Skeksis

June 26, 2022

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.

June 26, 2022

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.

June 21, 2022

28 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

OK, I may have cracked this... or it could just be bullshit!

I think the pivot point for the pitch offset may be the center of the citadel, thus, in your first example while you have reduced the weight at the bow, you have also moved the center of balance towards the stern. Likewise in your second example, you have added weight to the stern, in the form of both moving a weight backwards and extending the citadel, however this also moved the center of balance towards the stern.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF THE CENTER OF BALANCE WAS INDICATED ON THE Sections VIEW (shouting intended.

)

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

June 19, 2022

2 hours ago, Plazma said:

but in my opinion this version 1.06 15 hotfix we should received on the beginning. Awesome job team, but little naggings below:

Lot's of bug and poor balance yes, a lot of stuff I think will be added too, the work progress right now is very slow and the patches are too much bugged.

I compared this game to Bannerlord, other game in beta state and when the new version is coming out, we have often a one Hotfix after pushed a new version and silence for few days. The progress also is extremally slow in my opinion, but often you have missed content a little bad balance and low amount of bugs, here we have bugs and bugs and balance doesn't exist in 1.06. We have today 15 Hotfix for version 1.06... Something is not okay when you must push hotfix for each day. I hope they tested a new system to delivery the patch to us players and we will don't have something like that in the future.

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!

June 19, 2022

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. ✌️

June 19, 2022

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?

June 19, 2022

2 hours ago, Makko said:

I've been finding the spotting system extremely frustrating lately, this battle is my BB with a DD scouting chasing an enemy DD. The enemy DD is firing at my BB.

Neither my BB nor my DD can see the stupid enemy DD.

This makes 0 sense realistically and is awful for gameplay since this is like watching paint dry.

If ships are shooting at each barring night combat or radar, both of the ships can sea each other. There is no datalinked over the horizon fire control here. The ships in question have vision on each other.

It might take a while to spot the other ship if it is hull down and firing from long range, but it is not impossible like it is currently.

s

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

June 16, 2022

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).

June 15, 2022

35 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Since my previous campaign seemed pretty much stuck with nothing happening I restarted.

This time I avoided all alliance offers and suddenly I can fight a proper war. I can't say for sure if that was the issue, but not getting into any alliances is the only thing I did differently...

Player needs ability to break any alliances whenever the player wants.

Also some minor bugs that may have been passed over…

14 hours ago, kjg000 said:

The "Role" listing still seems to be one off, i.e. you need to select "protect" to get "Invade".

3 hours ago, havaduck said:

Try to only design 1 ship at a time, save, exist the designer. Then reenter and next ship. It routinly crashes for me if I try, lets say, design all 4 classes of a 1890 start at once. Which is why I dont do it anymore because you can spent a lot of time there for naught.

June 14, 2022

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

Cons:

- There are major issues with diplomacy and events related to nations not in game.

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?

June 14, 2022

7 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis I made a test run to see what is possible to get if I set the research tech tree to focus on some specific areas. I was also interesting to know how far could I push the technology in an old hull.

The priority was from the start:

- To get radar, Krupp armor and Induced boilers.

- The moment I got the Krupp armor and Induced boilers, I changed the priority to Big guns, turret mechanism and other techs to save weight.

These are the results:

Radar tech in March 1902. The II version was available in May 1903.

Some images to show the tech progression.

Mark 2 main guns.

Mark3 main guns. Double secondaries. Radar.

Triple main & secondary.

Quad tech. Sadly, the hull didn't allow me to place the second main battery 14 inches 4x turret. But there is room.

The final version. 4 main turrets Mark 5: 3x12 inches and 1x9 inches.

The many refits versions of the same hull.

Two notes to consider from my testing.

- Maybe should be implemented a penalty for researching late tech too soon.

- When going for a refit, I would get a warning that I was moving a tower or a turret too far from the initial position. But, I could just save and do another refit to move again the same component more to the side until I get what I want. So this mechanic is pointless?

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.

June 13, 2022

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

June 13, 2022

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.

June 12, 2022

2 hours ago, CPS said:

Slightly Treasonous this doesn’t make sense. What does having a 43% chance to hit mean if not that out of 100 shots fired you should expect around 43 to hit? I have found there’s a (frustratingly) huge discrepancy between my indicated chance to hit and the actual performance of my gunnery. Why?

"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.

June 12, 2022

1 hour ago, Soxy said:

Is it possible to start a war with your Allies, playing as Germany have defeated Britain and France and they have ceased to exist. My understanding was I can generate tension by moving ships close to other nations borders?

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.

June 10, 2022

Lifeboats won't remove...

British 1910

June 9, 2022

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.

June 7, 2022

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.

June 6, 2022

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.

June 6, 2022

"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".

June 3, 2022

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.

June 2, 2022

6 hours ago, Draco said:

You can only refit existing ships, not build a refit from scratch. Had the same problem in one of my campaigns.

Would be nice if you could though... Kinda silly to have to build a ship with obsolete tech only to refit it the second it's finished.

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.

June 2, 2022

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

June 2, 2022

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%

June 1, 2022

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.

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Gallery

Downloads

Events

Posts posted by Skeksis