neph

Awesome list of bug fixes. I've been ignoring the previous releases. Might actually give this one a spin--it looks actually playable. Much love to yall who braved the previous versions of 1.10 & the devs who worked through the laundry list of issues

Thanks Nick! Merry Christmas & get some rest

Super happy to hear of this news! Will always appreciate bug fixing before a rough patch release. Thanks for the update

I'm pretty sure AI also suffer from it, but since their designs are usually so imbalanced or their guns so large that they have nonexistent accuracy anyways it's harder to notice.

I seem to have confirmed that it is indeed a bug in 1.09. I really hope it's fixed in 1.10 thanks to the new model. Will report back on the beta quickly after it is released.

If possible, please fix this bug before shipping version 1.10 tomorrow. We will happily wait for the new beta, if it only goes away. Hopefully, the new gun accuracy model has fixed it already!

Hi @Nick Thomadis& other devs. A while ago, you mentioned that the perceived bug we have been complaining about regarding secondary batteries stopping main guns from firing is not actually a bug, and is working as intended. I was intrigued, as I had never tried using Aggressive mode, so I wanted to test it out. On my first test, I can confirm that--at least in beta 1.09--it very much does seem like either a nasty bug or that gun accuracy information is being relayed very poorly to the player. Let me show you! (I hope that this bug isn't present in 1.10 due to the changes to the gun accuracy model, but just in case, I want to confirm that is is indeed happening as we report). I started by making a very basic heavy cruiser design and fighting some light cruisers. I did nothing special, except that I noticed that it seemed to be worse with many rapidly firing barrels, so I put a long of single 2" guns with shortened barrels & autoloaders. To be clear--this is not required for this bug to occur! I have definitely seen it show up in ships only with a long barrel 4" secondary battery. Nevertheless, I wanted to make sure I found the bug quickly. And I did. On my first attempt to recreated the bug, it rapidly appeared. Here, my main battery has stopped firing regularly. It shows 100% accuracy. Indeed, it is still firing, but very erratically. When it does fire, it hits very reliable, so it doesn't seem that low accuracy is the reason it isn't shooting. Later, my main battery became somewhat more reliable, but my 5" battery stopped firing. Again, it still shows a very very high accuracy & when it does sporadically fire, it hits consistently. And here they have both stopped firing, still with very high accuracy displayed to the player. Per Nick's suggestion of a fix, I put the ship onto Aggressive firing mode. No change. You can see from the Report panel that it has been a very long time since I firing anything. Still, the 8.8" and 5" batteries very erratically fire, and when they do, they hit consistently. You can see from the Shoot Info panel that it's actually saying that my gun splashes are very very slightly helping my accuracy! Again, either this is a bug, or information is being communicated so poorly to the player that it is impossible to tell. You can see that immediately after I turn my secondary battery off, my main battery opens up & I rapidly score many hits (check Report panel). This bug is very frustrating! It means there is no reason to equip your ships with a secondary battery, because as soon as it comes into range, you have to turn it off lest your main guns do not fire.

If the bug fixes are as comprehensive as the feature list, this is going to be a phenomenal update

But you don't hit the belt. You hit the deck. This is an issue that only arose because of the listing/rolling mechanics implemented in the last update (a good change!) It is a specific situation, and it is common. Nearly every vessel lists towards you when you give it flooding damage. It is absolutely enough of a bother! It means torp-laden cruisers stay afloat for orders of magnitude longer than they should while your battleline passes by it, ready to be torpedoed by a ship that should have died in-game hours ago. You don't need to scrap the whole system; you just need to apply the exact same calculations already being made (angle of incidence, ricochet chance, penetration capacity at angle are all already being calculated live) to the single underlying penetration value from which currently underlies the secondary deck & belt pen values. It's actually a simplification of the system--you're making it more straightforward. If you seek to have an accurate model of naval combat, the ability of 3-6" of extended deck armor to resist 18" shells impacting at >70° incidence ad infinitum is clearly an issue. It is a priority.

Absolutely agree. The campaign/world AI & the battle AI needs to agree. If "my convoy is under attack" and I have to pop 30x & wait 5 minutes while you run away, that's just awful game design. Same for ambushes. Don't run your 7 destroyers away if you're going to give me a mission. Same with port raids, etc. Either don't run away or don't give me the mission. Edit: at a minimum, say (on the world screen) "Opponent successfully withdrew" and never put us into the battle. That way I'll know I need to build faster ships.

You don't have any issues with 12" guns being unable to penetrate a listing CL with a 3" deck at point blank range?

The game calculates separate deck/belt pen values, based upon an assumed flat deck & standard ballistic arc. This worked fine in previous versions of the game, where roll from flooding was only a graphical effect. Now, it's entirely common for me to see a light cruiser resist point-blank 12" fire for 100s of rounds. When the ship builder decides you can only punch through 0.5" of deck armor (effective) at <1000 yards, that's what the game hears. We need a unified "can penetrate this much armor" value & calculate whether or not it ricochets/partial pens/pens in realtime, instead of having precalculated deck/belt values based on now-faulty assumptions about the terminal relative angle. Change deck/belt penetration values to--a single penetration value & the angle (from the horizontal) at which the shell will fall--for each given range.

Very true. Yet, at the same time, it's possible to fail to penetrate the deck of a vessel which is rolled nearly over to you, at point blank range. Why? Because the game calculates separate deck/belt pen values, based upon an assumed flat deck & standard ballistic arc. This worked fine in previous versions of the game, where roll from flooding was only a graphical effect. Now, it's entirely common for me to see a light cruiser resist point-blank 12" fire for 100s of rounds. When the ship builder decides you can only punch through 0.5" of deck armor (effective) at <1000 yards, that's what the game hears. We need a unified "can penetrate this much armor" value & calculate whether or not it ricochets/partial pens/pens in realtime, instead of having precalculated deck/belt values based on now-faulty assumptions about the terminal relative angle. Change deck/belt penetration values to--a single penetration value & the angle (from the horizontal) at which the shell will fall--for each given range.

Another "bug": you can have your fleet out at sea bottling up a superior enemy fleet & still be blockaded by it while the enemy hides in port

BUG: You can't send ships to two different but close ports. For example, try sending ships to both Colon & Balboa. They'll always choose one or the other, meaning it's basically always over tonnage & the other is sitting idle. Annoying!

Bug: Naval alliances keep their assets merged for payment in future wars. The US & Russia were in an alliance, & when I defeated them they showed up as a joint negotiation in which I could seize both their assets in the same menu. Later, I got into a war with just the US, but I can still steal Finland from Russia. Not great for them!

Bug: Naval alliances keep their assets merged for payment in future wars. The US & Russia were in an alliance, & when I defeated them they showed up as a joint negotiation in which I could seize both their assets in the same menu. Later, I got into a war with just the US, but I can still steal Finland from Russia. Not great for them!

Did you read what I wrote? I had a half-billion dollar reserve that, in the time between starting a turn, fighting battles, and ending a return, went negative. I wasn't aware there were any instant costs--I expect this is working as intended but it is unexpected & poorly communicated what & why is going on.

How did my funds suddenly get so negative? Is it related to a large battle putting many of my ships into repair at the same time? I've been running a deficit for a while, but I had a good, >500,000,000 dollar buffer that suddenly vanished at the end of this turn.

Bug! Murakumo definitely sank. I fought the battle out, and as Makinami limped out, I used "leave battle" to exit. Yay, Rhode Island joined her sisters as a submarine. Thanks, auto-resolve. But wait... Murakumo is back from the depths. It definitely sank. "Leave Battle" can un-sink ships.

First major fleet engagement, seven years into the campaign. Russia's doomstack annihilated. Every single class of ship I've built so far, in various states of refit, represented.

This will probably get lost in the noise. There's a lot of dissatisfaction & even anger sent your way, but I can't express just how strongly grateful I am to know that you guys are actually, really, listening & caring for everything we say, mean or not. It's an incredible amount of work and it is beginning to show very strongly in the product you have in UA:D. The amount that the game has leapt forward in scope & quality over the last year is incredible for any small development team; not to mention one located in the middle of a nation invaded. I can't express enough appreciation & gratitude to you guys. I wouldn't have ever written all this up if I wasn't certain it'd read listening ears. That's worth so much in a brutal & uncaring industry. Can't wait to see where UA:D goes in 2023; thanks for taking note of the feedback!

Suggestion: say in which ocean/theater a blockade is occurring, instead of having us try to track it down via the tooltips.

This is related to a previously mentioned bug/suggestion, as clarification. War & tension system is very frustrating. I am Japan & I want the Philippines. I have been dutifully stationing modest fleets in Oceania, the Caribbean, and Southern Asia. I have been steadily getting that -2.1 relation per theater, each turn. Slowly yet steadily I work my relations with Spain down to 0... and then... They go to war with the US, and they got to war with Russia. Boom, we're back up to 50 relations. Now, the amount of tension you get seems to be a function of your existing relation. So now, we're going to be earning no tension, or we'll even been increasing our relationship by having fleets there. THIS HAS HAPPENED EIGHT TIMES Any time Spain, or one of her allies, or one of her friends goes to war with one of my enemies, I get a relationship boost that is worth months or years of tension building. It's expensive to have those fleets out there. Devs: Please eliminate or substantially reduce the secondary tension/relation modifier caused when nations go to war.

War & tension system is very frustrating. I am Japan & I want the Philippines. I have been dutifully stationing modest fleets in Oceania, the Caribbean, and Southern Asia. I have been steadily getting that -2.1 relation per theater, each turn. Slowly yet steadily I work my relations with Spain down to 0... and then... They go to war with the US, and they got to war with Russia. Boom, we're back up to 50 relations. Now, the amount of tension you get seems to be a function of your existing relation. So now, we're going to be earning no tension, or we'll even been increasing our relationship by having fleets there. THIS HAS HAPPENED EIGHT TIMES Any time Spain, or one of her allies, or one of her friends goes to war with one of my enemies, I get a relationship boost that is worth months or years of tension building. It's expensive to have those fleets out there. Devs: Please eliminate or substantially reduce the secondary tension/relation modifier caused when nations go to war.