Can't refit old ship anymore?

[Stridswombat]

So in my game I have just completely lost the ability to refit some of the ships I previously could do it to altogether. I do the usual of taking the last design and go to refit it, save the result and then go to enact it, but lo and behold the button is just red even though I have ships sitting in port ready to go. At the same time the same process works with other ships at random that I refitted at the same time.

It first started with some dreadnoughts in my current 1920's US campaign, but I was still able to refit the earlier pre-dreadnought battleship designs I had. Since then though upon trying to refit these ships again they won't work either, even though they were part of the ships that did work last time I had this issue. I'm now super paranoid any ship I have built and previously refitted just fine is just going to break at random and not let me refit it anymore. Sucks because I really like keeping hulls I find interesting around for a long time just to see how modern and effective I can make them throughout the campaign.

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by Barth:

Quite frankly, I just edit the save-file ...

Interesting. What exactly do you edit?

As an aside, it's not clear to me why there's a concern over some people choosing to do some form of 'exploit' in a single player game.
If they enjoy 'cheating' that seems a bit sad, but, hey, that's their choice.

The solution affects EVERYONE, regardless.

The final result? Now we're ALL being penalised so as to 'fix' people cheating.....themselves?

Don't see the logic there.

[BoredViking]

Originally posted by Barth:

Originally posted by rjmdubois:

I think you are not getting the point.

The time calculation from refit 2 from refit 1 is wrong. A basic refit - no changes in hardware, and the time is substantially more than it should. It is easily repeatable,

Yes, and the reason for that is that if you create a refit from a refit, the refit time of the previous refit gets added automagically to the new refit. Even if you make no changes in hardware.

Previously, a basic refit (from whatever base) would just be a 1 month refit (mostly). Now, if the basic refit is from another refit, you get the 1 month plus the refit time of the previous refit before you even change anything to the design.

And there seems to be no way around this.

That's what players are upset about.

It's a ludicrously idiotic way of trying to fix an exploit, that just annoys the playerbase.

Quite frankly, I just edit the save-file ...

That´s what I do myself.

[BoredViking]

Originally posted by Steeltrap:

Interesting. What exactly do you edit?

Open JSON file, seasch for the refit name, a few lines below there is a field called "RefitTime" (or something like that)

Change to the desired value

Presto - back to the game with the proper refit time.

(But If you cheat you will burn in hell )

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by rjmdubois:

Originally posted by Steeltrap:

Interesting. What exactly do you edit?

Open JSON file, seasch for the refit name, a few lines below there is a field called "RefitTime" (or something like that)

Change to the desired value

Presto - back to the game with the proper refit time.

(But If you cheat you will burn in hell )

Great, thanks for the info.
Cheers
p.s. LOL @ 'cheat'

[Barth]

Originally posted by rjmdubois:

Originally posted by Steeltrap:

Interesting. What exactly do you edit?

Open JSON file, seasch for the refit name, a few lines below there is a field called "RefitTime" (or something like that)

Change to the desired value

Presto - back to the game with the proper refit time.

(But If you cheat you will burn in hell )

Exactly.

Absurd though, that I have to edit a save-file, i.e., cheat, to get around a poorly implemented exploit 'fix'.

[Steeltrap]

My save files appear to be BIN format???
Didn't think anything uses BIN these days. Seems very odd.

Do I need to convert them somehow?

Perhaps I'm not looking in the correct place, but it's the only place I've found what appears to be the location for the game's save files on my OS drive (which differs from the Steam location, which is on the F drive).

Can anyone explain this by any chance?

[ave1]

So, I'd like to know before updating to Ver.1.5 whether "refit time carry over" of 1.4.1.1 opt2. had been resolved at 1.5 or not. And if it had been resolved, how.
Has someone an answer or opinion?

[BoredViking]

Originally posted by ave1:

So, I'd like to know before updating to Ver.1.5 whether "refit time carry over" of 1.4.1.1 opt2. had been resolved at 1.5 or not. And if it had been resolved, how.
Has someone an answer or opinion?

I tried in 1.5 beta RC, and the bug was there still. I will try in the live version, and report back.

[BoredViking]

Originally posted by ave1:

So, I'd like to know before updating to Ver.1.5 whether "refit time carry over" of 1.4.1.1 opt2. had been resolved at 1.5 or not. And if it had been resolved, how.
Has someone an answer or opinion?

Unfortunately, th bug is still present, despite many bug reports to Devs.

How to replicate the bug:

Create a BB template (R0).
Wait a 3-4 of years.
Hit the refit button, but change nothing - usually takes 3 months. Save the refit (R1).
Wait 3-4 more years. Do a refit of R1, again no changes. Now it will ask for 6 months (R2).
Now do a refit of the original ship(R0) - will take only a 3 months (R3).

So, we have to keep the original Build plan, and do all the changes every time.

It should´t be allowed for a R1 ship to refit to R3, only R0. Also, it is also wrong to allow R0 to R2, without passing at R1.

But the time penalty in R2 is the wrong way to avoid the refit exploit.

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by rjmdubois:

It should´t be allowed for a R1 ship to refit to R3, only R0. Also, it is also wrong to allow R0 to R2, without passing at R1.

But the time penalty in R2 is the wrong way to avoid the refit exploit.

On what basis do you say it 'shouldn't be allowed'?
It seems to me that's YOUR OPINION/PREFERENCE. It's not, however, a statement of fact.

I can think of all sorts of circumstances where a ship might jump 'versions'.
In fact I am fairly sure there would be real examples of this, most likely in the Royal Navy, as they tended to make various improvements to things yet not all of them would go into all ships of the applicable class at once. I suspect the refit histories of the Queen Elizabeth class BBs would suggest that. I seem to recall there being alterations done on the maximum elevation of their guns yet not all of them having received it. The change to the "Queen Anne's Mansion" style superstructure didn't happen to all of them at the same time, either.

What YOU consider an 'exploit' I consider common sense.

Here's a situation for you to consider:
I have 6 ships of the BB-A class with 13" Mk-1 guns.
I unlock 13" Mk-2 plus other techs, so I do a refit version that is now BB-A-1.

As it happens, I have those BBs busy involved in a war, and they're rather vital in terms of bringing tonnage to the amphibious landing opportunities.
Which means I only get around to putting 2 of them in for the refit by the time I unlock 13" Mk-3 guns plus some other techs.

So I do another refit design to put the 13" Mk-3 guns in, plus a new tower, better secondary/casemate marks of guns and so on. A significant differece.

Here's my question:

Why on earth would ANY navy go to the time and effort to fit Mk-2 guns to the original BB-A design when it NOW can fit Mk-3 plus even better techs?
They WOULDN'T.
It is, IMO, absurd to insist ships can't go from BB-A to BB-A-2 without first doing BB-A-1 when the things added in A-1 will be removed as part of doing A-2.

But you have stated that MUST be the case.
Can you please explain your logic within the example I've provided above? I believe I have shown precisely the consequences of what you insist MUST be the case, and I think those consequences are nonsensical, so I'd like to hear WHY you insist on that.

I think it's silly, and certainly NOT realistic (remember this game used to make claims on its Steam page about 'realism' being one of its selling points? Don't know if it still does). The HULL is what matters. I ought to be able to build ANY version of it for which I have a design. In fact it would be LESS effort to build directly to a newer plan than to build the stock one, only to rip all sorts of things out before ever commissioning. It defies any common sense as I see it.

To use my example, suppose I want some more BB-A class ships.

Can you please explain why I would need to build the base BB-A when I have entirely functional plans for an BB-A-3?
It seems to me that anything they can modify from BB-A they can build from scratch, too.
Suggesting otherwise simply defies reason IMO.

I'm sure you have your reasons for insisting otherwise, so I'd love to know what they are.

Meanwhile, we're stuck with what I consider a very daft, clunky system that is a royal pain in the stern.

As I said somewhere earlier, how is it an exploit IN A SINGLE PLAYER GAME????????

Just change the damn system to make sense, allow the computer to use it, too, and PROBLEM SOLVED.

Cheers

[ave1]

Thunks rjmduboois and Steeltrap.
At single player game, whether exploit not, each game player's choice, sure.

Only youtuber player would affected with their movie score, to use or not "exploit". But, there seem to be none of youtuber player using this "exploit"

After 1.4.1.1opt (and 1.5, so far), it become difficult( not impossible) to play "long possession of old ships in useful active duty in gameplay" at campaign mode due to refit time carry over. It is somewhat sad for me, because I'd rather enjoying this game's freedom of play.

It looks it is not properly registered a certain refit design's defined date and utilized to define next refit time, so simply carry over continued.
I'd rather to see "choice of refit mode" at campaign difficulty setting as a feature.

[ave1]

DARTIS said at Feedback thread,
" Refit of refit time is meant to work like this, because the design stores an order of action. Players previously made a refit that had a cost of 12 turns then on the same turn made a second simple refit to make it cost only 2 turns... it was wrong, it was an exploit. It was like ordering a car that takes some months to produce and have it ready, then the next day decide to change its color and receive it in one month.

You can refit a refit after some time to get normal construction times."

Okay, It's meant to like this. Now what we want know is whether refit time carry over to be easing or not, if easing, how many months or years cost?

[Steeltrap]

What I want to know is why can't we build the LATEST VERSION of a design?
It's foolish to think we'd build an OLD version of something, just so we can put into refit mode for several years.

Sure, you can copy that latest version to make a NEW SHIP DESIGN, but THAT means when you update the refit level of the original version, you then have to do the same to the 'new design'.

Seems a whole load of effort to compensate for a less than perfect design choice in the first place.

[Steeltrap]

Originally posted by ave1:

DARTIS said at Feedback thread,
" Refit of refit time is meant to work like this, because the design stores an order of action. Players previously made a refit that had a cost of 12 turns then on the same turn made a second simple refit to make it cost only 2 turns... it was wrong, it was an exploit. It was like ordering a car that takes some months to produce and have it ready, then the next day decide to change its color and receive it in one month.

You can refit a refit after some time to get normal construction times."

Okay, It's meant to like this. Now what we want know is whether refit time carry over to be easing or not, if easing, how many months or years cost?

You know what the system would do were it more elegantly designed?

It would allow you to choose to build ANY stored design, including refits, right off the bat.

What of construction time?
If you chose to "build refit -3 as NEW" then the system is smart enough to calculate how long it would take to build just as it would were the player to design an exact copy of that refit as a 'new' class of ship.

No exploits there.

Besides which, if this game is never going to be more than 1 player, WHO CARES IF THEY "CHEAT" FFS?? Who are they 'cheating'? Their computer?

It's daft.

[BoredViking]

Originally posted by ave1:

DARTIS said at Feedback thread,
" Refit of refit time is meant to work like this, because the design stores an order of action. Players previously made a refit that had a cost of 12 turns then on the same turn made a second simple refit to make it cost only 2 turns... it was wrong, it was an exploit. It was like ordering a car that takes some months to produce and have it ready, then the next day decide to change its color and receive it in one month.

You can refit a refit after some time to get normal construction times."

Okay, It's meant to like this. Now what we want know is whether refit time carry over to be easing or not, if easing, how many months or years cost?

The point of Dartis is to avoid an exploit in a single player game, is to created a nonsense "Refit Tax" to all players that do regular refits.

The solution is you just can´t skip refits. But don´t penalize the good players with a nonsense rule.