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

[Nick Thomadis]

16 minutes ago, Dave P. said:

Weird bug: fought a battle (modern cruisers w/ 11" MkV guns vs. some obsolete BBs), sunk some enemy ships, lost one of mine. (The high VP count and large disparity would, I'd think, be a good indicator of ships being sunk.)

The after action report screen showed the losses, but the summary here shows them all damaged and still afloat, and my fleet screen also lists all the ships as afloat. (Although the destroyer I "lost" needs 7 months of repairs.)

Admittedly, they were lost to flooding and fires, so, is the game only looking at structure values after the last patch?

Please restart Steam to receive fix about this.

[Cadet2023]

Why can't the U.S attack Asia from it's West Coast. This needs to be resolved  before I purchasing this game. I enjoy watching the few Youtubers that play this game.

[applegrcoug]

4 hours ago, o Barão said:

Should be here a description telling the player what each option does?

Agreed.  I still have no clue what the difference is.

[SodaBit]

2 bugs, one of which might be irrelevant because campaign was started last patch.
First, several hour long stern chases are back.

At a leisurely 33.4 knots, USS Phelps was never going to outrun the cruiser squadron sent into the Baltic to deal with her. At least she lived up to the name.
Second, America just had a "Revolution..."

Only to place the same people they overthrew back in power. How cynical.

[Dave P.]

So, even though I'm only at war w/ France & Spain, I see that France's allies are lending troops to its ground assault. (This is after I decided not to join in its wars and was de-allianced by the other powers fighting this group.) This is... a little annoying.

I am seeing the new alliance mechanics working, but it does seem like there are still some tweaks to do. 😄

[DableUTeeF]

I'm sure penetration is a lot worse.

I still just don't understand this  "balancing" nonsense and just how many players are  happy about it. Only players who actually playing the game more than testing if the buttons work.

For things like, the game is made specifically so that a torpedo boat is able to win 1v1 against a battleships regardless of how many dozens QF guns the battleship has. And the fact that 50% of heavy shells fired at a cruiser always hit the deck and ricochet off despite the range being so close the angle of fall is so low that it shouldn't be possible to hit the deck to begin with.

The fact that the shells can already hit another ship they aren't aimed at including friendly ships and the torpedoes aiming work as in real life make it clear that the game can have a realistic combat mechanic but someone decided it shouldn't.

So that any ship can have some "chance" against something that in real life would have blown it out of the water immediately on sight (like HMS Defence at Jutland). Which I just don't understand why.

[Nick Thomadis]

5 hours ago, DableUTeeF said:

I'm sure penetration is a lot worse.

I still just don't understand this  "balancing" nonsense and just how many players are  happy about it. Only players who actually playing the game more than testing if the buttons work.

For things like, the game is made specifically so that a torpedo boat is able to win 1v1 against a battleships regardless of how many dozens QF guns the battleship has. And the fact that 50% of heavy shells fired at a cruiser always hit the deck and ricochet off despite the range being so close the angle of fall is so low that it shouldn't be possible to hit the deck to begin with.

The fact that the shells can already hit another ship they aren't aimed at including friendly ships and the torpedoes aiming work as in real life make it clear that the game can have a realistic combat mechanic but someone decided it shouldn't.

So that any ship can have some "chance" against something that in real life would have blown it out of the water immediately on sight (like HMS Defence at Jutland). Which I just don't understand why.

The torpedo boats are really too fragile and easy to destroy. It is advised that players stop overusing the game's fast forward mode, because it really affects the tactical effectiveness of the players' fleet, as they miss critical maneuvers that could lead to a torpedo dodge or a better position to shoot another ship.

Going in a straight line and expecting the game to be won in fast forward mode, should not happen.

The above mentioned is not, of course, a comment specific about you, because it is not clear in the image how you play, but I assume you do this, as many players, and then when something awful happens to their ships, it must be a game's malfunction, an AI cheat, something dreadful that the game sends to the player to make players' life miserable...

Now, you send a specific screenshot with a 12-inch shell blocked by a TB. This issue cannot be reproduced at all in our tests, so we have to ask if you use a modification of the game. Please clarify so we can see what we can do to fix, if such a rare issue can happen.

The only logical explanation is that you use "Incendiary" HE shells which have almost  no penetration at all, and these sometimes can have blunt collisions on a ship hull, if it is angled fully to 0 degrees. Although, even in this case is very hard to reproduce consistently, we will see how to fix, but, it should be really not such a big deal to shout about, when every torpedo boat can be sunk so easily by a few shells, in 99,99% of cases,  in an unmodded build.

[German CL mk II guns]

I tried a custom battle, a 1985 BB vs. a CA 

before AI was selecting HE for main (12 in) and AP ammo type for secondaries (4-3 in) because no matter what it knew the mains wouldnt penetrate the belt

now it selected AP for main and HE for secondaries. 

And I saw with my own eyes that 12 in finally penetrated the main belt (yay!)

definetly worth a campaing try

Edited February 23, 2023 by Terminus Est

[brothermunro]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Now, you send a specific screenshot with a 12-inch shell blocked by a TB. This issue cannot be reproduced at all in our tests, so we have to ask if you use a modification of the game. Please clarify so we can see what we can do to fix, if such a rare issue can happen.

Hi Nick,

I was able to replicate this, methodology and screenshots below (apologies its quite a few!)

This was a custom battle with 1 Italian battlecruiser vs 10 Chinese transports, 1940, 30,000m opening range. Here is the ship I used:

As you can see she has nine 12"/59 guns in three triple turrets, and you can see from the armament setup I went all in on as much penetration as possible (my hypothesis is that the game's penetration formula can get confused if the output number is very large). Here is the ship in battle:

 

I left the ship on AI control and locked it to AP firing for the entire battle. It didn't take long to replicate the 'blocked' issue @DableUTeeF encountered.

I wanted to show the range this happened at but I saw the same behaviour at all ranges (see next post)

Edited February 23, 2023 by brothermunro

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, brothermunro said:

Hi Nick,

I was able to replicate this, methodology and screenshots below (apologies its quite a few!)

This was a custom battle with 1 Italian battlecruiser vs 10 Chinese transports, 1940, 30,000m opening range. Here is the ship I used:

As you can see she has nine 12"/59 guns in three triple turrets, and you can see from the armament setup I went all in on as much penetration as possible (my hypothesis is that the game's penetration formula can get confused if the output number is very large). Here is the ship in battle:

 

I left the ship on AI control and locked it to AP firing for the entire battle. It didn't take long to replicate the 'blocked' issue @DableUTeeF encountered.

I wanted to show the range this happened at but I saw the same behaviour at all ranges (see next post)

Hello  Brother Munro,

I remember you used UAD Rebalancing Mod in your videos. Are you absolutely sure you have cleaned up / validated files?

[brothermunro]

I seem to have hit an upload limit! I have several screenshots of blocked hits, and one where the range to target is in the screenshot as well, but here is the final results screen. Of 130 hits 50 were blocked, nearly 40% so it is quite noticeable when you do run into it. From playing the game and encountering similar things it is not limited to transports or 12" gun, any weapon with very high pen that hits very weak (or no) armour has a chance to do this.

[brothermunro]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello  Brother Munro,

I remember you used UAD Rebalancing Mod in your videos. Are you absolutely sure you have cleaned up / validated files?

Yes, I did a clean install to make sure that wasn't causing the issue

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, brothermunro said:

Yes, I did a clean install to make sure that wasn't causing the issue

Ok thanks, we will check it out.

Edit:

The problem seems to happen often when a shell of the same salvo hits and does big overpen damage to an unarmored vessel the other shell seems to get blocked. 
Seems something not affecting much the overall gameplay but it will be fixed soon. 

Thank you very much for the feedback.

[Senta95]

Decent job on penetration, I have to say you are going in the right direction.

Stupid high penetration is fixed and my guns behave much much better.

Some of my guns still don't fire full salvo, I have noticed that sometimes the front guns fire themselves not the back guns (using standard ABXY setup). If you hold fire for the guns to reload and release manually it work fine. Might be related to front guns reloading a bit faster and shooting first then the game foes on full reload, and doesn't care about aft guns.

Keep it up. Haven't done much other testing but from a first look base game mechanics work more or less favorable.

[brothermunro]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Ok thanks, we will check it out.

😎 I was able to replicate it with:

16"/45 British Mark 3 triple base/TNT4, standard size, improved capped ballistic shells and,

20"/50 Russian Mark 3 cordite 3/dunnite, light semi ballistic shells and,

The same ship as the first post but locked into the soft capped HE rounds instead

So the problem doesn't seem isolated to a particular component or country.

Edited February 23, 2023 by brothermunro
Added he test

[Dave P.]

Can the AI designer be given a few more tweaks? It does a much better job than it used to, and kudos for that. I haven't seen any of the meme-worthy ships some people post without towers or funnels. But I still see a few head-scratchers, like a BC with a 21kn top speed, designs which completely omit aft weaponry, and oversized guns with ridiculous reload/ROF nerfs. (I saw a 17.8"-equipped ship with a 440 second reload time. Lolwut?)

I wonder if the rules we have to follow when designing (at least one main gun, tower, funnel, etc.) could be tightened up a bit and applied to the AI designer. (Say, at least one centerline gun forward/aft of the main/second tower, at least one funnel in between the towers, minimum speed requirements and ROF for each ship type.) It would keep the AI designs a little more boring/similar, but a lot of big gun warships looked similar because certain design patterns worked well.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Dave P.

[popcap200]

1 hour ago, Dave P. said:

Can the AI designer be given a few more tweaks? It does a much better job than it used to, and kudos for that. I haven't seen any of the meme-worthy ships some people post without towers or funnels. But I still see a few head-scratchers, like a BC with a 21kn top speed, designs which completely omit aft weaponry, and oversized guns with ridiculous reload/ROF nerfs. (I saw a 17.8"-equipped ship with a 440 second reload time. Lolwut?)

I wonder if the rules we have to follow when designing (at least one main gun, tower, funnel, etc.) could be tightened up a bit and applied to the AI designer. (Say, at least one centerline gun forward/aft of the main/second tower, at least one funnel in between the towers, minimum speed requirements and ROF for each ship type.) It would keep the AI designs a little more boring/similar, but a lot of big gun warships looked similar because certain design patterns worked well.

Tbh I disagree with part of this.  I'm 100% fine having some wackiness like the occasional ship with no rear guns, or ridiculously over sized guns, etc. sometimes.  The Japanese had 18" and were planning 20".  The British had the Nelson and the French the Richelieu with no rear main guns.  So there's historical precedent for weird ships in WW2.

Definitely agree that they shouldn't be building ships with a 440s reload time though.

[Dave P.]

1 hour ago, popcap200 said:

Tbh I disagree with part of this.  I'm 100% fine having some wackiness like the occasional ship with no rear guns, or ridiculously over sized guns, etc. sometimes.  The Japanese had 18" and were planning 20".  The British had the Nelson and the French the Richelieu with no rear main guns.  So there's historical precedent for weird ships in WW2.

Definitely agree that they shouldn't be building ships with a 440s reload time though.

By "no rear guns" I mean... literally missing rear guns. It wasn't an all forward design with a superstructure and secondaries aft, it was a "traditional" design with the superstructure in the middle, guns forward, on wings, a few secondaries, and a big empty space aft.

I'm also more taking issue with the reload time than the gun size. The big guns are in the game and the AI should use them, but... not like that.

[popcap200]

Ohhh okay.  Gotcha.  Agreed.

[Suribachi]

20 hours ago, Cadet2023 said:

Why can't the U.S attack Asia from it's West Coast. This needs to be resolved  before I purchasing this game. I enjoy watching the few Youtubers that play this game.

The US can do that.  The issue is in presentation.  The map does not wrap around so once the ships are selected in the west coast port, the player needs to scroll all the way to the right side of the map to choose the destination.

[SodaBit]

Okay, I know I said that ships should exceed their design speed by a bit to form up, but I think we might have over done that just a little

That's a 10,000 ton cruiser moving At 73.5 Knots.
To give you some idea of just how fast this is on land, that's equivalent to ~85 mph or 136 kph
I don't think any ship, let alone any waterborne object has ever moved that fast.

[Suribachi]

40 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

That's a 10,000 ton cruiser moving At 73.5 Knots.
To give you some idea of just how fast this is on land, that's equivalent to ~85 mph or 136 kph
I don't think any ship, let alone any waterborne object has ever moved that fast.

Formula One Powerboat Racing has entered the chat...

[Scorpion]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

Okay, I know I said that ships should exceed their design speed by a bit to form up, but I think we might have over done that just a little

That's a 10,000 ton cruiser moving At 73.5 Knots.
To give you some idea of just how fast this is on land, that's equivalent to ~85 mph or 136 kph
I don't think any ship, let alone any waterborne object has ever moved that fast.

Running around at the speed of sound...

[Nick Thomadis]

 

Hello Admirals,

The inconsistent "blocked" shell hits were fixed thanks to the continuous reports by kind players and the very helpful feedback of YouTuber "BrotherMunro". So we had to offer this small update.

Hotfix Update v1.2.4 24/2/2023
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3655271359542833708 

[Nick Thomadis]

48 minutes ago, Scorpion said:

Running around at the speed of sound...

This must be a UI issue. We will fix.