JaM
-
Posts
282 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by JaM
-
-
were download links removed?
edit nwm, im blind, but wouldnt hurt to make it a bit more clear where they are
-
So i guess it is not compatible with 1.3.2?
-
1 hour ago, Warspite96 said:
Allow me to give you a non-ChatGPT answer. Assuming Gen III radar represents late war surface search radar sets, there's absolutely no reason a ship should go from spotting targets at 30-40km to 5 with a late war radar set, unless the weather somehow damages it. HMS Venus spotted Haguro from over 60km away in extremely poor weather conditions and at night with her radar, even Gneisenau using Seetakt detected HMS Renown outside of her gun range in poor weather.
Actually, large waves will block the radar, create a lot of false returns, making it almost impossible to spot something.. Guess why russian cruiser Moskva got sunk? it was unable to recognize Neptune missiles against sea due to slightly higher waves.. onboard S-300 radar just couldnt handle all the false returns..
-
My probably biggest beef with this game is how time acceleration is handled.. It just makes you WASTE so much time waiting for something to happen.. Please, make it customizable by player!! Either give us option to set the range for certain time speed, or at least double the last two acceleration options so chasing enemy ships is a lot faster.. Nobody enjoys watching ships with only slight speed advantage (2-5knots more than chased enemy) to literally crawl into gun range, while timer is not allowing you to speed it up...
-
3
-
-
Latest beta - game is stuck at loading battle, its "preparing for battle" for 15 minutes.. cant submit bug report..
-
1
-
-
Dual Barbette for small and medium guns is impossible to use on ship stern, as it refuses to be rotated... even if you rotate it (which is quite chaotic) it still gets placed the opposite way.. I have reported this bug at least 5x since 1.3.0 Beta came out, checked after each update, but still these barbettes are unusable.
-
1
-
-
Economy issues - reduce economy growth of certain large nations.. 20% economy growth USA has is very unrealistic. US had some great growth in the past, especially during WW2 and after, but it was never in such scope as in this game.. Implement a ceiling let say 10% max, or make it only possible to exceed 10% for a year or something like that.. Having 5billion income per month, with 300 billion in bank means money have no value whatsoever...
At the same time, research speed is too low. As USA, even with full 100% tech spending, i could never catch up to historical designs.. in 1918 i was researching 1913-1914 Cruiser designs even with priority put on cruiser research to speed it up..
Allow overspend on technology same way as its possible to overspend on transport fleet.. it should be costly, but there should be an option to get ahead of research curve if player focuses on it..
-
37 minutes ago, MishaTX said:
Quick question, since I haven't really tested the long term ramifications of this mod enough yet, but I do love what you've done so far and greatly appreciate your hard, unpaid work to the benefit of us all: Your tweaks to the research system, do they make it much harder to, through careful prioritization, both in using the priorities function itself and through devoting as much of your budget as you can to research, gain an advantage over the AI?
I'm asking this for two reasons: First, I'm the type of wargamer who likes to "turtle", as I believe it's called, or "building high." It won't help me for the longest time because my quantity will be way behind everybody else's, but I'll reap the benefits later (if I manage to balance it correctly and survive that long, that is). Second, will prioritizing (talking about the three priorities you can assign in game now) actually hurt more than they will help with the mod? Better, same or worse?
I understand that it's always meant that prioritizing one will slow down all the others, so this may be a general question as well, because if prioritizing one will hurt the others so much that you'll lose out overall, then what's the point?
But mainly, and I do understand that a lot of you who have been playing this game for years now long for an AI that can out-design you for a better challenge, I just don't want to gimp myself and make it impossible/almost impossible to get ahead. At a cost, of course. Because then I might as well just leave the research budget to itself and forget about that whole aspect of the game.
Thanks again for the work you do!
well, from my experience, its a valid tactics i also apply.. only problem in this mod is that research is very slow, so getting some decent research ahead of everybody is much harder (but doable).. anyway i usually end up with a ton of money and nothing to spend it at.. i usually try to not join alliances, as these just drag you into World Wars.. i rather try to end the conflict fast, send my cruisers and destroyers to raid enemy trade while making sure i wont get blockaded.. anyway, sometimes i take my BB task force to engage enemy, and thanks to my superior technology, i usually easily overcome whatever fleet AI manages to assemble even if its 10:1 in their favor (always having extra ammo in my heavy ships) which tends to end war quickly
-
Yeah, dont bother with it right now.. if game is out of active development in summer, these changes can wait.. most important changes your mod is bringing right now (at least what I think) is the spotting improvement, which drastically decrease amount of frustration in vanilla game.. If the research was a bit more costly but not as much reduced, it would be perfect
as usually, i end up having huge piles of money with everything maxed out.. which makes those financial sliders pointless..
-
Suggestion for Research - dont decrease the speed of research, instead make it cost a lot more to have it maxed out..
-
13 hours ago, TachiKaze said:
So with the new spotting changes your spotting ships at roughly just before max range of your guns in 1910-1920 era engagements in ideal weather, in the most stormy seas its about 8-16km depending on the class of ship
which is how it should be... game is a lot less frustrating when trying to find the enemy..
-
1
-
-
Some feedback on game:
Campaign layer:
- Technology while nice to have, plays minimal role as campaigns tend to be way too short... focusing on technology research is completely waste of money as you can easily win within a year or two, which is not enough time to research something and then put it on a ship, and get that ship into battle..
- Mission generator is completely random, with player having no control over mission types. There should be more in terms of war strategy player should control. Let player to decide what forces he wants to use to protect transports, raid enemy transports, or for port defense, instead of game deciding these things for the player.
Battle Layer:
- AI and mission generator need to be in sync. If mission is to destroy transports, AI should not run away first thing the mission starts.. At the same time, transports should provide Victory Points.. so losing them all should mean you lose the mission even if you manage to sink all enemies, because you failed at your objective... but of course, ship tonnage should still matter, so if enemy raids a small convoy with a battleship, sinks 2-3 transports but losses the BB, its hardly a win..
Same logic should be applied to all missions.. AI should not run from battle, there should be no missions where enemy is running away and is actually faster, because this just creates dull mission with player getting frustrated to never see enemy..
-
I think battles should always start with both fleets within visual range of each other.. otherwise what's the point? faster ships will just sail away and battle ends up being frustrating 5minutes for the player... If AI is faster and overall tonnage is much weaker, it should not even get into battle to begin with.. so technically, its more about how these battles are set up in first place, then making them actually battles..
-
3
-
-
One thing - i think there should be an option to scuttle the ship and save the crew (lifeboats).. these fights were not always waged till the bitter end, and crew would abandon the ship if situation was dire.. plus, it is kind of a strange if every single men from such ship dies and nobody can be saved..
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, doublebuck said:
Well, whatever a DEV put into this wonderful game, it's there for us to use or not. Anybody thinking something is a cheat OP and wants to nerf it or eliminate it from the game seems to me if you don't like something in this game for any reason you can decide to use it or not use it, but please don't take it away from some of us whom may like something such as that. Would you want them to take away the use of fire ships too. One well placed fire ship can sink the best ship in this game. You can chose to use them or not use them. I'll say it again, generally, whatever is in this game we all have to decide for our selves if we would like to use it or not use it.
Problem is, these guns are not properly modeled in the game, are out of place, while others that should be there are badly misrepresented (Bloomfield pattern guns). Yes, you don't have to use them (i don't). But, as they are, they are destroying the game balance, making every other gun completely irrelevant. Instead of having a choice which gun you want to use based on its characteristics, Gunnades always win, because they have no weakness, no drawback.. If they were so superior in real life, they would not get declined by Royal Navy as a failed experiment...
This game strongest point is its historical authenticity.. problem is, things like these make the game less enjoyable for people who prefer this type of games.. Ultimate Admiral Age of Sail is not a mainstream game, it never will be.. so dropping historical authenticity for casual players makes no sense..
-
1
-
-
On 2/22/2021 at 6:24 PM, Husserl said:
Thank you very much all of you for your help, we really appreciate it! JaM thank you for the constant feedback here and in discord.
Navalus Magnus I'll check custom battles issue, you should be able to assign as many ships you like.
Skirmishers are special units for special roles in battles. Scouts (skirmishers detached from infantry units) are mostly for scouting. Anyway, we currently work on the fallback and false rear/flank attack indicating issues. Until we stabilize land battle mechanics to work seamlessly, should expect no changes on any land units.
Hello Husserl,
I've seen the change in latest patch, anyway i dont think changing tech description for Congreve Gunnades changes anything...
Description itself mentions guns which design was submitted in 1812, and it took some time for these to be tested.. Plus eventually, Navy declined the design, because in tests they (24pdr Congreve gunnade) were found to be less effective than standard 18pdr gun (Bloomfield or Fredrick Armstrong pattern..)
The whole problem with crazy stats remains - Gunnades in this game have Dispersion 1.7 despite having (per description) barrel length of 7 and 1/2 feet long... Comparatively, Bloomfield pattern guns were typically 9-10 feet long, yet in the game, they all have dispersion 2.6... Penetration profile for Bloomfield guns in game is also much worse than the one for gunnades...For example old Borgard guns were typically 8 and 1/2 feet long, so even these had better kinetic performance to a Congreve gunnade...
And there is a whole issue with the fact these guns are set in Tier 2 tech tree, costs just 3000$ and 2 rep.. Yet historically these were not even designed before 1812, while Bloomfield pattern was in early introduction at 1780..With the current campaigns that are in the game, Congreve Gunnade is out of place completely, because last battle you can fight is Trafalgar in 1805, and Congreve submitted his design 7 years after Trafalgar....
So, if you want to have Congreve Gunnade in the game, it has to be Tier 3, should cost a ton of money to research, Its accuracy/dispersion should be comparable to Short guns (which were typically 7 feet long), but they should be slightly lighter.. Personally, i would just drop them completely. Some countries did use Gunnade type of guns, for example Russians, but their gunnades were shorter (5-6 feet) and Russians are not in this game anyway...
Gameplay wise, Congreve Gunnade remains a cheat OP gun that makes naval combat trivial.
-
1
-
-
But thats how they should work actually.. problem is, AI can manage them right, but human player cant due to retreat functionality which makes human controlled skirmisher units painful to micromanage because they tend to run away and end up facing enemy backwards..
Maybe they should implement a check which would turn the skirmisher unit around based on where enemy is, when they retreat..
-
enemy skirmishers are annoying yes, but they can be dealt with relatively easy, because they are small unit and cannot survive shootout against line infantry unit that is usually 4x larger... there is no point chasing them around..
-
Suggestion i posted on discord: - Skirmishers needs to get some bonuses.. right now, they are not really good when using rifles due to their tendency to run away.. in my recent campaign i had much better results with them when i used Infantry carbines on them due to fast reload... when i had two skirmisher units, one equipped with rifle, other with a carbine, carbine equipped unit completely outperformed the rifle equipped unit every single time... Effectivity of smoothbores right now is way too high compared to rifles, so slow reload is way too big disadvantage. Personally, i think skirmishers need to get build-in cover bonus at least 50% so they are tougher to shoot at by normal units or artillery. At the same time, i think they should be the unit that ignores the terrain penalty to shooting... because right now, it looks like if you have a skirmisher unit facing line infantry in a shootout, both units tend to take approximately similar casualties... which is wrong, because skirmishers were actually using aiming fire, while Line Infantry used un-aimed volley fire which was more like an area effect fire...
Maybe just give them the tactical training perk that artillery has, which increases stealth by 200% and adds 25 to cover? It makes no sense for artillery to get such huge stealth bonus anyway (cover bonus could remain for artillery) and skirmishers could really use something like that to be less likely to wiped out so easily
-
True, but considering how big fleet you end up having by Trafalgar, it would be kinda strange having frigate actions with 1-rates present...
-
There were no big naval battles after Trafalgar.. most actions were just blockade actions.. (either forcing blockade, or trying to break it). but French fleet was rebuilding, while Napoleon did not put major importance on fleet and rather focused on his army, which was best what he could do as there was just no chance to challenge British in open battle..
-
Just wanna add - Smoothbore ballistics was relatively quite simple, as each gun fired projectile of same shape, so only thing that changed was muzzle speed and weight of the ball.. Muzzle speed was a function of barrel length and weight of powder charge.. shorter guns tended to have lower muzzle speeds, and Carronades/Gunnades used less powder charge(it was necessary because short barrel means powder would not burn completely up) than normal guns due to further weight savings.. so overall, its practically a linear function where barrel length and gun weight shows the clear picture how certain guns would perform (heavier guns could withstand more powder)
Therefore when it comes to performance (accuracy/penetration over range), Carronades were least effective, followed by Gunnades, Short guns, Medium guns and on top were the Long guns..
-
1 hour ago, Husserl said:
Hi, currently we have Congreve long guns stronger than shorter Carronade (of the same cal.), have better range and efficiency but have also cons, they are heavier, need more crew and are slower on reload (significant slower than non-EIC Carronade). So there are good reasons for somebody to choose Carronade than Congreve, especially if he has not plenty of gold or available cargo on deck.
About historical period and the chosen models, please have in mind that in order to have a large variety of model choices, we may add weapon models from earlier or later periods. This is a reason that a model from an earlier period, which historically was rarely used in game's time, may appear common and in large quantities (but in the lower tiers of the list). Also the more models available the less the space for differentiation among them.
@Husserl : problem is, stats you have for Gunnades are better than what you have for Medium guns... and Gunnades are much shorter than Medium guns... Mediums in your game should have a lot better penetration and accuracy than any gunnade or carronade... yet Bloomfield guns have dispersion 2.6, where Gunnade have dispersion just 1.7... And look at penetration values over distance... Gunnades right now, can penetrate more armor at greater distance than Armstrong or Bloomfield guns of the same caliber...
5foot long Gunnade should be nowhere near to a Bloomfield pattern gun 9foot long... So No, its not question of Gunnade vs Carronade right now... Gunnades are clearly superior to every gun in the game... even those super accurate (French re-bored) guns are worse, because they are slow to load, and their accuracy boost is not that better (1 vs 1.7) for much slower rate of fire and a lot more weight...
If anything, Gunnade should be worse than EOC short gun of the same caliber, but should be lighter because its also shorter.. Short gun should be more accurate, but slightly slower to load compared to gunnade. Plus, lets not forget that gunnades and carronades did not actually used full powder load similar to medium or even short guns.. so their muzzle velocity was slower than what short guns had..
-
But of course, its not just gunnades that need some work. Whole naval artillery technology needs some work to better represent actual gun development during those times.. You have Borgard guns in game, which were introduced in 1690, and at time period this game starts, these guns were quite rare. Armstrong guns which replaced the Borgards in 1720, were already obsolete as well, and were replaced by updated Frederick-Armstrong guns, which were technically identical, but manufactured by much more advanced process, which made them a lot more accurate than older types. Bloomfield pattern guns were the most modern guns, introduced in 1780-1790, and were further improved, but difference was not that drastic, and most ships still carried older Fredrick-Armstrong guns even during Napoleonic wars.
Yet in game, obsolete Borgard guns have for some strange reason extremely bad penetration, comparable to carronades, despite being a lot longer.. Armstrong and Bloomfield pattern guns have in game same accuracy, so they are practically identical, which is quite far from truth - If in-game Armstrong pattern represents later Frederick-Armstrong guns, then there should be a small difference in dispersion. But if those are old Armstrong pattern guns, then Bloomfield pattern needs to be a lot more accurate - as thanks to more advanced manufacturing process, these guns were a lot more accurate than old Woolwich bronze guns ever were.. (yet in game, Woolwich bronze guns have dispersion 1.65, where Bloomfield only 2.6 {and gunnade 1.7}...)
-
1
-
>>>v1.3 Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.3.9.9 Rx2)
in General Discussions
Posted
One thing that makes quite a little sense is how land offensives happen.. practically, even if AI loses the attempt, it will redo next turn with fresh troops until it succeeds.. that's now how things work.. if you fail, there should be repercussions, same as with losing naval battles.. Also put some timer on redo offensives so they don't happen all the time.. its not fun watching AI occupy other AI home provinces all the time...