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

[casperwieik]

Thank you for another good batch of fixes, but I do keep wondering what is wrong with the transport growth capability continuously shrinking?

In my current game it went like this:

At the start (1890) it did up to around 7% per turn shrinking down to 1.05% per turn when I reached 200%.

At around 1900 it sat at 200% with a max of 0.93% per turn

During my Great War (1901-1906) with Britain my fleet size got sunk down to 156%, and I could only gain 0.63 per turn back.

And now, in 1909, while being at peace, at full slider, I only gain 0.34% per turn. My transport size is still 156%. It'd cost tens of millions per turn to gain 0.34% transport size.

 

I am not playing with any mods, pure vanilla. Is there some bug in the code or am I doing something wrong? Because every turn, even when I am not investing in growing my transports, the max gain per turn goes down.

[Nick Thomadis]

On 3/12/2024 at 4:09 PM, ramenhenry said:

Even if I do the problem is still evident! The ratio is crossed when I have a 30cm to 15cm ratio ! If I expand my citadel I get free displacement !

It is just a matter of weight balance mechanics. We can only optimize this again, in a next major update, as altering weight mechanics will affect the saves of all players.

[__Arminius_]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It is just a matter of weight balance mechanics. We can only optimize this again, in a next major update, as altering weight mechanics will affect the saves of all players.

I am now improving Ukrainian localization, and have question, how many time I have ?

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Optimized version including the following:
- Auto-Design has been sped up. Loading times became reduced significantly. 
You need to restart Steam to get the update fast with no problems

[Nick Thomadis]

55 minutes ago, __Arminius_ said:

I am now improving Ukrainian localization, and have question, how many time I have ?

You can finish it whenever you want  and publish it here: https://forum.game-labs.net/forum/200-community-localization/

[__Arminius_]

43 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You can finish it whenever you want  and publish it here: https://forum.game-labs.net/forum/200-community-localization/

Ok, thanks for answer 

[havaduck]

17 hours ago, casperwieik said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but invasions are based on the harbor tonnage available in a province, and NOT on garrison size. You need at minimum to out-tonnage the tonnage of the provinces harbors, and after that either pop or eco size also give some negative effects. Garrison size, as far as I have experienced, has hardly any influence in a succesful invasion.

For example, it will basically always be easier to take Wales, Northwest England or the middle English province then it is Southeast Spain, because those provinces only have 1 port each that in an early game do not go beyond 20k tonnage, despite them being industrial powerhouses and therefore extremely valuable targets for an invasion.

 

The explanaton is much apreciated because the ingame help doesnt mention this AT ALL .

 

[havaduck]

Yet again. AI cowardice is a big problem of the game. I constantly see the AI just running away.

 

€: The only way to get the AI even remotely to fight is to herd them with faster destroyers, because then they ignore everything but that DD, or just assign ships on single patrol and hope an battle of 1 vs multiple is generated.  So trying to get the same desroyer ( the Menancing Principal Lesbian) these are battles I have to aim for in order for the AI and do baltte with just maneuvering to avoid being torpedoed instead of full and only running away: 

 

________

btw: The Kaislerlanta (I accept the name @killjoy1941) is perfectly balanced🙄. Complete roadkills everything Cruiser and below. Even reliabliy sinks Predreadnaughts - just takes a while because of their armor. However throwing one of those cruisers against squadron an hoping a battle to be generated is one of the few ways to generate a fight .....

Edited March 15 by havaduck

[Knobby]

On 3/14/2024 at 12:18 AM, Suribachi said:

Just tried this myself in a custom battle as the US for 1924. 

Using the Armored Cruiser IV hull, even though the barbette options are greyed out, it will allow you to select some of them once you click it.  In my case, I was able to use a "Wide Barbette (Very Small)" in the middle without adjusting the beam or draught sliders to mount 8" or smaller guns there. 

Adjusting the beam slider allows me to use all the barbette types up to "Dual Barbette for Medium Guns II" in the middle of the hull, again with 8" or smaller guns.

EDIT:  This works for me in both vanilla and with the DIP mod on.

So strange, yes I can select the greyed-out barbettes, and even though the game tells me 'NO MOUNTS', I can actually place them. I'm 100% sure that this was not the case before.

This makes it just a bit more bearable, but still my argument stands. Most cruiser lines are very boring with samey ships for a loooong time, and (flush-decked is too late in the tree) and then finally all the later hulls get rushed one after the other really fast.

[killjoy1941]

5 hours ago, havaduck said:

...The Kaislerlanta...

Lol. I nearly called it the Santa Fien, but that would've broken the brains of all the Austrians on the forum and created a black hole in the center of the Earth.

Edited March 15 by killjoy1941

[kineu.a.hansen]

any future plans with the game still would be awesome to see some early 1910 battleships hulls and a few 1935+ battleship hull for the british and some new prober destroyers for the british the current hulls are using downscaled cruiser towers wich hardly fit on the hull

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello admirals,

This is another update  which aims to optimize the game after the major patch v1.5.
v1.5.0.3
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/6924919658781470311 

[Astor]

Loving the changes/additions!

One thing I'd like to ask, can we get the division leader ships icons be visible in the division view (similar like the enemy division view at the top).

Currently it still has the generic white ship symbols and it makes it a bit troublesome if you have many divisions to tell each one appart. This would also make it look more polished and less placeholder stylish.

Something like this (just did a quick and dirty mockup):

Also regarding barbettes, there is a trick/hack you can do:

This is a 1895 Light Cruiser 1 - you can place any barbettes as long you have one of the small quad shaped ones placed. It would be really cool if we could unlock these barbetttes for this older ships just to get more variation. Because I think this is not intended. But it's still possible with ANY hull.

Another example 1895 TB with the barbette workaround:

Edited March 15 by Astor

[Techbro]

Yea I think this would be a good UI change too, along with the ship class name I suggested earlier.
Another UI change I wanna suggest is a ship counter when you select ships in the fleet menu, like below.

Edited March 16 by Techbro

[ramenhenry]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:03 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

It is just a matter of weight balance mechanics. We can only optimize this again, in a next major update, as altering weight mechanics will affect the saves of all players.

Alright ! I eagerlly await! I love y'all games, and truly appreciate the dedication put into em. It would be cool to one day see one truly massive game where Land Sea and Air are all incorporated.  

[Suribachi]

I think I found a bug in my latest ship design.

Time period: 1930+
Nation: Japan
Hull: Experimental Battleship

Issue:  Modern Tower series of Main Towers are unable to mount expected secondaries depending on hull type used.  This happens in both campaign and custom battles.

Steps to replicate:  For simplicity, I will assume custom battles are being used.

1) Setup a custom battle with at least 1 BB for Japan.  Set year to or after 1930.  Set Unlock to OFF.  Enter Design ship.

2)  Select Modern Battleship I or II or Super Battleship hull.

3) Put down any tower of the Modern Tower series (I, II, or III).

4)  Select 5" secondaries that are not quad barrels to see mounting points on side of the tower.  Specifically, the circular platforms.  Notice that you can put 3 5" secondaries there.

5)  Select Experimental Battleship hull.

6) Put down any tower of the Modern Tower series (I, II, or III).

7)  Select 5" secondaries that are not quad barrels to see mounting points on side of the tower.  Specifically, the circular platforms.  This time notice that you cannot mount secondaries on the side of the tower that are larger than 3" making the guns look out of place.


Proposal:
If this is intentional, recommend renaming the Modern Tower series for the Experimental Battleship hull to reflect this or creating/tweaking them so they are new parts unique to the hull.  Something like Experimental Tower should suffice.

If this is not intentional, recommend patching the mounting points so 5" secondaries can be mounted on the side of the Modern Tower series when placed on the Experimental Battleship hull.


Secondly:
Though a minor thing, might as well point it out: Modern Sec Tower IV although smaller than Main Modern Tower I, II and III, is able to mount quad 3" secondaries and the later is not able to.

[flaviohc16]

1.5.03 has broken the Json converter for me, tried even with a clean install and file integrity via steam.

[Aurora]

On 3/15/2024 at 11:12 PM, Astor said:

Loving the changes/additions!

One thing I'd like to ask, can we get the division leader ships icons be visible in the division view (similar like the enemy division view at the top).

Currently it still has the generic white ship symbols and it makes it a bit troublesome if you have many divisions to tell each one appart. This would also make it look more polished and less placeholder stylish.

Something like this (just did a quick and dirty mockup):

Also regarding barbettes, there is a trick/hack you can do:

This is a 1895 Light Cruiser 1 - you can place any barbettes as long you have one of the small quad shaped ones placed. It would be really cool if we could unlock these barbetttes for this older ships just to get more variation. Because I think this is not intended. But it's still possible with ANY hull.

Another example 1895 TB with the barbette workaround:

Can confirm, ever since the small rectangular barbette was added several versions ago, if you put it on a ship it will enable usage of ALL barbettes as long as that is present.
It's a very weird thing, but it does allow some pretty fun designs so i don't know if it deserves to be fixed rather than added as an actual feature.

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, Aurora said:

Can confirm, ever since the small rectangular barbette was added several versions ago, if you put it on a ship it will enable usage of ALL barbettes as long as that is present.
It's a very weird thing, but it does allow some pretty fun designs so i don't know if it deserves to be fixed rather than added as an actual feature.

I disagree completely, I would hate to see the AI building that kind of ships in the wrong era.

[Narbar]

Can we have the speed multiplier increased? Stuck on 5x with neither ships able to shoot at each other but the enemy ship maintaining distance so had to sit here for 20 minutes.

 

 

[Schmitty21]

Playing as Austria and it seems like my army does next to nothing. Then recently had a war with Italy and the army actually started invading their possessions, except their progress suddenly reset to 0% randomly and then never moved again for the rest of the war. Also, when invading through Northern Italy the number of forces available is very small. Surely being on the same continent Austria would be able to muster up more men.

 

Also, invading Greece in 1950 they have tons of ships coming out for a port strike defense. Like so many my PC can barely handle it. I'm not sure how they can even have the tech to man that many ships in a task force or the harbor space for that many ships. Seems pretty cheaty.

 

Finally, there needs to be more cons for putting lots of torpedos on ships. Late game AI is running around with torp mounts everywhere with 50+ torps stored away in their hulls. In reality these ships should be powder kegs but it doesn't really seem to be the case. I'd like to see the AI take a more reasonable approach to torp mounting.

[flaviohc16]

39 minutes ago, Narbar said:

Can we have the speed multiplier increased? Stuck on 5x with neither ships able to shoot at each other but the enemy ship maintaining distance so had to sit here for 20 minutes.

 

 

YES! 

Like make it up to 100x if enemy is unseen ( now 30x)

Make it 30x when spotted at ranges above to 20 kms ( now is 10x above 25km)

Make it 10x between 20 and 8 km ( now is 5x between 25 and 2 kms)

5x between 8 and 2

3x below 2km like now

[havaduck]

Something that irks me as imersion breaking is that during a brutal storm all ships are slowed, which is fine ofc. But lets say a torpedo boat is still doing quite high speeds! While, if you look at that thing, anyhting but something like 8 knts and going into the waves should result in a smashed TB and the crew swept overboard. Likewise a (much lighter) CL at and a BC that are otherwise of the same design speed should be no contest: The BC easily runs the CL down in a storm. This has been, to a lesser degree, eben been the case between, lets say, frigates and ships of the line during the Age of Sail.

___

The biggest flaw is still the broken AI. I played at least 10 battles today. Result: A lot of Transports sunk that the AI abandoned. Lots of staring at loading screens, oh and a lone TB sunk that I ran down by staring 10 minutes at blue water. AI never engaged. Most battles ended without even making contact (apart from the transports in raid battles)

 

 

This refused to engage! I am sending lone DDs out in the hopes of running into enough enemys that the AI wants to engage, but it just doesnt.

Honestly reached my breaking point and done for the today and probably with this patch. The AI has to improve. Pics of the Ships are in the quote.

Quote

 

1 hour ago, Schmitty21 said:

Finally, there needs to be more cons for putting lots of torpedos on ships. Late game AI is running around with torp mounts everywhere with 50+ torps stored away in their hulls. In reality these ships should be powder kegs but it doesn't really seem to be the case. I'd like to see the AI take a more reasonable approach to torp mounting.

 

Its a what if game. And honestly just charging in with max. sonar/hydro DDs as bait, preferably angled to one side, unleashing torp salvoes of my own and then moving in with the lumbering BBs who are in the back natrually.

 

Back to the what if game: This is just one of the sketches from reality. Based on what ifs and non existent facts of reality that dont happen ingame (like the naval treaties) its "reasonable" for these abominatons to actually apear. Scale them to the later game and 50 tubes is entirely "reasonable". 🤣🙃

 

1 hour ago, Narbar said:

Can we have the speed multiplier increased? Stuck on 5x with neither ships able to shoot at each other but the enemy ship maintaining distance so had to sit here for 20 minutes.

Its been requested alot from what I remember, never hapened tough. Probably the engine croaking if someone during a QF-era duel with dozens of ships cranks up the multiplier. However, yes, sitting and staring at a blue screen for 20 minutes in the vague hopes of chasing the AI down ist litterally the AI utilising the tactic of outboring the human player. Ofc I would support free and higher multiplier instead blankly staring at the screen which is as fun as waiting for the bus ....

 

That said, I remember this having a 4096 time multiplier.....

 

On 3/15/2024 at 11:12 PM, Astor said:

Also regarding barbettes, there is a trick/hack you can do:

Brought it up on the page before and also waited a little after you post. Considering there were 2 updated since, I guess it

 

[o Barão]

Nick if possible make these lifeboats disappear. It is impossible to place the "Big Advanced towers" variants with secondaries in those round placements.

Hull: moga_hull_a_var

 

If possible, and that would be perfect, would be to remove that third torpedo placement, and push those round secondaries placements further to the back.

This and removing those lifeboats will solve many issues when trying to recreate this historical ships.

Edited March 18 by o Barão

[admiral_admirer]

I notice for the American Super Heavy Cruisers, the endgame Secondary advance towers have messed up fields of fire when placing most turrets on them, offering only narrow traverse to either side yet there is seemingly nothing blocking the front of these turrets.  What's going on here?  I can't imagine this is intended.