>>>v1.6.0.7+ Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.6.1.5 Optx4)

[justMike247]

Nick, any chance you could work on adding an Auto-Save function after every battle? Given the frequency of game crashes, this would serve to aleviate the Groundhog Day factor, endlessly repeating the same battles just to get back to the event that caused the crash.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

Here it is an update with more campaign improvements. Read below:

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4556046454947315862

[justMike247]

Rev 1.6.1.1, Game Date June 1914

 

I’m at that awkward stage where I’m trying to turn the corner between pre-dread to dreadnought based fleet. My clown cars have mostly been retired to buffer fleet (more about that in a moment) or refitted to the point where the hull can’t support the new gear.

 

War with France just finished with zero consultation with me, much less any notice. I’m guessing the reason was simply because I had to put two fleets into port for repair/rearm/refuel. I’m still prosecuting my (now) second campaign against Spain, having just reduced their entire navy to a single, solitary obsolete CA. Primary aim with this current phase of campaigning *as the US* is to establish multiple high capacity ports on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

Quick Political snapshot… The Brits, Italians and Chinese would all love to be at war with me, relations all at -99, French are at 0% (not that that’s likely to last more than a month or two), German relations are at a surprising +83%, Russia’s at +66% and Japan at +35%.

 

Right now, the only country not at war with anybody is China, and surprisingly, compared to the other A.I. controlled countries, their GDP is surprisingly healthy. That said, no surprise that their tech development is still in the basement.

 

Financially, every other major country has negative GDP except Austro Hungary. Their Navy isn’t exactly respectable, but their army’s doing a number on Eastern Europe and the Balkans. There’s still no in-game reason why US relations with the other countries should be as bad (or good) as they are, because I’ve been extremely pro-active in getting rid of minor allies, have shunned alliances with the major countries, and have basically been very isolationist, merely deploying my fleet against threats entering my home waters. Nick, if you’re reading this, I’m suggesting there should be a relatively sane reason to justify changes in political tension, both good and bad; reasons beyond simply “because the tension mechanics code says so”.    

 

Thus far, I dare say I’ve suffered from the same challenges as anyone else beginning in 1890, with squeaky tight budgets and clown-car design options. I’ve a suggestion that offers a bit of push-back against the ever tightening budgetary constraints; hopefully something for Nick to chew on, mull over…

 

The Research tech-tree is a huge money pit… but to get anywhere in the game, it’s something we all gotta grind through. In the face of constantly getting less bang for the buck, I’m suggesting a couple of mods for the tech tree.

 

First mod… re guns. Currently there’s just 2 branches running concurrently, covering small and large naval rifles. I’m gonna split this first suggestion into two parts, where either or both could be employed. First part, add a 3^rd branch, covering intermediate (Cruiser) calibre guns. This proposed branch should cover calibres between 6-11”, leaving 2-5” for small, and 12-20” for large. All three branches should develop at identical rates.

 

Second suggestion, running in parallel with the first. Add a player option to switch off funding for tech branches we have zero interest in developing. For example… Since their introduction to the game, Submarines have been a total waste of resources. I can’t remember when last I built any, and yet, I still need to pay for their evolution and development. Similarly, Mines… utterly ineffective in-game. I draw a very bold distinction between Subs/Mines, and Anti-sub/Anti-mine countermeasures… I always develop the countermeasures, cos the A.I. loves that mess… but why should I have to waste extremely limited funds on tech branches I’ve zero intension of using? If I haven’t funded the research, I can’t employ those systems until the research has been completed… ergo, built-in check-sum/fail-safe. Rinse and repeat for every branch of the entire Research tech tree… Give the Player the option to fully or partially fund evolutionary branches, or not fund them at all if there’s a conscious decision not to pursue that particular path. Example… In over 4200 hours of gameplay, I don’t think I’ve ever fitted an 11” gun to anything… ever… (apologies to the Admiral Sheer/ Scharnhorst class die-hards)… so why should I have to fund that  particular branch FIVE FREAKIN TIMES just to get a Mk5 12” rifle? It makes no sense… The Brits were able to develop the world’s best 15” calibre rifle, simply by scaling up their existing 13.5” design… Do I really need to grind through every possible permutation of every possible calibre just to reach the desired calibres for the hulls available to my country?

 

As stressed earlier… mere suggestions… Opinions/feedback welcome…

 

Before I forget… that buffer fleet… Place to park warm bodies in anticipation of needing them for new-build hulls… Current return on investment in Crew Training is buggered beyond belief… So… Ghost Fleet… find some out-of-the-way backwater place to park old/obsolete hulls, and use them as a reservoir to hold a steady trickle of new bodies, then use the Mothball mechanics to transfer them into new-builds… Re-commission the ghost fleet once the needs of the New Builds have been met.

 

**brief solomn moment to play Last Post for the dear departed Spanish Navy**

 

There's something strangely satisfying about dispatching one clown-car (CA armed with a single, solitary main gun in the bow, but... surprise surprise, no bow-heavy issues) with the last active remnants of my own clown-car fleet... 24 years old and still kickin ass an' takin names...

Edited October 25, 2024 by justMike247

[Северная]

I like your idea of having cruiser caliber guns separate from small caliber guns in research.  I basically never use 8” guns because 9” is always more advanced much sooner.

 

[Nick Thomadis]

6 hours ago, justMike247 said:

Rev 1.6.1.1, Game Date June 1914

 

I’m at that awkward stage where I’m trying to turn the corner between pre-dread to dreadnought based fleet. My clown cars have mostly been retired to buffer fleet (more about that in a moment) or refitted to the point where the hull can’t support the new gear.

 

War with France just finished with zero consultation with me, much less any notice. I’m guessing the reason was simply because I had to put two fleets into port for repair/rearm/refuel. I’m still prosecuting my (now) second campaign against Spain, having just reduced their entire navy to a single, solitary obsolete CA. Primary aim with this current phase of campaigning *as the US* is to establish multiple high capacity ports on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

Quick Political snapshot… The Brits, Italians and Chinese would all love to be at war with me, relations all at -99, French are at 0% (not that that’s likely to last more than a month or two), German relations are at a surprising +83%, Russia’s at +66% and Japan at +35%.

 

Right now, the only country not at war with anybody is China, and surprisingly, compared to the other A.I. controlled countries, their GDP is surprisingly healthy. That said, no surprise that their tech development is still in the basement.

 

Financially, every other major country has negative GDP except Austro Hungary. Their Navy isn’t exactly respectable, but their army’s doing a number on Eastern Europe and the Balkans. There’s still no in-game reason why US relations with the other countries should be as bad (or good) as they are, because I’ve been extremely pro-active in getting rid of minor allies, have shunned alliances with the major countries, and have basically been very isolationist, merely deploying my fleet against threats entering my home waters. Nick, if you’re reading this, I’m suggesting there should be a relatively sane reason to justify changes in political tension, both good and bad; reasons beyond simply “because the tension mechanics code says so”.    

 

Thus far, I dare say I’ve suffered from the same challenges as anyone else beginning in 1890, with squeaky tight budgets and clown-car design options. I’ve a suggestion that offers a bit of push-back against the ever tightening budgetary constraints; hopefully something for Nick to chew on, mull over…

 

The Research tech-tree is a huge money pit… but to get anywhere in the game, it’s something we all gotta grind through. In the face of constantly getting less bang for the buck, I’m suggesting a couple of mods for the tech tree.

 

First mod… re guns. Currently there’s just 2 branches running concurrently, covering small and large naval rifles. I’m gonna split this first suggestion into two parts, where either or both could be employed. First part, add a 3^rd branch, covering intermediate (Cruiser) calibre guns. This proposed branch should cover calibres between 6-11”, leaving 2-5” for small, and 12-20” for large. All three branches should develop at identical rates.

 

Second suggestion, running in parallel with the first. Add a player option to switch off funding for tech branches we have zero interest in developing. For example… Since their introduction to the game, Submarines have been a total waste of resources. I can’t remember when last I built any, and yet, I still need to pay for their evolution and development. Similarly, Mines… utterly ineffective in-game. I draw a very bold distinction between Subs/Mines, and Anti-sub/Anti-mine countermeasures… I always develop the countermeasures, cos the A.I. loves that mess… but why should I have to waste extremely limited funds on tech branches I’ve zero intension of using? If I haven’t funded the research, I can’t employ those systems until the research has been completed… ergo, built-in check-sum/fail-safe. Rinse and repeat for every branch of the entire Research tech tree… Give the Player the option to fully or partially fund evolutionary branches, or not fund them at all if there’s a conscious decision not to pursue that particular path. Example… In over 4200 hours of gameplay, I don’t think I’ve ever fitted an 11” gun to anything… ever… (apologies to the Admiral Sheer/ Scharnhorst class die-hards)… so why should I have to fund that  particular branch FIVE FREAKIN TIMES just to get a Mk5 12” rifle? It makes no sense… The Brits were able to develop the world’s best 15” calibre rifle, simply by scaling up their existing 13.5” design… Do I really need to grind through every possible permutation of every possible calibre just to reach the desired calibres for the hulls available to my country?

 

As stressed earlier… mere suggestions… Opinions/feedback welcome…

 

Before I forget… that buffer fleet… Place to park warm bodies in anticipation of needing them for new-build hulls… Current return on investment in Crew Training is buggered beyond belief… So… Ghost Fleet… find some out-of-the-way backwater place to park old/obsolete hulls, and use them as a reservoir to hold a steady trickle of new bodies, then use the Mothball mechanics to transfer them into new-builds… Re-commission the ghost fleet once the needs of the New Builds have been met.

 

**brief solomn moment to play Last Post for the dear departed Spanish Navy**

 

There's something strangely satisfying about dispatching one clown-car (CA armed with a single, solitary main gun in the bow, but... surprise surprise, no bow-heavy issues) with the last active remnants of my own clown-car fleet... 24 years old and still kickin ass an' takin names...

I do not quite understand what is the problem. Maybe if you start a new campaign and begin observing how all the new features work together with the balance of economy, it will be more satisfactory for you. If you notice in your current campaign a persistent bug, a crash a ghost fleet etc. please use the in-game report button. It will help us to fix it.

[Aldaris]

7 hours ago, justMike247 said:

Example… In over 4200 hours of gameplay, I don’t think I’ve ever fitted an 11” gun to anything… ever… (apologies to the Admiral Sheer/ Scharnhorst class die-hards)…

Hey, suit yourself man... 11" armed CAs kick ass. I only build them once I can build CAs of 16k+ displacement and have access to decent triple turrets, but then? A cruiser with 9-12 11" guns puts out a lot of hurt. Love to use them in small divisions for medium ports, with a couple of DDs in escort.

[justMike247]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I do not quite understand what is the problem.

Nick... I wasn't reporting a bug... merely trying to give a snap-shot of how things are, for me, at this phase of the game...

[justMike247]

1 hour ago, Aldaris said:

Hey, suit yourself man... 11" armed CAs kick ass.

Yea... I get that... I like to build late BC's (36k ton) with 12's for much the same reason. My point was... options... Having selectable research would allow us to prioritise where funding goes, without the requirement to grind out absolutely everything, whether we'll use it or not...

[Lamb Chop]

First off, congrats and thank you for the continuing improvements.

Saying that, you have also achieved what most other games and developers have, make the game "NOT" fun...

Having almost 1600 hours on the game, following are my personal issues with the current version, 1.6.1.1

-Wars are almost unwinnable because of the VP Nerf,
If I have just sank 3 French BS's half their BS number, with bunch of CA's and CL's I should be getting way more than the 3400 VP I have got. Especially considering despite only damaging some of my ships, they got 350.
This makes the wars drag on, you can destroy all of their navy and still not have enough VP to Peace out. Forget about reperations...

Above point makes the wars not too fun and the new tension mechanics, although several steps in the right direction, makes some wars unavoidable.

Anyway, I am finding myself dreading a war in the game...

Just my two cents

[Северная]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

Here it is an update with more campaign improvements. Read below:

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4556046454947315862

The minor nations changes are not what the community has been asking for.  We want the ability of the player to interact with them, whether that is invading them when they are allied to an enemy in a war or declaring war on them ourselves some way, like maybe spending prestige.  This change just makes it so the minor nations can declare war on each other… which doesn’t do anything for the player really.  We want some kind of reliable way to reproduce historical conquests, like Japan of Korea, USA of Hawaii, Soviet Union of Eastern European countries 1920-1940, Germany 1940 campaign etc.

[Thramoun]

2 minutes ago, Северная said:

The minor nations changes are not what the community has been asking for.  We want the ability of the player to interact with them, whether that is invading them when they are allied to an enemy in a war or declaring war on them ourselves some way, like maybe spending prestige.  This change just makes it so the minor nations can declare war on each other… which doesn’t do anything for the player really.  We want some kind of reliable way to reproduce historical conquests, like Japan of Korea, USA of Hawaii, Soviet Union of Eastern European countries 1920-1940, Germany 1940 campaign etc.

I agree, there should be a cheat menu that lets you do that kind of stuff.

[Warspite96]

On 10/24/2024 at 1:07 AM, justMike247 said:

It's not just superstructure that needs serious rework... add guns, gun turrets, torpedoes (especially the launchers) and engines are all modeled on some material that makes depleted uranium look featherweight. Case in point... Type 93 Long Lance... the biggest, longest range torpedo of the war weighed a whopping (for a torp) 2,700Kg's each. Stick those into a quintruple launcher, that's 13,500Kg's per launcher... Double that to allow for a single reload and we're up to 27tons... So why does that single system weigh 187 tons? Yea, I know, you need to install pure O2 storage etc, but still.. that's a chitloada lord knows what for a single launcher.

 

I've already had my wrist slapped for pointing out that you could build the entire Chain Home network for the weight imposed on a single BB for installing Gen 3 RADAR.

**le sigh**

Research... it's a thang...

This is specifically what I am talking about, the main/secondary towers being the 1st and 5th heaviest part of the ship, respectively. Their combined weight is 3,895 tons..............I apparently have two fully kitted destroyers strapped to the top of my US cruiser hulls it seems! I would be surprised if the IRL superstructure of a Baltimore weighed even half that.

[justMike247]

That's exactly why I keep banging on about stuff like Metacentric height... Weight distribution like that would induce capsize in rediculously low sea states... cos ye canna beat the laws o' physics...

[Shornaal]

21 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

Here it is an update with more campaign improvements. Read below:

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4556046454947315862

Thank you, this solved my problem with minors not getting territories when winning battles.

Guess I'll have a proper campaign to test the new diplomacy and see if it's so bad as many say.

[JaM]

One Quality of Life improvement suggestion - put button to delete design away from Refit button.. its way too easy misclick and delete original design..

[Zuikaku]

Why is ammo replenishment so slow in ports?

[Markus1985]

Speaking of ports have anyone else experienced that damaged Taskforces doesn't adhere to the port priorites you've set?

When I've tried campaigns as the Italians I've twice successfully blockaded Austria in the narrow straits between Taranto and Durazzo. Two ports where Taranto is noticeable larger when it comes to port capacity. That's why I put Taranto on a higher priority and lower the priority of Durazzo. Despite this the damaged ships still prefer Durazzo, which makes a big dent in the budget since a lot of tonnage is now stuck for a long time in a port which is now operating in the red.

No clue why this happens. But I've sent bug reports before since the ships probably still prefer the closer but smaller port, even if there is a closer port not that much further away. 

Would be interesting if you'd be able to move damaged ships using the change port button. 

[Warspite96]

Is it just me or do the AI get super survivability in the late game now as well? I'm a bit confused why I'm penetrating the enemy ships (i.e. defeating their armour and the shell is exploding inside the ship) for like 50-100 damage with a 203mm shell, when enemies with the same explosive filler on their shells (TNT IV) and Tube Powder 2/3 are doing 600+ damage to my ships on just partial pens. It seems the AI is abusing this extreme damage reduction by just building ships with minimal armour, since my shells will do barely any damage post-penetration. My battleship with 356mm guns and Base Fuze HE keeps penning an enemy BC with HE (because it has 30mm of armour) and doing maybe 400 damage if its lucky, which is nothing in the late game; I'm barely tickling the damn thing when penetrating its armour with a High Explosive shell. 

Also, are penetration stats based on how much penetration the shell would have when striking armour perfectly horizontally or how much pen it has with its angle of fall? Would kinda explain why a CA with "159mm" of penetration at 15km can't penetrate 79mm of effective armour at that distance in an actual battle.....

[justMike247]

Auto-Targetting Issues

 

This is a point that’s been bugging me since long before Campaign was released. The impression I get is Auto-Targetting follows the McNamara prioritisation, i.e. ;-

1/ Form a comprehensive list of all known threats in the area.

2/ Prosecute mitigation of those threats in an inverse-priority order.

3/ Apply least effective ordinance while complying with 1/ and 2/ above.

4/ Over-ride manual targeting whenever possible.

 

This leads to capitol ships being totally ignored, while my own capitol ships waste main-gun ordinance prosecuting targets like TB’s and DD’s while they’re miles away from being any kind of potential threat to my own force.

 

It’s extremely difficult to accurately and easily change targeting, with missed targeting clicks being interpreted as inputs for auto-nav, disengaging the Manual Nav lock. This invariably leads to my fleet veering wildly out of position while the opposing capitol ships remain unprosecuted. Losing target-lock when smoke obfuscates the locality, I can understand, but invariably, Auto-Targeting will successfully range the target, perhaps land a small handful of hits in subsequent salvos, then inexplicably change target, not merely to another vessel, but invariably to one that presents a significantly smaller risk to my fleet. This change in target occurs irrespective of whether there are other clearly visible, higher priority targets available.

 

While I can understand the opposing A.I. wishing to rack up easy damage points by prioritising DD’s and CL’s as optimum “targets of opportunity,” from a players perspective, this is bordering on insane, especially now that a fully rearmed fleet carries just 55% of a normal ordinance load.

 

I’d recommend a “root and branch” rethink of how Auto-Targeting currently operates. Additionally, I’d strongly recommend a change in how Auto-Nav is engaged, so that if Manual Nav has been checked, accidental/inadvertent clicks on water are NOT interpreted as helm instructions. For players who prefer to work with “click water to navigate”, simply leave Manual Nav unchecked.

[justMike247]

11 minutes ago, Warspite96 said:

Is it just me or do the AI get super survivability in the late game now as well?

Sounds like another example of messed up Hull Resistance generating near absolute invulnerability. My last campaign saw multiple instances of my big-gun ships expending 100% of their ordinance against a single target, inflicting hundreds of successful pens, while doing fractional damage. Evidently some unexplained factor transforms AP and HE shells into rainbow dust and unicorn pharts when belt/deck armour has been defeated.

 

Over 25k hits, over 21k bounces, barely 300 damage, zero critical systems damaged, much less knocked out, except by fire... and those hulls have exceptionally high fire resistance.

[Warspite96]

2 minutes ago, justMike247 said:

Sounds like another example of messed up Hull Resistance generating near absolute invulnerability.

Hmmm, this might be the case actually. Do late game German ships get exceptional hull resistance? Would explain why they can build ships with barely any armour protection that can just eat shots for breakfast.

[justMike247]

3 minutes ago, Warspite96 said:

Hmmm, this might be the case actually. Do late game German ships get exceptional hull resistance?

The one I came across was late Dread (V or VI), Krupp 3 armour, 305mm belt, 157mm deck and superstructure, 7.5mm (not a typo) everywhere else, Citadel 3, anti-torp 3, BH1, anti-flood 3... Absolutely nothing remarkable other than its ability to soak up 16" shells like they're rainwater...

[Hibbidyhai]

"First mod… re guns. Currently there’s just 2 branches running concurrently, covering small and large naval rifles. I’m gonna split this first suggestion into two parts, where either or both could be employed. First part, add a 3^rd branch, covering intermediate (Cruiser) calibre guns. This proposed branch should cover calibres between 6-11”, leaving 2-5” for small, and 12-20” for large. All three branches should develop at identical rates."

I second this suggestion. It's a bit annoying when you would like to make progress on better 15 through 18 inch guns for your capital ships, but instead your working on 9's and 10's which go on your cruisers, when in real life they'd be developed concurrently. To make room on the Research screen, which currently has a max of four areas per row, I'd suggest moving Turret Mechanisms to the Fire Control category.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also some UI improvement suggestions for the Research screen. It can be a chore to scroll through all of the completed advancements, especially in the late game, when it becomes a long list that pushes everything else off the screen. To make that list shorter, fold redundant information like hull tonnage increases into a single box, and then update that box when the next upgrade is finished. I'd suggest something like this;

Cruiser Design:
- #,### ton Light Cruiser
-#,### ton Heavy Cruiser
-Battlecruiser IV

Then, if you want to see what previous upgrades unlocked (or made obsolescent), you just click on something like 'Battlecruiser IV' and then they appear in a horizontal row;

Cruiser Design:
-#,#### ton Light Cruiser
-#,### ton Heavy Cruiser
--Battlecruiser IV: -Battlecruiser I -Battlecruiser II -Battlecruiser III

Another example, where the user has clicked on Barbette Anti-flash;
Gun Layout:
- Early Guns for Light Ships
-Early Guns for Capital Ships
-8 inch Casemate Guns
-8x large Side Guns
-7x large Centerline Guns
-6x Superimposed Large Guns
--Barbette Anti-flash V: Barbette Anti-flash I -Barbette Anti-flash II -Antiflash III -Antiflash IV
-Advanced Bulkhead Protection I

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

Another suggestion, this one more of a big feature addition. Add an Espionage slider to the Finance Screen. Increasing your Espionage funding will increase the chances of beneficial Espionage events to occur (such as a naval architect defecting and giving you a one-time research bonus in exchange for a relations hit, a kind of event that might occur if that nation has high unrest) and decrease the chances of negative Espionage events. In addition to that, if Espionage funding is too low, no longer inform the player when other nations (after a check that compares that nations Espionage funding to the player's) release new ship designs or scrap old ships. And if a player has an extreme Espionage advantage allow them to click on other nations on to see their Politics, Ship design, Fleet, or even Research Screens (although with more limited information than on your own ship design screen). 

To go along with the idea of defections, add in the possibility for nations with extremely high unrest to have mutinies and have their ships defect or surrender (with a higher chance of defecting to nations with high relations with their own).

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

Finally, your allied nations tend to keep ships you've sold to them long after they are obsolete and out of your own navy, which then become a burden rather than a help when they actually show up in a battle. It would be nice if allies were more aggressive about scrapping very old ships and more apt to request purchasing newer designs over old ones.
 

[justMike247]

Game Date March 1927, Rev 1.6.1.1

Status Snapshot

 

Currently at war with UK, Italy and France, prosecuting actions around West Africa and the Med. Thus far, each nation has put up no more than two half decent fleet actions, thereafter reverting to the “ghods teeth not again” default of Fleet v’s single extremely small asset; I’m having to deal with about a half dozen of these each month.

 

I’ve crippled the naval strength of both UK and France, have taken most of their large ports which should significantly impact their ability to rebuild in strength. For a change however, the game has thrown something unusual at me, and I’m at a loss re how to deal with this.

 

Western Spain was my first conquest on the Euro mainland, and it’s served as FOB for fleets making transit across the pond ever since. Two months prior to the current game date, the Portuguese army decided to launch an attack against Western Spain, and that’s my quandary; despite Portugal being allied with Italy and therefor, theoretically a legitimate target, I can’t touch them… The prior “minor nations are untouchable to player forces” is still very much active and in force. So… I can neither retake Western Spain should it fall, nor can I attempt to interdict Portugal because… untouchable…

 

Me thinks somebody dropped the ball with the revisions to these mechanics.

 

Ticket Submitted.  

 

The above item aside… no other bugs found thus far.. The only challenge has been managing my own budget in light of even more budgetary restrictions. This is a hellova way to prosecute a wargame… Cash starved, despite having the strongest economy on the planet…

 

 

[Candle_86]

With the changes to minor powers we really need a way to invade them, im loosing territory to the Ottomans and even with 3 fleets off of their coast I can't trigger a conquer while their army invades the Dardanelles