Stormnet
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stormnet
-
-
So, right now, barbettes are a component of their own. You place them, and then a turret on them. Simple enought, right?
But there are problems with the currente system:
1 - The AI is constantly using wrongly sized barbettes for smaller or bigger turrets for no reason
2 - The barbettes also often dont match similar sized turrets, being a little too thin or too thick for the turret.
This has been suggested a while ago, but one potential solution would be to have an option (like a key press) when placing the turret that toggles bettween no (exposed) barbette, superfiring barbette, (smaller turrets) tall superfiring babette (fires over superfiring turrets). The barbettes would be custom made to the turret type and size (and style) they are a part of, preventing some silly AI designs, and fixing some visual imperfections.
EDIT:
Also, btw, get rid of the "side main guns" submenu. Its just anoying to be constantly switching between central and side main guns submenus when I'm building. Just make placing the main guns the same as placing secs (ofc with the bigger size). If I can center a 5 inch, I dont need computer to help me center a 20 inch.
-
13
-
3
-
-
I LOVE the idea. I support it, really.
But I do wonder what about its implementation.
Like, as you all know, 1x speed in UAD is slow-motion. 3x or 5x is the "normal" speed. But there are problems in changing game speed in a multiplayer game. If one player wants to speed the game up, and the other wants to keep it as it is, or even slow it down, who you give the controll to? Maybe have it as the fastest speed possible based on speed?
-
Well... this thread just exploded...
-
13 hours ago, Shneemaster said:
The protected cruiser's representative in the Aft Weight Offset club
Basically just a Nassau-Class Dreadnought, but on a pre-dreadnought hull.
I also find the funnel quantity funny. The CL has 3 big funnels, while the pre-dread has a single tiny one.
-
17 hours ago, Skeksis said:
No need, just repeatedly click the 'Auto-Build' button, works on any class, any time frame, to a point you can make out what the AI is doing.
Its not just knowing what the AI is up to, its also about making sorta of an album of AI hello kitty-up memories.
EDIT: Wait, how the hell did "hello kitty-up" got into my post? WTF? Goddamn autocorrector misclick.
-
2
-
-
On 4/1/2021 at 2:43 PM, SonicB said:
German Wrath is still a very weird mission. The awful spotting issues with the game in the WW1 tech era are on full display here, with my ship deluged by 12", 9", 7" and even 4" shells with no sight of the enemy. Additionally, the battleships provided by the AI are utterly useless 9" armed pre-dreadnoughts which look like bath toys next to my up-gunned but still 1913-feasible Bayern. If the pre-dreads at Jutland were fünf-minuten-Schiffe these would be lucky to last sixty seconds.
The mission ended in an ignominious defeat when, after absorbing numerous torpedo hits fromcloaked Klingon birds-of-preyRoyal Navy destroyers, my own destroyers hit MY flagship with a four-torpedo spread while it was doing nine knots in a straight line.
Yeah, that one is also somewhat stupid. Not only that, if I try to make a formation (the other low-end allied BBs and BCs screen my 3 BBs with the few DDs you get scouting), the ships just go around in loops trying to get into formation.
IT TAKES AN ETERNITY FOR THEM TO ORGANIZE. And then the enemy arrives and its omnicience comes into play.
I've tried 3 Krieger BBs, I've tried a Armored Tiger BB. They get wrecked if they go alone. The AI just retreats altogheder if I give it control.
This mission is a big fleet battle that requires big fleet tactics that the fleet mechanics suck at.
-
1
-
-
Im seing some UAD top players brawling on who's right on what, so I'm likely about to just walk into a crossfire and draw a target on myself.
I've seen fair points that the rather isolated situations and reported nature of this evidence and near complete lack of insight on how these systems really work in the background makes this an unconfirmed problem.
Maybe the RNG isn't broken by itself. The very nature of unchecked/uncontrolled RNG makes it so situations like almost never hitting/missing even with 70% chance, very unlikely, but not completely impossible. I don't have a single idea on many players UA:D has, but (pure speculation) assuming a thousand play every week, 2/3/4 small battles or 1 big one on average per session, then situations like these that were almost impossible for a single player to get become likely for at least a few players to get them once.
So, while surely unconfirmed, if the RNG really has no checks or safeguards, then these situations might be possible, although if so they apear to rare and neither a widespread nor common issue (the forum would be filled with complaints if so). Not frequent enought for it to be broken, yet not impossible for it to happen.
However, if this problem was ever confirmed, a potential solution for rare events like these could be adding checks (like those I describe above) that detect and intervene in these ocorrences.
Or maybe Im wrong and too inexperienced to know this stuff. Idk.
-
2 hours ago, FREDTIGER72 said:
Hello Cpt.Hissy! Towards the end of the war in the Pacific the Americans had planned to release the new Montana which was to be 5 super battleships with four turrets of three 406mm guns! Longer than the Yamato 260m against 280.57m and also more tonnage than the Japanese battleship: 65030 t against 66,040 t for the USS MONTANA and that with the same belt armor for both ships! You should also know that there are longer ships with more tonnage, eg Symphony of the Seas with 361m and a tonnage of 228,080 t !!! It's all about mass balance! 😉
Jeez man, tone down the letter size!
-
9 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:
Wanna translate that to English please?
In a tower integrated barbette.
-
1
-
-
On 4/7/2021 at 9:26 PM, Antonio Accardo said:
stupidly thick armor (wanna say it was 15.5" on the belt).
You call that stupidly thick? ALL my BCs and BBs come equipped with at least 40cm (15.5 inches) of belt armor.
-
We need to record the AI trends. Right now it is felling like making stuff inspired by the Matsusima cruiser.
-
7 hours ago, Shneemaster said:
We really need more cruiser towers that aren't just downscaled battleship ones. Anyway, here's some more clown cars
Another member of the "Aft weight offset" club. Notice the -20.2% tower/stability accuracy modifier. The Battleship in the background had +25%, and my ships had +35%. Also included: Unnecessary barbette, weird funnel placement, and scatterbrained secondary calibers.
One of the most bizarre turret layouts I've ever seen. No secondaries either. I actually checked and yes:
YES!
This is the quality crap designs that makes me laught and I haven't seen in a while.
Especially the first one. Such versatile floating pile of problems, the aft weight, the thin barbette, the thick and unecessary barbette, lotta secs calliber, and only 2 turrets that the back (asking to take them out).
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, HEEL_caT666 said:
Oh this isnt the only issue that I've found so far. I think since this patch theres also an issue where you can get free mass and money from thin air from duplicating hull designs.
You basically duplicate the hull (so far only tested this in Naval Academy Ship Contructor), and it magically gets lighter and cheaper. This seems like some bug when referencing the original design.
During the bug you get about 25-30% mass and cost reduction for the hull, but at the same time, the bottom UI for selecting guns and towers etc is completely bugged, you cannot select anything apart form the hull selector to reset the hull. However, module selector on the left works perfectly, and you can get things like 44 knot battlecruisers while on maximum bulkheads and Anti-Torp V, and these changes do in fact work in battle.
Another peculiarity with this bug I discovered was when I wanted to try use this dupe bug to swap my guns from 19 to 20 inch in a stubborn mission. Because you cant actually change anything in the duped hull cos of the dead UI, I tried to swap the original hulls guns to 20 inch to then dupe and get free mass - but you cant launch it, says that its overweight! Weird, so I swapped it back to 19 inch on the original hull (without deleting the duplicated hull) and the duplicated hull is now magically launchable.
Software dev friends hinted this could be an issue in communications between prototype object's characteristics, namely tonnage and cost in this case, which is apparently a neat trick to save time on copying the design computationally.
This bug stays persistent each time you click "Rebuild ship" from battle, but fixes itself magically if you exit the constructor while building, or return to contructor after pressing "Retry" if you lost the mission.
Bug report for this has also been submitted.
So, just clicking the plus buttom gives you free mass and money?
IMM GOOOONNA MAKE A 50 KNOT 20 INCH QUAD ULTRA BATTLESHIP RIGHT NOW!!!!
-
This might be usefull in patching the accuracy RNG.
Maybe one way to at least partially fix RNG accuracy would be to add minimum and maximum hit thresholds based on the hit chance. In essence, these mechanisms would analyse the fighting based on the chance % and actual hits. In other words a component specially designed to intervenenin these situations.
If one ship keeps missing (10% constant chance of hitting, but it has fired 30 times without a single hit), or a ship keeps hitting (5% chance, but hits every 3 salvos) then the mechanism comes into action. It would initially increase/lower the hit chance in the background (tell the player his stupidly innacurate guns have 10% of hit, but secretly raise the odds to 20%). If the odds are still messed up, keep secretly raising/lowering the odds until the hits begin to match the "advertised" percentage, and then slowly reverse the changes (while constantly checking the results are stable and not getting messed up again).
In case the RNG is still screwing stuff up, activate
EMERGENCY OVERRIDE PROCEDURE!!!
Which is a excessively cool name for a process which consists of lying to the player about the percentage odds, but ditching RGN all togheder in the background and making a predetermined hit patern. If the chances are 15 percent, then create a shot patern for the next 20 shots, and spread 3 succefull hits (more if the ship was constantly missing, less if it was constantly hitting to compensate the previous results and to aliviate the damage the RGN had caused) randomly throught that patern. Do this for a bit and then gradually reverse the situation.
The main drawbacks of this system, is that im not sure how you could code it to the dynamic odds (but I think the devs can find a way to) and a feel of rubberbanding artificial dificulty for some people (but we aint getting simulated physics anytime soon, so do you prefer these hitting/completely missing against the odds leading to these unfair defeats or undeserved victories?)
This was my crack at this problem (aka, preventing these situations). What do you think about it?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tousansons said:
While money can be important, I prefer limiting factors like naval treaties and geographic limitations like port/dock size in more remote areas.
That will work too.
-
This is a very very old abandoned thread, and I'm writing this 1,5 years after it was posted, but I do wonder if the devs could allow us to mod (even if just visually) this game so people could introduce new turret and hull designs without the team having a bigger stack of work.
Also making it harder or easier sounds apealing.
-
16 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:
There are no actual components defined for it so far. My best guess is that they may separate fuel type from range/speed setting.
Nothing? Not even other options? Did the devs just add a completely empty submenu to the game...
-
4 hours ago, Tousansons said:
All the cruisers/DD's lovers hope that too. We just need to be prepared for disapointment in this area.
We'll see how treaties go. But in a naval game about dreadnoughts I think most "big" battles will be fought and won by BB's and BC's. At the very least it will be more cost efficient and less risky, depending on the AI quality. Cruisers in a BB fight are asking for troubles.
And if there is not enough restriction, why scout/raid with a CA/CL when you can do it with a BC?
I think what will balance BBs and BCs is gonna (if not it should) be the hefty price.
The devs should limit by budget your capital ship numbers, so you might need CAs for smaller engagements or as a supportive role (a normal BB alone cant defeat a group of several ships alone, so you cant just spread them all throught the map and have one defeat a fleet, and since you are not gonna sail in a span of only a few days a fleet of BBs from the north atlantic to the west pacific, you'll be forced to also employ CAs, either as divisions themselves or supporting lone BBs deployed to remote places).
-
Nice work.
Btw, I heard that there is a torpedo propeller fuel submenu in the armaments tab in the designer, but its disabled in the moment. Is it possible for you to try to dig something more out of it (what options might be locked, if there is any code assotiated with that, etc)?
-
7 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
I still have impression that main reason behind stupid AI designs in current version is mostly stupidity of designer itself, AI just does it's best to bypass the problems caused by slap-together-real-ship-parts approach itself and all the unreasonable limitations like "you can't place sanely sized barbette here, only giant one" or "you can't place that turret here just because". And unreasonable possibilities like the big gun on smol thin barbette.
It just does what placement allowances let it to do.Those "stupid" elevated main guns are there because AI wants some secondaries, but designer doesn't allow to place them where they would realistically go. So it puts mains on barbettes and covers the deck below in secondaries.
So, in other words, the AI seeks these exploits and ridicoulous choices so it can do its own little humble thing the designer won't allow it to?
Wow, this got deep all of a sudden... The AI is, therefore, protesting as best as it can against the designer...
Like, I thought the AI was stupid and just messed up. Now its like its just trying to do it's best it can with the restrictions...
Deep.
Btw, it was from this I got the thin barbette thing (outdated, but the AI sometimes feels nostalgic so who knows). A few replies up.
-
Im by far not an expert in UAD, but I usually go for a docrine of Quality over Quantity, priorising tech and armor over numbers, firepower, and speed (with a few notable exceptions, like TPs, which I do the exact oposite).
-
Im seriosly starting to believe the AI is just trying its best to bypass the Dev's patches and outdo itself in creating naval equivalents of the Valiant tank.
On 2/1/2021 at 4:38 PM, Stormnet said:This one is not that bad...
Until I tell you the only armament besides those 5 triple 14 inch guns is...
...a pair of triple 2 inches.
Similar problem here. All the casemates in the world, and you put a pair of 4 inches, 2 triple 3" and call it a day.
Lets hope destroyers are something from an alternate reality... damn it!
Like, this was back in alpha-10 v79, and its gotten even worse.
9 hours ago, Shneemaster said:
This was another ship IN THE SAME BATTLE. I'm noticing a trend. This time, they also removed the secondary battery.
One thing that I noticed is that the AI likes extremes. This is outdated and was back in v79, but in this ship the AI it picked lots and lots of big guns.
On 2/2/2021 at 5:50 PM, Stormnet said:I found another one while I did a battleship vs battleship scenario. I had a 130k ton beast with a quad 50.6 cm sitting in the center, and 6 triple 38.1 cm cannons.
I expected to fight a worthy foe, but I should have known better:
Yes, your silly eyes arent deceiving you:
The 30k ton battlecruisers going along were far more threatning with their 3x triple 33 cm.
Jokes aside, Im pretty sure this will be the absolute worst nightmare of any light/medium ship, its a somewhat fast for a 90 thousand ton battleship, its armor is decent, and that is a strong 24" torpedo armament...
But I dont think lots of butterflies can destroy a tank... especially one with 55 cm of side armor...
Also, the AI used huge barbettes for these tiny guns...
And, if you are ever in this situation, make sure to add a 17.8 cm double to further increase the accuracy penalty.
It also used to and still tries sometimes to do Glass Cannon BBs. I've seen it in the past doing the oposite of thicc barbette thin turret, and putting thicc turret in smoll barbetter. It aparently either wants lots of secs, or next to none. It makes stupid fast ships sometimes. It makes all to the front turrets sometimes. Like, does the AI even listen to the warnings and restrictions?
Its designs might have gotten better, but its constantly doing these "exploits" to bypass the Dev's patches/fixes/rules, sometimes outright ignoring them. Does the AI designer even obey to restritions players have to?
-
2
-
-
Have the devs thought about introducing a rule of "when thinner barbette can be used, use it instead" to avoid AI installing thicc barbettes for skinny turrets. Right now it kinda reminds me of "Caps Lock + Shift" memes.
-
3
-
-
New designs for turrets.
-
1
-
Does anyone else just want to see a 1v1 multiplayer make a ship and fight mode?
in General Discussions
Posted
3 weeks earlier:
Simple 1v1 make a ship and fight mode. (Likely local even)
2 replies.
3 users on the thread.
Silence.
Now:
Full-blown campaign multiplayer mode with several players in the same war.
25 replies.
13 diferent users.
Barrage of comments.
Tsar Bomba of comments intensifies