My thoughts about the campaign

[SiWi]

Hi,

 

I want to give my general though about the first version(s) of the campaign. Generally speaking I like them very well and was positively surprise, at least for the first campaigns (before 1920).

The Mission generator seems to work okay and usually isn't too unfair. Exception being "ambush" were my TB spawn directly on top the enemy BB that one instanly shot its torpedo and the BB had no chance to doge.

Ship class balance seem also to generally work, because the cruiser usually end up fighting other Cruiser so they stay relevant. Both TB and DD's prove extremely useful and powerful even without the Submarine mechanic (which I honestly don't look forward to...)

I honestly was also a bit surprise that 2 inch guns are really useful in 1890 and even 1900.

 

There are of course alot of problems but generally speaking I do like playing the campaign.

Some of them are know problems (like certain fire angle problems in the ship designer) others are campaign only problem (player given less money to build their own fleet then auto creation). And of course the limitation of 2 nations which have to fight one war in a campaign (I really would like an option to stay in the campaign from 1890 to the end of time line with multiple wars between the two nations) does limit the experience as expected.

Still the foundations do look solid to me.

[Littorio]

Agreed, solid first start given all the systems that need to be laid down. My biggest complaint has to be how scenarios are generated in which the AI has no intention to fight and retreats without even making contact with you. They should at least have to make contact before running away.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Littorio

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

7 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Agreed, solid first start given all the systems that need to be laid down. My biggest complaint has to be how scenarios are generated in which the AI has no intention to fight and retreats without even making contact with you. They should at least have to make contact before running away.

Personally, I'd like for the game taking away the knowledge of both, the AI and the player as for what forced are to be encountered.

Instead of a precise list of what forces the enemy fields when hovering over an encounter icon on the map, give us an intel report and let us find out how correct (or incorrect) it was. Oh what fun could be had going: "Oh, nice, only two CL, I'll gonna rip them apart!", only to rush in and run headlong into a pair of battleships   

Same goes for the AI. Currently, it runs away whenever it is outgunned or even matched, the second the scenario starts. Have the AI at least make contact before making it's fight-of-flight decision.

Edited December 5, 2021 by The_Real_Hawkeye

[Littorio]

9 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Personally, I'd like for the game taking away the knowledge of both, the AI and the player as for what forced are to be encountered.

Instead of a precise list of what forces the enemy fields when hovering over an encounter icon on the map, give us an intel report and let us find out how correct (or incorrect) it was. Oh what fun could be had going: "Oh, nice, only two CL, I'll gonna rip them apart!", only to rush in and run headlong into a pair of battleships   

Same goes for the AI. Currently, it runs away whenever it is outgunned or even matched, the second the scenario starts. Have the AI at least make contact before making it's fight-of-flight decision.

Absolutely, this is the biggest issue we have right now. It kills the UX because it drains our time chasing enemies that cheat and see through the literal fog of war to flee. Intel and scouting are desperately needed, and not just for the actual tactical engagements. We also need intelligence strategically to know what to build! "Oh great, I have 5in of armor on my cruiser. Is that enough? Hell if i know since I can't see even estimates of enemy gun capabilities..."

[ReefKip]

The campaign is decent for a test bed. But there are still some issues that need to be fixed in order to make the game ready to be released on steam early access. without it getting ripped appart on day 1 by steam reviewers. Those are:

1. No glass on the current shipmodels anywhere. this may seem like a small issue but the suspension of disbelieve is broken quickly when looking at your        shipmodel longer then 5 seconds and realizing that your bridge has no windows on it at all.

2. Enemy AI is ridiculously accurate with its torpedo strikes while your own AI is not and launches torpedoes at extremely weird angles that are easy to dodge.

3. Give the player the option to start at both 1890 or 1910 in the campaign. Some people like me are not interested in pre-dreadnought naval combat  and want to jump straigth into designing true dreadnoughts. Forcing people to grind through atleast 16 years of tech that they have no interest in is just bad game design.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by ReefKip

[SiWi]

8 hours ago, ReefKip said:

The campaign is decent for a test bed. But there are still some issues that need to be fixed in order to make the game ready to be released on steam early access. without it getting ripped appart on day 1 by steam reviewers. Those are:

1. No glass on the current shipmodels anywhere. this may seem like a small issue but the suspension of disbelieve is broken quickly when looking at your        shipmodel longer then 5 seconds and realizing that your bridge has no windows on it at all.

2. Enemy AI is ridiculously accurate with its torpedo strikes while your own AI is not and launches torpedoes at extremely weird angles that are easy to dodge.

3. Give the player the option to start at both 1890 or 1910 in the campaign. Some people like me are not interested in pre-dreadnought naval combat  and want to jump straigth into designing true dreadnoughts. Forcing people to grind through atleast 16 years of tech that they have no interest in is just bad game design.

 

To 3: once you won a campaign you should unlock the next start.

hence once you played 1890 (and won) you can start in 1900, if you won that, 1910. This goes up to 1930.

Maybe it was bugged for you and didn't notice it. 

Mind you I don't think that the game when finish should do that (locking campaign starts).

[ReefKip]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

To 3: once you won a campaign you should unlock the next start.

hence once you played 1890 (and won) you can start in 1900, if you won that, 1910. This goes up to 1930.

Maybe it was bugged for you and didn't notice it. 

Mind you I don't think that the game when finish should do that (locking campaign starts).

I know that you can unlock other  campaign start dates by winning the campaigns of previous start dates. My point was that you are forced right now to start in 1890 where the combat is extremely slow and inaccurate.which makes it one of the longest and mundane  campaigns to complete.