago de Cuba and Davao don't let me move ships to them, no matter what I do. Reported it several times in game.

[applegrcoug]

The good.  Panama canal works.  Blockades seem to be easier to do and when you blockade your enemies you dont really lose transports.

 

Ok, some weird things...

 

First thing I noticed was my GDP growth wasn't -10% anymore but +6%.

USA and USSR total GDP were half what they were before the update.  After my year long war, USA finally sued for peace.  As soon as the blockade was over GDP was back where it was pre-update.  Then I think like four months later back to war with USA.

Had some destroyers steaming near some cruisers and the avoid mechanics had the path in front of them as cinnamon roll.

 

[The PC Collector]

Also: The AI still don't know how to properly refit. I'm still seeing refitted BBs with their speeds lowered to 14 kn and things like that.

[Lima]

41 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, bug report: Santiago de Cuba and Davao don't let me move ships to them, no matter what I do. Reported it several times in game.

Try the maximum zoom.

[stew]

Two things I have noticed. First, Playing as the UK, trying to launch a naval invasion of Germany in the North West. The invasion point is so far inland, clearly up a river that I cannot get ships close enough to start the invasion. If there was a way, I didn't find it.  Might be worth having the option to cancel a naval invasion. Maybe it times out after a few turns but I didn't experiment long enough to find out. 

Second, I am experiencing significant lag during sea battles, but only when I have a ship selected. My ship or the enemy's, doesn't matter. As soon as I unselect it, it runs nice and smooth. Changing the fast forward speed even to normal doesn't help. It is so bad I can barely select a target if it is small like a TB or DD. 

[Danz_Von_Luck]

This is Ridiculous started a new 1890 campaign with Japan and its not even got to 1894 and already Britain and France have collapsed

 

[SpardaSon21]

18 hours ago, Lima said:

Space battleships with space marines are ready

Nothing quite like multiple, simultaneous, and devastating deep strikes on the enemy position.

[SodaBit]

I've got some feedback here regarding the political information screen, although I'm pretty sure this has already been mentioned in the thread recently.
The "Technology" rating for countries might be in need of a rework. Here's the current political screen in my campaign, circa January, 1943.

As you can see, there's quite the spread of technological advancement among these powers. Not pictured are Germany, Japan, and the United States, all listed at "Very Advanced," just like Russia...
Whose fleet just got massacred in the Baltic.

This unit of 4 "Very Advanced" BB's, 1 BC, 4 CA's, and 3 CL's, managed almost no damage against my force of 4 BB's of the same "Very Advanced" tech level, and 4 BC's. I will admit that my advantage in BC's would have probably won me this battle to begin with, as they would have been able to tear apart the Russian screen, focus down their one BC, and begin assisting the BB's. But, it would also be expected that my BB's would take some damage as they contended with the Russian battle-line.

However, as it turned out, the Russian BB's Didn't Even Land a Single Shell. Despite almost 40 years of technological advancements, at one of the fastest paces in human history, Russian capital-ship gunnery is Somehow Worse Than It Was At Tsushima. 
The Russian guns were more akin to something you would find on one of the early Standard-Type BB's of the USN:

Where as the guns they had to compete with, were in fact, very advanced.


From this battle, we can very clearly see that, despite both nations being listed as "Very Advanced," there is a massive difference in the actual technological capabilities of the two navies. A much better system would be to list the tech level of a nation as a year, corresponding to the average year of the best technologies they have researched, as well as providing some highlights with regards to areas they're ahead of behind in.

EG:

Germany: Average tech level: 1940
Ahead in: big guns, engines, armor quality
Behind in: submarine improvements, mines, naval communications

Edited January 11, 2023 by SodaBit

[AdmiralBert]

Do we know how well the AI is managing refits & new construction with the limited shipyard capacity? It may be that it is researching new tech at a good pace, but is simply unable to promptly benefit from it due to their shipyards being overloaded especially if they are taking orders from minor powers.

[DieselPower]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

I've got some feedback here regarding the political information screen, although I'm pretty sure this has already been mentioned in the thread recently.
The "Technology" rating for countries might be in need of a rework. Here's the current political screen in my campaign, circa January, 1943.

As you can see, there's quite the spread of technological advancement among these powers. Not pictured are Germany, Japan, and the United States, all listed at "Very Advanced," just like Russia...
Whose fleet just got massacred in the Baltic.

This unit of 4 "Very Advanced" BB's, 1 BC, 4 CA's, and 3 CL's, managed almost no damage against my force of 4 BB's of the same "Very Advanced" tech level, and 4 BC's. I will admit that my advantage in BC's would have probably won me this battle to begin with, as they would have been able to tear apart the Russian screen, focus down their one BC, and begin assisting the BB's. But, it would also be expected that my BB's would take some damage as they contended with the Russian battle-line.

However, as it turned out, the Russian BB's Didn't Even Land a Single Shell. Despite almost 40 years of technological advancements, at one of the fastest paces in human history, Russian capital-ship gunnery is Somehow Worse Than It Was At Tsushima. 
The Russian guns were more akin to something you would find on one of the early Standard-Type BB's of the USN:

Where as the guns they had to compete with, were in fact, very advanced.


From this battle, we can very clearly see that, despite both nations being listed as "Very Advanced," there is a massive difference in the actual technological capabilities of the two navies. A much better system would be to list the tech level of a nation as a year, corresponding to the average year of the best technologies they have researched, as well as providing some highlights with regards to areas they're ahead of behind in.

EG:

Germany: Average tech level: 1940
Ahead in: big guns, engines, armor quality
Behind in: submarine improvements, mines, naval communications

 

 

I'm fairly certain that the tech level listed of each nation only reflects what tech they have discovered, not necessarily what they have installed on their ships. I've come across several nations listed as "very advanced", and even in 1935 have not installed radar on any of their capital ships, while at the same time,  I'm running Gen II.

[Suribachi]

Some observations from an Update 18 battle.  This post may be a bit longer than usual.

My force consisted of 1 CA and 20 CLs.  The enemy consisted of 9 CAs, 16 CLs and 9 TBs.

My losses consisted of 4 CLs sunk, 4 CLs with orange damage and 1 CL with red damage.  The enemies losses consisted of 4 CAs sunk and 1 CA with orange damage, 14 CLs sunk and 2 CLs with orange damage, and 9 TBs sunk.

I listed the battle outcome of this battle because it is a bit special.  Instead of taking control of my ships from the start by commanding them through targeting and maneuvering, I put all 5 divisions of 4 CLs on AI control, with torp evasion and avoid other ships turned on.  As for the lone CA, I commanding the maneuvers, but I never once touched the targeting.  This means that every shot fired was done by the automatic fire control system so I could observe it unobstructed and not deliberately take advantage of the "bullet magnet" issue.  Could I have saved my 4 CLs if I did?  Most likely.  

Here are some observations I made:
1. At no time did I observe an FPS drop.  That's right, at no time did the frame rate drop to that of a slideshow.  My guess is that the frame rate drops players are reporting has to do with some kind of conflict between the player's targeting commands and what the new fire control system wants to do.

2. Targeting priorities still need a bit of work.  There were times when the main guns and secondary guns of the CA were engaging distant targets when a much closer, broadside target was in the path of the guns, meaning those guns were firing over the ship I would have selected myself as a target.   I was not actively observing the firing behavior of the CLs, but the skies were filled with shells going every which way so it would have been very difficult to track anyway.

3. Even though tech is 1892, so guns are not very accurate yet, my CLs were closing in to what would normally be considered torpedo range, around 0.4-0.6 kilometers.  The issue with this is that my CLs are not designed with any torpedo launchers.  What I feel the AI CL should be doing in this case is closing to about half of their main gun range and shooting and circling the enemy from there.  The CL maximum gun range was 6.2 kilometers so I think the CL should have closed to around 3 kilometers and fired from there.  On the flip side, 3 divisions in the middle of the battle retreated to about 10 kilometers for about 3 in game minutes before re-engaging.  None of these ships were suffering from catastrophic damage, just some damaged rudders.  Just thought this was odd.

4.  Ship turning behavior still needs some slight adjustments.  But I want to be absolutely clear, it is much better than it was at the beginning of the 1.1 beta.  It looks like what the ship is doing is turning with full rudder until its bow crosses the line of bearing of where it is trying to go.  At this point, the ship swings the rudder to the other side to correct, but ends up overshooting again.  Each time the ship does this, the overshoot is smaller and smaller so it eventually straightens out.  I could tolerate this on a cadet crew and to a limited extent a green crew.  But trained crews and above absolutely should not be doing this.  As a player, I can limit this behavior by giving the ship a turn command that causes the rudder to straighten out where I want it to go.  For example, with my CA, I tell it to perform a 70 degree turn.  When the ship is roughly 40 degrees through the turn, I tell the ship to go straight at 40 degrees, the ship then tries to correct its overshoot.   After the ship starts to straighten, I tell the ship again to complete its turn at the original 70 degrees.  Now the ship is only going to correct for about 5-10 degrees instead of the 70 originally.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Suribachi

[Zuikaku]

It seems that shell magnet is not as it used to be. In my last battle overlapping ships received only few unintended hits instead of constsnt tornado of steel. I was pleasently surprised. Can anyone else confirm this?

 

I also propose AI major nations not receiving ship orders from minors when:

1. At war 

2. There are ships needing refit 

3. If more than 25% of shipbuilding capacity is already used for foreign orders.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Zuikaku