madham82

Aiming progress changes: The aiming mechanics got fixes and adjustments in their logic, so that they work overall better and more realistic. You will notice that when you hit a target then subsequent hits will happen more consistently unless the target maneuvers. Maneuvers will also affect the overall aiming progress more against a target, making fast ships have more chances on avoiding incoming shells (The UI is set to update slower for performance reasons, so the accuracy changes when you hover on target will be displayed not fully synced). Suggestion to change Fast to Agile, as I am sure that is the intent since you mention maneuvers. A ship's speed has no bearing on firing solution accuracy as long as it is known.

Maybe the fix is to not 0 it on a reset. 0 implies you lost range, bearing, speed, and course information. That doesn't happen if a target stays in visual range. Maybe reset it to 25% or something to indicate a degraded solution due to changes in target.

I'd never disagree with giving users a choice over what to show.

We also get HP/Flooding bars, damage counters, and a host of other unrealistic GUI features because.....it is a game..

A rework of the spotting systems has been acknowledge by the Devs to be coming sometime before summer. I and a few others have made numerous threads about the unrealistic results the current systems generates. The problem seems to mainly be "target signature" values being out of balanced, weather ones too. In the meantime, admiralsnackbar's rebalancing mod has found a way to produce more realistic spotting and engagements.

Simulated gun barrel erosion, so that there is a diminishing effect on accuracy for gun barrels that produce very high muzzle velocity for the shells. This improvement realistically balances the gun accuracy and fixes the human player exploit to create ships with overpowered long barrel guns with extreme accuracy. How is this being implemented exactly?

I wonder if a debuff to torpedo damage reduction to TB, DD, and even CL hulls is needed. Might be the easiest way to make them more likely to take serious damage. I'm thinking a lot of techs that give buffs to it are making them unbalanced on hulls that lack torpedo protection.

We think of 1890 to 1910s as not that long. But really we are talking 1970s computers vs 2000s computers in terms of the jump in fire control.

1. Certain armor schemes apply a "sloped armor" buff. There are also some techs in the tree that mention sloped armor too. 2. I don't think it makes any difference other than checking to see if the shell penned completely. If full pen below the waterline, then flooding. That's just my observations.

Not 1.09 I know for sure. Transports should definitely not get torpedo launchers.

Best advice in the meantime, save before auto-resolve and reload if needed. Auto resolve RNG seems to be the problem and needs tuning.

Indeed. This is where I would say just need to have a flat limit of ships for performance alone. Or at least, give us a campaign option to set a limit. That way people with potato PCs can manage it better, and those who really don't enjoy managing a huge fleet can do so too. Got a i7, 4090, and the patience of a saint to control that 100 ship TF...have at it!

So no red circle on the west coast but you can see it on east coast subs in port? Also not sure if it is still present, but I had issues in 1.09 with not being able to send any TF if I happened to click on the sea region name specifically. Would have to click around the text or zoom in enough that the point I was trying to go to wasn't in the text. Have not checked if this bug is still present in latest fix.

I typically only focus when you actually get the turn counter on something I want. It seems keeping focus on slows down progression on all other techs otherwise. Interested to hear others as the mechanics are not explained.

Need to see or explain this one a bit more. I have moved the bigger ocean going subs across before (have to island hop).