casperwieik

This is the current state of my transport growth, still shrinking in potential despite not growing. There are about 4 ingame years between these screenshots and the last one was taking during a war, but is this really intentional game design? I would have to spent over 450B to grow my transports 0.05% per turn. Basically useless.

Thank you for another good batch of fixes, but I do keep wondering what is wrong with the transport growth capability continuously shrinking? In my current game it went like this: At the start (1890) it did up to around 7% per turn shrinking down to 1.05% per turn when I reached 200%. At around 1900 it sat at 200% with a max of 0.93% per turn During my Great War (1901-1906) with Britain my fleet size got sunk down to 156%, and I could only gain 0.63 per turn back. And now, in 1909, while being at peace, at full slider, I only gain 0.34% per turn. My transport size is still 156%. It'd cost tens of millions per turn to gain 0.34% transport size. I am not playing with any mods, pure vanilla. Is there some bug in the code or am I doing something wrong? Because every turn, even when I am not investing in growing my transports, the max gain per turn goes down.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but invasions are based on the harbor tonnage available in a province, and NOT on garrison size. You need at minimum to out-tonnage the tonnage of the provinces harbors, and after that either pop or eco size also give some negative effects. Garrison size, as far as I have experienced, has hardly any influence in a succesful invasion. For example, it will basically always be easier to take Wales, Northwest England or the middle English province then it is Southeast Spain, because those provinces only have 1 port each that in an early game do not go beyond 20k tonnage, despite them being industrial powerhouses and therefore extremely valuable targets for an invasion.

Just like Knobby said this never was a problem before. I could easily use all 3 priorities and get to Very Advanced as almost any nation that isn't China before 1900 on an 1890 start.

I have been having this exact same issue. Playing as USA, second largest economy, 3 worst tech despite always investing 100%. Yet at the same time Britain, which I decimated basically (Even took Wales) is still on Very Advanced and growing its world leading economy despite being reduced to Ireland and England (Scotland broke free). Some other old issues I really, REALLY want fixed are the transport investment becoming downright unusable after getting 200%, losing some and then only gaining 0.68% on a full slider when I'm back to 158% after a war. And ships that carry main battery on both the centerline and on the sides still get a weird accuracy bonus for centerline guns, like in this example of a British semi-dreadnought.

An amazing update so far. The one thing I would still like to see changed is the previously mentioned US 16-inch guns. Those should be either Colorado Style or NC/SD/Iowa style. Having them be the US 203mm turret design feels very off and ahistorical.

Scratch that, tried the battle again, same result. British laser guided early dreadnought hammering away at any chance I'd have at winning this decisively in my favour battle by sheer number and firepower. Seems to happen to main caliber guns on the sides of the ship, although if they are of different calibers (Brits also had some dual caliber BB around) it doesn't happen very often. Still, very annoying bug that makes battles around this era very unfair.

I was gonna post on the transport issue as well, since it's been bothering me to no end lately. Currently in a 1890 start US run where I 200%ed transports right away. It's now 1918 with alot of wars and new conquests so transport losses are somewhat common. However I cannot get more then 0.13% at full investment now. Another issue I am having lately is laser-guided ai BB. Last battle I (tried to) fought had an enemy BB with 80% accuracy on its main guns, where every other BB, mine and theirs, had around 6-8%. This is usually combined with a single shell dealing over 50% structural damage and over half the ship flooding. Don't have a screenshot sadly since I restarted that save because HMS Bulwark sank one of my BB with every single salvo...

Okay, different question but also economy related. Is anyone else having the issue that once you've reached 200% transport capacity once, and it then goes down again due to transport losses you are only able to get about 0.30% per month on full boost?

I am loving the new update, but on my current US run I have run into something that is currently bogging it down completely. I am at perma war with Japan and China because they don't have any real fleets and I cannot siege down their main ports yet since its 1901. Any ships they do have are sailing around as single ship formations (The British are doing that too, very annoyingly) and never seem to get caught in battle. The perma war has already stopped my economy from growing and having to balance a fleet in Asia and in the Atlantic means my transports are now also suffering. Please add something of a stalemate peace so that if a war goes on for over 2, 3 years without borders changing so you can go back to focussing on matters that are actually important to grow your navy and economy, because right now I fear my save is going to have to be reset.

Alright, couple things about Britain: A: Battlecruiser V can currently only fit the smallest primary tower, and none of the larger secondary towers, meaning it can only ever slot 1 funnel on superstructure, meaning either alot of weight into funnel capacity upgrades or space for a hull-mounted funnel. B: Maybe add some Pre-dreadnought hulls that can recreate the British 2nd class battleship concept? Faster speed for slighty less armour and smaller caliber main batteries? Cuz Britain only has 2 pre-dreadnought hulls right now, which feels kinda tiny compared to the amount of BB classes they churned out between 1885-1906

Has the release date been pushed back? It's been longer then "the end of next week" from 31 august.

This update seems to be a very nice step in the right direction. The loading issues between turns and when leaving the refit-menu being solved are a godsend. The only question I have regarding the future is this: Is it possible to add mod-support via steam for the game? I do not know how long UA Dreadnoughts will stay in active development, but giving the playerbase themselves the tools needed to add or balance stuff would probably also make it easier on you guys' part since (hull) requests could be done by the playerbase themselves.

I started a new game with patch 1.3.5 and I've just gotten into my first war (Britain Vs China), so I moved my fleets to intercept the Chinese ones. However, I can only make my fleets circle around theirs and cannot send them directly into the enemy location on the map, or into the entire ZoC around them, and I am getting zero naval combats. In the meantime Chinese armies are making progress into my Indian possessions and I can't do anything. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

The Devs have said that the way the map looks now is not going to change, it will stay bordered. Also, currently it has no impact on gameplay in any significant form since you can move fleets and fight in the pacific without issue.

I wholly support this. If it is viable to implement modding support for UA: Dreadnoughts, then the devs shouldn't have to worry about missing out on "Important" hulls anymore, since this community will probably jump at the opportunity to have their own favourite design in game. Also, something I just realized: Please run over every hull and superstructure for colliding gun mounts, some gun mounts cannot currently be used at all because even the tiniest calibers will collide with the superstructure or hull, or are so big that they cannot be placed on both sides. Example: US Cage mast main towers have space for one barbette style secondary on each side of the conning tower, but no guns can fit because they collide with the backwall of the collision model of said towers. There are also alot of modern superstructures that suffer this problem, leaving weird empty spaces that look like they should hold a gun, but are not.

Sorry mate, but the C Class cruiser is a British light cruiser series of designs. 28 were build between 1913 and 1922 to seven different but similar versions of the same base form. The first of these were still old style with mixed main battery and the main battery placed along the sides of the ship, but the later classes resembled a more modern form with 5 6-inch guns on the centerline. Very ordinary and not really unique ships, they served as the basis for the Danae, Emerald and Hawkins classes of cruisers, served throughout the world, and two world wars. One, HMS Caroline, is preserved in Belfast in a vastly modified state after having been used as an accomodation ship all the way untill 2011, almost 100 years after she was laid down.

I'll leave most of the technical stuff to others, and, as someone deeply interested in naval history, focus on what hulls I believe should/could be added, and in which order. This scheme is merely a suggestion btw, and kudos to your lone modeller for all the amazing stuff they have already made. Priority hulls: These should be added first to close currently existing gaps in certain nations's hull lineup America: Battleship hulls covering 1910-1930. This could easily be completed in 4 (or less) hulls (one of which is already under development now) in Wyoming/Florida (1910-1915) - New York/Nevada (1915-1920) - New Mexico/Tennessee/Colorado (1920-1925) and South Dakota (1925-1930). Of these, next to New York, having a hull based on the later Standards would be the best follow up. /\ Additional superstructures for CL so that will be possible to recreate the Omaha class (Scout Cruiser hull) and the Helena Class (Currently not possible due to CL superstructure coming with barbette). /\ A DD hull based of the Flush-Deckers like the Wickes and Clemson classes. Austria-Hungary: Battleship hulls for as far as they are historically possible. The Tegetthoff class BB would be an excellent 1910-1925 hull if added in several sizes. Other options could include the semi-fictional Project series of Battlecruiser studies. France: After the US and AH in terms of Dreadnought hulls the most lacking. The most interesting hull to add would be the Normandie since the class was actually laid down unlike the Lyon and its extremely unique unlike generic old Bretagne and Courbet. Still, all of these hulls could be contestants for addition to the game. /\ As mentioned before a superstructure representing Algerié to create distinct French cruisers. General: More unique cruiser and destroyer superstructures. Right now most nations use the same cruiser and DD hulls past 1920 with only Japan, Italy and Germany getting hulls that represent a class of theirs (Myoko-Zara-Deutschland). The current late-game DD hull for most nations is best resembling British design, but does not cover the US, Germany, France etc in a representative manner. Long Term: These could eventually find their way into the game, either as post-release updates or as DLC Britain: Queen Elizabeth class BB and Admiral class BC. Two of the arguably most historically significant classes of warship in the modern era. Neither are a priority because it is already possible to get kind of close to a good representation (Especially QE post refit) but these would give Britain a good mid-game combo for hard hitting shellslingers. Also the Town class CL and the County class CA, to give Britian a consistent flavour of ship design. Germany: König or Bayern class BB. Right now Germany already has a magnificent SMS hull that is perfectly able to represent most BC and the Kaisers, so this hull would complete the Imperial picture. Also giving Germany superstructures for the earliest Dreadnought hulls to represent Nassau and Helgoland would be nice. Furthermore a CL hull for the Königsberg/Leipzig class to give the Germans a personalized late-game small cruiser hull. Russia: Hull(s) based off of the Imperatritsa Mariya/Imperator Nikolai BB's and the Izmail/Borodino class BC. These differ from Gangut (already somewhat in game) in their turret and secondaries layout, with slight differences to the superstructure too. Also a hull or superstructures for the Kirov class cruiser for much the same reason as Britain: Flavour. Besides the later game stuff it would be a crime not to include the Pallada class in a game about warships. Wether it would be the class as build or based of off how Aurora is currently preserved is up to the devs. And lastly a personal sweet ship of mine: The second Rurik. Probably after Blücher the best designed armoured cruiser the world has seen. Sleek, strong and fast, I've always had an interest in her. Japan: A giant Armoured Cruiser hull/early small BC hull representing the Tsukuba and/or the Ibuki classes (Not the WoWs version) These were enormous armoured cruisers that were basically akin to pre-dreadnoughts in terms of firepower (They carried 2x2 12-inch guns) that sacrificed the armour of a B for speed. They are generally considered CA although the Japanese reclassified them BC after the appearance of Invincible. Furthermore getting a hull that can represent the Amagi, Tosa and Kii classes would be interesting. Italy: A hull to represent the Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes, either as-build, post-refit or both. Furthermore a small cruiser/destroyer leader hull that can represent the Capitani Romani class. Spain: Leaving out their only noteworthy historical designs would be slightly bad. Think Espana class BB, Canarias class CA and Blas de Lazo/Almirante Cervera class CL's. Wacky Stuff: Hulls that would be funny to have in-game but have either no historical significance, aren't historical at all, or wouldn't be that effective in combat Japan: An early game hull representing the Canet gun armed class of cruiser (Matsushima) used during the First Sino-Japanese war. These were single 32cm (12.6 inch) guns mounted on hulls that didn't even reach 5.000 tons loaded. They were considered a failure, although had some successes against the Chinese. Furthermore Design B-65 (which is what Yoshino is modelled after in WoWs) for a late-game Large cruiser. America: The Lexington class BC as imagined with more funnels then I am willing to count. I do not make this up, this was seriously a concept. Furthermore the Chester class "scout cruiser", because Snoot (They would be very weak ingame, as they can really only support 4 5-inch guns). Britain: HMS Alexandra, a central battery ironclad that was kept in service untill 1900, well passed her obsolescence. Also the Dido I guess. Maybe hulls based on Minotaur and Goliath as they are in WoWs aswell. Russia: Donut shaped ironclad go woosh. And the Stalingrad and Khronstadt would be interesting late-game Large Cruisers I guess. Germany: I would recommend Siegfried here, but its already in game now with the coastal battleship hull. Uhm.... okay, L-20a class as an interbellum battleship hull. France: A hull based on the concept behind Émile Bertin: A very, very fast cruiser (Think 34kn cruising, 40kn max) that has absolutely no armour at all. Zoom and Boom, my friends. Spain: Pelayo and Carlos V since some people think these two ships could have single handedly change the result of the Spanish-American war... somehow. China: Ping Hai/Ning Hai, just about the only class China laid down between losing the Beiyang fleet and purchasing second hand Soviet destroyers for a navy. They are not listed above because they are, even by cruiser standards, pitifully small and rather weak. Italy: Want 18-inch guns in 1890? Well Italy did! Their Dulio class ironclads decided that instead of waiting for technology to actually make them feasible, they were gonna have their giant boomsticks now, dammit. Besides that joke, seeing Dante Alighieri in game at some point down the funnel would be very pleasing indeed. Thats all the ships I could think of that I'd think deserve being added into the game at some point (or are jokes) After that rant, I only want to add a little note on turret tier models. Right now alot of nations use models that aren't theirs or are for another era entirely. Italy using Zara style gun turrets from tier 3 is rather strange, but the US using em too is straight up immersion breaking. Therefore I made a small schematic for these two nations to change the gun models per tier: America: Tier 2 10+ based of off South Carolina/Wyoming style turrets. Tier 3 10+ based of off New York/Nevada/Pennsylvania style turrets. Tier 4 10+ based of off New Mexico/Tennessee/Colorado style turrets. Tier 5 as they are now (Iowa style). Italy: Tier 3 10+ based of off Dante Alighieri/Conte di Cavour/Andrea Doria style turrets. Tier 4 10+ based of off Fransceco Carraciolo style turrets. Tier 5 10+ based of off Littorio style turrets. Thank you for reading my Ted rant.

In general I am very pleased by Alpha 12, but I have noticed a few things that are (or are still) bugging me: 1: I understand and will not condemn reusing hulls for different nations and/or shipclasses, but seeing the coat of arms of a German aristocrat on my new ITA modern battleship (the new modern hull. which is an enlarged version of Graf Spee) ruins the scene a bit. Same goes for the new ITA dreadnought that's based off of the Fuso design, it still has the Imperial golden sun on the bow. 2: small secondaries [not casemates] (2 and 3 inch) are placed in turrets far too early, both historically and ingame designwise. Most (pre-)dreadnought hulls don't have the space to fit actual 2-inch turrets where 2-inch secondaries can be placed (such as on the bridge), so it throws a "not enough space/overlap" error most of the time meaning those gunslots go wasted. It also isn't very aestethically pleasing. Seeing the return of gunshielded 2 and 3-inch single guns untill about 1920 (when nations started modernizing what they had due to the Washingon treaty) would greatly enhance the looks and design choices of early game. 2.5: On some later hulls the mirrored secondary slots are placed so close together that they cannot actually fit besides eachother, so the game only adds the one on the side you clicked, and leaves the other side empty. Should you try to fit a gun there yourself it will just say it overlaps with its twin and wont allow placing. Also on the Graf Spee main tower one set of secondary slots cannot be fitted at all with guns as it apparently overlaps with the tower itself (thus making the slots currently completely unusable). 3: On the tumblehome type pre-dreadnoughts which can only fit 4-6 inch casemates in two sets of slots in the bow/bridge area, on the set below the forward main turret, anything larger then a 4-inch gun will not fit inside the casemate and be partially visible outside of the hull. 4: On my copy of the game the Germans had Japanese styled torpedo launchers and the Japanese had German styled torpedo launchers :P Nothing else caught my eye in a buggy way. The quality of the new ship models is amazing and it has overal greatly improved the game both in designing new ships and playing battles.