>>>v1.6 Feedback<<< (Latest version: 1.6.0.6 Optx3)

[Zuikaku]

How do you feel about just reverting changes regarding fore weight offset to pre 1,6 values?

Edited August 30 by Zuikaku

[StoneofTriumph]

Yeah. I know not every ship can or will be perfectly balanced, but I feel like there was a more elegant way to handle it than the game having equipment placed forward of a certain line act like it weighs four times as much as equipment placed behind said line. 

[Zuikaku]

It is just so unrealistic to have ship with everything placed back and empty bow to be - bow heavy. I mean, basic logic...

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

It is just so unrealistic to have ship with everything placed back and empty bow to be - bow heavy. I mean, basic logic...

Do you have a picture showing this problem and what you mean bow heavy?

[Zuikaku]

16 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Do you have a picture showing this problem and what you mean bow heavy?

That is so easy to replicate. I'll post the picture as soon as I get home!

[justMike247]

So throughout Rev 1.6, we’ve had to grow accustomed to needing to build our own clown versions of ships because someone in the dev team doesn’t know about weight balance. We’ve had to endure pitifully unrealistic gun accuracy, ballast masquerading as torpedoes, and a whole host of other nonsense. I honestly didn’t think they could trash the game any more than they already have… But boy was I wrong; get this…

 

Despite having my fleet in port, with minimal threat profile, evidently I’m pissing off a bunch of countries because… game code. Evidently the cause is my shipping being in various different areas, even when each and every active hull is in my home ports… In other words… BS is driving the politics. Expensive BS at that, because the only way you have to forestall combat is throw money to delay things a while; political attempts to smooth ruffled feathers has so little effect that it’s a waste of time and effort trying. So, no matter how strong your economy is, you’re gonna get bled dry by potential combatants that militarily you could wipe the floor with, if not for one major glaring vulnerability that you’re utterly powerless to defend.

 

In my last three conquest campaigns, I started really paying attention to losses incurred by my merchant fleet, noting their number and location, then, when I could finally access the map, looking to see why those losses happened. No great shock that over 50% of those losses happened in areas where not one single, solitary opposing vessel was present. Absolutely nothing there to interdict my merchant fleet, and yet… 6 ships lost here, 8 ships lost there, another 5 over here… each and every month… Sunk by… Nothing.

 

But it gets worse… There’s a new bug with 1.6.0.4 that can bring you to your knees, abruptly, irrespective of your naval strength and health of your economy. It doesn’t take too many of those monthly “paying to delay hostilities” sessions to completely wipe out any reserve you have in your naval budget, and your balance goes negative. Up until now, when that happens, your GDP takes a hit and your balance gets a small boost. That’s where the bug hits you now. You get warned that we’ll be bankrupted, but there’s no GDP reduction, no boost to your budget, and the negative balance gets bigger. And of course, you can neither build new nor upgrade while your balance is negative. Even when I’m fighting against NOBODY… my GDP is growing as my merchant fleet sloooooooooowly regenerates, but when the bug strikes, replacing battle losses, upgrading old hulls, building new hulls… all that comes to a crashing halt, irrespective of what you do with your fleet settings, and where or even IF you’re spending your budget. So you’re left to struggle as best you can with what you have… But it gets worse…

My last clash was against the US… Normally they’re a pretty tough nut to crack, and this was no exception, right up until things changed from surreal to just plain freakin’ loopy. After taking the majority of US provinces in the Caribbean, I took the Gulf Coast, South Eastern US, and then moved up to Maine. Two months into trying to conquer Maine, the US army retakes one of their central American provinces, warranting diversion of some fleets to recapture it. Their army then recaptures a neighbouring province, kicking off a back and forth running exchange that lasted over a year. But things didn’t end there. Overnight, the US army changes strength from 75k to 2.5 MILLION… and promptly retakes the Gulf Coast, then the South East, before moving on to try to retake Maine.

 

From the first instance of the US army involvement using unbelievable numbers, I’m looking for an option to bug out of this nonsense; no surprise that the political “peace treaty” option was disabled for over 18 months. So I’m locked into a war where despite having a numerical and qualitive advantage over the opposition, I can’t win, because the opposing A.I. has snatched this game killer advantage out of thin air. My own economy is steadily dwindling all the while, and I’m still being bled dry by up to three other pissed off countries for BS reasons.

[Северная]

Nick, it seems like the opposite is true though.  The new offset mechanics incentivize making unrealistic ship plans because the sensible or balanced looking realistic designs most people would like to make are horribly front-offset.  

[justMike247]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

and what you mean bow heavy?

Nick Thomadis, READ my previous post in this thread re building a 2850 ton Brit DD... I've spelled out in very clear, easily understood language exactly what's wrong and why...

 

Believe it or not, we're actively trying to HELP you guys

[PhoenixLP44]

9 minutes ago, justMike247 said:

Nick Thomadis, READ my previous post in this thread re building a 2850 ton Brit DD... I've spelled out in very clear, easily understood language exactly what's wrong and why...

 

Believe it or not, we're actively trying to HELP you guys

Adding to this post...

One thing about being front or aft heavy: there are ballast tanks and other internal thingsd you can move around to stabilize your ship. Sure if you place your 20 inch guns as far forward as possible you probably wont be able to balance it out but having everything around the center of the ship should give you enough wiggleroom to get any offset ironed out.

Also destroyers are a nightmare to balance. Here is a Fletcher class destroyer. Notice something?

If I wanted to replicate this ingame I wouldn't be able to because the bow would cossplay being a submarine while the stern wants te be an aircraft.

Source: Wikipedia

 

AS literally everyone in this forum has said, we want to help you make a game we all can enjoy. So please talk to your community and give us active feedback as to which ideas you consider, which bugs you have taken note of and what you can't implement even if its a silly reason.

[Zuikaku]

Funny thing, now I can not replicate the problem anymore. Previously, adding front tower woul'd give massive front weight offset (20%-30%) and now it gives me tolerable 8% with same hull and tower (japanese light cruiser hull II). 

Was there any hotfix in the meantime?

Edited August 30 by Zuikaku

[Panzergraf]

9 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Yes, there were sub vs. sub battles from the WW1 on .

Maybe some, but were they that common? I still don't think they should be prioritized over pretty much anything else a sub can (and should) do.

[Urst]

Backing this game was a mistake, honestly. Second worst purchase of my life. First was backing Eternal Crusade.

[SevDarastrix]

22 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Players should accept that ships cannot have, in most cases, zero weight offset and minimal pitch/roll. The reason that some Destroyers have large fore weight offset is because the forecastle has objects on a higher Y, and this is measured.  Ships with high forecastle have usually a larger fore weight, but also may benefit from better sea keeping due to their special hull stats. Historically, ships of world war I and world war II were not, by any means, perfectly balanced and perfectly stable gun platforms that players desire to have as an effect for their ships.

In the end, what we should really do would be to disallow so much freedom on placing funnels, to prevent the unrealistic and ugly looking ships that some players want to make to minimize weight offsets. What happened is that weights are more accurately and strictly measured, so it is more demanding to design a ship, which previously could be more easily become over gunned, too fast,  and generally overpowered.

If it becomes possible, in the future, to enrich the ship designer further, we can add more complexity.

 

Are you truly trying to be this arrogant Nick? Ugly and Unrealistic ships to offset massive design flaws added with the 1.6 update. Are you seriously saying that with 3600 years of ship construction that by the time of the pre-dreadnought era that nations hadn't figured out to set weight offsets? Give us the ability to move the engines independent of the funnels, and lengthen prop shafts. This is not how a good game dev acts and talks to their players, their best source of feedback.

edited to add: Give us ballast!

Also, I fully expected to be banned for this post and will be surprised if Im not, and it will be just another sign of being expected to go along with how things are going post 1.6.

There is a reason I am still on 1.5s most recent live edition, i have all of my modding done there.

Edited August 30 by SevDarastrix

[justMike247]

1 hour ago, SevDarastrix said:

edited to add: Give us ballast!

Ballast's not required bro... that's not where the bug is...

Like I spell out in my "building a Brit 2850 ton DD" post, adding a 66 ton turret to the fantail LIGHTENS displacement, making the stern lighter, which compounds the bow offset; how much displacement is affected depends on exactly where you're placing it... Someone, I donno who, had some pretty damned serious "morning after the night before" syndrome when they rewrote that mess...

If this is what vodka does to your head, I'm seriously thankful I'm a Rum guy... my head's quite messed up enough without that BS...

[justMike247]

5 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

Maybe some, but were they that common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_U-864

[Aldaris]

2 hours ago, Urst said:

Backing this game was a mistake, honestly. Second worst purchase of my life. First was backing Eternal Crusade.

Come on man, try to stay objective. You have 200 posts on this forum, so presumably you got your moneys worth out of the game. Doesn't mean you can't be pissed off and want the game to be better.

I have over 1000 hours in this game. Granted, a lot of that is the game just running and me occasionally playing a couple of turns, but it's a lot. I'd never say I haven't gotten good value for my money, but I still want this game to live up to its potential. Because it's really good, with a couple of really annoying warts.

 

[justMike247]

10 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

How do you feel about just reverting changes regarding fore weight offset to pre 1,6 values?

Gets my vote too... V1.5 was crying out for a freaky amount of rework, but V1.6 has been a clusterfuq from the get-go

[Panzergraf]

5 hours ago, justMike247 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_U-864

Ok, so it did happen, and I found a handful of other cases too.
But compared to the number of subs lost to surface ships and aircraft, or surface ships lost to submarines, it was exceedingly rare, and I stand by my previous post that sub VS sub battles should have the lowest priority of being generated each turn.

21 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

Do submarine battles have higher priority than surface battles?

I ask, because whenever I position a task force to engage an enemy task force and there is an enemy submarine nearby, I get a submarine battle instead.

It's my main gripe with how subs are implemented in the game. I don't actually think they're overpowered or anything, as a TF with decent ASW escorts typically inflict more damage to enemy subs than they take in return, I just don't like how they prevent me from playing the game by giving me Submarine battles instead of Meetings.

And when I just now moved two of my own subs to hopefully attak a lone unescorted enemy battleship, I instead got a sub VS sub battle, three turns in a row with the lone BB just sitting there...
Did sub VS sub battles even happen historically?

I think it would be much better if submarine battles were prioritized lower than surface engagements.
So surface VS surface meetings first, then sub VS surface TF, then sub VS transports, and then maybe sub VS sub last if there's nothing else there.
 

 

[Zuikaku]

There are few things that are very gamebreaking on campaign map. While I can live with awkward land warfare model and economy, some things regarding naval warfare needs to be adressed:

- subs being able to block surface groups from passage. And able to do that forewer. Why? Either initiate attack or not but let the TFs pass through their zone of control.

- surface TFs being able to block each other indefinitely without je nitiating combat. This leads to strange situations where single DD can block 100kt surface fleets indefinitely without ever initiating combat. So, either force TFs to slip without combat or initiate the combat!

- innability to initiate the combat on TFs sitting somewhere since their zone of control bubbles act like ,well, force field bubbles that have the same electric charge and are repelling themselves.

 - inexplainable transport losses in areas where there are no enemy present. I suspect alien abductiins here.

- ports that can never be attacked/striked. Mostly the ones inland or in estuaries (French ports on atlantic coast).

Edited August 31 by Zuikaku

[Aldaris]

5 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

- subs being able to block surface groups from passage. And able to do that forewer. Why? Either initiate attack or not but let the TFs pass through their zone of control.

- surface TFs being able to block each other indefinitely without je nitiating combat. This leads to strange situations where single DD can block 100kt surface fleets indefinitely without ever initiating combat. So, either force TFs to slip without combat or initiate the combat!

- innability to initiate the combat on TFs sitting somewhere since their zone of control bubbles act like ,well, force field bubbles that have the same electric charge and are repelling themselves.

Those especially really need adressing.

Zone of control as a concept that prevents movement from opponents should be dumped. It doesn't work. I get the initial consideration, but it misses the point. A zone of control isn't a force field. It's a zone where the force in question can intercept reliably.

So, make it a zone of engagement. An action zone, if you will.

Opposing force moves into the zone, and combat is initiated. If the task force that's projecting the zone doesn't want to fight, check relative speeds. Fast enough to escape? Then the TF is moved away on the campaign map if it can. If it has nowhere to go - fight ensues. If it's not faster than the approaching force? Fight ensues. And if ships run away and escape during a fight? MOVE THEM AWAY ON THE CAMPAIGN MAP. They ran. They shouldn't remain in place.

This has several advantages. It allows us to initiate combat reliably with a target of our choosing (unless it is fast enough to flee of course). And it allows the clearing of control zones by force. "You want to block the red sea? Fine, then fight or get out of the bloody way."

 

Edited August 31 by Aldaris

[Drenzul]

Honestly, if the game designers think they are on the right course, they should look at this:

 

Now when I first backed, I'm fairly sure it was at Mostly Positive.

Basically almost every feature added since 1.5 has been well.... bad. 
Its not even the features themselves were bad, just they were implemented in a half-arsed and rushed manner to get them out. 

All you really needed to do was fix the dodgy bits in 1.5 and some QoL improvements + a balance pass over the ship builder and most people would be happy. You could of then released additional features as part of an expansion. 

Instead of fixing the base game, you expanded on the broken base game with broken features. Is it really a surprise this is a mess now? Ignoring what your players are telling you is not a sound development strategy.

[MDHansen]

I'll take Steam (and reddit) reviews for what they are, mostly useless and overrepresented by basement trolls.

Saying that, there is plenty to improve in the game, most certainly. I'll make my personal review once they declare the game finished.

[o Barão]

58 minutes ago, Drenzul said:

Instead of fixing the base game, you expanded on the broken base game with broken features. Is it really a surprise this is a mess now? Ignoring what your players are telling you is not a sound development strategy.

I will need to correct you on that.

 

The cause for the recent "mostly negative" reviews is exclusive due to the launch of the multiplayer DLC. Many players thinks they should be getting that for free, ignoring the fact that it wasn't never promised from the beginning, that it took time to develop and there are costs to run the servers.  That is the mentality of many players posting reviews on steam these days, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

Before that, the reviews were always around 60% - 70%.

[Panzergraf]

Still, as unfair as the Steam reviews might be, it's certainly not good from a marketing perspective.

[Aendos]

Hello,

 

Devs, thank you for your hard work on this game and it's continued improvement.

 

Can we please have the ability to have more control over starting/ending wars?  As well as being able to avoid a war without having to give a large portion of naval funds.  It doesn't seem to make sense as the global superpower on the map to send a much weaker nation billions so they dont declare war on me.  My suggestion would be to just give the diplomacy actions 100 percent chance for +25/-25 attitude, with no effect on naval prestige or unrest.

And has been mentioned before on it, weights for radar/rangefinders/radio needs to be near 0 - just increase the cost of it.