Zombie1914
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Zombie1914
-
-
Not implemented yet for all nations.
As far as i am aware only the french get the quad secondarys for now.
-
You got that right.
Pen and ammo type (detonation delay) define where the main damage (shell detonation) and secondary damage (penetration) happens.
Sometimes you get lucky and while your shell is over-penetrating and exploding outside the target you were still able to hit a vulnerable part of the target (Bridge, Boilers/Engines, below waterline) for the extra damage.
If you see a lot of over-pens you might want to rethink your shell types or switch AP for HE.
Lets say you have a 16" gun with default high pen but your targets are lightly armored cruisers it would be better to go with a shell type with less pen so you do not get the over-pen effect.
That being said i personally prefer my load-out to have a bit of pen on HE (nose or base fuse) and max pen on AP with increased HE for the main guns to balance effectiveness vs different targets.
-
Another questionable VP calculation:
No damage taken & only 1 crew lost, 2x CL sunk and they still get more VP?
Is the ammo i spend on sinking them more expensive than the ships themselfs or how does that work?
PS:
Oh and in the summary both of my ships show with "light" damage....
-
Latest itteration looks good and stable to me, research speed is fine too for now.
Some small issues that are still a bit annoying:
- Inability to use conquered ports, i think that is campaign must have
- Provinces dont seem to impact GDP
- VP bug is back in some very rare cases (only had it 2x in the last few days)
- Win / Defeat calculation is sometimes questionable (see screenshot)
How is that now a win? (time ran out btw)
From my point of view the 1.06 is ready for release as soon as conquered ports are usable, rest is minor bugs and balancing issues that can wait til 1.07+.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, o Barão said:
Let me explain more in details, so there is no confusion here.
There are many things where we as the player cheats in battle. It is all related to crucial information that should not be possible for us players to have.
1- When you spot a ship, you will a "?" mark about the ship class. This is to simulate your sailors trying to identify the targets at sea. Well, this is useless when you can just teleport your camera to the enemy unit and see what is the ship. This would be very important in a real battle to prioritize targets, set a battle plan, etc. In this game is irrelevant.
2- When an unknown enemy ship show up, you will know by clicking on the ship, what weapons the ship have and what is the weapons range. You will know this by looking at the circles in the sea. So you will know from the start if a ship have torpedoes or not and if you're inside their torpedo range as an example.
3- When an unknown enemy ship show up, you already will know if they can pen your ship armor by hovering the mouse above your ship.
4- When a target is identified, you will know exactly, their accuracy level for each gun updated in real time, their crew training level, how much ammo they have onboard, if they launched the torpedoes, and a detailed report about the ship damage.
So in conclusion, the player have access to a lot of NONSENSE BULLSHIT info that helps a lot in making the right decisions to win the battle easily. This is completely wrong and makes the game a lot easier for the player.
So it is a little ironic to see players complaining about how weak the AI is in battle, or if the AI cheats, when it is us the players that have access to crucial information to make everything easier for us.
PS: Have you seen the way the AI dodging torps?
Yes of course. Terrible. I hate to see a ship doing a 360-degree turn in the same spot. However, if you set your ships to AI control, you will get the same thing. So is it cheating if you can have the same thing? Or is in fact more of a situation of tweaking the AI ship movement?
I see your point but most of the information gained through the ship identification is not as relevant as you make it sound.
Yes, eyeballing the ships gets you a better idea of their abilities but you would normally have Navy Identification Charts and basic intel available so its not that much of a cheat. Ship size, smoke and attack pattern/behaviour telll you pretty much all you need to know. Even the spotting order and/or seeing some smoke clouds closing in is good enough information for most battles.
e.g. you see some small ships on a course near you and they suddenly start turning away, you can bet there are torps on the way
Sure, the AI might have Veterans on board and better accuracy on its guns but knowing this honestly doesnt change how to attack him. Yes, i would try to out-range the oponent if i knew that i have more range but how often is that actually viable.
Yes, just because my own AI can do it too i still consider it cheating because its BS and honestly made me giving up on fitting torp entirely.
-
41 minutes ago, o Barão said:
However, I need to add this. Before accusing the AI in this game of cheating, know that in reality the big cheater in this game, is us the players, not the AI. We have unrealistic access to critical information that changes completely the battle dynamic. The game would be a lot harder and fair for both sides if we didn't have this intel.
The AI has access to all the critical information (and is usually much better at interpreting it).
The only "cheating" part on the player side is being able to interpret certain predefined AI behaviour and reacting accordingly but this is true to any game with a very few exceptions.
That being said the ability of the AI to fire torps in an coordinated offset pattern and my experience of getting hit by torp salvos out of nowhere, after several course changes when i myself didnt even know that i would be moving on the new course, makes the AI torp aiming questionable at best.
PS: Have you seen the way the AI dodging torps?
-
2 hours ago, AdmiralObvious said:
Is it intentional that torpedoes always deviate course to the right?
Yes, including the dud mechanic. That being said i also get the impression that the torps have a much longer range than indicated.
But AI is a dirty cheater when it comes to torps anyway.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, ZorinW said:
And what is that crash handler?!
It is part of the Unity Game Engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(game_engine)), which is apparantly what is used for UAD.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ZorinW said:
That's wild, how come it is that different?!
Did a few changes to the resolution, no change to resources used.
Opened the ship designer and RAM usage increased by 0.1GB but nothing on the CPU/GPU.
Havent had any battles yet, maybe thats whats lingering in the RAM for you?
-
12 minutes ago, ZorinW said:
How much memory does the game use when you are in the campaign main screen? Mine sits at around 6.2 GB and CPU and GPU are at 0%.
Pretty much the same as seen on the screenshot.
1.6GB RAM and not much extra on the GPU RAM.
GPU usage 7-38%, CPU less than 2% most of the time.
Only running Steam and Firefox in addition to UAD
-
VP calculation is still just silly.
1890s German campaign, March 1905 and never build any ships.
Already won against the French and now winning again vs A-H.
Almost like i was sending some army over instead of a non-existing fleet.
-
Hanging in "Building New Ships" again but at least the GPU is doing something (whatever that is):
Rest of the system is bored though.
I really hope that this gets fixed as a priority. Having to restart the game every few rounds is rather frustrating.
-
Seriously, Update 18 is pretty bad.
The stability is actually getting worse and i am experiencing more issues than in the last 4 updates combined.
On a positive note:
Seems the number of deck hits is reduced but i have not had enough battles to really get a feel.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, kjg000 said:
1.06.18 build.
Many, many still unresolved problems and no indication that the Devs are even listening to any but a very few of us;
- STILL getting the “building Ships” lockup. In 1.06.18 games these have started as early as April 1900 after a 1900 start.
- STILL getting battles with 40 or more TB, DD and LC. While such battles can be rewarding if encountered once in a while, when it is nearly EVERY battle it is game breakingly tedious not to mention historically inaccurate.
- STILL getting “chase the horizon” encounters where an encounter is forced but the player just spends hours chasing an unseen enemy, even when our ships are equipped with RDF or RADAR and are faster than the enemy ship. Once again, if the enemy is not going to engage DO NOT generate the encounter, or at least don’t force the encounter.
- STILL getting the AI building far too many small ships.
- STILL difficult, sometimes impossible, to balance ships but no hint of a solution such as an auto balance. Although at least the Devs have instigated the center of gravity indicator.
- in 1.06.17, unconfirmed as yet in 1.06.18, STILL getting a free pass for transports once all of their escorts have been sunk. Either let us chase them down or assume they were sunk.
- STILL no way to force a war.
- STILL getting info boxes disappearing off the screen/window.
- STILL no scroll bar on info boxes. I assume such boxes are an object, add a scroll bar to the object!
Less importantly;
- Still no link from ships in the Fleet screen to the Refit function! C’mon guys, this should just be a link!
- Still can’t build directly from a Refit design, again little more than a link.
- as of 1.06.17, surrendered ports still not working. Unreliable whether we can dock our ships but if we do and that ship needs repairs, then the repair function for that ship can be permanently disabled.
- as of 1.06.17, still having problems with prize ships stuck in enemy ports. Still can’t correctly manage prize ships.
- Still effectively only one war/alliance option. If more than one war then the campaign breaks or at least becomes unreliable. Similarly, if non-standard alliances form then the system breaks.
- Still no way to force a war.
And more I haven’t mentioned because I’ve lost track. This happens when there is no feedback, not even a simple “Yep, we heard you” no matter how many people post comments on the same issues.
I don’t expect every thing to be addressed right now, but, unless the code is very strange, some of these are as simple as adding a link.
I would like to add:
- Hamburg STILL a Baltic port (this triggers me a bit)
- STILL no way to force battles with hostile fleets
- shipyard build size is not timeline progressiv and depends entirely on when you start the campaing
- research tree with lots of empty entries, please remove them till they have an effect or give them a small basic bonus. (e.g. secondary quad turret reseach for Germany)
- GDP and therefore the total money spent on the tech budget has no influence on research whatsoever. At least to me it looks like only the % makes any kind of difference
- Port capacity growth needs to be addressed
- War anouncements for already comencing wars
-
2
-
-
Here is a new one (for me at least):
Campaing battle (convoy escort in this case) that goes decently well for me with 2 hostile DDs getting away. So i click the "End Battle" button and it switches to the black loading screen and is basically stuck there. Settings button still there and working, menue pop-up opens -> "Leave Game" i get the pop-up but nothing changes, -> "Exit to Main Menue" i get back to the battle view. UI still there but no ships rendered and time counts forward.
Closing the game is the only thing that works but once i load the campaing i get the same pop-up for that campaing battle again. Doing the battle again gets me the same as above.
Trying to replicate this now with a different battle/campaign.
...
different battle same results, will try with new campaing now
-
1
-
-
"Building New Ships" hang up is back and worse than in the last 2-3 patches for me.
1.5h into campaign and 4 hangs so far. 1 at the start and now 3 in short order.
PS: make it 5
PPS: restarted campaign, only 1 hang 2h into it so far
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, kjg000 said:
I very much would like this to be true but, given the current levels of frustrations shown by the beta testers, I think this would be in-advisable.
Many of us have suggested changes that we think should be made before 1.06 goes live and at least the easiest and quickest should be addressed (bearing in mind that we don't have access to the code and so may not know how difficult a particular task is) but, and more importantly, the issues dealing with balancing ships need to be addressed. Even a cursory examination of the last few days shows how frustrating this is to the beta players, imagine how it will be received by people expecting a higher quality from the live release.
Several of us have requested some sort of auto-balancing to finish off designs, as a way to mitigate the problem.
I realize that you will have milestones to achieve and all of us want the game to succeed and become more popular. Rushing a live release does not seem to be a good way to achieve this.
I strongly suggest to only keep the campaing changes from the 1.06 beta for now. The other issues need a bit more work.
Campaing is the most important part of 1.06 from my pov and is at least good enough to go live.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:
Oh nice, a hit to my funnel dealt 1300 damage. Any more hits like that, and the load barring structural beams in the bowels of my ship will surly turn to dust.
If it was plunging fire hit to the funnel i might even call that realistic as it circumvents any armor and goes right through to the engines. At the distance seen on the screenshot i call BS though.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:
I hedged my bets by saying "I think" because someone had posted a comment about how an unusually high portion of the hits were deck hits at close range, which made me think that maybe the hits on the citadel deck are classified as 'deck hits' which would actually suggest the armor modeling is working as intended.
Sure but i would expect such a thing (Deck = Hull != Belt) to be mentioned in the patch notes as that is quite major.
I rather suspect that the hit boxes are displaced due to the addition of the engine hit box or that the hit calculation is just borked and they tried to fix this with an even more borked accuracy calculation and range found bonus. (see above posts by JeeweeJ, Plazma and o Baro)
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:
2. An armored belt typically doesn't extent the whole side of the ship but a relatively narrow band at the waterline.
Absolutely true and that was the whole point for the turtelback and all-or-nothing armor scheme. Belt armor to protect from flooding hits and some extra protection for the vulnerable parts.
Until this is modelled ingame through we must asume that any hits on the hull are belt hits and only plunging fire can hit the deck, which is not working correctly from my point of view.
-
1
-
-
On a side note:
1. The way the NPCs are able of keeping a high angle to improve their chance of ricocheting shots when you try to finish them off, even with damaged rudder and 1-3 damaged engines, is ridiculous and screams cheating to me. (hard to prove though)
2. The number of partial pens, even with high angle, when the guns have enough punch to go through bow to aft of the targets armor scheme is rather annoing. I could understand over-pens but partials with +50" pen @ 1k range just seems wrong.
PS: Just having something similar again, this time 7k range on a CL with 4.9" main belt, 3.2" fore and aft belt, very low ricochet (-1°) and my 12" guns only do partial pens on the belt with AP that has 35" pen at that range. Oh and o/c most of time its deck hits again.
-
3
-
-
Once more about the current balistics:
Target is a 14k ton CA at about 4km range and i am closing in rather slowly which makes it quite a good example.
As you can see from the gun stats they should have a rather flat trajectory at <4km range (maybe except for the 2").
In the screenshot above you can see that the target is not listing or in any way exposing the deck to me.
Of the logged 20 hits, there are only 2 hits on the belt, 1 hit on the main tower but 17x (!) Deck hits.
Yes, i am aware that this only logs pens or partial pens and the ricochet angle is rather high but still
I think this is at the very least questionable and should be double-checked.
PS: Closing in even more.
@<2k there is finally an increase in belt hits. Of 19 hits in the log, 8 hits to the belt, 1 to the main tower, 1 to sec gun and still 9 hits to the deck.
-
1
-
-
Just wondering if it is possible to get an update on the Q&A?
OP is ~2 years old and quite a few of the announced changes are now ingame and it would be nice to have new dev roadmap.
-
5 hours ago, neph said:
Money takes time to have effect on research.
I agree with this and therefore i suggest to change the research into a progressiv systerm like the transport capacity with quite a bit more impact on the total research speed as long term investment in research should deliver considerable better results.
Considering the quite rediculus tech budget in the late game of the campaings that would make more sense.
And with a tech budget of almost a billon dollars i would expect an actual army of research providing new technologies.
PS: I just finished a 1900 German campaing with 100% research budget and always focusing on large gun research. Here is the status on Nov. 1949:
Working as intended or not?
-
3
-
>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Zombie1914
PS added
WTF???
PS:
FPS is more like Frames per Minute but neither CPU, GPU or RAM are much in use.
Battle size is about as extrem as it gets and my computer is still bored...
PPS:
Funny thing is as soon as i hit pause CPU and GPU spike pretty hard