Feedback & Suggestions

[Killerfish Games]

We're big fans of player feedback and read every review, message and email (game related) that comes our way. Whether a bug, historical inaccuracy or a way to make the game better, let us know.

Thanks!

[Lewis Wingerter]

Hi guy great games:yeah: I use it on a android tablet. My problem is I am using a sub and a destroyer(US side) and when I got to zone 10 the Icon show a plane over an island. The game will not let me in that zone. How do I continue to play on :hmmm: with out starting over.


Hey guy I found the problem The problem was me The game works great.

[Killerfish Games]

Ok great. Was trying to reproduce this issue with no luck.
What was happening so we'll know for next time?

[Lewis Wingerter]

Ok great. Was trying to reproduce this issue with no luck.
What was happening so we'll know for next time?

There was no problem with the game I forgot to hit go(I am a dumb a**:har:) I am up to zone 16 so far. By far zone 10 has been the hardest( I still haven't got a total victory yet) Like what Neal said I cant put the game down. Keep up the great work.

[Rayydar]

Some thoughts by just another addict:

First of all, the game is great. Nils did an outstanding job (except those static, straight wakes of turning ships which have been criticized elsewhere). I particularly love the twilight ambience and to watch ships going down. I also like the friendly and patient support on Facebook. :)

However:

1. There might be a technical issue:
the tap response on an iPad Air. Sometimes I have to tap on the (maybe superfluous anyway) 'Next' button for eight (!) times. Even worse: time-critical taps, i.e. bomber dive and release actions. Sometimes I'm hammering the glass (well, the plastic) out of my iPad and wish to have a mouse.
This happens regardless if the screen is cluttered with finger prints or absolutely clean. I'm not said to be particularly clumsy on touch screens, and I do not have this problem with any other app. Did other users experience this as well?
I have no notion of touchpad programming, but I guess there could be sensivity parameters. The point may be: if one does not tap exactly vertically in a 90° angle, scrolling takes place rather than the desired action. Adjustments of the camera sensivity parameter were not successful.

As for the game itself:

2. I'd prefer a free sequence of:
2.1 Ships: It is somehow confusing if you select a ship in the list and give a command which refers to another ship, the active one due to the fixed sequence.
2.2 Actions: It is disturbing when you are in an excellent shooting-position but first have to move out of it before you can really let your guns speak. There is an (otherwise inferior) game called 'Battle Fleet' providing two buttons for 'coarse' and 'shoot' for free choice.

3. Shore bombardment:
The use of radar is not possible because a tap shows the colored target markers. Reasonable so far, because land targets usually cannot be 'radared'. But sometimes, with a 5 - 10% chance, radar does work! :hmmm:

4. Collisions scuttling both ships:
Come on, is this realistic? Sometimes I lost a battle just because the active ship was zoomed in and I didn't see its neighbor. I read about the reason (prevent ramming of enemy ships). But this is what sometimes happened! Also, the history of naval warfare is full of collisions of friendly ships - the German Kriegsmarine was particularly good in that. :haha:

But AFAIK never ever both involved ships sank.
Suggestion: Inflict more or less damage depending on size / armor of the involved ships, maybe scuttle a DD, CL, CVE rammed by a BB - but do not scuttle both vessels unconditionally.

5. Subs:
I think both sides should have subs. Japanese subs were quite good and sank major allied warships. In the Atlantic and Mediterranean as well, both Brits and Germans made ample use of their subs.
In many scenarios, however, subs are deployed too far away from the enemy; thus they hardly or never have a chance to come within torpedo range. Their limited speed is realistic; their vulnerability when surfaced as well. But pleeease deploy them a little nearer to the foe.

So much for now. :)

[Onkel Neal]

Great first post.
I thought the touch screen lag was just me. I too have some trouble with the touch screen feel.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Welcome to SUBSIM Rayydar : )

[Lewis Wingerter]

Welcome to subsim Rayydar:up: I also had trouble with having to touch the screen many times. Also there been many times i just got close to the glass and I drop a bomb or fire a gun. My main(an only) complaint is there not enough missions. I have played both side twice. The game is very addicting and I will keep playing until the Pacific Fleet team made or add to this games:up:

[Killerfish Games]

Welcome aboard Rayydar and thanks for the excellent feedback.

Tap Response: this is good to know. We've not seen this in testing, but we have heard if from others as well. Looks like an issue we'll have to examine.

Wakes: yeah we've copped some flak over the static wakes. Since the game is turn based the idea was to use them as vector displays of ship speed and direction (they shorten at lower ship speed). Unfortunately all the other graphics are so realistic that wakes do stand out as looking artificial and out of place. Good news is that the sequel already has bending wakes implemented and they look great.

Sequence of Actions: very good point. The bulk of these issues are due to implementing multiple player ships very late in development. We've solved this issue for the sequel.

Shore Bombardment: version 2.08 (Android) and soon to be released for iOS should address this issue. If the camera is focused on a target (airbase, bunker, fuel depot), then RADAR will give range to that location rather than just the centre of the island as it used to do. Shore bombardments will likely not be coming back in the sequel.

Ship Collisions: agreed. We had some technical issues with damaging ships and/or detecting the impact locations of various vessels. In the absence of a good solution we opted for the overly harsh rule of just scuttling both ships. Not sure if we'll go back and address this issue in Pacific Fleet, but for the sequel we are looking into finally solving this in a more realistic manner.

Subs: unfortunately we limited Pacific Fleet to 7 units per side. This makes it very difficult to add additional ships as well as forced us to drop either an IJN BB or sub. We dropped the sub so that the IJN camapign would be surface oriented. For US subs, when deployed alone they start much closer to the enemy. In addition when alone if they start in a bad position, they can just disengage and try again. This was intended to emulate the hunting of surface vessels and getting into position which some players liked, while others didn't.

Missions and Content: I think we underestimated player's appetites for naval engagements. 90 zones and Single Battles seemed like a lot on paper. How long does it take you folks to play through a campaign?

We learned much in the creation of Pacific Fleet. It is our debut game and does some things well but also has a few rough spots.

While you're here, what's your wishlist for a game like Pacific Fleet? In his review, Neal points out periscope view, torpedo salvos, sub depths, and a message log of events. What other features not in the current game would you like to see?

[Lewis Wingerter]

Hi I do have a wish list: Could you incorporate the Atlantic side with the British and German surface and subs.:hmmm:. Keep up the great work guy:salute:

[Rayydar]

Thank you for your nice welcome greetings, guys, and thanks for your detailed reply. :)

1. Tap response (contd.):
The weird thing is: It does not happen frequently but - according to Murphy's Law - just when you decide to dive with your throwaway Oka. :(
Seriously: There doesn't seem to be a pattern (and I'm trained to recognize patterns). As for bomber actions, I got into the habit of double-tapping; maybe it helps a little.
It may be useful to tell the developer which hardware and OS is used. Perhaps the prob restricts to iOS 7.x? Or to the iPad Air due to its new glassless touchscreen?

2.1 Free sequence of ships (contd.):
Did you overlook this?

6. Gunnery:
6.1 Range:
You are pursuing a distant enemy, get closer and closer but radar always indicates '> 45°' and your salvos are short by some yards. After some turns, out of a sudden, radar tells you: Yippieh, now you need only some 33° elevation! This seems to be sort of a giant leap for the gunner but a small step for mankind. :03:
6.2 Number of shells:
After firing a broadside you can watch a 'significant' no. of shalls (not sure if those actually represent the exact number of guns) splashing into the water and, hopefully, hitting the enemy. However, if only your forward guns are involved, the no. of shells is limited to just two - regardless if your ship has superfiring twin or triple turrets (4 or 6 shells to be expected). The chance of a hit seems to be restricted correspondingly, i.e. it is poor, while it should be 2/3 or 1/2, depending on the ship's gun layout.

7. Strategic map preview:
There is a screenshot on the net showing the strategic map with flags (well ... one knows who the enemy is) and exact images of the opposing ships, as they are displayed in the shipyard. In my iOS version, however, there are only sketchy silhouettes of the enemy ships. Particularly, it is difficult to see the difference between a Cleveland and a Baltimore.
Is this an intentional kind of FoW?

General remarks:
I'm not sure if I understand that limit of ships within PF. Isn't an additional ship just another entry in an array of objects? Anyway, for a developer's first game PF is absolutely great :salute:, and I would regret if it would never be extended.
My suggestion: Make the sequel (called Atlantic Fleet in my mind, right? :03:) and thereafter, on the base of the new engine, a Pacific Fleet II.

BTW, the single battle feature, i.e. an ad hoc scenario editor is fine. Is it possible to make those created scenarios storable for repeated use?

How long does it take you folks to play through a campaign?Two days (or nights). Because it's so hard to interrupt a campaign in a good game. :up:

[Aktungbby]

Rayydar!:Kaleun_Salute:

[Killerfish Games]

1. Tap Response
Yup, we've not seen the issue ourselves and can't reproduce it.

2.1 Free Sequence of Ships
Didn't overlook this. For the sequel all ships get turns at even intervals so the player can no longer fire all their guns at the enemy prior to the enemy responding.

Gunnery
6.1 Range:
This is mostly due to the overly exaggerated short distances in game. At short range, minimal gun elevation changes are required to change range, but at long range a large swing in elevation alters range minimally. See the image below and note the non-linear relationship between elevation and range (wow those v1.0 graphics have come a long way):
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1.0-9/581065_314059582023528_189838061_n.jpg
If a ship moves into gun range it can require a significant swing in elevation to bring the range down. In addition, the inherent error in RADAR readings is also exaggerated at long gun range for this same reason.
6.2 Number of Shells
Number of shells fired/displayed = 1 shell per turret.
Damage done by each shell = Damage * number of barrels of firing turret
We simplified things by merging shells from the same turret into a single projectile. In the sequel, each barrel fires an individual shell.

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.

General Remarks
The limit is mostly due to the balancing of the campaign as well as much of the code for AI, save data, upgrades etc being based on the 7 unit slots. We could add more ships, but it is a huge amount of work, so we'd rather move on to the sequel which is designed in a more modular manner and will have a much more open campaign.

From v1.0 to 2.0+ we ran into a few limitations, but mostly worked around them. The plan is to extent the concept with a franchise of improved featured games. Based on your suggestion you should not be at all disappointed when we officially announce the sequel :yeah:

We could add the ability to save single battle data. It just becomes a low priority when we have to maintain an iOS version, Android version, Lite versions of each of these as well as the sequel to work on.

[TheGeoff]

I bought this game a couple of weeks ago after stumbling across the Subsim review for it and I think it's fantastic. Easily one of my favourite games for Android!

Yesterday I accidentally found a bug which allows you to take multiples of the same ship - I'm not exactly sure what caused it, but I'm pretty sure what I did was:
1. Go to the fleet management screen
2. Put the Kongo Battleship and Shokaku Carrier in the 'escorts' slots.
3. Buy a few upgrades for other ships
4. Return to the Kongo (I may have bought an upgrade for the Kongo too, can't remember)
5. Press the back button, start a battle, then suddenly realise I somehow have two Kongos.
I haven't been able to reproduce this bug because I now own every upgrade for every IJN ship, but I'll give it a try when I start a new USN campaign.

As for a wishlist:
A periscope view would be great, as well as a gunners view for the surface ships. While it wouldn't add anything gameplay-wise, it would be very cinematic to have a 'bridge view' or similar for each ship which simply positions the camera on the bridge (or conning tower) of the ship. The 3D models already look detailed enough that it shouldn't require any additional textures or graphical assets.

Also, a small graphical improvement which would be easy to implement: when you fire a lot of shells at a target and miss, every splash is identical and it is very obvious that there is only one splash effect. Adding just one or two more splash sprites would really reduce the jarring effect.

Awesome game, keep up the good work!

[Killerfish Games]

Glad you're enjoying the game.
Ooh interesting little bug you found there. We'll see if we can reproduce it.

For the sequel:
Periscope view is in.
Gunnery view is in.
New splashes are in.

Bridge view is interesting. We'll see if it adds much to the game and looks ok. Not sure how we'd handle ships with internal bridges...

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim Rayydar :sunny:

[Rayydar]

@TheGeoff: Excellent bug report and suggestions. :yep:

(The bilge rat nitpicks again: :o)
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.

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:

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

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?

... the sequel which is designed in a more modular manner ...
Good news! :up:

Based on your suggestion you should not be at all disappointed when we officially announce the sequel :yeah:
I'm sooo looking forward to it! http://www.rayy.de/raiders/smilies/hoofs.gif What did you say? Next week? http://www.rayy.de/raiders/smilies/wink.gif

[Killerfish Games]

Interesting observation on the flight decks.


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]

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 :03:):

9. Achievements:

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

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. :hmm2:

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]

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 :hmmm:

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

[Rayydar]

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

[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.

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.

[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. :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.

[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]

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]

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 :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.

[Lewis Wingerter]

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:

[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.

[Rayydar]

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 ).

[Killerfish Games]

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.

[Rayydar]

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:

[Rayydar]

5. Subs:
...
In many scenarios, however, subs are deployed too far away from the enemy; thus they hardly or never have a chance to come within torpedo range. Their limited speed is realistic; their vulnerability when surfaced as well. But pleeease deploy them a little nearer to the foe.
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: Submarine requires 20x experience of surface vessels to gain a rank.
Why???

[Julhelm]

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.

[Rayydar]

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:

[Killerfish Games]

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.

[Rayydar]

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

if (GatoOnly) {
rc = giveItHugeBonuses(); /* :-p */
}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?

[Ebongreen]

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:

[Killerfish Games]

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.

[Killerfish Games]

I hope this is the kind of feedback that you as a developer appreciate.
It sure is! First thing to check: are you using the Fine Tune button in the very bottom left corner?
"Fine tune button (bottom left corner) can be used set the range of elevation and direction sliders to 5 and 10 degrees respectively for much more sensitive control."

[Rayydar]

@Ebongreen:
I think your suggestion is already implemented. There is a toggle at the bottom left corner switching between coarse and fine-tune mode. The latter lets you target at each single pixel ... well, not really, but certainly exactly enough.

@The Admiral:
The code, apart from having been syntactically wrong :dead:, reflects my experience, not from one battle but from dozens (hundreds with mixed TFs). Anyway, the main thing is it is fun. :up:

[Ebongreen]

I had never used the fine-tune button before; it's very helpful.

I'd still like to see the interface make the fine-tune button unnecessary: it's not obvious to new players (even ones like me who read the manual can miss it). Thanks for your quick response! :)

[Aktungbby]

Ebongreen! on your first two posts!:Kaleun_Salute:I still have my Avalon Hill Gettysburg and Midway games!

[Jimbuna]

I had never used the fine-tune button before; it's very helpful.

I'd still like to see the interface make the fine-tune button unnecessary: it's not obvious to new players (even ones like me who read the manual can miss it). Thanks for your quick response! :)

Welcome to SubSim :sunny:

[Julhelm]

Suffice to say in the new game we've eliminated the need for the finetune button.

[Onkel Neal]

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. :):

Welcome to Subsim, Ebongreen. :salute: Old time gamers like us have seen a lot of change and improvements on simulation games, haven't we? :) It's been a long time since the Das Boot game and Aces of the Deep. Pacific Fleet has rekindled a lot of interest in sub games, I'm looking forward to their next move.

[nikimcbee]

Love the game, great detail for such a simple game. (I mean that in a good way).

My only gripe, how hard would it be to add Japanese subs to the game?

[Rayydar]

100% agreed, nikimcbee. Missed the Japanese subs as well.
As I understand it, there are only 7 slots for warships in the game. So it would in fact be hard to kick out one of the existing classes in favor of a sub.
I'm very optimistic that future versions will provide more subs, though. :up:

[nikimcbee]

100% agreed, nikimcbee. Missed the Japanese subs as well.
As I understand it, there are only 7 slots for warships in the game. So it would in fact be hard to kick out one of the existing classes in favor of a sub.
I'm very optimistic that future versions will provide more subs, though. :up:

If I could pick one, I'd go for this:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/type_c1.htm

or this:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/type_kd3.htm

[Killerfish Games]

My only gripe, how hard would it be to add Japanese subs to the game?
It's a good point. Unfortunately as Rayydar mentions we only allowed for the 7 units per side set up in the game. This forced us to choose between 2 BB's for IJN or a BB and Sub as per the USN.
We wanted to provide a surface-based campaign that plays differently to the USN so we went with the 2 BB's.

Good news is that we've learned from Pacific Fleet such that our next title will support multiple units of the same class as well as not be constrained by ships per navy or a rigid predefined campaign.

[CCIP]

Ooh, next title? That news makes me quite happy :D

Anything that introduces more non-linear, dynamic campaign-ish elements is definitely going to keep us subsimmers playing, so best of luck in developing it to you. It'll also be a definitely instant-buy :up:

[Rayydar]

(@ the First Sea Lord aka Developer:
No need to read the whole novelistic stuff, just the summary, please.)

Once upon a time, there was a captain called Rayydar fighting his way through the Gato solo campaign and some single battles - which brought up 'several' questions & suggestions.

Right, when enemy ships don't flee from my killer surface vessels, there is a slightly greater chance to 'ambush' them. It just requires a lot of 'patience' (a word I have to look up in my dictionary again and again whenever this funny virtue is required!).

However, if an undamaged enemy ship once has decided to leave the area, there is no chance to make it return.
If I surface outside of its gun range, the enemy doesn't seem to spot me (makes sense) and continues to steam away with 32 - 35 knots.
Surfacing within gun range, by contrast, is Kamikaze, American-style! My tiny little Gato with its minmal silhouette is always spotted even at maximum range.

This was the good news. The bad: AI gunners, often too dumb to hit a cruiser at 100 yards, are deadly for a sub (> 50% chance to hit). Once a Takao opened fire at maximum range (well, broadside) and sunk me with her first salvo! This was the point of time when I decided to buy the A-bomb! :arrgh!:

Furthermore:
Well, a sub has no armor. It's realistic to take considerable damage when hit. However, the Gato sinks at only 50%, once even at 35% flooding. Yup, due its limited lenght it is always hit at the bow or stern. But all in all, it seems to be made of glass.

Thus, as measures of precaution, I ordered my helmsman to avoid collisions with jellyfish by all means. And appealed to the entire crew: "Guys, none of us wants our sub to be blown up by friendly fire. So would you PLEASE control the pressure of your farts!"
I hereby apply for a job on an oiler which can easily sustain 4 torpedo plus some shell hits - in the game.

And then there was a zone with Shokaku & Zuikaku. I even managed to torpedo both of them, causing significant lists and temporary flight deck fires. After these were extinguished, both vessels were still heavily listing - and both launching airstrikes nevertheless!


http://www.rayy.de/pacificfleet/ShokakuListing1.jpg



Gravity vs. friction. Friction (still) wins.



http://www.rayy.de/pacificfleet/ShokakuListing2.jpg


Honestly: Would you like to start on this flight deck??? I would go on strike for either
a) a ski-jump deck or
b) a water-tight plane with periscope and snorkel upgrades installed!

BTW: When a dived sub is being air-attacked, AA rattle can be heard. Does this correspond to my option b) above? :D

A sub's main weapon, however, is the torpedo. It has got five of them initially. Five? YES! Because the first is always (well, 95%) stray or dud (and of course nobody programmed this http://www.rayy.de/pacificfleet/tongue.png). Once, even my first three tin fish were crappy.

Well, s*** happens, I managed to stay undetected, the enemy vessels went off as usual. 'Pursuing' them and suicide-surfacing (see above) from time to time, I hoped that my empty 3 tubes would be reloaded meanwhile, for somehow I wasn't keen on re-engaging three Jap cruisers with only 3 torpedos.

I waited for over 20 minutes - in vain! Obviously my torpedomen were on strike now. And right - they told me they were not willing to even think about any reload activity until the first set of 6 was completely expended. What the ******* is this good for? Anyway, I granted them an instant day off on the sun deck. :sunny: We were at 400 feet, btw ...

When a tube is eventually reloaded - this good news is displayed after the MOVE action when I just turned away in order to stay undetected. Thus I couldn't fire - not even my non-existent (???) 4 aft torpedos. On the other hand, with the bow roughly toward the enemy, my Gato has the advanced feature of a ~ 90% targeting angle. One doesn't even need to buy this as an upgrade! :yeah:

Last funny experience for today: Seabeas apparently used to blast 'tin fish tunnels' into rocks / sandbanks. Reminds me of toad tunnels under highways nowadays. Really animal-friendly, guys!

http://www.rayy.de/pacificfleet/RockGoingTorpedo.jpg


Summary:

Questions:
1. Why does the AI always spot a surfaced sub at 10 sea miles or more? This is not realistic.
2. Why does the AI's chance to hit a tiny sub seem to be much higher than to hit a surface ship?
3. Why does a sub always sink at >= 50% flooding?
3. Why is the estimated chance to hit with the first torpedo <= 5%, < 75% for the second, while subsequent attacks are > 90% successful (all at medium range with a 5-star boat)? Is this to simulate a kind of on-the-job training?

Suggestions:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs but:
1.1 install aft torpedo tubes if historically existing,
1.2 reload torpedo tubes ASAP, not only when the first set is completely expended,
1.2 make subs harder to detect, even when surfaced,
1.3 reduce the chance to be hit by gunfire,
1.4 remove the penalty on the first torpedo(es) (or deny there is any, and this is what you will do :O:)
Otherwise sub warfare won't be fun in the future.

2. As a little compensation, install Hedgehogs on escorts. The depth charge targeting angle is too small in PF; little chance to get them into action.

3. Disable airstrikes if carrier listing (accumulated for all directions) is > 15 or 20%.

Glitches:
1. AA sound by a dived sub when air-attacked.
2. Torpedoes diving under rock / sandbank and reappearing on the other side.

[Killerfish Games]

Thus, as measures of precaution, I ordered my helmsman to avoid collisions with jellyfish by all means.
Summary:

Questions:
1. Why does the AI always spot a surfaced sub at 10 sea miles or more? This is not realistic.
2. Why does the AI's chance to hit a tiny sub seem to be much higher than to hit a surface ship?
3. Why does a sub always sink at >= 50% flooding?
3. Why is the estimated chance to hit with the first torpedo <= 5%, < 75% for the second, while subsequent attacks are > 90% successful (all at medium range with a 5-star boat)? Is this to simulate a kind of on-the-job training?

Suggestions:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs but:
1.1 install aft torpedo tubes if historically existing,
1.2 reload torpedo tubes ASAP, not only when the first set is completely expended,
1.2 make subs harder to detect, even when surfaced,
1.3 reduce the chance to be hit by gunfire,
1.4 remove the penalty on the first torpedo(es) (or deny there is any, and this is what you will do :O:)
Otherwise sub warfare won't be fun in the future.

2. As a little compensation, install Hedgehogs on escorts. The depth charge targeting angle is too small in PF; little chance to get them into action.

3. Disable airstrikes if carrier listing (accumulated for all directions) is > 15 or 20%.

Glitches:
1. AA sound by a dived sub when air-attacked.
2. Torpedoes diving under rock / sandbank and reappearing on the other side.

That top sentence cracked me up.
Ok on to some answers:

Answers
1. We don't model detection ranges. Since it is more of a skirmish game, all ships know where all ships are all the time... unless submerged!! So as soon as you surface a sub, you are detected and fair game. Agree this is not realistic. Sensor and visual ranges coming in sequel.

2. This seems strange to me... There are no accuracy adjustments based on target type. Perhaps it is just the paper thin hull of the sub?

3. Due to simple compartmentalisation in a sub. A surface vessel has more compartments and more options to control flooding. But lose a single compartment in a sub and you're sunk.

3. Bug. First torp fired was not getting TDC or Improved Detonators upgrades applied to it. Is fixed on Android and in next build for iOS.

Suggestions
1.1 For the sequel, aft torp rooms are in.
1.2 Coming in the sequel.
1.2 Coming in sequel with factors such as time of day, weather impacting detection of subs and surface vessels.
1.3 Still not sure is a factor? Might be due to susceptibility to splash damage from nearby shells? (splash of the shell fragments, not the water that is).
1.4 Bug

2. Hedgehogs (and Squid) were both allied ASW. Deploying depth charge patterns is in the sequel and Hedgehogs as well as Squid will be available for allied escorts depending on time of war.

3. Agreed.

Interesting glitches.
AA sound on a submerged sub is a bug.
For the most part torps detect when they're hit an island. Are you finding they can burrow under just about any land mass? Might be a bug.

[Rayydar]

Thanks for your replies; most of them make me happy in view of the sequel.
However:

3. Due to simple compartmentalisation in a sub. A surface vessel has more compartments and more options to control flooding. But lose a single compartment in a sub and you're sunk.

Um :hmmm: ... so why are subs compartmented at all if it's good for nothing? http://www.rayy.de/raiders/smilies/think2.gif http://www.rayy.de/raiders/smilies/dunno.gif
I'm not a sub expert, but AFAIK a Gato had 7 - 8 compartments of which 1 - 2 could be flooded without loss of the whole boat.
Sorry, I find them too vulnerable in the game.

What about:
1. Reduce or remove the unrealistic targeting angle of subs?


For the most part torps detect when they're hit an island. Are you finding they can burrow under just about any land mass?
Not really - because I don't use to deliberately torpedo islands :O:
(and don't have a savegame for testing right now).

[Rayydar]

I'm not a sub expert, but AFAIK a Gato had 7 - 8 compartments of which 1 - 2 could be flooded without loss of the whole boat.
Sorry, I find them too vulnerable in the game.

Just experienced the very contrary:
A Shokaku, heavily listing to port and with flooding = 100%, required two more torps plus a mag explosion due to shell hit to eventually go down. So 50% is enough to sink a Gato, but 100% is not enough to sink a Shokaku. I'm afraid I do not really understand these percentages. :-?

[Rayydar]

Is there a difference in damage inflicted by common and AP shells if the target is not armored or my caliber is much bigger than the target's armor (e.g., Yamato vs. Cleveland).
I use common shells as long as they are likely to penetrate because in reality AP shells carried a relatively small amount of explosives. Is this modeled in the game?

[Killerfish Games]

Is there a difference in damage inflicted by common and AP shells if the target is not armored or my caliber is much bigger than the target's armor (e.g., Yamato vs. Cleveland).
Not a big difference due to gun calibre providing most of the AP potential.
18" vs 5" amour:
HE shell 32%
Common shell 100%
AP shell 98%


I use common shells as long as they are likely to penetrate because in reality AP shells carried a relatively small amount of explosives. Is this modeled in the game?
Yes.
HE shells have a larger warhead (+20% damage) but essentially no armour penetration capability and AP shells have a smaller warhead (-30% damage) but can deliver it through armour.

[Rockstar]

Recently downloaded the 'Lite' version. Having fun. Quick note here, based on photographs of a Gato class sub they appear to have either 4 or 5 blade outboard turning counter rotating propellers and a big ol' barn door rudder along the centerline of the ship.

In game I was shelling a frieghter close aboard and needed to back away to avoid collision in order to bring guns to bear on a second target. I put the rudder hard over to stbd and backed down but the bow moved to starboard instead of falling off to port like I was expecting.

Theoretically (in a solid medium) when moving ahead turning the rudder to starboard will push the bow to starboard. When backing and turning the rudder to starboard it should cause the bow to fall off to port, not to starboard like it did in game.

just an FYI

[Rayydar]

... when moving ahead turning the rudder to starboard will push the bow to starboard. When backing and turning the rudder to starboard it should cause the bow to fall off to port, not to starboard like it did in game.
I found this confusing as well. After a while, one gets used to it though. The slider position doesn't refer to the rudder position but to the course of the (forward moving) boat. Maybe for people who don't even understand to drive their car backwards? :03:
This should be fixed in Atlantic Fleet anyway.
And torpedoes should not be usable at point-blank range.

[Killerfish Games]

Thanks for pointing this out. It was an oversight as unfortunately we didn't spend a lot of time testing ships going backwards.

Definitely fixed in Atlantic Fleet.

[CCIP]

Congratulations on your Atlantic Fleet release!

This game is absolutely brilliant. It's a leap forward from Pacific Fleet - it's orders of magnitude more complex and interesting, and I really do appreciate the "Battle of the Atlantic" mode since it gives the battles you fight a lot more meaning than just scoring some points. I'll be sure to write a review once I get a chance to play it more. My only regret is that I don't have a bigger device than my phone to play it on.

I would love it if you kept working on it and released a PC version someday - for that, what I would personally like to see is an even more expanded "Battle of the Atlantic" mode, without the 20-ship limit, perhaps more areas and daily turns (rather than weekly/semi-weekly) to give the player more strategic control over things like routing convoys and pursuing raiders, and the introduction of a bit more resource management (at least optionally) for things like fuel and ship construction. The tactical mode is near-perfect as it is and, honestly, I would not change much about it! Perhaps the only thing I would recommend there is the ability to automate the control of certain ships - the AI in the game is really good, so if you could just give some of your ships a role (say "screen") and let them handle their own movement and firing, I think it could streamline gameplay and also allow for larger fleets down the road. I find some of the minor engagements a bit tedious since they often devolve into hundreds of clicks required just so your 8-ship fleet can finish off those last two merchants from a doomed convoy whose escorts have long been sunk.

Again, congratulations on your success with this one, really great title and perhaps the best mobile strategy/simulation game yet released.

[Killerfish Games]

Wonderful feedback! Looks look like we hit pretty close to what we were aiming for.

A PC version is in the planning stages and once we get the mobile release stable on all the various platforms/devices we'll get to it.

AI commands for player ships is a great suggestion! We actually have this on a real-time prototype of the concept (which may never seen the light of day), but adding this to Atlantic Fleet makes perfect sense!

For those last 2 doomed merchants:
There is the option to withdraw all your ships, since the merchants are non-combatants, under the special commands menu ("?" button on Tactical Map). So unless you're desperate for the tonnage sometimes it might not be worth chasing them down. Also there is the "Fleet" movement mode. You can run all your ships together towards the merchants using it or fire away with your first 1 or 2 ships and let the rest of your fleet finish up that turn in a single move.

[slipper]

are there any plans to upgrade pacific fleet to Atlantic fleet standards please?

[CCIP]

One suggestion I have, and maybe it's one suited to a (potential future?) PC version:

I'd like to see a "doctrine" feature, per unit or perhaps per combat area. What I mean by that is: have a chance to set orders for units in an area, for example to order submarines to sail submerged by day (and reduce their risk of taking damage from air attacks, but also reduce their chance of spotting convoys), or to order surface units to be either close convoy escort or act as hunter killers (affecting the type of battle that will be created in an area), or otherwise affect initiative at the start of battle. That might give the player (and the AI) a bit more control on the strategic level, without getting too micro-manage-y. What do you think?

[Niedowidek]

I see that there's new version with torpedo problem fixed (when they were lost from ship's inventory but not fired) and added saving between each Battle of Atlantic engagement. These are great additions :)

[Killerfish Games]

I see that there's new version with torpedo problem fixed (when they were lost from ship's inventory but not fired) and added saving between each Battle of Atlantic engagement. These are great additions :) Yes 1.07 is a big update addressing a lot of bugs and initial issues with the game. There's still a few bugs lurking about which we'll address in future updates.

[HoneyFox]

Hi, this game is just awesome! I have to say, for me, it might be the best one that I've ever played on a phone. :rotfl2:

Several suggestions I would like to raise:
1. I would hope that in campaign mode, player can spend some (or lots of, that depends on how hard you want the game to be) renown to "purchase" extra ship slots (i.e. maximum ships in your fleet, currently only 10 in campaign mode) and commanding capability (i.e. maximum ships that you can send to a battle, currently only 3 in campaign mode). I know that this will make the later missions too easy... well, we can always add more ships to the enemy side as well.
In a word, I like it to be with a bigger scale, more ships, more firepower, more explosion, and more flexibility and possible tactics as well...

2. Turn-based torpedo seems to be sometimes troublesome when: in the first turn, my torpedo advances and reaches almost the bow of the enemy ship from its side. if it's not turn-based, it should have been able to hit the target just a moment later, but in turn-based game, the enemy ship can go forward for a distance much longer than its length, which means the torpedo won't be able to hit the target. Will it be possible to make the enemy ship move at the same time when there's any nearby (threshold distance can be set based on how long that torpedo can run in one turn) hostile torpedo?
In a word, a semi-realtime mode for torpedo impact checking.

3. I would hope that the carriers can be "buff"ed a bit by allowing more intensive aerial engagement. (we already have the Ready/Launch/Engage/Recover steps which makes the carriers far less OP as they were in PF) Currently if you launch 4 aircrafts, in the following 4 turns, only one a/c can engage a target in each turn. If two (4 will make it OP again) aircrafts can engage targets sequentially in one turn, some more interesting tactics can be deployed (especially for the torpedo bombers as some interesting torpedo patterns can be used making enemy harder to evade).

4. Star Shell. I would hope that it can be combined into normal AP/HE mode, so that we don't need a specific turn just to fire one star shell. Like, normally we launch 9 rounds AP/HE for Nelson class BB, now if I switch to AP+SS or HE+SS mode, it will launch 1 Star Shell and 6 rounds of AP/HE (I don't know if it's possible for one turret to launch two different types of ammo from different gun barrels, if it's possible, it should be 1SS+8AP/HE). Currently I will usually leave that job to a DD or any ship that has the least firepower, simply because it would waste a lot of firepower if I use those BB/BC/etc.

Hmm... that's all I can think about right now. Hope that even one of these suggestions can be taken. :salute:

[Killerfish Games]

Glad you're enjoying the game.

1. We're looking into a difficulty option to increase the player fleet size in BotA games. As you mention, adding more to the mission Campaigns would likely trivialise their difficulty.

2. Good suggestion, but unfortunately somewhat impractical to implement as it would be quite complex timing various torpedoes vs ships and then syncing the ship's subsequent movement phase.

3. Agree, but the game is based on a single attack action per turn. This is similar to requests to be able to fire torpedoes, main guns and secondary guns each turn which we feel slows down the turn cycle. In next update we're looking at increasing the carrier wing sizes as we agree carriers need a little boost.

4. Interesting, however star shells are usually fired at a higher elevation than the target to light up the area behind the target as well as keep your ships out of the illumination range. So the salvo would be too high and miss.

[HoneyFox]

:)Thanks for the reply.
For point 2 and 3: as you said, the game is based on turns which composite of a movement phase and an engage phase. and these two phases cannot be split (e.g. let some other phases to be executed simultaneously or between them) easily, nor can a ship has more than one engage phase in one turn. I once thought that the game might contain some data structure like Queue<Phase> and each ship enqueues its own phases into the queue, then the game later executes these phases by dequeuing them one by one. Now it seems like it's more closer to a Queue<ShipTurn> and each ShipTurn has two members (or states in a state machine, well whatever it is): Movement phase and Engage phase.
Hmm... as a game developer as well, I understand the great difficulty of changing fundamental part of game design when the game already has high completeness level. :yep: So perhaps I could expect them in the next game you will release someday?

For point 4: good point, unless we can setup multiple sets of elevations which is not possible in the current system, or perhaps we can just add an extra constant or proportional angle (like +10 degrees or +30% of elevation angle, clamping it up to turret's max elevation is needed of course :03:) only for the turret that is going to launch star shell, for other turrets they just use the elevation given by UI. Talking about this, another question just reaches me: is it reasonable for a ship to use a range of elevations for different turrets/barrels (e.g. 12 degs for turret A, 14 degs for turret B, 16 degs for turret C, etc) when trying to find out the correct elevation for its target? I don't know if any ship did like that in real.

[Killerfish Games]

Glad to meet another game developer!

Point 4: This is possible and something we've thought about, however the game turns (especially in larger battles) can take significant time and we're concerned that given the mobile platform, the game needs to be paced fairly quickly. Managing each turret individually would further extend the turn time.

Historically, ships fired one salvo at a time in order to measure the resulting splash distance to the target so as to build up a correct firing solution. The only time they would use different elevations would be if splitting their guns between different targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Denmark_Strait#/media/File:090102_PoW_gunnery_plot.png

[Cuckoorex]

I'm really enjoying Atlantic Fleet; I had also played Pacific Fleet and I think there are great improvements to the game mechanics. One thing that frustrates me a bit, though; other than one mention in the manual about how Tribal Class subs have better torpedoes and a different sub has better guns, there really is no guide or reference to the differences and strengths and weaknesses of the different classes of ships. I end up buying the most expensive version of the types of ships in hopes that they're overall better, but it would be really helpful if the game provided more detailed information about the ships and armament, maybe even a short description of that class of ship's duration of service and impact on the war effort would be nice.

[Aktungbby]

Cuckoorex!:Kaleun_Salute:

[Jimbuna]

Welcome to SubSim Cuckoorex :sunny:

[Cuckoorex]

Thanks!
Glad I found this place!

[Micksp]

I've got the Atlantic Fleet PC version couple months ago and I'm very pleased. The game looks nice, light and gives me a time of relax. Being so busy during the somer months, I have not enough time to play my other favorite sims like SH5, DW, so the AF is a good solution for me. Just one mark: During the battle the player has not the possibility to save the progress. The only way I've found to quit the battle earlyer having not chance to draw is a ships scutlle, which is not a good idea.

[trindade]

I've got the Atlantic Fleet PC version couple months ago and I'm very pleased. The game looks nice, light and gives me a time of relax. Being so busy during the somer months, I have not enough time to play my other favorite sims like SH5, DW, so the AF is a good solution for me. Just one mark: During the battle the player has not the possibility to save the progress. The only way I've found to quit the battle earlyer having not chance to draw is a ships scutlle, which is not a good idea.

+1

Can we have a save option, please.

Thank you

[trindade]

BUMP!

[MLF]

Why have the crew got white bags over their heads:doh:? I've also noticed AI ships re-appearing in later battles after being sunk:o

regards,

MLF

6 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=211304&page=6)