Indeed. We're not planning on achievements for the sequel. They are a lot of work and generate so many little bugs!

Instead we're going to focus on content; players ask for more navies or more battles but never for more achievements :hmmm:

Magazine explosion might still be not working on iOS which is fixed in the next update.

Very good news again! :yeah:

My (hopefully) last major point is:

10. AI Tactics:

The AI is not bad, all in all. But esp. its destroyer skippers seem to be wretched cowards! :D

1. Coordinate attacks, torpedo action:

Test: Set up a Single Battle, renown 200,000, auto-upgrade. Give the AI three Akizukis and yourself one Cleveland. You expect a hard fight and are eager to see if your CL can deal with a coordinate torpedo attack. What probably happens is:

a) You sink one DD with an HE salvo immediately. So far, so good.
b) Both remaining DDs do anything but torpedo-attack, let alone simultaneously, although clearly within range.
c) Instead, one turns off without any combat action.
d) The other one 'pounds' you with its mignon 4-inchers, usually without scoring a hit. How pathetic!
e) After you sunk the second DD, the third returns - to be sunk.
--------------------------------------------------------------
b) and e) somehow remind me of 1950s western movies with stupid, but numerically superior Red Indians riding parallel to the wagon fort one by one just to be shot from the horse one by one. :03:

d) can be frequently watched in campaign battles as well. Destroyers (and Aganos) won't make use of their deadliest weapon nine times out of ten.

2. Gunnery:

AI gunnery is frequently poor, because it tends to show you the ship's bow or stern (for lesser chance of being hit?) instead of manoeuvering into a broadside position.

Conclusion:
I wished the AI would demonstrate a little more bravery and tactical insight.

Bug report
 

Sorry, bug report:

IPad Air, iOS 7.1, IJN campaign, mission #17,
my Agano (flagship) + Akizuki (escort) vs. AI's Essex.

After numerous shell hits the Essex capsized - but stayed afloat for 7 or 8 turns until my DD had approached to finish it off with a torpedo.

http://www.rayy.de/raiders/images/Essex_bug.jpg

Shouldn't a capsized ship be regarded as sunk? More frequently, when flooding is at 100%, the ship does not visually sink either but is regarded as sunk; the battle is over.

Worse:
Since the Essex capsized it could no longer use my - fully operational! - Agano; it was just skipped! I experienced such a skip already two days ago.

I doubt if this is reproducible and do not know how to send a saved file from an iPad. So I'm afraid there's no other way than to inspect the code.

Bug report
 

iOS 7.1, IJN campaign:

I already mentioned that a Jap 500 lb bomb can hardly damage the flight deck of an Essex.
However, when it comes to shore bombardment, Jap bombs don't seem to be able to penetrate anything harder than a plum pudding!

500 lb:
Could not damage hangars (1" armor) and fuel tanks (no armor) in any shore bombardment mission despite several direct hits.

2000 lb:
Additionally, I could not even destroy an ammo dump!

Maybe the campaign file is somehow corrupted (see also the previous report)? But AFAIR I watched at least those invulnerable fuel tanks in earlier run-throughs as well. :hmmm:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather a technical inaccuracy than a bug:
A WW2 Essex had 8x5" guns, not just 2. Irrelevant in so far as one will certainly not use a CV for gunnery duels.

Hi Rayydar I am using android sys. I had the same problem with 500 lb bomb on both side large carriers. But for shore target the only target the bomb didn't work on was the armored bunker. I don't even try a 500 lb bomb anymore on the large carriers . I found torpedo to work the best.

Correction to the bug reports
 

Hi Lewis, so do I.

I'm so sorry, my bug report about bombing resulted from yesterday's experience.
Today, in the same IJN campaign run-through, the second error is no longer reproducible. I can even kill a 10" armor bunker with a 2000 lb bomb.
Later I'll switch back to the 500 lb bomb just for testing.

I found that the 2,000 lb bomb will take anything out Cheers!

Thanks for the reports.

Essex has always acted a little strange with its capsizing mechanics... At least it only happens rarely :hmmm:

We'll check out the 500lb bombs. They don't have much in armour piercing so they're best used against light targets, but that should include hangers. They intentionally only cause superficial damage to the CV's so that CV trumps CVE. But several 500lb hits can put out a CV's flight deck.

The 500 lb bomb will knock out the flight deck on the escort carrier on both side.
I hope your next ver of the game is not to far out . I am on my 4th time thru both side. Great game:yeah:

With some luck the sequel could be out by the end of the year or early next. It is a whole re-make of the game and we've implemented some very ambitious plans. But they are coming together really well!

The plan is to announce the sequel some time in the next several weeks along with some screenshots and information about what's in it. No doubt it will generate some more detailed discussions.

Best news so far! http://www.rayy.de/raiders/smilies/drool.gif Be sure to be flooded with input!

BTW: My natural laziness always makes me wonder:
Why isn't the gun elevation automatically set to the value determined by radar? Thus the sliders would only be needed if adjustments are to be made ('determined by Rayydar' :D ).

Good question, I guess we didn't think of that...
Perhaps we didn't consider it due to the inherent error in RADAR readings along with wind modifiers. We're not sure that players always want the elevation given by RADAR, but would like to know how close their current setting is compared to the RADAR reading and shot history markers.

Well, my experience with play mode 'normal' and shell drift is:

a) RADAR is much more reliable than you think. At most, at strong wind adjustments by +- 0.1 or 0.2 (not more) are required. My hit ratio with RADAR is > 95%. Thus it would be helpful if the coarse tuning could be skipped and only fine tuning is needed - if at all.

b) The shot history markers are most useful for shore bombardment with both static targets and stopped ships. With moving targets and gun platforms ... well ... :hmmm:
But meanwhile, my hit ratio without RADAR is not too bad after all. :ping:

Subs and AI gunnery, reloaded
 

While AI gunners apparently are so poorly trained that their shells might already go astray within the barrel (which does not exclude lucky direct hits from time to time), there is one exception:
a surfaced sub. It will be hit (and mostly sunk) by the first salvo with a 50+% chance. Amazing - but not fair. For a sub does have to surface in order to get within torpedo range; even at 20 knots this is not easy.

In mission #17, my Gato still has only one Battle Star while my later purchased Cleveland already has five. Guess why! OK, since my Casablanca was commissioned, I have been using the Gato in night action only. Nevertheless, something should be done about the subs' initial positions.

EDIT: Why???

With the sub, you can just engage and disengage repeatedly until you're in a sufficiently advantageous position. I played through the entire campaign using nothing but the Gato and generally sinking most enemy ships. If you remain stationary enemies can get quite close without shooting at you and even 1-2 torpedoes is usually sufficient to cripple even a Takao or Kongo.

The main problem with the sub is that just like in real life, it is just too slow to keep up with surface warships, and this is even worse when submerged. So the only way to win with the sub is getting into an ambush position and capitalize on the fact that with TDC installed, it is very possible to score repeated hits at even the extreme limits of the torpedoes range.

Thanks, Julhelm. :salute:
I never tried a sub solo campaign but it seems to be worth it. Probably this is my mistake: My surface vessels are so good that the enemy never had a chance to approach the Gato. :D

Edit: Wait a minute ... how do you win shore bombardment missions with just one 4" 'rifle', esp. those with 10" armored bunkers? :hmmm:

Manual page 8:
"If no other ships have been purchased, a submarine may call in heavy air strikes against land targets."

This can make playing up to level 10, 20 or 25 with just a sub quite worthwhile to clear out those early islands.

Aaah ... I see! There seems to be s.th. like this in the code:

While in the normal campaign with a mixed task force one needs 4 torpedos + some shells to sink an oiler (:hmmm:), now, in the Gato-only run-through, I usually sink a Takao with just 2 torpedos. Also are there perfectly preset flight paths to island bunkers for bombers. And the tiny 4" gun inflicts considerable damage (well, using HE shells and RADAR for the first time).
Thus in mission #17, my Gato has earned 5 Battle Stars. Not a patch on its poor performance within mixed TFs!

Despite some 'endless' move-done-next sequences - yes, it's fun! :yep:
However, I had never tried this without Julhelm's tips. Ordinary players may jump to wrong conclusions due to the weakness of the Gato in normal campaigns. Perhaps the bonus thing should be mentioned in the manual?

Interface tweak: Gunnery
 

First, my thanks to the PF developers for creating such a fun game. I've been a wargamer since I was a boy, staring with Avalon Hill games - computing has made being a gamer so much easier and quality entertainment so much more portable! I read good things about PF at Pocket Tactics, and am very happy I gave it a try. :)

But if there's one thing about PF that drives me nuts, it's the gunnery sliders. Both slew and elevation are absolute controls (slew is 360º along the horizontal, elevation 0-45º vertical). For helm control, an absolute slider is fine, because precision doesn't matter that much, and you're limited in latitude to 60º total on the slider; the degree of control required is easily achieved.

But it can take 10-15 seconds to tweak out the last tenth of elevation to hit a target because the slider keeps moving as I lift my finger! It's maddening and frustrating, significantly distracting from the fun of "Main guns - FIRE!" Slew control is also difficult; the slider area that works for 60º on helm fails to provide the precision for 360º of gunnery slew.

I have a couple possible suggestions to solve the problem. One is to use dial controls: for elevation you could have three indexed wheels for tens, ones, and tenths, for example. Finger velocity could control the speed of dial spin.

An alternative, and perhaps better, option would be to narrow the displayed range on each slider and make them relative: show only 5-10º of elevation at any time and let the player's scroll velocity and direction determine what segment of elevation will be shown. Fix the elevation "marker" and float the elevation meter, like on some styles of spring-operated kitchen or postage scales. This latter scheme would translate to slew easily: show only a segment of the 360º slew range, and allow the player to scroll left or right to position the slew range necessary. For weapons like torpedoes and depth charges, you could even restrict the slew to the weapon's actual firing constraints.

I hope this is the kind of feedback that you as a developer appreciate. Thanks again for the fun; I look forward to more hours of enjoyment in the future. :salute:

That code made me laugh.

The free heavy airstrikes against islands were included simply to allow a player going for the "Unrestricted Sub Warfare" achievement to get past them. Torpedo and gun performance remain unchanged.

Aside from the free airstrikes against islands there's no other bonuses to mention in the manual. Except perhaps a slightly closer starting distance when operating solo.

The ability to engage/disengage at will to set up your ambush combined with TDC, Improived Detonators and 5 star Rank (to reduce torpedo drift by another 10%) really stack up as Julhelm mentions. It makes the humble Gato very worthwhile to play solo and we think it emulates submarine warfare very well.