>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[Vinrellren]

I can vouch that the pen bugged for my BBs and BCs are fixed (Finally), but it makes me wonder what all those other penetration "fixes" did? 🤔

[Dave P.]

Hey, I think I noticed something about that "stuck turret" bug - it seems like my turrets are getting stuck on (or in?) the superstructure (in this screenshot, but I've also seen them caught on lifeboats or barbettes and stuff too.)

Any chance it's a collision issue? It's kind of annoying since in most cases the turret will be out of commission the rest of the battle. (I've also seen them shake themselves loose somehow, but that's a rarity.)

Edited February 24, 2023 by Dave P.

[MishaTX]

I appreciate the latest pen fix, as well as the "downgrade" from 1.2.2. It was silly. I was penning 60" armor with SAP before, now I actually have to think about my ammo choices again. Thanks! I appreciate all that you do!

One ask, though: Could we have it so that ammo choice changes were instant rather than taking a month? I get it that changing the armor, gun layout etc requires a refit in port, but surely changing the type of ammo that your ships carry shouldn't take that long?

[German CL mk II guns]

yes, now you dont need to change the name of the game to ultimate main belt: light cruisers

 

My 2500t light cruiser got hit by a 330mm shell and she was O.B.L.I.T.E.R.A.T.E.D. I was like F***K YEEAAAHHHH!!!!!

Edited February 24, 2023 by Terminus Est

[German CL mk II guns]

another thing last night fresh campaign, a big engagement BBs CAs CLs DDs TBs.

AI position way better. At some point their CA decided to charge in but they were a bit huddled together. I thought they would stall BUT they formed some sort of line any tried to disengage.

AI BBs were staying at range but also not that far away, they were shooting somewhat effectively manoevering closing the distance, keeping the distance but after losing so many ships they disengaged with remaining few light cruisers. 

If this was totally intentional, that's a great job, huge improment. thank you for your great work

[Fangoriously]

Pen related things seem to be in a good place, did a bunch of custom battle BB duels with the full gambit of gun size and shell type and I couldn't just get away with capped sap on everything anymore, even on 20in guns. At least standards are needed for a main belt/deck full citadel percing one shot. And I certainly never saw a 20in get blocked ever.

[Zuikaku]

Since last few patches my losses increased significantly. Turkey shot battles are no more. Now you can not destroy big AI fleet with few of your own. Going with obsolete ships into the fight, even with veteran crews, is now a very bad idea. Before it was OK. Small battles and battles with even forces are now more unpredictable and challenging. Overall, great improvements!

[5thYL]

I'm on a campaign atm and the 24 changes are amazing, before it took forever to take a CL down and now it finally works as you'd expect.

[MDHansen]

gotta agree with the choir above. Battles feels like in a good place. I am no gun expert, but yeh, the whole battle feels better. Shooting, AI opponents etc.

Do like the alliance changes to the campaign aswell. Can get a bit snowball rolling at times, but all in all feels good aswell

[Zuikaku]

What feels bad are torpedo boats able to take 2 exploding torpedo hits and continue to sail with 2 or 3 compartments flooded. Torpedo hit should obliterate small torpedo boats in most cases, spreading damage to multiple compartments horizonataly and vertically.

[Lima]

Battles with submarines are trash.

I have a top ASW equipment on CA/CL/DD, but my ships are constantly getting damaged, the TF stay in one place because of the battles on every turn, it is impossible to safely detach damaged ships.

I'm tired of saying this, but if submarines were capable of inflicting such damage to special ASW groups, Germany would have won the war in the Atlantic.

And if you ask what my TF composition is, there are always at least 3 DDs for every capital ship.

[ZorinW]

On a positive note, thanks for allowing us to finally assign newly build ships to all the ports we control!

[madham82]

24 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

What feels bad are torpedo boats able to take 2 exploding torpedo hits and continue to sail with 2 or 3 compartments flooded. Torpedo hit should obliterate small torpedo boats in most cases, spreading damage to multiple compartments horizonataly and vertically.

I wonder if a debuff to torpedo damage reduction to TB, DD, and even CL hulls is needed. Might be the easiest way to make them more likely to take serious damage. I'm thinking a lot of techs that give buffs to it are making them unbalanced on hulls that lack torpedo protection. 

[Lima]

Improvement of the new emergency alliance mechanic is required.

I'm at war with Japan, and I'm doing well. Japan declares war on France and this happens.

Do you know what the problem is? France is fighting two more wars, which I absolutely do not need. Not only will I not receive any help from France, but I am now forced to fight two more wars that France is losing. It is completely useless alliance for me. I only get problems.

Creating an alliance must be a player's choice.

@Nick Thomadis

Edited February 24, 2023 by Lima

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Improvement of the new emergency alliance mechanic is required.

I'm at war with Japan, and I'm doing well. Japan declares war on France and this happens.

Do you know what the problem is? France is fighting two more wars, which I absolutely do not need. Not only will I not receive any help from France, but I am now forced to fight two more wars that France is losing. It is completely useless alliance for me. I only get problems.

Creating an alliance must be a player's choice.

@Nick Thomadis

If I understood your situation correctly, you are playing as Soviet Union correct?

If that is the case, what happened was that you were already in a war with Japan.  Then France entered a war with Japan.  The governments of France and Soviet Union got together and had a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment and teamed up in an alliance against Japan.

I think this is a good addition, however, it is not flawless and needs some tweaks.  The most glaring of which is the fact that, since the player has no control over it, the alliance needs to only last for the duration of THAT war. 

Once Japan surrenders, the player should be presented with a choice:

1. Keep the alliance intact (+100 relations)
2. Break the alliance, but remain on good terms (+50 relations)
3. Break the alliance and adopt a neutral stance (reset to 0 relations)
4. Break the alliance and adopt a defensive stance (-50 relations)
5. Pull a WWII Germany and turn on your former ally (-100 relations, new war against your former ally)


These choices would allow the player to manage the after war relations with their war ally.  Why number 5 is a choice?  Maybe as Japan I crush China with the help of Spain, but after that I want the Philippines because I want that oil for my thirsty ships.

EDIT:  Forgot to mention, the choice of what stance to take should be PER ALLY if there was more than 2 in the alliance.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Suribachi

[Lima]

40 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

If I understood your situation correctly, you are playing as Soviet Union correct?

If that is the case, what happened was that you were already in a war with Japan.  Then France entered a war with Japan.  The governments of France and Soviet Union got together and had a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" moment and teamed up in an alliance against Japan.

I think this is a good addition, however, it is not flawless and needs some tweaks.  The most glaring of which is the fact that, since the player has no control over it, the alliance needs to only last for the duration of THAT war. 

Once Japan surrenders, the player should be presented with a choice:

1. Keep the alliance intact (+100 relations)
2. Break the alliance, but remain on good terms (+50 relations)
3. Break the alliance and adopt a neutral stance (reset to 0 relations)
4. Break the alliance and adopt a defensive stance (-50 relations)
5. Pull a WWII Germany and turn on your former ally (-100 relations, new war against your former ally)


These choices would allow the player to manage the after war relations with their war ally.  Why number 5 is a choice?  Maybe as Japan I crush China with the help of Spain, but after that I want the Philippines because I want that oil for my thirsty ships.

EDIT:  Forgot to mention, the choice of what stance to take should be PER ALLY if there was more than 2 in the alliance.

What's the problem - I'm winning the war with Japan decisively. I don't need any help.

And instead of help, I get two new wars. It's pointless and no one would ever sign such a alliacne.

I support your suggestions, but the very first thing to do is to give control of the emergency alliance to the player.

[applegrcoug]

4 hours ago, Lima said:

Improvement of the new emergency alliance mechanic is required.

I'm at war with Japan, and I'm doing well. Japan declares war on France and this happens.

Do you know what the problem is? France is fighting two more wars, which I absolutely do not need. Not only will I not receive any help from France, but I am now forced to fight two more wars that France is losing. It is completely useless alliance for me. I only get problems.

Creating an alliance must be a player's choice.

@Nick Thomadis

Furthermore, you'll be doing well, like an invasion and be midway through and then one of the other countries takes a peace deal and all that effort you put into getting that invasion force gathered is out the window three turns in.

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

What's the problem - I'm winning the war with Japan decisively. I don't need any help.

And instead of help, I get two new wars. It's pointless and no one would ever sign such a alliance.

I support your suggestions, but the very first thing to do is to give control of the emergency alliance to the player.

Ok, I did not realize in your scenario that France already had wars it was fighting and that you, and your nation, also got dragged into those on top of the one you were already fighting with Japan in. 

Yes, that is an issue and I agree that the player should not be dragged into conflicts that are out of their control. 

In light of the new perspective on the scenario, I agree that the player should not be thrown into an alliance without first knowing all the facts that we can already see in the Politics tab.  Taking your example, the player should be able to see what allies or enemies France has in addition to fleet composition so you know what France can bring to bear against your enemy or enemies.  All of this information should be available in the pop up window OR give the player the ability to click onto the Politics and Finances tabs before making a decision so they can know what they are getting into.

[applegrcoug]

Just some general observations (admiral observations?) of things that seem a bit out of whack...

 

I am nearing the ending stages of my campaign now in 1942 and I have deployed massive forces to conduct an invasion of the Italian homeland.  The Italian fleet has come out to meet me, so we had a big battle.  When the battle started, my force was 40 ships; 27 DD, 7 CA and 6 BB.  I can't remember how many ships Italy had, but probably in the 15-20 range. 

My ships were arranged in some interesting formations that made little sense to me; lead BBs being old clunkers and trailing ones being brand new high speed modern ones.  It probably took me at least 30 minutes of breaking apart divisions and trying to reassemble them.  I feel the worst are when they are in screens and on both sides.  Then came the inevitable bump and smash as they sailed around in circles in their new arrangements.  However the worst part was the terrible performance we have all seen when we have a ship selected.  With 40 ships, like that, something is always being selected to keep them pointed in the right spot.  I have a 5950X so while it isn't the absolute top dog anymore, it ain't far off either.  

Right now until multi thread processing can be implemented it seems like the number of ships really needs a sort of hard cap and divide it out.  In the above instance, I would have rather have had three battles than one giant one where the PC thread is struggling.

 

Next, I've said it before and I'll say it again...the economy of the USA is out of whack.  It grows at over 11% during war year after year. Average GDP growth for the USA (and Canada) in the 20th century was more like 3.2%.  

[halofanjames]

noticed this with trying to reform battle lines ships that were pre-existing/lead ship (current lead ship covered will maintain speed but  any added will cut speed and make no attempt to catch up seen it get to 0.8 kn infront of an enemy ship while the rest of the battleline is long gone no damage to engines either or anything to slow them(isn't the first time I noticed been doing this all campaign 1890 start screenshot taken 1898 or 98 if I recall)

[Dave P.]

So, a couple thoughts about the auto-targeting. I really do like it - it generally does a pretty good job both selecting targets, dividing fire effectively, and ignoring enemies that it's less likely to score a hit on. If nothing else, the way port/starboard mounted weapons independently target enemies to each side is pretty badass.

BUT

My centerline big-gun turrets spend an awful lot of time spinning around between different targets, firing one salvo (or not firing at all) and then getting reassigned to the next target, which as often as not is on the opposite side of the ship. Not a big deal on ships that don't rely on large centerline turrets, but on modern BBs it's pretty frustrating. Could we get some kind of "stickiness" logic added for turrets with slower rotation speeds?

I've also noticed that when I manually select a target, the auto-targeting will often retake control after a few seconds and shift fire to something else. I think it may be related to targets moving in/out of firing arcs while maneuvering. But in conjunction with the "prefer targets that are easier to hit" logic, the net result is the auto-targeting tends to ignore DDs and CLs that are throwing smoke to get inside torpedo-spam range, even when I repeatedly tell the fleet to focus fire on them.

[Dave P.]

Unrelated to the autotargeting, I've got about a 75% success rate right-clicking to change course. (Mouse input seems to be getting ignored/lost.) Anybody else seeing this?

[5thYL]

Amusing how the Brits has more naval budget than its national GDP... Does legendary AI just not get affected by drops in GDP?

[Deathbringer221]

First I just wanted to say that you guys did a good job with 1.2.4. Penetration values at least belt penetration values have vastly improved. BUT! the last two patches introduced a new problem that I'm surprised not a lot of people are talking about. Deck penetrations. For example a mark 3 15 inch gun with 17% increased barrel length currently in live patch has about 3 inch of deck pen at 20km (???!!!)

And this is not the only gun currently suffering from this issue almost every single gun right now has barely any deck penetration regardless of velocity, shell type, gun length or caliber. It would be really nice to increase the deck penetration values next patch because right now you can get away with about 2-3 inch of deck armor which really should not be normal. Having any significant range advantage has no use since you won't be penetrating anything unless you get to about 10km or so (at least if you are targeting CAs, BBs or BCs) and at this point you are better off building ships for brawling. 

I can't be the only one that noticed this issue right? I mean I get that not everyone likes to play in 1920+ but it's really easy to notice the moment radar fights start to happen. The bottom left feed is filled to the brim with "main deck blocked" it's pretty much all you will see.

EDIT: After doing some quick testing in custom battle, it would seem the culprit of this bug is increasing gun length. Increasing gun length passed 10% you will start seeing MASSIVE drops in deck penetration. A mark 3 15 inch gun with 0% extra length has 30 inches of penetration at 20km, while if you increase barrel length to 15% you go down to 7.8 inches, and 17% goes down to 4.6 inches again at 20km. 

A 20 inch gun mark 3 goes from 127 inches pen at 30Km to 33 inches again at 30 km (17% length increased) , barely sometimes penetrating  a 11 inch main deck with with modern 2 and definitely not penetrating even the first layer of citadel. 

This can't be normal again and has to be a bug. This would mean that currently any increase to barrel length to try and squeeze in a bit more accuracy, range and penetration makes your ships impotent at long range sniping. Removing the entire point of increasing barrel length at all to increase said range and accuracy. 
 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Deathbringer221

[o Barão]

7 minutes ago, Deathbringer221 said:

I can't be the only one that noticed this issue right?

Because is not an issue. You have a terrible deck pen because you are increasing the barrel length and by consequence also increasing the muzzle velocity and your range, and your cost, weight, reload time, etc, etc...

So now you have a shell that will get more far and faster than the previous version, but in a more flatten trajectory in comparison with the previous version.

 

Lower your barrel length to increase the deck pen.