clavernever

> Guns/torpedoes refuse to fire when the ship has too many launchers. > Removing guns/torpedoes solves the issue. All launchers have good firing arcs, all torps are well within range and way faster than my CAs, plus they'd be firing backwards in the most ideal of conditions. Same goes for the guns, plus crew is veteran and the ship has good pitch/yaw/offset ratios so their accuracy should be as good and not the culprit. ### After further testing it seems to affect both AI and player ships, and seems to be related to the too-many-guns-firing bug. The more torpedo launchers you have the more likely it is your guns/launchers will stop shooting, and removing launchers/guns (especially rapid fire secondaries for obvious reasons) seems to significantly help the problem. Furthermore, if you have a ton of launchers your ship won't shoot at all, and turning torps off will make all guns go back online. For some reason, the opposite doesn't seem to help. Turning guns off won't make your torps launch, only removing them in the designer will. ######## After even more furtherer testinger, the firing cap seems to be affected by any and all guns pointed at the target. This means 360 turrets are the bane on the firing penalty and one should make sure side turrets are never 360. This also applies to (and is way worse with) torp launchers... however most deck launchers will almost always be 360 if they have a decent firing arc, thus they're a nono in 99% of cases. Torpedo launchers seem to count toward the limit whenever they're enabled, not just when they fire. It's as if they were always shooting a stream of ghost bullets. If I had to guess, the game must be doing lots of calculations under the hood with torpedo launchers. They behave differently from guns and have such low rates of fire that you can't afford to let the AI screw it's aiming, so maybe the game makes tons of checks to ensure torps aim properly. At this point I'm starting to believe the gunfire limit is a critical issue, and needs to get looked into by the devs. Way back before 1.0 it wasn't so bad, but lately it's become a constant issue that nullifies many ship designs.. which is made worse by all the secondary-heavy hulls introduced with 1.3 If you have specific tests in mind or need to playtest a specific change, you can tell me and I can help. Just say what to modify or what to test, I know how to mod UAD, I can do it. That being said you know much better than I what your mod changes and how the game works, so I'll air on the side of caution and report any issues here before taking action on my side.

Typo in Russian Destroyer funnel, rip capacity. Not terrible cause there's plenty alternatives, but still, that funnel ain't gonna get used anytime soon xD. Here's me hoping to help with hopefully helpful help.

Absolutely beautiful designs doable with your mod, not needing a secondary tower enables much cleaner layouts with short hulls (aka when you minimise displacement). - sadly, the ship can't be launched cause the game still requires CLs to have a secondary tower even if none are available. Rip creativity xD - after a quick test I also found out that the issue also breaks auto-design for hulls that don't have sec. towers (currently this only seems to be the Gun Cruiser hull). The AI designer keeps retrying designs until it reaches 100% and then leaves an empty hull, because it has no sec towers to place and thus always gets an invalid result. The player can avoid the problem by not choosing the affected hull, but I worry the campaign AI might not do the same thing and end up with a bunch of empty cruisers. # Just double checked your update notes and realised this might have been an oversight (I thought you intended some CLs to have no sec tower, I now think your intention was just to remove an unnecessary option and let other towers take it's place). Apparently the removed towers were the only ones available for the "Gun Cruiser" hull, thus the problem.

-> This, absolutely this. It's about immediate benefit vs potential for future benefit. Mod support may not instantly give as much as straight up new features would, but it sets up the community for a much healthier long-term life cycle, while keeping the game relevant and increasing the chance a future DLC/Sequel will get noticed by an active customer base.

I've noticed "avoid torpedoes" applies evasive action to all ships in the division so long as any of them is threatened by a torpedo. It's really a panic button you should toggle on if you can't be bothered to pause the game and do the dodging yourself, and even then only toggle it on for a few seconds to make your ships change course, then quickly toggle off to let them fall back into line. Of course this is just a player mitigation for behaviour that should be handled per-ship rather than for the whole division ...buuuuuut that would probably be a massive coding headache, dev time is better spent on other stuff and just removing the button would cause outrage the same way removing the rudder did (thanks for bringing rudder back btw, it's extremely useful to force ships into a straight course after a hard turn, with a quick double click).

Oh, I totally agree in that regard! I'm usually all for more player agency where it makes sense, and more UI clarity where player agency isn't an option (aka if something is RNG, then wherever possible the UI should give a clear-cut explanation of what the randomness is supposed to represent). As for what approach should be taken to improve said situation, I'd lean more toward either letting the player choose or at least "influence" what provinces the government attacks (like with peace treatises), instead of implementing a hard countdown on attack frquency. It could be done as simple (simple from the players pov, not necessarily from a coding standpoint) as letting the player right-click on a province that can be invaded and choose "attack" from a drop down menu; ooooor maybe to keep the spirit of "the player is only the admiral and doesn't directly control the government" you could let them "influence" the government by choosing a "land invasion stance" from a button in the politics tab, where they choose between more general strategic options (some examples of what could be in said menu: focus navy budget and don't do land invasions, attack only if your nation has military superiority over the defending province, focus large/minor provinces, focus inland provinces, focus provinces with highest port capacity, focus army budget and attack everywhere, etc) Still, you're a seasoned tester and i'm just a random person that likes speculating over game mechanics, so you probably have better ideas than I do (and most importantly, reasonable ideas that don't require weeks of development time to complete).

Losing an offensive (be it land or naval) penalises you (or the AI) with a bunch of unrest points. And if you think unrest does nothing, think again when you have 5 rebellions and a revolution within a year. As for the re-trying penalty.. not only it isn't historically accurate (there were quite some stubborn repeat offensives during WW1 if I remember correctly), but also it limits the player and leaves you at the mercy of RNG. -Say you're trying to conquer Northwest England to get a foothold on the British Isles and let your land armies invade the provinces that have ports too big for your navy, so there you go, you put a fleet 2X the size the game suggests, you endure 6 turns of constant economic damage to your transport fleet.. and then you fail. Would you like being told that no, you can't try again for the next 6 months (aka you'll have to end the war in defeat cause RNGsus didn't bless you); or would you prefer the game to let you queue up another invasion on the same province every 2 turns (as it currently does), so that if your first attempt fails you'll only have to wait 2 more turns to roll the dice again? And as I said before, do remember that forcing a victory in that way does have it's cost. If you fail one invasion every 2 turns cause you're biting more than you can chew, the game can and will punish you (and the AI too if they do the same thing) for that mistake, by kneecapping your GDP growth and causing constant rebellions.

Still needs to be confirmed by a dev, but I did some research right before the 1.3 beta and at least then there was for sure a degree of randomisation. I think it was only like +-10% though so for the numbers shown, even after accounting for the fact it's additive 140% (aka x280% like you said),the full blocks mentioned wouldn't be explained by the bit of randomness. If I had to bet it's either getting deck hits (as far as I know deck/belt hit chance isn't affected by shell ballistics so you can expect a reasonable amount of belt hits at 30km and likewise with deck hits at point blank)... or the good old mega-overpens-get-blocked bug rearing it's ugly head again. (in that case it would likely be superstructure or fore/aft belt hits getting blocked). As for whether shells blocked by inner belts get reported as partial pens, full pens or blocked hits I don't know and would really like a dev to clarify (they probably have at some point but I can't just go and read the whole forum >.<) Even after saying all that let me add that there's so much more math and stuff involved in this game's mechanics than most people realise. If my research into it taught me anything, it's that it's way more complicated than we think to code this sort of game, and we really should respect the devs for the work they've done.

(@Grey from Munro's mods discord server speaking here) Question: What was your criteria for choosing your government modifiers? I see they're oddly.. specific. not very round numbers, let's just say. Was that the result of thorough fine tuning? Did you have any specific goals in mind? Hopefully me asking isn't too annoying ._.

Question! I'm currently trying out some changes to government modifiers, and if it goes well I would like to know how could I go about sharing it (you're free to add the changes to your mod if you want to). It's the result of me getting frustrated at how ridiculous France's GDP was, doing some digging to find out what the heck was happening and finally reaching govt modifiers as the culprit: in the base game Right-Wing governments send your economy to the moon and Communism is both insanely stable and insanely stagnant, both things together resulting in the last one or two surviving right-wing governments becoming an absolute world dominating economic powerhouse, while everyone else slowly drifts toward communist regimes in a neverending cascade of GDP stagnation. My changes are fairly simple: the left is generally more stable, the center has better long-term growth and the extremes get massive flat bonuses at the cost of instability and economic stagnation. Key feature being the more stagnant you are the more unstable you become, thus avoiding the economic death trap that is communism in the base game. For historical reasons, the extreme right gets more military power than the extreme left, but the left is generally more stable than the right. Overall all governments are more unstable, so big wars should result in revolutions more often than not, keeping politics moving and avoiding long term strategic stagnation. For gameplay reasons, the extreme right gets more naval power and the extreme left gets more army power. The player is incentivized to take different strategies according to their government type: - The right favors naval supremacy and home port invasions since your army is weak but your navy has the funding to sustain a straight-forward attack. - The center favors neutrality and peacetime economic growth, and remains strategically flexible military-wise. - The left favors strategic takeovers of minor to medium ports, enabling your armies to invade adjacent major provinces by land while you use your relatively limited navy to take over colonies and other side objectives. - Monarchies get both high army and navy power at the cost of economic growth and base province income (aka base GDP), Constitutional Monarchies have a milder version of this. The mentioned strategies should work on a normal difficulty game, I don't find higher difficulties fun cause the unfair economics drive me mad, so I don't play them and don't know what strategies are best in them. The exact modifiers go as follows: [ All numbers in the table are straight multipliers, for example in-game 0.75 = -25% , 2 = +100% , 1 = +0% , etc. ]

Absolutely amazing! As a proponent of pushing ship design to it's limits wherever possible, new and interesting options like these add a lot of fun and spice to one's shippage potential.

We've been spoiled by non-frustrating game mechanics designed by thoughtful devs to enhance our entertainment, and it turns out reality tends not to be as thoughtful of the involved parties' enjoyment of the situation. It took multiple watchings of Drachinifel's long form videos to really hammer in the point of how hard it was to hit stuff back then. Yet if you think seriously about it and take the time to imagine the whole thing, it starts to make sense: you're in a moving hunk of metal trying to shoot at another moving hunk of metal that's several kilometers away, with limited knowledge of ballistics and a LOT of error introduced by the myriad variations involved in the manufacture of the gun you're firing, the shell you're shooting, your estimation of the target's distance, speed and bearing and the possible manufacturing errors of the equipment you're estimating it with.. all on top of extreme life-and-death pressure to do everything right and do it fast, all while probably also being shot at. We have much, much more info as players than anyone had in real life, thus we easily forget that for even the smartest people on board the ship we're controlling it would have been nigh on impossible to achieve what our expectations demand. Even so, it remains true that UAD is a game first and a simulation second.. and maybe it's acceptable to sacrifice some realism to the altar of fun. Either that, or add all the historical explanations to set expectations back to historical levels.. which would be one hell of a UI design challenge and not necessarily make the game any more fun.

Dropping here to say please add success% or some other improvement to the invasion UI. I have many times had 2x the required tonnage, seen the number green and healthy every single solitary turn just to fail anyways. I get it, there is *a chance* to succeed and the tonnage shown is just the minimum required for the invasion to achieve progress. Still, the fact the chance is obscure and not shown makes it very frustrating as a game mechanic. It feels like you need at least 3 times the shown tonnage to succeed with any reasonable consistency, which is NOT clarified anywhere in the UI. On another note, the whole thing feels odd and doesn't make much sense from a simulation perspective you either make progress or are pushed back.. and in the current system it feels like your army is magically winning every turn and then randomly everyone gives up and goes back home at the very last moment. I would suggest a "tug of war"/ "race to max" system would be much more intuitive and fun. Say when the mission starts both countries start with a % bar at 0%, and then every turn each country's % number (or turn counter, if you prefer to keep the current turn system) increases depending on internal game factors (much the same as land invasions already do), then it's as simple as having the first nation to reach 100% win (or to reach n/n on their turn counter). All you'd have to add is the second counter for the defending nation, and the whole thing would be both much clearer and much less frustrating for the player. Please understand under no circumstances I'm saying remove invasions, they are awesome and I love the mechanic, I just think with a little UI/mechanics tweaking it could improve massively the feel of not just invasions themselves but of the whole campaign mode. Love the game, cheers!

Wondering why this remained hidden.. what's the point of posting if noone can see it?