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

[Lima]

23 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay. I think economy needs a serious overhaul before this is ready for release. Playing as Spain in 1890, I'm started with around 7 billion GDP. in 1922 and after taking most of france, a part of the USA atlantic coast, Panama, Puerto Rico, all the Black Sea but Georgia and the south of Italy, among other territories, my GDP sits at a laugable 10 billion. Whereas AH, without doing nothing, sits almost as high as the US at 35 billion. I think something is not adding up right here.

Do you have a nationalist government? I once said that governments with a large debuff to GDP growth simply unplayable in the long run (far-right/left, absolute monarchy). The differences in GDP growth in previous versions were much smaller, but even so they were very noticeable. You can win as much as you want, but the government will ruin the country.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Lima
g

[neph]

30 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

I disagree. Refits are already stupidly capped to cap them more. There have been ships which were almos completely rebuilt upon refit, yet here we can't do so because the stupid "Too far from original place"

Yes, at tremendous expense due to treaty requirements.

[SpardaSon21]

15 hours ago, o Barão said:

Well, that for me is a bold claim, but it is possible that I am wrong. I fully agree that it is possible to lower the chance by a great magnitude, but to be 100% sure is just too much IMO. But maybe I am wrong, and I would like to know more about this.

 

Anyone has a source of information that supports this statement?

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/047/0404730.jpg

USS Boise took an eight inch shell to one of her 6" magazines.  The powder ignited and burned out both of her barbettes and blew off several deck hatches from the pressure created by the burning powder, but there was no detonation of ammunition and the turrets themselves remained intact without the fires penetrating through their anti-flash protection. Thanks to the flooding any fires in the magazines themselves where put out almost immediately, and almost all of the powder that was released by stowage by the shell impact and debris did not ignite.

https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportCL47/WarDamageReportCL47.html#II-1

Quote

 

15. The explosion of the shell in A-507-M ignited all cartridge cases out of tanks in the magazine, and two cartridges in tanks were pierced by shell fragments, ignited, and burst open. The majority of unopened tanks in A-507-M were badly crushed by the blast, but the powder in them was not ignited. The flame from this fire quickly passed into the lower handling room of turret II through the holes in bulkhead 35, ignited the powder in the hoists and burned up through the entire turret, bursting the powder hoists open along the seam on the various levels within the turret. This was the fire observed by the men abandoning turret I. The fire in No. II handling room passed through fragment holes in bulkhead 39 and through the door, which was deflected aft, into magazine A-515-M. Here it ignited several exposed cartridge cases. The door in bulkhead 45. was dished aft a little and flame entering through scuttles, around this door and through a splinter hole in this door burned one man in turret III handling room but started no fires. The fire spread to the lower handling room of turret I through the scuttles in bulkhead 29, set fire to powder there and burned up through the hoists in this turret, bursting them open as it did in turret II. All exposed powder did not burn, however, as several cartridge cases were found in the hoists with unburned powder in them (photo No. 18).

16. It is noteworthy that while unburned cartridge cases were found in the hoists of both turret No. I and turret No. II, there was no regular pattern of burned and unburned cases. This agrees with the performance observed in 5.25 inch turret flash tests conducted by the British in 1938.

17. The pressure generated by these powder fires did comparatively little damage. The first platform deck over A-507-M was deflected upward about 2 inches and the stanchions in A-507-M were pulled from the second platform deck, tearing holes in the deck over A-608-M. Bulkhead 35 was deflected about 2 inches in several places, but other bulkheads were apparently undamaged. Judging from the deflections of doors and hatches, the pressures developed in handling rooms No. 1 and No. 2 were greater than those in A-507-M except in the immediate vicinity of the shell explosion in A-507-M. Doors to magazines A-511-M and A-512-M were deflected 3 and 4 inches respectively, allowing flame to enter these spaces and the exhaust duct from A-511-M was charred up to the second deck but no powder in these spaces was ignited. Doors in No. I handling room (including the door to A-507-M in bulkhead 29) were all dished outward 3 to 4 inches, but there was no evidence of fire in magazines A-503-M, 505-1/4 or 503-1/2. Hatch 5-28 in No. I handling room was blown down into A-601-T.

18. The gases generated in No. II handling room either burned or blew the rubber gasket out of the armored hatch in the first platform deck, but the dogs held and the hatch remained in place. This also happened in No. I handling room. Gases from No. II handling room passing through the opening under the hatch into trunk A-414-T, however, blew the third deck hatch off. The hatch bent in the middle, pulled out of the dogs and pulled the hinge pads from the deck. It flew up and flattened the firemain overhead against the second deck. These gases distorted surrounding bulkheads on the third deck, and sprung W.T. door 3-35-2 into the warrant officers' mess room. There was evidence of fire forward of this door. How it got there is not definitely established but it is probable that sufficient flame was forced through the edges of the door to start a fire within. The dogs remained operable and the door could be opened and closed, but it was not watertight.

19. The series of powder fires described in paragraphs 15-17 above was apparently over very quickly. Flooding of A-507-M through the shell hole apparently quenched the fires there before the powder in containers had a chance to ignite and the powder in the handling rooms and hoists burned up quickly. While the fires were very intense, they did not burn long enough to do much fire damage - paint, for example, was singed and blistered but did not show any evidence of having burned, and rubber telephone cords in the handling room were not burned.

 

While I suppose it was technically a flash fire, it did not result in any of the T-72 style turret popping we see in game, and in fact the flooding caused was of greater concern than the fire given how short its duration was.

14 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

As far as I know no navy used propellant that was inert to heat (.ie. something that  could only detonate with electricity ) like C4 is.... so 100% reliability seems very very  far fetched.

Cordite is mostly nitoglicerin, and I think everyone knows how that reacts to  violence.

 

One woudl need to read this with  care and check each one in detail : http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.php

Which is why the USA was using a single-base nitrocellulose compound as its primary propellant (AKA modernized Poudre B ) until the end of WW2.  See above for what happens in the worst case scenario of a direct hit to the magazines with such a propellant.

[Airzerg]

5 часов назад Кейн сказал:

До сих пор войны заканчиваются без всякой причины. Меня не спрашивают об этом, и я даже не получаю уведомления, что это произошло.
Война просто заканчивается.

Это нужно исправить вчера. Так и есть... чрезвычайно отягощает.... что это продолжает происходить как раз тогда, когда я собираюсь отобрать большой кусок у врага (часто части его родины).

Как Германия, я более чем на 90% вторгался как в Манчуру, так и в Северный Китай. Взял бы оба на следующем повороте.
Война заканчивается, нет предупреждения, нет уведомления, и я ничего не получаю.

Случалось со мной и против Италии, и против Британии.
Пожалуйста, исправьте это.

И я думаю, что ничего не нужно исправлять! Мы играем адмиралов, а не верховного правителя. Вы забыли об этом? Вы хотите полного контроля над страной? Пожалуйста - добро пожаловать в игры от Paradox. Это ДРУГАЯ игра. Точно так же адмиралы прошлого могли выйти из себя из-за глупых действий правительства или «сухопутных крыс». Адмиралы не могут и не должны решать, когда и с кем начинать войну. Это нонсенс! Мы управляем эскадрильями, оставляем дипломатию дипломатам, а экономику экономистам.

[Kane]

18 minutes ago, Airzerg said:

И я думаю, что ничего не нужно исправлять! Мы играем адмиралов, а не верховного правителя. Вы забыли об этом? Вы хотите полного контроля над страной? Пожалуйста - добро пожаловать в игры от Paradox. Это ДРУГАЯ игра. Точно так же адмиралы прошлого могли выйти из себя из-за глупых действий правительства или «сухопутных крыс». Адмиралы не могут и не должны решать, когда и с кем начинать войну. Это нонсенс! Мы управляем эскадрильями, оставляем дипломатию дипломатам, а экономику экономистам.

( Машинный перевод) Либо вы плохо понимаете английский. Или вы очень хорошо думаете, и тогда мне придется сделать это за вас. Это ошибка. Ошибки нужно исправлять. Частью игры является то, что у игрока должны спросить его мнение. Они также должны быть в состоянии предложить репарации. Этого не может быть, когда войны заканчиваются без причины. Получи это сейчас?

Edit:  Кроме того, это чертовски глупо для правителя ИИ выходить из войны, когда он находится в 1% от победы. Это равносильно тому, что Советы сражались до самых ворот Берлина, а затем подписали мирный договор с Гитлером. Это глупо, это невозможно защитить, и это нужно исправлять.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Kane

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Do you have a nationalist government? I once said that governments with a large debuff to GDP growth simply unplayable in the long run (far-right/left, absolute monarchy). The differences in GDP growth in previous versions were much smaller, but even so they were very noticeable. You can win as much as you want, but the government will ruin the country.

Okay, so no point on playing Spain until that is balanced, or there is a way to change governments. Good to know.

And this is why I keep saying that this has simply too many things out of player's control to be enjoyable as a Grand Strategy.

Edited January 20, 2023 by The PC Collector

[Airzerg]

12 минут назад Кейн сказал:

( Машинный перевод) Либо вы плохо понимаете английский. Или вы очень хорошо думаете, и тогда мне придется сделать это за вас. Это ошибка. Ошибки нужно исправлять. Частью игры является то, что у игрока должны спросить его мнение. Они также должны быть в состоянии предложить репарации. Этого не может быть, когда войны заканчиваются без причины. Получи это сейчас?

Edit: Кроме того, это чертовски глупо для правителя ИИ выходить из войны, когда он находится в 1% от победы. Это равносильно тому, что Советы сражались до самых ворот Берлина, а затем подписали мирный договор с Гитлером. Это глупо, это невозможно защитить, и это нужно исправлять.

Да, вы правы - это машинный перевод. И я согласен, что ошибки нужно исправлять. Я только против того, чтобы игроку разрешили контролировать политику страны. Повторяю – для этого уже есть готовые игры, и вот мы адмиралы!

[Airzerg]

4 минуты назад The PC Collector сказал:

Хорошо, так что нет смысла играть с Испанией, пока это не будет сбалансировано, или не будет способа сменить правительства. Полезно знать.

И вот почему я продолжаю говорить, что это просто слишком много вещей вне контроля игрока, чтобы быть приятным в качестве Большой стратегии.

Но никто никогда не называл эту игру грандиозной стратегией! Тогда давайте попросим разработчиков добавить возможность ходить по кораблю как в 3d-шутере. Но это абсурд!

[Kane]

3 minutes ago, Airzerg said:

Но никто никогда не называл эту игру грандиозной стратегией! Тогда давайте попросим разработчиков добавить возможность ходить по кораблю как в 3d-шутере. Но это абсурд!

Или мы могли бы просто попросить их признать, что «агентство игрока» должно быть частью игры. И что никому не нравится побеждать только для того, чтобы у него украли выигрыш в последнюю секунду без уважительной причины.

[Lima]

8 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, so no point on playing Spain until that is balanced, or there is a way to change governments. Good to know.

And this is why I keep saying that this has simply too many things out of player's control to be enjoyable as a Grand Strategy.

If you want to play for a specific country, but the government interferes, you can have a normal government by editing the save file.

I had quite a good campaign for Spain, but at the very beginning I was very lucky - the right wing won the election (best government btw).

[The PC Collector]

1 minute ago, Lima said:

If you want to play for a specific country, but the government interferes, you can have a normal government by editing the save file.

I had quite a good campaign for Spain, but at the very beginning I was very lucky - the right wing won the election (best government btw).

I'm afraid i have no idea how to do that anymore after they changed the format.

[Lima]

10 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

I'm afraid i have no idea how to do that anymore after they changed the format.

Open as txt

What does it look like in my Spanish save:

"government":1,"mainParty":1,"percentByParty":[0.0,0.0,0.0,100.0,0.0]

Government. 0 - absolute monarchy, 1 - constitutional monarchy, 2 - democracy.

MainParty. 0 is far-right and 4 is far-left, everything else between them.

PercentByParty. I think it works the same way.

[JackHammer]

I'm currently playing as Russia, but also previously played as USA. 

Having issue with the cage masts;

Firstly the cage mast 1 wont fit on battleship hulls ~1890s cant remember the specific hull names, sorry. 

Secondly I am unable to mount 2" casemates on the tower, although it appears they should be able to. Mounting point appear on the bridge wings.

And I'm still getting FPS/lag spikes when manually aiming my ships guns, which then restore to not a lag fest when i deselect the ships. 

But in general this version does appear to be more stable and better game experience from my point of view. 

Keep up the hard work!

[Plazma]

One question, when and if the rudder steering will come back? We have now the RC patch, but this feature is disabled, for me this is little strange... 

[TiagoStein]

4 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/047/0404730.jpg

USS Boise took an eight inch shell to one of her 6" magazines.  The powder ignited and burned out both of her barbettes and blew off several deck hatches from the pressure created by the burning powder, but there was no detonation of ammunition and the turrets themselves remained intact without the fires penetrating through their anti-flash protection. Thanks to the flooding any fires in the magazines themselves where put out almost immediately, and almost all of the powder that was released by stowage by the shell impact and debris did not ignite.

https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/WarDamageReports/WarDamageReportCL47/WarDamageReportCL47.html#II-1

While I suppose it was technically a flash fire, it did not result in any of the T-72 style turret popping we see in game, and in fact the flooding caused was of greater concern than the fire given how short its duration was.

Which is why the USA was using a single-base nitrocellulose compound as its primary propellant (AKA modernized Poudre B ) until the end of WW2.  See above for what happens in the worst case scenario of a direct hit to the magazines with such a propellant.

Yes, but USA was the only one that moved for a formula with zero nitoglicerin (and even that was only after WW2 started, before that they still has 12% nitroglicerin mixed) IF that ship   had coordite it would have poped out like a pinata.

[Suribachi]

Still pushing for this feature at some point
 

 

[MDHansen]

21 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Still pushing for this feature at some point
 

 

There are also too many overlapping info windowss. And in general, many windows are way oversized for the info they show

[Plazma]

Eh... the beginning of the battle: 

[madham82]

9 hours ago, neph said:

Hi @Nick Thomadisa few quick bug fixes you might want to patch before release:

1. When you lower the belt or deck armor, inner layer armor doesn't update. This lets you have extremely thick inner layers with thin outer layers.

2. When you refit a ship, you can change the beam & draft. This lets you change the displacement during refit.

3. During "Convoy" missions the mission immediately ends after you kill the last warship. So, any enemy transports will live. This player must try to keep an enemy warship alive, just to kill the transports. If enemy transports are still alive, please show the "end battle" button but do not stop the battle.

That's all, thank you!

4. (not a bug, but a suggestion) Perhaps lock armor quality when refitting a ship. I can't think of any vessel that had her entire armor plate replaced. Perhaps lock armor amount (or only let it be changed a little) too.

#3 +100. This one bothers me to know end. You are penalized because you sink the escorts quickly.

Thankfully many times the AI is guilty of cowardice, and has run off in the opposite direction of my fleet leaving the transports undefended. AI needs a change here to try and draw the player off the transports. 

[anonusername]

I think the biggest issue in the Campaign is excessive AI warmongering. The AI will happily tank their GDP with perpetual warfare. It also contributes to a lack of fleet modernization. I have seen 1890 battleships in "Advanced" technology fleets in 1910. It completely destroys the fun when the AI is still using their starter designs and I have 8x12" dreadnoughts.

[Toby]

@Nick Thomadisim a litle confused. steam says that the beta has been finalised and is now released as a full patch but the lack of patch 1.10 thread makes me think that the steam announcement is wrong. whats the story here?

[pumpkin242]

I've found a bug with the US armored cruiser IV if you put a casemate in the front slot it affects the sector of fire for the front main gun

[UnafraidBuffalo]

2 hours ago, Toby said:

@Nick Thomadisim a litle confused. steam says that the beta has been finalised and is now released as a full patch but the lack of patch 1.10 thread makes me think that the steam announcement is wrong. whats the story here?

I can confirm: Steam updated my game even though I'm not opted into the beta branch. So I guess V 1.1 is live 🤷‍♂️

[Nick Thomadis]

Patch v1.1 Released with a few more fixes and improvements.
Thank you all for your MAJOR participation!