Gsam

October 30, 2023

Any idea when early access will happen? I signed up for your email mailing list and have heard nothing.

February 11, 2023

3 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

Yep, I'm getting this with my Mk5 152mm gun, Coinc V, Gen 3 radar equipped British cruisers as well. I'm now getting between 0.1% and 1% accuracy at ranges as low as 5km.

Its the same with destroyers too, their accuracy is absolutely pathetic at the moment and their spotting ranges seem much lower too. With gen 3 radar their spotting ability on other destroyers is down to about 6-7km which is insanely unrealistic.

Have literally been saying this for months. Doesn't matter how far away you are or what year of the tech. I can never get higher than 3-5% accuracy with cruisers.

February 3, 2023

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello fellow admirals,

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has been fully released but that does not mean it will not continue to be supported with new content or needed fixes. We already have deployed a considerable amount of hotfixes, addressing issues that you reported. We will still provide similar fixes for as long as it will be necessary and we will also provide new content for the game.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts should be already playable, stable enough and enjoyable but we will continue polishing, so that we can safely move our development team into new game projects that you will surely like. Here is a brief list of the most important things we plan to offer till Summer 2023:

Weather graphics: Currently we have a few different sea weather graphics that randomize and do not directly link with the weather modifiers. For example, we have stormy weather accuracy modifiers and the generated graphics show a sunny calm sea. We will soon add to the game a wide range of different weather, wave and daylight conditions that will radically increase the battle immersion. You will be able to play even night battles and any weather modifier will directly correlate with the visual experience.

Spotting distances improvement: With the new weather graphics, we will offer a more advanced and realistic visibility mechanic. Now ships that fire remain unspotted and cannot be fired at. We will improve so that even distant ships can be spotted when they start firing and reveal their position, but they will show up as a little faded and there will be an accuracy penalty against them. A realistic fog of war will make ships slowly fade in/out according to their visibility.

New detailed hulls: The following ships are scheduled to be offered in the next months:
New York Class Battleship (detailed variants of USS Texas 1914-1946).

Atlanta Class Cruiser and variants that can produce Cleveland-class and similar cruisers.

C-Class cruiser as a generic interwar cruiser variant.

Other ships can follow or replace the above depending on your recommendations and the war condition in Ukraine, since our main modeler is situated in Kiev.

Map graphics finalization: The map includes all the necessary content to simulate the strategic conditions of the 1890 - 1940 time period and is not “flat” as the pathfinding system estimates the shortest route and generates paths via the pacific edge from one side to the other. A lot of players would like the map to have a horizontal “looping” but that would be only aesthetic as the main functionality is already implemented. This aesthetic aspect could generate various new bugs and broken saves that a lot of players will dislike, but we will review if we can improve it further.

The map will receive the following planned improvements:
We will fix inconsistencies in all provinces that either do not have borders or they have wrong offsets.

We will fix several UI inconsistencies, including tooltips appearing on top of each other.

Any needed graphical enhancement will be made according to your recommendations.

Performance optimizations: We will Improve further the loading times, we will repair issues that can cause lag in battles, check Unity CPU thread management etc. We have to remind players, when we first launched the campaign with a small map and only 2 nations that the loading times were much higher than now, while having a huge global map, 10 major nations, many minor nations and dozens of new strategic features in the calculation tables. So there is progress and we will keep improving.

General UI and Window interface improvement: We will improve the aesthetics of all UI where necessary and will provide better support in window systems so that you can Alt+Tab out of the game in a borderless game window.

Language Localization: We currently plan to offer support for the English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Korean, Greek languages.

Fix of all remaining issues or add missing features: This is a top priority. We have already fixed several reported bugs or inconsistencies. We already continue to fix known problems or things you report to us. We have just created this thread here in Game-Labs forum and one thread in the Steam forum where you can mention your biggest concerns, issues that prevent you from fully enjoying the game. We will use the feedback gained from these forum threads to fix one by one everything that is possible or a confirmed bug.

We will also try to implement any new feature that will be widely requested, if the situation allows it because the majority of the development team is situated in Kiev so we have to prioritize more on fixes.

PLEASE POST BELOW YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT TO IMPLEMENT OR FIX AND WE WILL PRIORITIZE ACCORDINGLY.

============================

IMHO the biggest failing of this game is the research system. YOu need to throw the whole thing out and overhaul it. We need to be able to have a larger level of customization on how we want our tech to go. If I want to invest 1 trillion into research cause I have that kind of money laying around let me. If I want to skimp on my navy and rush research, let me. Right now research feels more like an impediment and not at all intuitive rather than a fun component of the game.

YOu had a wonderful opportunity to bring national flavor to this game via research or via perks to ships for each nation etc. and none of that is here. I would strongly encourage you to consider re-doing the above.

January 25, 2023

24 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The Logistics tooltip on the Politics is something very minor and will be fixed in the next update (Help section is already including the necessary information). If you find something else similar found, please show us to fix or else please do not generalize.

As for all the rest... we already offer the ability to design so many different hulls that can replicate +/- most if not all your recommendation of hulls. Should we continue to add models more than any other naval game combined in the universe, to have a game fully released, already offering much more content than most naval games?

There are naval games which charge more than $40 for a reskinned 3D model ship with different stats, not a full game with so many unique aspects. I am sorry, I am personally sorry for all these I read.

You, the gamers will define what you will get from this game in the future. We already plan to make more, including graphics, UI, weathers, new ship models. Good and rational feedback helps everyone to improve the game you all currently own. Negativity and sometimes evil manners, do the exact opposite.

Fair response.

I think whats puzzling so many of us is "why the rush?"

You have a bunch of testers here who have put hundreds of hours into this game and are still showing many problems. I would imagine this decision has left them scratching their collective heads and saying "how is this ready?"

Is this some sort of deadline you have to hit with steam? Is it something else? IS it a financial thing?

If I were in your shoes I would have handled this a fair bit differently. I would have posted to the community saying something like the following:

Admirals,

Thanks for your hard work....

Could not have done it without you...

We are going to go out of beta / early access now...

I understand there are still issues such as (list the major ones...)

Rest assured, they will be fixed and we are not moving past this game until they are right.

As for what else you can expect from this title... you can expect the following......

Thank you again for your support.

Game Labs

January 17, 2023

12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*RC 1*
- Finalized new formation code and fixed all major bugs.
- Targeting / Fire Control further optimizations.
- Auto-Design further optimizations.
- Battle performance optimizations.
- Various campaign UI fixes / optimizations.
- Various campaign bug fixes.
- Campaign calcs optimizations, turns should pass faster.
- Fixed issues that could cause allied ports to not supply the allied fleets.
- Improved Transport Capacity mechanics so that transport capacity upkeep becomes much cheaper when it reaches its limit while it grows faster when it reaches its minimum. In this way nations who invest in transport capacity have real gains after a number of turns (because transport capacity does not cost so much as before) while there is a better chance to overcome the transport destruction during war(simulating a larger effort to grow the transport fleet in an emergency situation). This change also aids the AI economics in such a way to not cause the AI to collapse economically so easily as before.

The campaigns are advised to be restarted. All shared designs should pass an inspection for inconsistencies or just delete them all (they can cause errors in campaigns if they are invalid).

This build is considered a release candidate. Some minor fixes will follow according to your urgent feedback.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

EDIT:
- Some changes not mentioned in changelog, for example overweight gun fixes for some late tech medium caliber turrets.

Does this mean you have fixed the bug where BB's and BCs are constantly resetting accrued firing solutions and have like a 3-4% hit chance on ships that are 1-3 KM away?

January 14, 2023

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I am noticing very slow to non-existent aiming progress. [aim progress resetting after every shot back to 0] I thought this might have been the result of my modding the resources.assets, but when re-install the base version i get the same problem.

Previous versions seemed to give you the lock bonus and 'range found' [and pretty massive hit rates] almost immediately

This checks out with what I am seeing as well. I am fully focused on one ship, doing all the things right (speed, not changing course, etc.) and not getting hits despite upgrades etc.. Very low hit chances.

January 13, 2023

Current issues. The accuracy is horrific. Before every jumps my case and says L2P I have all the upgrades possible and have been rushing rangefinding, towers, guns, seasoned crew etc.. I am steady on my course, at cruising speed to increase accuracy and I have like a 3.2% chance to hit a BB that is 3 KM away from me in a BC. Meanwhile AA using 9 inch guns is absolutely shredding me hitting about 15% of shots and They have changed something with the accuracy mechanic. Its horrid right now.

January 8, 2023

This game is not even close to ready for release.

I am now in 1910 and the feedback from the USA.

1) Fuel issues are maddening. Trying to figure out distances, where you can refuel, how far between ports. etc... Absurd

2) Ships Seem to want to go to wrong places even when you are clicking on someplace else. I have ships in the med, I am try to send them to San Diego, and it keeps trying to dock them in panama.

3) Trying to invade minors. Mexico is an ally of Germany who I was at war with. I blockaded both ports in Mexico and had my fleets set to invade, nothing happens for turns and turns.

4) Turns are taking way too long. When I have HOI4 running on the other monitor because it takes so long to process turns, you have a problem.

5) Research still seems too slow despite having one of your 3 vials dedicated to certain tech trees. You really need to redo technology as a whole. Why do I have to research a bunch of crap I don't want to get to what I do. For example. Why do I need to research light cruisers and heavy cruisers in the same "cruiser" line. Why can't we break these down. If I want to rush battle cruisers at the expense of my DD's or light cruisers, let me. I don't want triple turrets for my secondary guns. I want the ability to put 5 main guns on my ships. IRL would people making ships say "OH! Sorry, We cant work on putting a 5th main gun turret on our ship because we have not yet figured out how to put triple turrets on a ship" Scrap what you have, and redo it.

6) There is no national flavor at all. The only thing that feels different is the flag and what ports you have. Really need to differentiate the countries to add replay ability.

7) The lack of a wraparound map is brutal. Gotta fix that or implement it.

8.) Totally unclear how to get trade agreements or ally status with minors. The AI can do it.

9) The political system is not good at all. Certain countries are just going to like you at all, despite going for the non historical setting. They are always going to ask you to ally, by declining you get a huge boost to naval status and they are still your friends. Meanwhile to try and improve relations you fail like 90% of the time and it hurts you.... Come on. Not even worth engaging in that.

10) Ship Flaws. I made 16 ships. 6 of them were flawed. That is insane. I am talking so flawed that they had to be scrapped. More than 10% defect. I understand trying for ship variety, but damn thats brutal. You almost have to build an extra 40% of what you need for your fleet so you can delete the ships that come out hot garbage. If that is something you want to have in game, can we develop a ironworkers slider where we can spend extra money to have better workers and reduce flaws? Or Incorporate that into dockyards as we increase the size? Make it a research thing? How about letting us have positive outcomes too? Ship X was made exceptionally well. +5% speed or something.

January 7, 2023

Turns are taking SOOOOOOOOOO LONGGGGGGGGGG

January 7, 2023

1 minute ago, pandakraut said:

Assuming all other factors are equal, yes this works exactly the same for the ai as the player. Union condition drain rates are slightly higher than the CSA and the AI often has higher stats than player units depending on difficulty, so in those cases the AI units may perform better. But if the player had units with those stats of the same side they'd get the same result.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but the union units in that battle can spawn directly into the forest instead of having to walk there like the player would and they start at full condition. Only way I could get the AI to attack from that direction.

You answered my question. Thank you Panda!

January 7, 2023

45 minutes ago, dixiePig said:

Fatigue

Detached Skirmishers (and Sharpshooter units) always move in [run] mode. Do they fatigue as a result?

Is there a 'rule of thumb' for determining how far a unit can [run] before suffering crippling fatigue? I am tempted to 'hurry' units towards a critical battle, but know that there is a price. How do I determine the cost?

While we are on the subject on fatigue @pandakraut does it work the same way for the CPU? I am playing Fredericksburg as CSA and the opening engagement has the union troops running full speed through swaps to get into the forest. IT does not seem like they have any ill effects on condition because of it.

January 6, 2023

8 hours ago, dixiePig said:

Fatigue is much more of a factor now. Understandably so.

Does a unit refresh itself more quickly if in a fortification?

What techniques will help a unit to recover more effectively?

What behaviors will weaken a unit (i.e. How much can a unit [Run]?

Entrenchment

Can you indicate on the map if unit has been able to construct entrenchments (by remaining in place in a defensive posture for a while)?

and - what is the defensive value of entrenchment?

Accidental Rout

If I move a unit towards the edge of the map, it will sometimes Rout. Is this a fixable bug? How can I recover from it before I lose the unit?

Multi-day Battles

In the pause between days of a major battle, it is possible to reinforce the units of your Army.

If I reinforce units with Recruits, do they get full XP from the battle?

It seems that loading in lots of Recruits would be a wise strategy

Great questions!

December 31, 2022

1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

Only 2 corps for Antietam is going to be pretty rough. Glad to hear that expanding your army worked out though.

Is the skill that allows units that dont participate in the battles essential? I am noticing I need to use my stronger unit to win battles with acceptable losses, but If I don't use the * star units, They do not progress.

December 31, 2022

2 hours ago, Gsam said:

I think I hit the end of my campaign this go around.

I am playing as CSA on regular difficulty. I am at antietam and I am just getting swamped by 3x the numbers I have. I am roughly ~30k infantry, and about 200 guns. 2 full corps with 20 brigades per 1500 man infantry, 300 man sharpshooters and anywhere from 12-20 guns. 4 cavalry units 2 melee 2 carbine. I am facing off against enemy infantry counts in the ~70k range and they have roughly 350 guns. I simply cannot hold the massed kamikaze charges despite having brigades supporting behind every brigade. Artillery just doesn't chew them up quick enough. Perhaps I am playing this wrong.

went back to drawing board. Spent about 200k to make a bunch of speedbump 0 star units. Increased army size by about 10k. Managed to pull it off. Army is pretty well shot to shit ~37% casualties. Most of it from my front line units. The speedbumps were in the 3rd position holding the flank at the bottom of the map.

Before anyone asks why I spent 200k on speedbump units I didn't. I took the 200k and upgraded my * and ** units to give them better guns and then took the 1842 and reboreds and gave them to the speedbump units.

(removed general name because its my personal name)

December 31, 2022

On 12/28/2022 at 9:19 PM, pandakraut said:

The AI is limited to at most 10 detached skirmishers out at one time. As these get destroyed, new ones will get deployed if enough AI infantry units are available. The AI is limited to one skirmisher per infantry just like the player. There are config options available to change the amount the AI can have out or remove this entirely if preferred. Definitely takes a bit to adjust to, but once you get used to it there are still plenty of options in my experience.

When engaging packs of enemy skirmishers you really need multiple cav units otherwise you'll get shot to pieces as you've found. Skirmishers have significant melee penalties, but these can be offset if the AI's stats are high enough compared to the players. But from what you've described it sounds more like an issue of engagement timing. I always try to setup situations where my cavalry can melee without getting shot at, otherwise the attrition is just too high. Isolating units or having other units distracting nearby AI units that could fire into the melee is usually how I go about that, but it takes a lot of micro and practice.

I usually deal with enemy skirmishers by drawing them into my main firing line where I can blast them with multiple artillery and infantry units. Their biggest weakness is lack of morale staying power so you can clear them out somewhat quick with this approach.

In previous versions far far too much time was available. This lead to players being able to achieve extremely favorable results and the campaign being much easier than desired. In the updated battles we have aimed to give the player some time to maneuver or prep an area to assault, but not give them enough time that they can pick the AI apart. Some battles will be tighter than others, and in many it will be harder to kill every enemy unit unless you play more aggressively.

For example, the intention with artillery is that you can still open up a hole in the enemy line, but you then need to send infantry to exploit it, compared to prior versions where the artillery could largely kill everything by themselves. Union 2nd bull run is one of the better examples of this. Previously the battle was extremely easy, and now you actually have to press to achieve the objectives in time.

While I understand that more restrictive timers can be frustrating, putting time pressure on the player results in better overall difficulty and more interesting gameplay decisions in my opinion. As an artillery focused player, I certainly enjoy the slow advance, but when too much time is allowed you just fast forward until everything dies.

I feel like the timers are mostly in a good spot currently, but the timer configs do still exist so if you want a little extra time you could set them to 1.05 or 1.1. Note there are some bugs that exist if the endofDayMultiplier is increased too much compared to the timerRecommended and timerMandatory values, so I'd keep any increases to it to 1.025 or 1.05.

Definitely a high risk, high reward unit. I've seen plenty of results from people with 2-4k+ kill totals on these units, so I think they can still be quite effective. One thing that can help with keeping them alive is putting them on hold position. This lowers their overall dps but prevents the stealth penalty from firing from stacking up so high which means you can set and forget them more reliably without them getting spotted.

I've mostly taken medicine as a 3rd or 4th option. It's useful but early on I need money/weapons/stats more so I'll focus on other options. Restoring 0 or low 1* men isn't too valuable and my few units that are more experienced I do my best to keep casualties very low on. Any men restored do keep their weapons, though that currently only applies to the 'wounded' pool rather than all your casualties. That is something that may get adjusted as it makes medicine worse early game while it still ends up very strong late game.

Definitely a tough battle, though I eventually managed to keep my total casualties down to about 30%. The newer units I had taking the brunt of the attacks in the center probably were higher than that though. I had my two best smoothbores sitting behind the center to help blast units that got into the woods out. This battle is immensely easier if you've managed to get 3-4 2*s by that point(I didn't and really felt it.)

Constantly adjusting your line to draw skirmishers out in the open so you can hit them better, keeping up flanking efforts to the north and south, and having two fire brigades of cavalry to be able to quickly switch between helping out the top and bottom VPs is what eventually worked for me.

There is no magic number anymore. More guns always results in more damage. I tend to use 6-8 early game so that I can swap in better cannon faster as they become available. Moving up to 10-12 later depending on the unit. But that's more good cannon availability for the relatively low logistics investment setups that I use than anything else. 14-16 would pack more of a punch once your unit slots become a larger limiting factor.

I've gradually moved all my infantry to be bigger. 1500-2k range. Gives me more ability to absorb damage now that it's harder to limit your casualties as much as it was previously. Cavalry vary depending on weapons, but in the 400-800 range. Larger can be very effective as well. Sharpshooters are again limited by weapon availability, but I usually try to end up in the 350-400 range. These numbers are all from the perspective of someone who prefers smaller units, larger sizes can work.

3" are your generic do it all early rifled gun. They can get counterbattery done, but aren't good at it. James, 20pdrs, tredegars, siege, and whitworths will all perform that role much better, but won't be commonly available early game.

No, too many victory conditions break. They can be extended though, some details listed in an earlier response.

Common feedback is that smoothbores feel good, rifled guns feel lacking. But there is also consistent feedback from the players that stick with the rifled guns that they are still extremely strong once at 2 and 3 star with good cannon. There was a small generic buff to them in 1.28.3 but no current plans for more immediate changes. Long term there will likely be adjustments as we'd like to redo the entire perk tree, but that's not coming anytime soon.

I wouldn't rush them, but mid to late game they can be very good on specialized units. Their dps is unmatched for a skirmisher or infantry unit, but they also eat ammo so I wouldn't use them on standard line units. They can crush charges or do a ton of flanking damage very quickly if positioned correctly though.

Thanks for sticking with the mod over the years, hope these answers help a bit and if you have more questions just ask.

I think I hit the end of my campaign this go around.

I am playing as CSA on regular difficulty. I am at antietam and I am just getting swamped by 3x the numbers I have. I am roughly ~30k infantry, and about 200 guns. 2 full corps with 20 brigades per 1500 man infantry, 300 man sharpshooters and anywhere from 12-20 guns. 4 cavalry units 2 melee 2 carbine. I am facing off against enemy infantry counts in the ~70k range and they have roughly 350 guns. I simply cannot hold the massed kamikaze charges despite having brigades supporting behind every brigade. Artillery just doesn't chew them up quick enough. Perhaps I am playing this wrong.

December 29, 2022

11 hours ago, pandakraut said:

The AI is limited to at most 10 detached skirmishers out at one time. As these get destroyed, new ones will get deployed if enough AI infantry units are available. The AI is limited to one skirmisher per infantry just like the player. There are config options available to change the amount the AI can have out or remove this entirely if preferred. Definitely takes a bit to adjust to, but once you get used to it there are still plenty of options in my experience.

When engaging packs of enemy skirmishers you really need multiple cav units otherwise you'll get shot to pieces as you've found. Skirmishers have significant melee penalties, but these can be offset if the AI's stats are high enough compared to the players. But from what you've described it sounds more like an issue of engagement timing. I always try to setup situations where my cavalry can melee without getting shot at, otherwise the attrition is just too high. Isolating units or having other units distracting nearby AI units that could fire into the melee is usually how I go about that, but it takes a lot of micro and practice.

I usually deal with enemy skirmishers by drawing them into my main firing line where I can blast them with multiple artillery and infantry units. Their biggest weakness is lack of morale staying power so you can clear them out somewhat quick with this approach.

In previous versions far far too much time was available. This lead to players being able to achieve extremely favorable results and the campaign being much easier than desired. In the updated battles we have aimed to give the player some time to maneuver or prep an area to assault, but not give them enough time that they can pick the AI apart. Some battles will be tighter than others, and in many it will be harder to kill every enemy unit unless you play more aggressively.

For example, the intention with artillery is that you can still open up a hole in the enemy line, but you then need to send infantry to exploit it, compared to prior versions where the artillery could largely kill everything by themselves. Union 2nd bull run is one of the better examples of this. Previously the battle was extremely easy, and now you actually have to press to achieve the objectives in time.

While I understand that more restrictive timers can be frustrating, putting time pressure on the player results in better overall difficulty and more interesting gameplay decisions in my opinion. As an artillery focused player, I certainly enjoy the slow advance, but when too much time is allowed you just fast forward until everything dies.

I feel like the timers are mostly in a good spot currently, but the timer configs do still exist so if you want a little extra time you could set them to 1.05 or 1.1. Note there are some bugs that exist if the endofDayMultiplier is increased too much compared to the timerRecommended and timerMandatory values, so I'd keep any increases to it to 1.025 or 1.05.

Definitely a high risk, high reward unit. I've seen plenty of results from people with 2-4k+ kill totals on these units, so I think they can still be quite effective. One thing that can help with keeping them alive is putting them on hold position. This lowers their overall dps but prevents the stealth penalty from firing from stacking up so high which means you can set and forget them more reliably without them getting spotted.

I've mostly taken medicine as a 3rd or 4th option. It's useful but early on I need money/weapons/stats more so I'll focus on other options. Restoring 0 or low 1* men isn't too valuable and my few units that are more experienced I do my best to keep casualties very low on. Any men restored do keep their weapons, though that currently only applies to the 'wounded' pool rather than all your casualties. That is something that may get adjusted as it makes medicine worse early game while it still ends up very strong late game.

Definitely a tough battle, though I eventually managed to keep my total casualties down to about 30%. The newer units I had taking the brunt of the attacks in the center probably were higher than that though. I had my two best smoothbores sitting behind the center to help blast units that got into the woods out. This battle is immensely easier if you've managed to get 3-4 2*s by that point(I didn't and really felt it.)

Constantly adjusting your line to draw skirmishers out in the open so you can hit them better, keeping up flanking efforts to the north and south, and having two fire brigades of cavalry to be able to quickly switch between helping out the top and bottom VPs is what eventually worked for me.

There is no magic number anymore. More guns always results in more damage. I tend to use 6-8 early game so that I can swap in better cannon faster as they become available. Moving up to 10-12 later depending on the unit. But that's more good cannon availability for the relatively low logistics investment setups that I use than anything else. 14-16 would pack more of a punch once your unit slots become a larger limiting factor.

I've gradually moved all my infantry to be bigger. 1500-2k range. Gives me more ability to absorb damage now that it's harder to limit your casualties as much as it was previously. Cavalry vary depending on weapons, but in the 400-800 range. Larger can be very effective as well. Sharpshooters are again limited by weapon availability, but I usually try to end up in the 350-400 range. These numbers are all from the perspective of someone who prefers smaller units, larger sizes can work.

3" are your generic do it all early rifled gun. They can get counterbattery done, but aren't good at it. James, 20pdrs, tredegars, siege, and whitworths will all perform that role much better, but won't be commonly available early game.

No, too many victory conditions break. They can be extended though, some details listed in an earlier response.

Common feedback is that smoothbores feel good, rifled guns feel lacking. But there is also consistent feedback from the players that stick with the rifled guns that they are still extremely strong once at 2 and 3 star with good cannon. There was a small generic buff to them in 1.28.3 but no current plans for more immediate changes. Long term there will likely be adjustments as we'd like to redo the entire perk tree, but that's not coming anytime soon.

I wouldn't rush them, but mid to late game they can be very good on specialized units. Their dps is unmatched for a skirmisher or infantry unit, but they also eat ammo so I wouldn't use them on standard line units. They can crush charges or do a ton of flanking damage very quickly if positioned correctly though.

Thanks for sticking with the mod over the years, hope these answers help a bit and if you have more questions just ask.

Fantastic info! thanks Panda!!! I learned so much from this. Have a great new year!

December 23, 2022

@pandakraut

Loving the mod as usual. I play it about once as year as things evolve. Thank you for staying with this. IT brings new life to this game.

That being said, I have questions.

I feel like every single map, the enemy armor has roughly ~20 skirmisher units. Is this normal? Cavalry can hardly scout anywhere due to number of skirmishers all over. Everything feels very congested and there is not much room to move.

A few suggestions / questions / thoughts:

1) Skirmishers are too strong in melee. The problem is they are like U-boat wolf packs also. If you charge one with cavalry (which seems to be the only way I have found to deal with them) not only will a single unit cause ~10% damage from a straight up fight to an equal numbers cav unit, they are never alone. You are gonna get shot by 2-3 other skirmisher units and cannons. The AI is so much better about supporting its units. This makes for LONNNNNGGGG slogs of matches because you have to clear a path using up ammo and troops just to approach the main event. IMHO they personally have far too big an impact on the game in the current form.

2) Have you looked at the timers? I am a more methodical player and I HATE being rushed to fight a certain way. I am forced with a decision often times to fail the mission or grind my troops up taking positions that haven't been softened up appropriately yet. Couple that with the point I Made in #1 with the glut of skirmishers slowing down progress, IMHO this begs looking at.

3) Sharpshooters - I feel like the cost / benefit does not pencil here. They are some of the most expensive units, they require a ton of micro management and they do not seem to have a very large impact on the battle. Not to mention, one mistake and they can get wiped out instantly.

4) Due to the Carnage in the game as you make it, it feels like Medicine is the main career perk I should be getting. I am assuming that the "restore" keeps their weapons too so I don't have to purchase them again?

5) Cross Key's - This battle borders on not even being worth it. This is an absolute bloodbath. Even cycling units through the meatgrinder most of the units even playing in heavy cover in the woods took near 50% casualties. At one point at the top of the map there is nearly 6 units shooting at one in heavy cover. 3 of which are skirmishers and thats like a slow damage over time just picking away at you. I won it decisively but even doing so, having ~3-4k casualties for a minor battle is harsh to recover from that early in the game. After the battle, most of my units were worse than they were before starting the battle because you have to be frugal with veterans. Artillery obviously improved.

Questions:

1) is 12 still the magic # on guns. I looked at your artillery chart and it looks to be the best bang for the buck.

2) IS there a magic unit size that you have found is the most efficient. I have been using max size of 1250 for infantry, 12 guns, 500 cavalry and 250 sharpshooters.

3) Which guns have you found to be best for counter battery fire? I like to clear out the guns before I make my moves but the 3inchers don't seem to do it despite the range.

4) IS there a way to disable timers?

5) Do you have any plans to adjust cannon strength at different ranges? I understand nerfing the 24 howitzers canister, but counter battery feels lacking.

6) when if ever is it worthwhile to use the repeating guns (henrys etc.). I want to try them, but due to the prohibitive cost I am very leery of doing that.

November 3, 2022

Averaging about 2 minutes per "next turn" click. I am in 1903 playing as USA. Not on a potato PC. Doesn't that seem kind of long?

October 20, 2022

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There is a remaining bug of fuel replenishment we need to fix, as ships overconsume fuel, taking into consideration always their last path, even if they are stationary. We will deploy this fix today.

There is no need of supply wagons as we abstractly assume that support vessels follow the fleets and re-supply them. Fleets do re-supply but slower than when they are in ports, so no need to make it more complex.

We need to fix the major bug and also add the fuel replenishment dependency from Transport Capacity.

Thanks for doing this so quickly. Will we need to start a new campaign or will it work with existing campaigns?

October 19, 2022

10 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Please restart Steam to receive the following update!

Beta Update 3 (19/10/2022)

- Fixed multiple pathfinding problems at the map edges and in Gibraltar region. Please report if you have any more map movement issues.
- Fixed the remainder of the turret rotation bug. Turrets should now also follow the hull's listing.
- Fixed some issues with mission mechanics, that could cause inactivity.
- Technology speed up as per feedback.
- Flaws can be overcome with more consistency after multiple refits.
- Balances in Fuel/Ammo replenishment costs.
- Balanced the map movement speed further.
- Fixed problems that could cause auto-design delays and campaign turn delays (It is advised to start a new campaign if turns become awfully slow).
- Fixed operational range slider bug which made it to jitter.

Appreciate your efforts. Don't get down by the few people hammering you. We do appreciate you.

September 8, 2022

I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. they have a shown that they will see things through to the ends. UG:CW was amazing and I loved it. UA:AoS was garbage and I hated it, but they at least finished it all the way.

July 30, 2022

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Unfortunately I have to disagree, again! Other than the 50 ship cap per side, DO NOT CAP BATTLES ANY LESS. Monster battles is the BEST PART OF THE GAME.

Just 1 vote for the other team. Actually, currently, all battles are rather balanced, some big ones, some little ones, some outnumbered ones, all pretty damn good.

Problem is, right now it does not appear engines are optimized to handle it. I fought over 150 ships in a battle and I have a pretty beastly rig and it brought the game to a crawl. Like 1 frame every 5 seconds.

July 29, 2022

7 minutes ago, BuckleUpBones said:

I'm getting figures upwards of 5.5% 1910 BB increases in armor weights. See on my previous post Schwaben design, it's has gone from 32000 tons to 33761 tons.

Which means I or we have to reduce armor for successful designs, that then means all AI armor will reduce too. I guess that all ships have become weaker because of this, they are now more vulnerable. So with reduced armor the game is changing to a shoot-'em-up meta? Is it becoming more arcady?

Im noticing the same thing. I normally go battlecruisers. I can't build them with 16inch guns anymore without stripping the things bare. Yesterday I could

July 29, 2022

45 minutes ago, Eclipse said:

When are we getting subs?

I hope they focusing on improving the existing content and making it work properly before adding more to the mix. tHey still have a long way to go about balancing the tech tree's improving them and giving each country a national flavor. Not to mention fixing things like accuracy, economy, angling of armor, etc.

July 24, 2022

IS it normal that the AI players get like 250 points a turn automatically and I get 0? I am playing Germany and there are no ships in the north sea yet Britain continues to get points every turn. They are not sinking my trade ships, I am sinking theirs according to the messages I see.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Gsam