Feedback & Suggestions

[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):

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

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.

[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.