Tréville Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 (edited) The whole parking your fleet to start wars mechanic seems odd to me anyway. If you're really playing as the minister of the navy, deciding who your nation goes to war with should be outside of your control and up to the cabinet. If Churchill had parked the Royal Navy outside the US East Coast in 1914 to create tensions with the US he obviously would have been promptly called off. I like the events in which you can give your input to diplomatic decisions but just being able to go to war with whoever seems very gamey for what the game is otherwise going for. Edited July 24, 2022 by Tréville 5
The PC Collector Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Tréville said: The whole parking your fleet to start wars mechanic seems odd to me anyway. I pretty much agree. But if I had to bet, I'd say that the whole "tension" system is merely a placeholder until the grand strategy part of the game (which right now is on the mere barebones so the game is reasonably playable) is finally full fledged 4
Kebla Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 1 hour ago, The PC Collector said: Sono praticamente d'accordo. Ma se dovessi scommettere, direi che l'intero sistema di "tensione" è semplicemente un segnaposto fino a quando la grande parte strategica del gioco (che in questo momento è solo ridotta all'osso, quindi il gioco è ragionevolmente giocabile) è finalmente a tutti gli effetti I hope so
Gsam Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 IS it normal that the AI players get like 250 points a turn automatically and I get 0? I am playing Germany and there are no ships in the north sea yet Britain continues to get points every turn. They are not sinking my trade ships, I am sinking theirs according to the messages I see. 1
jtjohn1 Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 A new bug to report German campaign 1890- Slowly building up everything (Aren't the shipyards eventually supposed to go to 6K per upgrade and not 4k? Mine just staid at 4K thru 1928) First war with France took place ~1928. France disolved and it told me I won and ended the campaign. Was VERY disappointing after waiting that long trying to build up my technology for it to end after 5 battles. Both the Brits and the Italians had navies of hundreds of ships (the Brits almost 1K) that I was look forward to fighting but they were on my side during the war with France.
Nagato Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 On 7/23/2022 at 2:47 PM, Urst said: The Italians shouldn't even be a single cohesive state for a lot of the early game, and they've never had a strong industrial base. Their economy is supposed to be dogshit. It took me 1-2 years to stabilize economy. I was forced to mothball half of the fleet at the beginning, and brining one by one online, after year or so it start slowly to stabilize, till i was able not only to bring ships from mothball active but also built twenty-thrity more without getting problems, even when i would receive ships at the end of wars (most which i would simply scrap) it would be okay. They are though nut in the beginning,
Skeksis Posted July 24, 2022 Posted July 24, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, Tréville said: but just being able to go to war with whoever seems very gamey for what the game is otherwise going for. If Dev’s stay on concept, i.e. diplomacy handles the player, then there’s going to be a section of unhappy players who don’t like being dictated too. Such as we have now, e.g. “alliances aren’t working”, “I choose peace but war continues”, “tension isn’t working”, etc. etc. etc. If Dev’s let players handle their own diplomacy (as inspired by RTW2), then it’s most likely everyone would be happier playing the game because it negates complains via own actions. And players still have the freedom to choose the same course as what the diplomacy generator would do anyway (historically). Works both ways. In this case a populist decision would have no impact on meta. IMO, examples like Shogun2 have set the standard (and still holds it too) and forever will mark success by them. Especially sandbox diplomacy. As sandbox you still have the freedom to not do "gamey" campaigns. Though, a war of independence II, does sound interesting. Edited July 24, 2022 by Skeksis 3
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 Okay, I just noticed that if you upscale 203 mm guns to 220 mm they get their base accuracy bumped from 9,6% to 35%. As much as I'm going to enjoy it, I pretty much suspect this is not intended to happen. I'm speaking of the Mk 1 tech, by the way.
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 @Nick Thomadis I'm afraid that you're going to have to take the "on leaving ship designer memory leak" out of the list of solved bugs This screenshot is from a few minutes ago, ruined the new campaign I was going to start. 2
Kebla Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 at the moment the gun damage stats don't match reality at all: my 10 inch guns should do about 200 damage when they penetrate but they do 2000
Grayknight Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 Regarding tension not long ago i caused the war no problem. I think we shouldget info about ground war, causing events and requireing US to support IT by bombardment Diplomacy thing od something i thought about I understand pointa for IT and against IT. I think that we should get options when customizing start with ai controlled im which we can chose things only related to navy and manual
havaduck Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, Skeksis said: If Dev’s stay on concept, i.e. diplomacy handles the player, then there’s going to be a section of unhappy players who don’t like being dictated too. Such as we have now, e.g. “alliances aren’t working”, “I choose peace but war continues”, “tension isn’t working”, etc. etc. etc. If Dev’s let players handle their own diplomacy (as inspired by RTW2), then it’s most likely everyone would be happier playing the game because it negates complains via own actions. And players still have the freedom to choose the same course as what the diplomacy generator would do anyway (historically). Works both ways. In this case a populist decision would have no impact on meta. IMO, examples like Shogun2 have set the standard (and still holds it too) and forever will mark success by them. Especially sandbox diplomacy. As sandbox you still have the freedom to not do "gamey" campaigns. Though, a war of independence II, does sound interesting. I would have no problem with a event based diplomacy but these game cant be historical/realistical and at the same time pull absolute bullshit like this: On 7/24/2022 at 5:48 PM, jtjohn1 said: A new bug to report German campaign 1890- Slowly building up everything (Aren't the shipyards eventually supposed to go to 6K per upgrade and not 4k? Mine just staid at 4K thru 1928) First war with France took place ~1928. France disolved and it told me I won and ended the campaign. Was VERY disappointing after waiting that long trying to build up my technology for it to end after 5 battles. Both the Brits and the Italians had navies of hundreds of ships (the Brits almost 1K) that I was look forward to fighting but they were on my side during the war with France. 30?! years and no wars? What the actual fúck? And people play this? And the dev think this is ok? Likewise: If this is sandbox, then that is just nonefunctional game design. If its meant to be historical then a history teacher needs to slap some former students with their old history textbooks until either knowledge or the matter of textbooks finds their wair into the students cranium. This isnt a beta, people need to be able to play this version. Another thing: You mentioned Shogun 2, and I absolutely adore that Game. Dont get me wrong, CA is a ruthless company and the will imediately abandon a game if they deem it not worth tehir while (ie Thrones). I would even say they made more absolute garbage games then jewels but Rome 1, Shogun 2 and W2: Mortal Empires are those jewels. However S2 had rules and they worked. I can piss of AI to have them declare war. I can keep allies way into realm divide until they are the only factions remaining (if done right). Vassals after realm divide dont turn traitor etc. You can have gamey stuff, but then this clutter at least has to have some consistency! I dont wanna write much more because its been a long day again but for example player feedback: Lets pick a game with absolute RNG fúckfest as part of the gamemechanics: Space Hulk tactics. It tells you EXACTLY how the outcome is determined and it shows the results to you. Now take this game: A nation with 3 ships left doesnt want peace. It ask 3 times and the war goes on 3 times with no battles happening but the players GDP going to hell. If a human is given no context, no other information he will (rightfully) call bullshit on that. If its a game mechanic where its 50:50 but I can influence it to be 25:75, sure it can go 3, 10, 100 times in favour of "continue the war" but I need to be TOLD and SHOWN otherwise such a mechanic is just redundant, infuriating bullshit. DONT even ask me in that case. Immagine a collegue at work asking if you want a glass of water since he is getting one for himself. You say yes. He comes back, but only with one glass (for him). You are obviously confused and ask wheter he forgot? And he just stares at you in silence. I bet it will take less than 3 times asked for you to either tell that college to fúck off and to stop asking you. Basic. Game. Design. 10 hours ago, The PC Collector said: Okay, I just noticed that if you upscale 203 mm guns to 220 mm they get their base accuracy bumped from 9,6% to 35%. As much as I'm going to enjoy it, I pretty much suspect this is not intended to happen. I'm speaking of the Mk 1 tech, by the way. I have reported this at least 3 times by now with pictures. Its intentional. Its bullshit, buts its intentional. Therefore is premeditated bullshit. And I have had over 40 % accuracy (smoke interferance, hull stablity etc) with those 8,9" guns (at least up to 1 km which corresponds with early battles ofc). Its even funnier and bullshittier if you put the regular 9" guns next to it. Edited July 25, 2022 by havaduck 3
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 15 minutes ago, havaduck said: This isnt a beta, people need to be able to play this version. Well, is Early Access, so it sort of is. Early Access is "we need beta testers but we can't/want to pay them, so lets see if someone bites and instead pays us for being beta testers" essentially. PS: No offence intended, devs. But is the sad truth behind Early Access. Edited July 25, 2022 by The PC Collector 2
Baboulinet Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 5 minutes ago, The PC Collector said: Well, is Early Access, so it sort of is. Early Access is "we need beta testers but we can't pay them, so lets see if someone baits and instead pays us for being beta testers" essentially. Indeed, but that's also the point of "Beta" Patches. However the use of this feature makes no sense if you push the update anyway with well known and reported bugs still plaguing the overall game experience 2
Grayknight Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 11 minutes ago, havaduck said: I would have no problem with a event based diplomacy but these game cant be historical/realistical and at the same time pull absolute bullshit like this: 30?! years and no wars? What the actual fúck? And people play this? And the dev think this is ok? Likewise: If this is sandbox, then that is just nonefunctional game design. If its meant to be historical then a history teacher needs to slap some former students with their old history textbooks until either knowledge or the matter of textbooks finds their wair into the students cranium. This isnt a beta, people need to be able to play this version. Another thing: You mentioned Shogun 2, and I absolutely adore that Game. Dont get me wrong, CA is a ruthless company and the will imediately abandon a game if they deem it not worth tehir while (ie Thrones). I would even say they made more absolute garbage games then jewels but Rome 1, Shogun 2 and W2: Mortal Empires are those jewels. However S2 had rules and they worked. I can piss of AI to have them declare war. I can keep allies way into realm divide until they are the only factions remaining (if done right). Vassals after realm divide dont turn traitor etc. You can have gamey stuff, but then this clutter at least has to have some consistency! I dont wanna write much more because its been a long day again but for example player feedback: Lets pick a game with absolute RNG hello kittyfest as part of the gamemechanics: Space Hulk tactics. It tells you EXACTLY how the outcome is determined and it shows the results to you. Now take this game: A nation with 3 ships left doesnt want peace. It ask 3 times and the war goes on 3 times with no battles happening but the players GDP going to hell. If a human is given no context, no other information he will (rightfully) call bullshit on that. If its a game mechanic where its 50:50 but I can influence it to be 25:75, sure it can go 3, 10, 100 times in favour of "continue the war" but I need to be TOLD and SHOWN otherwise such a mechanic is just redundant, infuriating bullshit. DONT even ask me in that case. Immagine a collegue at work asking if you want a glass of water since he is getting one for himself. You say yes. He comes back, but only with one glass (for him). You are obviously confused and ask wheter he forgot? And he just stares at you in silence. I bet it will take less than 3 times asked for you to either tell that college to fúck off and to stop asking you. Basic. Game. Design. I have reported this at least 3 times by now with pictures. Its intentional. Its bullshit, buts its intentional. Therefore is premeditated bullshit. And I have had over 40 % accuracy (smoke interferance, hull stablity etc) with those 8,9" guns (at least up to 1 km which corresponds with early battles ofc). Its even funnier and bullshittier if you put the regular 9" guns next to it. Hey, calm down a bit. Devs prove time and time again they are working hard and have resaults. The whole game od in beta and will be probably for next few years... IT requires tones od improvement and IT od easy to find things that do not worka. But truth is that it is rapidly geting better and morę complex. 2
havaduck Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, The PC Collector said: Well, is Early Access, so it sort of is. Early Access is "we need beta testers but we can't pay them, so lets see if someone baits and instead pays us for being beta testers" essentially. I know, I was refering to the "beta branch" series of version that predated this 1.06 release. I was thinking about calling it something else, but then people probably wouldnt have been able to follow what I was taking about. Steam is refering to these versions as betas so I choose to go along with that. With that branch one can expect all sorts of problems: Wars not starting? Bugs? Crashes? Sure, all of that. I reported those as I saw fit, and happilly so. However I dont think its out of this world to expect the main version to be more playable especially if 1.05 was just that: More incomplete? Yes. Less features? Sure. More playable: absolutely. But what was exactly forcing this version out of "beta" and to replace the regular main version instead of continuing development an ironing out the flaws? They can and should absolutely take their time as need but when someting is put into the game and it might be completely different in a year, a month or even a week I cant judge on theoretical possibilities, I can only give them feedback on what right in front of me and based on their actions. Also keep in mind the devs are not very communicative themselves on their thoughts (understandable their time is occupied) but they should equally understand its then hard to discern what their motives and thoughts are. Likewise an abridged version of the shortcommings in the, again, main version shouldnt surprise. Unrelated bonus: A closeup shot for you. Edited July 25, 2022 by havaduck 2
Skeksis Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Grayknight said: But truth is that it is rapidly geting better and morę complex. Well said Sir. It is better to focus on the bigger picture like the majors added into this patch, new citadel format, custom gun calibers, no immediate wars to start with and peacetimes. All very successful, from a development point of view. Edited July 25, 2022 by Skeksis
Skeksis Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) On 7/23/2022 at 5:13 PM, havaduck said: Tension mechanic IS STILL NOT FIXED AND NOT WORKING AT ALL! 12 ships in the baltic where the germans have no ships: And its a net gain in relations - what?! Splitting the foces but making sure to outpower the germans in the baltic 10:1! yes thats 10 to fúcking one. Doesnt do shit. No change in any relations except the merry lets be friends anywhere. Putting the fleet into the north sea so the main battle fleets are staring at each other and you know, generate tension? Doesnt do didly dick despite outpowering them 4:1. Remember when Great Britain nearly declared war on Russia during the Russo-Japenese war that culminated in the Battle of Tsushima when the Russians fired on their fishing trawlers in the North Sea? Meanwhile, I can get the AI to stop licking my ass with enthusiasm because they love me so much with the fleets on the stance that "generates maximum tension". On 7/24/2022 at 4:58 AM, havaduck said: Thats what I thought and its also exactly what ive been doing. I went to get some groceries and had the game deleted and did a full fresh install. Coming back, I tried ONCE AGAIN and once again its fúcked. This time I went with an auto generated fleet because I just couldnt be arsed anymore and I figured it would give more ships/tonnage which it did. So once again, sending ships everywhere: And it just doesnt do shit. Some more exercises in futility with different positions: The entire high seas fleet is in the North Sea and at most is good enough to not have the relations going up. This is literally unplayable and its been reported with documentation over and over again. Tension starts at -35, it takes over a year or more to build up to -100. Edited July 25, 2022 by Skeksis
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, havaduck said: But what was exactly forcing this version out of "beta" and to replace the regular main version instead of continuing development an ironing out the flaws? My only reasonably guess is that they might need more people giving feedback. Hence pushing it ut of beta. Because unlike you're here in the forum, you won't get notified about the betas. PD: Thanks for the beautiful Tegetthoff model. Edited July 25, 2022 by The PC Collector
Skeksis Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, The PC Collector said: My only reasonably guess is that they might need more people giving feedback. Murphy's law struck bad but the upside is Dev’s now know about all the things to avoid. Especially for leading into map expansion. Edited July 26, 2022 by Skeksis
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 Well, I hope that they continue soon... Seeing Spain there and not being able to play it... hurts a bit. XD
Baboulinet Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 1 hour ago, The PC Collector said: My only reasonably guess is that they might need more people giving feedback. Hence pushing it ut of beta. Because unlike you're here in the forum, you won't get notified about the betas. PD: Thanks for the beautiful Tegetthoff model. I honestly don't see the point getting more people's feedback as most of the issues still present were reported since the first iteration of the patch by a lot of people We still have (but it only kicks in when we play 15+ years) the "End turn" memleak Some secondaries still won't shoot, even at correct angle and a good accuracy rate Diplomacy and AI economic/crew management, well, no need to be specific about that, just to play more than 5 years Blockades feel really random, etc, etc Still, it's improving overall ! Even very shadowy things like AI autodesign, Battle AI. We just have to remember how it was when the first campaign iteration was released to see the trendemous progress here. 1
The PC Collector Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 15 minutes ago, Baboulinet said: I honestly don't see the point getting more people's feedback as most of the issues still present were reported since the first iteration of the patch by a lot of people Well, I don't know if you know something about coding. But I do know enough to know that bugs aren't as easy to solve as it seems. Specially bugs like memory leaks that, while app wise may have clear triggers, code wise what triggers it can be very hard to find. And more feed back is needed to discard that can be something related to a determinate system configuration, since as you probably know, the x86 archytecture being modular means that thousands or even millions of different configurations can be running your code. And even a minimal change on that configuration can be the cause of a bug. So yes, having as much feedback as possible is needed to solve some bugs. I'll put you an example: Suppose that you and your best friend are the beta testers and have the same exact computer. Both software and hardware wise. And now suppose that you both report a bug. If a dev saw your reports would think "Okay, I need feedback from more people to make sure that the bug isn't caused by their system's configuration". Then, they would need to open the test to most people. Is a very simplified example, but I hope it makes my point being clear. 1
Vagrant Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 If ship surrendering is a thing it only makes sense for you to add an option to capture ships after a battle. Similar to how it was done in Total War games I think that after a battle we should have an option to either scrap, scuttle or capture a ship that surrendered in a battle. Also, it's extremely annoying when your ship surrenders, and upon winning the battle you still lose it. While realistically you would simply give it new crew and repair it. 1
Baboulinet Posted July 25, 2022 Posted July 25, 2022 23 minutes ago, The PC Collector said: Well, I don't know if you know something about coding. But I do know enough to know that bugs aren't as easy to solve as it seems. Specially bugs like memory leaks that, while app wise may have clear triggers, code wise what triggers it can be very hard to find. And more feed back is needed to discard that can be something related to a determinate system configuration, since as you probably know, the x86 archytecture being modular means that thousands or even millions of different configurations can be running your code. And even a minimal change on that configuration can be the cause of a bug. So yes, having as much feedback as possible is needed to solve some bugs. I'll put you an example: Suppose that you and your best friend are the beta testers and have the same exact computer. Both software and hardware wise. And now suppose that you both report a bug. If a dev saw your reports would think "Okay, I need feedback from more people to make sure that the bug isn't caused by their system's configuration". Then, they would need to open the test to most people. Is a very simplified example, but I hope it makes my point being clear. I absolutely get your point, as it makes sense, however : - They should warn the regular people on release that it's unfinished. It'll avoid anger and disappointment from the regular playerbase. Even if it's an early access, and we have to accept unfinished content and bugs, you know how people are. It's kinda sad to see some negative reviews and they are all related with patch releases and unattended longlasting bugs. Those reviews can really help a game skyrocket in sales, and that's what we all want for this game and the devs. Furthermore, because you can't wait to release your patch until it's stable, it doesn't help the streamers who can't properly show the game to the public (notably because of save resets). That's another nice marketing asset thrown out of the window because of some impatience. It's not the ability to fix things or even the time needed to do it that I try to point out, as I don't know their means of production nor their manpower, and I'm not a full-time dev myself. However I'm one of those guys who get yelled at by the customer when you send them a messy product (even when they were just pushing hard for a quick release and thence unfinished one). It's the communication issues and the release date choices (and communication related to those releases) The major issues still there were reported by about everyone in the beta, so the argument about increasing the panel in order to find the origin is, albeit plausible, still strange. Maybe they have some directives by business/management that we don't know. I guess you have to show the public that the project is still be actively worked on. That's where efficient external communication intervenes, and Game Labs sadly can't or doesn't want to act on this (and that's not a new issue) 22 minutes ago, Vagrant said: If ship surrendering is a thing it only makes sense for you to add an option to capture ships after a battle. Similar to how it was done in Total War games I think that after a battle we should have an option to either scrap, scuttle or capture a ship that surrendered in a battle. Also, it's extremely annoying when your ship surrenders, and upon winning the battle you still lose it. While realistically you would simply give it new crew and repair it. To be fair, I don't know a lot of examples of ship captures post age of sail. I think that by "surrender" the game means "scuttling" which makes more sense for the time period ?
Recommended Posts