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

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded repaired version including the following:
- Balanced the bombardment (after the latest improvements it happens much more often when you are close to enemy ports) and fixed the auto-resolve to not cause damaged when you face only TR in port strike missions.
- Fixed a rare crash issue that could happen before a battle, a bug related with victory conditions.
- Fixes and fine tunings of the auto-design logic.
Please restart Steam to get the update fast

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded repaired version x2 including the following:
- The Strike missions which include only Transport ships for opponents will now be only auto-resolved. 
- Victory Points gained from Transport sinking rebalanced according to latest improvements in the mission generation system.
- Fixed rare UI bug which could show a port strike mission against own port.
Please restart Steam to get the update fast

[sillyrecon]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Uploaded repaired version x2 including the following:
- The Strike missions which include only Transport ships for opponents will now be only auto-resolved. 
- Victory Points gained from Transport sinking rebalanced according to latest improvements in the mission generation system.
- Fixed rare UI bug which could show a port strike mission against own port.
Please restart Steam to get the update fast

is there a reason why Transport only Strike missions will be auto resolved? Cause I'm honestly checking out if I lose ships to Transports....What's wrong with giving the player the option to deal with it themselves?

[MDHansen]

Great!

 

also, a few tiny islands in the Southeast Asia scene is on the loose with no owner (China colours though)

[MDHansen]

Would it be possible to make invasions a bit more logic? As in, instead of me (Germany) invading Bohemia Moravia (96,722 troops) from Eastern Poland with 8,760 troops, I could be invading from Southern Germany with 229,654 troops.

[Admiral Donuts]

I still have the same problem with naval battles and, overall in general, war.

Recently, my Japan went to war with Germany. There were no naval battles at all. I just invaded them until I kicked them out of the Pacific. Then went to peace.

Then China gets it. Let me explain the situation here -

1) They are very behind and I'm very advanced, with a fully upgraded fleet of 103 ships.

2) They have 9 ships, are building 48, all vastly inferior to my own.

I have lost every naval battle save a single one, regardless of whether I fight it or auto-resolve it. HOW?

I'll give you one example...

My CA and two DDs get in a match with 1 Chinese CA and a CL.

Testing this problem, I lined up directly across from their CA just outside torpedo range. While they are well within mine. The Chinese CA has 7.5" guns I have 8", faster firing than theirs. My 5" guns are in range, also outshooting their mains, they have no secondaries in range.

My destroyers, while in smokescreen, are coming under fire from their CA, their CA is hitting every time, each time is flooding damage. I ordered their retreat since the DDs are totally ineffective. Their CL has not been a factor in the fight. The Chinese force have not dodged torpedoes at all, or even maneuvered for that matter, yet every one of mine have missed. It's the mid-1920s, I have very accurate torpedoes with a 9km range, we are at 7km from the CA.

At the end of the day, the Chinese won the battle. It was not even close. They did more damage to my CA than I could do to theirs. They hit much more consistently than I could for much more damage than I ever did.

And this isn't a lone case. It's happened every battle for weeks now. The only thing I can think, is that the AI is now following a different set of rules than me.

Furthermore, having just gave up finally, I decided to just auto-resolve everything since I get the same poor results anyway. And now I'm back to being disappointed in the product because, basically, it's playing itself again. Since there's nothing I can do about it other than complain, that's what I'm doing.

 

[Admiral Donuts]

Land Battles

vs China, my Japan has made zero headway in any of them.

I honestly see no point in a war with China. I get nothing out of it.

[MDHansen]

@Nick Thomadis I am always getting a port strike mission on the port I am attacking the turn I am taking control of it. Can you check if the port is actually taking damage?

I am running unmodded a few days for testing purposes 🙃 I'll post a bugreport ingame next time it happens

Edited August 5, 2023 by MDHansen

[MDHansen]

Would it makes sense to have this list in alphabetical order? It would save a lot of scrolling to find the right ports 

[Urst]

1 hour ago, MDHansen said:

Would it makes sense to have this list in alphabetical order? It would save a lot of scrolling to find the right ports 

It'd be even better if þey were in folders by what ocean þey were on.

[MDHansen]

this port has invaded northern turkey 

[smsvu]

I returned after 4 Months of frequent updates, there are only two months left and yet there are still so many issues.

I started a campain and before even getting into a first battle there is more than a boatload of issues, that range from annoying to game breaking!

The campain is still a glorified slot machine. The game fails to provide information (like relations to minor nations or the current relations to other nations when deciding your reply during an event), the provided information can't be filtered (the game still has no filters in the world map, the log can't be filtered, the information from the promts at the start of each turn can only be seen once and during that you can't look at other information).

The actions of other nations are random. (At the start of one turn both promts appeared: Spain and USA declare war. - Spains provocations were ignored by the usa.) Generals randomly improve and worsen relations (the same).

The map has not been fixed, there are still ports inside the gradient on the eastern side. A non-looping map is fine, but the borders have to be done well.

Minor allies still order ships above my buildcap.

 

The Idea that the players control is limited is alright but currently the player has way to little control and the systems outside the players control are to random and to important.

 

@Nick Thomadis I have a question:
What about the option to have more control, like setting it at the start of the campaign?

Edited August 5, 2023 by smsvu

[The PC Collector]

3 hours ago, smsvu said:

The Idea that the players control is limited is alright but currently the player has way to little control and the systems outside the players control are to random and to important.

We have been complaining that there is way too much RNG and way too many things outside of the player control to make an enjoyable Grand Strategy game mode for over a year. To no avail.

[jw62]

17 hours ago, MDHansen said:

Would it makes sense to have this list in alphabetical order? It would save a lot of scrolling to find the right ports 

It could use a search function; type in the first few letters. Or let us go regional OR alphabetical

[Capilla]

There is a bug where you cant place turrets on a funnel station on a superstructure. The same problem happens if you try to place secondaries on a main turret on a superstructure with main gun slot. I guess that is a object[object[object]] kind of problem.

[Aurora]

One little thing, would it be possible to list the ships that will receive new parts when you research things like "Advanced Towers III" under Control Stations research? It would make refitting easier and it would mean that i know when i want to prioritize the research. Otherwise it's very generic and you never know if and when you unlock something new.

[Zuikaku]

Also, make it possible to retain old guns during refits. Mk 3 guns sometimes do not fit in places Mk 2s do.

[Urst]

22 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Also, make it possible to retain old guns during refits. Mk 3 guns sometimes do not fit in places Mk 2s do.

Or let us choose our model.

[ijp8834]

2 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Also, make it possible to retain old guns during refits. Mk 3 guns sometimes do not fit in places Mk 2s do.

This is hands down my biggest issue with the game as of now... Come on, either make sure all guns fit in the same spots, or let us retain older guns that do fit.

[Capilla]

I think the same about turret refits messing the ship with the resizes

Edited August 7, 2023 by Capilla
Delete because i want to quote 3 coments

[Capilla]

11 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Also, make it possible to retain old guns during refits. Mk 3 guns sometimes do not fit in places Mk 2s do.

 

11 hours ago, Urst said:

Or let us choose our model.

 

9 hours ago, ijp8834 said:

This is hands down my biggest issue with the game as of now... Come on, either make sure all guns fit in the same spots, or let us retain older guns that do fit.

I think that instead choosing caliber and lenght for every gun on every warship we should have something like a weapon station designer were we could shoose turret, armor thickness, barrel lenght, caliber... that way it would be easier to manage our weapons stations and we could have standarized turrets on our ships. Just choose one of your weapon stations and place it on the ship. More spacious turrets would be heavier but have better reload or more gun barrels... 

Also fully developed 2, 3 or 4 gun turrets should have the same reload speed as long as the turret is big enought. Lets say for example that 2 possible stats for a big and wide turret are:

• optimal number of barrels: 3
• maximun number of barrels: 4

At the optimal number of barrels or lower, the guns of same caliber have a fixed  reload speed and if you go higher you get a penalization.

Weapon system components would be:

• casemate/turret (visual component with stats like barrels capacity, armor sections, maximun caliber limitation (number of barrels below the optimal would make space for bigger guns), armor sections (roof, sides, front, rear), maximun elevation or some kind of range limitation)
• Gun barrel (visual component with stats like caliber, lenght, recoil/vibrations...)
• breech/loading system (the ones the game have are ok)
• Traverse system (the ones the game have are ok)

Instead of developing every single component in a separete way, turrets and barrels would be grouped by generations. Developing Mark 3 components would make Mark 1 obsolete but still make posible to use Mark 2 designs. Also the turret body would act as a ship hull and make it a base for future design refits. Once the ship mounting a weapon station gets a refit then the turret is upgraded to the last version. That way you would keep a turret body but change the gun barrels and make sure the refit version still fits on the ship.

 

This also would help the AI to have more consistent designs and avoid having 10 diferent calibers on 3 ship classes...

[CatboiWaifu]

With the changes to Naval invasions, I've now been able to seize both Southern Spain and Croatia. Unfortunately, with my army invasion of Austria at 75%, Austria flipped to ungoverned and magically all my forces decided to return home from territories that now have literally 0 army force.

 

Can we lose the whole governmental collapse thing? It's not fair and its not fun. It makes no sense that your soldiers, fighting towards the enemy capital, taking, occupying and garrisoning enemy towns and strongholds and supply hubs, losing brothers in arms, would just 'aight we out' when it suits the enemy for them to stop fighting. That's not how war works. Now Germany and the Soviets are going to snap up the ungoverned territories with no resistance and I'm not going to proc the low chance of the 'invade ungoverned' event.

 

Force a total peace deal, ceding everything to the faction with the highest VP or whoever has forces physically in those territories. Total capitulation to whoever's worked the hardest and those who are actively pushing with large armies in ceded territories.

 

While we're at it, can we scrap the RNG factor in peace deals, too. If I'm demanding a territory from any peace deal, the enemy has no diplomatic power to refuse or, realistically, the war would continue and I would forcefully occupy that territory and demand more. If I demand two territories from the peace deal budget, I want those territories, not a random chance spread of those territories.

 

Governments collapsing and making you lose all your war progress with no payoff just feels cheap and not good game design.

Edited August 8, 2023 by CatboiWaifu

[Urst]

3 hours ago, Capilla said:

 

 

I think that instead choosing caliber and lenght for every gun on every warship we should have something like a weapon station designer were we could shoose turret, armor thickness, barrel lenght, caliber... that way it would be easier to manage our weapons stations and we could have standarized turrets on our ships. Just choose one of your weapon stations and place it on the ship. More spacious turrets would be heavier but have better reload or more gun barrels... 

Also fully developed 2, 3 or 4 gun turrets should have the same reload speed as long as the turret is big enought. Lets say for example that 2 possible stats for a big and wide turret are:

• optimal number of barrels: 3
• maximun number of barrels: 4

At the optimal number of barrels or lower, the guns of same caliber have a fixed  reload speed and if you go higher you get a penalization.

Weapon system components would be:

• casemate/turret (visual component with stats like barrels capacity, armor sections, maximun caliber limitation (number of barrels below the optimal would make space for bigger guns), armor sections (roof, sides, front, rear), maximun elevation or some kind of range limitation)
• Gun barrel (visual component with stats like caliber, lenght, recoil/vibrations...)
• breech/loading system (the ones the game have are ok)
• Traverse system (the ones the game have are ok)

Instead of developing every single component in a separete way, turrets and barrels would be grouped by generations. Developing Mark 3 components would make Mark 1 obsolete but still make posible to use Mark 2 designs. Also the turret body would act as a ship hull and make it a base for future design refits. Once the ship mounting a weapon station gets a refit then the turret is upgraded to the last version. That way you would keep a turret body but change the gun barrels and make sure the refit version still fits on the ship.

 

This also would help the AI to have more consistent designs and avoid having 10 diferent calibers on 3 ship classes...

Wrong. MAXIMUM number should be 6 barrels for every caliber so I can make my MAXIMUM Battleship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_battleship?useskin=vector#/media/File:"Maximum_Battleship"_Design_2.jpg

Edited August 8, 2023 by Urst

[MDHansen]

request:
1. The option to say no to allying with a minor.
2. More events vs minors, to groom relations. With favouring close and neighbouring minors

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by MDHansen

[MDHansen]

could you move damage messages a little up so the ship health is easier to see?