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

[Durham Dave]

Getting on with the resurrected US campaign. I have zombie Austria-Hungary, no provinces yet still there. That and the AI hoards ships. With the US budget by tech is quite high, but recently got into a mid 20s fight with the Soviets and Japan, I feel like I'm massacring museums. The fight against the Japanese fleet with 75 tb (among other ships) was a little chuggy, and my PC isn't that old. Their BBs were dreadnoughts at least, I'm pretty sure I evaporated some Russian pre-dreadnoughts a turn or two earlier. There were also a lot of blocked shots, and some old cruisers lasted a while against 16 Mk II BBs, so I'm not sure the overpen bug is fixed. We seriously need to cut down the hoarding tendency of the AI though.

[ijp8834]

I have never been able to successfully invade a major province. I start an invasion, get the required ships there, fight off any defenders if necessary, and get the "Invasion failed" prompt after the requisite turns. I can invade colonial possessions just fine, but for example, as the US, I tried to invade the Siberia across the Bearing Strait. I fought off a major engagement with the Russian fleet, and kept my ships in the invasion zone the whole time. It failed. Multiple times in a row, with different fleets, each getting progressively larger.

[Durham Dave]

29 minutes ago, ijp8834 said:

I have never been able to successfully invade a major province. I start an invasion, get the required ships there, fight off any defenders if necessary, and get the "Invasion failed" prompt after the requisite turns. I can invade colonial possessions just fine, but for example, as the US, I tried to invade the Siberia across the Bearing Strait. I fought off a major engagement with the Russian fleet, and kept my ships in the invasion zone the whole time. It failed. Multiple times in a row, with different fleets, each getting progressively larger.

I found for major home provinces, you need to seriously outmatch the required tonnage. Them and Tsingtao in my Japanese campaign, weirdly enough.

[anonusername]

1 hour ago, Durham Dave said:

I found for major home provinces, you need to seriously outmatch the required tonnage. Them and Tsingtao in my Japanese campaign, weirdly enough.

There is a chance to succeed with only slightly more than the required tonnage, but it is quite rare. I have only seen it happen once against a home province.

[Suribachi]

Just had a mission with a single division of 3 CLs.  Into the fight, they all suffered similar amounts of damage which causes the Division Leader title to hop from ship to ship every few seconds making controlling them impossible.

I was not able to report this in game as by the time I realized what was happening, all three were sunk and the convoy mission ended in a "defeat" even though I had 22k VPs to the enemy's 3k.

[ColonelZoom]

Now that Austria- Hungary can actually be defeated without killing the campaign, they just outright refuse to go down apparently. 
They have only Bohemia left, which is relentlessly attacked by Italy with the offensives always failing. Since Italy cut me off from Bohemia I have no way of starting my own offensive to finish them for good, but anyway they should have just collapsed by now. 
Already submitted an ingame bug report about this, but the collapse and rise- system in general seems to need some fine- tuning and polishing esp. now with land invasions. 

While AH is happily resisting all attempts to tear them down, apparently even building BBs on the Vltava or something (At least they suddenly spawned BBs that only appear in their ships list, not on the overworld, without having ports...) on the other side of the planet both Japan and China rose from the ashes multiple times just to realise "Oops, this is not one of our main provinces and/or has no connection to the mainland (e.g. Japan reformed in Okinawa)" and collapse again due to not having enough provinces in the very next turn. So maybe some sort of check is needed to only allow uprisings in "eligible" provinces or just exempt once dissolved nations from the province requirement for x amount of turns after they reformed, to give them some time to take over another free province. Or just have the game recognize the start of the uprising as new core province I guess? 

[smsvu]

The naval power rating on which ones army strength in invasions or the defense against lays seems arbitrary to me.

I'm currently leading by 71 667 VP (89895 to 18228) but my naval power is 30 to 43... No matter which side is trying to acchive a peace treaty they allways get denied. My transport cap is currently around 170%.

(I can't post any screenshots as the forums size limit won't permit it anymore)

[neph]

5 minutes ago, smsvu said:

The naval power rating on which ones army strength in invasions or the defense against lays seems arbitrary to me.

I'm currently leading by 71 667 VP (89895 to 18228) but my naval power is 30 to 43... No matter which side is trying to acchive a peace treaty they allways get denied. My transport cap is currently around 170%.

(I can't post any screenshots as the forums size limit won't permit it anymore)

Forum size limit is a lifetime "you have this many kB to use up" & everybody uses it up immediately. Use imgur--make sure your link ends in .png for it to embed right

[smsvu]

7 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Just had a mission with a single division of 3 CLs.  Into the fight, they all suffered similar amounts of damage which causes the Division Leader title to hop from ship to ship every few seconds making controlling them impossible.

I was not able to report this in game as by the time I realized what was happening, all three were sunk and the convoy mission ended in a "defeat" even though I had 22k VPs to the enemy's 3k.

Extremely annoying - I've encountered it several times already, it's again something that makes it feel like a fair fight...

Generally to not be able to select the div leader and to change order is extremely annoying, as the switching will often destroy your formation, expecially when some ships decide to run from torpedos until they are shure they have no more fuel to run anway and one of them is now the leader and the one that stayed in the vicinity of the enemy now runs there.

Edited February 4, 2023 by smsvu

[smsvu]

Regarding victory points, now how and why does one have two different numbers - the screenshot is a bit older bevore I had the alliance and no there was no previous alliance that resulted in this point distribution.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all, 

Please check the latest update:

Hotfix Update v1.1.7 4/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3656395358006317983  

[Durham Dave]

Countries (I specifically noted China, but I think Italy had this problem, and maybe the UK in my Japan game) that have some of their home provinces occupied that re-emerge, then immediately collapse due to too many of their home provinces being occupied.

[SodaBit]

So about the new gun mechanics... I think you might have overdone it just a little

The 20cm/L46 (Formerly the 20cm/L50) has a range of Over 30 Kilometers on a Light Cruiser
Stettin here just outdid both Scharnhorst and Warspite by scoring a hit at a staggering 28.5km, or 17.7 miles, shattering the real world record of 15 miles/26 kilometers. Before this patch, the longest range hit I managed was done by a 36cm weapon, at 30.5 km. I'm very much looking forward to what I can do with the new changes on my BB's.

Given that the 42cm/L63 (Formerly the 420mm/L69 gun, I'm really going to miss that one) has an astounding range of 66 Kilometers.
It looks like hits over 40km are going to be a somewhat regular thing in the mid to late 1940's, as these guns can apparently hit targets at a range of almost 50km.

Edited February 4, 2023 by SodaBit

[Warspite96]

The "destroyer attack/ambush" mission in the campaign, that can often automatically initiate at the start of a turn, is pretty annoying if you do 1930+ campaigns. Unless the enemy battleship forgets to pack secondary armament, forcing DDs to yeet themselves at a 1930 battleship in an engagement you didn't initiate often just results in a lot of dead/damaged DDs, since you don't have any capital ships to distract their bigger guns. These missions would work better if they were at night, and if there was a certain window where the enemy ships don't fire back due to being at low readiness or whatever. 

Also related to this is the withdraw button. I'm curious what the chance of success for withdrawal is? Even if every ship in my fleet is faster than the enemy ships, it always seems like I fail to withdraw somehow.

[Nick Thomadis]

3 hours ago, SodaBit said:

So about the new gun mechanics... I think you might have overdone it just a little

The 20cm/L46 (Formerly the 20cm/L50) has a range of Over 30 Kilometers on a Light Cruiser
Stettin here just outdid both Scharnhorst and Warspite by scoring a hit at a staggering 28.5km, or 17.7 miles, shattering the real world record of 15 miles/26 kilometers. Before this patch, the longest range hit I managed was done by a 36cm weapon, at 30.5 km. I'm very much looking forward to what I can do with the new changes on my BB's.

Given that the 42cm/L63 (Formerly the 420mm/L69 gun, I'm really going to miss that one) has an astounding range of 66 Kilometers.
It looks like hits over 40km are going to be a somewhat regular thing in the mid to late 1940's, as these guns can apparently hit targets at a range of almost 50km.

Have you used old designs or a new one? Saved designs might have inflated ranges in some cases. In any case, such a gun with so long barrels and large ranges would be impossible before to fire normally at about the half of this range. 

[SodaBit]

43 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Have you used old designs or a new one? Saved designs might have inflated ranges in some cases. In any case, such a gun with so long barrels and large ranges would be impossible before to fire normally at about the half of this range. 

After this battle, I took pretty much my entire fleet into refit to rebalance them, as I really don't need 60+ km of range on a BB, so I'm really not sure if you can classify the designs as old ones from a previous patch, or up to date ones using the latest patch's settings. Either way, the ranges on some of the weapons are truly amazing, with the Mk.5 53cm/L60 being able to reach 73.6 kilometers, the 149.9mm/L50 going out to 26.5 kilometers, and the 55mm/L40 having a somewhat ridiculous range of 15.0 kilometers. I should note that all of these weapons are using end-game technologies, with the most advanced versions of each gun, and very long barrels. The examples above are at 15%, 18%, and 15% increased barrel length. However, I have also run into AI ships using outdated guns, which seem to have a significantly reduced range. The issue seems to be caused by a combination of increasing the gun caliber, barrel length, and technology level of the weapon, giving a slew of range modifiers resulting in a massive increase in range, to a value we've never seen before. This can be achieved to a limited degree in custom battles, with the Mk.5 13" gun having a range of about 38 kilometers, and all of the small caliber weapons listed above being available.

As a side note, I'd like to mention that I think this is a very good change over all, as this is probably the best state large caliber weapons have been in for a long time, and may very well be the exact buff to them that people were looking for. The main issue comes from smaller weapons having ridiculous ranges, if you use the 149.9mm on a DD, you can outrange some of the older battleships, and basically empty your entire magazine into them without getting spotted. Iirc, the enemy BC in the post above only had a main battery range of ~15 kilometers, which is  kinda crap for a vessel from the 1920's but not entirely unheard of.

Edited February 4, 2023 by SodaBit

[Durham Dave]

What's the point of being able to unlock DD of 3500 tons (or more) if I cant build over 3000 with modern destroyer leader? DD are also too small model wise for their tonnage it seems. There often isn't enough length to put on the stuff the historical designs had, and what there is is quite heavy components-wise. After a short war with France (master of Europe and serious resident ship hoarder they 'only' have 994 ships left, including 111 TB in 1930. The US historically had just over 800 warships of size and class equivalent to that in 1945. The Royal Navy had 332 in 1939.

[admiralsnackbar]

33 minutes ago, Durham Dave said:

What's the point of being able to unlock DD of 3500 tons (or more) if I cant build over 3000 with modern destroyer leader? DD are also too small model wise for their tonnage it seems. There often isn't enough length to put on the stuff the historical designs had, and what there is is quite heavy components-wise. After a short war with France (master of Europe and serious resident ship hoarder they 'only' have 994 ships left, including 111 TB in 1930. The US historically had just over 800 warships of size and class equivalent to that in 1945. The Royal Navy had 332 in 1939.

The maximum displacement of a ship of any class is a property of technology, each hull has its own maximum displacement value. The tech tree and hulls don't always meld properly. 

So either the displacement range of the hull is wrong [physically/mathematically] or it's right but there aren't available hulls to accommodate displacements of that size.  

Edited February 4, 2023 by admiralsnackbar

[anonusername]

1 hour ago, Durham Dave said:

What's the point of being able to unlock DD of 3500 tons (or more) if I cant build over 3000 with modern destroyer leader? DD are also too small model wise for their tonnage it seems. There often isn't enough length to put on the stuff the historical designs had, and what there is is quite heavy components-wise. After a short war with France (master of Europe and serious resident ship hoarder they 'only' have 994 ships left, including 111 TB in 1930. The US historically had just over 800 warships of size and class equivalent to that in 1945. The Royal Navy had 332 in 1939.

Ship hoarding is a serious problem, sinking obsolete pre-dreadnoughts lets the player farm VP far too easily. TB swarms are incredibly boring to fight as well.

[anonusername]

3 hours ago, SodaBit said:

After this battle, I took pretty much my entire fleet into refit to rebalance them, as I really don't need 60+ km of range on a BB, so I'm really not sure if you can classify the designs as old ones from a previous patch, or up to date ones using the latest patch's settings. Either way, the ranges on some of the weapons are truly amazing, with the Mk.5 53cm/L60 being able to reach 73.6 kilometers, the 149.9mm/L50 going out to 26.5 kilometers, and the 55mm/L40 having a somewhat ridiculous range of 15.0 kilometers. I should note that all of these weapons are using end-game technologies, with the most advanced versions of each gun, and very long barrels. The examples above are at 15%, 18%, and 15% increased barrel length. However, I have also run into AI ships using outdated guns, which seem to have a significantly reduced range. The issue seems to be caused by a combination of increasing the gun caliber, barrel length, and technology level of the weapon, giving a slew of range modifiers resulting in a massive increase in range, to a value we've never seen before. This can be achieved to a limited degree in custom battles, with the Mk.5 13" gun having a range of about 38 kilometers, and all of the small caliber weapons listed above being available.

As a side note, I'd like to mention that I think this is a very good change over all, as this is probably the best state large caliber weapons have been in for a long time, and may very well be the exact buff to them that people were looking for. The main issue comes from smaller weapons having ridiculous ranges, if you use the 149.9mm on a DD, you can outrange some of the older battleships, and basically empty your entire magazine into them without getting spotted. Iirc, the enemy BC in the post above only had a main battery range of ~15 kilometers, which is  kinda crap for a vessel from the 1920's but not entirely unheard of.

I think that possibly being slightly excessive with ranges is much superior to previous status quo. I'm taking a break from this game because of the frustration of dealing with bugs, but it looks like a promising set of changes.

[Suribachi]

@Nick Thomadis In patch 1.1.7, the spawn rate of transports having no superstructure elements is 100% so far in my testing.  This holds true for both new and old campaigns.  This does not affect only aesthetics.   For campaigns starting before the advent of radar, this bug has a major impact on gameplay since this bug is well known to affect the range at which the transports can be spotted and the accuracy of the ships targeting them due to the lack of a target signature that superstructure module normally provide.

Additionally, if the situation where all of the AI escorts are sunk before the transports ends the battle is still in the game, that needs fixing as well as it punishes the player for not sending their ships to certain damage and/or death.

For a game that is "the base for the full release of the game" in the developers own words from the v1.1 announcement, these bugs, which have been brought to the developers attention for multiple patches now since v1.1.0 beta update 0 that I know of, are simply unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

[Littorio]

10 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

@Nick Thomadis In patch 1.1.7, the spawn rate of transports having no superstructure elements is 100% so far in my testing.  This holds true for both new and old campaigns.  This does not affect only aesthetics.   For campaigns starting before the advent of radar, this bug has a major impact on gameplay since this bug is well known to affect the range at which the transports can be spotted and the accuracy of the ships targeting them due to the lack of a target signature that superstructure module normally provide.

Additionally, if the situation where all of the AI escorts are sunk before the transports ends the battle is still in the game, that needs fixing as well as it punishes the player for not sending their ships to certain damage and/or death.

For a game that is "the base for the full release of the game" in the developers own words from the v1.1 announcement, these bugs, which have been brought to the developers attention for multiple patches now since v1.1.0 beta update 0 that I know of, are simply unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

One step forward, two steps back. Reading the same old comments every month or so about these resurrected bugs from many versions back is an exercise in existential depression. It still does not seem worth an honest play through again...

Edited February 4, 2023 by Littorio

[Nick Thomadis]

43 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

@Nick Thomadis In patch 1.1.7, the spawn rate of transports having no superstructure elements is 100% so far in my testing.  This holds true for both new and old campaigns.  This does not affect only aesthetics.   For campaigns starting before the advent of radar, this bug has a major impact on gameplay since this bug is well known to affect the range at which the transports can be spotted and the accuracy of the ships targeting them due to the lack of a target signature that superstructure module normally provide.

Additionally, if the situation where all of the AI escorts are sunk before the transports ends the battle is still in the game, that needs fixing as well as it punishes the player for not sending their ships to certain damage and/or death.

For a game that is "the base for the full release of the game" in the developers own words from the v1.1 announcement, these bugs, which have been brought to the developers attention for multiple patches now since v1.1.0 beta update 0 that I know of, are simply unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

When this happens it shows that something has been corrupted in the campaign. You say that it happens in a new campaign. What year did you start it and how many turns have passed before you notice this problem?

it would help also to know if you have previously closed the game client while it was generating. a turn.

Edit: It would greatly help if you use the in-game report whenever you notice such a problem.

[Suribachi]

17 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

When this happens it shows that something has been corrupted in the campaign. You say that it happens in a new campaign. What year did you start it and how many turns have passed before you notice this problem?

it would help also to know if you have previously closed the game client while it was generating. a turn.

Edit: It would greatly help if you use the in-game report whenever you notice such a problem.

I started the campaign in 1890.  The first time I had a convoy mission in the campaign was around roughly May or June 1890.  Or if you want a month I know for certain it happened, October 1890.  October I know about because I still have the turn up in that month.  China was very quick to war this time around, declaring war around March or April 1890.  To answer your question, it occurred within 5 to 10 turns.

[Suribachi]

@Nick Thomadis To make absolutely sure it was not a corrupted file somewhere, since my last post I did the following:
1. Uninstall the game.
2. Reinstall the game.
3. Started a fresh 1890 Japan campaign changing only the options to create my own fleet and have AI use Shared Designs always.
4. Rushed a war with China that started in May 1890.
5. In July 1890, a convoy mission appeared.
6. Entered Battle on convoy mission.

The issue remains even on a fresh install of the game.


EDIT:  I will make a in game report as well.  Also, I would provide the campaign file if I the site would allow me to upload it for testing.  It is too big to upload.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Suribachi