>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

[Nick Thomadis]

20 minutes ago, Grayknight said:

Ok... so there was a bug that made enemy ship clip throu all my torpedoes... they can already spin in place but this was absurd...

We got such reports from previous patches. Probably there is a collision update issue when players overuse the time acceleration. You can also notice ramming to pass through due to this bug. We will check to fix.

[RedParadize]

Japanese Experimental Heavy cruiser has border between its hull section:

[Kiknurazz91]

Patch v99 bug with placement of towers, turrets, barbettes etc. They hover over the deck when placed in custom battle mode.

[Nick Thomadis]

7 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Japanese Experimental Heavy cruiser has border between its hull section:

We will fix that. Thank you.

6 minutes ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

Patch v99 bug with placement of towers, turrets, barbettes etc. They hover over the deck when placed in custom battle mode.

Can you share an image? If you delete your save and make a new design, does this issue happen?

[Grayknight]

Awesome  to see you fixing those things

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Probably a technology prohibition? Check in the Extra techs (Right tab) how many superimposed barbettes are allowed.

"Check in the Extra techs (Right tab)" I didn't fully understand this part. But i suspect it can be this in the research tab? It says i can only use 1 superimposed for large guns. I didn't know this could be a thing. So is working fine it seems. However to prevent issues for other players, i would suggest instead getting the "error" message to inform the player why. In this case could be "research new technologies to unlock". Or something similar.

[Santisima Trinidad]

It is normal that I finished the campaign of 1910 and that want to start again a new one but I remain stuck at 1910?

[RedParadize]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Ok thank you very much. Please take notice of general AI behavior in your next battles. The AI may be more evasive than needed in battles that contain TR and we will fix this too.

AI ship isn't running away per se. Its trying to stay at a range above 20km, probably because its equiped with 17" guns.

Edit:
To make it worst, its actually preventing him from using its second turret:

Same here, not sure the range they are trying to maintain but its above 12km:

Note that they would have to get closer to have a chance to damage their target.

Edited December 14, 2021 by RedParadize

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis

Is possible to consider to add 2 vertical lines in the plan drawing to show where is the belt armor limit?

- This will make the ship drawing interesting to see for the player when designing a new ship, to know if the guns are protected by the belt armor or not.

- QOL improvement imo.

[o Barão]

Large Funnel I and Large Funnel II, both have the same stats but one is slight more heavier.

The same thing happens with Large Wide Funnel I and Large Wide Funnel II if comparing between both.

[Grayknight]

In 1920 when designing big ship AI is using old tech turret (15 inch mk1 instead of 14 inch mk3) it is second time i see stupid design, not inefficient just plain stupid. Gaze upon AI monster. Also nedless to say look at speed of this thing. It just shows that power projection as a stat instead of form of task force mission  or even seperate mission to bloc port is arcady mechanic. This thing wouldent be able to bloc anything   

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Grayknight

[o Barão]

A balance issue.

The BC design is more powerful, similar armor, faster, with some components upgraded, heavier,  with a weaker secondary, but is cheaper and with a lower maintenance? Must be the hull value that needs some fine tuning.

[Norbert Sattler]

In my current (1900) campaign the Germans seem to have run into a little problem with their battleship names:

[Nick Thomadis]

The following small update fixes some problems found. Please update your game clients to receive it.

*Hotfix* (15/12/2021)
- Fixed some hull & funnel errors.
- Removed Maintenance modifiers related with Hull Form, which would create cost imbalance.
- Fixed problem that caused too wide formations. 

[Norbert Sattler]

As part of a campaign mission I was defending a convoy and my transports had multiple 76mm turret2 inside their middle superstructure.

I don't know whether they could have fired, since I didn't let the enemy get close enough.

[RedParadize]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Removed Maintenance modifiers related with Hull Form, which would create cost imbalance.

It helped, but not in the direction I expected. It made smaller and faster ship like cruiser and destroyer more expensive. tipping the balance even more on the battleship side. There seems to be other irregularity regarding cost and maintenance. Some hulls (with their respective tower) are vastly more cost/effective than others.

 

[Skeksis]

IMO visibility mechanics are just fine. Currently battle gameplay is very good.

Battles require alot of attention to locate the enemy while invisible. Players have to ‘think’ and make far more command choices before even seeing the enemy and then afterwards as they pop in and out of visibility. This immersers the player with emotions of apprehension, mystery and the hunt, including relief of escape (when visibility is actually working in their favour). Battles are far more interesting.

I understand players ‘hate’ being torp at point blank range but the upside of this is for the player to overcome that adversity, ditto for blind-firing.  

Any nerfing of visibility ranges would reduce the current complexity/adversity, dumb down the game. Knowing where, when and what the enemy is doing would be a mistake! IMO.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Skeksis

[akd]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

IMO visibility mechanics are just fine. Currently battle gameplay is very good.

Battles require alot of attention to locate the enemy while invisible. Players have to ‘think’ and make far more command choices before even seeing the enemy and then afterwards as they pop in and out of visibility. This immersers the player with emotions of apprehension, mystery and the hunt, including relief of escape (when visibility is actually working in their favour). Battles are far more interesting.

I understand players ‘hate’ being torp at point blank range but the upside of this is for the player to overcome that adversity, ditto for blind-firing.  

Any nerfing of visibility ranges would reduce the current complexity/adversity, dump down the game. Knowing where, when and what the enemy is doing would be a mistake! IMO.

Is this a parody account?  A nonsensical, inconsistent spotting system totally disconnected from reality and directly contrary to the tactics of the time does nothing but immerse players in confusion and frustration, and of course flavor it all with a deep sense of inauthenticity.

You can have everything you describe above but in conditions that make sense, work consistently and don’t allow for the impossible.  And in conditions that don’t allow for that, you adapt with different tactics, instead of saying actual fleet tactics are boring (even though they were actually quite interesting, otherwise no one would be here interested in gaming the subject), so instead…invisibility cloaks.

Edited December 15, 2021 by akd

[ColonelHenry]

40 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

IMO visibility mechanics are just fine. Currently battle gameplay is very good.

Battles require alot of attention to locate the enemy while invisible. Players have to ‘think’ and make far more command choices before even seeing the enemy and then afterwards as they pop in and out of visibility. This immersers the player with emotions of apprehension, mystery and the hunt, including relief of escape (when visibility is actually working in their favour). Battles are far more interesting.

I understand players ‘hate’ being torp at point blank range but the upside of this is for the player to overcome that adversity, ditto for blind-firing.  

Any nerfing of visibility ranges would reduce the current complexity/adversity, dump down the game. Knowing where, when and what the enemy is doing would be a mistake! IMO.

Completely DISAGREE. The only emotion that this system "immersers" the player in is frustration. I cannot tell where the enemy ships are to come up with a strategy in a strategy game before they are already above me is straight-up (sorry for the language toward this system)organic garbage especially for the early era.

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[RedParadize]

 

On 12/14/2021 at 10:44 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Thank you guys for all the suggestions. They are really helpful!

Regarding the spotting mechanics, we need to wait for the new environment graphics for different weathers. The current weather modifiers which affect spotting distances, were perceptually working without the issues you are having. For example, when the weather had heavy fog on a stormy sea (in our internal testing with multiple weather types) it worked fine. Ships were not appearing so suddenly as now in clear weather situations. We need some time to perfect this mechanic according to weather differentiation.

Can we delay this discussion until that part is done?

[Skeksis]

21 minutes ago, akd said:

spotting system totally disconnected from reality

Sure I agree, it’s arcady but besides that, and all the likes and dislikes, all my battles are full on engaging. Objectively to the point of providing adversity gameplay, it’s working.

16 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

frustration

Not saying git gud, but don't you think when there is frustration, i.e. losing, the player then tries to do better? e.g. redesign ships, study specs, etc. forces the player to expand game knowledge. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Skeksis

[ColonelHenry]

4 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Not saying git gud, but don't you think when there is frustration, i.e. losing, the player then tries to do better? e.g. redesign ships, study specs, etc. forces the player to expand game knowledge.

If your arguments boil down to "no u". Then I might as well stop here. People have said more than enough to put into a book of its own about spotting, gunnery, damage models, etc. And all you said back is how you specifically feel about the topic.

[Skeksis]

39 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:

And all you said back is how you specifically feel about the topic.

Correct, that is my feedback, I own it.

[Grayknight]

What i noticed - and this is a big problem on the BUG level is that battle generator in 1920 wil start battle in close range even if ship is equiped with radar. I have level 2 radar and my BC got droped 6km from convoy escort that consisted of torpedo spaming AI ships. Let me tell that those were some tight manuvers It was funny actually but over all very stupid   Capitan was like - i have 16 inch main battery but there is only like 2x3 of those i want to shoot all the guns Oh they have torpedoes? Abort abort abort!

 

+1 on that it is beating the dead horse that will not move any muscle at this point

Edited December 15, 2021 by Grayknight

[TheRealJostapo]

I was interested to hear an initial campaign had been released, until I had learned that content was gated behind unlocking prior content (as with the scenarios).

I'd be happy to provide more precise feedback about bugs, but I'm not swimming through reams of half tested content and RNG to play things or eras I'm not interested in.

If there is one piece of constructive feedback I can provide;  "Please stop gating content behind unlocks".    It's an antiquated game design feature.   Especially for a single player game.   It's also the reason I haven't played more than four scenarios... too much RNG for me to bother unlocking the rest of the half-baked content.

Other than that:

• The load instant battle feature is broken.   Hangs on ..pre-warming.. while playing two different songs and a looping explosion/engine sound noise.
   
• The designer continues to be janky 
  • It's very very very slow for larger ship builds.
  • As many parts which work properly, there are equally as many which are janky/broken.  (Hulls, stacks, super structures, etc)
  • Resuming and starting a new Instant Battle remembers your last design.   A nice feature.   Unfortunately, more often than not most of the design is Red due to poor part placement (forcing you to rebuild the ship anyways).  
  • Several hulls used to be very permissive about centerline barbette placement, which allowed for interesting clown ship designs (which I enjoyed for _my_ ships).   For many of them, you can no longer do that.   A good case being the Japanese Super BB hull.   You used to be able to build crazy secondary arrangements due to the flexible barbettes... which you can't really do anymore.
  • I haven't read the detailed release notes, but it seems like the balancing algorithm might have regressed.   Primary battery placement does not appear to shift the centerpoint nearly as much as a secondary battery.   For instance, placing a quad 20" turret right on the furthest bow snap point (in free placement), won't shift the center of gravity as much as a triple-7".

Finally, I can't help but ask the question;   Why do you keep releasing new hulls/parts when much of the existing content continues to be buggy?   Given the shortfalls of communication and progress, and with a cynical predilection, it smacks of 'adding it so you can show new screenshots of content'.

 

-joel