>>>v1.3 Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.3.9.9 Rx2)

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

My game is freezing on "Prepare for battle"

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

What's a good, balanced way of getting territories if your enemy collapses? It just happened to me and I am annoyed. 

[killjoy1941]

On 7/16/2023 at 2:09 AM, o Barão said:

This is the part where I need to disagree. Radar is not a special button that you press and will have all the data to plot your target solution with perfect accuracy. Special early radar tech. That is not how radar works. In the best case scenario from the WW II period, we will get this:

[...]

So as we can see, the splashes from the shells in the waters were used to made the calculations for the target solution, and these are not exact values.

[...]

The fact the ship is still moving, rolling, the wind, the air temperature, the earth rotation. Add all together, and you will not see two digits of accuracy values against a BB target size at 25000 yards away. Not even close to the insane values we get when we have the 2900% range boost in game, that is so high that will make all the others modifiers almost irrelevant.

I'm really just addressing the part I bolded. I left the rest to retain the context of your post.

All of that, literally all of it, was accounted for by USN fire control computers and stable elements. They also accounted for humidity, liner wear, and quite a few other factors as well. Late war USN fire control, especially on modern BBs, was as good as it ever got for big guns. The number of variables accounted for were absolutely nuts.

I'm not really trying to challenge your point so much as emphasize that gunnery accuracy was down to the machining of barrel liners, shells, powder manufacturing lots, and firing shock. Iowa class fire control was so good, they retained the upgraded radar systems all the way into Desert Storm because they were designed to be insulated against the firing shock that newer, more precise radar sets just couldn't withstand.

Shooting at anything 25km away or more is asking for bonkers luck mostly because it's several orders of magnitude further away than the target is long, to say nothing of beam. It's like trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard, but the bullseye is the size of a pinhead and you're throwing from across the bar. It's no wonder naval engineers tried to isolate every variable imaginable. 

[o Barão]

10 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

All of that, literally all of it, was accounted for by USN fire control computers and stable elements. They also accounted for humidity, liner wear, and quite a few other factors as well. Late war USN fire control, especially on modern BBs, was as good as it ever got for big guns. The number of variables accounted for were absolutely nuts.

I'm not really trying to challenge your point so much as emphasize that gunnery accuracy was down to the machining of barrel liners, shells, powder manufacturing lots, and firing shock. Iowa class fire control was so good, they retained the upgraded radar systems all the way into Desert Storm because they were designed to be insulated against the firing shock that newer, more precise radar sets just couldn't withstand.

Shooting at anything 25km away or more is asking for bonkers luck mostly because it's several orders of magnitude further away than the target is long, to say nothing of beam. It's like trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard, but the bullseye is the size of a pinhead and you're throwing from across the bar. It's no wonder naval engineers tried to isolate every variable imaginable. 

I agree 100%. As you mention, there are many variables to take into account. The video below explain that much more in detail for anyone interested.

As an interesting detail, you mentioned the Iowa fire control.

Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php#Accuracy_During_World_War_II

 

Now, the table mention these results were with "top spot".  And from the previous readings we also get to see this "Even in perfect weather, optical spotting deteriorated rapidly beyond 18,000 yards", so I could accept maybe something around 10%-15% against a BB target size around 25000 yards away, if using a spotter plane or radar, but no. The game will give us around 70% or more and expect us to believe that we are not playing in a fantasy universe, and that is exactly how it works in real life. Pure bollocks.

[killjoy1941]

58 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Now, the table mention these results were with "top spot".  And from the previous readings we also get to see this "Even in perfect weather, optical spotting deteriorated rapidly beyond 18,000 yards", so I could accept maybe something around 10%-15% against a BB target size around 25000 yards away, if using a spotter plane or radar, but no. The game will give us around 70% or more and expect us to believe that we are not playing in a fantasy universe, and that is exactly how it works in real life. Pure bollocks.

I'd actually be more than okay with it if the crazy accuracy was an intermittent thing. e.g.: 70-90% for a salvo or two, but dropping off to 5-10% at best most of the time. Most ships that got savaged in WW2 surface engagements either succumbed to a deluge of fire or were obliterated by multiple hits from individual salvos.

[Harwood_39]

I still think there is a massive issue with the AI designed ships.  My current campaign sees Japan continually put out Dreadnought Hulls (started in 1920 - up to 1933) with a pre-dreadnoughtesque mixed Heavy Battery armament.

When Shared Designs came out, I spent a solid 12 hours creating pretty basic ship designs for all the major nations for the periods from 1910-1940, but I'm still to actually face one in battle.

I thought a good fix for this would enable the creation of the ships in shared designs with a base-level of technology, calculated with the technology level at the start of the campaign (e.g. "standard: 1920 technology for German Ships), and then have them refit as technology grows without making any major changes, so we can see that there's a "BB X class" that's had its main guns upgraded from MkII to MkIII.

Also, I'm noticing that I'm constantly at a speed disadvantage when compared with any opponent who's vaguely technologically comparable with me.  I've been pretty constantly at war the 13 years of this campaign, so I'm very advanced technologically, with the major nations I've been at war with either behind (in the case of Japan), or average in the case of my other opponents, but I'm constantly at a 2-3kn disadvantage when it comes to fleet speed.

[SpardaSon21]

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

Now, the table mention these results were with "top spot".  And from the previous readings we also get to see this "Even in perfect weather, optical spotting deteriorated rapidly beyond 18,000 yards", so I could accept maybe something around 10%-15% against a BB target size around 25000 yards away, if using a spotter plane or radar, but no. The game will give us around 70% or more and expect us to believe that we are not playing in a fantasy universe, and that is exactly how it works in real life. Pure bollocks.

Unfortunately the game itself was designed around those arcade mechanics.  It might just be me but ships just look larger than they should, and the distances involved just seem shorter than they should be.  The proportions just don't look right when you try for realistic ranges.

[Urst]

5 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Unfortunately the game itself was designed around those arcade mechanics.  It might just be me but ships just look larger than they should, and the distances involved just seem shorter than they should be.  The proportions just don't look right when you try for realistic ranges.

You'd be correct. Almost all of þe turrets are larger and heavier þan þey should be and þe ships' displacement is far too high as well. Þe maximum displacement for any ship should be closer to 60,000 tons, not 158,043 tons (German Super Battleship hull at maximum beam and draught)
Many of þe gunwales are also too high for 2" guns

Also: U.S. 2" guns should have þe Bofors mounts instead of þe 3" gun models þey have now. (And go 1, 2, 4 barrels, skipping 3 because we didn't have any 3 barrel small-mounts)
Our Mark 2 2" guns should also be þe 1.1" quad barrel AA guns we used before WW2.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello fellow admirals,

We offer a new update in response to your recent feedback. Please read:

v1.3.9.6 Update
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/6533084468191788839 

Please restart Steam to get the update fast

[Schmitty21]

Looks like a solid update Nick. Is there anything you can share about the next major update? Features, timeline, etc?

[MDHansen]

VERY nice update! loving in particular the percentage chance showing. 

👍

Edited July 18, 2023 by MDHansen

[Aurora]

In the builder objects appear blue when being placed, but other than that i'm liking the update, especially the invasion chance and the reloads.

[Schmitty21]

Yeah they're blue and not showing red when not placeable. Also the French BB 1 has unremovable boats in the way.

[Lucinator]

They need to revert the shipbuilder changes immediately since there is no good way to tell if a part is placed wrong by color, refits are currently not plausible due to having to click on every part to find the one that no longer fits due to the automatic upgrades.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Repaired version:
- Fixed temporary issue in shipyard causing the selected parts to appear in blue wireframes.
Please restart Steam to update the game fast

[AdmiralObvious]

It looks like the gun length modifier has been inverted on It's effects of gun reload in the tooltip where it shows shortened guns getting a positive (bad) modifier but the actual values go down and the modifier goes negative (good) when the barrel length increases, but in fact reduces RoF.

 

Edit: These values seem to be corrected once you actually take the ship into battle.

Edited July 18, 2023 by AdmiralObvious

[Fangoriously]

This appears to be the naval invasion/conquest location of southern France, off the cost of northwest Italy. Also, during the entire invasion, i didn't see the battle in the list of invasion/conquest casualty reports at the start of new turns.

mouseing over guns in battle no longer highlights them on the ship.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Fangoriously

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Repaired version x2:
- Fixed temporary issue making part highlight not to work during combat.
- Fixed issue that could make a shared design to not save.
- Various optimizations/fixes on hulls and parts. Issues on them could cause auto-design errors or other problems.

Please restart Steam to get the update fast

[Panzergraf]

Cutting the size of army forces in occupied territories makes some sense, but has also resulted in massively increased naval budgets.
I went from a monthly balance of roughly 0 (+/- depending on number of ships at sea) to almost a billion +.
More money than I can spend as shipyard capacity was also reduced with occupied territories no longer counting towards the total.

I think shipyards in occupied territories should still count at least a little bit towards your total capacity.

[Fun Police]

The fight to the end button seems to be broken again. 

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Does occupying territory increase GDP? Especially now that shipyard cap doesn't increase as much when you conquer? 

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Dear All,

As a new player, I am progressing through a Japanese campaign and slowly getting the hang of it.

However, I have a few questions that hopefully the community can help me with.

1) Quite often I have a basic ship design that I'd like to replicate as a new design. So I open the older design in refit mode, make a few changes (like adding radar and upgrading armour etc) and want to save this as a new design.

2) I save this design.

3) I go into the "build ship" of the new enhanced design but, it doesn't let me build any ships fitting the upgraded specification (the colour of the build tab changes slightly). 

4) Therefore, the only way I seem to be able to build a new ship (based upon an enhance specification of the old) is by going back into DESIGN SHIP, and hoping I can remember ALL of the specifications of the original, and have to go through the rigor of: a) remember exactly what I did before, b) rebalancing the fore and aft balance right etc.

Can anyone please advise me as to what I am doing incorrectly or is this aspect of the game that prohibits this type of 'upgrade'.

Again, as I'm new, a step-by-step would be helpful.

Once other question. When I'm trying to organise multiple fleets, I try to take a screenshot of the map to remember where each harbour is using "snipping tool" or print screen.

However, neither of these tools work whilst the game is running. As I have seen other memebers of the community post screen shots, how is this achived? what tool do they use?

As alsways, I really appreciate feedback and guidance.

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello, your saved refit design should be created at the bottom of the list in the SHIP DESIGN window. Then you need to select it and press REFIT, to actually build this refit.

If ships of the same design that you want to refit are not available at the moment (in building, in sea etc.) the refit button will be highlighted accordingly and you will not be able to refit them at that time.

[Aurora]

1 hour ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

Dear All,

As a new player, I am progressing through a Japanese campaign and slowly getting the hang of it.

However, I have a few questions that hopefully the community can help me with.

1) Quite often I have a basic ship design that I'd like to replicate as a new design. So I open the older design in refit mode, make a few changes (like adding radar and upgrading armour etc) and want to save this as a new design.

2) I save this design.

3) I go into the "build ship" of the new enhanced design but, it doesn't let me build any ships fitting the upgraded specification (the colour of the build tab changes slightly). 

4) Therefore, the only way I seem to be able to build a new ship (based upon an enhance specification of the old) is by going back into DESIGN SHIP, and hoping I can remember ALL of the specifications of the original, and have to go through the rigor of: a) remember exactly what I did before, b) rebalancing the fore and aft balance right etc.

Can anyone please advise me as to what I am doing incorrectly or is this aspect of the game that prohibits this type of 'upgrade'.

Again, as I'm new, a step-by-step would be helpful.

Once other question. When I'm trying to organise multiple fleets, I try to take a screenshot of the map to remember where each harbour is using "snipping tool" or print screen.

However, neither of these tools work whilst the game is running. As I have seen other memebers of the community post screen shots, how is this achived? what tool do they use?

As alsways, I really appreciate feedback and guidance.

 

What you're doing at the moment is creating refit designs, which can only be applied to existing ships to rebuild them to a new specification. 

If you want to take the updated design and build new ships based on it you have to copy it: there is a button to the left of the save button in the ship builder that copies the current ship as a new design. Once that is done you can build it like normal, although they aren't part of the original class. 

[Fangoriously]

On my 1910 German campaign, into the 20s i noticed several tech tree anomalies.

unlocking radar before mk5 stereoscopic, also stereoscopic 3 and 4 unlocked befog their coincidence counterpart.

unlocked 22in torps before 21in

and here i unlocked super battleships before the smaller modern battleships, leaving me with these hulls to chose from

"hull form optimization" should have come after "modern battleship hull design"