Wishlist for upcoming updates

[lumpy]

For a one-man-project, this game is pretty damn impressive. I've had more fun with it than with other titles which were created by large developer teams, and I appreciate the love to detail and ambition that went into this project. Having said that, there are some glaring issues that take away a great deal from my enjoyment, among them are:

1. More granular difficulty/control settings

I feel Admiral's mode gives the player too little control over their forces, while the other difficulty settings offer too much. Why, for instance, am I not allowed to tell a task group to cease fire and preserve ammunition on Admiral's mode? Why can't I order aggressive flotlilla attacks and have to pray things work out more or less like I have planned? Since they already are difficulty settings which offer more control, this is a bit of a luxury request, but still. A bit more control would be appreciated, without having to outright micro a given task group personally.

2. "High speed increases flooding!"

Pretty straightforward. This has been an issue since release. The skippers and captains of my ships seem to compulsively accelerate as soon as they are hit by torpedoes, often dooming themselves in the process. A bit more self-preservation on the AI's side would be appreciated.


3. More granular battle generator/ship assignments

I can imagine that this would take up quite some effort, so I realize this might not be a resonable request. But the current battle generator seems flawed. It incentivizes building heavy ships, since light ships may be pitted against enemies they cannot possibly beat. To some extend, this is desireable, since war obviously isn't fair or balanced, and uneven encounters are bound to happen. The current battle generator seems to go a bit overboard (no pun intended) with this, though. Maybe a way to mitigate this issue would be to introduce more strategic ship assignments. Currently we have TP, AF, and so on. Giving the player more control over what a ship's assignment is would both make gameplay more engaging as well as prevent unreasonable battle matchups to happen. I got no concrete ideas how to implement such changes, but one example I could think of is being able to specificlally set ships on "coastal raider" or "coastal patrol" stance. Maybe others can come up with similar assignments that would enable us to design our ships for specific tasks and make them actually trying to fulfil that role. As I said, this request might be too ambitious, and the current battle generator works well enough.

4. Japanese surprise attacks

When playing on anything else than Captain's mode, those seem to be lackluster at best, and outright broken at worst. This is especially true for the pre-1920 torpedo boat era. The player's destroyer's AI tends to turn tail and run as soon as they spot the targets they are supposed to surprise attack, and often they are focusing random transports they encounter on their way to the port. Most of the time, I end up with more casaulties than sunk enemy ships, because my destroyers tend to disengage without having fired a single torpedo and hug the coast instead, getting blown to pieces by coastal fortifications in the process. 


As I said, the current game is very impressive, and this is by no means to come across as demanding or complainy. I have great faith in the dev and am confident that this game will steadily improve, as it already has to a great extend. What are your most wanted improvements, fixes and features you'd like to see in future versions?


EDIT:

5. Popup spam

It would be appreciated if one could disable the "xxx has sunk!" popup. The notification that a ship is sinking is more than enough. Another popup about a ship having finally sunk is serving no purpose other than pestering the player. By the time a ship is sinking, it is absolutely clear that it will be lost. Thus, the second popup is redundant, and if you, like me, tend to lose a lot of destroyers, can drive you mad.

[dohboy]

CAP improvements is my #1. Would love to have missions that could be assigned in the strike page to any division regardless of whether it is part of the same force. That includes AI controlled units like convoy and transport divisions. The mission should be perpetual unless cancelled and divide the assigned units into fractions trying to keep the maximum number on station.

[ulzgoroth]

A minor issue, but annoying: If you're running a battle forward continuously at fastest speed (probably because the battle is over and you're sailing out of enemy land-based air ranges or something like that) you can get caught in a cascade of pop-ups that hit so quickly that you don't have time between closing one and the next opening to reach the time-flow controls (or do anything else, if anything else is called for).

[Deleted]

I wish that the devs at least try to eliminate the AI torpedo aimbot and the super-early AI dual purpose guns.

[seawolf]

Sept 17, 2019 18:24:53 GMT -6 @pavelsvt said:

I wish that the devs at least try to eliminate the AI torpedo aimbot and the super-early AI dual purpose guns.

There's no aimbot.
When ships are under AI control they perform zigzag maneuvers.  When ships are under your direct control do you perform those same evasive maneuvers?  If not that's why your ships are getting hit and theirs are not

[dougphresh]

Sept 17, 2019 21:31:10 GMT -6 seawolf said:

Sept 17, 2019 18:24:53 GMT -6 @pavelsvt said:

I wish that the devs at least try to eliminate the AI torpedo aimbot and the super-early AI dual purpose guns.

There's no aimbot.
When ships are under AI control they perform zigzag maneuvers.  When ships are under your direct control do you perform those same evasive maneuvers?  If not that's why your ships are getting hit and theirs are not

Would it be possible to get a checkbox that says "zigzag to course"? I'd like my ships to maneuver evasively while following the overall battle plan, and constantly pausing or playing at an extremely slow speed seems like a lot of work to do it. I'm thinking similar to the flotilla attack order or turn together. The ships still go where I want them to go, holding steady if I want to focus on gunnery, or evading if I'm trying to avoid attacks. 

[Deleted]

Sept 17, 2019 21:31:10 GMT -6 seawolf said:

Sept 17, 2019 18:24:53 GMT -6 @pavelsvt said:

I wish that the devs at least try to eliminate the AI torpedo aimbot and the super-early AI dual purpose guns.

There's no aimbot.
When ships are under AI control they perform zigzag maneuvers.  When ships are under your direct control do you perform those same evasive maneuvers?  If not that's why your ships are getting hit and theirs are not

Nope, I try any random zigzag maneuvers, but any range below 4 000 yards (in 1923 against just Italians) even against a SINGLE CL or DD is absolute suicide. All torpedoes always hit. NONE of my DDs ever defends my capital ships. My so called "screen" formation of DDs is in 100% of battles hidden behind my battleship. Enemy destroyer just get below 4000 yards, launches his 1-4 torpedoes and scores 1-4 hits, nothing can be done about it...
Confirmed now: I used my CL with 30kts top speed. I play at normal speed and I changed the course like at least once per second. Yet I still got hit at 2500 yards by a single destroyer... 
I call this aimbot, call it as you want, but its unfair. My ships doesnt even launch any torpedoes in such situations...

[aeson]

Willfully engaging destroyers equipped with 1920s torpedoes at 4,000 yards or less is extremely reckless - 1920s torpedoes can run for ~5,000 yards at 37 or 38 knots, which means that if the total run distance is only 4,000 yards it'll take them only about 3 combat rounds in the game's simulation model to reach the target. Even if you're making radical course changes, chances are your ships aren't going to be that far away from where they were expected to be when the torpedo was launched, because there simply isn't enough time for the course change to have a significant effect. Also, if you're running the game continuously, chances are pretty good that more than three combat rounds pass between any course changes you order for zig-zagging - not that zig-zagging is particularly likely to be effective at such short ranges anyways, especially if your zig-zags are only fairly minor deviations from the base course.

As to your complaint about your ships "never" launching torpedoes, I'd be willing to be that someone who apparently handles their ships so recklessly is aggressively pursuing and attempting to close with the enemy, which automatically puts your ships into a terrible position to launch torpedoes while simultaneously putting the enemy's ships into an excellent position to do the same. Maybe try acknowledging that torpedoes are extremely dangerous weapons by the 1920s and adjusting your tactics accordingly? If you don't engage recklessly, destroyer-launched torpedoes aren't that significant a threat when visibility is at least passable, and at night or in bad weather you just have to learn to let go because it's simply not worth the risk unless you need the victory badly.

[rimbecano]

Speaking as one of the aggressive types, I can attest that 90% of the time when I get torpedoed, it's because:

A) I'm running a single-ship chase against an enemy cruiser or capital ship and turn too late as I overtake him.
B) I'm chasing an enemy fleet, and he has his destroyers deployed to cover his retreat. Visibility is often failing, or he's far away to start with and almost as fast as I am, and I comb torpedo tracks with a turn towards when I know I should comb away (which is a valid tactic, but gets riskier the closer you are). In daylight actions, this generally gets to be a concern in the mid to late game long before you reach 4000 yards. A hammer and anvil situation involving two enemy destroyers is often involved.
C) I make too aggressive an attempt to keep contact with enemy heavy units at night. At night, before radar, you generally want to set the flotilla attack flag and withdraw your heavy units. If your destroyers identify an isolated enemy capital division, then you maneuver out of its sight to approach it from in front or behind (the AI generally doesn't use bow or stern tubes). If your destroyers have spotted enemy DDs nearby, keep an eye on them. They won't torpedo you before they have visual, but they'll have a dead-easy shot if they do, so maneuver as necessary to keep your heavies from getting within sight range of them. If you find yourself broadside-to-broadside at night with an enemy ship that's within sight range, turn directly away immediately and keep him directly at 6 o'clock until he's no longer in view or out of arc.

Most of the torpedo hits that aren't attributable to the above 3 causes are just bad luck at night.

[Deleted]

I usually try to stay at 10 000 yards away from enemy capital ships, because lower range means less time to avoid enemy DD attacks and bigger distance between the fleets usually means that the battle ends with 0 capital ships lost on both sides. For me most wars usually ends in 2-3 years, and in that time I only get like 2-4 fleet/battleship battles in good enough weather conditions, so I need to deal at least some damage in each battle. Damaged battleships does not count, because they are used so rarely that they are always ready and repaired for next battle. Only sunken ships matters.
But when the enemy starts his DD attack, I need my DDs to disrupt it and break enemy formations. My BB secondaries are useless against DDs even with secondary directors. But my DDs are always somewhere between BBs and CVs/AVs.
By the way, trying to hit a ship going at full speed (25kts for BBs, 30kts for BCs) at 4000yards with just 2-4 torpedo launchers should not really work. Any change of course or speed of the ship means that it will be in a totaly different place after next 3 minutes (which is the time needed to get there for enemy torpedoes).

[jishmael]

In addition to everything else that was said (torps being dangerous by the 20s, 4000yards being absolutely dangerclose)
I want to ask:
What caliber secondaries do your capitals pack and how many?
Many many times I've seen enemy dds start a flotilla attack and turn away the moment my secondaries open up.
In that kind of situations my biggest problem ends up avoiding sinking dds rather then moving one's.
I usually pack 4 to 5 inch secondaries and often 3 inch tertiary batteries into the twenties, at least 20 guns per battery.

I also do not rely on dds to screen my fleet except for desperate situations, instead I use CL which are a much better gun platform and scare away the enemy dds much better.

Last but not least I admit to playing captains mode, which makes adjustment of my support and screen forces really easy (too easy maybe) and never run continuous when either side is closing or visibility is poor

Edit: in the end I only get torpedoed when being reckless or doing something dumb as the other posters listed

[dorn]

Sept 19, 2019 11:55:20 GMT -6 jishmael said:

In addition to everything else that was said (torps being dangerous by the 20s, 4000yards being absolutely dangerclose)
I want to ask:
What caliber secondaries do your capitals pack and how many?
Many many times I've seen enemy dds start a flotilla attack and turn away the moment my secondaries open up.
In that kind of situations my biggest problem ends up avoiding sinking dds rather then moving one's.
I usually pack 4 to 5 inch secondaries and often 3 inch tertiary batteries into the twenties, at least 20 guns per battery.

I also do not rely on dds to screen my fleet except for desperate situations, instead I use CL which are a much better gun platform and scare away the enemy dds much better.

Last but not least I admit to playing captains mode, which makes adjustment of my support and screen forces really easy (too easy maybe) and never run continuous when either side is closing or visibility is poor

Edit: in the end I only get torpedoed when being reckless or doing something dumb as the other posters listed

It depends on era.

Pre-dreadnoughts: usually 12x6" secondarrie, 3" tertiary

Dreadnought era till double torpedo mounts: 12x4" or 12x5" as usually even 4" guns are enough and have higher rate of fire

Superdreadnought era till secondary turrets: 12x5", I consider 6" guns too heavy

After: Usually 12-18x5" guns, later DP, sometimes combination of small number of 6" guns with tertiary DP 4" guns

Battlecruisers: usually less than dreadnoughts as their speed helps

[rimbecano]

Sept 19, 2019 11:55:20 GMT -6 jishmael said:

I usually pack 4 to 5 inch secondaries and often 3 inch tertiary batteries into the twenties, at least 20 guns per battery.

I seldom use less than a full 24 secondaries on a dreadnought capital ship.

I also do not rely on dds to screen my fleet except for desperate situations, instead I use CL which are a much better gun platform and scare away the enemy dds much better.

I generally have my DDs always set to support with the flotilla attack flag up. I think it actually tends to do a better job of screening my capital ships in broadside engagements (not chases so much) in that the destroyer forces on either side tend to run into each other on the way to torpedo the other side's battle line.

[iasach]

The battle generator needs a serious rework.
At the very least you should be capable of not sending vulnerable ships without escorts to bombard enemy coastal installations.

Some of these scenarios can be very frustrating for the sheer stupidity of the entire thing, picture related: a coastal raid against the russian-controlled finnish coast is commenced, and under my control is a single CL, with the mission to sink at least two enemy vessels. An hour in, two CAs, two CLs and their DD escorts emerge and effortlessly crush the lone cruiser.
After which they are engaged by a significantly larger supporting force (??) which is victorious. What was even the point of this single CL under my command? Why can't I pre-arrange raider squadrons for such missions out of avilable ships in the area? This needs a rework. 

Attachments:

[dorn]

Sept 21, 2019 5:08:08 GMT -6 iasach said:

The battle generator needs a serious rework.
At the very least you should be capable of not sending vulnerable ships without escorts to bombard enemy coastal installations.

Some of these scenarios can be very frustrating for the sheer stupidity of the entire thing, picture related: a coastal raid against the russian-controlled finnish coast is commenced, and under my control is a single CL, with the mission to sink at least two enemy vessels. An hour in, two CAs, two CLs and their DD escorts emerge and effortlessly crush the lone cruiser.
After which they are engaged by a significantly larger supporting force (??) which is victorious. What was even the point of this single CL under my command? Why can't I pre-arrange raider squadrons for such missions out of avilable ships in the area? This needs a rework. 

I agree that battle generator probably needs some adjustments but I do not agree with your reasons.

It was quite common that mission was done by light force and heavy forces where several dozens miles away to cover light force if needed. Especially at mission where deployment heavy forces directly would risky.

I do not know exactly your situation but as soon as you knew enemy force is near by you should change course to meet your support force.