Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

13/3/2023 Uploaded repaired version
- Fixed bug that could cause a sudden peace, without a proper reason.

Please Restart Steam to get this update.

ya'll are fast, was just typing up a post which mentioned how quick you guys patch things up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

В общем, то, что меня больше всего бесит в этой игре, это предел искусственного смещения! Если я смогу построить линкор длиной 100 метров на стапеле, то я также могу построить крейсер такого же размера! Огромный список самых интересных кораблей 80-90-х просто удален из игры.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to piggyback off of the sub issues.  I think there is a legit bug here. I've had results that say the sub was detected and engaged but it took zero damage, and blew up dedicated ASW light cruisers sent to hunt it.  The event description and what happened didn't even line up. 

The whole sub-blows-up-screened ship thing is a pretty shit mechanic overall though and it would be nice to see either a checkbox that lets me disable submarines from the game or an interim pass that caps sub damage to ships at 100% of their hull strength, and then reduce the damage done by calculated torpedo resistance factor. It would be one thing for my a sub to get a lucky hit and take my capital ship out of action or punish my lack of torpedo blister; this happened all the time, but it's pretty hello kittying stupid for my battleship that can shrug off max sized torpedoes in-battle to vanish on the campaign screen because magical submarine sneezed on it.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

 

Can something be done about the Japanese modern battleships, I, II, supper? All of them have crippling barrette placement issues, Of all the hulls issues and errors currently in game, these are the most egregious. You cant place any barrette smaller than a 'huge superimposed barrette' in the whole forward half of the ships, this renders them unusable if you want to use anything smaller than the mk3 17in+ gun models.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range Side Armor Deck Armor    
0 m 32.62" ---    
4,572 m 29.39" 0.67"    
9,144 m 26.16" 1.71"    
13,716 m 23.04" 2.79"    
18,288 m 20.04" 3.90"    
22,860 m 17.36" 5.17"    
27,432 m 14.97" 6.65"    
32,004 m 12.97" 8.48"    
36,576 m 11.02" 11.26"    
38,720 m 9.51" 14.05"    
         
       

this compared to the in game equivalent

        3DC220346F620CAB707B2A5B011705129EC57F65 (1920×1080)
         
        speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?
         
         
         
         
         
         
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range Side Armor Deck Armor    
0 m 32.62" ---    
4,572 m 29.39" 0.67"    
9,144 m 26.16" 1.71"    
13,716 m 23.04" 2.79"    
18,288 m 20.04" 3.90"    
22,860 m 17.36" 5.17"    
27,432 m 14.97" 6.65"    
32,004 m 12.97" 8.48"    
36,576 m 11.02" 11.26"    
38,720 m 9.51" 14.05"    
         
       

this compared to the in game equivalent

        3DC220346F620CAB707B2A5B011705129EC57F65 (1920×1080)
         
        speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?
         
         
         
         
         
         

Þe values in-game are against "Iron" armor from 1890 and þese never get updated to þe most common armor from when you're looking at þe penetration table. You need to look at your actual þickness and multiply it by þe percentile modifier of your particular type of armor to figure out where it is on þe table. Þis should all be done automatically, but it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Urst said:

Þe values in-game are against "Iron" armor from 1890 and þese never get updated to þe most common armor from when you're looking at þe penetration table. You need to look at your actual þickness and multiply it by þe percentile modifier of your particular type of armor to figure out where it is on þe table. Þis should all be done automatically, but it isn't.

ya, i did that. its jack squat.

5 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         

15in x1.48= 22.2in effective. Its still nothing in the face of standard AP shells that can blow through twice that at 10 km.

*edit

oh its +148%, so its more like 15in x2.48= a whopping 37.2in effective. So it can only blow through 1.5x that at 10k, not double.

Edited by Fangoriously
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range Side Armor Deck Armor    
0 m 32.62" ---    
4,572 m 29.39" 0.67"    
9,144 m 26.16" 1.71"    
13,716 m 23.04" 2.79"    
18,288 m 20.04" 3.90"    
22,860 m 17.36" 5.17"    
27,432 m 14.97" 6.65"    
32,004 m 12.97" 8.48"    
36,576 m 11.02" 11.26"    
38,720 m 9.51" 14.05"    
         
       

this compared to the in game equivalent

        3DC220346F620CAB707B2A5B011705129EC57F65 (1920×1080)
         
        speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?
         
         
         
         
         
         

So I tried to make a decent BB, BC and CA for each nation.  Within a few years the ai refitted them to turds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so that little bit where if the lead ship takes damage it then wants to go to the rear...please stop that.  No captain in their right mind would turn into gunfire like that while trying to retreat or when in a good position.

 

My favorite is when you have destroyers following battleships and the battle ship then joins the destroyer squadron.  

 

------------

 

I also think there is a problem with opponents speed...

 

Example #1--My DD goes 36kn and I can chase down a DD that goes 34.4kn for six hours and never catch it.

 

Example #2--My BB goes 26kn and I gain extremely slowly on enemy BB that is 92% flooded that would normally only go 23kn.   

Edited by applegrcoug
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That feeling, when you are under suspiciously heavy fire only to discover that you are suddenly alone, engaging entire enemy battleline while the rest of your division is aimlessly circling 10 miles behind. Formations disintegrsting after first torpedo spotted is a bug. 

Formations didn't fall apart in this manner before! The worst thing is, it can hardly be restored again (formation). AI just don't care to restore formation.

I suggest adding "rejoin formation" button to reset ships from circling behind and make them refirm the formation 

Edited by Zuikaku
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

That feeling, when you are under suspiciously heavy fire only to discover that you are suddenly alone, engaging entire enemy battleline while the rest of your division is aimlessly circling 10 miles behind. Formations disintegrsting after first torpedo spotted is a bug. 

Formations didn't fall apart in this manner before! The worst thing is, it can hardly be restored again (formation). AI just don't care to restore formation.

I suggest adding "rejoin formation" button to reset ships from circling behind and make them refirm the formation 

Agreed.  Coding wise that should not be very difficult.  On the back end it would look like removing the other ships from the formation for about half a second and re-adding them in the same order they were already in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...