Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Nick Thomadis

>>>Alpha-7 Feedback<<<

Recommended Posts

Our new update focuses on gameplay optimizations regarding mission balances, auto-design and targeting mechanics. 

Read everything about it in our blog!
https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/alpha-7-gameplay-optimizations

==Restart your game client to receive the update==

==Share your main feedback in this thread==

 

*Hotfix v75* (25/6/2020)
=========
BALANCES

  • Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs. Note: This change might make some of your old designs overweight, but you should be able to repair them by lowering speed, armor or other settings.
  • Ship design tonnage step reduced from 100 to 50 tons (provides more design flexibility, especially for smaller ships plus makes Auto-Design to be more effective).
  • Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively.
  • When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets.
  • Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved. Destroyers need to operate at safer ranges but will still be dangerous and useful.
  • Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical.
  • Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting.
  • Torpedo reload time increased +25%.
  • Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable).
  • Improved the Hull form statistics of the modern Russian destroyers to aid them achieving higher speeds. The Destroyer leader hull shape has improved.
  • Increased detection bonus of Sonar, so that it can trace electric torpedoes or other stealthy types, more effectively. Cost of Sonar has been increased.
  • Fine tunings in base ship maneuvering characteristics (addressing issues that could cause slow ships to stall and become very unwieldy).

MISSIONS

  • Increased time and reduced AI techs for mission: "Battleship vs Torpedo Boats".
  • Added two Destroyer escorts and increased distance of AI reinforcements in mission: "The US Super Battleship". Tech level of AI opponent reduced. Now you need to destroy only 3 Battleships (instead of 4).
  • Expanded time limit for mission: "Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats".
  • Changed objectives of "Contest in the Black Sea" so now you need to sink 60% of enemies (instead of sinking the Battleship and Battlecruiser which was very difficult).
  • Changed objective of mission: "The Modern Battleship" so that to win you need to sink 70% of enemies, instead of 100%.
  • In mission "Destroy a Full Fleet" the enemy AI fleet has now less advanced tech level. Objective has changed so that now you need to sink half of enemy fleet but also protect half of your own fleet (instead of sinking 70% of enemy ships).
  • Increased time and funds for mission: "Undefended Convoy".
  • Other minor fund changes to some missions.

MINOR FIXES

  • Fixed secondary cage mast not having adequate placeholder to fit in a USA battleship of 1899.
  • Fixed issue of French “Semi-Armored Cruiser” of the 1890s that did not allow 2-inches guns to fit in casemates while no larger guns fitted. 
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I have a social statiscics exam today 😭😭 

Waahh. You should be fine, go in with a positive attitude and its a guranteed win! 'w'

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Waahh. You should be fine, go in with a positive attitude and its a guranteed win! 'w'

I hope so 😃 Thank you! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

It's ere ladz lets get testing!

And I'm out of town till monday 😅

P.S. Good luck to Marshall.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i managed to win the us super battleship mission (finally lol) with an AI design no less, was kinda questionable (layout anyways) but it worked well, managed to even kill a DD that was passing by shokaku (lol) and nuke it with 457mm's with High TNT, havent tried the others yet, notice DD's are a lot harder to hit however think i saw a -95% nerf to accuracy due to speed, but i guess that makes sense since they are very fast and change direction a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

notice DD's are a lot harder to hit however think i saw a -95% nerf to accuracy due to speed, but i guess that makes sense since they are very fast and change direction a lot.

Hard to say — secondaries supposed to be able to track fast targets. Huh, "counter-mine (anti-DD) caliber" kinda give us a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just gave the misison "Hurry Up" a test drive in the new verison and I managed to beat it.

WIth the previous version this mission was impossible or near impossible. I must have tried it more than 15 times and only once came even close to succeeding, when a sudden flash-fire killed me instantly.

And now I finally beat it.
Thank you for the rebalance of (at least) this mission.

Edited by Norbert Sattler
typos-be-gone
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm NGL this update was a little disappointing compared to the previous one, I understand that balancing takes just as much effort as implementing new hulls and that one of the devs is sick. It's just less fun to play around with new balance than it is to play around with new hulls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Well i managed to win the us super battleship mission (finally lol) with an AI design no less, was kinda questionable (layout anyways) but it worked well, managed to even kill a DD that was passing by shokaku (lol) and nuke it with 457mm's with High TNT, havent tried the others yet, notice DD's are a lot harder to hit however think i saw a -95% nerf to accuracy due to speed, but i guess that makes sense since they are very fast and change direction a lot.

 

3 hours ago, IronKaputt said:

Hard to say — secondaries supposed to be able to track fast targets. Huh, "counter-mine (anti-DD) caliber" kinda give us a clue.

I recently watched Drachinifel's video on Range-finding and Fire Control. From what I heard there is nothing about speed that makes you harder to hit. The hard part is putting the shells where you expect the enemy to be. So a BC doing 25 kts is no harder to hit than a one doing 35 kts, all other factors being equal. Precisely determining their speed and range are the key aspects. Everything else is accounting for your own ships circumstances (roll, pitch, speed, etc...), the weather, and your own ballistics. So this whole concept of ships being harder to hit at different speeds is without basis. The reason a DD is harder to hit is because of it's size and maneuvering ability (which could include changing speed rapidly). So any penalties to accuracy based on speed should be removed, and ship size and the maneuvering penalties adjusted accordingly. This would make top speed only useful for closing/retreating tactically, but maneuverability more important.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, madham82 said:

 

I recently watched Drachinifel's video on Range-finding and Fire Control. From what I heard there is nothing about speed that makes you harder to hit. The hard part is putting the shells where you expect the enemy to be. So a BC doing 25 kts is no harder to hit than a one doing 35 kts, all other factors being equal. Precisely determining their speed and range are the key aspects. Everything else is accounting for your own ships circumstances (roll, pitch, speed, etc...), the weather, and your own ballistics. So this whole concept of ships being harder to hit at different speeds is without basis. The reason a DD is harder to hit is because of it's size and maneuvering ability (which could include changing speed rapidly). So any penalties to accuracy based on speed should be removed, and ship size and the maneuvering penalties adjusted accordingly. This would make top speed only useful for closing/retreating tactically, but maneuverability more important.  

goes back to the issue of hits being to common.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, I wouldn't say AI is much better at designing ships, but definitely better than previously.

Some AI designs from US Super Battleship mission:

GR70bZl.png

6QRLJJa.png

Ok, this look a little bit scary to me:

x4vy0lW.png

They are not perfect, and AI still lack logical thinking in designing a ship (Like why the hello kitty this funnel is behind a second tower? Why is it even possible? xD), but they are definitely better.

 

P.S. 

There was also one more DD that I forgot to screenshot, it basically was very similar to typical IJN Destroyer from Fubuki-class and etc. with the difference of the X turret being in the middle section of the ship instead of the rear.

 

EDIT: I hate censorship replacing my X words with "Hello Kitty" 

Edited by HusariuS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, madham82 said:

So this whole concept of ships being harder to hit at different speeds is without basis. The reason a DD is harder to hit is because of it's size and maneuvering ability (which could include changing speed rapidly). So any penalties to accuracy based on speed should be removed, and ship size and the maneuvering penalties adjusted accordingly. This would make top speed only useful for closing/retreating tactically, but maneuverability more important.

Agreed. I meant that capital ship's main turrets probably don't have traverse speed enough to follow fast moving target. Meanwhile, secondaries and their fire control must be able to counter small and fast vessels (that's why I hope at some point we'll have an opportunity to design our artillery with certain turning speed and ROF among other specs).

Speaking of roll and pitch — some stabilizers wouldn't hurt too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:

goes back to the issue of hits being to common.

Yep, but there is a good reason for it....fun factor. Who wants to play a battle with the accuracy say of the Manila Bay engagement between US and Spain. Of course this leads to the problem of balancing for an unrealistic hit rate. 

31 minutes ago, IronKaputt said:

Agreed. I meant that capital ship's main turrets probably don't have traverse speed enough to follow fast moving target. Meanwhile, secondaries and their fire control must be able to counter small and fast vessels (that's why I hope at some point we'll have an opportunity to design our artillery with certain turning speed and ROF among other specs).

Speaking of roll and pitch — some stabilizers wouldn't hurt too.

This is true at close ranges, but really affects the guns ability to fire at a target...not so much hit it. You could also turn the ship to help maintain track. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While Custom Battles remains unfinished, etc. unable design all ships and save the scenarios, I thought it was due to the fulltime work on the campaign and therefore Custom Battles is way down the pecking order, understandable, but here and now I see two larger updates on academy missions, hmm...

Ok maybe there's some balancing in the campaign and/or design changes and this has to be echo in academy missions, understandable too.

For me, academy missions are a one off mission types, once completed there little motivation to rinse and repeat, so I've have been waiting for the campaign, new content.

However, Custom Battles are way different than academy missions, every scenario can be different, there's hundreds of hours of potential gameplay within customs battles and to which of thee can be all accredited to new content. But not in its current state, limited to one ship design and to one session.

To me it seems that if alittle bit more work on Custom Battles was issued then this would have huge returns for us players, like if you can spare time on academy missions why not alittle bit more on Custom Battles. 

Signed
Mr BumpUpCustomBattles.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

While custom battle remains unfinished, etc. unable design all ships and save the scenarios, a thought it was due to the fulltime work on the campaign and therefore Custom Battles is way down the pecking order, understandable, but here and now I see two larger updates on academy missions.

Ok maybe there's some balancing in the campaign and/or design changes and this has to be echo in academy missions, understandable too.

For me, academy missions are a one off mission types, once completed there little motivation to rinse and repeat, so I've have been waiting for the campaign, new content.

However, Custom Battles are way different than academy missions, every scenario can be different, there's hundreds of hours of potential gameplay within customs battles and to which of thee can be all accredited to new content. But not in its current state, limited to designing one ship and to one session.

To me it seems that if alittle bit more work on Custom Battles was issued then this would have huge returns for us players, like if you can spare time on academy missions why not alittle bit more on Custom Battles. 

Signed
Mr BumpUpCustomBattles.

*This message was brought to you by Custom Battles Gang*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can we get more formation options than just "screen in the shape of a battle line"? I'd like to see something similar to what Victory At Sea has where you can put your ships in a circular formation with capital ships in centre or something like Battlestations Pacific has where you can decide the formation via a menu and where screening ships will go.

 

I want more formations.

20200612164156_1.jpg

Edited by BobRoss0902
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still need a full breakdown of how the accuracy system works, badly. 

Target fast speed is still waaaaaaay overclocked for what it is (to the point that going at cruising speed for the accuracy buff is entirely pointless as you lose out too much compared to just going flank speed to avoid incoming rounds) but most importantly what I think needs to be looked at is base accuracy and I think there are hidden modifiers that we can't see when holding the cursor over a target ship. Let me explain. 

I have two Mk. 5 356mm armed BC's with C-V rangefinders and Radar II, their base accuracy versus target ship is 3% at 9km.  

Enemy ship is armed with Mk. 3 381mm guns, has S-IV rangefinders and Radar I, her base accuracy at the same range is 6%. 

I had the tech edge in every department and yet my base accuracy before modifiers was half that of the enemy ship. 

Additionally I went down the list of accuracy modifiers on each side as well, my overall modifier was about 200% higher than the enemy's, and yet I still had a 3% overall accuracy when the enemy ship had 12%. It just doesn't make sense even with the lower base accuracy. This is why I'm convinced there are some modifiers that we can't see.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see a lot of ships designed by the AI that really put a lot of emphasis on speed. Yesterday I saw a 43 knots CL with 1926 tech for instance. Also a lot of BCs are still getting over 36 knots when designed by the AI. Both ships had a bad level of protection of course, as the engines likely took up a lot of the available displacement, but I felt these kind of designs were not really very optimal.

Another thing I noticed is that if you auto-design ships in the shipbuilder mode, the AI tends to pick tech that really augments tunnel capacity and thereby creates a huge amount of tunnel overcapacity. This is not per necessarily bad, but I would argue that the displacement and money cost for the amount of overcapacity isn't really optimized.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the thread about the upcoming patch, Nick was asked if there were forthcoming changes to bulkheads and replied with apparent surprise, asking:

What exactly is needed to change? Can you clarify?

I found that pretty remarkable, so decided to comment:

The problem is that the bulkheads ARE so ridiculously significant. I can tell pretty quickly if a Transport has MAX bulkheads because it can soak 6" secondary gun hits all day long.

Whether or not there are trade-offs is an entirely different question. The fact remains that bulkheads stop and or control flooding and fire SO well REGARDLESS OF SHIP CLASS.

I've written about it MANY times.

Again it gets back to the modular/process design question. If bulkheads are grotesquely effective because intended damage control factors, such as available crew and relevant mechanisms such as pumps and/or firefighting points and gear, have not been implemented, fine. But it would be better simply to say so than to attempt to play around with whatever values exist right now.

The fact remains I can sink a pre-dread BB with 23" of belt armour and a ton of guns yet MIN bulkheads with TWO hits, one in the bow and one in the stern, because it will flood out.

The CL accompanying it can absorb truly silly levels of punishment in comparison.

THAT'S what I'm talking about, and have done for months.

There was further discussion about bulkheads and designs I'll not replicate here copying and pasting. Nick said they'd got heavier etc.

I went into the latest version. Given most people appear to spend their time obsessing over the late period tech etc, I tend to play the "Armed Convoy" scenario almost exclusively because it's much earlier on and is an interesting place to test all sorts of different design choices.

I loaded my "Improved firepower" version BC. It has a 3x12" turret fore and aft, and a broadside of 3 2x6" secondary guns. It does 29 knots, with armour of up to 12.5" of Krupp II. It has "Many" bulkheads, the level below "Max", and Reinforced/Armoured Bulkheads lvl 1. Has double hull, but no torpedo protection because it's not necessary and a waste of weight and performance that is better spent elsewhere.

Turns out that "increased weight" of bulkheads translated to fewer than 200t on a 21,500t ship. I was able to compensate for it by taking 0.1 or 0.2" from the deck armour (big deal).

As to why I've commented about Bulkheads a gazillion times yet apparently it's unclear as to why we might think they need some attention, here's some feedback for the latest version:

245729243_TRdamagespongeasusual.thumb.png.b795adfcbabac3dc12aaeb8511f7cf2c.png

This is following 14 x 6" HE hits in a matter of minutes. Truth be told it had taken many more than that, as this was what could fit on the damage log. It has Standard bulkhead status.

Note the flooding in 6 of 8 compartments and fires from bow to stern. Note, however, that it REPAIRS AN ENGINE during this. The other thing you CAN'T see is that its flotation IS IMPROVING, namely it's pumping out the water.

This is a TRANSPORT with STANDARD bulkheads.

 

1748433080_MoreTRzombiestuff.thumb.png.37b9036b89ceed1f979983c43595981c.png

Here's another one. Same deal, except it's 15 x 6" hits this time. Flooding through 75% of ship, fires from bow to stern, yet it REPAIRS an engine and FLOATATION IS IMPROVING.

These were only Standard. A Transport with MAX is absurdly durable. Either you get SO close you can overwhelm it with 30 6" hits from bow to stern within a few minutes, possibly hit it from astern with the main armament (funnily enough hits from bow or stern are more likely to do catastrophic damage than those going smack amidships from directly abeam), or it will simply take hit after hit after hit and repair itself unless you pummel it endlessly.

The bulkhead status is SO significant I generally don't waste my time firing at Many/Max bulkhead ships if there's another target because it's largely a waste of time, especially if you can't hit it at multiple points along its length.

Meanwhile, there's this:

591129891_CAafterammodetonation.png.2ed79dd202e7002863bfd3b0283a0a6f.png

This CA suffered an ammunition detonation from a 12" penetration of the Stern Belt Extended. Looking at the layout and the damage, I have to conclude it's the 8" main gun magazine (we'll leave aside the problems of compartmentalisation that has main magazines largely unprotected).

Two things stand out to me, the first being it's still afloat and the second being the stern main gun mount is still operating perfectly fine (the bow main gun was destroyed by an over-pen that also somehow started a fire). We've seen turrets popping off like infernal champaign corks in the previous patch, yet the main ammunition store not only doesn't stop the gun above it firing, it doesn't sink the ship. How many times did ships suffer main gun ammunition magazines exploding and remained afloat I wonder.

I've posted these simply so there can be no possible doubt as to WHY the issue continues to be mentioned. It's also why I personally have little interest in testing much of anything as these things are such overwhelming elephants crowding out the room. Flash fires and torpedoes causing ammo detonations are bling compared with the basics of compartmentalisation, damage and damage control. Furthermore, and pardon me for saying it, neither are in any way important in the scheme of things given I found exactly ONE example of a BB, and a pre-dread one at that, known to have suffered a main magazine explosion from a torp (and it promptly sank with all hands) and the "flash fire" phenomenon had certain REQUIRED CONDITIONS that appear not to have been required in this implementation.

I'm well aware that there are many things requiring implementation. I must confess, however, I was rather astounded to hear Nick express puzzlement as to what "specifically" was a problem with bulkheads. Just in case it isn't clear, the problem is they turn ANY ship potentially into KMS Bismarck in terms of its potential to take truly astounding levels of punishment.

I note some of you have also raised issues re gunnery that equally have been floating around for a long time and are entirely valid. Speed ISN'T what makes a target hard to hit in and of itself, for example, and nor is applying 30 degrees of rudder. It's the combination of both that does, yet the gunnery model slaps HUGE penalties based on each such that a ship at 36 knots that never changes course OR a ship at 1 knot with its rudder hard over BOTH apply high penalties even though NEITHER would make the gunnery solution difficult to achieve, and we've posted about that for several months if I had to guess.

Which, ultimately (pardon the pun), is the issue. If the game is using "realism" as a major selling point (I think it comes up something like 14 times in the pitch) then elements that clearly are a LONG way from realistic and have been for many months really ought to be acknowledged and, ideally, perhaps have the intended end points hinted at.

As it is, we seem to be getting various ships and other bits and pieces added while the main points of concern go unaddressed and even potentially unacknowledged. I suspect at some point that will become unacceptable to most of us. I also recommend people spend some time in low tech battles/missions because THAT is going to be the first experience players have of the campaign or battles, and I wonder if people haven't really looked at how those are travelling of late.

Cheers

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...