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

[Dante S. Lancaster]

No, I don't modify. 100% original. Try USA 1950, BC, unlock on, try the third hull "fast battleship", light sec tower v, use 406mm quad, pls check again,  many thx. @Nick Thomadis

[Dante S. Lancaster]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This does not look like a ship of the game. You play a modified version probably? In any case, we checked and this secondary tower, that is used in another ship, does not have this problem. As said many times, please, do not report bugs here, especially such kind of model issues, when you use a modified version of the game.

Nevertheless, thank you for the report. We will check if the turret model may have a collider issue.

EDIT:

The turrets work fine too. This issue may happen when something in the game does not work as intended during gameplay or when there is a code exception. Freezing of ships will most iikely happen in the next seconds. But again, we cannot reproduce ourselves in order to fix this particular issue.

No, I don't modify. 100% original. Try USA 1950, BC, unlock on, try the third hull "fast battleship", light sec tower v, use 406mm quad, pls check again,  many thx. @Nick Thomadis

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Dante S. Lancaster said:

No, I don't modify. 100% original. Try USA 1950, BC, unlock on, try the third hull "fast battleship", light sec tower v, use 406mm quad, pls check again,  many thx. @Nick Thomadis

You probably have "unlocked all hulls" in custom battle? Because this hull does not originally belong to the USA. We will double check.\

 

EDIT: 
We reproduced and we will fix. Thank you very much for insisting.

[Dante S. Lancaster]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You probably have "unlocked all hulls" in custom battle? Because this hull does not originally belong to the USA. We will double check.\

 

EDIT: 
We reproduced and we will fix. Thank you very much for insisting.

Because I am kind of thinking I made a very good design and I am currently making a video for the ship. That issue is a big one for the video, so I am waiting for a fix.

[Nick Thomadis]

5 minutes ago, Dante S. Lancaster said:

Because I am kind of thinking I made a very good design and I am currently making a video for the ship. That issue is a big one for the video, so I am waiting for a fix.

Uploading in a while.

[Dave P.]

Responding to the "economy is broken, I can't build any ships" comments upthread: I respectfully disagree?

I honestly don't know why you have the difficulties you do. In the 1890-1910 timeframe I tend to turtle and maximize GDP growth, avoiding long wars. So by 1920 I'm usually ahead of rest of the world where it matters.

I find it's usually better to build a large number of less expensive battleships with around 75% of my max tech vs. a smaller number of much more expensive models w/ their tech maxxed out. In particular, the armors past Krupp V and the jump from Double Geared to Gas Turbines are usually a hard pass from me for cost reasons. As long as you're rocking Mk V guns, the added benefits from Radar II/III aren't worth much over Radar I, either. Build 'em with triple turrets for the ROF advantage, sacrifice screening destroyers to absorb enemy fire, and pound away.

My destroyers and CLs are also built "to cost" - I max the ASW tech but otherwise keep them pretty basic/small. Makes losing them hurt a lot less.

And whenever a choice event happens, I pick "grow GDP" over any other option.

[Panzergraf]

Yeah, I do the same and once the economy starts rolling, it almost becomes impossible to spend all the money.

But I get the frustration with poor early game economy too. If you start a campaign in 1910, you might want to be able to have a few wars and fight some battles in the 1910's, with ships of that era.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version x2 including the following:
- Fixed possible formation issues, ships not being able to turn and move in straight line for too long or failing to switch to new leader.
- Minor optimizations related with the division UI logic, which could possible cause a freeze bug depending on random player actions.
- Improved AI speed management when travelling in a division (previously it could slow down too much and become an easy target).
- Fixed minor ship part issues reported kindly by Dante S. Lancaster (forum name).
Please restart Steam to receive the update. If Steam updates during gameplay, you will get random freezes in the game.

[ColonelZoom]

10 hours ago, Dave P. said:

Responding to the "economy is broken, I can't build any ships" comments upthread: I respectfully disagree?

I honestly don't know why you have the difficulties you do. In the 1890-1910 timeframe I tend to turtle and maximize GDP growth, avoiding long wars. So by 1920 I'm usually ahead of rest of the world where it matters.

I find it's usually better to build a large number of less expensive battleships with around 75% of my max tech vs. a smaller number of much more expensive models w/ their tech maxxed out. In particular, the armors past Krupp V and the jump from Double Geared to Gas Turbines are usually a hard pass from me for cost reasons. As long as you're rocking Mk V guns, the added benefits from Radar II/III aren't worth much over Radar I, either. Build 'em with triple turrets for the ROF advantage, sacrifice screening destroyers to absorb enemy fire, and pound away.

My destroyers and CLs are also built "to cost" - I max the ASW tech but otherwise keep them pretty basic/small. Makes losing them hurt a lot less.

And whenever a choice event happens, I pick "grow GDP" over any other option.

Tbh, France is easymode financially, their GDP tends to be 4x that of the "weaker" nations regardless of what you do. 

In my current Austria-Hungary-Playthrough, I did exactly what you described, but GDP is still mid at best. 

In any case, I can barely sustain a wartime taskgroup while also building a budget Battlecruiser, which has never been the case before. 

 

IMHO Finances and GDP still depend on factors entirely out of your control way too much. 

Japan, which is still just Japan, has as much GdP as Austria-Hungary which has basically absorbed the entire Soviet Union. I don't think those countries should be THAT unproductive.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Can we bring back the way task force fights used to be where if my task force is on an enemy, it generates a battle 100% of the time?

[Nick Thomadis]

Hey Admirals,

We have fixed and improved further things which you have recently mentioned in your feedback. Please read:

v1.5.0.9
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/7129836059820765920

[Warspite96]

Guns in quad turrets still have different barrel lengths to the same guns in non-quad turrets, leading to different ballistic properties in what should logically be the exact same gun.

[SeaAlex_175]

I found several not entirely clear things in the game:

1) At some point in the battle, the ship simply stops firing. The guns are aimed at the target, but for some reason there is no shot. This is known to happen when the player is switched to a different ship. It seems as that the game does not perceive the presence of this ship in battle if the player is not switched to this ship. 

2) The problem with the torpedoes is still here. The AI is completely unwilling to make torpedo attacks (it is located beyond the range of torpedoes) or makes them only from the stern. But with such a launch, the torpedoes simply go around the target from the sides without hitting. A few versions ago this worked fine. The AI made a quick attack, launched torpedoes and moved into gun range to reload the torpedoes. But after one update, the AI stopped performing this very effective technique... And this does not depend on the class of the ship. Be it a destroyer or a battlecruiser. The AI simply ignores the presence of torpedoes on the ship.

@Nick Thomadis

[Suribachi]

2 hours ago, SeaAlex_175 said:

1) At some point in the battle, the ship simply stops firing. The guns are aimed at the target, but for some reason there is no shot. This is known to happen when the player is switched to a different ship. It seems as that the game does not perceive the presence of this ship in battle if the player is not switched to this ship.

@SeaAlex_175 Assuming that the first picture is the one you are referencing for this issue, that ship is 0% aimed and will not waste a shot on Normal fire for a 0% chance to hit.  The second picture has the main guns turned off entirely so I doubt that is the picture you are referencing.

If the issue is frequent enough or you encounter it again, do you think you can get a screenshot with your mouse hovering over the bullseye under the main gun icon on the right side where it says 0% just above AP?  This should bring up a smaller window that tells you target, base accuracy at target range and where it is in the aiming process.  If it is an issue with the targeting system it might help @Nick Thomadis and the developers narrow down the issue faster so a fix can be provided.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Ships still turn drunkenly

[Dave P.]

1 hour ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

Ships still turn drunkenly

It is a lot better, but yeah. Seems to effect faster ships mostly.

I don't think the multiple over-turn/over-correction thing is very realistic - seems like a lot of wasted energy a helmsman would try to avoid - but the biggest ship I've ever commanded IRL was a 12' paddle canoe.

[Dave P.]

I think the "The press think you need more of [ship type]" random events should be rethought. Maybe government type should be a factor. And maybe if you have more than a certain number of [ship type] the event should just be disabled?

Like, yeah, ok, I have 150+ cruisers, but, like, Walter Cronkite thinks I need one more? No way. And he can convince the government of this? If I had like 12 maybe. Or if I had a large percentage of the force down for repairs.

And I'm assuming, because of the unrest penalty, that the population in general doesn't support the spending. Which is weird because you'd think the government would only be on board if the population was OK with it (at least in an elected system.) But public support is key here - see also the "We Want Eight" campaign for a historical example. A big "naval prestige" hit for taking the money would make more sense, IMO. (Look at those lame-o naval officers begging for money because they can't advocate for themselves.)

IMO, in peacetime, if I've got numerical/tech superiority and stuff over our international rivals, I should have the press trying to cut the naval budget. Ding me for not having enough ships mothballed or have political events that cut the crew pool, penalties should be unrest and prestige losses then.

Or maybe if I have a land border with a country that I have a negative relationship with, the army should be trying to undermine me? Some events related to that would be... historically accurate at least. Annoying, but accurate.

[HMS Implosive]

3 hours ago, Dave P. said:

I think the "The press think you need more of [ship type]" random events should be rethought. Maybe government type should be a factor. And maybe if you have more than a certain number of [ship type] the event should just be disabled?

Like, yeah, ok, I have 150+ cruisers, but, like, Walter Cronkite thinks I need one more? No way. And he can convince the government of this? If I had like 12 maybe. Or if I had a large percentage of the force down for repairs.

And I'm assuming, because of the unrest penalty, that the population in general doesn't support the spending. Which is weird because you'd think the government would only be on board if the population was OK with it (at least in an elected system.) But public support is key here - see also the "We Want Eight" campaign for a historical example. A big "naval prestige" hit for taking the money would make more sense, IMO. (Look at those lame-o naval officers begging for money because they can't advocate for themselves.)

IMO, in peacetime, if I've got numerical/tech superiority and stuff over our international rivals, I should have the press trying to cut the naval budget. Ding me for not having enough ships mothballed or have political events that cut the crew pool, penalties should be unrest and prestige losses then.

Or maybe if I have a land border with a country that I have a negative relationship with, the army should be trying to undermine me? Some events related to that would be... historically accurate at least. Annoying, but accurate.

If one thing about events that encourage you to build more ships of a certain type should be reworked,is its consequenses (or lack of them). If a politician gives admiralty money to build cruisers, those admirals are better to actually build them. Currently in game you can agree to build the ships but can actually spend the money to what ever you wish.

Suggestion: Make construction of these ships, after agreeing to do so, mandatory similar to ship deals with foreign navies. You can always refuse the deal with the politicians if you really don't need those ships.

[Dave P.]

I know this is a minor thing, but when you have  a bunch of ships with number-names in a list, is it in any way possible to adjust the sorting method used so that V-100 comes AFTER V-99? Because right now it's doing the typical purely-alphabetical string sorting thing that's like:

V-1
V-10
V-100
V-11
V-1528
V-19
V-2
V-2450
V-35

etc.

I know that's just a problem with sorting strings, but it would be nice if irritated other people as much as it irritates me.

[Suribachi]

10 hours ago, Dave P. said:

I know this is a minor thing, but when you have  a bunch of ships with number-names in a list, is it in any way possible to adjust the sorting method used so that V-100 comes AFTER V-99? Because right now it's doing the typical purely-alphabetical string sorting thing that's like:

V-1
V-10
V-100
V-11
V-1528
V-19
V-2
V-2450
V-35

etc.

I know that's just a problem with sorting strings, but it would be nice if irritated other people as much as it irritates me.

It's a pet peeve of mine as well.  I wish the naming convention of the game was good enough to recognize when the player wants that naming convention to happen and to follow it.  For example, when mass producing DDs, I would normally name them after their job.  So a combat DD would be DD, and a Minelayer who only guards transports and lays mines would be ML.

[SeaAlex_175]

21 hours ago, Suribachi said:

@SeaAlex_175 Assuming that the first picture is the one you are referencing for this issue, that ship is 0% aimed and will not waste a shot on Normal fire for a 0% chance to hit.  The second picture has the main guns turned off entirely so I doubt that is the picture you are referencing.

If the issue is frequent enough or you encounter it again, do you think you can get a screenshot with your mouse hovering over the bullseye under the main gun icon on the right side where it says 0% just above AP?  This should bring up a smaller window that tells you target, base accuracy at target range and where it is in the aiming process.  If it is an issue with the targeting system it might help @Nick Thomadis and the developers narrow down the issue faster so a fix can be provided.

I did some tests and yes, indeed. At some point, the shooting accuracy fast drops to zero, and the guns stop firing. After switching to a non-firing ship, its accuracy rapidly increases and it opens fire again.

As for the second screenshot in my previous message, it relates to the second problem with the reluctance of the AI to make torpedo attacks (If you look closely, you will see that the Spanish BC is studded with double torpedo tubes, but at the same time, ship is very far from the target (French dreadnought) and far from torpedo launch distances).

@Suribachi

@Nick Thomadis

[Kraut]

I always struggle with myself if i should write something or not, cause the list of the Problems of the Game is even longer than these ugly dropdowns in the research tab ... 😕

(PS: reason is the amount of text following now, although i only wanted to complain about 3isch major points that make the game terrible)

Apart from the terrible UI, not fitting world map, the absence of basic select & command features like "LMB Selects" "RMB moves",´and the abundance of Oil for everyone, the things wich annoy me the most and make this game terrible or even better, not to play, are the following:

Ship-Designs by the Computer-Scripts:

- i dont know, if i shall laugh or cry everytime i read something about "improved auto-design", when auto-design results look like this ( pls seethe attached pictures)

- having a competition is a key element of Naval Designs and therefore a huge portion of the fun of that game mechanic. As long as the Computer-Designs are garbage, every campaign will be a stomp. I feel like a seal clubber. Not only cause the Computer will very soon fall behind in tech (except for the Brits), no ,even the game start designs, were player und computer are somewhat equal in tech, pose rarely, if ever, a real threat to an active player. And Seal-Clubbing has another Component;

Tactical Battles:

again, read it i dont know how many times; "battle script got improved, etc etc.". But the reality is still... total club fest. I keep my Taskforces small, cause handling 12 ships is already a great hassle to me (im usually on fast forward, since the battles are so boring). Another, but small Reason for that is, it let the Computer engage me. I rarely encoutered the runaway problem that plaqued so many others recently. But i know it from the past.

Some small ships engage the enemy in a V-shaped Torpedo attack, resulting usually in a satisfying number of Torpedo hits, cause although Computer-Ships seem to have magical abilites when it comes to dodging torpedos as a lone wolf, the opposite is the case, when it comes to handling torpedo attacks against its large formations. The Result is Chaos, dmged und sinking ships. The Rest is handled by the Artillery of my superior ships. 

This clubbing becomes extreme with technological advancement usually resulting in battles where the opponent is barely able to even scratch my ships.

The Campaign

- Performance of Computer-Opponent: peformance is not the adequate word.I dont know what the priorities are, but everyone except for the Brits falls behind in tech quickly. every time. 

- not as often, but recently a prominent guest in the patch-notes. Economy. Still GDP grows over 10% thru the field... like... really, wtf? Why? I really dont get it. These extremly fast growing economies soon resuliting in my and the Computer not knowing the hello kitty to throw all the money at... And a distinct question in that regard: why the heck is not only the UK but also France outperforming Germany in Economy in the 1910 start ? 

- Random-Mission-Generator: i know u got this from the game u copied almost 1on1, but why not improving the things u copy? or do something different ... Why are there forced Missions that i cannot object to as the player like .... We caught the enemy bla bla bla... if WE caught the enemy, WHY cant WE object to commit to the battle? THe enemy is smaller, off guard or heavly dmg, so clearly not in the position to engage us, yet there is nothing in the World i could do to prevent to load into these battles...

    - why are still battles created between forces, that are thousands of kms apart ? not even in the same waters? It seems the if-question in the code asks bout the destination and not the actual position of the taskforces...

    - Attacks on Harbours are only created for a fraction of the sieged ports

- Convoy losses are totally random and seem to have nothing to do with apparent or absent naval forces. WTF.

- Invasion Requirements are a complete joke. Who the Frick evar cared bout how many Tons of Ships can dock in a Harbour when it comes to a military engagment? The only Deciding Factor is the guns ACTUALLY PRESENT, not potentially... I had to park almost the complete Might of the German Hochseeflotte to conquer the mighty canary islands .... for example. 

- Diplomacy is a joke. We cannot decide where to invade, what to invade when it comes to non Major-Countries. If we are fighting a War with Major countries, Land battles can not be interfered with. they take aaages (wich wouldnt be so bad if the Fight on the Sea would actualyl be interesting i guess). Everything that is conquered during the war gets immediatly annexed without a Peace Conference, but when it comes to the Joke of a Peace Conference, only 50% of the Players demands (or non at all) are fullfilled resulting in fighting ( seal clubbing) for month for .... nothing! or some minor territories somewhere... over the rainbow... So much fun!

Ship-Designer for Player:

- the major selling point of the game. Not the existince alone, the game UA is copied from also had a ship designer. But UA takes Battles und Designer into 3d. thats the difference. And it could be a good designer if it werent for...

- Limits of what the player can do like ... armour limits, weapon size limits for classes/ hulls, Conditions of what towers / guns most be present on a ship, etc.

- unrealistic costs in terms of money and weight ( radar and the like still weigh a proportional part of the Towers, wtf), Diesel Engines are insanly overpriced und dont even save weight / incrase the Range( for a much much lower price and lower or same weight u get the sameisch Range with Turbines)

- non-adjustable Superstructures leading to huge problems when it comes to outfitting of the ships, especially Torpedo-Armament is a huge problem on German Cruisers. Later Torpedo-Launchers make things worse, where possible. Superbattleships lack a 2nd Funnel-Place in TowerStructure for no reason, cause modern BBs have two slots. Why do the smaller Hulls have more Options for Funnels?

- Inconsistant stats among Towers, most often with secondary Towers. 

-Arbitrary and incosistence Hull Stats. My biggest complaint here is the Resistence Value. Resistance, as in how much dmg is taken from a Torpedo or Shall hit is determined by the Armour Material and the Armour Layout, hence torpedo protection und which citadel sheme is used. It makes no sense at all to assign a resistance Value to the Hull, espeically not ,if that value is not constantly rising due to technology improvement, it just varies seemingly random for "balance" reasons? Most Prominent example is, iirc, Germanys "Modern CA II", wich has a ridicously low resistance overall and much lower compared to its predecessor and successor. Makes no sense whatso evar. Escecially not, when there are Destroyer Hulls, that have the Resitance Value of a Battleship ... 

- Bigger Hulls add much more Money and Weight than Buyoancy, leading to inflated Ship Costs regarding the Perfomance per ton and Money ratio.

Another thing about Hulls, wich are also often just copy cats of each other... When you introduced the "Scharnhorst" Hull to the game, why only 1935? Germany can build Modern and even Super BBs since the twenties already.

You might want to answer no: It is not a BB Hull, it says BC. Yeah, Problem is, Scharnhorst und Gneisenau were designed and intended as BBs, not BCs. Nobody built BCs in the 30ties anymore... Doesnt matter what some Brits called these ships, important is what the designers and users classified them. The Reason for the 28cm guns was solely a political / diplomatical play, so pls spare me the armament arguement. The Refitting to 38cm guns was planned from the start and only the Course of the War prevented it beeing reality. Not even starting bout the armour-levels of the Class...

Talking about German "BCs" und Ship designer: The real BCs from the 1910s had  apperently Armour of 300mm, but the game says: no, you player can only have ... 27isch. 

Wich brings me to my last question, hopefully...

What made you think, that a Player of a GAME needs limits in a Designer, wich sole purpose is to give the Player the Tool to use his creativity??? And why are you not instead limiting your Computer-Designer, wich clearly needs tide ropes if it shall evar produce useful results reliably ??? Just Look at the Armour Levels... wtf ?? I, as the Player of a GAME(not reality, not the Museum), am limited in how i am designing my ships but the Computer is allowed to create those abominations with ... 24cm Deckarmour ??? AFT ??? And Cruisers of the Computer have more often than not the maximum armour all around...

From my Observations the Priorites of the Computer seem to be low cost, low tonnage, maxium deck penetration at or below sight range and ... lots of crew... , as many guns as possible. everything else seems to be secondary to that. Armour has no clear priorities, but it seems to me, that deck armour resides more often than not over Belt armour. Engine Effiency and Balancing of the Ship seems to be ignored completly. I suspect the Computer ship get help in battle, cause even with those extremly unbalanced ships, they get aroundthe sameisch accuraccy during battle as my ships. And on the Same Accuraccy Probability, score more hits than my ships do. 

oh, forgot:

Pls remove that WoT-Spotting system... that is so stupid, that ships are not able to spot other ships beyond 10km (for example), thats just so obv. bullshit. What evar broken mechanic you try to cover with that... fix it und re-introduce realistic sight and spotting ranges...

The End

My Minor-Complaint: In your Info-Card of the Loading-Screen of the Week about the Lusitania you forgot to mention that it carried Ammunitions/War-Material throughouth the War. 

I am not saying, that no other complaints / reports should be mentioned, but imo its futile to fix minor stuff befor the core mechanics of the game are not working properly. The list is not complete, as always, but i am already annoyed that i wrote so much again cause with an increasing number of words the probability of all words beeing read decreases exponentially...

 

 

 

Edited April 14 by Kraut

[Kraut]

Since i accidentally uploaded the pics of my improvement of the Auto-Design, i have to upload the third pic now in a 2nd post cause somehow the total allowed Size for Uploading shrinks with every edit ....

PS: i cant, even in the new post now my limit is down to 6.x kb although im not nearwhere close to the max of 2.15 MB. so deleted / changed pics are not substracted from the daily upload limit ...

 

[kineu.a.hansen]

just found some thing issues the game hav and needed to be delt with first is first i got into a war with spain but hey only had 5 ships to speek off but somehow after 6 turns they where upto 5000 victory point wich made me rage quick the campaign and that go into the other thing i love to see be done with is the ai ship building program or the lack of it i dont know if they are scrapping thier ships or they lost them in battles wich i think is unlikely alots of time i find the ai having only 5 ships 1 battleship a couble cruisers ca and cl and a few detroyers and then there is the that somehow ai managed to build a ship with no amour and that make it seem the ship is imune to damage for shells phase right through the enemy barrleship wichout doing damage

[Azerostar]

The AI shooting/attacking range in patch v1.5.0.9 is not very good at least in latest tech years. Compared with patch v1.5.0.8, the AI now keeping to choose a very sharp turn to reach the desired distance, I have to reduce the approach_clamp to 0.3 to get a similar engage angle like it was in patch v1.5.0.8. And the desired distance of BC/BB is far more close to enemies than v1.5.0.8. As v1.5.0.8 already has a very good and comfortable combat range, I have to say that v1.5.0.9 has a retrogress in this part.