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

[Eisenfeld]

Hotfixes are looking good. I really enjoy using the Shared Designs designer to design my own ships and test them in Custom Battles.

Here is my feedback:

Bugs with the Shared Designs designer and shared designs

1. After I create a Shared Design, I am unable to delete it within the game. The trash can button is grayed out. While I am able to delete the shared design from Windows Explorer, I would very much appreciate it if I can delete shared designs from within the game.
2. If I make changes to a Shared Design and save it without changing the ship's name, the game creates a new .design file instead of overwriting the current one. Plus, if the overwrite functionality is implemented, there should be a prompt that says "Ship <name> already exists for <year>. Do you want to overwrite it?" with Yes and No buttons.
3. When a shared design is saved, it blocks all ship building buttons and interfaces until a new design is created. The expected behavior is that I am able to continue making changes after clicking the "Save Design" button.
4. If a shared design is created for a custom battle and the player selects a year that has one, upon entering the ship designer, the player cannot design a new ship other than the one that is already present. (Clicking the New Design button does nothing if a shared design is present)

Feature issue:

1. I'm not sure if this is intended, but I cannot create a ship with asymmetrical en-echelon turret arrangements (i.e. the España class battleship). Whenever I place a turret on the side, a mirror copy is added to the other side. Being able to create historically accurate ships with asymmetrical turret arrangements would be nice.

Looking forward to more patches and content!

[Lima]

17 minutes ago, Eisenfeld said:

Hotfixes are looking good. I really enjoy using the Shared Designs designer to design my own ships and test them in Custom Battles.

Here is my feedback:

Bugs with the Shared Designs designer and shared designs

1. After I create a Shared Design, I am unable to delete it within the game. The trash can button is grayed out. While I am able to delete the shared design from Windows Explorer, I would very much appreciate it if I can delete shared designs from within the game.
2. If I make changes to a Shared Design and save it without changing the ship's name, the game creates a new .design file instead of overwriting the current one. Plus, if the overwrite functionality is implemented, there should be a prompt that says "Ship <name> already exists for <year>. Do you want to overwrite it?" with Yes and No buttons.
3. When a shared design is saved, it blocks all ship building buttons and interfaces until a new design is created. The expected behavior is that I am able to continue making changes after clicking the "Save Design" button.
4. If a shared design is created for a custom battle and the player selects a year that has one, upon entering the ship designer, the player cannot design a new ship other than the one that is already present. (Clicking the New Design button does nothing if a shared design is present)

Feature issue:

1. I'm not sure if this is intended, but I cannot create a ship with asymmetrical en-echelon turret arrangements (i.e. the España class battleship). Whenever I place a turret on the side, a mirror copy is added to the other side. Being able to create historically accurate ships with asymmetrical turret arrangements would be nice.

Looking forward to more patches and content!

4. Click on another hull, you can create a new ship. The button doesn't work, yes.

It is possible to make non-symmetrical ships,, choose one of the side turrets, move it and remove it.

[MyTeitoku]

Austro-Hungarian just wont dissolve, even tho it doesnt have any home province or any province, why?

All other nations are dissolved.

[Lima]

Austria-Hungary is the main protagonist, confirmed.

[SodaBit]

I've got some feedback here with regards to the AI.
On more than one occasion I've had to chase down badly-damaged ships, and it almost always goes a little something like this:
1: All divisions who can actually catch the enemy if it's going full speed start following the RADAR bearing, and make ready for battle.
2: Wait. For a very long time.
3: Enter the Shadow Realm in pursuit of the enemy.
4: Keep waiting.
5: Find enemy, and realize they've been absolutely booking it at full speed for the past hour and a half, despite the division leader and all ships in the division being badly damaged. 

So, we've got a few problems here. The past Hour and a Half of the battle was completely pointless, and could have been skipped. To give you a sense of just how far these lil guys have run, I parked my BC's about 10 minutes into the battle, since they probably wouldn't be in range before my lead ships destroyed the enemy. Those BC's are now over 150 kilometers away. I would have simply preferred to send them home, and let their escorts deal with the enemy. Adding a mechanic to release ships from battle early, assuming they have enough distance between them and the enemy, would allow for ships that aren't going to be used, or can no longer be used, to leave the field would reduce clutter and probably improve performance as well.
There's also the issue of the ship damage. While I like ships in the same division being able to all go the same speed, that speed should probably be the speed of the slowest ship. Again, I am in favor of ships exceeding their max speed to get into a certain position within the formation, (such as cruisers falling our of a screening formation to form a line of battle) but the speed of the formation as a unit should still reflect the limitations of the ships in it. I can give a better example of this if needed.

[anonusername]

5 hours ago, Lima said:

4. Click on another hull, you can create a new ship. The button doesn't work, yes.

It is possible to make non-symmetrical ships,, choose one of the side turrets, move it and remove it.

You can also just disable auto-mirror.

[TiagoStein]

The only  issue that still annoys me a lot is how the game gets slower and slower to go to world map after battle or after ship editor as the campaign goes forward.

[o Barão]

9 hours ago, Eisenfeld said:

Feature issue:

1. I'm not sure if this is intended, but I cannot create a ship with asymmetrical en-echelon turret arrangements (i.e. the España class battleship). Whenever I place a turret on the side, a mirror copy is added to the other side. Being able to create historically accurate ships with asymmetrical turret arrangements would be nice.

Just disable the mirror function before.

[o Barão]

7 hours ago, Lima said:

Austria-Hungary is the main protagonist, confirmed.

😁

[o Barão]

Torpedo issue

TBs refusing to launch the fishes into the water.

 

Strange ammo issue.

• 50% / 50% ammo
• 468 HE / 468 AP per turret

• Battle starts with 433 AP and 287 HE?

• And the gun stats is telling me that is 720/720 (AP/HE) ??

 

UI not updating issue?

Now is telling that my guns have 720/720, however changing the ammo count will not update the gun stats.

• reduced 720/720

• Standard 720/720

• Increased 720/720

Edited January 27, 2023 by o Barão

[Suribachi]

Patch 1.1.3 Live:  Chances of Transports having no modules in campaign convoy missions so far is 5/5 times, a 100% chance!!!

Already reported in game.

EDIT:  Figures.  As soon as I make this post, the very next convoy mission actually has modules on the transports.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Suribachi

[madham82]

15 hours ago, SodaBit said:

So, we've got a few problems here. The past Hour and a Half of the battle was completely pointless, and could have been skipped. To give you a sense of just how far these lil guys have run, I parked my BC's about 10 minutes into the battle, since they probably wouldn't be in range before my lead ships destroyed the enemy. Those BC's are now over 150 kilometers away. I would have simply preferred to send them home, and let their escorts deal with the enemy. Adding a mechanic to release ships from battle early, assuming they have enough distance between them and the enemy, would allow for ships that aren't going to be used, or can no longer be used, to leave the field would reduce clutter and probably improve performance as well.

I know I suggested over a year ago that "disengagement zones" should be part of the battle net for this purpose. If the AI or player ships reach it, they are withdrawn from the map. But that would require a major redesign to add to the existing battle interface. 

My current suggestion is that how encounters work needs to change. If whatever check the AI does to decide that it will run (in the battle interface) is met, then you do not get an encounter. This should (if it isn't already) take into account the speed of both fleets. If the speeds are roughly equal, no AI run behavior should be triggered to simulate the commander realizing escape is impossible and they have to fight. I believe this would be much simpler to implement and make battles far more enjoyable. As opposed to the boring "sea chase" encounters we have now. 

Edited January 27, 2023 by madham82
grammar

[o Barão]

"Completed (normal)"

There is a hard difficulty setting for the academy missions?

[StoneofTriumph]

I did the same gun test I've done for the past couple of patches, and the thin belt armor of a light cruiser still remains strangely invulnerable to the AP shot of the 9+" guns I've been unloading into it at close range.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but it feels like a problem.

[Suribachi]

Already reported in game.

Someone please tell me this is a joke.  Sinking all escorts in a campaign convoy battle ends battle in version 1.1.3 and this is supposed to be a out of beta game?!

[madham82]

23 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Already reported in game.

Someone please tell me this is a joke.  Sinking all escorts in a campaign convoy battle ends battle in version 1.1.3 and this is supposed to be a out of beta game?!

That one has been around for awhile and should have been a simple fix. 

[o Barão]

31 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Already reported in game.

Someone please tell me this is a joke.  Sinking all escorts in a campaign convoy battle ends battle in version 1.1.3 and this is supposed to be a out of beta game?!

This would not be an issue if the moment the last escort sunk, the battle ended with all merchant ships also sunked. I said this, because it seems strange to waste time to chase some helpless merchant ships. I said this from a gameplay point of view. I would prefer to give the player this two options. A ) sink the merchants and run away, or B ) sink all escorts and the battle ends with all merchants destroyed. Seems better IMO. But what we have now is the worst possible option. Needs a solution.

[Suribachi]

16 minutes ago, o Barão said:

B ) sink all escorts and the battle ends with all merchants destroyed. Seems better IMO.

Earlier I proposed a slight twist to this.  If the player's ships are damaged to the point where they literally cannot chase down the transports, in other words, cannot go faster than 12 knots, I have no issue with the battle ending as it currently does.  

But agreed.  It needs to be fixed.

[neph]

Literally just pop the "end battle" button up. If you want to go hunt transports down you can.

I literally just lost a BB to this--1930s campaign, my battleship had struck their BB at ~20 km with a few nasty deck punches & it was ready to sink. Told the BB to hold fire & my escorts went after the transport. Well, their BB recovered & sank me with some lethal long-range deck hits of her own. I would have certainly won that fight if I'd been firing--my accuracy was far higher & I'd already drawn first blood--but I couldn't take their battleship out of the fight without killing it outright.

This game is NOT ready for release.

[smsvu]

I think the autogenerated designs still needs some work, it still produces a significant ammount of strange designs. A few examples (just cut togehter):

It really likes to put secondarys on large and/or useless and/or impeding barbettes. I think when looking at these is that the primary placement is much better, but secondarys are not really utlised and it seems to struggle with their placement. For examle only putting a singe raised one on the aft deck on the nelsonesk or a single raised on the foredeck of the second is really inneficient.

(There are still some other things like designs suffering from low fuel, imbalaced designs, .... but these three are some nice visualy striking examples)

[SodaBit]

Some more battle feedback here.
Image speaks for itself.

There's still 2,200 men aboard this floating coffin.

Edited January 27, 2023 by SodaBit

[anonusername]

12 hours ago, o Barão said:

Torpedo issue

TBs refusing to launch the fishes into the water.

 

Strange ammo issue.

• 50% / 50% ammo
• 468 HE / 468 AP per turret

• Battle starts with 433 AP and 287 HE?

• And the gun stats is telling me that is 720/720 (AP/HE) ??

 

UI not updating issue?

Now is telling that my guns have 720/720, however changing the ammo count will not update the gun stats.

• reduced 720/720

• Standard 720/720

• Increased 720/720

TBs not firing is usually a result of the rotation on their torpedos being too slow. Could also be a bug. It is often hard to tell if something is bugged, or if the UI is just bad at communicating to the player what is happening.

Edited January 28, 2023 by anonusername

[SodaBit]

Sorry for hogging the thread, but I'm still finding issues that need to be addressed, this time it's in relation to campaign AI.
December, 1949, the very last battle of a campaign that started in 1920. The British are sending in one of their oldest units, the Australia class armored cruiser HMS Natal, into the fray against the pride of the Japanese Empire.

These things have been around since 1920, and I used the term armored cruiser rather than heavy cruiser to describe it because...

That's just what it is. You could make a very good argument that these things were obsolete when they entered service back in 1920, and certainly should have been scrapped by 1930, as the shiny new heavy cruisers came online.
But no, someone locked Jackie Fisher in a broom closet somewhere and decided that all their old armored and protected cruisers would serve until they were destroyed.

This is a very, VERY, VERY bad idea, as these old ships still require crews, ammo, fuel, and places to dock, all of which should be going to better units. When they are sent into combat, they are literally just free victory points for me, and additional revolt risk for Britain. The Brits don't have to use these units. They can afford better ships, and have the technology to build them. Despite losing all their Pacific holdings, several colonies in Africa, almost all of India, having a revolution that saw the monarchy finally abolished, and having to fight a rather bloody land war on the British Mainland during the Scottish war of Independence, the British (Or I guess just English now?) economy is doing just fine.

In fact, I'd argue it's doing better than fine. They've practically sent the Pound to the Moon,  and can churn out warships at a rate I simply can't hope to match. Of course, number's don't matter when most of the ships you send into an engagement die in one salvo. Despite being "Very Advanced" the most capable gun I saw the British using was an 18" Mk.2. I used similar guns to build the Yamato class back in 1930, as soon as I had researched them. Come 1947, the 18" Mk.5 is available, along with improved radar, more efficient armor, and a host of other improvements to the design.

Which kind of brings me to my point here. I'm fine with the AI using old ships, so long as they are kept somewhat up to date, and can still be useful in some capacity, even if it's only convoy escort, or shore bombardment. During this campaign, I didn't send a single battleship to the breakers, pretty much for this exact reason. The first 4 BB's I built are still afloat in 1949. Once newer units were available, they were assigned to quiet sectors to ensure naval supremacy, or to support the various invasions of the British Pacific territories. This allowed the more capable BB's to get stuck in with the British, without having to worry about being badly needed somewhere else. Despite being almost 30 years old, they're still perfectly capable of providing shore support, or seeing off cruiser squadrons, because at the end of the day, if you've got a CA that's proof against 14 inch guns, chances are it's so slow that I can just hit it over and over again before it gets into range, because these old BB's have been modernized to have Mk.5 guns as well as the best RADAR and rangefinders available. In short, while they couldn't be used for their original role, they still had some use.

The opposite is the case for the old British units I ran into over the course of this campaign. HMS Natal has not changed since 1920. She has no RADAR, nor RDF, her rangefinders are woefully out of date, and her guns have neither the range nor penetration capabilities to be of any real use in a major battle. Coupled with her low speed of less than 20 knots, even my oldest BB's can run her down. She's nothing more than a floating coffin at this point. A complete waste of fuel, dock space, ammunition, and above all else, a crew that's never going to make it home.

Edited January 28, 2023 by SodaBit

[anonusername]

16 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Sorry for hogging the thread, but I'm still finding issues that need to be addressed, this time it's in relation to campaign AI.
December, 1949, the very last battle of a campaign that started in 1920. The British are sending in one of their oldest units, the Australia class armored cruiser HMS Natal, into the fray against the pride of the Japanese Empire.

These things have been around since 1920, and I used the term armored cruiser rather than heavy cruiser to describe it because...

That's just what it is. You could make a very good argument that these things were obsolete when they entered service back in 1920, and certainly should have been scrapped by 1930, as the shiny new heavy cruisers came online.
But no, someone locked Jackie Fisher in a broom closet somewhere and decided that all their old armored and protected cruisers would serve until they were destroyed.

This is a very, VERY, VERY bad idea, as these old ships still require crews, ammo, fuel, and places to dock, all of which should be going to better units. When they are sent into combat, they are literally just free victory points for me, and additional revolt risk for Britain. The Brits don't have to use these units. They can afford better ships, and have the technology to build them. Despite losing all their Pacific holdings, several colonies in Africa, almost all of India, having a revolution that saw the monarchy finally abolished, and having to fight a rather bloody land war on the British Mainland during the Scottish war of Independence, the British (Or I guess just English now?) economy is doing just fine.

In fact, I'd argue it's doing better than fine. They've practically sent the Pound to the Moon,  and can churn out warships at a rate I simply can't hope to match. Of course, number's don't matter when most of the ships you send into an engagement die in one salvo. Despite being "Very Advanced" the most capable gun I saw the British using was an 18" Mk.2. I used similar guns to build the Yamato class back in 1930, as soon as I had researched them. Come 1947, the 18" Mk.5 is available, along with improved radar, more efficient armor, and a host of other improvements to the design.

Which kind of brings me to my point here. I'm fine with the AI using old ships, so long as they are kept somewhat up to date, and can still be useful in some capacity, even if it's only convoy escort, or shore bombardment. During this campaign, I didn't send a single battleship to the breakers, pretty much for this exact reason. The first 4 BB's I built are still afloat in 1949. Once newer units were available, they were assigned to quiet sectors to ensure naval supremacy, or to support the various invasions of the British Pacific territories. This allowed the more capable BB's to get stuck in with the British, without having to worry about being badly needed somewhere else. Despite being almost 30 years old, they're still perfectly capable of providing shore support, or seeing off cruiser squadrons, because at the end of the day, if you've got a CA that's proof against 14 inch guns, chances are it's so slow that I can just hit it over and over again before it gets into range, because these old BB's have been modernized to have Mk.5 guns as well as the best RADAR and rangefinders available. In short, while they couldn't be used for their original role, they still had some use.

The opposite is the case for the old British units I ran into over the course of this campaign. HMS Natal has not changed since 1920. She has no RADAR, nor RDF, her rangefinders are woefully out of date, and her guns have neither the range nor penetration capabilities to be of any real use in a major battle. Coupled with her low speed of less than 20 knots, even my oldest BB's can run her down. She's nothing more than a floating coffin at this point. A complete waste of fuel, dock space, ammunition, and above all else, a crew that's never going to make it home.

This is definitely a problem with all start dates. I see 1890 ships 10+ years into the campaign. They often lack even basic refits. I think the issue is probably related to the constant warfare. The AI is always at war with 2 or 3 other nations, so they never have a period of peace to do refits. It also messes with the minor conquest mechanic, since that doesn't fire while at war.

[The PC Collector]

55 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Sorry for hogging the thread, but I'm still finding issues that need to be addressed, this time it's in relation to campaign AI.
December, 1949, the very last battle of a campaign that started in 1920. The British are sending in one of their oldest units, the Australia class armored cruiser HMS Natal, into the fray against the pride of the Japanese Empire.

These things have been around since 1920, and I used the term armored cruiser rather than heavy cruiser to describe it because...

That's just what it is. You could make a very good argument that these things were obsolete when they entered service back in 1920, and certainly should have been scrapped by 1930, as the shiny new heavy cruisers came online.
But no, someone locked Jackie Fisher in a broom closet somewhere and decided that all their old armored and protected cruisers would serve until they were destroyed.

This is a very, VERY, VERY bad idea, as these old ships still require crews, ammo, fuel, and places to dock, all of which should be going to better units. When they are sent into combat, they are literally just free victory points for me, and additional revolt risk for Britain. The Brits don't have to use these units. They can afford better ships, and have the technology to build them. Despite losing all their Pacific holdings, several colonies in Africa, almost all of India, having a revolution that saw the monarchy finally abolished, and having to fight a rather bloody land war on the British Mainland during the Scottish war of Independence, the British (Or I guess just English now?) economy is doing just fine.

In fact, I'd argue it's doing better than fine. They've practically sent the Pound to the Moon,  and can churn out warships at a rate I simply can't hope to match. Of course, number's don't matter when most of the ships you send into an engagement die in one salvo. Despite being "Very Advanced" the most capable gun I saw the British using was an 18" Mk.2. I used similar guns to build the Yamato class back in 1930, as soon as I had researched them. Come 1947, the 18" Mk.5 is available, along with improved radar, more efficient armor, and a host of other improvements to the design.

Which kind of brings me to my point here. I'm fine with the AI using old ships, so long as they are kept somewhat up to date, and can still be useful in some capacity, even if it's only convoy escort, or shore bombardment. During this campaign, I didn't send a single battleship to the breakers, pretty much for this exact reason. The first 4 BB's I built are still afloat in 1949. Once newer units were available, they were assigned to quiet sectors to ensure naval supremacy, or to support the various invasions of the British Pacific territories. This allowed the more capable BB's to get stuck in with the British, without having to worry about being badly needed somewhere else. Despite being almost 30 years old, they're still perfectly capable of providing shore support, or seeing off cruiser squadrons, because at the end of the day, if you've got a CA that's proof against 14 inch guns, chances are it's so slow that I can just hit it over and over again before it gets into range, because these old BB's have been modernized to have Mk.5 guns as well as the best RADAR and rangefinders available. In short, while they couldn't be used for their original role, they still had some use.

The opposite is the case for the old British units I ran into over the course of this campaign. HMS Natal has not changed since 1920. She has no RADAR, nor RDF, her rangefinders are woefully out of date, and her guns have neither the range nor penetration capabilities to be of any real use in a major battle. Coupled with her low speed of less than 20 knots, even my oldest BB's can run her down. She's nothing more than a floating coffin at this point. A complete waste of fuel, dock space, ammunition, and above all else, a crew that's never going to make it home.

The problem with this, is that even if they were refitted, AI still pretty much fails at doing refits. In my experience, AI refitted ships still more often than not are somehow worse than the original ones. Something that has not been adressed at all despite being a reported issue since refit was introduced.