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

[justMike247]

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

The cause for the recent "mostly negative" reviews is exclusive due to the launch of the multiplayer DLC.

That's quite the presumption given that multi-player was launched a matter of days before v1.6 was inflicted on the rest of us. Prior to that, the game was pretty bad, with the potential to have promise. V1.6 has proven itself to be disasterous, with every update compounding issues rather than addressing them. But don't take my word for it... Have a read through any of the V1.5 - 1.6 threads and count the thoroughly satisfied posts... I guarantee you won't need to remove your sox to count them...

 

Given the game's dire state, it'd be a pretty ignorant fool that'd post a positive review, moreso when the dev's refuse to take heed of well intended feedback re issues that have been crying out to be addressed since the release of Campaign.

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, justMike247 said:

That's quite the presumption given that multi-player was launched a matter of days before v1.6 was inflicted on the rest of us.

It is not. Is just a matter of looking to the facts. "An image is worth more than a thousands words"

 

Multiplayer released on 7 August. Look at the awards.

 

Now look when the negative reviews start to pop up. Same day.

 

Update 1.6 was launched day 10. Three days after the negative review wave was already flooding.

[Zuikaku]

I suspect giving priority to multiplayer development is the reason for bugged 1,6 and the overload of the devs. 

Don't know about you, but I never wanted multiplayer at all, just good campaign that makes sense and ,later, expansion/DLC for ironclad era. 1865-1950 campaign woul'd be awesome

Edited September 1 by Zuikaku

[SpardaSon21]

Just now, Zuikaku said:

I suspect giving priority to multiplayer development is the reason for bugged 1,6 and the uverload of the devs. 

Don't know about you, bit I never wanted multiplayer at all, just good campaign that makes sense and ,later, expansion/DLC for ironclad era. 1865-1950 campaign woul'd be awesome

We also never wanted it for $15, especially considering the state of the base game.  People have been complaining about inconsistencies, bugs, and glitchy features for how long and they went and added a DLC that nobody was asking for, and on top of that they're charging for it.

[Zuikaku]

25 minutes ago, SpardaSon21 said:

We also never wanted it for $15, especially considering the state of the base game.  People have been complaining about inconsistencies, bugs, and glitchy features for how long and they went and added a DLC that nobody was asking for, and on top of that they're charging for it.

Well, DLCs are not free in most cases, anyway. If you do not want it-you do not buy it. But slow progress in bug adressing and some bad mechanic decisions (force field bubbles TFs emmit for example)is just disheartening.

[Drenzul]

As many studios have found in the past, launching a paid DLC when the base game is in a bad state, is a recipe for disaster.

Also actually having read the reviews rather than assuming from the date they were posted, I'd agree there are a few of those negatives about the paid multiplayer, but allot of them were talking about the base game.

If the base-game had been in a good state, there would have been far less complaints about the multiplayer. 

Also the argument about paying for servers is nonsense. You need 1 simple matchmaking server, I very much 
doubt the battles are remotely hosted. The costs for a single matchmaking server are basically nothing, you
can run it on your webserver the load is that low.

[Северная]

Yeah the reason that multiplayer is so poorly received is specifically because the base game is in such a bad state and one of the agreements with buying the early access game is that so many of these rough areas would be addressed but instead we get a half baked multiplayer DLC nobody asked for.  I think people would have been totally fine with a minor nations DLC or something that generated more income for the game while bringing us new content and serious fixes.  

[Urst]

9 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Well, DLCs are not free in most cases, anyway. If you do not want it-you do not buy it. But slow progress in bug adressing and some bad mechanic decisions (force field bubbles TFs emmit for example)is just disheartening.

I don't want it at all. It shouldn't have even been anywhere in the development track in the first place.

[BuckleUpBones]

What I see is something called ‘the final straw’.

A player who has played a thousand hours and then leaves a negative review, is not doing it because of recent updates, or just one thing, or paid MP or version wipe, they’re doing it because they are overall frustrated, and they have reached their final straw. Any post that starts with “I love the game but…”, is frustration.

I think Devs could pick through posts and reviews, see what could be fix, improved, and work on those for awhile. E.g. loading times seems to be a common complain, late campaign designer tool lag, etc. There's probably a reasonable list, little things too. 

Edited September 1 by BuckleUpBones

[Warspite96]

In my recent Japan 1930 campaign, I've noticed some nations (especially China) tend to snowball to tremendous size in the current game. China starts off with such a ridiculous population advantage that anyone who doesn't defeat their navy and blockade them is facing certain defeat in any land battle. Currently they're invading the Soviet Union with a mere 18 million men, seems fair......

[justMike247]

22 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

anyone who doesn't defeat their navy and blockade them is facing certain defeat in any land battle.

Can't say you're wrong with that observation, just gonna tag on something I've noticed. I'm working under the impression that naval tech advantage has zero influence on land-forces capability, but with that (and far better naval strength), whenever the army gets involved while I've been blockading China, my army performs way above what I'd expect it to do. When an opponent is far closer to me in tech development, army performance is pretty pitiful. I'm not by any means trying to tie any link between tech standard and army performance, just logging my own observations.

[Zuikaku]

I still hope for some critical improvements.

[Северная]

2 hours ago, justMike247 said:

Can't say you're wrong with that observation, just gonna tag on something I've noticed. I'm working under the impression that naval tech advantage has zero influence on land-forces capability, but with that (and far better naval strength), whenever the army gets involved while I've been blockading China, my army performs way above what I'd expect it to do. When an opponent is far closer to me in tech development, army performance is pretty pitiful. I'm not by any means trying to tie any link between tech standard and army performance, just logging my own observations.

I have also noticed this, but I don’t know anything about how the army performance is calculated.  I noticed this when I used the save editor at the end of a campaign just for giggles of an end-game battleship beating up a dreadnought and my army was steamrolling with like no casualties despite being much lower in manpower and on the offensive.

[Suribachi]

On 9/2/2024 at 4:46 PM, Северная said:

I have also noticed this, but I don’t know anything about how the army performance is calculated.  I noticed this when I used the save editor at the end of a campaign just for giggles of an end-game battleship beating up a dreadnought and my army was steamrolling with like no casualties despite being much lower in manpower and on the offensive.

Not saying it is everything, but a large part of the army's performance is GDP and Naval tonnage vs territory/population.  GDP is self explanatory, army budget is a percentage of GDP, same as naval budget.  Next is the navy.  I have noticed that when the navy is larger and more powerful, the army logistics, and their effectiveness, skyrockets.  Unfortunately, I am not sure if it is number of ships, tonnage, power projection or a combination of the three that does it.

[SpardaSon21]

5 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Unfortunately, I am not sure if it is number of ships, tonnage, power projection or a combination of the three that does it.

The numbers we get are extremely difficult to make sense of.  Its just one of the many parts of the game lacking in useful information for the player.

[justMike247]

6 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Not saying it is everything, but a large part of the army's performance is GDP and Naval tonnage vs territory/population.  GDP is self explanatory, army budget is a percentage of GDP, same as naval budget.  Next is the navy.  I have noticed that when the navy is larger and more powerful, the army logistics, and their effectiveness, skyrockets. 

Good observation Suri... Backing you up, I'm still saying I've no clue if these are related, bu with less than stellar GDP (3.5%), vastly better navy *qualitative and quantative* and healthy navy budget allowed my A.I. generated 50k army (local strength) to do significant damage to a 2million army with better GDP (6.58%) , but vastly inferiour *qualitative and quantitative* navy. Ass-whoppage still happened (lost Maine when US Army invaded from Eastern U.S.) but not before inflicting over 300k casualties...

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello fellow admirals,

We offer another small update with important fixes and improvements.
v1.6.0.5
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4612337011490606744 

[Zuikaku]

Is this stable release candidate?

[xPorkulusx]

Ship stability seems to be greatly improved, I haven't played long enough to see if the AI designs some more reasonable ships yet, but I'm eager to see what other improvements have been made.

[TK3600]

Great update. A move to right direction. I may finally move on from 1.5.

[Северная]

With the new way that tension generation works with fleets, the AI is constantly at war.  They never get a breather to rebuild.  I don’t know if anyone else had this observation in 1.6, but the AI countries all tend to go broke and insolvent in ~15 years from constant war.  

[Darth Khyron]

It is true, the forever war is back. Every nation is p***ed by everything. At first, all is well but after  afew years all hell breaks loose. This is also en old thing, it was that way a while back. US is sending a destroyer through the irish sea : -10 relation. My ships pass through the panama canal : -10 relation. Provocation by the US admiral : WAR!!!! Then France. Russia. Italy. Spain. I knock out sole italian battleship. Sue for peace. I knock out one of two french battleships. Sues for peace. I destroy a large russian convoy and bombard a harbor. Sues for peace. I take nothing because they offer nothing but really bad designed destroyers. I try to rebuild them so they are actually useful, but this takes longer and costs more than building my own. So scrap. Three months later I am at war with Russia again. In the meantime, US sues for peace after I take some of their carribean possetions. I can take a very badly designed battleship, no provinces, though. Again, rebuilding the BB to useful standards takes up valuable shipyard space, more time than building a new one and since the hull is obsolete, I scrap it. Back to work against spain. In the meantime, China has declared war for...reasons. So I send long range submarines and BANG! Yes! I strike with my submarine cruisers against a lone battleship and sink it. China sues for peace. Never mind, for the US sent a lot of ships...everywhere and for sure, I am at war again.

So, I am currently looking at a more realistic naval wargame and Azur Lane comes into mind.

[Zuikaku]

Strange. Before there was cooldown period after signing peace treaty where AI nations were unable to declare wars for 3 years. 

[Panzergraf]

Weird thing in my current China campaign (1940 starting year);
Diesel II was unlocked from the start, as expected, and I assumed Gas Turbines would be the next engine tech in line after that, as it usually is.
But turns out the next one was Advanced Marine Engines. Fine, some times the order of techs gets jumbled a bit, it's happened before, so I just gave it a priority and hoped Gas Turbines would come in after that. But nope, now researching the next upgrade to Advanced Marine Engines (it's a repeatable tech that just goes on and on, giving small % based improvements to all engine types).

So were Gas Turbines removed from the campaigns, or is this some kind of bug?

[justMike247]

On 9/7/2024 at 7:01 AM, Zuikaku said:

Strange. Before there was cooldown period after signing peace treaty where AI nations were unable to declare wars for 3 years. 

A.I. nations can't declare war at all. All they can do is squeeze you, financially until YOU declare war on them. The way things are now, that happens with eye-watering frequency, compounded when multiple countries are doing exactly the same, at the exact same time. Any political tools we have to smooth ruffled feathers are useless when fleets that don't exist are increasing tension in 5-6 bodies of water at the same time, this despite your fleet being in port in home waters, with status set to minimum threat profile.

 

Result... you never get the chance to recover, your merchant fleet gets tanked, with better than 50% merchant losses in areas where there's no hostile ships present. Best you can do is try to tough things out, tackling opponents one at a time until you can beat enough countries into submission for the 20-30 years you need for merchant fleet/GDP to recover. It's not impossible to recover from this, but you'll feel like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs for 30-40 years once the chit really hits the fan.