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

[applegrcoug]

8 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Sending ships to random ports after the battle makes playing campaign extremely painfull.

All mine always seem to end up in Malmo Sweden.

[itolan1752]

8 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Sending ships to random ports after the battle makes playing campaign extremely painfull.

same problem, especially when player has several expert in the same class (battle DD, anti-sub/mine DD, mine-layer DD, etc.)

the super big UI aggravate this problem,even I want to separate them.I could only identify each one by their arms.

but I need to say,the task force in manual battle is OK. just set "repair priority" to "low", the ship will stand in TF even when they dying. so it doesn't need to change anything on it.

the broke parts are TF's auto battle and entire mission for mooring ships.

[Admiral Donuts]

"Sir we have reports of a task force moving from Sasebo to Yokohama."

"Send the fleet at Scapa Flow to intercept."

[jw62]

Just some random thoughts while taking a break from taking a break...

A button to Keelhaul rogue Captains who divert ships from operations to get some nookie in strange ports

We need a revamp of the Fleet/Task Force system. It doesn't need to be elaborate, although that might be nice. I was kind of OK with damaged ships returning to the last docked port but happier when I could send them individually. Which almost works with the repair priority. I would like my local patrol fleets to jump home for repair, I also like my expeditionary task forces to not jump home, which seems to be working.

I was more than fine with ships being pulled from port for missions when they are returned to the same port, I set up my  fleets for it, local protection and roving giant tonnage invasion fleets, and convoy raiding BC's.

I like the ability to dock at allied ports to repair or refit, but I want to order it not have to hunt for my ships, even in the ship list. I like the expeditionary feature of this, that I can send a fleet to the med to suppress piracy, oh yeah, I have some ideas about that...

Of course the biggest problem with pulling all my DDs away from a Task Force is all the Mines and Subs

I've had some thoughts for scenarios to enliven early and peacetime gameplay:

A mission, which comes up say the 2nd turn after a ship is commissioned, once and a while, where your newest ship/class leader on her seatrial gets an emergency call from a merchant being chased by a pirate which should be a ship a class or two bigger but a decade +- behind in tech.

A wartime variant might have the merchant be a Q-ship, "It's a Trap"! Now that might get you repairing in a local port and then a triggered rematch, that I could live with, as it would be part of a story.

I think instead of paying for a Task Force to piss off a minor (does that even work?) send a real force, set it up like an invasion or conquest using that mechanic to trigger a sea battle.

I think that might work for anti-piracy as well, "Do you want to send a task force to suppress piracy in the Suribago straight". yes or no, send at least 12000 tons, etc. Does it gain you local allies? there's a thought.

Anyway, really great work where it's not all psychotic and dysfunctional, almost human, a work of Art in Progress. Keep up the good work and keep your heads down

 

[JaM]

2 Ships (DD,CA) vs AI CA, 30+ DDs and 30+ TBs.. guess what? they are running away...

 

 

now the fun part - i chased them down, sank 42 ships, CA included, but lost both my ships so i lost the battle.. i cant fathom why AI is always running... its like their top priority.. If anything, this should be reversed, and AI should only run away if he is hopelessly outmatched, while TBs should never run.. those should just go straight up BANZAI! against enemy ships...

 

SUGGESTION - create a special AI rule for TBs and DDs, where they will be always aggressive, as long as they have torpedos ready to fire. When they are out of torpedos, or are reloading, they can run away, but immediately once torpedos are online, they should go berserk again..

[Nick Thomadis]

6 hours ago, JaM said:

2 Ships (DD,CA) vs AI CA, 30+ DDs and 30+ TBs.. guess what? they are running away...

 

 

now the fun part - i chased them down, sank 42 ships, CA included, but lost both my ships so i lost the battle.. i cant fathom why AI is always running... its like their top priority.. If anything, this should be reversed, and AI should only run away if he is hopelessly outmatched, while TBs should never run.. those should just go straight up BANZAI! against enemy ships...

 

SUGGESTION - create a special AI rule for TBs and DDs, where they will be always aggressive, as long as they have torpedos ready to fire. When they are out of torpedos, or are reloading, they can run away, but immediately once torpedos are online, they should go berserk again..

If you have a save where this battle happens and AI retreats, please send bug report to check it out.

Last time I checked such a report, the player cheated by modifying his armor and ship stats to insane levels (true, I am not joking) so the AI normally did not want to confront him, and of course I stopped checking such reports after this.

Normally the AI tries to keep a safe distance and fight, not retreat. Maye this was the case?

[JaM]

sorry, no save (got overwritten by other battles, would be easier if game kept multiple saves somewhere). Anyway when i witness it again, i'll post it.

[Panzergraf]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Last time I checked such a report, the player cheated by modifying his armor and ship stats to insane levels (true, I am not joking) so the AI did normally did not want to confront him, and of course I stopped checking such reports after this.

Could this happen naturally if the player was playing a long campaign (for example starting year 1890) and after many decades the AI was just really really behind in technology?

[Nick Thomadis]

10 minutes ago, Panzergraf said:

Could this happen naturally if the player was playing a long campaign (for example starting year 1890) and after many decades the AI was just really really behind in technology?

True, it can happen, if the AI feels too overwhelmed, but again, I saw players cheating this factor too, even in YouTube, many use a trainer or edit the saves to have enormous GDP and income, compared to AI, or the opposite, so they play as gods vs the AI which often just chooses  to leave.

Anyways, it will be made a fine tuning to address "normal" cases.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:54 PM, o Barão said:

With all due respect, but the boost to the range finder needs to go, or at least give the option by editing the game files. If it is already possible, please tell me how.

This is from the newest update, in a custom battle, with my mod. This being said,  the guns in my work are more inaccurate in comparison to stock game, the accuracy modifiers from the "params" file are for the most part the same in stock game. The exception is target size modifier, which is not relevant in this situation.

BB, with the best tech possible, veteran crews, targeting an enemy BB at 28 km away. Accuracy is around 7%. Reasonable values for me taking into consideration historical data.

 

Then suddenly, the range found boost kicks in.

Accuracy jumps to almost 70% at 24 km away!!!!

 

With a 1482% range found boost!!  I am afraid this is not the limit, since I noticed a few times values around, 2900%. However, I can't explain how these values are calculated. The battle experience was ruined, with me murdering the AI ship in a few salvos.

 

As a reference, I will post the Iowa guns targeting data gather in training sessions against a similar target size.

2.7% hit chance at 27km away! And I am doing almost 70% at similar ranges. This range boost is ruining the simulation experience. I am basically playing at this moment WOWS every time the range found boost kicks in.

 

Please, reconsider to remove this range boost from the game or give us the option.

Hey Baron,
The game, from the start  of its existence, has a realistic and rather complex aiming system which utilizes all those variables you see when you analyze the target, including the "Range Found" bonus. The "Range Found" simulates the process of improving the aiming using a rangefinding system which utilizes range rate (how fast the distance from the target changes) and bearing variables (angle of target from own ship, target direction changes, own direction changes).

Depending on all those we check in each firing salvo if there is going to be an increase in aiming or decrease.
Typical procedures to achieve an increase of this progress are:
- Use a main battery of at least 4 guns of the same caliber to fire at the target constantly (more is better). Sailing to the target using one forward gun and expecting to gain aim, is futile, unless the target is near or the ship has an advanced fire control.
- Try to be in parallel with the enemy (to decrease the range rate differences)
- Try to match its speed ( being too fast or too slow, will increase the angle of target per time interval)
- Try to not maneuver much to reduce errors
- Hope that the target does not maneuver much to increase the error rate.

All these processes are given to a number, depending on the technologies of your ship and the distance of the target (you will expect the number to increase as the target comes near you).
Without this number we cannot simulate the dynamic properties of our targets so we would always have a predictable and rather random result.

In reality, ships made several salvoes to narrow the error range until the target was fully bracketed. At this point, no matter its distance, the target was acquired and would receive constant hits, unless it made violent maneuvers.
In the game you should get an applied accuracy which is much lower. The “range found” bonus only for some moments should be so high or when the target is too near.

I assume in your game you sent several shots at the target before you got the bonus, and you would lose it if you or the enemy made tight maneuvers.

Concerning your source, It is very good to have credible sources on the internet, but it is advised to not use such sources as “de facto” knowledge base, just because there is no other detailed source on the internet (there are books too). We need to interpret real outcomes of real battles to bring a game closer to realism without destroying its functionality and fun factor. I cannot accept such a source which by itself clarifies it only estimates something. How would we have battle results as what happened to HMS Hood for example? Only by sending ALWAYS 100 shells to get a hit? 

The battles in the game should be dynamic and realistic, demanding from the player and AI constant maneuvering and evaluations. We cannot ask from the game to follow strict interpretation of one online source and have blunt gameplay which needs 30x fast forward to become interesting.

[JaM]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

True, it can happen, if the AI feels too overwhelmed, but again, I saw players cheating this factor too, even in YouTube, many use a trainer or edit the saves to have enormous GDP and income, compared to AI, or the opposite, so they play as gods vs the AI which often just chooses  to leave.

Anyways, it will be made a fine tuning to address "normal" cases.

hmm, yeah, i always play 1890 campaign.. this particular battle was happening in 1915 and AI was using quite old designs.

Btw, what about allowing player to "retire early" from the game? I like early game, but this forces me to play very long campaigns to see end result.. i would prefer having option to end it on my terms after let say 30 years instead of just deleting the save once i dont like to continue.. You could just add a popup after 30 years, which would ask if you want to continue, so player could chose either to keep playing or retire and see the campaign results.

[Panzergraf]

24 minutes ago, JaM said:

hmm, yeah, i always play 1890 campaign.. this particular battle was happening in 1915 and AI was using quite old designs.

Btw, what about allowing player to "retire early" from the game? I like early game, but this forces me to play very long campaigns to see end result.. i would prefer having option to end it on my terms after let say 30 years instead of just deleting the save once i dont like to continue.. You could just add a popup after 30 years, which would ask if you want to continue, so player could chose either to keep playing or retire and see the campaign results.

Or let the player choose when generating a campaign, both a start and end year? So if a player chooses, he can start in 1890 and end in 1950, or start in 1890 and end in 1900, or 1900-1920, or whatever.
I don't think it would be too hard to implement.

[o Barão]

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hey Baron,
The game, from the start  of its existence, has a realistic and rather complex aiming system which utilizes all those variables you see when you analyze the target, including the "Range Found" bonus. The "Range Found" simulates the process of improving the aiming using a rangefinding system which utilizes range rate (how fast the distance from the target changes) and bearing variables (angle of target from own ship, target direction changes, own direction changes).

o7 Nick!

I appreciate the realistic complex mechanics when designing the ships, or about how the aiming systems works. The issue here is not about the idea behind how the mechanic "range found" works, but is more about the value multiplier. If by getting a target "fully bracketed" I could get 2x or 3x, I would not have a problem. But is much more than that, to a point that is ignoring completely what should be the normal gun dispersion at those ranges. It is not, for some moments, and is quick to get when our ships are already sailing in perfect conditions in relation to the target speed and course. Will not vanish if the target does "violent maneuvers".

 

In conclusion, the 4 issues I have from this mechanic:

• The multipliers are very easy to get if sailing in perfect conditions. Easy for the player if he/she knows what needs to do.
• The multiplier value is too much. 2x or 3x would be ok.
• Is not for some moments.
• It will not vanish if the target does violent maneuvers.

 

In the beginning, I locked on the leading enemy BB.  I started around 200% range found, and I am still doing the maneuver to get my ship in the perfect course with the perfect speed. It only takes a few moments to get the range found boost.

0:30 I already have the range boost working. Is 5x times more because I am using training crew quality. But is already more than enough to start my murdering session.

0:38 the target is sailing in zigzag. This should be enough, but I will not lose my magic range boost.

1:12 we can clear see the target doing a hard turn. I will not lose the range boost and can keep murdering for longer I want.

1.32 I switch targets to the leading CA division. Already sailing in a perfect course and perfect speed.

2:10 I already have the range found boost against the CA playing at 5x. So less than 3 minutes and 20 seconds was enough to start the new murdering operation. NOTE: The range found boost value is the same against any target size. What this means in practice, is the range found boost is so BIG that will ignore the target size modifiers and others. Small ships are the most vulnerable because of this.

2:47 The target is doing hard turns to stay alive. I don't care. I will not lose my range found boost and I will keep murdering him until he sinks if I want.

3:12 I switch to the other CA.

3:40 The range found boost starts working against the new target playing at 5x. So 2 minutes and 20 seconds is what it took to start the new murdering session.

 

It seems that this quick example I recorded now is enough to show everything wrong about this mechanic.

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 

- Use a main battery of at least 4 guns of the same caliber to fire at the target constantly (more is better). Sailing to the target using one forward gun and expecting to gain aim, is futile, unless the target is near or the ship has an advanced fire control.

 

I noticed this a few years ago, when I was fighting the AI around 1890 - 1900. They would rush me in a tight angle with only one turret. Poor AI, they never had a chance to get a target lock. Now is better, but if is possible to set the "approach clamp" modifiers independent for each ship class, it could be much better IMO. In short, to make the TBs to rush the enemy, but to keep the BBs in a parallel course to improve the aiming process.

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 

Without this number we cannot simulate the dynamic properties of our targets so we would always have a predictable and rather random result.

Predictable or random? My English is not perfect, so maybe I understood wrong. But if a random result means to be realistic and the player loses some ships, I have no problems with that. The issue I have, is this mechanic is very arcade and easy to be exploited by the experienced players. If the idea is to please the masses with a quick dopamine injection, I understand that from a marketing point of view. What I am asking is a range found boost modifier that can be edited by the modders. Or a simple toggle in the settings. This way could be possible to please the masses but also the hardcore simulation fans. If it is possible.

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I assume in your game you sent several shots at the target before you got the bonus, and you would lose it if you or the enemy made tight maneuvers.

The video I posted shows that this is not working. A regular zigzag maneuver should be enough to disrupt the aiming for the enemy at long ranges.

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

How would we have battle results as what happened to HMS Hood for example? Only by sending ALWAYS 100 shells to get a hit?

According to "Drachinifel", if he is correct. We could send 1.000.000 shells or more, and we would never get the same thing in UAD. It was a lucky shot that hit below the belt armor, because of the wake wave and ship doing a turn. Not possible to represent this in UAD I guess. This being said, the Hood was hit around 15 km away from the Bismarck, If I am not mistaken. At that distance, we don't need any range found boost to hit the target.

 

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I assume in your game you sent several shots at the target before you got the bonus, and you would lose it if you or the enemy made tight maneuvers.

The video I posted shows, that It takes around 2 minutes and half in perfect sailing conditions. So around 4 salvos with a 15" guns. But I don't lose the bonus with the target maneuvering. So that is an issue.

 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We need to interpret real outcomes of real battles to bring a game closer to realism without destroying its functionality and fun factor....

...The battles in the game should be dynamic and realistic, demanding from the player and AI constant maneuvering and evaluations. We cannot ask from the game to follow strict interpretation of one online source and have blunt gameplay which needs 30x fast forward to become interesting.

Again, as I mentioned before. I don't have issues with trying to please the masses. I rarely play at x30. My most common speeds are x1 to x5 . x30 speed only if I am chasing the enemy. I am  asking for the option to edit that modifier boost value, since the current experience is falling short for the simulation fans. And to make it a lot easier to lose that bonus when the target does hard maneuvers.

Edited June 19, 2023 by o Barão

[MDHansen]

spending a lot of time finding ships in random ports these days, after fights. 

Ships docked in Emden, fighting in Caribbean, repairing in West Africa. Only my TF designated ships have long range, all other ships have lowest possible range. Docked ships are always designated either Limited/Defend or In Being.

Also, ships designated In Being while docked, but is pulled in to a fight, should be returned to same dock with designation In Being

Edited June 19, 2023 by MDHansen

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Repaired Version including the following:
- Reduced income bonus for the Ai in Hard and Legendary mode (it seems that the game became much harder for the average player who used these settings).
- Fixed "Mount 2" error further. This false positive error should now appear much less often.
- Fixed required tonnage not updating properly for naval invasions. (The problem is addressed only for new invasion instances).
- Fixed some barbette errors appearing mainly in refit processes.
- Fixed an alliance check error which could result enemy ships to wrongly use enemy ports.
- Fixed an UI issue which created too large offset for tooltips.

Please restart Steam to download the update fast.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 6/18/2023 at 5:40 PM, applegrcoug said:

All mine always seem to end up in Malmo Sweden.

In the latest fix, the issue that would cause this problem is partially fixed. Tomorrow it will be fully fixed.

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

 

o7 Nick!

I appreciate the realistic complex mechanics when designing the ships, or about how the aiming systems works. The issue here is not about the idea behind how the mechanic "range found" works, but is more about the value multiplier. If by getting a target "fully bracketed" I could get 2x or 3x, I would not have a problem. But is much more than that, to a point that is ignoring completely what should be the normal gun dispersion at those ranges. It is not, for some moments, and is quick to get when our ships are already sailing in perfect conditions in relation to the target speed and course. Will not vanish if the target does "violent maneuvers".

 

In conclusion, the 4 issues I have from this mechanic:

• The multipliers are very easy to get if sailing in perfect conditions. Easy for the player if he/she knows what needs to do.
• The multiplier value is too much. 2x or 3x would be ok.
• Is not for some moments.
• It will not vanish if the target does violent maneuvers.

 

In the beginning, I locked on the leading enemy BB.  I started around 200% range found, and I am still doing the maneuver to get my ship in the perfect course with the perfect speed. It only takes a few moments to get the range found boost.

0:30 I already have the range boost working. Is 5x times more because I am using training crew quality. But is already more than enough to start my murdering session.

0:38 the target is sailing in zigzag. This should be enough, but I will not lose my magic range boost.

1:12 we can clear see the target doing a hard turn. I will not lose the range boost and can keep murdering for longer I want.

1.32 I switch targets to the leading CA division. Already sailing in a perfect course and perfect speed.

2:10 I already have the range found boost against the CA playing at 5x. So less than 3 minutes and 20 seconds was enough to start the new murdering operation. NOTE: The range found boost value is the same against any target size. What this means in practice, is the range found boost is so BIG that will ignore the target size modifiers and others. Small ships are the most vulnerable because of this.

2:47 The target is doing hard turns to stay alive. I don't care. I will not lose my range found boost and I will keep murdering him until he sinks if I want.

3:12 I switch to the other CA.

3:40 The range found boost starts working against the new target playing at 5x. So 2 minutes and 20 seconds is what it took to start the new murdering session.

 

It seems that this quick example I recorded now is enough to show everything wrong about this mechanic.

 

I noticed this a few years ago, when I was fighting the AI around 1890 - 1900. They would rush me in a tight angle with only one turret. Poor AI, they never had a chance to get a target lock. Now is better, but if is possible to set the "approach clamp" modifiers independent for each ship class, it could be much better IMO. In short, to make the TBs to rush the enemy, but to keep the BBs in a parallel course to improve the aiming process.

 

Predictable or random? My English is not perfect, so maybe I understood wrong. But if a random result means to be realistic and the player loses some ships, I have no problems with that. The issue I have, is this mechanic is very arcade and easy to be exploited by the experienced players. If the idea is to please the masses with a quick dopamine injection, I understand that from a marketing point of view. What I am asking is a range found boost modifier that can be edited by the modders. Or a simple toggle in the settings. This way could be possible to please the masses but also the hardcore simulation fans. If it is possible.

 

The video I posted shows that this is not working. A regular zigzag maneuver should be enough to disrupt the aiming for the enemy at long ranges.

 

According to "Drachinifel", if he is correct. We could send 1.000.000 shells or more, and we would never get the same thing in UAD. It was a lucky shot that hit below the belt armor, because of the wake wave and ship doing a turn. Not possible to represent this in UAD I guess. This being said, the Hood was hit around 15 km away from the Bismarck, If I am not mistaken. At that distance, we don't need any range found boost to hit the target.

 

 

The video I posted shows, that It takes around 2 minutes and half in perfect sailing conditions. So around 4 salvos with a 15" guns. But I don't lose the bonus with the target maneuvering. So that is an issue.

 

Again, as I mentioned before. I don't have issues with trying to please the masses. I rarely play at x30. My most common speeds are x1 to x5 . x30 speed only if I am chasing the enemy. I am  asking for the option to edit that modifier boost value, since the current experience is falling short for the simulation fans. And to make it a lot easier to lose that bonus when the target does hard maneuvers.

Always a pleasure to read your thoughts. Regarding your video, it seems you play in super fast forward, of course for the purposes of testing but it shows exactly what is the problem if the accuracy is very low. You are forced to play in fast forward or come very near to the enemy because nothing happens at range.

In your video your accuracy spans from 0 to 30% very drastically, whenever you maneuver. Making the effect harsher will result in guns to lose aim much more often, something that is disliked by players. but also would not make much sense in certain occasions. The UI in the accuracy window of main guns, which shows all the effects loses information, does not update as often).

An accuracy from 0 to 30%, playing in normal speed, is not unrealistic in my view. If your opponent was a powerful battleship such as yours, you would be forced to change direction often to avoid enemy shells which could cripple you instantly. If the accuracy is unrealistically low, hidden with the very fast forward gameplay, then a player is just sailing straight with little to do than seeing 2 ships firing each other with no effect for several minutes.

There is a certain modifier which gives you access to linearly modify the "Range Found" bonus. It is the "targeting_confidence_smoothen". You can reduce this to a number that feels comfortable for your own gameplay or the players of your mod. There are several other hard coded aspects which cannot be tuned. but other related are accessible. You can write a list on what you are seeking to edit in your mod page, and I will periodically check it to reply. Other modders who have a page in our forum can ask me, but cannot reply to all., please note.

[o Barão]

3 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is a certain modifier which gives you access to linearly modify the "Range Found" bonus. It is the "targeting_confidence_smoothen". You can reduce this to a number that feels comfortable for your own gameplay or the players of your mod. There are several other hard coded aspects which cannot be tuned. but other related are accessible. You can write a list on what you are seeking to edit in your mod page, and I will periodically check it to reply. Other modders who have a page in our forum can ask me, but cannot reply to all., please note.

That is much more than I was asking! Many thanks!!!!! ✌️

[Aurora]

8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hey Baron,
The game, from the start  of its existence, has a realistic and rather complex aiming system which utilizes all those variables you see when you analyze the target, including the "Range Found" bonus. The "Range Found" simulates the process of improving the aiming using a rangefinding system which utilizes range rate (how fast the distance from the target changes) and bearing variables (angle of target from own ship, target direction changes, own direction changes).

Depending on all those we check in each firing salvo if there is going to be an increase in aiming or decrease.
Typical procedures to achieve an increase of this progress are:
- Use a main battery of at least 4 guns of the same caliber to fire at the target constantly (more is better). Sailing to the target using one forward gun and expecting to gain aim, is futile, unless the target is near or the ship has an advanced fire control.
- Try to be in parallel with the enemy (to decrease the range rate differences)
- Try to match its speed ( being too fast or too slow, will increase the angle of target per time interval)
- Try to not maneuver much to reduce errors
- Hope that the target does not maneuver much to increase the error rate.

All these processes are given to a number, depending on the technologies of your ship and the distance of the target (you will expect the number to increase as the target comes near you).
Without this number we cannot simulate the dynamic properties of our targets so we would always have a predictable and rather random result.

In reality, ships made several salvoes to narrow the error range until the target was fully bracketed. At this point, no matter its distance, the target was acquired and would receive constant hits, unless it made violent maneuvers.
In the game you should get an applied accuracy which is much lower. The “range found” bonus only for some moments should be so high or when the target is too near.

I assume in your game you sent several shots at the target before you got the bonus, and you would lose it if you or the enemy made tight maneuvers.

Concerning your source, It is very good to have credible sources on the internet, but it is advised to not use such sources as “de facto” knowledge base, just because there is no other detailed source on the internet (there are books too). We need to interpret real outcomes of real battles to bring a game closer to realism without destroying its functionality and fun factor. I cannot accept such a source which by itself clarifies it only estimates something. How would we have battle results as what happened to HMS Hood for example? Only by sending ALWAYS 100 shells to get a hit? 

The battles in the game should be dynamic and realistic, demanding from the player and AI constant maneuvering and evaluations. We cannot ask from the game to follow strict interpretation of one online source and have blunt gameplay which needs 30x fast forward to become interesting.

Just wanted to thank you for explaining the mechanics, it matches what i've seen in game and it is a pretty good system.

The one thing i would like to ask is whether it would be possible to have a way to know when the target is aimed at but the accuracy is still being improved? I ask this because when you see "Aimed" it seems to imply that you have full accuracy, but actually it can be improved by doing what you said, so it's rather unclear.

[jw62]

Almost after every patch at least one ship class loses all equipment and goes back to full basic, sigh, should have looked, caught my first BB but not the DD

I've got seven destroyers that have been doing a 1 month refit at four months and counting, um, help? and now I have to refit a whole destroyer class

but I did drag myself into the game after literally crawling through a bilge fixing bilge pumps and then changing out a starter motor on a 70yr old diesel, and how the boys found me a brand new in the box starter motor for a 1956 Cummins is a minor miracle

[jw62]

24 minutes ago, jw62 said:

Almost after every patch at least one ship class loses all equipment and goes back to full basic, sigh, should have looked, caught my first BB but not the DD

I've got seven destroyers that have been doing a 1 month refit at four months and counting, um, help? and now I have to refit a whole destroyer class

but I did drag myself into the game after literally crawling through a bilge fixing bilge pumps and then changing out a starter motor on a 70yr old diesel, and how the boys found me a brand new in the box starter motor for a 1956 Cummins is a minor miracle

It was the DD's which were refitting during the patch. Both DD classes were down graded, but I did a fresh refit class from the originals and they are back to one month, and the long termers are down to 2 months. 4 whole months to take all the decent gear off a ship, I couldn't make a dime off that crew

[Zuikaku]

12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

True, it can happen, if the AI feels too overwhelmed, but again, I saw players cheating this factor too, even in YouTube, many use a trainer or edit the saves to have enormous GDP and income, compared to AI, or the opposite, so they play as gods vs the AI which often just chooses  to leave.

Anyways, it will be made a fine tuning to address "normal" cases.

If true this also rises several questions:

- why AI is even allowed to know it is owerwhelmed or behind in tech even before visually indentifying the ships it is running away from??

- why is AI running away when protecting convoys?

- why is AI running away in ambush or struggler missions (AI with multiple DDs/TBs vs single (damaged) ship?

- why is AI running away in most (single) Cl vs Cl missions when both ships are of same size and tech levels?

-why on earth is AI running away even if my ships are of lower tech level because I'm playing a nation like Spain??

And most of all

-why is campaign even generating these "waste of the time" missions if AI knows in advance ,without visual indentification, that it won't fight because it feels... not very well. I've lost hours of my life just waiting for AI ships to reach minimum safe distance so the mission can end.

 

Something is just not working right!! 

Disclaimer: I have never played moded version of the game

Edited June 20, 2023 by Zuikaku

[applegrcoug]

On 6/17/2023 at 12:45 PM, Admiral Donuts said:

Game seized up at Prepare for Battle.

fresh install and I can't get past this stage ever.

 

edit: I updated the VC runtimes and it is working now.

Edited June 20, 2023 by applegrcoug

[Admiral Donuts]

I have another interesting issue that occurs that is the opposite of the one I reported before.

Running another 1900 Japanese campaign, the first contestant in the dissolved contest was Britain. Oooh plenty of territory to expand into. They sure did and still are. The US is gobbling up old British territory like crazy, even having made two or more attempts at Malta. However, between the neutrals and the Brits, the US has picked up huge amounts of territory in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

France was next, gaining Sarawak, but China is the real winner, with North Borneo, Malaya, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Ceylon, Weihaiwei, and Burma. They started the land grab while I was busy doing all I could to provoke a war with them, which I accomplished, and scrapped the Chinese Junk Navy giving me Manchuria and I chose Malaya.

After the war,  France dissolved, giving China the two Sarawak territories, Southern Vietnam, Cambodia...Russia has Singapore...

And now even Austria-Hungary is involved having taken control of Western India. and the Andaman Islands.

But I have not yet had a single opportunity to grab any of that except what I took from China.

Was there a change?

Oop edit, the Soviet Union now has Tonkin and is moving on Annam. The US now has Ethiopia and Sudan and is moving on Eritrea in their war with Italy. They also have Mauritania now and is moving on Southern Algeria in their war with Spain, who has Gibraltar. Germany has Eastern England and the remains of France in Europe.

Another edit - I was just handed Ungoverned Territory's terrorist state at Fort Bayard. Carry on.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Admiral Donuts

[JaM]

What's the purpose of this?? Two research topic back to back with no benefit whatsoever.. (Japan) 

Not really "Dreadnought improvements" if it doesn't provide any...

 

[Deadpan_Alpaca]

18 hours ago, JaM said:

hmm, yeah, i always play 1890 campaign.. this particular battle was happening in 1915 and AI was using quite old designs.

Btw, what about allowing player to "retire early" from the game? I like early game, but this forces me to play very long campaigns to see end result.. i would prefer having option to end it on my terms after let say 30 years instead of just deleting the save once i dont like to continue.. You could just add a popup after 30 years, which would ask if you want to continue, so player could chose either to keep playing or retire and see the campaign results.

Meanwhile I would like to have the opposite - opportunity for the "endless" campaign, continuing after 1950 indefinitely until there are enemies to fight.