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

[German CL mk II guns]

main belts became inpenetrable now

[Grizli60rus]

@Nick Thomadis 

A few questions:

1) I also shoot fights on YouTube between subscribers (for about a year now), and in 1.1 shared design (a function I was really waiting for) does not work. I can put a player's ship project to the opponent bot, but I can't choose a player's project for myself. It is in the custom battle menu, but when loading the battle, the game generates something completely different (the setting is "always").

2) More over, if there is already a ship ready for the corresponding year in the design folder, then you cannot make a copy of this project or lay a new one in the custom battle. The new design button just doesn't do anything.

3) After a long battle, when all the enemy ships were identified, their names are still unknown in the results of the battle. This is of course a trifle, but nevertheless.

4) And as we wrote above, damage to ships (penetration of the main armored belt) does not work correctly.

The main question is: are there plans to fix shaped design with the nearest hotfixes? Is it worth waiting for this, or will the battles between players still have to be done by connecting files custom_battle_data....?

Thanks!

Edited January 22, 2023 by Grizli60rus

[TiagoStein]

35 minutes ago, brothermunro said:

This is very interesting, thank you! I’m going to see if I can replicate this as well & send a report in.

Just remember that it happens only if there is an inner belt, so citadel II at least ( I do not play after 1917 so I have no clue about modern armor schemes)

[StoneofTriumph]

My own armor pen problems were against a light cruiser that only had citadel I and no inner belt, just an inner deck.

[TiagoStein]

11 minutes ago, StoneofTriumph said:

My own armor pen problems were against a light cruiser that only had citadel I and no inner belt, just an inner deck.

OK  I might be wrong on this detail, but on the limited time I  had to test  I was trying to figure why TP seemed to explode as they should but not other ships. I  then got into a fight in the campaign against a specific country and their ships were exploding normaly and I noticed they had Citatel I  only and  I theorized that was the reason.

[brothermunro]

1 hour ago, Grizli60rus said:

@Nick Thomadis 

A few questions:

1) I also shoot fights on YouTube between subscribers (for about a year now), and in 1.1 shared design (a function I was really waiting for) does not work. I can put a player's ship project to the opponent bot, but I can't choose a player's project for myself. It is in the custom battle menu, but when loading the battle, the game generates something completely different (the setting is "always").

2) More over, if there is already a ship ready for the corresponding year in the design folder, then you cannot make a copy of this project or lay a new one in the custom battle. The new design button just doesn't do anything.

I can confirm both of these and reported them during the beta stage.

[anonusername]

6 hours ago, GreenerAlien said:

Uh, I started in 1890, now it's 1897 and two empires collapsed, and everyone is constantly at war. I can see the appeal of such a setting to some, and weird total war settings should be a possibility if it is indeed mechanically possible for every country to go into war with each other and stay at it forever ... but it probably shouldn't be go to AI behaviour.

 

That's my slice of criticism, but I should probably stress more how amazing it is that a team that is, from what I gather, still largely staying in bombarded Kyiv, continues to work at the game

I recommend using the rebalance mod to reduce the GDP penalty for war. It isn't a perfect solution, but it is a decent stopgap to avoid the AI becoming a complete non-entity. I think the problem causing endless war is (at least in part) a new event which triggers on every war and changes the relations of *all* other players to the 2 combatants by about +/- 15. It leads to a cascade effect where the 2nd or 3rd war triggers a 4th and 5th, and suddenly everyone is either allied or enemies.

[anonusername]

Something is definitely wrong with penetration. The results do not match the penetration estimator at all. I am at close range to a 1890 battleship with iron armor; it blocks my main belt shots despite all sections showing green. Even worse, the "effective pen" value is well over 30" and it only has a 14" main belt at -30% quality. I should be overpenning the belt! As a matter of fact, I can penetrate the main belt with my 5" guns. It is only the 12" guns which are blocked... Switching to 12" HE results in partial pens.

Edited January 22, 2023 by anonusername

[anonusername]

3 hours ago, Grizli60rus said:

@Nick Thomadis 

A few questions:

1) I also shoot fights on YouTube between subscribers (for about a year now), and in 1.1 shared design (a function I was really waiting for) does not work. I can put a player's ship project to the opponent bot, but I can't choose a player's project for myself. It is in the custom battle menu, but when loading the battle, the game generates something completely different (the setting is "always").

2) More over, if there is already a ship ready for the corresponding year in the design folder, then you cannot make a copy of this project or lay a new one in the custom battle. The new design button just doesn't do anything.

3) After a long battle, when all the enemy ships were identified, their names are still unknown in the results of the battle. This is of course a trifle, but nevertheless.

4) And as we wrote above, damage to ships (penetration of the main armored belt) does not work correctly.

The main question is: are there plans to fix shaped design with the nearest hotfixes? Is it worth waiting for this, or will the battles between players still have to be done by connecting files custom_battle_data....?

Thanks!

I think that "shared design" actually mean shared with the AI, not other players. The interaction with custom battles is definitely pretty buggy though.

[Plazma]

9 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

The  Terminal Ballistic  results are INVERTED!

 

I tested several times (technologies of 1905 in  campaign) check the statistics of  penetrations partial penetrations and  over penetrations  and I had average thickness for  complete Penetrations 23 Inch, Thickness for  partial penetration 0.4 inch and partial penetrations  6 inch.     I have cruisers with  3 inch belts  block  10 shots in a row from 12 inch mark 3 guns but the 6 inch guns from the SAME ship penetrate  easily from the same position.

 

The statistics of average thickness for each  terminal ballistic result show that the result status  are wrong!  The partial penetration and blocked shots average thickness should be HIGHER than the over penetrations  not  50 times smaller.  I had noticed  the strange behavior   a few days ago but only yesterday  I  started to  take noted of the statistics of each penetration category.

I  went back and   made my guns the worst as possible,  most primitive shells, shorter barrels  etc  and  I started to  penetrate the ships that  were  previously blocking almost all my shots.

 

Now.. the strange part.. it depends on the target.  From what I coudl gather it only happens when the target has a Inner belt. Destroyers and ships from nations using  citatel 1 only  do not have this behavior when hit as far as I could gather.

 

If I had to guess it seems there is a switch  case completely  inverted in the code resulting in a "the worse the better  situation when the game maps penetration  calculations to the class of event that  decides to cause damage or not"

 

I hope I do not need to point that is a    Break the deal  bug. The game is simply not playable until this is fixed.

not sure if this is it, but I tested right now and something interesting happens.

 

20.9" gun, at range 4.5km Capped-Ballistic II, TripleBase, TNT IV (180.4" armor pen value) vs 1" armor... actually aft belt armor. 

4 hits:

1 Over-Pen

3 BLOCKED

(on chat the proof)

Also...

 

2" gun have a amazing pen value! 

4 hits:

4 partial-pen vs at least 10"(+145%) of armor

 

So I was right, that something is not okay:

 

More photos:

(In here I used, the HE with only ~100" pen value...) 

 

vs (1" and 0.1" of armor):

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Plazma

[anonusername]

@Nick ThomadisIs there any chance of a hotfix update for the bugged penetration? It makes ship design very confusing and causes battles to drag on (because the only guns which can actually pen are secondaries with low damage and accuracy.)

[Lima]

Now there was a battle where my BCs fought with enemy BBs. The distances varied from 1km to 10km. My BCs are poorly armored, but neither they nor the enemy BBs have received a single penetration into the belt or deck. Pens were only in casemates and superstructure.

Reject AP embrace HE spam.

[Warspite96]

Yeah I'm certainly experiencing some strange penetration issues with my heavy ships in this update, I was firing at a CL with a 1930s Japanese BB armed with 410mm guns at 8km, couldn't get through the thin fore and aft belt with a ship that has over 1000mm of penetration at that range (not even getting partial pens just blocked entirely). Switched to HE and the shells seemed to perform as intended.

[brothermunro]

2 hours ago, anonusername said:

Something is definitely wrong with penetration. The results do not match the penetration estimator at all. I am at close range to a 1890 battleship with iron armor; it blocks my main belt shots despite all sections showing green. Even worse, the "effective pen" value is well over 30" and it only has a 14" main belt at -30% quality. I should be overpenning the belt! As a matter of fact, I can penetrate the main belt with my 5" guns. It is only the 12" guns which are blocked... Switching to 12" HE results in partial pens.

This might be due to an overflow of some sort in the penetration calculation (something I’ve suspected can happen in various versions). Essentially you are penetrating so much the game goes past overpen and ends up reporting a blocked or partial instead. That’s why you’re seeing the HE & 5” working fine. (Again this is just a suspicion, I’d need to see the formula & the values going into & out of it to tell for sure).

[Warspite96]

The land offensives are a nice idea, but tbh I think they're currently implemented poorly since the player has no real control over them. More often than not, your nation launches land offensives, gets slaughtered, and then the enemy claims victory on land and puts you in a situation where even if you sink their entire navy, you still wouldn't make up the Victory Points needed to close the gap caused by the failed land offensive (since each one is like 30-40k VPs). Currently kinda bummed out in my Japanese campaign because I have the Chinese navy confined to their ports, but because of the randomly failed land campaigns they have 90k VPs vs my 15k, accidentally agreed to peace and then they claimed like 15 of my ships! 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Warspite96
words

[anonusername]

1 hour ago, brothermunro said:

This might be due to an overflow of some sort in the penetration calculation (something I’ve suspected can happen in various versions). Essentially you are penetrating so much the game goes past overpen and ends up reporting a blocked or partial instead. That’s why you’re seeing the HE & 5” working fine. (Again this is just a suspicion, I’d need to see the formula & the values going into & out of it to tell for sure).

I'm not sure, it seems more like a logic error. I have found that semi armor piercing rounds penetrate just fine if you have enough pen from other sources like barrel length. I think it might have something to do with the ricochet code, HE and SAP shells have a reduced interaction with that mechanic. I've also seen really bizarre pens that shouldn't happen; a 1915 BB with 12" guns was able to get a main belt pen on my 1940 AoN BB with 18" belt.

1 hour ago, Warspite96 said:

The land offensives are a nice idea, but tbh I think they're currently implemented poorly since the player has no real control over them. More often than not, your nation launches land offensives, gets slaughtered, and then the enemy claims victory on land and puts you in a situation where even if you sink their entire navy, you still wouldn't make up the Victory Points needed to close the gap caused by the failed land offensive (since each one is like 30-40k VPs). Currently kinda bummed out in my Japanese campaign because I have the Chinese navy confined to their ports, but because of the randomly failed land campaigns they have 90k VPs vs my 15k, accidentally agreed to peace and then they claimed like 15 of my ships! 

I think that having your naval superiority be thwarted by enemy land victories is a neat idea, but there should be more reactivity in methods to influence the outcome. e.g. I believe that sinking transports and blockading the enemy will hurt their land combat results, but this is totally opaque to the player. I'm not even sure if it deliberate or just a side effect of reduced GDP means reduced army funds means reduced army size/logistics.

The player should have some UI feedback on how his transport interdiction is hurting enemy logistics and even be able to use battleship for naval bombardments against coastal areas during land attacks.

EDIT: I think HE pen is screwed up, just in a different way. I haven't seen it be blocked, but I have seen "partial pen" from 18" HE with over 20" of penn vs. a 1" belt. The APBC shells give "blocked" in the same scenario. The SAP shells give a successful pen.

Edited January 22, 2023 by anonusername

[lordcmdr]

4 minutes ago, anonusername said:

I’ve also seen really bizarre pens that shouldn't happen; a 1915 BB with 12" guns was able to get a main belt pen on my 1940 AoN BB with 18" belt.

I think long barrel 12” guns are still OP meta.

[anonusername]

3 minutes ago, lordcmdr said:

I think long barrel 12” guns are still OP meta.

They would be, but resistance nerfs their damage to nothing. The BB could just ignore the hits.

[Admiral Donuts]

Went up against 4 American battleships sporting 6.1 inch mains.

[Lima]

I can't make peace. I have agreed to make peace with different countries more than ten times, but this has not happened.

[anonusername]

Just now, Lima said:

I can't make peace. I have agreed to make peace with different countries more than ten times, but this has not happened.

There is a significant chance of failure even if you agree. IIRC, it is at least 1/3

[Lima]

7 minutes ago, anonusername said:

There is a significant chance of failure even if you agree. IIRC, it is at least 1/3

I know. But the fact that I couldn't make peace so many times, I've never had this before.

[Fangoriously]

Stop lengthening your main gun barrels, all that does is skip your shells off the deck like its a flat stone thrown at a pond, or hits the apparently bugged belt armor, that even bug free is the most resilient part of the armor scheme to try and shoot through anyway. You don't need mains with more than 20km-25km range in the age of radar, even less than that at earlier eras. Reduce the length of the barrels till they have range no more than your own spotting range, and all your shells will drop strait down perpendicular on the deck and deal catastrophic penetration damage. longer barrels only have a purpose in maxing 2.9 in gun effectiveness, and giving other secondaries a longer range, adding length to a main gun is about the most counter productive thing you can do, its nothing but disadvantage.

[Kane]

32 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

Stop lengthening your main gun barrels, all that does is skip your shells off the deck like its a flat stone thrown at a pond, or hits the apparently bugged belt armor, that even bug free is the most resilient part of the armor scheme to try and shoot through anyway. You don't need mains with more than 20km-25km range in the age of radar, even less than that at earlier eras. Reduce the length of the barrels till they have range no more than your own spotting range, and all your shells will drop strait down perpendicular on the deck and deal catastrophic penetration damage. longer barrels only have a purpose in maxing 2.9 in gun effectiveness, and giving other secondaries a longer range, adding length to a main gun is about the most counter productive thing you can do, its nothing but disadvantage.

Yes....except no.
A 16" 50-caliber guns should not be scoring 90% deck hits at ranges of less than 2 miles.  At that range and shell velocity, it should be pretty damn difficult to hit the deck of the opposing ship at all. 

The problem is that the developers of this game seem to have a pre-schooler's understanding of ballistics, and think that angling armor just a little bit will turn it into a magical invulnerability shield.  Hence, 18" super heavies ricocheting off 1" armor plate at a range of 1 mile or less, when a shell of that velocity and sectional density should smash through that plate like its not even there, despite significant angling.

This combined with the fact that the ballistic arcs the weapons have are just ridiculous.  Again, at less than 2 miles one should not be scoring 90% deck hits.

The problem here is not what we are doing with our guns.  The problem is what the devs have done with armor angling, and ballistic arcs.

Hell, just spend some time zoomed in on an enemy ship while its feeling from you, and take note of how many times you'll hit the front belt while you're attacking from behind.  This problem existed before the option to lengthen barrels was in the game, and its still here.

Edit:  Meanwhile in my current game, I've tried shortening barrels as far as 40-calibers on a 13 inch.  While I get a even more deck hits (as if more were needed) it still gets only partial pens when by the numbers it should have plenty of penetration to go right through.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Kane

[Lima]

I had a long fight. During the whole fight, I saw only a couple of hits in the main belt. Everything hits into the deck from any distance.

I assume that the mortar trajectory is an attempt by the developers to correct hits to other ships. Well, I can say that there really are much fewer such hits. However, the price for this is absolutely broken shooting mechanics.