V1.7 is currently not fun for me to play

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

with the latest patch I've run into the following issues
1. tried playing as the USA starting in 1920. can't balance a BB or BC, even with the funnels at the extreme aft end of the ship. you cannot set it up that you can have 2 turrets forward of the tower. even adding ridiculous amounts of armor aft still seems to be an issue. scrubbed that campaign. trying German campaign, starting 1920.

2. as Germany, I can easily balance everything except for destroyers, yet i can make it work. first war with Russia starting 1923. their suicidal super destroyers with laser aim are charging straight at my inept oscillating battleships and battlecruisers who i can only assume have drunken crews because they seem to be lobbing nerf round and not hitting anything. between trying to dodge like 200 torpedoes from 6 KMs to being hit (no misses) from 5.3 inch rounds, i gave up playing. like, i mean they DOVE straight into my ships without any fear.

i don't want easy, but i do want fair. it seems that even when i out class the enemy, their ammunition ALWAYS packs more of a punch.

i will wait for the next patch and try again.

i just realllllllllyyyy wish the "tokyo drift" could be fixed when maneuvering... it is freaking terrible. Please fix this, as it has been going on since like V1.4 or 1.5

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by -=USA=-rubberboot:

i don't want easy, but i do want fair.

This at least is false. You want it easy, and unfair (but at your advantage). Lost ratio had always been at player advantage by very very far.

About your problem with BB BC is it possible your fleet was not completly balanced and lack of solid escort such as DDs CLs ?

[Urix]

The armor being a suggestion does it for me. Even water spray count as hits despite half a meter of armor everywhere.

Then, last game AI CAs sponged 60k+ damage, around same Hp as my BB's, which had about 2 techs up on everything and hitting them for 1k with 12' full pens

Immortal Enemy DD's are back with a vengeance, shrugging off 2k-3k hits head on, while ours are decimated at max secondary range, despite being nimbler, faster, tougher and maneuvering.

Seems like every AI Ship is a Seydlitz.

It forces a gameplay that is extremely tedious and boring for me.

[hurepoix]

I stopped my campaign to make an evaluation test of the supposed problem, but didnt found any. No problem to balance the ship, nor to fight DDs.

I have to admit I very rarely build BCs, and never send capital ships in battle without a solid escort. This BC operational range is 12 000 km, and it have no antitorp protection nor double hull.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3390084048
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3390084318

I imagine, torps atack can be annoying if you start in 1920, but player have the same tools than AI. Starting in 1890 I never have prb with torp, since it become to start dangerous around 1925, when my games usually stop in early 30's with global conquest (if I have enough patience to play to the end an already won game).

[vanDyck]

And I had some hope finally the AI could start to become a challenge.

If you want to fight in the 20s, start 10 years earlier to have time for diplomacy, building up a fleet and generate a technological advantage.

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Originally posted by -=USA=-rubberboot:

i don't want easy, but i do want fair.

This at least is false. You want it easy, and unfair (but at your advantage). Lost ratio had always been at player advantage by very very far.

About your problem with BB BC is it possible your fleet was not completly balanced and lack of solid escort such as DDs CLs ?

EDIT - I didn't realize you cherry picked from my post, without grabbing the entire sentence for context. the "fairness" i am talking about is related to the super ammo the AI has over what you happen to be shooting. and this is what I have noticed and experienced, for example 10.1 inch rounds doing more damage than a 11 inch round that has higher tech. this has been going on for ever, and is not a product of the latest build. my bad for not being more clear.

no, i always have an escort. i had 29 DD's to their 17. problem is that in the past, i have lost 1 DD, and due to VPs lost the battle after sinking 3/4 of their fleet. i have lost 1 sub to a DD and lost the battle... so i am a little shy about committing these "disposable ships" into a battle. so i usually hold them back

i will try the same battle, and let them do there suicidal charge and see what the out come is... but i cringe at the cost.

Originally posted by hurepoix:

I stopped my campaign to make an evaluation test of the supposed problem, but didnt found any. No problem to balance the ship, nor to fight DDs.

I have to admit I very rarely build BCs, and never send capital ships in battle without a solid escort. This BC operational range is 12 000 km, and it have no antitorp protection nor double hull.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3390084048
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3390084318

I imagine, torps atack can be annoying if you start in 1920, but player have the same tools than AI. Starting in 1890 I never have prb with torp, since it become to start dangerous around 1925, when my games usually stop in early 30's with global conquest (if I have enough patience to play to the end an already won game).

i cannot get a build like you have in that picture. even then, that is not where i would put the funnel. but you got it to at least balance. i will see if i can build and post what i have to do to balance it. i kept the campaign save so maybe i am missing something, or? i tend to play as either US or Germany, and it is only recently i had the issues with the US and as such like it had to do with the new USA main gun models.

[hurepoix]

Ammo ; at least for AP the more advanced they are the less damage it does. Roughly it is all for penetration at expense of damage. There is nothing wrong here, it is even described in shell notice windows. UP to day I didnt detected AI cheat on damage. The only point where I suspicious is Range sight/detection range.

The ship on the picture was made from custom battle in 1923. Depending your tech evolution in your campaign differences can occurs. If it can help I can made a video in english version to display the complete process. Otherwise as an alternative to rear bridge armour, I can suggest to use secondary gun instead and place it as backward as possible to use it as counterpoise.

Considere Vandyck suggestion to start in 1910 to prepare yourself to go at war in 1920.

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Ammo ; at least for AP the more advanced they are the less damage it does. Roughly it is all for penetration at expense of damage. There is nothing wrong here, it is even described in shell notice windows. UP to day I didnt detected AI cheat on damage. The only point where I suspicious is Range sight/detection range.

The ship on the picture was made from custom battle in 1923. Depending your tech evolution in your campaign differences can occurs. If it can help I can made a video in english version to display the complete process. Otherwise as an alternative to rear bridge armour, I can suggest to use secondary gun instead and place it as backward as possible to use it as counterpoise.

Considere Vandyck suggestion to start in 1910 to prepare yourself to go at war in 1920.

Thank you for the input. it is appreciated.

i ended up going in and fighting the battle. as predicted, my destroyers rushed in and got decimated. i lost all 28 of them. the damage differential was approx 700k vs 1.2 million with the hit diff being about 200 hits more received. the bright spot, i guess, was that the enemy was out of torpedoes. with 4 bb's and 4 bc's i managed to destroy 1 bb and 1 bc and severely damage the last BB before running out of ammo. the remaining 9 enemy destroyers rushed in (like i mean i thought they were trying to ram my ships) and my secondary 6 inch guns were starting to sink them, but not before the laser 5 inch guns they had were nibbling my ships to death. it was like death by a thousand paper cuts.

it was not this way a couple of patches ago, so i don't know where the suicidal bravery was added. the enemy would advance, until torpedo launch range they turn away, but not now. it is like a charge out of the trenches in WW1....

oh, and i checked the stats between ships and they were using the same ammo as i was, but a different shell type. i was using the more advanced shells, and was at a distinct disadvantage

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by -=USA=-rubberboot:

i ended up going in and fighting the battle. as predicted, my destroyers rushed in and got decimated.

May I understand that you let your destroyers under AI command ? Something like lets them in screen behaviour, instead of controling them yourself ? If yes we have the explanations for your misfortune, and how game is so different for you and for me.

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Originally posted by -=USA=-rubberboot:

i ended up going in and fighting the battle. as predicted, my destroyers rushed in and got decimated.

May I understand that you let your destroyers under AI command ? Something like lets them in screen behaviour, instead of controling them yourself ? If yes we have the explanations for your misfortune, and how game is so different for you and for me.

they were set to screen and in earlier iterations of the game (ie earlier versions), they would close into firing range then try to maintain that distance. in essence, they would get between your ships and theirs, draw some fire, lay smoke screens, launch torpedoes, etc. now, they just rush in and get wrecked. this is why i now only keep the light forces in my fleet to help deal with submarines, and in battles tend to send them out of harms way. i use BB's, BC's and CA's to do the dirty work, and it is usually very effective.

it is a game, so i don't want to have to micro manage everything. i am not entirely sure when this behaviour change happened, yet it did, and it did not enhance the enjoy-ability of the game. i have 1600 hours beta build time invested so far, so i do have time committed to it. If you want to micro manage, thats great, you go for it. me, i don't want to micro managed everything.... its bad enough that turning on torpedo avoidance tends to cause your ships to turn drunkenly into the path of a torpedo.

[vanDyck]

You know... your ships AI und their ships AI is the same right? After 1600 hours you should know how afull it is, so using it is not an option, for me. Especcially screen is totally useless for me and has ever been, as they put the escorts on both sides on my battle line.

With a clever TF setup you can minimize the need for micro-management.

My typical full Fleet TF constits of:

4 BBs
2 BCs
4 CLs
8 DDs

in total 5 divs, or units, to control.

I set anything the AI may do to off. The BBs and BCs are long ranged optimzed, so they dont need much attention besides some targetting and course changes here and there unless the AI does a torp attack.
The DDs follow my BBs/BCs until they are needed as escort or a target of opportunity shows, in some battles i never touch them after setting them to follow.
The CLs are the div that needs most attention, as they act as forward scouts and take the most damage. So mostly, i sit controlling one div, or unit, with a TF size of 18 ships.

[hurepoix]

If there is some difference with vanDick fleet compo, I have also 5 or 6 groups to manage in my TFs. It is not though to control even at x5. At worst I use pause if necessary, but it dont happens that much.

Dont lets AI do your job. AI is well know for its ineptitude, let it the control can only end in a disaster.

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

Originally posted by vanDyck:

You know... your ships AI und their ships AI is the same right? After 1600 hours you should know how afull it is, so using it is not an option, for me. Especcially screen is totally useless for me and has ever been, as they put the escorts on both sides on my battle line.

With a clever TF setup you can minimize the need for micro-management.

My typical full Fleet TF constits of:

4 BBs
2 BCs
4 CLs
8 DDs

in total 5 divs, or units, to control.

I set anything the AI may do to off. The BBs and BCs are long ranged optimzed, so they dont need much attention besides some targetting and course changes here and there unless the AI does a torp attack.
The DDs follow my BBs/BCs until they are needed as escort or a target of opportunity shows, in some battles i never touch them after setting them to follow.
The CLs are the div that needs most attention, as they act as forward scouts and take the most damage. So mostly, i sit controlling one div, or unit, with a TF size of 18 ships.

the example i gave was at that current time of the campaign. i was constructing better CL's and CA's so couldn't add them to my fleet

my normal comp is below, which is similar to yours. my CA's are normally equipped with 11in or 10in guns, and i up armour whenever i can, and CL's either 6 or 7in's with more armour when possible.

2 BB
2 BC
4 CA
4 CL
6 DD's (ish)

usually works great for me. you're right, at 1600 hours, i am aware of the limitations of the AI... yet, it wasn't that bad when using them to screen. it is why at the onsite of every battle i send them out of range as they don't screen how i want them too. the screen setting actually functioned well earlier on in the game, then it changed. it used to move the screen to form a line between your ships and the enemy ships, until a magical hidden trigger happened, then they would move to the other side of the ships they were screening. or at least that's what i observed. even the enemy used to screen effectively. now, all the enemy (and yours for that matter) light ships do is suicide dive in at the opposing fleet, and will continue this way right thru your line of battle. watched this happen today. this is a new thing that i noted that seems to have happened in V1.6.x and continues into V1.7.0.

same thing with the drunken steering - worked fine, then it broke and now it is like watching the car scenes in the movie "tokyo drift". i found it is not as bad if i use unbalanced rudder, but it still cannot make a player commanded course change without over shooting the intended course then will oscillate back and forth (or hunt) until it finally gets on course. it is like they are spinning the wheel one way, then spinning it back the other, instead of actually controlling the turn. i've reported this in the in game bug report system yet its hard to show in a still picture...

currently, or at least what i am experiencing, is that it does not matter if you set your capital ships for long range fire, because the enemy light forces with dive right in on them without a care in the world. i spend the entire match just trying to keep max effective range or out of their torpedo range.

not everyone's experience is going to be the same. so far, i have not seen any one comment about the steering thing, yet i can't believe that i am the only one experiencing it.

[-=[USA]=-rubberboot]

BTW, i don't like the stupid big battles as it just hammers frames... my fleet of 36 and the enemy fleet of 24 ships was sluggish

[vanDyck]

I once, before the crew limit was added, had a 250 vs 150 ships battle. I miss these. Decisive battle was the most used doctrine by navies, even into WW II. With the limit you need to fight a lot of smaller battles to get rid of them....