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

[Warspite96]

13 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

Is that chance to succeed your chance to successfully defend against the British invasion, or the British chance to successfully invade you? I've had the enemy try to invade me in the past, knocked out their invasion fleet, and the chance to succeed was still at 100%. When the invasion turn counter stopped, the enemy invasion failed and I kept my territory.

It's been a good few patches since the last time the enemy tried to invade me though, so who knows what might have changed there.

It was definitely their chance to succeed, as despite me being in complete control of the capture circle they still magically took the province. That makes absolutely 0 sense, do the AI have insanely boosted naval invasion success rates or something?

[Warspite96]

12 hours ago, Markus1985 said:

 

This has happened to me too a few times in the latest builds. Even without any invader ships present the chance to succeed sticks to 100% and ends in victory for the invader. 

I've reported it as a bug in game. In one of the invasions the none present enemy fleet in the zone read as 730 t attacker tonnage vs a needed tonnage of 100 098, and it still read as 100% and succeeded. 

All in all I really like to see the other nations activities, and have even seen minor nations like Portugal trying to invade Timor. 

Ah so it IS a bug and not me going crazy? Good to know. 😆

[Dave P.]

I didn't read the changelog enough to know which of the patches it was specifically, but I want to offer absolute kudos to whoever figured out how to speed up campaign creation. That's amazing; you, sir or madam or other, win the internet.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

We continue to improve the basis of the game. Here is what we have readied:
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4550415957649390146 

[MDHansen]

ohhh! This is a good one 👍

[justMike247]

Campaign end observations

 

This time around, it took four attempted starts and a change of geography to get a campaign started. That frenetic start was one of the few times I’ve seen an update reduce the game to utterly unplayable, and hand on heart, I’ve no idea if the current rev is any more “campaign start” compatible.

 

This latest rev has seen a significant downgrade in the “Fleets Affect Tension” aspect, but I can’t help feeling the correction has swung the pendulum too far. Previously, fleets that didn’t exist, sailing in seas they couldn’t, because they’re all set to Limited while safely berthed in port, sent Tension through the roof, and there was nothing a player could do to calm things down. The contest wasn’t against any opposing military force, but against being bankrupted by multiples of perilously weak parasites making threats they couldn’t back up, while you tried to prosecute a campaign against one or two other opponents. This time around, the world’s still crazy… I doubt a single month went by in the whole 76 years where there wasn’t shells flying somewhere. But player influenced politics is still as impotent as it’s ever been. Case in point…

 

When I resumed play today, first thing I needed to correct was the trashing of my entire fleet, thanks to the bug in the latest update. The resulting refits soaked up 5-6 game years. But once done, game date was around 1948; I tried for two years to aggravate the Brits into pushing for war. After two very frustrating years I’ve managed to increase tension by just 5%... Two years of constantly trying to influence things, thwarted constantly. So I changed tack, continuing to push against the Brits, but aggravating the French too in alternate turns. It took another 28 months to finally be able to begin conquering what was left of the French empire. The Brits however… utterly untouchable… Relations at +65%... lowest recorded Relations was +32%.

 

I’d suggest reworking the Tension mechanics so that, as per in game guidance, fleets set to Limited and in-port don’t affect Tension at all. Fleets passing through territorial waters while in-transit may affect tension by 1-2% until they clear the area in question. A fleet in a blockading posture outside a port, or blockading some of the strategic choke points absolutely should affect tension by up to 15% per turn per blockading fleet. Modifiers should allow for any disparity in fleet tech of the involved countries.

 

The down-side of every other major country apparently in a constant state of war is, it doesn’t take too long for them to become extremely backward in level of tech. Throughout the entire campaign, the only country that posed any semblance of challenge was, strangely, Austro-Hungary, but not for reasons of strength or tech parity. Discounting my own Navy, they had the most numerous, but were still fighting 65k ton late-dreadnoughts while I’d managed to upgrade my entire navy into Modern spec. The result was rather predictable… a duck-shoot.. until facing their handful of 65k boats… And this was where things got… weird…

 

I’m guessing they were using a Dreadnought 5 or 6 hull, Krup 3 armour spread perilously thin, minimal barbette protection and bulkheads, but salvo after salvo of 16” AP rounds did just single figure damage despite penetrating regularly. This begs the question, what happens to that shell after it penetrates the protection? The resulting damage implies it turns into rainbow dust and unicorn pharts. Technically, there was absolutely nothing remarkable about these designs; respectable for 1915 spec, but nothing at all outstanding. And yet, one of these lumps withstood over 25k hits, of which 21k were bounced. Evidently they have the luck of the Irish when it comes to torpedoes too; of 40 torps “hand delivered” from 2km range, 18 hit… 15 duds... the remaining 3 causing just over 5k damage. For reference, these were all Mk5 22” torps.

 

During the same engagement, a pair of similarly armoured 35k ton BB’s survived just a dozen hits between them before launching their turrets pyrotechnically, which implies there was nothing really wrong with my gunnery or ammunition.

 

Speaking of turret launches… Spectacular to see though it may be, the frequency that it happens points a rather glaring finger at one of the games’ major flaws… Inability to learn, whether from your own misfortune, or misfortune of others. The near instantaneous loss of one of these massive battlewagons has such a shock-factor that every capitol ship would instantly be invaded by teams of engineers and designers, swarming all through the vessel to see whether this particular hull was vulnerable to the same exploitation. If so, can it be refitted to correction? If not, can the vulnerability be designed out with a new, improved design? This… is how we evolve… how we learn… But evidently, not the A.I… Of all the capitol ships I sent to the bottom, at least 80% of them put on a pyrotechnic display. As I said, visually entertaining, but… statistically improbable.

[Aendos]

Victory points for sinking warships need to be vastly increased. 

Tension mechanics not working at all on save started today. 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Aendos

[Urst]

6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

We continue to improve the basis of the game. Here is what we have readied:
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4550415957649390146 

>Obsolete ships can now be built and sold (when mothballed) by the player, if he wants.

Finally! I'll finally be able to have funny coastal defense boat fleets defending my ports.

[Panzergraf]

12 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

It was definitely their chance to succeed, as despite me being in complete control of the capture circle they still magically took the province. That makes absolutely 0 sense, do the AI have insanely boosted naval invasion success rates or something?

Yeah getting the same thing now. Italy launched an invasion against me (China). 0 tons in the zone, 100% chance to succeed.
Meanwhile I'm invading Japan with more than 1.1 million tons and 370k tons required... 2% chance to succeed (one single enemy sub in the zone), and that is after a successful port strike. Also Conquest of Thailand, 400k tons and 290k tons required; 20% chance to succeed.

Maybe things have gotten accidentally reversed? So the 100% chance with 0 tons should be 0% chance to succeed (and 100% chance to fail), and my invasion of Japan should be 98% chance to succeed and 2% chance to fail instead?

Edit: Pictures

Edited October 16, 2024 by Panzergraf

[william1993]

5 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

Yeah getting the same thing now. Italy launched an invasion against me (China). 0 tons in the zone, 100% chance to succeed.
Meanwhile I'm invading Japan with more than 1.1 million tons and 370k tons required... 2% chance to succeed (one single enemy sub in the zone), and that is after a successful port strike. Also Conquest of Thailand, 400k tons and 290k tons required; 20% chance to succeed.

Maybe things have gotten accidentally reversed? So the 100% chance with 0 tons should be 0% chance to succeed (and 100% chance to fail), and my invasion of Japan should be 98% chance to succeed and 2% chance to fail instead?

Edit: Pictures

why is it whacked out

[Nick Thomadis]

Fix for the invasion success chance will soon be uploaded.

[Aldaris]

Autoresolve is back to terrible again.

Fleet of 4 fast Battleships (60k tons, Radar II, 3 triple 16"), 3 supercruisers (22K tons, 4 triple 11"), and 5 luxury, all the bells and whistles DDs, against one slightly outdated CL and one older DD.

The result?

2 damaged DDs, one damaged fast BB (all with 25% damage) and one supercruiser with 72% damage, for both enemies sunk.

What the hell? Those results are ludicrous. For that to occur in an actual battle, I'd have to switch off guns and sail at the enemy until they launch torps, not evade at all, and then start shooting after I took their fish like a gentleman.

Autoresolve had a brief period of being useable, not anymore it seems.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2024 by Aldaris

[Nick Thomadis]

30 minutes ago, Aldaris said:

Autoresolve is back to terrible again.

Fleet of 4 fast Battleships (60k tons, Radar II, 3 triple 16"), 3 supercruisers (22K tons, 4 triple 11"), and 5 luxury, all the bells and whistles DDs, against one slightly outdated CL and one older DD.

The result?

2 damaged DDs, one damaged fast BB (all with 25% damage) and one supercruiser with 72% damage, for both enemies sunk.

What the hell? Those results are ludicrous. For that to occur in an actual battle, I'd have to switch off guns and sail at the enemy until they launch torps, not evade at all, and then start shooting after I took their fish like a gentleman.

Autoresolve had a brief period of being useable, not anymore it seems.

 

 

Nothing has changed.

[Aldaris]

Okay, I usually don't use autoresolve, so my last instance of trying it has been a while back.

Still - do those results seem reasonable to you? They do not to me. Autoresolve should be something you use to avoid having to play a boring battle with a completely foregone conclusion. Here, I outweighed the enemy fleet by a factor of 30, and outgunned, outranged, and outteched them by several orders of magnitude.

The result of this one, however, took out a supercruiser for more half a year, and a fast battleship for several months. That seems a rather steep price to pay for something that should be, realistically speaking, gunnery practice. And if those are the kinds of results I can expect, I simply won't autoresolve. Which is bad, because that means that you have a quality of life feature that doesn't get used because the results it delivers are sub par.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Aldaris

[Abuse_Claws]

44 minutes ago, Aldaris said:

a quality of life feature that doesn't get used

Yup, same here
On the other hand, I do use auto resolve when my 'frigate'-type DDs (cheapest possible stuff with a single torp on board and a 1.1" gun, existing only to lay/clear mines and hunt subs) encounter an enemy fleet, because unreasonable results go both ways: quite often my frigates not only manage to escape mostly unscathed (which is plausible, considering that I make them 30kn capable and AI ships are usually slower), but even somehow damage enemy DDs and even cruisers (probably emotional damage, because those frigates ain't got much in the way of armament to inflict physical damage)

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version including:
- Further fixes on the special events, addressing temporary issues that were reported.
- Improved campaign's minimap to work consistently in all monitor resolutions.
Please restart Steam to get this update fast

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Aldaris said:

Okay, I usually don't use autoresolve, so my last instance of trying it has been a while back.

Still - do those results seem reasonable to you? They do not to me. Autoresolve should be something you use to avoid having to play a boring battle with a completely foregone conclusion. Here, I outweighed the enemy fleet by a factor of 30, and outgunned, outranged, and outteched them by several orders of magnitude.

The result of this one, however, took out a supercruiser for more half a year, and a fast battleship for several months. That seems a rather steep price to pay for something that should be, realistically speaking, gunnery practice. And if those are the kinds of results I can expect, I simply won't autoresolve. Which is bad, because that means that you have a quality of life feature that doesn't get used because the results it delivers are sub par.

Did you have low fuel, low ammo? It could affect.

[Aldaris]

Nope, fuel was maxed, Ammo too. It was my Russian baltic fleet against the Germans while trying to invade Prussia. So my fleet was parked right next to my supply ports.

[Aldaris]

Also, just trying to go to war with Britain. It's impossible. I have 4 fleets parked right outside their ports. I'm provoking every 2 turns when I can. But still - even after I reject an alliance for a -50 it's 3-4 turns until relations are approaching 100 again. Clicking that "increase tensions" button is not enough to go net negative.

At this point I don't think this is a question of balancing it, this calls for a new mechanic. Let us influence relations with Naval prestige. We do good in wars and gather prestige? That gives us an option to actively influence relations, positively or negatively. It would make sense, and it uses player success as a currency. That's a lot cooler and more interesting than the current mechanic of "have the Navy write us a check of 2 billion and we're happy" to avoid wars, which always felt pretty silly to be honest.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Aldaris

[JaM]

19 minutes ago, Aldaris said:

Also, just trying to go to war with Britain. It's impossible. I have 4 fleets parked right outside their ports. I'm provoking every 2 turns when I can. But still - even after I reject an alliance for a -50 it's 3-4 turns until relations are approaching 100 again. Clicking that "increase tensions" button is not enough to go net negative.

At this point I don't think this is a question of balancing it, this calls for a new mechanic. Let us influence relations with Naval prestige. We do good in wars and gather prestige? That gives us an option to actively influence relations, positively or negatively. It would make sense, and it uses player success as a currency. That's a lot cooler and more interesting than the current mechanic of "have the Navy write us a check of 2 billion and we're happy" to avoid wars, which always felt pretty silly to be honest.

 

Prestige as "currency" for diplomatic negotiations makes perfect sense. much more than current money.. it would make Prestige worth something, and avoiding wars decreasing it makes sense.. and if you go -100 you lose the game...

[Aendos]

1 hour ago, Aldaris said:

Also, just trying to go to war with Britain. It's impossible. I have 4 fleets parked right outside their ports. I'm provoking every 2 turns when I can. But still - even after I reject an alliance for a -50 it's 3-4 turns until relations are approaching 100 again. Clicking that "increase tensions" button is not enough to go net negative.

At this point I don't think this is a question of balancing it, this calls for a new mechanic. Let us influence relations with Naval prestige. We do good in wars and gather prestige? That gives us an option to actively influence relations, positively or negatively. It would make sense, and it uses player success as a currency. That's a lot cooler and more interesting than the current mechanic of "have the Navy write us a check of 2 billion and we're happy" to avoid wars, which always felt pretty silly to be honest.

I had the same experience playing as France, normal difficulty on latest patch.

parking battle fleets outside all their ports, and increasing tension as much as possible. Relations kept going to positive 99.

[justMike247]

1 hour ago, JaM said:

Prestige as "currency" for diplomatic negotiations makes perfect sense. much more than current money..

That might work, if not for the fact that prestige tanks every time you're forced to go over-budget to squeeze more funding. Prestige is based on stuff you did... past tense... it bears no reflection on what you're currently capable of doing with those fleets you're using to blockade. I don't know if there's an in-game metric that measures that, but it'd be a far more viable "persuasion tool" than anything that measures past victories.

[Aldaris]

I don't think I've ever gone negative on money in 1400 hours in this game. Total, not income. Negative income happens a lot of course.

It's just that towards the end of a campaign I tend to sit on 3-4K naval prestige, which isn't doing anything besides telling me the whole nation wants my babies, probably. Figured that would be a decent use for some of it. I'm just not a fan of paying for peace by handing over a bag of naval budget. That seems jarringly unrealistic. And I want some reliable way to provoke a war, if I want one. On the last release patch, you could eventually grind opinion down to -100. Now, it doesn't seem to work at all anymore. Most of the tension from fleets window tends to be positive nowadays, which I don't quite understand.

Edited October 16, 2024 by Aldaris

[justMike247]

2 hours ago, Aldaris said:

I don't think I've ever gone negative on money in 1400 hours in this game. Total, not income. Negative income happens a lot of course.

4100hrs on the clock... I've seen GDP go negative a couple of times... had to work harder than a long tailed cat in a room fulla rockin chairs to claw that mess back... Negative naval funds is a different ballgame... But that's one of the reasons why I'd be reluctant to see prestige tied to political oomph... I've lost count of the times where I've seen Monthly Balance go from a healthy 65mil profit to not so healthy negative 650mil, in peacetime, when nothing's changed... GDP was still healthy... haven't needed to pay anybody off... nothing extra in the build/repair/rework list...fleet in port set to Limited... it just... poofs... Gotta love nerfage...

[JaM]

Well, Prestige is your political power.. so it would make sense if it was linked to political decisions.. and not going into war, is a political decision, so paying it with prestige is realistic.. definitely more realistic than paying it from Navy budget.. Imagine that in real life... paying enemy extorsion money... you would be fired instantly..