>>>Beta v1.3 Feedback<<<(Released)

[Pappystein]

47 minutes ago, Narbar said:

The USA economy is insane, I have everything maxed out and still easily making a profit in peace time

Partially that is RNG, Partially that is how you choose your event answers (I always go for lowest Unrest)

Yes I was profitable but I stayed out of war in general while slowly building alliances from 1900 to 1922.   Intentionally

As soon as I ramped up ship production for my War footing and got near 200 ships I was in the red every month and had to scale back research   FWIW you should for most nations prior to the 1940s be able to build 400+ ship fleets without major issues.   It is all about staying out of war long enough to build that superiority... something the US has a decided advantage in doing just because they are Literally the only real "power" in the western hemisphere

 

Yes, that means I did not participate in "WWI (1909), WWII (1913) or WWIII (1919)

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Pappystein

[Nick Thomadis]

Beta Update v1.3 "Build 12"
- New USA "Fast Scout Cruiser" which can recreate the Atlanta-class cruiser with a displacement between 5,750 and 7,500 tons and is available from 1930.
- New USA "Advanced Destroyer (Compact)" with a displacement between 2,200 and 3,000 tons, available from 1935.
- New USA "Advanced Destroyer (Large)" with a displacement between 3,200 and 4,500 tons, available from 1935.
- New advanced main towers for late tech destroyers.
- Ship inertia improvements
- Further campaign economy adjustments.
- Other minor.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO GET THE UPDATE FAST

[SpardaSon21]

On 4/30/2023 at 8:00 PM, Candle_86 said:

historically the Revenge class weighed 29,590 tons to the Colorado's 32,600, and in a fight Colorado hits harder given its advantage in guns of 16/45 vs 15/42 and the Historical fact that American's also used heavier shells than the Brits. American ships once the Standard's got going didn't really save a much weight vs the brittish, more so they dind't build them for speed. American planners decided that when the British went to 23/24knots that a 21knot battle line could still turn inside the Brittish line and it wasn't needed so they kept them short and fat, which i think is well represented here. 

The Revenges were designed for 23 knots but could only make 22 at best, and they needed eighteen boilers to generate the necessary steam for 40,000 shaft horsepower versus the eight boilers necessary for for the Colorados to generate 28,900.  Less than half the boilers but roughly 2/3 the total output.

If we compare the Revenges to their actual contemporary of the Pennsylvanias you have more equivalent designs, but you have eight 15" guns versus 12 14" guns, there wasn't an actual speed benefit since Revenge herself only made 21.9 knots on trials, and Pennsylvania made 21.35 on her initial trials when they couldn't get the engines up to full power, and 21.7 once they finally did get the engines up to full power, and armor was slightly better on the Pennsylvanias.

As to the hulls, yes they were squat, but they had excellent lines and the extra beam of them meant that at deep load the Pennsylvanias had four feet less of total draft than the Revenges, ensuring they had excellent overall handling.  The Pennsylvanias only needed 31,500 horsepower to go just as fast as the Revenges despite being wider ships, and the Revenges needed half again the boilers to generate 1/3 more horsepower.

Edited May 2, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[Lima]

Endless campaign

One thing I would like to see in the live version. During my campaigns, I hit the 1950 cap several times and each time I still had room for gameplay ahead. This is especially noticeable with starts from 1930-1940, you just don't have time to really enjoy all these modern hulls.

I suggest, upon reaching 1950, to make an alert that there is no planned content in the game further, but you can continue if you wish.

[Lastreaumont]

ASW and ships management. 

Ennemy submarines annoyed me trying to make holes into my nice BC and BB. (On another hand, this is their job and they did well if that annoys me :-) ). 
So I decided to invest into an efficient anti-submarine escort for my precious ships, a cheap ship with a maxed ASW score. 
I found a design, and tested it during 3 campaigns with different countries, starting in 1930. 
It seems to work. I have only 1 loss because of a submarine attack to report, and it was against a not escorted CA. 
But this design made me sad, because it is fully unrealistic. 
This is the receipe to build it:
- take a CL hull.
- push all the slides to their lowest values, except speed, that should be around 40 to 42 kn (they have to follow BC, and sometimes they have to escape). 
- add the best front tower
- add the cheapest rear tower
- add the cheapest funnel (engine efficiency is not a problem)
- add the smallest one gun turret, with shortest gun.
- set ammunition weight to light, and stocks to small (you won't be supposed to need them)
- add best sonar, best radar but not radar 3, best RDF, but no range finder (you won't be supposed to need them)
- add best ASW weapon. 
- set all armors to 0 (you won't be supposed to need them)
With this receipe, you can have a cheap escort ship with an ASW value around 10000 in 1930, that can go higher than 15000 later with some refits. And, bonus, the recon value is high too. 
I use 2 of them for each BB/BC, but maybe 1 is enough (need testing). At start of each battle, I order them to run away. Battles are not their job. 

All of this to come to the 1st point I'd like to see in future updates:
I would be nice if optimizing the ASW score or the recon score of an escort ship would not come to unrealistic designs like this above. 

The use of these specialized ships showed me some possible upgrades in ship management interface. 
- the status of ships in repair should be able to be changed, to avoid a ship to go in mission at sea directly at the end of its repair time. It is boring to have to do a multiple ships selection including an in harbor ready ship to change the status of my ships in repair to "limited" to prevent they leave harbor without the rest of their task force. 
- a ship that go back into harbor, for example because others ships of their task force need repair, should go back to her status she had before going at sea. I mean, I'm ok that a ship with a "limited" status that go at sea changes her status to "sea control", but I'd be pleased that this "limited" status comes back when the ship comes back to harbor. Yes, I'm a dictarorial admiral that want to his ships don't go at sea without his permission :-) . More seriously, when you have specialized ships, they must not go at sea alone. This is not only for the ASW specialized escort above, but also for mine hunters DD for example, or to avoid situations like: where is the escort of this BB that have to go back to the blocus of the ennemy? Oh, they are in repair in another harbor because they went at sea for a mission alone... 
 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Lastreaumont
correct a little mistake

[Candle_86]

5 hours ago, Lima said:

Endless campaign

One thing I would like to see in the live version. During my campaigns, I hit the 1950 cap several times and each time I still had room for gameplay ahead. This is especially noticeable with starts from 1930-1940, you just don't have time to really enjoy all these modern hulls.

I suggest, upon reaching 1950, to make an alert that there is no planned content in the game further, but you can continue if you wish.

I agree it's kind of what Sid Meier's Civilization does, you go far enough it gives you a score and you can just keep playing anyway for the lols 

[RNV]

58 minutes ago, Lastreaumont said:

[...]

The use of these specialized ships showed me some possible upgrades in ship management interface. 
- the status of ships in repair should be able to be changed, to avoid a ship to go in mission at sea directly at the end of its repair time. It is boring to have to do a multiple ships selection including an in harbor ready ship to change the status of my ships in repair to "limited" to prevent they leave harbor without the rest of their task force. 
- a ship that go back into harbor, for example because others ships of their task force need repair, should go back to het status she had before going at sea. I mean, I'm ok that a ship with a "limited" status that go at sea changes her status to "sea control", but I'd be pleased that this "limited" status comes back when the ship comes back to harbor. Yes, I'm a dictarorial admiral that want to his ships don't go at sea without his permission 🙂 . More seriously, when you have specialized ships, they must not go at sea alone. This is not only for the ASW specialized escort above, but also for mine hunters DD for example, or to avoid situations like: where is the escort of this BB that have to go back to the blocus of the ennemy? Oh, they are in repair in another harbor because they went at sea for a mission alone... 
 

I completely agree with this idea. I also think that the best way to implement it would be to have a mission system similar to the one of Hearts Of Iron  II or Hearts Of Iron IV with semipermanent task forces that you can either move out as you do now or assign to a sea province (say, Bay of Biscay), with a mission (in being, sea control, convoy raid, convoy escort).

It would however require a complete remake of the Fleet page UI and the introduction of "divisions/squadrons/flotillas" on the campaign map as a concept.

[Warspite96]

Very happy with the new US destroyer hulls, the increased tower spotting range makes it actually useful at detecting targets at long range when you use radar. Previously a lot of destroyer hulls couldn't even spot targets at the horizon even with radar (which to be fair is still the case with most DDs but this is a vast improvement).

Also, it's a flush deck, praise the flush deck destroyer hull! We need more of them across other nations.

[Idean]

Sorry to post this again but the weather is becoming very tedious.  Out 8 battles so far only one has been in the clear.  Either is night or a storm or night and a storm or heavy mist.  This is becoming very very boring.

[Urst]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Beta Update v1.3 "Build 12"
- New USA "Fast Scout Cruiser" which can recreate the Atlanta-class cruiser with a displacement between 5,750 and 7,500 tons and is available from 1930.
- New USA "Advanced Destroyer (Compact)" with a displacement between 2,200 and 3,000 tons, available from 1935.
- New USA "Advanced Destroyer (Large)" with a displacement between 3,200 and 4,500 tons, available from 1935.
- New advanced main towers for late tech destroyers.
- Ship inertia improvements
- Further campaign economy adjustments.
- Other minor.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO GET THE UPDATE FAST

The lowest barbed on the new U.S. towers for the Scout Cruiser only allow a 5" duel-mount gun a fireing arc of 160-170° in the rear-most position and 200° in the fore-most position. The top barbet has a much more reasonable arc, but the gun can be positioned to fire at at least another 5° on either side, so it would be appreciated if you could fix the arc calculator and turret-models' collision size.

Many turrets across all factions act far larger than they should. Most of the 2"/50.8mm and 3"/76.2mm guns are fine, but 4"/101.6mm and larger are where the problems are.

Already reported in-game.

[ijp8834]

The US Late Game BB hulls and the New York style hulls all have the same major issue. The main guns are not able to rotate around and fire over secondary guns in purpose placed mounts.

Here is the USS North Carolina. Those 20mm guns in front do not affect the firing arcs of her main guns.

Here is another image of North Carolina. See that 20mm in the foreground? She could fire over that too.

Here is another angle, you can see the 40mm tubs at the back of the ship. She could fire over those as well.

Here is USS Texas. Notice the central gun mount and the rear gun mounts. How the guns are literally angled right above some of the 20 and 40 mm gun in those areas.

Please, remove collision from guns placed in gun tubs with main guns placed on the main deck, and maybe 2 inch guns should not interfere with large caliber main guns at all. Historically, they had no affect on firing arc, and it should also be the case here.

The most annoying thing is we know this is possible, as the front gun tub on US late game hulls does not interfere with the main guns.

EDIT: Noticed another problem on the later game Texas Hulls

There are boats on the side of the ship forward of the position for Q Turret (Amidship turret). These boats are not present in photos of Texas when she is in combat form, and also should not interfere with Q Turret's firing arc. I'd suggest making these boats disappear when Q turret is placed.

It seems these 2 changes to the Texas style hulls will make them easier to balance as well. It is difficult to make a replica New York Class or Wyoming Class without a 10%ish offset currently, and the turret angles are awful with a historical setup.

Edited May 2, 2023 by ijp8834

[StrikerDanger]

2 hours ago, ijp8834 said:

The most annoying thing is we know this is possible, as the front gun tub on US late game hulls does not interfere with the main guns

I've put a 2" on that forward most gun tub and I've seen it interfere with forward fire arcs of the deck-mounted forward main gun, so it does in my experience. It would be nice to not have to worry about my main guns fire arcs when placing smaller secondary weapons

 

On a separate note, I'm still looking forward to reworked US Modern capital ship hulls, as, I believe, they're the only nation that doesn't actually possess their historical modern hulls. The Modern battleship hulls look decently like the real things (in terms of gun tub placements) but the lines and the sectioning on the main belts is more Yamato-esque compared to the relatively flat sides of USN Fast Battleships (Lets not forget the "cut out" the SoDak hulls have as well)

[ijp8834]

2 minutes ago, StrikerDanger said:

I've put a 2" on that forward most gun tub and I've seen it interfere with forward fire arcs of the deck-mounted forward main gun, so it does in my experience. It would be nice to not have to worry about my main guns fire arcs when placing smaller secondary weapons

 

On a separate note, I'm still looking forward to reworked US Modern capital ship hulls, as, I believe, they're the only nation that doesn't actually possess their historical modern hulls. The Modern battleship hulls look decently like the real things (in terms of gun tub placements) but the lines and the sectioning on the main belts is more Yamato-esque compared to the relatively flat sides of USN Fast Battleships (Lets not forget the "cut out" the SoDak hulls have as well)

I just want small enough towers that I can build a proper SoDak.

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis is it possible to consider slowing down the time changes animation in battle? The animation is amazing, very well done, but is too fast.

1:20 was enough to go from "evening" (sunset I guess), night and reach the morning in the next day.

[StrikerDanger]

21 minutes ago, ijp8834 said:

I just want small enough towers that I can build a proper SoDak.

It's not even the towers. You can squeeze a SoDak onto either of the Modern battleship hulls, but neither have their characteristic cutout. The new hulls are a good step, but the USN ones suffer from looking like Yamato with gun tubs everywhere.

[Masonator]

 Can the US Fast Scout Cruiser and Modern Destroyer (Leader) hulls also be given to the British from 1937-1940, as stand-ins for the Dido-class cruisers and Tribal-class/W.E.P. destroyers, respectively?  The British hulls haven't been updated in ages, and these parts would go a long way in historical builds.  Cheers.

 Also, the shelter deck gun mounts on the Battlecruiser V/HMS Hood parts still haven't been fixed after something like four years.  Seriously...?

[kineuhansen]

i would say no copy paste hulls for major nations i wont mind the dido but it need its own hull and towers i would prefer if we got the leander and town for light cruiser also would love to see some new bc hulls 1 2 3 bc hull have been the same since launch and i would still love to see some diffrent looking towers for the british arround 1930 to 40 would love more bb hulls and ca hulls give us the option of making the real g3 and n3 and for modern cruiser 3 hull would love to see some new towers really annoying i have to use KGV BATTLESHIP towers Royal Navy Churchill Type Heavy Cruiser Design A could be nice

[Warspite96]

I always play 1930 campaigns, and I notice the AI love to build cruisers and battlecruisers that are almost always absurdly fast (38-40 knots) and because of the "target fast speed" penalty to aiming, it makes them almost impossible to hit sometimes, even with the best fire control systems. I think the "target fast speed" modifier needs a rework (since its a very big penalty to aiming) but that's opening a huge can of worms regarding fire control in this game I guess.

Edited May 3, 2023 by Warspite96

[Urst]

10 minutes ago, Warspite96 said:

I always play 1930 campaigns, and I notice the AI love to build cruisers and battlecruisers that are almost always absurdly fast (38-40 knots) and because of the "target fast speed" penalty to aiming, it makes them almost impossible to hit sometimes, even with the best fire control systems. I think the "target fast speed" modifier needs a rework (since its a very big penalty to aiming) but that's opening a huge can of worms regarding fire control in this game I guess.

I þink we need to nerf engines instead of þe aiming penalty. Þe fastest ship of each class historically (for WW2):
Destroyer – Le Fatasque Class at 45 knots
Cruiser – Capitani Romani Class at 43 knots
Carrier – Shokaku Class at 34.5 knots
Battleship – Iowa Class at 32 knots (35.2 for a lightened New Jersey for 6 hours)

[StrikerDanger]

57 minutes ago, Urst said:

Iowa Class at 32 knots

The Iowas have a designed speed of 33 knots, not 32.

Edited May 3, 2023 by StrikerDanger

[SMS]

@Nick Thomadis You guys have seriously considered updating the British and German ships. They have the oldest destroyers, single battleships, and nondescript cruisers.

There are some problems with the modeling of the game. The length of the hull shown is realistic, but as shown in the picture, the boat I built with the smallest tower is too short to be realistic. Almost all destroyers also suffer from these problems. I suspect that some models are built too big, like torpedoes. I suggest adjust the hull length parameter.

Edited May 3, 2023 by SMS

[SpootKnight]

I think in addition to the size of the launchers, the designs themselves should also be handled differently. Neither the Mk.4 or Mk.5 launchers at 21" can be properly fit into the Fast Scout Cruiser design - at least not as a quad launcher. Triples are possible, but with a degree of hanging off to the side. It's strange out of principle that the torpedo mounts tie their design only to their mark level and not also nations, since at the earliest for custom battles you'll have Atlanta-style ships with Japanese Type 93 launchers.

I think if it could use the Mk.2 launcher - being the closest in design to the Mark 15 launcher - it could properly fit as a quad launcher. This is comparing a quad 21" of Mk.3 (As Mk.2 doesn't have a quad option) and Mk.5 and the length difference is staggering.

Edited May 3, 2023 by SpootKnight
Clarifying use of specific torpedo marks

[ZorinW]

47 minutes ago, SpootKnight said:

I think in addition to the size of the launchers, the designs themselves should also be handled differently. Neither the Mk.4 or Mk.5 launchers at 21" can be properly fit into the Fast Scout Cruiser design - at least not as a quad launcher. Triples are possible, but with a degree of hanging off to the side. It's strange out of principle that the torpedo mounts tie their design only to their mark level and not also nations, since at the earliest for custom battles you'll have Atlanta-style ships with Japanese Type 93 launchers.

I think if it could use the Mk.2 launcher - being the closest in design to the Mark 15 launcher - it could properly fit as a quad launcher. This is comparing a quad 21" of Mk.3 (As Mk.2 doesn't have a quad option) and Mk.5 and the length difference is staggering.

Don't waste your time with the 3D models in this game. There is only one guy working on them and that means that most models are not particularly accurate in their appearance or dimensions. This will only ever change with proper mod support.

[MDHansen]

Both the ai and your own captains will fire torpdeos willy nilly with no regards for friendly ships around them. Is it possible to be immune to allied torpedoes, as you did ramming?

edit: this is hilarious. One of my DD was passing by another DD, about 200m from it, and sent of 2x quadruple launchers straight in to the other DD. why? because the hostile BB was in a direct line with the torpedoed friendly inbetween.

edit2: it happend 3 times in that fight. and since I am technologically advanced vs my opposition, I actually lost that battle 6510vs12800. even if I killed 11 ships, ca,cl and dd

Edited May 3, 2023 by MDHansen

[idontfckingknow]

do Ungoverned Territories(Collapsed Countries) have a chance to be reformed again? would e better if their territories can be captured by smaller ones or other nations