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

[MDHansen]

I agree with @Nick Thomadis regards the hulls. Also they can always patch in a few extra special hulls here and there over the next 6 months if they so please.

 

But please do a quality check on towers that house funnels vs the actual funnels. Some actually can't be placed because they're too big; are those meant to not fit, or is it a (re)size error in modeling?

Quite a few Barbettes can't be placed on (bb, bc) on the sides because they are too far out on the hull

And my earlier points about info windows on the campaign map and in battle. They are way, way too big. Please, reduce font size by ~25% and window size by ~50%. On the campaign map, sea and land info windows will block access to ports and TF and TF info

Edited January 25, 2023 by MDHansen

[Nick Thomadis]

4 minutes ago, MDHansen said:

I agree with @Nick Thomadis regards the hulls. Also they can always patch in a few extra special hulls here and there over the next 6 months if they so please.

 

But please do a quality check on towers that house funnels vs the actual funnels. Some actually can't be placed because they're too big; are those meant to not fit, or is it a (re)size error in modeling?

Quite a few Barbettes can't be placed on (bb, bc) on the sides because they are too far out on the hull

And my earlier points about info windows on the campaign map and in battle. They are way, way too big. Please, reduce font size by ~25% and window size by ~50%. On the campaign map, sea and land info windows will block access to ports and TF and TF info

Due to the many different towers, many different hulls and their ability to have adjustable width and height, some parts may not be usable unless you use a different tower or customize the hull's width accordingly.

Side barbettes which come as slots of towers, may not fit, but this is a matter of space. The same tower and a different hull may allow them fitting. 

An image example of the problems you anticipate will help greatly to realize if there is something in need to fix.

[Lima]

I am quite satisfied with the hulls, but there is one almost empty spot. I don't often play for the US since this is easy mod. But it seems to me that many of your average buyers will play for the US (and this is the best country for beginners). The US has huge problems with dreadnought hulls. I think before the release you can add at least standard battleships. The rest I'm ready to buy in the dlc.

[Gsam]

24 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The Logistics tooltip on the Politics is something very minor and will be fixed in the next update (Help section is already including the necessary information). If you find something else similar found, please show us to fix or else please do not generalize.

As for all the rest... we already offer the ability to design so many different hulls that can replicate +/- most if not all your recommendation of hulls. Should we continue to add models more than any other naval game combined in the universe, to have a game fully released, already offering much more content than most naval games?

There are naval games which charge more than $40 for a reskinned 3D model ship with different stats, not a full game with so many unique aspects. I am sorry, I am personally sorry for all these I read.

You, the gamers will define what you will get from this game in the future. We already plan to make more, including graphics, UI, weathers, new ship models. Good and rational feedback helps everyone to improve the game you all currently own. Negativity and sometimes evil manners, do the exact opposite. 

Fair response. 

 

I think whats puzzling so many of us is "why the rush?" 

You have a bunch of testers here who have put hundreds of hours into this game and are still showing many problems. I would imagine this decision has left them scratching their collective heads and saying "how is this ready?"

 

Is this some sort of deadline you have to hit with steam? Is it something else?  IS it a financial thing?

If I were in your shoes I would have handled this a fair bit differently. I would have posted to the community saying something like the following:

Admirals,

Thanks for your hard work....

Could not have done it without you...

We are going to go out of beta / early access now...

I understand there are still issues such as (list the major ones...)

Rest assured, they will be fixed and we are not moving past this game until they are right.

As for what else you can expect from this title... you can expect the following......

Thank you again for your support.

 

Game Labs

Edited January 25, 2023 by Gsam

[Nick Thomadis]

1 minute ago, Lima said:

I am quite satisfied with the hulls, but there is one almost empty spot. I don't often play for the US since this is easy mod. But it seems to me that many of your average buyers will play for the US (and this is the best country for beginners). The US has huge problems with dreadnought hulls. I think before the release you can add at least standard battleships. The rest I'm ready to buy in the dlc.

Already we have a planned major update to include the USS Texas and many similar hulls... 

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, Gsam said:

Fair response. 

 

I think whats puzzling so many of us is "why the rush?" 

You have a bunch of testers here who have put hundreds of hours into this game and are still showing many problems. I would imagine this decision has left them scratching their collective heads and saying "how is this ready?"

 

Is this some sort of deadline you have to hit with steam? Is it something else?  IS it a financial thing?

If I were in your shoes I would have handled this a fair bit differently. I would have posted to the community saying something like the following:

Admirals,

Thanks for your hard work....

Could not have done it without you...

We are going to go out of beta / early access now...

I understand there are still issues such as (list the major ones...)

Rest assured, they will be fixed and we are not moving past this game until they are right.

As for what else you can expect from this title... you can expect the following......

Thank you again for your support.

 

Game Labs

We had already an Early Access plan published on Steam. Everyone that could spend some time to read it, would see that we actually did what we promised. Nothing more, nothing less. Additionally, anyone can still see in the announcement of Patch v1.1 and in the Full release notes, that we still develop the game and offer improvements. How can someone say we abandon a game that has already offered 3 updates in less than a week? 

Everyone also can assume that if we come into more details into what we plan to add/fix exactly, vocal players are still going to be arguing about it, and probably even more.

To sum it up, we are strongly developing the game, as it was in Early Access.

[MDHansen]

12 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Due to the many different towers, many different hulls and their ability to have adjustable width and height, some parts may not be usable unless you use a different tower or customize the hull's width accordingly.

Understandable

12 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Side barbettes which come as slots of towers, may not fit, but this is a matter of space. The same tower and a different hull may allow them fitting. 

This is aswell understandable. Increasing beam usually works aswell

13 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

An image example of the problems you anticipate will help greatly to realize if there is something in need to fix.

I tried though my Steam screenshots ends up being 4mb in size, so I need to fiddle a bit. Ill upload to an external service and link them here for your perusal

 

Keep up the good work

[RNV]

What about the campaign features? Will they see work after a full release?

I am referring, mainly, to the most glaring one: empires dissolving leaving the world empty or filled with minor countries with which we cannot reliably interact.

What about the campaign map? It is clearly unfinished with the modern province borders.

The UI as well needs some modernising with ways to filter tables or better ways to control ships and task forces.

[Skeksis]

Overall, you can play the Campaign, Academy Missions and Custom Battles very well. Important not to lose sight of this fact. All new players very happy.

I think it’s time to say... Thank you very much for letting me be part of this development, it has been a real pleasure.  

[Nick Thomadis]

5 minutes ago, RNV said:

What about the campaign features? Will they see work after a full release?

I am referring, mainly, to the most glaring one: empires dissolving leaving the world empty or filled with minor countries with which we cannot reliably interact.

What about the campaign map? It is clearly unfinished with the modern province borders.

The UI as well needs some modernising with ways to filter tables or better ways to control ships and task forces.

Already the newest updates should make AI nations to last much more, via bug fixes and economy changes. You have to play a new campaign to see an effect, and we are open to improve this further.

The campaign map, of course will get more improvements on the visualization and we will fix any remaining issue.

UI is going to be polished further.

[RNV]

Just now, Nick Thomadis said:

Already the newest updates should make AI nations to last much more, via bug fixes and economy changes. You have to play a new campaign to see an effect, and we are open to improve this further.

The campaign map, of course will get more improvements on the visualization and we will fix any remaining issue.

UI is going to be polished further.

Thanks Nick, I will try a new campaign and I'll see how it plays.

Anyway, I wish you good luck with the release, I think you made a great game with a great concept. And this is probably the reason I was hoping some things would be developed a bit more, but if this is the final stage, I will still enjoy a campaign every now and then. 

I'll just use this opportunity to remind you to change the flag of the Royal Italian Navy back to the accurate one instead of the Republican one that is used now 😀

[MDHansen]

major nations are much more durable, I can say that. doing another speedrun 1890 start, and 1910 everyone is alive and kicking. Also, the tension is much smoother, wich in turn tones down the all-out kamikaze war snowball we saw earlier in the beta.

 

[o Barão]

53 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Should we continue to add models more than any other naval game combined in the universe, to have a game fully released, already offering much more content than most naval games?

There are naval games which charge more than $40 for a reskinned 3D model ship with different stats, not a full game with so many unique aspects. I am sorry, I am personally sorry for all these I read.

I am full aware of all the hard work your team had this last 4 years and how difficult it is to bring new ships models. However, for me at least, it is very important to know this. Can you consider release future DLCs with ships packs? I have no issues to pay more to support a game I enjoy playing. Because let's be honest. If you ask me if I can make, as an example, a Baltimore in game, this would be my answer.

Yes, with a lot of imagination, I can say this a Baltimore or something similar, but is far from reality. And this is probably the biggest issue with hulls in the game. The lack of unique models and superstructure components to build cruisers in late years (1920-1940). This breaks the immersion to me.

[Nick Thomadis]

6 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I am full aware of all the hard work your team had this last 4 years and how difficult it is to bring new ships models. However, for me at least, it is very important to know this. Can you consider release future DLCs with ships packs? I have no issues to pay more to support a game I enjoy playing. Because let's be honest. If you ask me if I can make, as an example, a Baltimore in game, this would be my answer.

Yes, with a lot of imagination, I can say this a Baltimore or something similar, but is far from reality. And this is probably the biggest issue with hulls in the game. The lack of unique models and superstructure components to build cruisers in late years (1920-1940). This breaks the immersion to me.

There is also plan and ongoing work to add USA, British and Generic cruisers for exactly this period, so we agree on this, that we will improve. 

[StrikerDanger]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You, the gamers will define what you will get from this game in the future. We already plan to make more, including graphics, UI, weathers, new ship models. Good and rational feedback helps everyone to improve the game you all currently own. Negativity and sometimes evil manners, do the exact opposite. 

Does "new ship models" also include visual updates for currently available hulls, or are these completely separate from one another?

[madham82]

One area that needs work at "some" point is Spotting (I think there are bigger issues to fix right now based on the thread). Spotting is a broken mechanic that is likely down to one out of balance factor, target signature. Here's why:

• Tower Spotting seems to work fine. The values seem to make sense (BBs having the best towers because they are highest).
• Surface Detectability seems to work fine. DDs and TBs having the smallest value because they are the shortest in terms of height.
• Target signature is the one I am scratching my head on. It basically inflates the Surface Detectability from what I gathered.

The problem is shouldn't be a separate value, but part of Surface Detectability. Why? Because placing objects on a hull doesn't impact the ability to detect a ship at sea, at least in terms of the stuff we can place on ships. The exception to this is obviously the towers and perhaps the funnels. They are the tallest parts of the ship, so if they are physically higher than another component, they should increase the Surface Detectability.

Historically, ships as small as DDs were confused for other much larger ships (Taffy 3 or Battle of the Denmark Straights for example). Turrets, casemates, and torpedo tubes did not impact this, because they can't even be discerned at the distances someone would spot a ship on the horizon.

This shows how crazy the mechanic is right now. You will spot a BB 10+KM away in almost any weather condition. But frequently a DD can be down to 4 or 5KMs in the same conditions. All because a heavily armed BB with the latest towers and funnels balloons it's Surface Detectability so much in comparison to the DD. It's not a question that BB shouldn't have this large detectability, it's that DD's detectability is way too small.

In my latest campaign year, 1925 and engagements are still occurring at the ranges from the 1890s despite the huge tech advances in the game by that era. It basically makes the idea of big guns laughable, because engagements are rarely beyond 10-12KM. Why mount 5" secondaries on a BB, when 2 or 3" have all the range needed? Why use anything with a bonus to Long Range Accuracy, when no engagement happens at those ranges.

Another example of how Target Signature is throwing things out of balance is the detectability of transports. Routinely my DDs with the latest towers can only spot them at 3-4KM in less than perfect weather. So that means they have a Surface Detectability around that of a DD which makes zero sense. A DD of less than 2K tons is easier to spot than a transport of 10K, doesn't seem right at all. Transports should be detected at the ranges a cruiser would be considering they are similar in size.

 

So how to fix:

• Remove Target Signature from weapons (I believe this might explain instances where more modern or heavily armed ships can't detect obsolete/weak ones, but the obsolete/weak can.)
• Increase Surface Detectability values for all hulls (transports should have values similar to cruisers). I am thinking a 50% boost will sort most the range problems and make maneuvering and fleet setup far more useful
• Fleet spawn distances may need adjustment so as to not start an immediate free for all. Basically only BBs should be in firing range with their main armament. Ideally you should be able to see the enemy but have to maneuver to engage.

Edited January 25, 2023 by madham82

[Kevin Alexander]

@Nick Thomadis are you going to adress the bug that causes penetration to go all over the place?

I'm currently in a battle in which my 12" belt and 11" main gun dreadnought is getting decimated by an armoured cruiser with 8" guns.

This is, as far as I can tell, at least for now, the most frustrating bug. At least for me. 

How come my 11" main guns repeatedly bounce on 7" of CA armour while his 8" guns chew through mine?

 

Please adress this ASAP because it makes dreadnoughts useless, might as well spam 8" armoured cruisers..

[Kevin Alexander]

Also, shots even at 1,5 kms are going in the deck armour. Which is, from a ballistics perspective, bonkers.

[ChaoticProtocol]

@Nick ThomadisI think I speak for the majority of casual players on this issue. Please prioritize bugfixes for the next few updates. There are still quite a few campaign and combat breaking issues such as ships randomly going static and not accepting commands, massive lag on turns after 30-40 turns, certain AI ships breaking the game, random AI laser pointer accuracy in 1893, Etc. I love this game truthfully, but please prioritize stability over content in the near future.

[Kevin Alexander]

Aaaand there we go.

5th campaign I quit in about 2 days, and I don't think I'm going to touch this game in the foreseeable future.

Bug after bug after bug. Is this full release worthy in your mind?

 

Latest ragequit: my 20k ton dreadnought with 11 inch guns and 12 inch belt gets massacred without a chance by an enemy heavy cruiser half its size, armed with 8 inch guns.

My 11 inch guns maaaaybe are lucky enough to hit a partial pen, but mostly bounces.

His 8 inch guns overpen my belt. My main belt of 12 inches.

Most of my hits, even at 1,5 kms, are on the enemy deck. How? I don't know. Had one lucky penetration, everything else was bounces. 

 

For the love of god fix whatever penetration calculation you managed to break in the last updates. That might make the game playable. As it stands, it's a mess and battles aren't worth fighting.

[GronusCZ]

It's great that the game changes to a turn-based strategy even in battles😘

I always pause the game and give out commands.
And then I wait to see how it turns out.
Due to the speed of the game, there is no other way...

Will the game be distributed for digital frames as well?
I would put it above the fireplace as a decoration🤗

Thanks for the many advices but nothing helped still low fps (6-7fps).

I estimate so in half the battles (all in the campaign).

 

[MDHansen]

8 minutes ago, GronusCZ said:

Thanks for the many advices but nothing helped still low fps (6-7fps).

Can I ask what setup you are running? in particular CPU (and RAM)

 

MDH

[jkl]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Seems you have different sources that we do? Non sensical and off topic posts are disallowed in the feedback thread. Please be warned.

So, you have this sensible post.

4.9" casemate still have weight almost 3 times of 5".

Still can't have 9" main front gun on AH CA 1&2.

Lot of month passed as you get report about it. How many time you need to fix it? Idk, some minutes for edit values i think, a little more for fix model.

There's a lot of other balance issues, but meh.

There's also retarded vision and "smoke at north" systems, but also meh.

You change nothing so it's intended, and you think this game ready for release now. 

I hope at least someone of your team enjoys all this negative reviews. 

[Zuikaku]

15 minutes ago, GronusCZ said:

It's great that the game changes to a turn-based strategy even in battles😘

I always pause the game and give out commands.
And then I wait to see how it turns out.
Due to the speed of the game, there is no other way...

Will the game be distributed for digital frames as well?
I would put it above the fireplace as a decoration🤗

Thanks for the many advices but nothing helped still low fps (6-7fps).

I estimate so in half the battles (all in the campaign).

 

I don't have cutting edge PC, it's rather old but I get decent FPS in battles. ~20-30fps in big battles 

[German CL mk II guns]

I really dont understand why people underlining missing hulls while there are very big issues when it comes to AI and ballistics. 

If I remember correctly when there was just Britain and Germany, AI was managing its ships way better than now. 

the issue against %100 accuracy against the ships nearby and in the line of fire will be addressed when?  

Avoid and Screening issues are like 1 step ahead 1 step back. 

I dont know what to expect but improvment on AI and navigation would be sooooooo good