Skeksis

The game still stalls with “Building Ships”. The fact that you can use the exit game menu and re-continue the campaign, suggest building ships loop is complete and it’s something else. I.e. the game is still processing messages. Also I noticed this happens when, in the same turn, tension has increased to war.

With update 15, as Germany, I could war with France and hold off Britain with diplomacy. Update 18 added (or improved) forced bilateral tension, this completely stages wars now, it forces Britain to ally and war soon after France's war declaration. Ditto for the axis. This happen every single game I tried to play as Germany 1910. I DON’T WANT TO WAR WITH BRITIAN. Meaning I want to war when I choose, as with update 15. IMO, continuous war means, build fleet – fight war – make peace rebuild fleet – fight war – so on and so on. With 10 nations that’s the only way for an open word campaign to work, it should be impossible to fix wars on a worldwide 50 year scale. As described in the original concept, to fight the “what if” wars, with whoever (whoever is the assumption). For the player to choose tension and not for the choice to made for you by the game with forced bilateral tension. IMO diplomacy development has lost sight of the original concept. If development isn’t crafted towards the end game then it means re-writes and a whole lot more of frack up issues. Breaking the game again and again and again, to which most should be fixed in this patch and held to the end game. Sorry for the criticism but UAD isn’t following its original concept. And players expectations. Diplomacy is one sided and alittle undesirable to play.

This is tripping up even the more senior players!, maybe Dev's could show/add a gravity ball.

Don’t forget, if the testing that we have done was in-house it would have been months if not years before content could be released. By passing some, most, of the testing over to us it has speed up the development process, even speed up what has taken 15+ updates, we have saved in-house time expenditure. IMO this process is still justified, no matter the bugs, we get to play too!

One thing is clear, with the commination of diplomacy, economics, geographic entities and world armada's and all those generated results, it's a very hard and complex composite to accomplished. So many moving parts. But update 15 feels better, we're getting close, just a few more piece's to put in place and the team can conclude 1.06. ✌️

Update 15 diplomacy working without issues so far, on my side anyway, it's looks and feels good. But I haven't had any convoy/transport missions yet, 1910 to 1913 May, neither to attack nor to defend when 'Invade' and/or 'Protect' status set. There use to be many but not one yet. Any one else the same?

Sometimes enabling DD auto helm will catch up and spot the runaways better, faster.

Currently it seems alittle randomized, very inconstant, or if there's a difference from delay, maybe there’s an algorithm, I don’t know. But if not then rather than random or as per current results… 'Withdraw' could be a test base on fleet speed: Extract slowest ship and visibility range of player. Extract fastest ship and visibility range of AI. Run battle initialization (scaled down version), to extract distance (position) between fleets and visibility penalties. Compute if fastest closest ship can catch slowest closest ship before 30m battle timer runs out. Show result. Maybe make repeatable (because actually going into battle would run the battle initialization again producing different distances, so being repeatable would normalize battle distance variances, ditto for visibility). ‘Delay’ remains as current algorithm but make it so player can use it as an backup option if ‘Withdraw’ consistently fails. Also as suggested, it would create a significant difference between 'delay' and 'withdraw'. More to the point, if we don’t want to fight, we have to go into battle then turn the fleet away and run, useless activity but always the same result, we escape. But there’s really no need for this. If ‘withdraw’ worked as above, it would save unnecessary battle instances and be a ‘real’ or practical campaign option to take. QOL. PS Maybe make repeatable.... Other than this the approach could be, is once the battle initialization was run, it’s fixed and saved, then if there’s a failed result and if the player continues into battle, the initialization would be transferred into the battle instance (or elements of it, positions, visibility penalties).

Player needs ability to break any alliances whenever the player wants. Also some minor bugs that may have been passed over…

I’m starting to think full diplomacy has been retracked somewhere between updates 9 or 10, defiantly 11. I.e. mostly wars don’t end in update 11. What we have now is continuous campaigns, 1.05 campaigns prolonged. Also this is new area of development for the team, maybe we’re in the realm of testing concepts?

An idea is to only enable research boost for discovered tech, this should slow tech boosting by 50%. That’s how I play anyway, boost 1 or 2 tech just to get them over the hurdle and timed for new hulls and there design. Penalties or hard caps seems too controlling, very unsandboxie.

What's needed is the hotfix number included in the version text e.g. 1.06.11 Beta.

After battle the AI actually has a turn, essentially it’s still the players turn. E.g. as Britain, Germany asked me for a peace deal. But it’s not their turn. I guess there’s nothing really wrong with that specifically, if it works. Not many other games do it this way. Maybe AI diplomacy should be within their turn. If this was so then relationships might run alittle smoother too. E.g. War: Britain (player), France vs Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary. Chain of possible AI events in a single turn: Germany asks Britain for peace, Britain agrees (via message-box - player interaction). Mediterranean German port near Austro-Hungary is given to Britain, tension changes. Relationships updated. Germany asks France for peace, France declines. Relationships updated. Germany deploys. France asks Britain to continue war with Germany, Britain declines, breaks alliance (message-box). Relationships updated. France deploys. Updated Austro-Hungary calc’s war is untenable to continue with Britain, France and breaks alliance with Germany. Austro-Hungary asks Britain for peace, Britain agrees (message-box). Relationships updated. Austro-Hungary asks France for peace, France agrees. Relationships updated. Austro-Hungary deploys. Italy asks Germany to continue war with Britain, Germany declines, breaks alliance. Relationships updated. Italy asks Austro-Hungary to continue war with France, Austro-Hungary declines, breaks alliance. Relationships updated. Italy deploys. Relationships update finished. War continues with France vs Italy, Germany. Britain, player turn, to deploy, rebuild fleet etc. How can all of this take place just after a battle? It must be problematic to say the least. Every nation having a turn within player's turn??? or even within other AI turns??? Any one of those decisions should be different leading to even more computing or an updating of relationships which changes things again, more complex. Even far more complex turns within turns, what a minefield. I’m suggesting player completes all battles first, does deployments etc., completes turn, then the AI nations do their stuff, in turn.

"Hit chance always changes". Starts off at 0% (laddering), then maybe 1.2% later 3.4% and finally with your example all the way up to 43%. Which you will then hit 43/100 times (about!). But that hasn’t happen yet, your screenshot is of that moment, not everything that has happen before or leading up to. You didn't start off at 43%. Damage done, exampled at 6.6% is the hits received total over time from 0% to 43% accuracy. Continue the battle at 43%+ and you will see hits received % climb rapidly.

It would be absolutely stupidly crazy to only have 2 sides with 10 worldwide nations. So one must conclude diplomacy is rigged, for now. Full sandbox mode where the player chooses who to war against and who to make allies with must still be on the cards. So I'm guessing we’re stuck with limited nations/sides and an un-sandboxed campaign until future patches/full diplomacy is ready.

Lifeboats won't remove... British 1910

Another update good......but...... I can’t get pass the designing stage before another one drops. 😵 But guy’s like @Lima can and they’ve uncovered many long campaign issues, 6 significant posted in the last 24hr by Lima alone. It's ok though, it doesn’t matter about beta’s, we chose this, chose many updates. But I think there should be a longer testing phase for 1.06 before going live so this stage can be reasonable tested (by us slower folks too). And to back that up alittle: Progress wipe’s decisions on the live version shouldn’t be taken lightly, very careful consideration is needed. Wipes at 1.05 and 1.06 and 1.07 and and and… is too much. Players need alittle more time to at least complete some content/campaign. Long campaign is long time! Just saying there's a risk of hotfixes on the live version with wipes included. IMO more time is needed on this version for some of us to get through fully tested campaigns.

It's an odd situation, 'ally battles after peace'. Made peace with Germany but I have an alliance with France but they are warring with Germany, so technically speaking, I should still shoot them!, right? maybe not, I wanted peace too. Screenshot is straight after agreeing to peace. Germany (game) didn't or doesn’t have enough time to withdraw. They should, I just made fools of them, also screenshot shows they still want to poke the bear. 1) Maybe immediately after peace agreements, there should be options to break any/all alliances to give total peace with capitulating nation a chance. 2) Or for a month or two, or a given time, the ‘Delay’ and ‘Withdraw’ battle options should be automatically enabled (I checked those battles, they were all greyed out) and given a high chance or automatically given a successful result. To ensure peace. If option taken then some negative relations towards waring ally. Anyway, in whatever case there should be an avenue for total peace, shouldn't have wait for the French ally (game) to decide my destiny.

Issue, battle ended while attacking transports. Battle mission included “destroy all transports”. Had DDs sinking transports and BC killing last CA, when CA sunk the battle ended, still had more transports to sink, all were in sight. I did lose sight of enemy transports at one stage but by luck, the CA/CL battle had circle back around onto the transports again, haha. Anyway battle should not have ended. Sorry no screenshot for proof, was in dismay before realizing to quickly get screenshot before ending screen.

"Gamey" solution/counter to "always bigger best”. If caliber and barrel length from 1.1” to 20.9” could be linear over gun mark specs, to calc damage, accuracy and range. Then it’s the ‘gun mark’ that can be the difference between caliber adjustments, e.g. 12.0 to 12.9. Say: if the research for 13” is at mark I and 12” is mark III, then adjusting 12” gun caliber up could scale mark III specs down to mark I specs. Vice versa for calibering down guns, 12" to 11.1". Therefore, only if the next caliber gun has a decent mark, will it be worth calibering up the guns. Or for the player to find their best medium. So not "always bigger best".

Flash Fire Chance, initial base figure, all hulls, all classes, all nations: 1940 104.8% 1935 104.8% 1930 104.8% 1925 116.1% 1920 134.1% 1915 146.3% 1910 155.9% 1905 140.0% 1900 100.0% 1895 100.0% 1890 100.0% Between 1900 and 1930... "there is something wrong with our bloody ships today". *Update 3*. E.g. with all 1910 reducing 'flash fire chance' options set, you can't get below 30%. Though I haven't continue into the campaign yet, it is most likely your ships aren't going to be very stable.

You can copy the refit design, then build that as new. ------------------------------------- With the Citadel Armor (previous post), I think it helps to take down base damage, turns full pen into partial pen. Probably most effective against HE base damage. Counter would be increased fuse time, i.e. shell explodes pass the citadel. Just guessing, hard to confirm.

Target Signature on all main towers, secondary towers and funnels is 0, all classes.

Flash Fire Chance seems alittle out of whack... Version v1.05 example, 43.4% Latest update example, at 146.3% With finished campaign ship below, the Flash Fire Chance should be about 8.0% - 8.7% but it's at 37.6%

Oh crap. I thought with the month time notation removed (didn't work), so was the research speed penalties. Ok if notation removal is an accident/bug, fair enough, but if this is intentional, to hide the penalties from 'unwillingly' players, then that really sucks big time. Bring back research speed notations. Be fair to the player.