All Activity

Still would really, really like "attack move" option for routing which forces a direct route to the destination regardless of enemy fleet presence/influence areas and engages anything that gets in the way.

It’s just how the ai designs certain ships. If you check their armor values they’re usually made from construction paper.

I am in the last ten years of an Italian campaign. I have encountered German BCs that run 44.5 knots and Austrian BCs that hit 42 knots. Most destroyers are running 38 knots from all nations, even the old ones. One of the reasons why I liked playing Italy was that their ships tended to have a slight edge in speed due to better hull forms and higher hull speeds. So, I think speed calculations are off when the AI ships are built. I haven't filed a bug report since I am unsure if this qualifies, but it feels strange. In games lasting more than twenty or thirty years, moving beyond the bordering territories with your armies feels impossible, even with huge disparities in logistics. I have occupied Austria, but even though I am blockading. Austria-Hungry and having the only ships in the Adriatic Sea moving beyond Austria is impossible because I can only get about 20 thousand troops. In contrast, the bordering provinces all have 100k+ troops. My army logistics is 100%, and theirs hovers around 19%. Since Austria-Hungary doesn't have ports outside Croatia, I can't invade even if they are along the coast. Trieste, in Modern-day Italy, near the border of Slovenia, was one of the biggest ports and a constant source of conflict between Italy and Austria-Hungary. At the start of the timeline in our game, it belonged to Austria-Hungary and remained part of the empire until its dissolution, when it moved to Italian possession. It has always seemed odd to me that Trieste wasn't represented in-game as a port belonging to Austria-Hungary. Since it's such a small territory, it could be like Hong Kong or Gibraltar, explaining why Slovenia doesn't have a port. I think it's the only coastal territory that doesn't.

Not exactly. There are still range differences, but those are being applied by the muzzle velocity mechanic. The higher the muzzle velocity, the better range you will get. If you want a different range, then the propellant choice will be your primary source. The reason I removed the range modifiers, is because the way the game is designed, it will affect the gun's accuracy. More range equals to more accurate guns, and by applying the range modifiers (negative or positive) it makes it impossible for me, at the moment, to create two different shell dynamics. The better accurate at low ranges and the best for long ranges. I say it is impossible now, but maybe I can still find a way. I thought in adding a positive range modifier to shells using a ballistic cap, for obvious reasons, or light shells and a negative for heavy shells, but then it becomes a nightmare trying to create distinctive shell behaviors for different ranges as mentioned previous, without creating, without intention, one type of shell that it is better in most situations. A balancing issue. I will still be going to try to add a small range modifier to light, heavy and super heavy shells. If I find a solution, I will implement in a future update. One possible solution, is to halve the accuracy modifiers from the shell weight and add the range modifier to compensate. The problem is to find the right numbers that, when being applied to the AP or HE shell choice, the player can see a clear difference when looking at options available at the extremes. Improved APCBC vs SAP as an example. The problem is that ideas like this most of the time becomes a little nightmare, with many hours spending testing values and open the game to see how it is working. The choices are more for gameplay reasons and to give the player choices. They are not unrealistic in any way, but it is impossible for me to say exactly how each shell could work in a specific situation. For light shells: Less Momentum Transfer: Lighter shells have less mass, which means they carry less momentum. When a projectile with less momentum hits a surface, it's more likely to bounce off rather than penetrate or deform the surface. Higher Velocity Relative to Impact Surface: Lighter shells, especially those fired at high velocities, can retain more of their initial speed upon impact with a surface. This higher velocity relative to the surface can increase the likelihood of a ricochet. Less Energy Absorption: Lighter shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact with a surface compared to heavier shells. This can result in a more energetic rebound, contributing to ricochet. For heavy shells at steep angles: Greater Momentum: Heavier shells possess more mass, resulting in higher momentum. When a heavier shell impacts a surface at a steep angle, it transfers more momentum to the surface. This increased momentum can lead to the shell bouncing off the surface rather than penetrating it. Greater Penetration Resistance: Lighter shells are often more prone to deformation upon impact due to their lower mass. Heavier shells, on the other hand, may maintain their structural integrity better when striking a surface at a steep angle. This resistance to deformation can contribute to a greater likelihood of bouncing. Increased Energy Dissipation: Heavier shells may not absorb as much energy upon impact as lighter shells do. Instead, they can retain more of their kinetic energy, which can result in a more energetic rebound off the surface. Material Composition: Heavier shells are typically made of denser materials, such as lead, which are less likely to deform upon impact. This property can enhance their ability to bounce off surfaces, especially at steep angles. The game does not explain this very well to the player, and without looking at the game files, I think it is impossible to know. And this is only my interpretation of the mechanic. There is the min angle and the max angle. The min angle is where the ricochet chance effect starts to being applied. The max angle is where the ricochet chance effect will be applied at maximum. The ricochet chance is 55%. There is also another 70% ricochet chance by a shell hitting a main turret. By tweaking these modifiers for each AP shell, I can take into consideration the shell design or cap design to work in different way at different angles. To make it simple to remember, all AP shells with an AP cap and a ballistic cap have improved chance of getting a penetration at steep angles. The APC have improved penetration chance at low angles, but terrible at steep angles. The AP, SAP and SAPC have a wide angle where it can suffer a ricochet, however the semi piercing shells have a reduced chance of ricochet already, as a middle ground from AP to HE shells.

First off, big thanks for reworking shell characteristics! 👍@o Barão Unless I read something incorrectly, you have removed range modifiers from different weight shells. Do all the shells have same range now or is there some hidden parameters for that? (not complaining, as range vs weight wasn't that stright forward IRL anyway, just askin') Also, would you maybe revise wording of the tooltip explaining different weight shells' bouncing characteristic? I am now not entirely sure, are light shells more likely or less likely to ricochet, or does it depend on the situation. Finally, could somebody kindly enlighten me what the min and max angles actually represent in shell ballistics? That is something the game lacks a tooltip and leaves me quessing.

Just sayin', as someone who cares more about realistic looks than ingame optimization, I have so much wanted this.

Your sarcasm is no longer tolerated my friend. I cannot reply to a person speaking like you. Please do not write anything here in our forum unless you change your tone. You get a forum banning. I suggest you switch to another game to make your life easier.

For those wanting a quick workaround to this problem: Before splitting, order the entirety of TF X to where you want TF A to go, then split off TF B and order them somewhere else.

@Nick Thomadis I was checking the old Road Map thread in case i missed / forgot that fixing the issues mentioned by others and me are already planned to be dealt with and thats why you are ignoring me, but no, couldnt find something like that. But i found something else ... Is that pure mockery or did you not have the time to play your own game back then when you wrote this? quote: "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is a game like no other with a unique 3D ship design system and a really challenging and immersive campaign covering in detail the time period between 1890 - 1940+. " src: https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40825-thank-you-for-the-participation-in-our-6-month-roadmap/ "a game like no other": Are you sure bout that? Except for the Designer and the Tactical Battles beeing 3D the Campaign looks pretty much like the one from that other game. Down to the wording in the random multiple choice events. Just forgot the Name, maybe you can help me? "really challenging and immersive": Uhm, ja, many others and i already pointed out why the campaign is not challenging at all. And i dont know, whats the immersive part? That the Map shows the modern Region- / Provinces-Borders instead of the one fitting the Time Period? That Oil makes the world go round cause theres plenty of that readily available to everyone? That you cannot properly command your Taskforces at Sea cause as soon as you Split Task Force X into TF A and TF B, only one of them is selectable, cause one is buried beneath untill the other moves away next turn. Is there a new, secret roadmap about fixing the campaign that you might wanna share with us?

Hello, I am not sure I understand what you want to show me here. For a few seconds your guns delay to shoot, then you spend almost 40% of the video time to show me in pause mode that the guns do not shoot. Guns may delay to fire sometimes, they try to aim, find target, it is simulated some kind of error finding process, that consumes time. I do not see a problem if a gun not always fires in a millisecond, in fast forward mode. Disabling pause will make the guns to fire again, but they would fire if you had let them, I assume.

Hi, @Nick Thomadis I have previously written about the problem of the sudden cessation of shooting. Here's a video. As you can see, at one moment the Italian dreadnought “San Pio V” stops firing. After hovering the mouse cursor over him, you will notice that his shooting accuracy has dropped to 0%. And only after switching to the Italian dreadnought, with the pause removed, its shooting accuracy rapidly increases and the ship opens fire again. Could you somehow fix this? The problem has appeared before, but apparently it has returned again. I also confirm that I have an absolutely clean game without mods or corrections to the game files.

The new patch looks very great, especially the improve of close range accuracy.

BETA v10 - "Shells & Ballistics rework" update - N.A.R. changelog: Updated to UAD 1.5.0.9 Optx3 Link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ac6FZM6KTnY3Rhm5GRsEO6Zs6V8Jfasf?usp=drive_link Note: The english file needs to be updated. ----- Major update ----- Ballistics reworked. Light, standard and heavy shells have unique properties at different ranges. New shell added, SAPC SAP and all HE shells damage was improved. SAPBC penetration improved. HCHE, CNF and CP fuse are now more sensitive since they were designed to work against light armored ships. Min angle and max angle for all shells, reworked taking into account the shell shape or the AP cap design, if present, for ricochet chance calculations. Shell weight modifiers from all components reworked to fix the unrealistic values. No more 15" shells with 1.5 tons as an example. Realistic accuracy formula reworked to improve the closer it is to the target. AI personalities updated. Added vanilla TECH AI instructions. Torpedo launchers costs rebalanced. Credits to @NoX for the idea. ----- Ballistics rework ----- All shells have unique properties at different ranges. This offers new tactical options for the Admiral to consider when designing the ships and what will be their role. Note: The big long range bonus and accuracy bonus values exist to counter the unrealistic effects from the muzzle velocity mechanic. In practice, by looking at the gun stats, the player will notice that the differences are a lot smaller. In NAR, the long range mechanic starts to have effect at 5500 meters and will get the maximum effect at 40000 meters. This adds a new dynamic to the game, where according to the ranges is expected the ship to fight, the Admiral can take into consideration using one type of shell or another. ----- Min angle and max angle ----- Now every shell shape or AP cap design, if present, will take into consideration the angles of ricochet. APC shells have a unique cap design that favors penetration at low angles, but is very poor at steep angles. With the invention of the ballistic cap, new cap designs are now possible to increase the biting angle. The players should notice a better performance from the APCBC variants and SAPBC because of this. The values used in NAR as reference for the shell modifiers, are: Min angle 30º Max angle 40º Ricochet chance 55% Min angle is where the ricochet starts to have an effect and the Max angle where it gets the full effect. There is also a 70% ricochet chance for hitting the main turret. Note: Only the max angle value is different from vanilla game. I changed to help the player in reading the gun stats. Typical APCBC shell. Note the changes to the armor-piercing cap to better improve the chance of penetration at steep angles. ----- Realistic accuracy ----- American 16"/50 mk7 performance on trials. Around 9km. Around 27km. Changes to the accuracy formula to improve the closer you are to the target give me what is now IMO a very realistic feel. Because of this, the mod two options are now: Realistic accuracy and the Arcade accuracy (3x times the chance of hit) VERY IMPORTANT: I don't know when I am going to update the mod again, so to avoid any issues, block the auto updates from steam: Set game to update when start game. Do this in game setting(properties)-> update. Don't start game by steam or steam shortcut. Make a shortcut on desktop from the main game .exe in this location: "....\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.exe" Start a game from this shortcut. Game will run without update. Do not report any bug to the devs if you are using this mod. They are not responsible for the changes I made to the game.

I don't know, but if you can wait a little, the next major update should be ready today.

Is mod compatible with v1.5.0.9 Optx3 ?

So I've played a couple of campaigns over the last couple of weeks - USA 1910 and UK 1900. First issue I came up with in the US Campaign was the high speeds the German Ships were able to reach, something that it just feels like the AI shouldn't prioritise as much as building an effective ship. When I got my hands on a couple of their ships as war reparations, they weren't very well balanced, had low funnel efficiency (wonder why), coal burning, and steam engines (not turbines). I think the AI should maybe cap their speeds at the recommended maximum speed for the hull. I was in an extended war with France (in my UK campaign), and despite their being blockaded, and my having greater tonnage in all the places they had fleets, I was still losing 10-15 transports a turn (my fleets were on protect mode). The real-world solution that would have happened with that number of commercial shipping losses would be the implementation of the convoy system, with dedicated escorts (corvettes/destroyers) and in the cases of larger ones, the addition of capital ships that didn't have the speed to keep up with the main fleet task forces (think the Revenge-Class Battleships in the second world war). I would have assumed keeping a number of task forces spread around the shipping lanes on protect mode, while the main battlefleets took on the role of invasion/fleet interdiction would maintain the transport fleet, but this only reduced the losses partially and I was still regularly losing multiple transports a turn. Additionally, In my opinion, the "peace treaty" option should always be highlighted when you are at war with a nation, I had an issue with this war with France that despite there being no meetings of ships or naval invasions, and France being blockaded and firing admiral after admiral, I was not able to suggest to the government to sue for peace. When it finally was unlocked, it took me another 6 months to finally get the peace treaty we needed. Also, unrest needs to be clearer how it escalates. I went from 0 unrest to 66 in the space of a year, despite 0 failed naval invasions, no major ship losses (a handful of DDs and a couple of obsolete CLs). It would be good if there were obvious options we can take (not relying on the random events) to reduce our level of unrest. I'm also finding that when starting a campaign there is no difference between whether I select "random" or "historical" for the AI opponent, as I always start with a more historical looking diplomatic tab (e.g. Strongly negative relations between Germany/England pre-1910, etc...) Maybe a better solution would be "historical" or "neutral" and you start with nil relations between all nations and you can advise your government on who you see as a big rival and who you would like to ally with. Because after 800-odd hours of campaigning, it does feel like if you're playing as the Royal Navy, you're going to inevitably have a big war with Germany first off the bat, and it would definitely be more interesting if, for example, our first "big war" was against, say the USA or China/Japan, instead of it always being a European War. My next point will need to be made without pictures as my current maximum upload is 112.48kB and my files are all larger than that. I'm finding the RN CL Hull [Light Cruiser VI] and CA Hull [Heavy Cruiser I] have some issues with the towers available to them and the positioning of the deck step-down. The 2 immediate solutions to me would be to cut a level off of the double barbette fore and aft towers to make them a single barbette, or make the option available to move the step-down from the fo'c'sle to the weather deck along the ship (this would be great for all hulls, especially if you want to do a battlecruiser with 3 turrets, at the moment to get a good balance, that aft turret looks like it is in a weird position). Those ships also have border placement issues with torpedo tubes where they can sometimes be on the edge of the deck, but then move it slightly forward and it needs to be placed away from the edge of the deck (nothing else around them, just the torpedo tube). Another, purely aesthetic thing, that would be cool is if you allow us to extend decks between superstructures, barbettes, and funnels. basically, once you have everything in place, you can extend the sides of the ship and the deck to fill the gaps around barbettes and other accoutrements you place on a ship to fill in the gaps and provide a much better aesthetic. Finally, it would be great if we can: a) Place torpedo tubes on barbettes, and b) Be able to free place barbettes using the control button like you can do with other things, especially as there are some hulls where the spots for the barbettes are too close to the edge and don't allow any to be placed (I believe the large light cruiser is one of those), and it would be a definite quality of life improvement. Edit: Could you please also extend the Modern Tower III for the UK battlecruisers so they could have a Tall Funnel VI and Tall Funnel VIII on the same superstructure - this would allow us to make a more realistic Hood

1.16 -Updated for UAD 1.5.0.9 opt x3 and DIP 1.12.8

I'm sure it will be great if this idea can be consider. The current citadel armor system is too simplified and too far away from reality.

The tooltips, arguably, can be misinterpreted because in combat a gun of the same exact characteristics but using a much heavier shell, you will notice it to have a slower fire rate, which affects greatly the accuracy gaining. In practice the slower shell and with slower ROF will need more time to gain the maximum accuracy (not the base accuracy of the data). In practice everything works as expected.

@Nick Thomadis While you are right that the accuracies are estimated for the player in the penetration table, it is still either wrong or missleading (I don't know which one). I almost always use heavy or super heavy shells because they have always better nominal accuracy on these tables, even though the shell descriptions suggest othervise. (disclaimer: I have no idea how the chance to hit is eventually calculated in game. I just wanted to note that @o Barãois right in the that the heavier shells are atleast indicated to be more accurate than the lighter shells even though the tooltip advices othervise.)

Accuracies are also estimated in the data.

I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒

Hello Barao, There are many hardcoded factors that cannot be tuned with a config. They simulate real ballistic factors of the shell. One of those is the increase of penetration according to terminal velocity (the velocity expected at the end of the range). Players do not have to always read the words and specific stats but use the penetration table which shows the final calculations. There, everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies. In the battle, these penetrations do not apply deterministically but again take extra factors evaluating the final random shell fire arc, the angle of fall, angle of side hit, and other depended on ship characteristics. Like in real life, you cannot predict 100% the outcome but you can expect a certain average result at range given by those penetration tables. See how penetration is increased at short/medium ranges with a shell of high velocity etc.

I would personally be interested to build something like the interwar cruiser design with box armor sheme, ie. little to no actual belt armor but armored citadel box inside the ship instead. This sacrifices overall survivability to save weight while still protecting the ship from a single hit totally disabling it. Currently this is not possible in game as one must have thick belt armor to have thick internal belt armor. Also, would you consider giving upper regions of the hull its own armor values? In real ships it was very rare for the main deck to be the main armored deck, as this would have been very bad for weight and stability. More common was to have the main armored deck somewhere inside the ship, whilest the uppermost deck was only splinter proof if even that. If the upper hull had its own armor region (or multiple regions) the ships armor weights could be made more realistic and it would be no longer that easy to turn a ship into a solid steel ingot. Easiest way to implement this might be to have six belt regions instead of three (lower main belt, upper main belt, lower aft belt, upper aft belt, lower front belt and upper front belt, limited so that upper belts can't be thicker than the lower belts). The first citadel deck would be allowed to be as thick as one likes independent of the main deck, while the current main deck could still be made thick if one wishes, but with a cost of weight and huge destabilizing effect. If that is too much of a work, at least remove the weight reduction of the advanced armor types for a given thickness, that is just weird and too easy to exploit.

I think the Citadel Armor System needs a improve too. For now the only meaning of the 1st and 2nd layer are to give a higher 3rd layer thickness threshold, or to say, the 3rd layer armor is too important, meanwhile the 1st,2nd and even the main belt/deck is too unimportant. If there is no better way to simulate the armor system,at least reduce the armor thickness threshold limit of the 1st layer citadel armor.