>>>v1.4 Feedback<<< (1.4.1.1 Opt x2 latest version)

[Lima]

Well, I and my allies (the USSR) are at war with AH

I am making peace with AH, my allies are not

2 turns after that (look, my blockade of AH was lifted)

Like, what's the point of the alliance if we have a separate peace agreement? I end up in a completely unnecessary war (again). I can spend diplomatic actions to improve relations and I may be lucky for a while, as in this case, but it won't be forever. And I can't influence my stupid allies in any way, I can't even break the alliance with them, because we have another war.

EDIT: ugh, another example

I'm at war with Italy and Japan

I'm making peace with Italy

Italy retains its alliance with Japan (WHY)

Here we go again. I also made peace with Britain six months ago, but my allies did not. And they are unlikely to ever do it, because they cannot find Ecuador on the map, which is now "Britain".

This is an endless war. If your enemy has 1-2 allies, they will constantly leave the war and return to it due to the fact that they keep the alliance.

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Lima

[Guest]

there should be some alliance options available at any given time.

-If you're in an alliance and A aggroes B, C (you) tags along for the ride
--you can refuse this, you leave the alliance and frankly your former allies are pissed so -150 (from +100) relations for you

-if you're in an alliance and A aggroes B, C (you) tags along for the ride
--through the war ONLY A and B can end the war
---Once war ends between A and B, C gets a +100 relation boost to former enemy/enemies

there should also be some parameters for while in a war and relations vs other nations friendly/unfriendly to your alliance partner(s). not sure how this could work, but current is very aggressive and a little too much. One would assume other nations would, ideally, stay out of the/a war

[Darth Khyron]

I am getting extreme tension increases during the campaign where no one has assets. For example, the US and Germany are getting -15 relations in the south atlantic. None of these nations have ships or bases there. This is all over the place and currently, everyone is at war with everyone. I make peace with one nation, the other attcks. Peace with that, the next attacks. And so on.
Also, my army always attacks where the enemy has the tenfold amount of army forces, always being repulsed. But instead of chosing a different, softer target, no, they attack again. And are repulsed. And again. And are repulsed. And again...until the enemy makes peace (for two or three months).

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Darth Khyron said:

I am getting extreme tension increases during the campaign where no one has assets. For example, the US and Germany are getting -15 relations in the south atlantic. None of these nations have ships or bases there. This is all over the place and currently, everyone is at war with everyone. I make peace with one nation, the other attcks. Peace with that, the next attacks. And so on.

working as intended per how alliances and tension works. your buddies and enemies have ports and/or ships in said area

Edited November 11, 2023 by MDHansen

[Darth Khyron]

Nope. No one has bases or ships there. I am at war with england, who has bases at Falkland islands. The only one who has bases in the northern half of south america are the US. But even if this is intended, this is insane, it completely wreaks havoc on economies and since everyone blasts every transport in the war zones, your budget is completely down, research is down and new ships also.

 

[Guest]

hm. Working fine for me. As in, tensions where tensions should be gained per current mechanics

[Hangar18]

overnight the world turned angry. everyone is at war with each other, and tensions raise every turn.

additionally i get spammed with a lot of the smaller nations replacing their admiral every turn.

[Dave P.]

I still think it's kind of lame that a tech breakthrough can make an existing ship design to heavy to build. Basically means you have to add like 5-10% empty space to every design just in case. Humbug.

[Hangar18]

3 hours ago, Dave P. said:

I still think it's kind of lame that a tech breakthrough can make an existing ship design to heavy to build. Basically means you have to add like 5-10% empty space to every design just in case. Humbug.

LIke what? shells? or turrets improving? Theres a bunch of techs that reduce the weight of the ship, mainly the boiler, and hull strength.

Part of the historical process for refits was they did need extra space. It's part of the reason the Alaskas got axed. Not enough space to refit, theres other reasons, but this is the big one. Meanwhile the iowas were pretty much the ship of Theseus by the time they were finished. Mogami was straight up designed for future refits. Smaller ships usually didnt get large refits, maybe an AA arrangement. Battleships usually got a facelift at some point.

[Dave P.]

54 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

LIke what? shells? or turrets improving? Theres a bunch of techs that reduce the weight of the ship, mainly the boiler, and hull strength.

Part of the historical process for refits was they did need extra space. It's part of the reason the Alaskas got axed. Not enough space to refit, theres other reasons, but this is the big one. Meanwhile the iowas were pretty much the ship of Theseus by the time they were finished. Mogami was straight up designed for future refits. Smaller ships usually didnt get large refits, maybe an AA arrangement. Battleships usually got a facelift at some point.

I'm not trying to refit them, I'm trying to build more of the same existing design.

The techs I'm having issues with are the passive buffs like the "Super Torpedo Protection" levels or some of the stuff under "Internals Protection". It's not stuff you pick in the ship builder.

They're apparently in effect for any new construction whether it was available at design-time or not, but they can add enough hull weight to tip you over the limit. By the time the first batch of ships is done, the next can't be built.

They also apparently apply to existing ships, which grow larger sitting in port?

Edited November 12, 2023 by Dave P.

[Narbar]

8 hours ago, Dave P. said:

I'm not trying to refit them, I'm trying to build more of the same existing design.

The techs I'm having issues with are the passive buffs like the "Super Torpedo Protection" levels or some of the stuff under "Internals Protection". It's not stuff you pick in the ship builder.

They're apparently in effect for any new construction whether it was available at design-time or not, but they can add enough hull weight to tip you over the limit. By the time the first batch of ships is done, the next can't be built.

They also apparently apply to existing ships, which grow larger sitting in port?

Could it be changes to ship components weights from the last few patches effecting your existing designs?

Edited November 12, 2023 by Narbar

[Aldaris]

Nah, that's been happening for a while. Just as he said - once certain techs that increase overall weight (like the example super torpedo protection) are researched, they're automatically applied, and if you've built your design pretty close to the displacement limit, the design will become invalid to build as a result. REALLY annoying.

 

That's one of my two major bug bears with tech progress. The other one is better guns making future refits impossible, because the new model is too big to replace the lower mark ones, and you don't get to choose if you want to replace them. Just want to add radar and better engines to that old design? Yeah, you're out of luck.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Aldaris

[Urst]

29 minutes ago, Aldaris said:

The other one is better guns making future refits impossible, because the new model is too big to replace the lower mark ones, and you don't get to choose if you want to replace them.

We should be allowed to choose between a turret or a deck gun at the very least.

[Harwood_39]

On 11/11/2023 at 2:53 AM, Dave P. said:

One thing I would like to appreciate is that when I conquer a minor nation's territory, their fleet (if they have one) charges out to fight me.

Not much challenge in wiping the floor with a hodgepodge of their former allies' old designs, especially with the amount of tonnage the conquer action tends to require (especially by late game) but it makes sense from a gameplay perspective.

I found that when I was invading Portugal I had to send roughly 8 Task Forces (16BB, 16BC, 32-48CA, 16-24CL, 40DD) and when their fleet charged out, ALL my task forces fought in that battle, so you can imagine how long it took to just get the fleet organised so I could actually manage everything.

[flaviohc16]

17 minutes ago, Harwood_39 said:

I found that when I was invading Portugal I had to send roughly 8 Task Forces (16BB, 16BC, 32-48CA, 16-24CL, 40DD) and when their fleet charged out, ALL my task forces fought in that battle, so you can imagine how long it took to just get the fleet organised so I could actually manage everything.

Had the same happen to me, I had something like 32 BCS and 48 CAs, it was glorious....and a PowerPoint presentation 

[Kommodore]

Hi,

the formations are already better, but the divisions and distribution of divisions should be more relaxed at the beginning of the battle and especially during the battle. I love this game and accept a lot of things that might take time or patience, but the constant collisions from your own destroyers and hits from your own torpedoes are extremely annoying and destroy the battle structure and progression. The flank should remain stable, the destroyers should stay in formation and should not suddenly cross through the main line. In addition, the destroyers too often collide with enemy ships and sink themselves. If these problems in the game mechanics are solved, the game would take an extremely big leap forward. I would also suggest a division into divisions outside of battles, similar to Rule the Waves 3. This would simplify logistics and deployment.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello everyone,

We offer a new update fixing or improving things you requested the last week.

Minor Update v1.4.0.7
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/3811794911365426042 

[German CL mk II guns]

Why same thickness of main or inner belt armor weight almost same now? 

Inner belt doesn't just protects machinery space? 

Edited November 14, 2023 by German CL mk II guns

[flashmozzzgg]

AI in tactical combat began to run away again after the first contact. Why can't such things be tested in the beta branch? Why constantly break something in the release version?!

[baltic1284]

For some reason when you enter a custom battle you cannot leave a ship design at all and battles don't launch at all the button options disappear but then you sit in port staring at your ship design waiting and it never loads or leave the ship designer at all.

[Scorpion]

I started a few missions in the Academy, and for some reason, when the battle started, ships:

1 - did not reach the designed speed, the throttle bar was reded-out like the ship had received damage

2 - rapidly pitched up and down like a playground see-saw in the first seconds of the battle, and then returned to a normal behaviour

 

I first noticed this when I designed a ship for 20 knots, but it would only go at 19. I didn't give it much thought, but then in the "attack undefended convoy" mission, I designed a light cruiser to go to 30 knots, but since the begining of the mission, it was locked out to only 17, costing me the mission.

Has anyone else noticed this behaviour?

(I also reported this in-game.)

[Dave P.]

1 hour ago, Scorpion said:

I started a few missions in the Academy, and for some reason, when the battle started, ships:

1 - did not reach the designed speed, the throttle bar was reded-out like the ship had received damage

2 - rapidly pitched up and down like a playground see-saw in the first seconds of the battle, and then returned to a normal behaviour

 

I first noticed this when I designed a ship for 20 knots, but it would only go at 19. I didn't give it much thought, but then in the "attack undefended convoy" mission, I designed a light cruiser to go to 30 knots, but since the begining of the mission, it was locked out to only 17, costing me the mission.

Has anyone else noticed this behaviour?

(I also reported this in-game.)

Sometimes weather conditions can knock a few knots off your top speed.

Sometimes more than a few, for small ships in very heavy weather.

The bouncing around at the beginning of a mission is something I've notice also, but I also have seen similar issues with physics engines in other games. It could probably be tuned better, and it's relatively recent behavior, but it does seem to just be a loading-physics thing.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded Optimized version which includes the following:
- Further Auto-Design Optimizations for a very noticeable improvement on the speed and effectiveness of the auto-design processes which affect the turn times positively.
- Improved the distribution of AI design planning in the campaign reducing the chance of an overloaded turn.
- Separated Siberian provinces which could create pathfinding issues for ships due to conflicted ports. The new Southern/Eastern Siberia provinces need a new campaign to relocate their ports.
- Fixed some false/positive errors related with barbettes.
- Reduced VP cost of ships in the campaign as compensation to the latest ship cost changes.
- Other minor fixes.
You have to restart Steam to get this update

[Lima]

The turn times in the latest updates are really good, keep up the good work.

As for the economy...In my experience, the number of your ships does not depend so much on their cost, really. What matters is the GDP growth from the government and wealthGrowthMul.

There are far-right/left, absolute monarchy goverments, with which the player will fight for every cent of the budget, and during the war in most cases you will lose GDP with such a government. If such a government gets a low wealthGrowthMul (0.7-0.9), it makes the game borderline unplayable. You get a monstrous drop in GDP during the war, although this is your only chance to save your country (to capture oil). Recently I have seen a few players playing as Japan and complaining about this. I can play in such conditions (for example Japan during beta with 0.7 wealthGrowthMul), but it's hardcore, really.

At the same time, there are governments that are able to give you a powerful economy with which you will never look at the cost of ships in 5-10 years of peace  (center/right + preferably democracy). At the moment I'm playing as Germany with 0.7 wealthGrowthMul and it took me about 15 years to stop taking into account the cost of ships. And this is the worst case scenario with a lot of endless wars.

Well, I think it would be better if the players had more control over the economy. 

For example, give the player the opportunity to improve the wealthGrowthMul that is now set in stone. It's good when you have hope, a chance to change something. At the moment, there is only one chance to improve your country - to wage a war to capture oil. Even if you have a lot of stolen money, you cannot invest it confidently (random events are too unreliable).

I would also like to be able to overthrow the government that is destroying my country. Let it cost 10,000 prestige, but this option is needed.

[Panzergraf]

54 minutes ago, Lima said:

I would also like to be able to overthrow the government that is destroying my country. Let it cost 10,000 prestige, but this option is needed.

Alternatively, as a more peaceful option, maybe ahead of every election the player can get an event where "Journalists ask you which party you will vote for in the upcoming election"
Nationalist, Right, Center, Left, Communist
And you will shift public opinion towards that option, by an ammount relative to your Naval Prestige, at the cost of some unrest.

If the player 10k naval prestige, I would imagine he's a national hero, and respected and admired by the masses.
If the player has very little naval prestige (new campaign or just poor performance), people wouldn't care that much.