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

[Lima]

AI fails at convoy protection (again)

Bro, you have a battleship. Can you place her in such a way as to block the way of these raiders?

Nah, I'll get as far away as possible so as not to disturb them.

EDIT: 4 enemy BBs running away from my modernized 1910 WW1 BBs...

Edited November 24, 2023 by Lima

[Zuikaku]

Even more better are ambushes where 8 TBs flee the single CA they are ambushing. Before even trying to do anything, ofcourse.

[Lima]

Submarines are extremely difficult to destroy

During 1930-1940s, I noticed that my special ASW TFs (2CLs 4-6 DDs) had lost a lot in effectiveness. Before that, they weren't too impressive, but they managed to do the job done, that is, destroy a group of subs in a few turns. Now the ships are constantly getting damaged, but they do not achieve any result. Of course, all my ships use the best available ASW modules. I also maxed out speed everywhere.

As for my strike groups with BBs, they sometimes show excellent results (like all subs are sunk), but most of the time there is no result.

In desperation, I tried to use mines, equipping all the DDs with them. But this gave just ridiculously little damage, although in fact the mines were monstrously effective against subs. (Just look what happened to Soviet submarines in the Baltic).

Thus, at the moment I cannot sweep enemy subs (60-70 of them) out of the sea, despite the use of enormous resources. (1000+ DDs)

EDIT: Well, I thought maybe I should remove CLs from ASW TFs? It turns out the same result.

This is completely absurd. Just imagine 20 of USS Fletchers versus floating coffins (300-600t subs).

Also, I'm starting to lose more capital ships from submarine attacks. Do I need to add MORE DDs to the TFs? More than there has ever been in history? I'm starting to get tired of this.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Lima

[Lima]

I really wanted to say that I generally like the performance of the campaign. I can generate "Meetings" pretty confidently. Sometimes the things described here happen, but for the most part everything is fine. I can effectively fight the enemy Navy.

Also, the AI commands its Navy pretty well. I see how the US is trying to protect home waters. (Although low fuel TFs still happen).

However, these overpowered submarines don't allow me to gain command at sea. I throw huge resources at them, but in most cases they don't get damaged, and the AI quickly builds a replacement. This has a very bad effect on the game experience.

[Seleukos of Olympia]

I had been playing on a pre-1.4 version until now, because I had a campaign going and didn't want to lose my saves there before I could play it out as much as I wanted. I finally updated the game today and tried "Dreadnoughts vs Modern Cruisers", a naval academy mission that was fiendishly difficult in the previous version, because the AI could massively outspend and outgun the player. I hadn't managed to get anywhere near winning it before, so I thought I'd see how it is in the new version. This time, things appeared more balanced - I was able to design two battleships with advanced tech instead of one, and that give me a very significant fighting chance. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't seem inclined to oblige. It will run away outside not only my firing range but also theirs, and stay there because their ships are faster than mine. And this in a mission where it's stated that the "enemy will never retreat"!

 

There's clearly something amiss.

[kineuhansen]

game could use some new capital ships like bc and bb

[Lima]

The bravest enemy task force be like:
Oh no, they have 1 (one) light cruiser, run for your life!

Edited November 25, 2023 by Lima
bruh

[Lima]

Submarines are boring and unengaging waste of time.

I have 5-6 battles with subs every turn. And it's just a waste of time. These battles have no effect on the campaign. I'm just routinely clicking through it. It's just not interesting. This reduces the overall good pace of the campaign.

It doesn't matter how many subs I destroy, the AI will build a large number of new ones. And in any case, it only takes 1 sub to generate a battle.

Sometimes the AI uses nuclear-powered submarines to break through 20-30 CLs/DDs of the escort and cause damage to my BB. But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

If we talk about the use of submarines by me...I am not interested in the possibility of destroying enemy ships. I want to see it on the screen.

I've always wanted to use submarines to hunt for transports, but they're so bad at this job, it's just hard for me to look at this.

If you are wondering what is happening near the port. That's why I need 100 battleships.

[Zuikaku]

This AI cowardice is not even funny anymore. This issue is unadressed for years now! 

[cousincoffee]

I am having serious issues with regards to ASW. Despite me having entire squadrons of DDs equipped with DC5 on top of subs, i am not even getting the chance to engage them. It is infuriating that you have no control on when engagements will actually take place or the ships you want involved in them. It has absolutely ruined my British campaign in 1.4.

Another factor is reparations, I have had the Shetland isles taken by Russia as reparations. If i get to choose what i want for reparations and only get a chance for it to be accepted, why do I not get ANY choice is what the enemies reparations are? It is completely out of your control. When I am trying to get fleet engagements to gain VPs but all im getting is attacked and sunk by Subs all the time so losing wars and then being asked "shall we sue for peace" i say no, they sue for peace anyway and i have to lose stuff. Feels like 1.4 is so much more unbalanced in this regard than previous updates. 

Lastly, and i forgot to get a screenshot of this, but came across a Spanish CL that had 6x7 inch single barrel guns, torps, 2 funnels, a secondary tower but NO primary tower? It didnt help it at all but how is that even been possible? Oh and almost every BB ive seen is now using those hideous quad turrets? Barely any variation on this now. Seems the AI is just getting all the fun i had back in 1.3.9

Cheers 

[lordcmdr]

21 hours ago, Seleukos of Olympia said:

I had been playing on a pre-1.4 version until now, because I had a campaign going and didn't want to lose my saves there before I could play it out as much as I wanted. I finally updated the game today and tried "Dreadnoughts vs Modern Cruisers", a naval academy mission that was fiendishly difficult in the previous version, because the AI could massively outspend and outgun the player. I hadn't managed to get anywhere near winning it before, so I thought I'd see how it is in the new version. This time, things appeared more balanced - I was able to design two battleships with advanced tech instead of one, and that give me a very significant fighting chance. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't seem inclined to oblige. It will run away outside not only my firing range but also theirs, and stay there because their ships are faster than mine. And this in a mission where it's stated that the "enemy will never retreat"!

 

There's clearly something amiss.

Yeah, the AI running is a meme at this point.  It just never gets fixed.

[The PC Collector]

Submarines are the most annoying features I've ever seen on a grand strategy game. They add nothing to the game, only annoyance. For the gamemode to be enjoyable, it is imperative that they're made optional or entirely removed.

[spinaker]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

Подводные лодки - самые раздражающие функции, которые я когда-либо видел в большой стратегической игре. Они ничего не добавляют к игре, только раздражают. Чтобы игровые режимы были приятными, крайне важно сделать их необязательными или полностью удалить.

I can imagine how German submarines irritated the British command. Churchill would probably have turned them off if he had the opportunity))) And you don't have to study all sorts of sonars and depth charges. Stop... And then the destroyers won't really be destroyers anymore. Then they can be removed from the game altogether. Maybe then it should be possible to disable destroyers, cruisers and battleships? To make the game modes as enjoyable as possible?

[The PC Collector]

12 minutes ago, spinaker said:

I can imagine how German submarines irritated the British command. Churchill would probably have turned them off if he had the opportunity

The difference is that IRL they added something, here they don't add anything but broken mechanics. They trigger countless battles, ignore all the mechanics which are supposed to counter them. And on top have an uninteresting, unengaging gameplay consisting on clicking an auto resolve button.

 

 

12 minutes ago, spinaker said:

Maybe then it should be possible to disable destroyers, cruisers and battleships? To make the game modes as enjoyable as possible?

I've been saying from the start that one of the possible configuration options for campaign start should be disabling torpedoes. If I come to a game with "Dreadnoughts" on its name, I want big gun battles, not pesky glorified fishing boats being the deciding factor. If I wanted the gameplay revolving around subs and destroyers I'd go play Silent Hunter or WoWs.

So yeah, that what you said as joke, probably won't be a bad idea, so people can choose their fun.

Edited November 25, 2023 by The PC Collector

[Seleukos of Olympia]

6 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

This AI cowardice is not even funny anymore. This issue is unadressed for years now! 

It wasn't an issue in the last version before 1.4. I played on it extensively and the AI only ran away when it was heavily outmatched - and sometimes not even then.

[Lima]

5 hours ago, spinaker said:

I can imagine how German submarines irritated the British command. Churchill would probably have turned them off if he had the opportunity))) And you don't have to study all sorts of sonars and depth charges. Stop... And then the destroyers won't really be destroyers anymore. Then they can be removed from the game altogether. Maybe then it should be possible to disable destroyers, cruisers and battleships? To make the game modes as enjoyable as possible?

Ah, IRL argument. Reminds me of Todd Howard, who said that astronauts didn't have too much fun on the moon either, so Starfield has the right to have empty planets. It's a game. IRL, you are not complaining that the enemy did something, you are trying to survive. That's just why you have the motivation to fight submarines even if they infuriate you.

IRL argument

But if you want to take reality as an example, this is getting very bad for submarines. In our reality, the bottom of the Atlantic is filled with U-boats. The Allies have made a lot of effort, but as a result, the submarines were defeated. We can say that there were aircraft carriers. Well, this game doesn't have aircraft carriers, so the ASW ships have to be balanced according to that (be stronger).

Let's look at the bottom of the Gulf of Finland, where there are many Soviet submarines. They hit mines, and in our reality this is the end for the submarine (in most cases). In this game, mines are just a joke.

In our reality, many different small ships were used against submarines, which were often very old. But they still posed a threat to submarines. In this game, submarines can ignore dozens of the newest destroyers with top sonar equipment.

I can go on and on with this, but let's say why submarines were such a *threat*. You see, the submarines were capable of causing catastrophic damage to the merchant fleet. In this game, submarines love to miss unprotected transports.

Gameplay perspective 

Quote

Maybe then it should be possible to disable destroyers, cruisers and battleships?

These classes of ships have a battle simulation. Whatever the balance, you can have a battle, and this is a strong component of this game. Every battle is unique to some extent.

Submarines, on the other hand, have only auto resolve *clicks*. It could be interesting to have one campaign with submarines, but when I have 5-6 battles every turn it just gets boring. I can't be bothered to even watch the results of the battles. They have no influence on the course of the campaign. They're just wasting my time.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Lima
t

[Warspite96]

Japan's 1930+ economy is uh......a little bit weak, tried a campaign as them as I really like the Japanese hull designs, ended up having to abandon it since quite frankly, it's pretty difficult to keep up with multi front wars between western nations when your starting GDP is half that of China, which somehow has a larger GDP than the Soviet Union and the United States, and the weakest out of anyone apart from Spain.

Of course it's actually not unrealistic to struggle economically as Japan, since that was pretty much the reason they went on their expansion in the 1930s/40s historically, but being able to build only a handful of BBs and DDs when even China can easily build a fleet twice your size is a bit insane. Their economy needs a buff in my opinion.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Warspite96

[VarangianGarde]

On 11/23/2023 at 4:36 AM, Darth Khyron said:

Puh. Forget the promise of progress and peace, for in the grim darkness of the wide oceans, there is only war.

Now played several campaigns. In the beginning, all is fine, but around 1910-1915, everyone is at war with everyone. You ally with a nation, often giving money to do so. Some months later, their admiral influences their government to cancel the alliance. Then, after some more months, you are at war. Why? Because tension is rising everywhere, in the labrador sea, in the arctic ocean, everywehre randomly, it seems. No one has assets there, not an ally of an enemy, not me, no one. But tension rises regardless.
These wars, of course, often result in land battles. So, my forces are attacking a country with overwhelming force. Since I have some naval assets there, my ground troops are pushing forward. Yeah, breakthrough. The enemy lines collapse. Almost there. 75%. my government asks me, if we should make peace after I destroyed an enemy battleship. No. Push onwards to prevent another war happening in the near future. 83%. The enemy admiral tries to make peace. 93%. Almost there.
BAM! The enemy admiral succeeds. Peace is made. Okay I want X and Y provinces. I get none, just money. Six months later, we are at war again. My forces attack. Enemy lines collapse...you get my point.

This mechanic has essentially ruined my 1900 Spain campaign as well. By 1930, eternal meaningless war combined with the drag effects on the economy mean the economy is in a permanent -7% death spiral. It's reached a point where I literally cannot afford to send TFs to deal with the "wars" that have started. Oh look! China hates me for something something tension in Kerguelen (see bold quote above). Now I have another war. Italy is down to two provinces and yet just by being at war they keep my army mobilized, somehow pick off multiple merchant ships every turn despite having a single digit navy of DDs and SCs (which ought to be escorted by the larger number of DDs and CLs I can afford to keep active).

It's reaching the point of being unplayable.

[kineuhansen]

one thing i love to see in a future update is more bb and bc between 1910 and 1940 and dd between 1910 and 1940 also love to see some guns get an visuel update so they look more british like the 1930 6 inch gun both the duel and trible they look nothing like the one leander and town had

[AdmiralBert]

We're already playing a game where aircraft carriers have purposely been ignored/not added because they don't mesh with big guns go boom ship gameplay, so having an off-switch for built submarines (just replace them with a series of techs which represent attacks on transports) isn't going to launch the game into being laughably non-historical.

Grumble time: Invasions, and their influence on war score. I'm currently in a late 1920s struggle against Britain as France. I have been winning consistent naval victories, have lost no warships and generally am having a wonderful time. I've got a 'score' in the 350k ish range. With their warships being sunk left and right, their convoys torn to shreds, the Brits are at....300k. How? Oh, I failed a few 80-90% success chance naval invasions, where I had four or five times the amount of tonnage required and could sit there entirely uncontested.

This is stupid. If my opponent can't disrupt my landings, they shouldn't require such a preponderance of shipping to guarantee success, and if they fail they shouldn't make the nation outright ignore nearly half a decade of naval humilation and losses.

[Warspite96]

1 hour ago, AdmiralBert said:

We're already playing a game where aircraft carriers have purposely been ignored/not added because they don't mesh with big guns go boom ship gameplay, so having an off-switch for built submarines (just replace them with a series of techs which represent attacks on transports) isn't going to launch the game into being laughably non-historical.

Grumble time: Invasions, and their influence on war score. I'm currently in a late 1920s struggle against Britain as France. I have been winning consistent naval victories, have lost no warships and generally am having a wonderful time. I've got a 'score' in the 350k ish range. With their warships being sunk left and right, their convoys torn to shreds, the Brits are at....300k. How? Oh, I failed a few 80-90% success chance naval invasions, where I had four or five times the amount of tonnage required and could sit there entirely uncontested.

This is stupid. If my opponent can't disrupt my landings, they shouldn't require such a preponderance of shipping to guarantee success, and if they fail they shouldn't make the nation outright ignore nearly half a decade of naval humilation and losses.

This gets even worse if you play as a low GDP nation such as Japan 1930, like I recently did (and mentioned above). You can't build many ships at all since income is so poor, therefore its pretty much impossible to launch naval invasions so all you can do is hold off enemy fleets and hope you don't go bankrupt lmao. Had to abandon the save after I couldn't take an oil province from Britain in a naval invasion and the French sent a literal doom stack to end my navy.

[Nickthenuker]

My game keeps crashing on launch, nothing I have done has solved the issue. I tried verifying files on Steam, deleting all files including in AppData and verifying, uninstalling and reinstalling on a different drive, nothing worked. 

[lordcmdr]

6 hours ago, Nickthenuker said:

My game keeps crashing on launch, nothing I have done has solved the issue. I tried verifying files on Steam, deleting all files including in AppData and verifying, uninstalling and reinstalling on a different drive, nothing worked. 

Have you checked for all driver updates, video card and chipset? Also disable any overclocks you might have enabled no matter how minor.

Edited November 27, 2023 by lordcmdr

[applegrcoug]

Three things...

First, I had a CA that needed ammo.  I sent it into port...it took three months to reload with ammo.  

One, these subs have been here for ten years...you can see them in 1933 during the invasion and then ten years later they still haven't moved, been sunk or run aground.

 

 

Next, why do I keep getting convoy missions against this CA with only DDs?  The only way for it to get out is to sail past my CAs.  I'd really like to understand why later in the game the only way to engage enemy CAs is with CLs or DD, CLs is only with DDs.  

Edited November 28, 2023 by applegrcoug
forgot

[Warspite96]

8 hours ago, applegrcoug said:

Next, why do I keep getting convoy missions against this CA with only DDs?  The only way for it to get out is to sail past my CAs.  I'd really like to understand why later in the game the only way to engage enemy CAs is with CLs or DD, CLs is only with DDs.  

The game seems to prefer matching up ships based on total combined tonnage of the ships involved instead of ship type for some bizarre reason, which often means if you have ships that are oversized for their class or even late game high tonnage BBs, it might be hard to generate a mission for them outside of forcing a task force meeting because the enemy has no equivalent tonnage ships, as well as creating situations like this where the game seems to think 9,000 tons of destroyer is worth the same combat value as a single 9,000 ton CA, I suppose if you have lots of torps you might come out on top, but 9 times out of 10 even a crappily designed AI heavy cruiser will absolutely smoke a few DDs.

It doesn't even make sense from a tactical perspective, if you have an enemy convoy guarded by CAs, why would you send a few tin can DDs at it instead of bringing in your own heavy guns? Definitely needs looking at.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Warspite96
words