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

[Grayknight]

20 hours ago, DougToss said:

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? 

I did but it proved to be fun but lacking game. In all honesty the game feels like far better designed for era of ironclads then for era of full metal ships and in all honesty it feels like adding years 1850-1890 should be far easier expansion then expected. While i agree that simulation level content would be very hard more simcade version of it should not be and lets be honest this game is not sim nor is it complex epic strategy game. Code is spaghetti and some mechanics are arcade rng and it is not going to change. Game seams to have spaghetti code but it is enjoyable for what it is and is over all fun experience. It lacks things that should be in the base game such as paint schems, more cosmetic elements, ability to have fleet commanders and flagships and i would hate if that became dlc (as it should be in base game) i have no problem with having to pay a dlc to for example play as minor nation or play from 1850 if base game is expanded with at least part of money earned by the additional payed content.

[DougToss]

I wouldn't have a problem with DLC either, but my preference would overwhelmingly be to see the titular Dreadnought era done thoroughly first. 

To your point about spaghetti code and RNG, I don't disagree, but certainly adding muzzle loading guns would only add to the problem? 

[Grayknight]

15 hours ago, DougToss said:

I wouldn't have a problem with DLC either, but my preference would overwhelmingly be to see the titular Dreadnought era done thoroughly first. 

To your point about spaghetti code and RNG, I don't disagree, but certainly adding muzzle loading guns would only add to the problem? 

Depends on how, ballistic model is done you just put some other numbers in, right? you do not really need loading animation given that you have no visual representation of crew. So you put limitations on shells range wise and give it long reloading... right?

[Drenzul]

Just tried playing a campaign as UK.

Really disappointed. Got to 1938 and basically given up.

Battles are vastly more buggy than it was at release, to the point of barely been playable.
Campaign mode has improved slightly but still most of the major bugs haven't been touched.

Economy is still borked. GDP is decreasing despite me having taken loads of territory no matter
what I do. Diplomacy seems borked, just getting massive relationship penalties every turn seemingly
no matter what I do. 

Game is literally worse than it was at release and it wasn't ready for release then.
I've basically given up on this game I'm afraid at this point.

[DougToss]

GDP is strange because, it didn't really matter what the navy did for economies like Russia and Austria, and throughout the period the vast majority of merchant ships were British flagged, so players having, say, 200% merchant ships would not really make a difference. I understand trade protection and interdiction in wartime, and a navy to "make the world safe for (country's) trade" at peace, but idk how much player involvement there really ought to be. 

[vonPeretz]

I have problems with arithmetic.
1. I’m starting to create a Torpedo Boat (as an example):
- the ship's hull has a crew of 4 sailors (4);
- the finished ship has a Tower (2), a Funnel (1), 3 guns (3x3), 2 torpedo tubes (2x10);
- in total, the crew should be 36, but it is written 16 (Quarters:Spacious - 23).

It is also very strange that the team of stokers consists of only one person.

2. Maintenance of ship:

- full crew (23 - 35240);

- incomplete crew ALSO (19 - 35240);

- low crew (7084);

- mothballed ALSO (7084).

It seems that the mothballed should be cheaper?

Edited 9 hours ago by vonPeretz