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

[Nender]

Why are flags still so inaccurate guh

[TAKTCOM]

On 10/21/2023 at 7:29 PM, R Gray said:

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

I have, but different ones. It wasn't before 1.4, although I haven't played for several patches.

[GronusCZ]

I didn't want to bother the forum with it right away, so I spammed support for a couple of weeks just in-game. It's just my personal opinion, but instead of fixing the old non-disappearing lifeboats, new ones have been added which frustrates me (it's ugly).

But I understand it's just aesthetics and doesn't matter to most people. So I apologize for posting this here.

(I also have pictures but I don't have space to upload anymore).

[MDHansen]

non-removable lifeboats bugs me too. Aesthetics and historical correctness* be damned, I want to build a ship

*i know this is like cursing in church around here 😬

Edited October 22, 2023 by MDHansen

[Urst]

8 minutes ago, MDHansen said:

non-removable lifeboats bugs me too. Aesthetics and historical correctness* be damned, I want to build a ship

*i know this is like cursing in church around here 😬

External lifeboats are a fire hazard, so they historically put on as few as they can get away with, actually.

[GronusCZ]

Why do they always have to be half blended into something?

I'm not sure there were such problems with it in these places.

Somewhere this kind of thing really brings me to tears.

[Urst]

Bow underwater torpedo tube is now a turret, apparently.
The wing tubes can fire direct front, too.
This is on US light cruiser I, IIRC.

[Lucinator]

Please stop messing with the campaign economy.  Right now you don't make nearly enough money to realistically play Every major patch this happens (sometimes several times before the next major update comes)  Furthermore please focus on bringing us mod support as it will help both the community and would allow for either moving on to another game or preferably fix more of the bugs and gameplay issues.  Lastly if you have to keep putting out new hulls please make it so we can finally build the Negato, its sad such a iconic ship cant be made in game and also try to be more accurate, your "Omaha style cruiser can't be made to look like the real ship but worse you can't even give it the same armament as the real one.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Lucinator

[o Barão]

Is it possible to make the lifeboats vanish from this position when there is a turret in the same location?

 

Hull: akizuki_hull_b_cruisers_var

[brothermunro]

I have some serious concerns about the new penetration and armour balance. As an example here is a British 12" 60 calibre twin gun using super heavy tube powder 3 TNT 4 shells. With capped ballistic as the shell type selected you get this pen table in 1935 against 163% quality armour (modern 2 all or nothing): https://e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ0I8sZ9w8jkVHoeKjjv31L2FzzOfEgMapy (I can't upload pictures to the forum anymore 😅)

In 1935, at 20,000m I can go through 13" of belt, and 7.4" of deck* and get extremely high accuracy to boot. With the new armour limits this means I can threaten basically anything. If I load up with a bunch of them on a high resistance hull (like the Russian super battleship 1) I end up with a ship that will completely shred absolutely any target. The game feels very shallow now, big guns seem unnecessary as no target has enough armour to warrant their use. Armour seems borderline pointless against battleship calibre weapons, its really only there to block secondary fire. Using historical builds against each other (when you can actually build them, ships like Hood are impossible with the new armour limits) feels very odd, ships will quickly cause massive damage and sink each other in moments and is a coin toss on who wins based on which ship gets the range found bonus faster.

Overall I am having less fun with the game in the builder (with ships with loads of displacement spare and awful pitch & roll, a lot of the time I just end up not building cruisers at all), and in battles, to the point where I don't want to play a vanilla campaign or custom battle at all (which is a first for me, I've played the game a lot since alpha 4 and I have over 1000 hours on stream). 

*So able to go through the Iowa-class armour scheme which was 12.1/6"

Edited October 23, 2023 by brothermunro

[Harwood_39]

9 hours ago, Lucinator said:

Please stop messing with the campaign economy.  Right now you don't make nearly enough money to realistically play Every major patch this happens (sometimes several times before the next major update comes)  Furthermore please focus on bringing us mod support as it will help both the community and would allow for either moving on to another game or preferably fix more of the bugs and gameplay issues.  Lastly if you have to keep putting out new hulls please make it so we can finally build the Negato, its sad such a iconic ship cant be made in game and also try to be more accurate, your "Omaha style cruiser can't be made to look like the real ship but worse you can't even give it the same armament as the real one.

100% agree with this. I felt the economy was mostly fine before you changed it, especially when playing as a smaller nation, the extra boost when at war was invaluable for progressing technology and keeping a decent sized fleet to stay competitive. Having just reloaded a campaign I started when 1.4 came out, I've had to scrap most of what I was building to stay in the black, but despite having a decent amount of transports (130%), I'm losing money each turn. 

I'd rather see you put your effort into more important things that we've been asking for like the ability to choose your fleet deployment. At this stage, I'd settle for the ability to allocate my ships into divisions that actually make sense. 

A classic example just happened to me. I have a task force with 3x 8.4" CAs and 3× 6" CAs. Logic would dictate that they are 2 separate divisions with homogeneous armament (especially as they're each their own classes), but I had a division of 4 (2&2) and 2 (1&1) which meant that I had to spend time reorganising them which ruined the formation. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Harwood_39

[Aldaris]

Yepp! Yes to all of that.

I'm playing an A-H campaign right now, and the economy is completely unsustainable. I'm in a constant state of war, because I'm getting dogpiled all the time. Japan or the US declares war, which stays forever, because we have no fights, all of my neighbors pile in. Sometimes we have multiple wars and peace agreements before that war with Japan or the US is resolved. Which leads to constant economic decline - despite having a rather modest fleet and having made several territorial gains, I'm losing 30-40 million a month, in wartime, with all my fleets in port.

And being able to organize my fleets before a battle - be still, my heart. That is too beautiful a dream.

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

12 hours ago, Lucinator said:

Please stop messing with the campaign economy.  Right now you don't make nearly enough money to realistically play Every major patch this happens (sometimes several times before the next major update comes)  Furthermore please focus on bringing us mod support as it will help both the community and would allow for either moving on to another game or preferably fix more of the bugs and gameplay issues.  Lastly if you have to keep putting out new hulls please make it so we can finally build the Negato, its sad such a iconic ship cant be made in game and also try to be more accurate, your "Omaha style cruiser can't be made to look like the real ship but worse you can't even give it the same armament as the real one.

I tend to agree with this comment. Even playing as Japan, I am finding it very difficult, since the new economic changes, to maintain a fleet beyond 20-30 or so ships and often totally outclassed in terms of GDP and naval budget by the likes of even Spain or China, and have no chance of competing against GB, USA or France.

Even though I have managed to conquer most of China, much of the Pacific Islands, Alaska, Panama and much of Central America, I am still struggling to substain a decent fleet, DESPITE all of these conquests and revenue from the new acquisitions.

On another matter (and I know I have mentioned this previously, but will raise it again) it would be great if one could initiate action against a minor power, rather tha wait for it to happen.

Beside these issues, in general I am enjoying the games development and 'hats off' to the developers whgo have provided hours of entertainment.

[Vanhal]

4 hours ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

On another matter (and I know I have mentioned this previously, but will raise it again) it would be great if one could initiate action against a minor power, rather tha wait for it to happen.

So much this.

[Zuikaku]

2 hours ago, Vanhal said:

So much this.

At the cost of naval prestige and unrest.

[ijp8834]

13 hours ago, brothermunro said:

I have some serious concerns about the new penetration and armour balance. As an example here is a British 12" 60 calibre twin gun using super heavy tube powder 3 TNT 4 shells. With capped ballistic as the shell type selected you get this pen table in 1935 against 163% quality armour (modern 2 all or nothing): https://e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ0I8sZ9w8jkVHoeKjjv31L2FzzOfEgMapy (I can't upload pictures to the forum anymore 😅)

In 1935, at 20,000m I can go through 13" of belt, and 7.4" of deck* and get extremely high accuracy to boot. With the new armour limits this means I can threaten basically anything. If I load up with a bunch of them on a high resistance hull (like the Russian super battleship 1) I end up with a ship that will completely shred absolutely any target. The game feels very shallow now, big guns seem unnecessary as no target has enough armour to warrant their use. Armour seems borderline pointless against battleship calibre weapons, its really only there to block secondary fire. Using historical builds against each other (when you can actually build them, ships like Hood are impossible with the new armour limits) feels very odd, ships will quickly cause massive damage and sink each other in moments and is a coin toss on who wins based on which ship gets the range found bonus faster.

Overall I am having less fun with the game in the builder (with ships with loads of displacement spare and awful pitch & roll, a lot of the time I just end up not building cruisers at all), and in battles, to the point where I don't want to play a vanilla campaign or custom battle at all (which is a first for me, I've played the game a lot since alpha 4 and I have over 1000 hours on stream). 

*So able to go through the Iowa-class armour scheme which was 12.1/6"

THIS Devs.

We told you through the entire beta. Every third post in the Beta thread was about this. You ignored it every single time.

Battlecruisers are useless. You cannot build historic ships now because of the horrendous, and flat out terrible decision to limit armor.

I should not have to download a mod to enjoy a game. Now I do. I've supported this game since pre-steam as many of those on the forums have. No one, in all those years has asked for this.

Fix your game. BALANCE is a critical part of game design. This is a balance bug and should be reported as such until it is fixed.

[Doctor Lucky]

Exploitable Refit Times:

Description: By creating a pair of refits, you can reduce the time and cost of an effective refit of a ship.

Action Taken: I intend to refit an older design, say an "Idaho" class BB. I create an updated refit the usual way, and save it as eg. "Idaho (1910) - 2". There is an associated cost and refit time reflective of the changes made. Then immediately refit the "Idaho (1910) - 2", make a trivial change, and save it as "Idaho (1910) - 3". This will be a much smaller cost and refit time because it is a minor change relative to the (2) refit.  I then refit two of my base model ships, one to the (2) refit and one to the (3) refit.

Expected Result: Both refits should take about the same cost and time, since they reflect very similar changes to the base design.

Observed Result: The (2) refit is significantly more expensive and takes much longer than the (3) refit. eg: 4 months versus 1 month, and $20M instead of $5M.

Credit: My buddy SherpaTheYeti

(He says, "Amazing game by the way - big fan")

PS: I realize that doing the refit cost calculation on the fly probably involves loading the ship designer, which is impractical. But perhaps you can calculate & store the upgrade cost relative to every older design and apply those numbers at refit time?

Edited October 24, 2023 by Doctor Lucky

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Hi Chap's

Something else I have noticed with the latest update (and quite possibly those which came previously) is how FEW Victory Points are allocated to LAND CONQUEST.

Now I appreciate that this is basically a Naval Wargame, however, it does strike me as 'odd' that despite massive land conquests, the VP is relatively low.

Take this as an example, in the latest war, playing as Japan, I have conquered from Russia - Manchuria, Russia Far East, North Sakhalin, South Sakhalin, Kamchatka, Eastern Sirberia, Northern Russia and Mongolia! However, I have only managed to accumalate 7,910 victory points! I suspect the reason is that I have had few if any naval engagements (Russia has very few fleet assets, and those that they have are in the West).

It strikes me that if Russia had sent a sizable fleet to the seas around Japan, or I had engaged what fleet they had when invading Northern Russia towards the west and sunk a few BB's etc, I would have been awared tens of thousands of Victory Points. 

Consequently, when Russia decides to sue for peace, I will only be granted a MINOR VICTORY, despite having conquered a vast land mass (albeit filled with wilderness) and reduced Russia to its European possessions west of the Urals! Indeed I would have continued my conquests but I ran out of areas of Russian that I could invade from the sea easily (indeed initiating land to land conquests would be a realistic addition).

Perhaps, the dev's could also have a look at this.

However, I still would like to thank you for a great game!

 

[Plazma]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:23 PM, brothermunro said:

I have some serious concerns about the new penetration and armour balance. As an example here is a British 12" 60 calibre twin gun using super heavy tube powder 3 TNT 4 shells. With capped ballistic as the shell type selected you get this pen table in 1935 against 163% quality armour (modern 2 all or nothing): https://e.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ0I8sZ9w8jkVHoeKjjv31L2FzzOfEgMapy (I can't upload pictures to the forum anymore 😅)

In 1935, at 20,000m I can go through 13" of belt, and 7.4" of deck* and get extremely high accuracy to boot. With the new armour limits this means I can threaten basically anything. If I load up with a bunch of them on a high resistance hull (like the Russian super battleship 1) I end up with a ship that will completely shred absolutely any target. The game feels very shallow now, big guns seem unnecessary as no target has enough armour to warrant their use. Armour seems borderline pointless against battleship calibre weapons, its really only there to block secondary fire. Using historical builds against each other (when you can actually build them, ships like Hood are impossible with the new armour limits) feels very odd, ships will quickly cause massive damage and sink each other in moments and is a coin toss on who wins based on which ship gets the range found bonus faster.

Overall I am having less fun with the game in the builder (with ships with loads of displacement spare and awful pitch & roll, a lot of the time I just end up not building cruisers at all), and in battles, to the point where I don't want to play a vanilla campaign or custom battle at all (which is a first for me, I've played the game a lot since alpha 4 and I have over 1000 hours on stream). 

*So able to go through the Iowa-class armour scheme which was 12.1/6"

I haven't played the game since January 25 (when I received a warning) and I came back recently, but I still don't enjoy the game as much as some time ago in beta versions before submarines. But some features are very nice:

I very much enjoyed the weather system, that is good!

I see also the sub-forum for mods was created. Very good decision, thank you for that. 

But I see still problems like having one campaign per 2 major patches is problematic, and the stuck turrets are an issue that is still common in the game/after the patches. 

Additionally, I see these things:

Quote

Posted February 3

I only have 2 more ideas:

-Pre-battle deployment;

-Diplomacy with minor nations.

or AI running away

are not important, and not addressed at all. (except trading) 

 

Did Game Labs have some kind of road map part 2 or right now you guys prefer to fix the bugs? 

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

Another update improves further the game. Please read:

Minor Update v1.4.0.3

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/3745364910923328686 

[Narbar]

Looks to be a solid update! Thanks team

[Pappystein]

On 10/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, brothermunro said:

1) The game feels very shallow now, big guns seem unnecessary as no target has enough armour to warrant their use.

 

2)  *So able to go through the Iowa-class armour scheme which was 12.1/6"

While I agree with much of your premise, I have two points (I edited your quote to denote only what I wish to cover..)

1)  Big guns were NEVER needed in this game.  I have never build guns bigger than 16"/50 and won many campaigns that way... with AP not HE as well.   My 1.3 career's best campaign actually topped out at 14/50.   Which is before the changes you are concerned about.     I don't think I have INTENTIONALLY built  a main armament above 10" that was more than 50 calibers in length.  Late career I spend more time trying to SHORTEN the barrels.

2) The Iowa class is more a Battlecruiser than a Battleship (my opinion).   They give up armor for the extra 5-7 knots of speed over the SoDaks and the NorCals, and gave up armor again to stay under the 45,000 ton limits of the escalator clause. (this is why Wisconsin and Missouri have thicker bulkheads, the treaty was completely gone when they were laid down.)   You would be better served by comparing things to the Montana's armor which would have been 16.1" belt with a 7+ inch main deck , a 1.5 burster deck and a 2 inch final armored "splinter" deck.

 

That being said, I agree the Armor limits are set too low.   I think that maybe, they should stay the same at the start of the campaign but should have limit extensions in the Armor Forging tech tree.  The tree would then need to be sped up a little bit to compensate.   I think this growth progression should apply to all hulls from start of game to end of game.  Thus your old ships could potentially put on more armor later.

Doing this, using the Iowa vs Montana classes as examples,  A 1938 US BB Hull could have the Iowas armor scheme's maximum thickness, but a 1940 version of the same hull should be able to have Montana's much more significant armor thickness.  Again just an example.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded repaired version including the following:
- Repaired auto-design issues that could create errors or campaign generation delays.

You must restart Steam to get the update

[Zuikaku]

Wow, in convoy missions AI escorts (finally) moved in to intercept and draw attackers away from transports. Great change!

[Dave P.]

One bug I've been noticing forever is that if I'm at war with a nation but not one of their allies, that allies' soldiers will still help my enemy in ground combat. Kind of annoying.