Feedback & Suggestions

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim Rayydar

[Rayydar]

@TheGeoff: Excellent bug report and suggestions.

(The bilge rat nitpicks again: )
8. Essex deck armor:
It is pretty hard to damage the flight deck of an Essex with a Jap 500 lbs. bomb. Well, deck armor: 4.5". In fact, those CVs did have a horizontal armor of some 4.x" - on the strength deck / above the hangar deck. The flight deck, however, was not armored at all. No clue how to implement this in the game, though.

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

7. Strategic Map Preview:
The screenshot with the flags is the original v1.0 which was rejected by Apple due to the depiction of a real world nation as the sole enemy of a game. It was replaced with the current map in v2.0. No FoW intended.

Yup; I read about the IMHO ridiculous flag issue. But what I meant is:



On the left image (plain side view silhouette) one can clearly identify two Baltimores and one Cleveland, no matter if with or w/o flag background. Looking on the right image, can anyone tell me if I'm going to fight against a Baltimore or a Cleveland in the upcoming battle?

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

... the sequel which is designed in a more modular manner ...

Good news!

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

Based on your suggestion you should not be at all disappointed when we officially announce the sequel

I'm sooo looking forward to it! What did you say? Next week?

[Killerfish Games]

Interesting observation on the flight decks.

Originally Posted by Rayydar

On the left image (plain side view silhouette) one can clearly identify two Baltimores and one Cleveland, no matter if with or w/o flag background. Looking on the right image, can anyone tell me if I'm going to fight against a Baltimore or a Cleveland in the upcoming battle?

Cleveland! It has a single crane on the rear and the other give away is the rear rigging. Nonetheless the point you raise is a valid one. For 2.0 we attempted to clear up the map so that it would be less cluttered. The result is smaller 3/4 view ship icons which can be more difficult to interpret.

[Rayydar]

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

The result is smaller 3/4 view ship icons which can be more difficult to interpret.

IMO the point is not so much the size but the angle of view.
I did not have v1.x, but looking at some screenshots I liked its GUI better. A matter of taste, of course.

Last point (but one ):

9. Achievements:



Well, this obviously refers to the Japanese campaign (note the Divine Wind achievement) which I finished with 566 out of 2.640 possible points; 'unlocked' achievements are blue, right?
I assume the player shall be motivated to not just sink the enemy but to achieve his victories in a certain manner / with a certain composition of forces.
So far, so good - but meanwhile, before this screenshot was taken, I finished game 17 of the US campaign! I.e., you cannot monitor your achievements in the current campaign. I think this would make more sense.

[Rayydar]

9. Achievements (contd.):
OK, I think now I got it. The achievements are accumulated and show everything you have achieved in any campaign ever. Strange, though, that Magazin Explosion is still gray although I'm 100% sure to have sunk a lot of ships by hitting the magazine.

Also it is sometimes very difficult to scroll the achievements; the list is awfully sticky then. Maybe this related to the bomber action tap problem (1., above)?
Anyway, there are more important features than the achievements ...

[Killerfish Games]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

Anyway, there are more important features than the achievements ...

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

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

[Rayydar]

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

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

Very good news again!

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!

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.

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.

[Rayydar]

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.



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.

[Rayydar]

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

[Lewis Wingerter]

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.

[Rayydar]

Originally Posted by Lewis Wingerter

I don't even try a 500 lb bomb anymore on the large carriers . I found torpedo to work the best.

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.

[Lewis Wingerter]

Originally Posted by Rayydar

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!

[Killerfish Games]

Thanks for the reports.

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

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.

[Lewis Wingerter]

Originally Posted by Pacific Fleet

Thanks for the reports.

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

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

[Killerfish Games]

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.