PalaiologosTheGreat Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 I think there's a problem with ship balancing: There's literally nothing half of the midway point and yet the fore weight offset is still 10% 1
admiralsnackbar Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 45 minutes ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said: I think there's a problem with ship balancing: There's literally nothing half of the midway point and yet the fore weight offset is still 10% it's likely because on that design the engine space is slightly forward of the midships and you have those 2 wing turrets slightly forward of the mid ship.
o Barão Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 @Nick Thomadis I like a lot the new shadow rendering distances! Why it isn't in the update notes? Shadow off. Shadow on.
PalaiologosTheGreat Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 28 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said: it's likely because on that design the engine space is slightly forward of the midships and you have those 2 wing turrets slightly forward of the mid ship. Is the red stuff the engine space? Bc maroon is belt but is the red engine?
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, TiagoStein said: I do not consider a bug, but something that I hope will get some attention in the future. Yesterday I had a battle were 7 of my battleships were attacked by 1 british battleships (no other ship involved). My ships had more armor, bigger guns, their single ship was slightly faster.. Yet the british ship Leeroyed directly into my fleet. That does not make much sense. Your ships attacked or "were attacked". If the enemy Task Force could not escape, then you could have such a battle. Do you remember what happened?
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said: I think there's a problem with ship balancing: There's literally nothing half of the midway point and yet the fore weight offset is still 10% Your heavy engine, Main Tower and a forward turret appear to be a few meters fore of the ship center axis.
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 27 minutes ago, o Barão said: @Nick Thomadis I like a lot the new shadow rendering distances! Why it isn't in the update notes? Shadow off. Shadow on. There weren't any changes. I do not see any changes in your images 2
German CL mk II guns Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 (edited) 1980 campaign early designs. Longitudinal weight offset, pitch and roll of CLs and TBs are all 100 on battle BBs and CAs values are same as ship designer Edited June 17, 2022 by Terminus Est
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 *Hotfix UPDATE 14 * (17/6/2022) - Fixed Crew Pool bug that made it to not update correctly. Adjusted values to be more manageable for the AI too. AI had a big disadvantage in crew generation before, due to this bug. - AI logic of scrapping ships is improved. - Improved AI auto-design logic which seeks empty space to place parts (should make it more effective and faster). - Fixed critical old bug that could make weight offsets, pitch/roll values to inflate for some ships in battles. - Fixed a minor scale issue for a new French turret. - Slight adjustments to the instability settings. This can cause saved ships to have some overweight problems. Please Restart Steam to download (You need to check that the version nbr 14 is updated in changelog, please do not report on older build if you are not sure that you updated). 9
Plazma Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 19 hours ago, havaduck said: It takes a lot of torps with the (needed) changes to sink a BB due to duds Man, you don't using the torps, you using the guns to sink BB. 2.9" long barrel, heavy ammo, percid acid, max bulkheads, max draught, speed 32.9 (no less!). Don't change a curse of ship and after few seconds BB burn down. 19 hours ago, havaduck said: Meanwhile abuse of 2,9"/L+20% makes you completely TB proof. If is a bad weather or AI don't go into it, we are fine. 19 hours ago, havaduck said: The thing is, I hardly ever loose a ship with this, unlike TBs which are very risky, depriving the AI of VP Yes, TB are more risky than BB or CA, but if you have fight with Britain, France and Italy and they have a lot of money, you are outnumber 3-4BB : 1BB for the AI. Ofc is not a bad tactic, but for me tactic with DD and TB are much better. 19 hours ago, havaduck said: Bottom line: Are you sure its the current beta you are talking about? It seems spot on for the previous version. In previous version I barely used TB and DD, they are good but I HATE DD & TB. Now they are too OP for me... See photos: https://imgur.com/a/ll4KMRI if you don't believe I can send you a save file where I have 3 DD vs BB and without torps I take BB down, by going to kitchen making a tea and point only my DD at good direction. 19 hours ago, SiWi said: Really? I stop building TB because they didn't seem worth it... Always got killed, usually before the chance to fire torps. Maybe things are different with the patches again, but I only bothered with DD to hunt down any my TB's, since that was all the enemy had left. The problem is that torps right now are weak, so you don't build a TB or DD around torps, but around guns. Plus putting 1 pixel too far a gun can make from DD/TB a very bad ship... 18 hours ago, SiWi said: And my experience with TB, as Germany fighting the UK, was that against Veteran enemy crews you never actually have a chance to use TB's, because even with max bulkheads something hits them and if not sinking them then it cripples them so they can't get in range anymore. I must say the veteran crew is biggest counter for TB/DD. 17 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said: ==Please restart Steam to receive the update (Saves had to be reset, any old save will surely break due to new ship models and weight mechanics, resulting in endless turns and crashes)== Making similar ship twenty times... Let's test new patch!
admiralsnackbar Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said: *Hotfix UPDATE 14 * (17/6/2022) - Fixed Crew Pool bug that made it to not update correctly. Adjusted values to be more manageable for the AI too. AI had a big disadvantage in crew generation before, due to this bug. - AI logic of scrapping ships is improved. - Improved AI auto-design logic which seeks empty space to place parts (should make it more effective and faster). - Fixed critical old bug that could make weight offsets, pitch/roll values to inflate for some ships in battles. - Fixed a minor scale issue for a new French turret. - Slight adjustments to the instability settings. This can cause saved ships to have some overweight problems. Please Restart Steam to download (You need to check that the version nbr 14 is updated in changelog, please do not report on older build if you are not sure that you updated). Does that 'critical old bug that could make weight offsets' to inflate for some battles refer to the sea state causing lighter ships to have 0 gun accuracy at point blank range?
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 Just now, admiralsnackbar said: Does that 'critical old bug that could make weight offsets' to inflate for some battles refer to the sea state causing lighter ships to have 0 gun accuracy at point blank range? It could be related. Zero accuracy can happen when a ship is having too much pitch/roll and turns too sharply. In that case a ship cannot keep a proper firing sight to the enemy and cannot fire. It is logical and it should be something visually interpreted when it happens.
SodaBit Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 I've got some more ship design/gun feedback here It would seem that things are shifting in favor of smaller guns, in addition to the previous comments made by others on the effectiveness of the 8" gun, there are some other calibers with truly exceptional characteristics on the lower side of 16". First up, the Mk.5 305mm guns. These are really something to behold. While the penetration isn't as good as larger guns, it's still quite capable of taking out any cruiser it comes across. I'm not entirely against the 12" being effective, as it provides a reason to actually make Large Cruisers in the first place, but we can have effective CB's without adding Alaska's Point and Click Adventure in as a minigame. There's also the topic of secondaries that might need to be discussed again. All of these ships have been eliminated by secondaires. By using capped HE rounds, you can almost guarantee 1-2 crew killed per hit. It might not sound like much, but when you have a dozen or so guns per ship firing every 3 to 6 seconds, those hits are going to add up very, VERY fast. You combine that with the fires that secondary hits might set, and a few salvos from a cruiser's main guns, and light forces tend to fall apart fairly quickly if they aren't maxing out the amount of crew they have aboard. This tactic can also work on larger ships, but you'll need more time to pull it off, and it might not be high crew casualties that seals that ship's fate. While not killed entirely by small caliber guns, the hundreds of hits from those weapons sure didn't help matters. By setting so many fires, secondary hits greatly increase a ships' vulnerability to large caliber hits. A nasty main gun hit from a BB or BC might set a few fires and do a fair bit of structural damage, but so long as the rest of the ship isn't alight, the crew would be able to douse the fires and continue the fight in due time. If the ship is almost constantly ablaze with 3, or sometimes 4 fires, that same hit might push it over the edge, and "sink" the ship due to extensive fire. This makes secondaries and spacious crew quarters an absolute must have for any ship that's going to be in a large fleet engagement. 2
Rucki Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 I would say that at the moment the game lacks the most a clear direction, especially in war time. Wars are much too long and even if I f.e. "blockade physically" every French port as Austria Hungary, nothing really happens besides some weird, my 6 BBs against 2 French CLs fights and the info that I blockade the french (which is only because of me blocking their "main port" in the Channel, the other ports dont play a role), but the war just goes on and on besides nothing really happening. Maybe some sort of War Goal mechanic could be usefull like f.e. declaring a special Port/City as the main war goal and having the most Fleet Power their for a certain time would decide the outcome of the war ? Maybe that wouldnt be really realistic, but in the end we play only the fleet and some goal to archieve must be there, even if not realistic, at least in my opinion. Of course there could be different war goals. Lets say France - vs Italy and your civilian government decides that your main war goal is to blockade La Spezia because they want to annex La Spezia, so that makes sense. But playing as Britain against Germany the war goal could be rather to blockade the german ports in the North Sea for x - months or so. 1
Aloeus Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said: Increasing the citadel, which is very heavy, decreases the weight offset at the cost of much more weight added to the ship. The system is more complex than before, but as I see it is something that can happen, unless the turrets are very heavy, overcoming the weight of the citadel. This is a bit of a brain teaser. As I understand it it, you're saying that increasing the citadel makes the ship weigh more, which means the turrets have less of an effect on overall weight balance. When the ship is lighter (shorter citadel) the heavy turrets will have a greater effect despite being closer to the hull. I don't think this should actually work like that though, This would work if I was adding armor weight across the citadel, or adding heavier machinery, but the only place I'm adding weight is at the very front of the ship. If I take a bar of steel with big weights on it and grip it in the middle, if I then add a length to one end the total weight will get heavier, but the point of balance will only move towards the end I added weight to. The weights I have on it will weight proportionally less to the bar now, but the center of balance will only grow towards the extra length of bar I added. This works in this shipbuilding scenario too, because the total length and size of the hull isn't changing, so the total buoyancy isn't changing either, only where the weight is allocated. Added to this is that in order to lengthen the citadel I have to move at least one of these very heavy turrets farther forwards. This turret is something like 800t. If I move it forward of the center of mass by X feet, I have to move the 300t of citadel armor I added proportionally 8/3 times X feet to the rear of the center of mass to balance it, and in this case I did more than counter it since the center of mass apparently moved backwards. I think I did that math correctly. Sorry for the wall of text, I'm enjoying the physics question this is.
ShakenU Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 There's a critical (IMO) bug still floating around in the game. If you build a ship, the price per month is not correct (usually it's much higher). Then when you go and click on the ship in the fleet screen, the price changes to match the price that was said in the "build ship" dialogue. Image context: From the build ship menu, cost is X/month. In the fleet screen, ship cost is actually Y/month. However, after clicking on the ship, it's cost is now X/month. Reproduction steps: Build ship. Check cost in fleet screen, compare to cost it said it would be. Then every time you leave the shipyard you need to click on it again, so that it costs what it actually said is will. Possibly after every battle as well, but I don't remember if that's all the time or not. 4
admiralsnackbar Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said: It could be related. Zero accuracy can happen when a ship is having too much pitch/roll and turns too sharply. In that case a ship cannot keep a proper firing sight to the enemy and cannot fire. It is logical and it should be something visually interpreted when it happens. Well the issue is that certain early light ships like torp boats and destroyers have high instability values by default. If the game's 'matchmaker' puts it in a match with a rough sea state, you get a rough seas accuracy modifier of -108% or something like that. This leads to stormtrooper levels of inaccuracy where you could pull your destroyer *right* alongside a transport vessel and then have your guns miss the target even if the barrels are scraping the side of the hull. 0% hit chance across the board. I'm not exaggerating that last part btw, I tried it myself. This will cause problems for the AI because at that level they won't even attempt to shoot at you. the light ships will launch their torpedoes and then just sort of stare at each other. If that sort of thing is maintained then the player (and arguably the AI as well) has a right to know about the sea state prior to committing to battle. Edited June 17, 2022 by admiralsnackbar
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Aloeus said: This is a bit of a brain teaser. As I understand it it, you're saying that increasing the citadel makes the ship weigh more, which means the turrets have less of an effect on overall weight balance. When the ship is lighter (shorter citadel) the heavy turrets will have a greater effect despite being closer to the hull. I don't think this should actually work like that though, This would work if I was adding armor weight across the citadel, or adding heavier machinery, but the only place I'm adding weight is at the very front of the ship. If I take a bar of steel with big weights on it and grip it in the middle, if I then add a length to one end the total weight will get heavier, but the point of balance will only move towards the end I added weight to. The weights I have on it will weight proportionally less to the bar now, but the center of balance will only grow towards the extra length of bar I added. This works in this shipbuilding scenario too, because the total length and size of the hull isn't changing, so the total buoyancy isn't changing either, only where the weight is allocated. Added to this is that in order to lengthen the citadel I have to move at least one of these very heavy turrets farther forwards. This turret is something like 800t. If I move it forward of the center of mass by X feet, I have to move the 300t of citadel armor I added proportionally 8/3 times X feet to the rear of the center of mass to balance it, and in this case I did more than counter it since the center of mass apparently moved backwards. I think I did that math correctly. Sorry for the wall of text, I'm enjoying the physics question this is. How do you measure 300 tons of citadel? It does not include engines, it does not include armor? It usually weighs the most of your ship hull, if you add what is included to it.
TiagoStein Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said: Your ships attacked or "were attacked". If the enemy Task Force could not escape, then you could have such a battle. Do you remember what happened? I think it was a "TASK FORCE" event, but I do not remember if I could avoid it (since there was not reason for me to do it). The strange part for me is that their ship was faster so it should try to run away not leeroy into my far far superior force . As I said, not super serious but a bit too balsy a move to believe
Aloeus Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 16 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said: How do you measure 300 tons of citadel? It does not include engines, it does not include armor? It usually weighs the most of your ship hull, if you add what is included to it. By citadel I should have said citadel armor, I'm merely extending or retracting the length of the citadel armor. The 300t is what the game told me I added by extending that citadel armor.
Nick Thomadis Posted June 17, 2022 Author Posted June 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Aloeus said: By citadel I should have said citadel armor, I'm merely extending or retracting the length of the citadel armor. The 300t is what the game told me I added by extending that citadel armor. The effect is not linear. If there is 300+ extra tons of citadel to an already large weight of citadel which extents almost to the edges of the ship, this weight distribution effect is increased exponentially and aids the ship to stabilize and receive heavier objects with less effect. 1
IshPR7777 Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said: *Hotfix UPDATE 14 * (17/6/2022) - Fixed Crew Pool bug that made it to not update correctly. Adjusted values to be more manageable for the AI too. AI had a big disadvantage in crew generation before, due to this bug. - AI logic of scrapping ships is improved. - Improved AI auto-design logic which seeks empty space to place parts (should make it more effective and faster). - Fixed critical old bug that could make weight offsets, pitch/roll values to inflate for some ships in battles. - Fixed a minor scale issue for a new French turret. - Slight adjustments to the instability settings. This can cause saved ships to have some overweight problems. Please Restart Steam to download (You need to check that the version nbr 14 is updated in changelog, please do not report on older build if you are not sure that you updated). Well done! I'm not sure how this beta have been through for almost a month, but keep working guys
Aloeus Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said: The effect is not linear. If there is 300+ extra tons of citadel to an already large weight of citadel which extents almost to the edges of the ship, this weight distribution effect is increased exponentially and aids the ship to stabilize and receive heavier objects with less effect. Again, I fail to see how adding weight to the front of the ship moves the center of gravity back. The turrets were moved forward, the citadel was lengthened forward. I understand a heavier overall ship will result in less impact from the turrets, but in this case the turrets AND extra weight added were all up at the front of the ship. This shouldn't result in the center of mass moving to the rear. 1
TiagoStein Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, Aloeus said: Again, I fail to see how adding weight to the front of the ship moves the center of gravity back. The turrets were moved forward, the citadel was lengthened forward. I understand a heavier overall ship will result in less impact from the turrets, but in this case the turrets AND extra weight added were all up at the front of the ship. This shouldn't result in the center of mass moving to the rear. Did you messed with the max displacement slider? Maybe the center of the model became wrong somehow?
Norbert Sattler Posted June 17, 2022 Posted June 17, 2022 I just started a new campaign and my ships can only go to either In Being or Limited when in port. And my taskforces lost Limited, but the other three can once again be selected properly. Is that how it's intended or a different iteration of the previous bug with stances?
Recommended Posts