Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Speglord

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    106

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Speglord

    Ultimate General: American Revolution has its own discussion page now

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Speglord

    Either way, I imagine they probably plan on releasing the first version of the game on July 4, or will at least announce something on that day.


    Who knows what they actually have planned, though. The screenshots they've released look really promising. For me, the lack of dynamic campaign beyond army sizes really limited the replayability of Ultimate General: Civil War. But if they can pull this game off, and I think they absolutely can, it bodes well for any future games in the gunpowder era (Napoleonics, Civil War 2, Crimean War, Wars of the 18th Century, etc)

    >>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Speglord

    Still seem to be unable to delete old designs from my Ship Design screen, even if I have no ships of that class left. I was able to do this in my last save as France only once, with some old armored cruiser design, but thereafter the button was grayed out. Is there something I'm missing, or is this a glitch?

    EDIT: Forgot to say I appreciate the frequent updates! Game is coming along nicely, and I look forward to the new hulls for this patch.

    >>> Update v1.05 Feedback<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    I've had some decreases in performance (loading time, especially when starting a new game and ending turns) over the last few hotpatches. Sometimes a new turn can take 5 seconds, other times it can take upwards of a few minutes. 

    My computer hardware is pretty capable and I don't really get much lag in battles, so I'm not sure what's causing this.

    • Like 1

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    10 hours ago, o Barão said:

    IBLiqcg.jpg

    Report about the shell dispersion.

    I am still seeing the shells flying to an area far away from the target bearing to the sides.

    In this example above, we can see the shells are all going to miss the target by landing somewhere in an area 500m/700m +/- to the left side of the target bearing (right side in the image) , except one. That lonely shell coming in the middle i know is going to hit the ship. This is how the engine works in the recent updates.

    I hope is easy to see why this is not a normal behavior which we could expect to see in a naval engagement.

    The moment the target is acquired (bearing/speed/distance), we should expect to see a tight "elipse area" where the shells could land. The ship motion in the ocean yes will have an impact to where the shells will land (some closer , some farther away, but not great distances to the sides), or maybe the fire director is using a ladder aiming method to get the distance, but still it should not have an impact to the target bearing.

    What is more strange, is that we had a good shell trajectory mechanic a few months ago. I admit, there was a big issue with "magnet ships" being hit by all the shells aiming at other ship but against lonely targets , imo ofc, it worked well.  

    Yeah, been meaning to mention this too for a while. The aiming of guns seems really off, I don't know what's going on. I'll have battleships with WWI-era rangefinders shooting at targets 12km away and the shots are landing on either side, usually by several hundred meters, if not almost a kilometer. 

    • Like 1

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

    The hovering guns/torpedoes happen when there is a bug/exception of the game, and instead of crashing, it sometimes produces this result. One way to cause this problem (I am not saying it is the only reason) is to manually back up and restore incompatible old saves, or edit saves, and then an updated version of the game tries to read them, but the ship designs have corrupted data for colliders and causes this effect.

    Thanks for the response and info, Nick. I haven't reloaded incompatible saves, so I'm not sure why it happened. Sadly I forgot to report the bug in-game, and instead posted it here. I'll keep an eye out if it happens again.

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    2 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:

    I am not sure if this is a bug or not but even on Legendary I am getting the Allies with very few capital ships.


    The last two times I played Germany 1940 (I just like their hulls) the UK had 1 or 2 BBs and 1 or 2 BCs with less than 30 ships.  Same with the rest of the allies.

    I tried to put it on Historical (In which case the UK should have at least 16BBs and 3BCs) but same thing.

    The Historical/Randomized determines strategic/tactical AI behavior, not fleet composition.

    AI starting fleet sizes/composition will always be randomized; they could be top or bottom heavy. If you want them to have a different starting fleet, then you'll have to restart the campaign. 

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Speglord

    5 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

    I know this was already mentioned, but please, please, please fix formation speed. Always, when not going flank speed, the second ship tries to overtake the lead vessel, raming it, turning, swaying, foiling it's aim. Also, when passing the lead ship, they present an easier target, escpecially for torpedoes.

    This is probably my biggest issue with the game as it currently stands.

    I may be wrong here, but I think I've deduced one of the causes: ships of multiple classes (not even necessarily different types, just classes) in the same formation (battle line). In my French campaign I had two smaller battleships leading the formation, with a super battleship at the back of the line, and the second ship kept running into the lead ship.

    I don't know if this happens in formations with uniform ship classes, but every time I've experienced it so far, it was with a formation with class variety -- as far as I can remember, anyway.

    • Thanks 1

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

    I am not sure about him. But with the nation I tested I never seen the refit option available. I finished some tech that I think could have allowed upgrade.

    You need to open the ship design, then at the top there is a "refit" option. You alter the design as you wish, save it, then select that refit design, select the ships you want to refit (you can use ctrl+click or shift+click to select multiple ships), and hit the button.

    • Like 1

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, AurumCorvus said:

    For one of the most extreme cases ever, there is the IJN's Hiei (wikipedia link). To comply with the interwar naval treaties, she gave up her entire belt armor, a good portion of her armament, and some of her boilers. She was demilitarized and turned into the training ship.

    After Japan exited the naval treaties, they miraculously found Hiei's belt lying around in pristine condition, put it back in, and strengthened it to a uniform thickness. They also reinstalled turrets, made the ship longer by adding to the stern, changed the powerplant, added floatplanes, and did extensive work to the tower and secondary armament. However, there's nothing that would've stopped the Japanese from fitting a completely new belt to the Hiei apart from the cost and industrial work to manufacture such a thing.

    For less extreme versions, the British did a lot of refits to strengthen deck armor after Jutland. I know the Renown class had a lot of completely new deck armor added. Combining with the above, there's really no reason that ships are truly completely bound to the armor scheme that they came out. It's (like you mentioned) a cost and effort vs effectiveness argument. You'd have to rebalance the ship and make sure the belt is thick enough if you change from turtleback to AoN, but there's nothing really that stops you. Superstructure can be removed to get access to the deck armor (after all, towers are often changed around; just see the Queen Elizabeth's gaining the Queen Anne's mansion superstructure).

    There is one practical limit to adding armor, though: the face-hardening process. You can add as much backing as you want; that's the relatively soft metal and doesn't require much. However, you can't make "more" face-hardened armor. That's one of the reasons refitted armor is slightly less effective than true designed-for armor. It lacks the same ratio of face-hardened to soft armor that would otherwise be present (because it only has the 'face-hardened' amount that it originally had).

    The one part I am concerned about is the double/triple hulls, though. I'm not aware of any refits off the top of my head that would give historical justification. But it kinda makes sense if you consider that you're carving out space on the inside to add a hull? Maybe? It's not like a torpedo bulge where you get more displacement; your displacement is fixed, you're just changing the internals, and mostly with structural steel, I would think.

    Pretty crazy, didn't actually know that Washington stipulated Hiei be disarmed.

    • Like 2

    >>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Wanna thank and congratulate the devs on a great patch so far. Enjoyable and the new content is a breath of fresh air -- I'm even more excited for the new hulls, which will hopefully add more early-game variety for other countries (particularly Italy and Austria-Hungary).

    I've already reported a handful of battle bugs in game but wanted to put this here.

    Love the ability to refit ships, which makes the campaign feel more dynamic and gives the player more options on a strategic level. I appreciate that displacement is locked during a refit, but shouldn't other things be locked as well, like hull bottoms (double/triple hulls), the type/quality of the ship's armor (i.e. Compound, Iron, Krupp, etc.), and the citadel/armor layout? I know many battleships were refit in the 30s/40s with added torpedo protection, but as far as I know it's sort of impossible to refit a ship and add/subtract hull bottoms, and it's definitely impossible to straight up change out the armor on ships (... at least, as far as I know. It at least makes more sense to just build a new ship rather than completely strip off the armor from a hull and apply new armor). Anyone else is free to provide input on this one, because personally I'm not quite sure.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...