>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[Nick Thomadis]

13/3/2023 Uploaded repaired version
- Fixed bug that could cause a sudden peace, without a proper reason.

Please Restart Steam to get this update.

[halofanjames]

3 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

13/3/2023 Uploaded repaired version
- Fixed bug that could cause a sudden peace, without a proper reason.

Please Restart Steam to get this update.

ya'll are fast, was just typing up a post which mentioned how quick you guys patch things up

[mk4m]

Italia in 1890 scenario not have ability to build big ships?? In reality they build this ships much earlier. 15.000+ tonnes.

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, mk4m said:

Italia in 1890 scenario not have ability to build big ships?? In reality they build this ships much earlier. 15.000+ tonnes.

Yep.  And in 1890 the USA was building 8,900 ton armored cruisers.

[mk4m]

2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Yep.  And in 1890 the USA was building 8,900 ton armored cruisers.

And Russia before 1890. 8500 tonnes, 8x8" guns

And other countries too. 

[Airzerg]

В общем, то, что меня больше всего бесит в этой игре, это предел искусственного смещения! Если я смогу построить линкор длиной 100 метров на стапеле, то я также могу построить крейсер такого же размера! Огромный список самых интересных кораблей 80-90-х просто удален из игры.

[ituralde]

Going to piggyback off of the sub issues.  I think there is a legit bug here. I've had results that say the sub was detected and engaged but it took zero damage, and blew up dedicated ASW light cruisers sent to hunt it.  The event description and what happened didn't even line up. 

The whole sub-blows-up-screened ship thing is a pretty shit mechanic overall though and it would be nice to see either a checkbox that lets me disable submarines from the game or an interim pass that caps sub damage to ships at 100% of their hull strength, and then reduce the damage done by calculated torpedo resistance factor. It would be one thing for my a sub to get a lucky hit and take my capital ship out of action or punish my lack of torpedo blister; this happened all the time, but it's pretty hello kittying stupid for my battleship that can shrug off max sized torpedoes in-battle to vanish on the campaign screen because magical submarine sneezed on it.

[Fangoriously]

 

Can something be done about the Japanese modern battleships, I, II, supper? All of them have crippling barrette placement issues, Of all the hulls issues and errors currently in game, these are the most egregious. You cant place any barrette smaller than a 'huge superimposed barrette' in the whole forward half of the ships, this renders them unusable if you want to use anything smaller than the mk3 17in+ gun models.

[Bakarda]

It is supposed to be Estonia right? I thought that maybe it is in Estonian language, but that should be Eesti.........

Maybe some historical name for Estonia? Is it a typo, or am i just missing something?  

 

[Fangoriously]

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
0 m	32.62"	---
4,572 m	29.39"	0.67"
9,144 m	26.16"	1.71"
13,716 m	23.04"	2.79"
18,288 m	20.04"	3.90"
22,860 m	17.36"	5.17"
27,432 m	14.97"	6.65"
32,004 m	12.97"	8.48"
36,576 m	11.02"	11.26"
38,720 m	9.51"	14.05"

				this compared to the in game equivalent
				speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?

[Urst]

4 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
0 m	32.62"	---
4,572 m	29.39"	0.67"
9,144 m	26.16"	1.71"
13,716 m	23.04"	2.79"
18,288 m	20.04"	3.90"
22,860 m	17.36"	5.17"
27,432 m	14.97"	6.65"
32,004 m	12.97"	8.48"
36,576 m	11.02"	11.26"
38,720 m	9.51"	14.05"

				this compared to the in game equivalent
				speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?

Þe values in-game are against "Iron" armor from 1890 and þese never get updated to þe most common armor from when you're looking at þe penetration table. You need to look at your actual þickness and multiply it by þe percentile modifier of your particular type of armor to figure out where it is on þe table. Þis should all be done automatically, but it isn't.

[Fangoriously]

48 minutes ago, Urst said:

Þe values in-game are against "Iron" armor from 1890 and þese never get updated to þe most common armor from when you're looking at þe penetration table. You need to look at your actual þickness and multiply it by þe percentile modifier of your particular type of armor to figure out where it is on þe table. Þis should all be done automatically, but it isn't.

ya, i did that. its jack squat.

5 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

15in x1.48= 22.2in effective. Its still nothing in the face of standard AP shells that can blow through twice that at 10 km.

*edit

oh its +148%, so its more like 15in x2.48= a whopping 37.2in effective. So it can only blow through 1.5x that at 10k, not double.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Fangoriously

[applegrcoug]

8 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Are the current penetration values some kind of inflated values for the recent testing and fixing? I've been building out a complete set of 1929 shared design that will hopefully be used in the next 1930 campaign I run, at least 1 top notch ship of every type for every nation, so a TON of ships. Ive also been testing them out in custom battles to make sure they don't explode to easily or have some other serious flaw, and I've noticed how impossible it is to armor against the typical pen values 14-16in guns are easily capable of with anything close to historically accurate armor thicknesses. I mean these excellent ships of mine just hollow each other out in no time flat with gigantic main belt or main deck pen hits, with at most 16in guns.

A main belt of more than about 15 inches scales to be pretty ton prohibitive, and even with the 148% quality i can get from krupp 5 and all or nothing citadel, all that gets me is ~22in effective. I'd need a minimum of a 30in belt, before any bonus, to armor effectively against a typical in game 16in gun right now.

Now don't get me wrong, i think the penetration mechanics are working pretty great right now, I'm seeing exactly what i would expect the guns is capable of according to it's tool tips, its just that the pen potential are as much as triple whats historical at some ranges. This is why i speculate these are inflated placeholder testing values.

here's what I found for the iowa's 16/50

Armor Penetration with AP Mark 8

Range	Side Armor	Deck Armor
0 m	32.62"	---
4,572 m	29.39"	0.67"
9,144 m	26.16"	1.71"
13,716 m	23.04"	2.79"
18,288 m	20.04"	3.90"
22,860 m	17.36"	5.17"
27,432 m	14.97"	6.65"
32,004 m	12.97"	8.48"
36,576 m	11.02"	11.26"
38,720 m	9.51"	14.05"

				this compared to the in game equivalent
				speaking of inaccuracies, this gun is supposed to rotate at 4 degrees a second and fire up to 2 rounds a minute also, with what would be the equivalent of 'enhanced' or 'semiauto' reloading, a supposed auto loader system can only pull off .74 rounds a minute. An actual autoloading 8in gun on the Des Moines class could pull off 8 rounds a minute! I'm not asking for that, but maybe 3 rounds a minute on such a large gun, wile at least doubling the weight of the turret? extreme performance at extreme cost and weight as an option, within historical limits, would make designing ships more interesting. Do you want to make a 12 gun BB with a semi auto reloading system, or an auto loader BB with at most 6 guns?

So I tried to make a decent BB, BC and CA for each nation.  Within a few years the ai refitted them to turds.

[applegrcoug]

OK, so that little bit where if the lead ship takes damage it then wants to go to the rear...please stop that.  No captain in their right mind would turn into gunfire like that while trying to retreat or when in a good position.

 

My favorite is when you have destroyers following battleships and the battle ship then joins the destroyer squadron.  

 

------------

 

I also think there is a problem with opponents speed...

 

Example #1--My DD goes 36kn and I can chase down a DD that goes 34.4kn for six hours and never catch it.

 

Example #2--My BB goes 26kn and I gain extremely slowly on enemy BB that is 92% flooded that would normally only go 23kn.   

Edited March 16, 2023 by applegrcoug

[Kiknurazz91]

Fix the commissioning issue please half of my ships are stuck in "Commissioning01m" and have been for 6 months! Also again you cannot place any barbettes on the modern Japanese battleships past mid ship.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Kiknurazz91
More info

[Rina Ravyn]

I still have the bug that only 1 out of 6 gun turrets fire at the enemy. 

 

Has this bug been recognized yet, and is work being done to fix it?

[Zuikaku]

That feeling, when you are under suspiciously heavy fire only to discover that you are suddenly alone, engaging entire enemy battleline while the rest of your division is aimlessly circling 10 miles behind. Formations disintegrsting after first torpedo spotted is a bug. 

Formations didn't fall apart in this manner before! The worst thing is, it can hardly be restored again (formation). AI just don't care to restore formation.

I suggest adding "rejoin formation" button to reset ships from circling behind and make them refirm the formation 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Zuikaku

[Suribachi]

1 hour ago, Zuikaku said:

That feeling, when you are under suspiciously heavy fire only to discover that you are suddenly alone, engaging entire enemy battleline while the rest of your division is aimlessly circling 10 miles behind. Formations disintegrsting after first torpedo spotted is a bug. 

Formations didn't fall apart in this manner before! The worst thing is, it can hardly be restored again (formation). AI just don't care to restore formation.

I suggest adding "rejoin formation" button to reset ships from circling behind and make them refirm the formation 

Agreed.  Coding wise that should not be very difficult.  On the back end it would look like removing the other ships from the formation for about half a second and re-adding them in the same order they were already in.

[Guest]

sadly stuck turrets are sucking all the fun out of the game. Tried the old trick of not adding smaller than 102mm secondaries to the BB/BC but it still jams the primaries. Not all the time, but often enough that it ruins a fight

[Zuikaku]

Not much from the Nick lately. That means that big update is around the corner  

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Not much from the Nick lately. That means that big update is around the corner  

fingers and toes crossed for that  I am carefully excited

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all,

Please note the following fixes and improvements added to the game in the latest small update we offer for you:

Hotfix Update v1.2.8 18/3/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3685672640035879120 

[AlJabberwock]

Well I hope it works well, and cheers to you for getting it out...

 

I know some of the changes made some existing designs not work so those have to be revisited to see where the trouble is. 

Edited March 18, 2023 by AlJabberwock

[BELEW848]

I made yamato and I don't like the look of the mk3 guns the mk2 guns r the ones she had I wish th were was a way to keep them and still get the buffs of the mk3 guns

[Narbar]

I'm enjoying the game, but not a fan that when I go to war with one country, the whole world erupts into war and alliances