-=Beta v1.4 Planned for end of next week=-

[Admiral Hipster]

PLEASE, allow us to choose between the mark type of guns during refits.
OR AT LEAST maintain the "design" of the turrent or an option to choose between turrets designs.

[Tea_Rex]

Is it possible to implement a feature that lets you fully customise the tech levels when building a shared design? All too often the Campaign AI will not build my shared designs as the tech is too advanced (i.e the designer always picks the highest tech possible for the year), being able to specify exact tech levels for a ships engines, weapons, etc would be a huge improvement. 

[Suribachi]

 As the fleet's control zone is now enforced on the world map, I am dredging up this feature from the archives that I would like to see.  TL;DR If 2 fleets are on top of each other, it is impossible to click on the underlying fleet.

[Kiknurazz91]

On 9/1/2023 at 6:34 AM, AdmER said:

We also totally need a ship placement prior to battle. Most of our collision problems come with repositioning of ship at begining.

So a positioning screen before battle is a must!

I second this!

[Urst]

1 hour ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

I second this!

Or a default formation þat we can set before entering combat as part of our overall tactics.

[Urst]

We need our 3" Mk. 5 U.S. guns to be þe 3"/50 Mk. 34. I know it won't happen, but still. Also, U.S. Mk 4 and 5 2" guns should be Bofors Guns like þey used to be.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php

[killjoy1941]

8 hours ago, Urst said:

Or a default formation þat we can set before entering combat as part of our overall tactics.

This.

It's a bit late for big QoL requests, but a basic formation system would've been pretty high on the list if I'd thought about it more.

[Kiknurazz91]

3 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:

This.

It's a bit late for big QoL requests, but a basic formation system would've been pretty high on the list if I'd thought about it more.

This has been requested many times actually two or 3 patches back. Just some way to organize the ships formations before battle.

[Spitfire109]

Will custom battles or battle deployments for custom and campaign become a thing?

Or the ability to use two ships of the same type but different class in custom battles become a thing?

[killjoy1941]

4 hours ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

This has been requested many times actually two or 3 patches back. Just some way to organize the ships formations before battle.

I'm aware. I'm saying it's unlikely we will see something like that at this point, and agreeing that it would be a really helpful feature.

[PhoenixLP44]

1 hour ago, killjoy1941 said:

I'm aware. I'm saying it's unlikely we will see something like that at this point, and agreeing that it would be a really helpful feature.

not just helpful but realistic we are supposed to play an admiral in battles why can't we organise our fleet before battle. Like show me one admiral who didn't have his fleet in some sort of orderly formation while traveling the vast distances of the oceans.

[killjoy1941]

2 hours ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

not just helpful but realistic we are supposed to play an admiral in battles why can't we organise our fleet before battle. Like show me one admiral who didn't have his fleet in some sort of orderly formation while traveling the vast distances of the oceans.

Yup.

Honestly, Nick and his tiny team bit off way more than they could chew. I'm actually quite impressed by what they did deliver with what's likely 3-5 full time people and no more than 12-15 people total.

If we're going to get features like that which would require a fairly large time commitment they probably can't really afford, it would be in DLC - something Nick has not, at least to my knowledge, shown interest in.

[Kiknurazz91]

3 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:

Yup.

Honestly, Nick and his tiny team bit off way more than they could chew. I'm actually quite impressed by what they did deliver with what's likely 3-5 full time people and no more than 12-15 people total.

If we're going to get features like that which would require a fairly large time commitment they probably can't really afford, it would be in DLC - something Nick has not, at least to my knowledge, shown interest in.

Once the final patch come through maybe a Modder can make it happen.

[killjoy1941]

18 hours ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

Once the final patch come through maybe a Modder can make it happen.

Hopefully.

The modding scene for the UG/UA games is pretty small and has a high bar for both knowledge and patience, or at least more of both than I currently possess. I would expect something like that later rather than sooner. Even better would be for Nick to get on the DLC train. One can hope, anyway. 

[brothermunro]

Hello @Nick Thomadis & the Team!

I hope the development of 1.4 is progressing well, and I wanted to ask you to consider making a balance change to the 'Range Found' bonus.

I understand the mechanics of it from a game and realism point of view, if a ship hits another and gets its guns dialled in then that's a very powerful advantage. I appreciate that the bonus builds over time to represent the crew refining the firing solution and getting more and more accurate. All of that is great! The problem for me is the values that the bonus can get to. I regularly see the bonus going over 1000% and can go as high as 2900%. This poses a few issues, but the main one is that if I win or lose a battle with such a bonus it doesn't feel like its something I did, it feels more like winning a coin toss. The values can get so much larger than any other modifier that it makes all of them irrelevant, a -50% damage instability debuff is fairly insignificant for example when it should be crippling.

Please consider capping the range found bonus at a significantly lower value, I would suggest that 100% is more than sufficient.

(Tested on totally vanilla gameplay)

[Trygvasson]

5 hours ago, brothermunro said:

Hello @Nick Thomadis & the Team!

I hope the development of 1.4 is progressing well, and I wanted to ask you to consider making a balance change to the 'Range Found' bonus.

I understand the mechanics of it from a game and realism point of view, if a ship hits another and gets its guns dialled in then that's a very powerful advantage. I appreciate that the bonus builds over time to represent the crew refining the firing solution and getting more and more accurate. All of that is great! The problem for me is the values that the bonus can get to. I regularly see the bonus going over 1000% and can go as high as 2900%. This poses a few issues, but the main one is that if I win or lose a battle with such a bonus it doesn't feel like its something I did, it feels more like winning a coin toss. The values can get so much larger than any other modifier that it makes all of them irrelevant, a -50% damage instability debuff is fairly insignificant for example when it should be crippling.

Please consider capping the range found bonus at a significantly lower value, I would suggest that 100% is more than sufficient.

(Tested on totally vanilla gameplay)

What brothermunro said, just more details:

- the 'range found' bonus appears to jump by an order of magnitude if a ship keeps firing a number of salvos at the same ship for a long time. 

- The jump occurs after a(large) number of salvos, you consistently will see it happen sooner for the smaller quick-firing guns. It WILL eventually happen for the big guns as well, but much later in the battle.

- The effect is there for secondaries as well as for primary guns; this is why you will sometimes see your secondaries be vastly more accurate than your main battery guns, even over large distances.

- The bonus is so large that it essentially renders all other bonuses irrelevant.

- Since the AI switches targes more often than a player who mircomanages the targets of his ships, it's much easier to see this bonus for the player.

It appears to be a calculation bug in the way the 'range found' bonus increases over time, and should be easily reproducible in any battle lasting for some time. It's gotta be somewhere in the math guys, happy hunting! For me it's a gamebreaker, once you realize what's going on it's hard to see all that work on my big ship desings rendered useless by the laser-accurate low-caliber guns of my cruisers.

 

[Trygvasson]

On 9/2/2023 at 2:59 PM, Zuikaku said:

For the mental health sake please fix AI running away as soon as battle is started, without even bothering to make visual contact first. This is especially frustrating in Cl vs. Cl missions.

And fix now useless submarines. They can not sink anything since the 1.3 and new mission generation mechanics.

Zuikaku, totally agree - running down the AI single-ship task forces is arguably the most tedious part of the game in its current state - I get around this by creating very fast ships of any class, and shamelessly using the 'retreat' button to find the exact direction of the enemy ship. AI cheats by running away directly from wherever I am, so I'm cheating right back.

[Trygvasson]

773hrs logged. As thrilled as I am with the mentioned features, I'd happily trade them all away for the dev team focusing exclusively on the longstanding quality-of-life fixes and game mechanics fixes already requested in this thread.

[Aruon]

On 9/2/2023 at 11:57 PM, Tea_Rex said:

Is it possible to implement a feature that lets you fully customise the tech levels when building a shared design? All too often the Campaign AI will not build my shared designs as the tech is too advanced (i.e the designer always picks the highest tech possible for the year), being able to specify exact tech levels for a ships engines, weapons, etc would be a huge improvement. 

 

i'm about 26 years into a 1900 start, and the AI has reverted to 9-inch gunned battlecruisers and 10-inch gunned battleships entirely because it couldn't keep up. and alongside scrapping any slightly aging design like it's going out of fashion, these have killed any further interest in my most recent US campaign.

 

i think a good solution when it comes to being unable to keep up with the techs needed for shared designs is for the AI to be able to consider more than just that year- if it's Japan in 1925, and doesn't meet the requirements of 1925 techs, it then falls back onto designs from as far back as 1920- kind of like a player building a ton of obsolete ships just to immediately refit them.

 

there further may be a need to limit the AI when this scenario eventually pops up in a long playthrough, like outright deprecating the use of 9/10/11-inch; and even later 12-inch; calibers on battleships once a tech like 14-inch II or 15-inch I has been researched.

[ijp8834]

On 9/2/2023 at 10:44 PM, Admiral Hipster said:

PLEASE, allow us to choose between the mark type of guns during refits.
OR AT LEAST maintain the "design" of the turrent or an option to choose between turrets designs.

THIS!!!!

Please don't make me get rid of perfectly good ships because their new guns are WAY too big!!!

[Aruon]

4 hours ago, ijp8834 said:

THIS!!!!

Please don't make me get rid of perfectly good ships because their new guns are WAY too big!!!

 

agree as well- that could be a little feature in itself, having an older and/or larger turret (possibly reusing the barrel size scaling?) with better ergonomics (ala machinery space for the fire rate) but greater weight, or a more compact turret that fires a little slower but can fit in tighter spots better

[Hibbidyhai]

8 hours ago, Aruon said:

 

agree as well- that could be a little feature in itself, having an older and/or larger turret (possibly reusing the barrel size scaling?) with better ergonomics (ala machinery space for the fire rate) but greater weight, or a more compact turret that fires a little slower but can fit in tighter spots better

This ^^^

I would love to be able to choose whether or not to upgrade to the latest Mk of gun or keep the current ones. There are two reasons why this would be nice. One would be to continue using placements for primary and secondary guns where the newest Mk won't fit. The other reason would be to directly compare the old weapons with the new ones in the builder, giving the player a good sense of progression outside of the Tech Tree screen. 

The UI in the builder would basically be the same as now, with your array of sizes when you select a gun type (Main Guns -> Centerline/Side Guns or Secondary Guns) then when you mouse over a size (for example a 12" centerline main gun) have the Mk options appear above it. Then only have the tooltip stats appear when you mouse over one of the Mks. 

There could be some limitations, such as a 1910's Dreadnought maybe only getting access to Mk II-IV guns or a 1940's Battleship only getting to choose between III-V guns. It wouldn't make sense to try putting an 1800's era Mk I guns on a 1950's (or with the campaign extension, 1965) warship and likewise the machinery for a modern battleship being way too complicated to put onto an 1890's hull, even if it physically fits. 

Besides just guns you could also do this for torpedo tubes, although perhaps not underwater ones. 


My other big ask for the new patch would be to either allow the player to redesignate ship classes when they become obsolete or change the formation system so that it considers a ship's tonnage, weaponry, or speed when putting it into a formation. The problem is that old 12,000 ton BBs should not be in line with 50,000 ton BBs, especially when new cruisers are a better match for the old battleships in tonnage or weaponry. Since we don't have a pre-deployment formation system and are unlikely to get one, this is a way to exert at least a little control so that you don't have to manually resort your ships every time you go into battle.

The first example would be changing an old battleship's classification from BB to CA (or BC) so it will line up with the cruisers and not the battleships. Or, if that can't be done, have the game consider a ship's tonnage and sort it into formation with other ships of similar tonnage at the beginning of battle. Another way to accomplish the same idea might be to auto sort obsolete hulls into their own formations regardless of what classification they are (so old CL would not be in formation with new ones) and position at the rear of the group. 

For those of who like the playstyle of refitting old ships and keeping them going as long as possible both of the above would be great additions to the game. 
 

[BELEW848]

If this game is supposed to be like rule, the wayes. Why do we not have naval treatyes? For example, certain ships under a certain weight for like battleships, cruisers or gun sizes restricted

[killjoy1941]

16 hours ago, BELEW848 said:

If this game is supposed to be like rule, the wayes. Why do we not have naval treatyes? For example, certain ships under a certain weight for like battleships, cruisers or gun sizes restricted

Because they likely ran out of time to add it as a feature. It happens. A lot. That's often why game devs will make direct sequels - not to squeeze every last penny of value out of a game, but to make the game they had originally envisioned. 

[German CL mk II guns]

Pls change the mkII gun models for german CLs