>>>v1.4 Feedback<<< (1.4.1.1 Opt x2 latest version)

[killjoy1941]

4 hours ago, flaviohc16 said:

We should have a more dynamic war economy, because right now the best way to win the game ( aka have a bigger gdp) is not to play ( not going to war).

We should have something that somewhat follows what happens in land wars, when you are losing badly,  you have more conscription and that usually saves you ( but rightfully so destroys your economy).

Right now, when in war,  we have a flat " double the navy resources-half GDP growth", so +100% money/-50% GDP growth. We should have something different.

My idea, just to make an example:

[...]

IMHO this would make everything more dynamic, what do you think?

I don't have problems with GDP and wars, though that's mostly because I plan them.

Given that it takes 4-8 months on average to pull off a successful invasion, I tend to stay at war for no more than two years if I can help it, and I pick my targets. A quick war where you pick up a few high-value regions is almost always more economically profitable than peace, and if you limit it to no more than 2-3 wars a decade, you'll generally come out ahead.

The big problems are alliances and wars for regional conquest. Alliances often quickly chain up multiple wars that can be difficult to control, and trying to grab, say, every colony in Africa is going to take a long time. In fairness, if you're playing like that, you're roleplaying empire-building and balance-of-power politics. Both of those should come at a price.

The one thing we really need is a comprehensive explanation for how governments change. That has a massive impact on play, particularly economics.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hotfix v1.4.0.2  uploaded!

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/3745364910908723320 

[Plazma]

On 10/18/2023 at 4:51 PM, Lima said:

Okay, guys, I have a really big question.

I understand correctly that Cordite III should be more accurate than Cordite II? And that Tube Powder I is more accurate than both of them?

EDIT: Alright, here is our test dummy

And here are the accuracy results for Cordite II / Cordite III / Tube Powder I

As you can see, Cordite II that gives the debuff to accuracy is actually the most accurate.

EDIT2: And here is a comparison of standard / light shells. As indicated in the description, light shells should have a positive effect on accuracy, but in fact this is not the case.

I mentioned it somehow 1 year ago. 

 

The accuracy is linked to the range. If you have a 50km range with a certain accuracy modifier, this accuracy will be significantly better at a 25km range (half of the maximum range). Conversely, if you have a 25km range, the accuracy will be very low at the maximum range but better at a 12km range compared to max distance 25km, but... that will be 1/4 max range for the gun with max range 50km and due to this worst performance. 

In other words, the accuracy bonus is offset by a short range, and the accuracy penalty is offset by a range modifier.

The same situation applies to light and heavy shells. Heavy shells have the greatest range, and this is evident when you compare the AP shell with a range of 16.7km and the HE shell with a range of 15.4km. The accuracy for these shells is 0.2% vs. 0.4% at 15km.

The range is one of the most significant factors affecting accuracy. I believe there is a function that maximizes accuracy at 1m and reduces it to 0% accuracy at the maximum distance. This function appears to be working as intended.

The question is whether this is a "feature" and is designed to work this way, or if we have an issue with the bonus (possibly too low) or the function (possibly too sensitive to range but not sensitive enough to the accuracy bonus).

Or we have better accuracy at 100m, but due to limited range we have a worse performance on long distances (1000m+)

In other words: Range > Distance found > basic accuracy for gun > accuracy bonus like propellant. 

Ofc. this is more complex in the game, but a general rule is like the above. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Plazma

[Urst]

Economy for the U.S. continues to be broken. I should barely be getting enough money to maintain 3 battleships, 2 light cruisers per major port, and 3 destroyers per all ports while they're in Limited mode, until a war is declared at which point the budget should increase by 10 times, only to be cut back to where it was again after the war forcing me to delete 90% of my ships to not be in the red.

(this is a joke)

[lordcmdr]

Lima got a nice shoutout in the official dev notes for the patch 😀

[vonPeretz]

On 10/18/2023 at 6:31 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Hotfix v1.4.0.2  uploaded!

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/3745364910908723320 

Heh🙃

Edited October 21, 2023 by vonPeretz

[Guest]

peace_treaty_chance,0.8,"Previously hard coded value, determines change of AI diplomacy action for peace treaty",,,,,,,

nice 👍

[Dave P.]

17 hours ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

I think I have found a at least temporary fix to the stuck weapons glitch. You need to turn your ship a few times in each direction either with manual rudder or by clicking until you notice movement in the guns.

Can't say if it works every time but it worked for me twice now.

Just make sure you are at a certain range otherwise this will mean doom for your ship.

I've noticed this as well, since the aiming and stuck turret bugs were first introduced. If the enemy ship passes through the firing arc of the stuck turret, there's a small chance it will un-stick.

The best way to avoid it in the first place is to make ships where all the turrets are capable of 360 degrees of movement, but that's difficult or impossible with certain ships/superstructures.

[Dave P.]

3 hours ago, Urst said:

Economy for the U.S. continues to be broken. I should barely be getting enough money to maintain 3 battleships, 2 light cruisers per major port, and 3 destroyers per all ports while they're in Limited mode, until a war is declared at which point the budget should increase by 10 times, only to be cut back to where it was again after the war forcing me to delete 90% of my ships to not be in the red.

(this is a joke)

US History 1776-1949 awareness detected.

[Dave P.]

I know I read it somewhere but I can't find it - what year does the campaign end now? (It was changed from 1950...)

[Lima]

2 minutes ago, Dave P. said:

I know I read it somewhere but I can't find it - what year does the campaign end now? (It was changed from 1950...)

1965

[R Gray]

  Has anyone else had any problems with screen artifacts on this latest patch?

 

I 'think' it's linked to the torpedoes, but I'm not certain yet as it's only shown up in a couple of battles.

[R Gray]

Rebooted my system and still had the artifacts on the torpedoes.

[R Gray]

[lordcmdr]

1 hour ago, R Gray said:

Update your video drivers.

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis

friedrich_funnel_thicktallvar3_var,0,funnel,Thick Funnel III,,192,280000,,20,friedrich_funnel_a _thick,0.8,,funnel,,"need(CL_Novik), needunlock(bigearlyfunnels_level_2)","funnel(1), fcap(13), smoke(24), size(7)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,192,153.6,50000,150000
friedrich_funnel_thicktallvar2_var,0,funnel,Thick Funnel II,,159,220000,,18,friedrich_funnel_a _thick,0.77,,funnel,,"need(CL_Novik), needunlock(bigearlyfunnels_level_2)","funnel(1), fcap(12), smoke(23), size(6.5)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,159,127.2,50000,150000
friedrich_funnel_thicktallvar1_var,0,funnel,Thick Funnel I,,115,170000,,16,friedrich_funnel_a _thick,0.74,,funnel,,need(CL_Novik),"funnel(1), fcap(11), smoke(22), size(6)",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,115,92,50000,150000

 

The thick funnels options are disabled for the cruiser Novik.

 

The US large armored cruiser comes with this strange textures in the tower bases.

 

Are these things intentional?

 

[Lima]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

The US large armored cruiser comes with this strange textures in the tower bases.

Just saying, this is the case with many new US hulls.

[R Gray]

3 hours ago, lordcmdr said:

Update your video drivers.

Fully updated drivers.

[Aldaris]

That's a bold armor scheme, Mr. 61000 tons British battleship.

[Panzergraf]

2 hours ago, Aldaris said:

That's a bold armor scheme, Mr. 61000 tons British battleship.

You've heard of "all or nothing"? Now get ready for "a little bit and nothing".

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Repaired version
- Rebalanced the naval budget bonus during war. The bonus became 70% from previous 100%.
- Other minor fixes and improvements.

You can now receive the update by restarting the Steam client

[Urst]

2 hours ago, Aldaris said:

That's a bold armor scheme, Mr. 61000 tons British battleship.

No armor = Best armor! Their shells are fused to penetrate at least a foot of armor, so if all they hit is thin mild steel and wood they'll never arm!

[Vanhal]

It's getting more apparent in each next patch, but we need more control over war. Currently i can't even have peace, regardless of what i do other empires tend to randomly declare war on me even from the other side of the world (playing as Italy, not having any colony or any ship outside of Mediterranean and Somalia but China and Japan still for some reason declare war only to not attack me at all). Relations don't even matter, i've been declared war from neutral relations too and in one case even straight up from alliance.

Next, peace deals. The price of colonies is completely ridiculous, one time i wiped out nearly entire French fleet of 200 ships and bately got one colony out of it, and it wasn't even good colony.

Again peace deals, sometimes it don't even give me colonies i should get. I gave enough points, check the boxes and the effect is random i might get what i want, i might get part of it or even nothing at all.

Also good job with the economy, i love not being able to afford dreadnoughts in the game about dreadnoughts (/s of course it's utter fail, even obsolete wrecks are way too expensive and cheaper ships are useless and a loss anyway)

Finally a question: Is there any way i can influence land attacks except naval invasions?

[Vinrellren]

New hulls are always a nice addition, but still, the problem of being able to control so much yet so little, is still pretty much a problem for me. Relations are still quite random; alliances could be useful, but as the AI is warmongering, allying someone will almost always result in a prolonged war.

GDP impact felt much more severe in the patch, and it's nice, but we also need the failsafe in terms of a clear condition/prerequisites for a white peace/peace treaty. I don't want my economy to plummet because a major from oceans away declares war on me and proceeds not to engage in battle or be able to ask for peace for a long time.

The good thing is the stuck turret seems to have (finally) disappeared for good. Bravo for the devs! It's good to see this game still got the love it deserves because it has potential.

[Suribachi]

4 hours ago, Vanhal said:

Finally a question: Is there any way i can influence land attacks except naval invasions?

Not directly.  You can influence how efficient the army is by ensuring your naval forces are sufficient to control all of your territory as shown by the Logistics stat, but that is it.  Army is under the control of an AI general whereas you control only the navy.  The better your naval power over the seas, the better logistics your army has and thus the better they perform.

EDIT: Some clarity on this.  If you are playing as a nation that does not have a lot of far flung territory, like Japan or A-H, you will not need many naval forces to reach 100%.  If you are playing as Britain or France which have colonies all over the world, you will need a much larger navy that is spread out to maintain a high logistics level.

There are many other variables that go into it, but this should serve as a general rule of thumb.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Suribachi
added information