>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.6)

[Thramoun]

13 minutes ago, TK3600 said:

The fact is peace time should save money via less intense use of ships. This is hardly reflected in game. There is a high constant maintenence cost at peace. In war ships moves a lot, shoot a lot, use lots of fuel. But there is barely any cost to that. 

I think you misunderstand - the ways I have mentioned are how this is reflected in the game. When your fleet remains In Being during peacetime, they'll be doing all the tasks they'd be doing in wartime - just with noone to fight. There is something to be said about this possibly being done more easily during peacetime, but I feel it's properly reflected.

[TK3600]

26 minutes ago, Thramoun said:

I think you misunderstand - the ways I have mentioned are how this is reflected in the game. When your fleet remains In Being during peacetime, they'll be doing all the tasks they'd be doing in wartime - just with noone to fight. There is something to be said about this possibly being done more easily during peacetime, but I feel it's properly reflected.

In being is sitting at port. But that is already reflected as low cost. I am saying being at war and using ships should be expensive, even relative to maintnence cost. But thats me. I also think crew cost should be relfected more. I spam spacious quarter all the time.

[Panzergraf]

I'm typically in the green (making profits) in peace time, and in the red (losing money) in war time.
In peace time I have all ships in port, set to Limited, unless they are involved in conquest missions.
Setting them to limited really saves a lot of money. If they are older ships, or brand new with no crew XP I want to maintain,

The game will tell you that Limited status will negatively effect crew training, but I really haven't noticed it take a hit, even after multiple years.

I will set the crew slider just low enough that they are on Low Crew, which combined with Limited makes them even cheaper than having them mothballed. And as a bonus they retain some crew XP (but not all, Veteran ships will be reduced to Seasoned when re-crewed), and there's no re-commissioning cooldown like there is with mothballing.

I have a pretty massive navy at this point in my Italian campaign, 20BB, 30BC, and lots of other ships, so having most of them at sea will cost me a lot of cash even with a war time naval budget. But having saved up a bunch during peace time, it's really no problem.


So it's perfectly possible to keep a huge navy in service in peace time, as long as your ships aren't being too active.

It's also worth noting that while some engine types, like Diesel and Turbo Electric, make your ships more costly to build, they will reduce maintenance cost, potentially making them cheaper to keep in the long run than less costly alternatives like Geared Turbines.

[TK3600]

See, this is why multi expansion engine is best. -25% maintnence, vs +10% in turbine. That means I get 3 ship for every 2 turbine ships. As a bonus, it has amazing accuracy due to excellent balance. Great fuel range and cruise speed are icing on the cake.

[brothermunro]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:39 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

We will up the difficulty in the next major update. Now we cannot make big changes because many players' saves will be affected negatively to the point they will have to abandon their old campaigns.
There were a series of campaign bug issues fixed in the last months, which previously affected the economy very negatively resulting in nations to become easily dissolved. 
Restricting the economy in a proper level, again, but without the old bugs, should be a very effective way to increase the difficulty, something that possibly will make many players angry ....

I know that not everyone is aware of this but speaking personally I’m no longer worried about new updates requiring a new save since you added the extremely useful version control in steam.

A more restrictive economy was one of the things I tried to do via modding, and I got relatively few complaints about it (though not none, I don’t think that’s actually possible 😂)

[TK3600]

Rather than artificially inflate the economy, just do away the nation dissolving thing. That don't happen in real life. Even Soviet Union still had Russia left, instead of leaving map entirely.

I see the developers are dancing around the issue of nation dissolving. No, economy is not the too restrictive at all. It is the dissolving mechanic. Ideally rework it so nation only lose non-core territories, 1 year 25% cap on military sliders, reduced gdp growth. Debts are 'forgiven' in event of bankrupty in exchange of diplomatic relation penalty (possibly leads to war to retrieve debt as in IRL 1918 Russia).

 

If for whatever reason a rework is not allowed, axe away the dissolving mechanic is still a better alternative than have it around. Thank you.

Edited June 16 by TK3600

[Aldaris]

Another suggestion to help the AI design better ships: restrict the speed the AI designs ships at to the recommended hull maximum. Currently, the AI often builds ships that are ridiculously fast, with completely oversized machinery. And this comes at the expense of armor and firepower. BCs that handily exceed 40 knots don't have room for too much else. More or less being forced to stick to what the hull is designed for should alleviate that.

Somewhat related to that, it would be nice if autoresolve vaguely took into account the strength of the respective fleets. Because currently, I can have a fight of 4 BBs, 3 CAs and 4 DDs vs 1 CL, and the result is moderate damage to the CL, and 5 damaged ships in my fleet.

How would that even work?? If that CL comes into range, it'll be confetti 2 salvos later.

The alternative is withdrawing, which won't work, or playing it out - which results in 30x time compression until I can end battle, because of course that lone CL is booking it.

Edited June 17 by Aldaris

[DougToss]

I think perhaps a feature towards gun standardization is in need. 

As it stands, navies can have wildly different calibres and length of gun on almost any ship they build. Not only would this be a logistical nightmare in terms of providing ammunition, and complicate fleet gunnery, but it would make the maintenance, repair and replacement of naval guns a nightmare too. Finally, naval gun development is usually iterative, making use of design principles, assemblies, parts, or the ammunition of previous guns. So, generally, navies find a calibre of gun they like and use it on as many ships as possible, so that a destroyer main armament is the secondary battery on a cruiser, and AA guns on a battleship etc. 

I'm not saying to have it so you have to research 4.1 inch guns, then 4.2 inch etc. Rather, a bonus in design and building time for using the same calibre of gun, and maybe variable bonus for using the same length and/or mounts would be great. So, if I commit to 4.7 inch guns in double turrets, every subsequent class of ship that uses the same arrangement benefits from the institutional experience of my navy doing so repeatedly. Ideally, at the strategic layer, maybe a logistical cost savings for number of ships in a fleet with the same calibre/mount of guns. I don't know how this would work, other than if your fleet has, say, a total of 80 guns that would be destroyer main armament and capital ship secondary armament, you gain a bonus if 40/60/all 80 of them are the same calibre, and maybe and additional bonus for how many of them are on the same type of mounting. This could be as simple as a scaling monthly cost savings. 

I think this could lead to more realistic player and AI ship design and fleet building programmes as there would be more standardization, and, as far as AI engagements go, a line of battle, or destroyer screen, would have a consistent amount of firepower within a range band, rather than nearly identical ships of the same type having guns that perform wildly different, like 3 inch and 5 inch destroyers in the same flotilla. 

This may also give players incentive to find a calibre and barrel length they like, I keep thinking 4.7 inch, and stick with it. It could get them invested in the gun design system, and follow developments in mounts, loading systems, propellants and explosives more closely, as for example new technology makes 5 inch guns more feasible and they start planning their navy 10 years into the future with 5 inch guns as the standard armament. 

 

I've put some more thought into this, keep in mind the numbers are all made up:

 

Quote

Proposed Implementation of Naval Gun Standardization and Penalties

Standardization Bonuses

1. Gun Standardization by Calibre:

   • Bonus: A small reduction in design and building time for using the same calibre across different ships.
   • Scaling: Increases as more ships use the same calibre.
   • Implementation:
     • Shipbuilder Discount: 5% reduction in costs for each additional ship using the same calibre.
     • Building Time Discount: 5% reduction in building time for standardized calibre.
     • Maintenance Cost Discount: 2% reduction in maintenance costs for each ship using the same calibre.

2. Standardization by Mount:

   • Bonus: Additional reduction in design and building time for using the same mount configuration.
   • Scaling: Increases as more ships use the same mount.
   • Implementation:
     • Shipbuilder Discount: 3% reduction in costs for using the same mount.
     • Building Time Discount: 3% reduction in building time for standardized mounts.
     • Maintenance Cost Discount: 1% reduction in maintenance costs for each ship using the same mount.

3. Full Standardization (Calibre + Barrel Length + Mount):

   • Bonus: Maximum reduction in design and building time.
   • Scaling: Increases significantly as more ships use the exact same gun configuration.
   • Implementation:
     • Shipbuilder Discount: 10% reduction in costs for complete standardization.
     • Building Time Discount: 10% reduction in building time for full standardization.
     • Maintenance Cost Discount: 5% reduction in maintenance costs for each ship using the exact same configuration.

Penalties for Non-Standardization

1. Novel Gun Calibre:

   • Penalty: Increased costs for introducing a new gun calibre.
   • Scaling: Penalty decreases as the calibre becomes more widespread.
   • Implementation:
     • Cost Penalty: +3% for a novel gun calibre not used on other ships.
     • Fleet Maintenance Cost: +1% for each unique gun calibre in the fleet.

2. Novel Gun Calibre and Mount:

   • Penalty: Higher costs for introducing a new gun calibre with a new mount.
   • Scaling: Penalty decreases as the configuration becomes more widespread.
   • Implementation:
     • Cost Penalty: +5% for a new gun calibre and mount configuration.
     • Fleet Maintenance Cost: +2% for each unique calibre and mount combination in the fleet.

3. Multiple Gun Types in Fleet:

   • Penalty: Increased logistical burden for fleets with multiple gun types.
   • Scaling: Penalty increases with the number of different gun types.
   • Implementation:
     • Fleet Maintenance Cost: +1% for each additional type of gun within the same class (e.g., light, medium, heavy) or within a ship class (e.g., cruiser main armament).
     • Granular Penalty: Assess by the number of different guns rather than types, scaling with the fleet size.

Encouraging Refits

1. Refit Bonuses:

   • Bonus: Reduction in refit costs for standardizing armaments on existing ships.
   • Implementation:
     • Refit Discount: 10% reduction in refit costs for replacing old armaments with standardized guns.
     • Building Time Discount: 5% reduction in refit time for using standardized armaments.

2. Penalty for Continued One-Offs:

   • Penalty: Increased costs for maintaining non-standardized one-off configurations.
   • Implementation:
     • Cost Penalty: +10% for maintaining unique configurations that are not standardized.
     • Fleet Maintenance Cost: +3% for each unique gun calibre and mount combination.

Conclusion

The proposed system encourages naval standardization by offering significant bonuses for consistent armament configurations while imposing penalties for diverse and non-standardized setups. This approach not only promotes logistical efficiency and operational cohesion but also aligns with historical practices of fleet management. By incentivizing refits and standardization, navies can achieve a balance between technological advancement and practical deployment, ensuring strategic advantages in both construction and combat readiness.

 

Edited June 18 by DougToss

[TK3600]

I has been a long time since 1.5 release. Is 1.6 coming? I think it is reasonable to release new hulls at cost of save compatibility given most people had chance to complete their campaign after 1.5.

[Drenzul]

I am extremely disappointed. 

Game seems to be building more bugs rather than fixing anything. 
Major issues still cropping up and not addressed that have been there since beta.

Lets go through the quick list of bugs that haven't been addressed for multiple years.
1> Torpedo highlighting non-existent.
2> Ships completely ignoring directions (seems to have gotten worse!)
3> Nonsensical values in ship builder (oxy torps affects hull weight???)
4> No way to stop fleet ships leaving port and getting involved in fights.
5> No way to build direct to refit standards. Also seems to have got worse
since I can't even build the older hulls at all for some reason!!!!!

[Drenzul]

And just cos I moaned about it. Loaded into a battle. One squadron won't response to manuver commands except direct rudder....

I fixed that by changing the leader of the group, then all but one of my squadron then suddenly has the same thing....

Seriously feels like all the good devs have been assigned to other games.

[Urst]

Still want the ability to build old hulls. I legitimately do not care if it causes turns to take longer because the AI's looking through ALL the hulls.

 

1 hour ago, Drenzul said:

And just cos I moaned about it. Loaded into a battle. One squadron won't response to manuver commands except direct rudder....

I fixed that by changing the leader of the group, then all but one of my squadron then suddenly has the same thing....

Seriously feels like all the good devs have been assigned to other games.

hello kittying rude. Even if you're frustrated with how the game's developing that's uncalled for.

[Drenzul]

27 minutes ago, Urst said:

Still want the ability to build old hulls. I legitimately do not care if it causes turns to take longer because the AI's looking through ALL the hulls.

 

hello kittying rude. Even if you're frustrated with how the game's developing that's uncalled for.

Wasn't meant to be rude, was a observation as a software engineer. 
We've had an increase in the number of bugs and various features which should be easy to fix not been touched despite lots of people here complaining about it for a long time.

[Aldaris]

If a squadron isn't reacting to commands, restarting the game will fix it - and you'll need to restart the game, because on top of not reacting to mouse commands, the affected ships/squadrons will usually not fire too. Annoying bug for sure.

Fortunately, for me, this rarely happens, and almost exclusively after a longer session playing.

Much of your other points aren't bugs, they're features you'd like to have. Things like torpedo highlightig and being able to build refits directly. That's a distinction you should be well aware of as a software engineer.

Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to have those features too, but being dishonest by calling those bugs isn't helping, and then stooping to ad hominem attacks by questioning the competence of the devs is just plain counterproductive.

[Urst]

7 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Wasn't meant to be rude, was a observation as a software engineer. 
We've had an increase in the number of bugs and various features which should be easy to fix not been touched despite lots of people here complaining about it for a long time.

While that's true, insulting them isn't exactly going to endear them to the idea of working harder under most circumstances.
Have you considered that those bugs are actually just that hard to fix without causing even more issues, and that they've been working on them but just haven't figured it out yet?

Edited Saturday at 11:30 AM by Urst

[casperwieik]

Do not know if this is exactly the right spot to post this kind of stuff, but I guess it's some form of feedback?

Anyway, I found some wrong information on the loading page of the Moltke class battlecruisers:
The screen says that their armament was improved over the Von Der Tann by adding TWO extra 11-inch turrets for a total of SIX.
In reality they were improved by adding ONE extra 11-inch turret for a total of FIVE.

[Drenzul]

3 hours ago, Urst said:

While that's true, insulting them isn't exactly going to endear them to the idea of working harder under most circumstances.
Have you considered that those bugs are actually just that hard to fix without causing even more issues, and that they've been working on them but just haven't figured it out yet?

Again, wasn't an insult to the devs, more to whoever decided to move the experienced devs to the other games instead of letting them finish this one. 

Suggesting they haven't been able to work out how to implement really basic and simple features like these in that time period however is extremely insulting. They have implemented far more complex features over the same period.

I've seen this more than a few times over the last 20 years in software development where the experienced devs are moved to a different project and there are certain areas the less experienced devs just don't want to touch.
 
Also at no point did I suggest they work harder. I suggested they prioritise the features that the community has been asking for since well, the basic feature they rely upon came out. 

[DougToss]

On 6/21/2024 at 8:15 PM, Drenzul said:

5> No way to build direct to refit standards. Also seems to have got worse
since I can't even build the older hulls at all for some reason!!!!!

This has been driving me crazy. If I have an obsolete ship, and I need to rush it into service by fitting a modern rangefinder, upgrading the propellant and shells, other very minor refits, I shouldn't need to dig up the plans. (Limited) refits should be allowed on a ship by ship basis. 

Sure, maybe if we're talking about switching triple expansion engines to turbines, or a new main armament, that's a year in the shipyard (or more?), and I can see why major overhauls practically were construction projects. But ships should always be able to have dockyard, as opposed to shipyard, level refits, like secondary armament up or down an inch, things we know were done at naval dockyards like fitting bofors and Oerlikon guns. We know that didn't require reconstruction. 

e: I just want to say it's real World of Tanks/World of Warships brain to recommend getting your T crossed on purpose, which no naval officer would willingly do. The huge disadvantage this would put you in is in no way offset by the better angle of belt armour, since all of the enemies guns would be bearing on you. 

 

Edited Sunday at 01:20 AM by DougToss

[kineu.a.hansen]

insted of multiplayer i would love to see 1.6 there are so many hulls and towers that need to be fixed so many hulls wich half the towers dont fit and a more open designer like rotate super structures alots of time i place a tower on the hull is the other way arround and please let us be able to place barbettes where ever we want both main and secondary barbette

[Grayknight]

I would love 1850 dlc or playing as minor nation or steam workshop support (AI ships packages) but i say this becouse I do not have friends to play with

[DougToss]

I think that might be interesting if the base game was in a finished state, but we're so far from smoothbore and rifled muzzle loaders being something that could be modelled accurately, not to mention sailing rigs etc. that I think that should be deferred. 

Have you tried Victory at Sea: Ironclads? 

[brothermunro]

On 6/22/2024 at 1:15 AM, Drenzul said:

I am extremely disappointed. 

Game seems to be building more bugs rather than fixing anything. 
Major issues still cropping up and not addressed that have been there since beta.

Lets go through the quick list of bugs that haven't been addressed for multiple years.
1> Torpedo highlighting non-existent.
2> Ships completely ignoring directions (seems to have gotten worse!)
3> Nonsensical values in ship builder (oxy torps affects hull weight???)
4> No way to stop fleet ships leaving port and getting involved in fights.
5> No way to build direct to refit standards. Also seems to have got worse
since I can't even build the older hulls at all for some reason!!!!!

I can tell you why they can’t let you build old ships, or rather why the game obsoletes hulls. It’s relatively trivial to turn this off and have all hulls available all the time which is great for the human player who can make sensible choices but the AI builder is a different kettle of fish. It basically chooses from the available hulls at random, it has no way of evaluating if they are any good. So you’d have the AI in 1950 building pre dreadnoughts. Hilarious yes, but fairly terrible for game balance.

Edited Sunday at 04:03 PM by brothermunro

[Urst]

3 hours ago, brothermunro said:

I can tell you why they can’t let you build old ships, or rather why the game obsoletes hulls. It’s relatively trivial to turn this off and have all hulls available all the time which is great for the human player who can make sensible choices but the AI builder is a different kettle of fish. It basically chooses from the available hulls at random, it has no way of evaluating if they are any good. So you’d have the AI in 1950 building pre dreadnoughts. Hilarious yes, but fairly terrible for game balance.

It should be able to choose at least based on hull-form, stability, resistance, and cost.

[DougToss]

That assumes they scale linearly, which was not inherently the case. I'm thinking specifically of the historical case where ships designed for oil fired boilers lacked the stability, resistance and buoyancy of earlier coal-fired ships, whose bunkers lent ballast, protection and reserve buoyancy even when punctured. 

[marine0351w]

This is a funny bug, I got hit by a ricochet that registered as killing 126 crew, but I suspect my CA was already missing that crew prior to the battle start