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

[Fangoriously]

Couple of bugs I've noticed with the release candidate, started a 1930 Spain campaign and noticed, same as the 1930 France I started 2 patches ago, the US starts with an extremely minimal fleet

 

Bug 2 is the return of destroyers of unusual durability. First from a 1 vs 2 of my CL vs 2 brit destroyers.

This UK destroyer ate 3 22in torps and is barely phased, took hundreds of additional hits to sink taking about 20k damage.

I hit the other destroyer that had sank already with a 6 out of 6 torp launch from 1 side, which didn't sink it, took dozens of extra gun hits to kill. This is a pic of all the damage my CL dealt to kill only 2 destroyers.

during a fleet battle i chased this destroyer down with my CL escorts, again taking hundreds of hits and over 15k damage to sink.

 

Bug 3 is that after every single surface battle, every ship i have deployed on the map automatically returns to the closest port, if they were involved in the battle or not.

 

Bug 4 is i can surround Gibraltar on both sides with all my ships and cannot initiate a naval invasion of it. Managed to get a turn without a battle, so all my fleet didn't return to port, and the naval invasion option was still grayed out.

 

Bug 5 is that the crew aspect of gun accuracy was nerfed by an order of magnitude fro no reason, and now 13in is about the maximum size with a reliable hit rate below mk4, 14in and 15in need mk4 to hit well enough, and 16in and up would need mk5 to be usable. If you want to see mk3 16in guns in action, its in the vid of my last post.

[Suribachi]

6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

All shared designs should pass an inspection for inconsistencies or just delete them all (they can cause errors in campaigns if they are invalid).

How do we delete shared designs?  That button seems to be greyed out in the ship builder.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

What can I say...Ultimate Admiral: Destroyers is still a thing.

Eternal glory to HMS Acasta and her followers.

In my tests, the DD didn't have any chance.

The last one I tried the same battle with cadets. It took a lot more, but still the same result in the end.

 

1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:

Bug 5 is that the crew aspect of gun accuracy was nerfed by an order of magnitude fro no reason, and now 13in is about the maximum size with a reliable hit rate below mk4, 14in and 15in need mk4 to hit well enough, and 16in and up would need mk5 to be usable. If you want to see mk3 16in guns in action, its in the vid of my last post.

Well, there are a few good reasons why it is the right decision to do. But this is not what matters here, at least IMO. The real issue here is not the changes to target solution range bonus, and if we go this route we will ignore the essential. The fact that any gun above 12 inch will see a decrease in performance that it make it difficult to justify their use in battle.

[TiagoStein]

9 hours ago, Kowalskicore said:

Is everyone seriously getting this? I've been told that it's known, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.

I get SPF, not FPS. The enemy fleet isn't even that big! 1 BB, 2 CA, 7 CL, 9 DD, 8 TB I believe. In the stable version, I would get a smooth 60 FPS throughout even at 5x speed.

This is also not an isolated instance, every battle that includes more than 10 or so armed ships gets like this.


Edit:
It appears related to distance, as as soon as the closing DD was sunk, the framerate increased to 10 to 20-ish with short lag spikes.

Clsoe the auxiliary side windows (with weapons and damage etc... FPS skyrocket. The game uses most of its CPU updating that.

[stew]

Two things. First, when a ship leading a line is damaged enough to fall out of formation, the next ship does not take turn commands. The line showing course will show a curve, but it will not change course. Speed is unaffected.

Second, in the campaign fleets return to base much too quickly and easily. A fleet will be conducting an invasion and randomly return to port, despite not engaging in any combat at all. naval invasions are nearly impossible (at least in my experience so far). That said, sometimes they will be there for a turn or two. It seems they return when a combat is auto resolved, even if it doesn't relate to them. Not certain, but they never returned to port after a turn with no combat, only after a turn with combat engaged in. 

[Suribachi]

RC 1

Tried to see if the AI would purchase a mothballed ship by purposefully lowering the crew to zero.  At the start of the 1890 campaign, this CA is state of the art and is the only class of ship I have designed.  Argentina then said it wanted to purchase a new ship, that would take 10 months to build.  But I have one, mothballed the turn before, just sitting there.  Unfortunately, the AI only want shiny new ones.

[Lima]

13 minutes ago, o Barão said:

In my tests, the DD didn't have any chance.

I've never been killed by an enemy destroyer. A human player easily escapes from torpedoes. It's even too easy.

The question is that the combination of accuracy and damage is just crazy right now. Destroyers can eat shells and torpedoes without any problems. It takes an insane amount of time to destroy them. And since there are always a lot of them...I found myself thinking that the longest surface battles in War on the Sea took much less time.

[Alnitak]

4 minutes ago, Lima said:

I've never been killed by an enemy destroyer. A human player easily escapes from torpedoes. It's even too easy.

The question is that the combination of accuracy and damage is just crazy right now. Destroyers can eat shells and torpedoes without any problems. It takes an insane amount of time to destroy them. And since there are always a lot of them...I found myself thinking that the longest surface battles in War on the Sea took much less time.

I don't understand what makes him have the illusion that DD can pick BB alone.😆You have to meet the same crew or the same tonnage to fight.Then he will definitely keep dragging the knife, bullying AI will not surround tactics, to prove that BB is invincible.🤣

[Nick Thomadis]

13 minutes ago, Lima said:

I've never been killed by an enemy destroyer. A human player easily escapes from torpedoes. It's even too easy.

The question is that the combination of accuracy and damage is just crazy right now. Destroyers can eat shells and torpedoes without any problems. It takes an insane amount of time to destroy them. And since there are always a lot of them...I found myself thinking that the longest surface battles in War on the Sea took much less time.

There is no change in the durability of Destroyers or any ship. AI auto-designs better protected ships. like a human often does.

[Lima]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is no change in the durability of Destroyers or any ship. AI auto-designs better protected ships. like a human often does.

This is the problem. Previously, destroyers were durable, but there were more hits on them (even too many, if we talk about the main caliber). Now there are much fewer hits, but the survivability is still the same.

[Alnitak]

8 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is no change in the durability of Destroyers or any ship. AI auto-designs better protected ships. like a human often does.

Now AI is really the smartest AI in all the version Thank you.However, AI always likes to scatter the fleet when the fleet is fighting, so that players can break it one by one. Is there any solution to make AI stronger.

[o Barão]

31 minutes ago, Lima said:

Destroyers can eat shells and torpedoes without any problems. It takes an insane amount of time to destroy them. And since there are always a lot of them...I found myself thinking that the longest surface battles in War on the Sea took much less time.

If we are talking only about torpedoes, then you probably know at this point what is my opinion about them. However, if we are going to talk about shells, then is a lot more complicated. Since what you advocate would make situations like the Battle off Samar impossible to happen.

[Alnitak]

Started again trying to prove by legend.😆

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[Lima]

I'll just tell you what the gaming experience looks like now. I always have a lot of DDs in my campaign, because I don't like to take damage from mines and submarines (hello bug with random damage after battle). Therefore, in every battle I have a lot of DDs. Previously, my DDs performed tasks that DDs should perform - reconnaissance, fighting with enemy escorts, finishing off damaged ships.

Now my DDs are just rushing towards the enemy, inflicting great damage to combat capability with torpedoes, receiving minimal damage and finishing off escorts with artillery fire from a minimum distance.

And I specifically said "great damage to combat capability", because the damage from torpedoes in this game is quite small, but you can make the ship roll and lose combat capability. Then you can watch how the battleships show "amazing" accuracy on a stationary target. By the way, this old battleship with 12-inches really shows excellent accuracy, why do we need large calibers?

@o Barão

Your post just appeared. I have already said about torpedoes, I also wanted to say about shells. Yes, this is really a very difficult question. Over-pens do MUCH more damage than they should even if it's a large caliber. On the other hand, a full penetration does not do enough damage. The DD can eat several dozens of hits with 5-inch guns and maintain combat capability. The problem is that now it's really not easy to achieve a dozen hits.

[Suribachi]

Reported in game already.

Just had to Alt + F4 a battle loading screen.  Was using 19 CA to naval invade Cuba.  Was not intentional to group them up like that, but the TFs were too close together when they received their destinations.  Spain sent a doom stack.  I do not know the exact number of ships, but they outnumbered my own.  Game got stuck creating the enemy divisions.

Would not be surprised if this was related to my earlier comment about the Shared Designs.  If the AI used on older ship design that is not quite valid anymore, could it hang the game when it went to load it?

[o Barão]

44 minutes ago, Lima said:

 Over-pens do MUCH more damage than they should even if it's a large caliber. On the other hand, a full penetration does not do enough damage. The DD can eat several dozens of hits with 5-inch guns and maintain combat capability.

"At 0730,Johnston sustained three 14 in and three 6 in shell hits."

Drachinifel mentions if I am not mistaken that those were 3x18 inch shells from Yamato. Anyway, those big shells fail to detonate inside the ship, but still did considerable damage.

"Johnston engaged the entire squadron, opening fire on Yahagi at 0850 from 10,000 yards and closed to 7,000 yards (6,400 m). She hit the cruiser 12 times and was in turn struck by several 5 in shells."

How many 5 in shells? We don't know. But the Johnston was still afloat and in combat. The interesting part is the order to evacuate the ship only come 0945, so much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Johnston_(DD-557)#Battle_off_Samar

 

What I am trying to say is that instead looking at how many shells a DD can take before sinking, we should look in ways how to improve the AI tactical decisions to improve their effectiveness against torpedo attacks and vice versa. This is probably impossible, but still is, here where the real issue lives IMO.

Edited January 17, 2023 by o Barão

[Lima]

This is an example of making torpedoes just a joke. The most unholy video, I do not recommend watching. 24-inch.

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Lima

[Suribachi]

6 minutes ago, Lima said:

This is an example of making torpedoes just a joke. The most unholy video, I do not recommend watching. 24-inch.

 

If possible, can you list the components of the ship?  It's not a complete picture if we do not know what levels of anti-flooding and torp protection etc are at play here.  Thanks!

[Lima]

1 minute ago, Suribachi said:

If possible, can you list the components of the ship?  It's not a complete picture if we do not know what levels of anti-flooding and torp protection etc are at play here.  Thanks!

This is a classic resistance gain by AntiTorpV, triple bottom and turtleback. Given the innate resistance of the Super-BB1 hull, it turns out like this. In my opinion, it shouldn't happen, it's just ridiculous. This amount of 24-inch can destroy anything. But this ship can take even more without losing combat capability.

And especially considering that...I increased the number of destroyers to 20 and set a distance of 10,000 km to show how it will be in a real fight. So, the ship dodged all the torpedoes by just going in a straight line.

[Suribachi]

2 minutes ago, Lima said:

This is a classic resistance gain by AntiTorpV, triple bottom and turtleback. Given the innate resistance of the Super-BB1 hull, it turns out like this. In my opinion, it shouldn't happen, it's just ridiculous. This amount of 24-inch can destroy anything. But this ship can take even more without losing combat capability.

And especially considering that...I increased the number of destroyers to 20 and set a distance of 10,000 km to show how it will be in a real fight. So, the ship dodged all the torpedoes by just going in a straight line.

I understand your points.  

What I was trying to get at is this: 

If we think something is not working how we think it should, we need to ensure that all possible variables are provided from the start.  This way, players can try to replicate the reported situation to either prove it can be replicated or show that it may have been a one off.  For the developers, if we report everything we used and show the situation, that gives them a starting point to track down the source of the issue so it can be adjusted faster and cleaner than otherwise.

Thank you for the component list, I can try to replicate what I saw in the video now.

[The PC Collector]

Okay, it needs further testing, but in the same battle I aborted yesterday, ships now seem able to consitently hit more than one Km away.

And, despite my insistence in that torpedoes should have an OPTION to limit them (There are people who find torpedo spam annoying and a game should not be annoying) I think they should stay relevant as base. And that should be the player's decission if they want to deal with them or not.

For the torpedo zealots: This is not a "git gud" issue. I know how to deal with torpedo spam. I just don't want to because I find it the exact opposite of fun. And a game is supposed to be fun. Dealing with torpedo spam swarms feels like an annoying chore, and I have enough of these in real life.

[ЬЬФЛ]

15 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

And, despite my insistence in that torpedoes should have an OPTION to limit them (There are people who find torpedo spam annoying and a game should not be annoying) I think they should stay relevant as base. And that should be the player's decission if they want to deal with them or not.

For the torpedo zealots: This is not a "git gud" issue. I know how to deal with torpedo spam. I just don't want to because I find it the exact opposite of fun. And a game is supposed to be fun. Dealing with torpedo spam swarms feels like an annoying chore, and I have enough of these in real life.

In my opinion root of problem with torpedo's is that for DD and TB it's too easy to come at close distance. Small artillery should eliminate them at good weather. Btw, is there any modifier which affects torpedo accuracy at bad weather like game has for guns? Small ships are not stable platform for launching.

[Suribachi]

26 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Thank you for the component list, I can try to replicate what I saw in the video now.

Ok, here we go.  From the top:

1 BB vs 10 DD

BB Design:
1940 German
Hull:  Super BB I
Displacement:  94,436 t/95,000 t
Speed: 28 knots
Range: 15699 km
Bulkheads: Maximum
Beam/Draught: 0.0%/0.0%
Training: 0 Cadets
Quarters: Standard

Fuel Type: Oil III
Boilers: Balanced
Engine Type: G. Turbines II
Aux Engine:  Aux V
Shaft: Shaft V
Rudder: Balanced
Steering: E. Hydro II

Armor: Modern II
Barbette: Barbette V
Torp Protection:  Anti-Torp V
Hull Type: Triple Bottom
Bulkheads: Reinforced II
Anti-Flooding:  Anti-Flooding III
Citadel:  Citadel IV

Main Shells:  Max HE
Secondary Shells:  Max HE
HE Type: Incendiary
AP Type: Capped Ballistic II
Shell Weight:  Super Heavy
Ammo:  Standard
Propellant:  Triple Base
Bursting Charge: TNT IV
Turret: E. Hydro II
Reload:  Auto II

Rangefinder: C. V
Acoustics:  Hydro III
Radio: N/A
Radar:  Gen III

Main/Fore/Aft Belt: 16"/14"/14"
Main/Fore/Aft Deck: 5"/5"/5"
Conning Tower: 20"
Superstructure: 7"

1st Inner/2nd Inner Belt:  8"/3"
1st Inner/2nd Inner Deck:  2.5"/0.7"

Side/Top/Barbette Turret Armor:  16.7"/8.4"/11.2"
Guns:
4x Triple 12.9"/61 Mark V (+20% Length, +0.9" Diameter)

Components:
Main Tower:  Modern Tower V
Sec Tower: Modern Tower IV
Funnel: 1x Uber Funnel VI


Important Enemy DD Parameters:
Training 100 Veterans
HE Shell Type:  Capped Ballistic II (I did this so fires would not really be a thing.  Upped armor on BB negated these)
AP Shell Type: Semi (I did this so rounds could not pen the belt or superstructure of the BB)
Torp Type: Oxygen (for less dud chance)
Torp Size: 24"
Torp Ammo: Increased

Armament in question:
4x Quintuple Deck Launchers


Notes:
Yes, I did build and drive the BB in a way that it would lose, probably even if I did not turn the main battery off.  The purpose was to see how many torps it would take to sink it.  Oddly, I did suffer a flash fire, but it happened when a torp hit me so, maybe they cause them?  Also, DD design with 4x quintuple launchers is a meme and would not be a design the AI uses in the campaign, hopefully.

Results:
45+ 24" Torp hits needed to sink this BB.

[Lima]

I did it too, but the enemy ran away, and the BB is still alive.

[The PC Collector]

Bug Report: Avoid Torpedoes is sometimes making ships other than the lead ship to freeze in place after evaing torpedoes.

Also, sugestion: Minors should get ship name lists to get their ships named from them. Also, I thing the option to sell mothballed ships doesn't work. At least, I have failed to manage it.

Edited January 17, 2023 by The PC Collector