Clown Car Thread

[Somhairle]

The enemy can't shoot your superstructure if you don't have a superstructure.

[Jellicoe]

2 hours ago, Somhairle said:

The enemy can't shoot your superstructure if you don't have a superstructure.

You're right, I was a fool.🙂

This has probably been recommended before, but one of the things that would solve a lot of these AI building problems is having a list of 'preset' ships representing real-life ship classes (Yamato-class, Queen Elizabeth-class, Town-class, etc) that players can then build upon if they wish, or simply use (or fight against) as-is.

(Just because I want to design my own ship doesn't mean I want to go through the trouble of designing my opponent's ship too.)

Edited April 6, 2022 by Jellicoe

[neph]

Oh AI, AI. Why do you keep doing this to me?

 

[Dman1791]

22 minutes ago, neph said:

Oh AI, AI. Why do you keep doing this to me?

 

That has to be one of the most severe sins I've seen the auto designer come up with

[SodaBit]

Not an AI design, but I feel this definitely has a place on this thread.
The worst Battlecruiser I've ever designed, the Minimato.

The thing I hate most about this design isn't the stupid proportions, the total lack of a secondary battery, or the fact that the vibrations of the guns firing has a decent chance of damaging the hull of the ship. The thing I hate most about Minimato is the fact that it works.

In fact, it works exceptionally well.
This stupid design I came up with at 4 AM after having only a Mountain Dew for breakfast preforms better than most of the BC's the AI throws at me in campaigns and custom battles.
Wargaming's bullshit is what made me pick up UA:D in the first place, but bullshit like this is what keeps me playing it.

[neph]

On 4/8/2022 at 2:46 AM, SodaBit said:

Not an AI design, but I feel this definitely has a place on this thread.
The worst Battlecruiser I've ever designed, the Minimato.

The thing I hate most about this design isn't the stupid proportions, the total lack of a secondary battery, or the fact that the vibrations of the guns firing has a decent chance of damaging the hull of the ship. The thing I hate most about Minimato is the fact that it works.

In fact, it works exceptionally well.
This stupid design I came up with at 4 AM after having only a Mountain Dew for breakfast preforms better than most of the BC's the AI throws at me in campaigns and custom battles.
Wargaming's bullshit is what made me pick up UA:D in the first place, but bullshit like this is what keeps me playing it.

Just looks like an A-150 to me

[Jubedy]

Featuring remarkable firing angles for the rear main battery and an entire barbette for a single 50mm deck gun.

[Vanhal]

NEED MORE DAKKA!

Few minutes later:

Multiple launch detected

[brucesim2003]

That's ok, your ship didn't sink it using gunfire. There was just an unexplained fire that made the ammo explode. The crew were all evacuated.

 

That makes me wonder. Maybe the AI went to the Russian school of ship designing.

Edited April 19, 2022 by brucesim2003

[SodaBit]

Got a double feature for the thread today;

First, the world's largest PT boat, and second,

A "Cruiser Killer" style battlecruiser that is incapable of doing that in most scenarios, given I'm pretty sure everyone has at least 305mm belts on their CA's these days.
Both vessels were constructed for the Royal Navy, 1940.

[SodaBit]

Got some more for this thread.
Decided to make myself a snack while waiting for custom battle to finish designing AI ships.
Came back, ate my taco, and was greeted with this beauty.

And of course, her BB counterpart.

Edited April 29, 2022 by SodaBit

[neph]

Put those ships together & you actually have a complete superstructure!

[brucesim2003]

I thought they had coded the AI not to have empty barbettes?

[ColonelHenry]

23 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:

I thought they had coded the AI not to have empty barbettes?

Surely the AI is fixed when enemy ships can still turn on demand when severely damaged to dodge torpedo. Surely the AI is fixed when they can't even get into formation without re-enacting the loss of HMS Victoria. Surely...

Edited April 30, 2022 by ColonelHenry

[havaduck]

I tried a Austrian 1930s campaing, had about 600 mio budget (remember that number for later). Decided to stop when even a moderate heavy cruiser I designed was 50 mio allready as I thought I had missed something fundamentally. I often find my ships kinda bad because I cant keep the pitch and roll down or they are not perfectly ballanced, but I do enjoy trying to compromise designs to keep cost down instead of just click best in every category.

 

Then I let the AI design my fleet:

Thats the light cruiser I got, I clicked on copy so the modules arent locked. No alteration. It nearly got "perfect score". But it does have 32 torpedo launchers - obviously gotta have them.

 

Wanna know the best part? I learnt nothing. I got 100 mio in the bank still in this AI designed campaign. The 12 BBs alone that the AI build are over 75 mio each - so thats allready a billion (with the 100 in the bank).  The heavy cruisers (60 mio each, I wasnt hiddeously overspending as it turns out) together with the single BC are nother 480 mio. Then this beauty of a light cruiser for 33 mio times 9 is another 300 mio. Finally we ge another 11 godawefully slow DDs for another 100 mio.

 

All in all, what the AI build + bank is worth around 1,9 billion ...... or nothing. Depending on your viewpoint.

Edited May 1, 2022 by havaduck

[SodaBit]

1930's Germany out here fielding 40,000 ton BB's with less firepower than the Scharnhorst, smh

[havaduck]

First contact with the AIs creation is always a tense moment. What did it build? Will the BBs that soaked up half my budget be of any use? What did the new patch do in terms of AI Auto-Desing.

My ship a (at the time it felt like at least) too expensive (for AH at least) no bullshit reasonable BB.

And then the monstrosity the legendary AI built: Its faster, more heavily armored, diplaces nearly twice as much and certainly costs twice as much, has more than twice the crew but .....

literally ........

 

I cant wait to fight this (or see how it looks, covered in guns) but sadly I gotta delay a little. You guys at least can revel with me in the suspense .....🤣

Edited May 30, 2022 by havaduck

[havaduck]

I actually fought this yesterday and I owe the AI an apology. Dont get me wrong, its still a god forsaking pos that begs to be roflstomped but its close, very close to be really scary if not for 3 major flaws that compound on each other, but I will go over them later on.

 

First impression: Some glaring issues are obvious right away but this isnt nearly as retarded as I expected.

Well balanced by the standards of this new patch. Bulkheads are ok too.

Very well protected and most definitely no "All (on the turrets) AND nothing (everywhere else) Armor scheme" which the AI did sometimes.

There are some questionable thing here like Cordite and Barbete 1 or shitty small guns and light shells and standard AP but the choices themselves arent gamebraking. If those were some seriously big guns it could work or wouldnt be horribly. Ofc there is some overly expensive shit in here, but its a legendary AI, it suppose to spend like crazy for a few %.

 

Any what kills it:

1. The overly heavy secondary battery in cassemates. 8 hello kittying inch, which have limited fire arcs and have horrible weight characterristics due to being cassemates instead of turrets (in this beta at least). And there are a hello kittyton off 'em.

2. The lenghts of the armored citadel! Look almost all of this ship is cital with full main belt armor due to how spread out the man battlery placements are (and that shitty 7" on its own barbette". You could actually have those 4 centerline placements and those wing turrets on a MUCH shorter and lighter amored citadel.

2. Finally with all that weight spent on pure BS,  it can only mount 9" guns. Admitingly there are 12 of them, but just think how actually scary a fleet of the very same ship would be but with like 10 x 13" with more sensible main battery placement and a lighter secondary battery.

Edited May 31, 2022 by havaduck

[Werwaz]

It is time to bring this thread back from the dead... with some memes

Against all the evil that they can conjure... all the wickedness that they can produce... we will send unto them only you.

SLIP AND FAIL UNTIL IT IS DONE. (DOOM music intensifies)

I feel like I have seen this somewhere before...

"I didn't lose, I merely failed to win!" -General McClellan, Oversimplified Civil War Part 1

[Stealth17]

On 11/18/2020 at 2:44 PM, SonicB said:

Just dropping in this treasure from Alpha-9, because when you have five 19" turrets who needs to see where you're going?

 

 

On 11/22/2020 at 1:59 PM, coalminer said:

I heard you like barbettes, so heres a barbette with a tower that has a barbette.

 

On 11/24/2020 at 4:33 AM, Cpt.Hissy said:

Sake i guess.

 

Same battle. Are they secretly a player?

"Which guns would we use, sir?" - "Oh i cant decide..."

So, 3 out of 3 are dorked in some way, great job AI.

 

On 11/24/2020 at 9:45 PM, TotalRampage said:

 

On 11/28/2020 at 2:59 PM, DeiLwynnA said:

i dont encounter that many odd ai made designs myself but just got this one today against my upsized bismarck (wounded beast mission)

a bit of an odd nelson/richelieu/dunkerque style ship, has got to be very front heavy since it has nothing on the stern

 

On 12/3/2020 at 11:30 PM, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:

When Spain attempts to recreate the HMS Nelson

 

On 12/6/2020 at 5:28 PM, SonicB said:

I also came here to post a hideously unbalanced hybrid battleship/carrier. Seems to be something about Alpha-9...

 

On 12/8/2020 at 5:48 PM, Cptbarney said:

some ugleh ships.

top one is just a giant meme and the bottom one the french really like they guns to the front of the ship.

 

On 12/14/2020 at 8:44 PM, Fishyfish said:

The Marlboro mans personal yacht "Chuffin" aka muh machinery spaces. 

 

 

On 12/29/2020 at 2:51 PM, Pooshek said:

"With this innovative destroyer design, we can produce smoke screen all the time"

Truly a beautiful ship.

 

On 12/31/2020 at 4:28 PM, Cptbarney said:

Its alright, but it shows the current limitations of the current designer atm.

bare bum.

Toineh ead syndrome.

 

On 1/16/2021 at 2:38 PM, SonicB said:

Can't stop laughing at this one.

Toot toot I'm a tugboat

 

On 1/16/2021 at 3:53 PM, Masonator said:

I present to you the mighty HMS Inflexible, the latest capital ship of His Majesty's navy! Featuring twelve (yes, twelve!) 14" guns in three quadruple turrets, in 1923, and absolutely nothing in the way of armour, internal subdivision, or secondary armament, these blisteringly-fast battlecruisers will surely show the Boche what's what in the name of the King. Britannia rules the waves!

As predicted, they had absolutely no armour, piss-poor module selection, and minimum bulkheads. All four were sunk within the opening stages of the match, and the newly-broken formation system prevented my Queen Elizabeths from forming a cohesive battleline before the German dreadnoughts smashed them to pieces.

Oh well. I guess I'll just go back to waiting for modern British towers.

 

On 2/2/2021 at 6:50 PM, Stormnet said:

I found another one while I did a battleship vs battleship scenario. I had a 130k ton beast with a quad 50.6 cm sitting in the center, and 6 triple 38.1 cm cannons.

 

I expected to fight a worthy foe, but I should have known better:

 

 

Yes, your silly eyes arent deceiving you:

 

The 30k ton battlecruisers going along were far more threatning with their 3x triple 33 cm.

 

Jokes aside, Im pretty sure this will be the absolute worst nightmare of any light/medium ship, its a somewhat fast for a 90 thousand ton battleship, its armor is decent, and that is a strong 24" torpedo armament...

 

But I dont think lots of butterflies can destroy a tank... especially one with 55 cm of side armor... 

Also, the AI used huge barbettes for these tiny guns...

And, if you are ever in this situation, make sure to add a 17.8 cm double to further increase the accuracy penalty.

 

On 3/28/2021 at 5:27 PM, SonicB said:

It is my fervent hope that this thread will eventually die out from lack of new content, but it is not this day.

This day we post a Japanese battleship hiding an entire light cruiser squadron under its... skirts? Someone give me an anime reference, I'm not cool enough to have one ready.

 

On 4/4/2021 at 4:50 PM, SonicB said:

*straightens tie* okay welcome one and all to the New Serious Constructive Warship Design Critique Thread.

Today we will discuss the relative merits of 21-inch and 22-inch torpedoes, the important stylistic choice of two funnels or three on this season's fashion-forward predreadnoughts, and...

oh dear god what in the name of St Nick is that




"Give me a super Yamato, but... nine inch. I want twenty-four nine-inch guns. There was a special at the store and I bought the entire discount bin. Oh, and it has to do 39 knots."



In this parallel universe, the US Navy's famously competent Bureau of Ordnance takes one look at the truly awful Ise-class carrier battleship and decides "I want one of those! But we're constitutionally obliged to add MORE GUNS."

This was since justified by the ship being so front-heavy that the aft deck can be used as a ski jump in heavy waves.



We round out this month's clown ship appreciation post with What In The Cinnamon Toast Shrimp F--k Is That, a conceptual sculpture by an anonymous 1940s American artist. This collector's piece has the distinction of killing more US sailors than the attack on Pearl Harbor when it was broken in half by a light wave.

 

On 6/27/2021 at 1:34 PM, ThatZenoGuy said:

Where do I even begin?...

 

On 9/27/2021 at 3:22 PM, SodaBit said:

This one's old, but the AI really needs to learn how to prioritize larger secondary guns. Or at least de-prioritize peashooter calibers...

 

On 10/1/2021 at 11:15 PM, RedParadize said:

Doesn't clearly belong in the clown car tread, as there is merit to paper tiger design, I just trough it was worth mentioning:

guns are 15"er.

 

On 10/5/2021 at 8:59 PM, Speglord said:

Doing "Defend Your Convoy" and came across this monstrosity...

 

On 10/24/2021 at 10:07 PM, tvaishar said:

Japanese Nelson class tanker on a lot of acid.

 

On 12/13/2021 at 2:51 PM, RedParadize said:

I must admit that I find that one pretty cool:

 

On 12/13/2021 at 11:00 PM, Grayknight said:

German engineering at its finest (1910)

 

On 1/6/2022 at 6:51 AM, Bishop120 said:

Thought yall might like this CA waiting for some float planes or helis with his deck space... 2x3x9ins 1x3x5in and 1x3x3in that I couldnt even see anywhere..

 

On 2/4/2022 at 3:25 AM, neph said:

Germany, what the hell are you doing. That's not a good cruiser

 

On 2/7/2022 at 7:10 AM, neph said:

Secondaries like fleas on a dog...

 

On 2/7/2022 at 8:19 AM, neph said:

 

Got enough 2" barrels? Also: love how the AI generates a 1940s BB w/ 13" guns vs my 1930s BB w/ 20" mains.

 

On 2/11/2022 at 9:23 PM, neph said:

What the hell is this & what the hell is that secondary placement?? the AI is cheating egregiously--and it's still losing!

 

 

On 3/5/2022 at 10:09 PM, Littorio said:

BEHOLD this absolute ABOMINATION of a cruiser. It possesses a single 7in gun forward with almost no ammo, and two torpedo tubes, one per side.

 

On 3/6/2022 at 10:04 AM, Vanhal said:

I think someone forgot to mention to AI that this is UA: Dreadnoughts not UA: Age of Sail game.

It's 1910, i was fielding dreadnought by then.

 

On 4/1/2022 at 8:22 PM, Fangoriously said:

Quite the heavy cruiser the AI designed here

of course it wasn't balanced or optimized quite well enough to be effective, that -18.4 hull stability gives that away.

 

On 4/7/2022 at 8:08 AM, neph said:

Oh AI, AI. Why do you keep doing this to me?

 

 

On 4/8/2022 at 11:46 AM, SodaBit said:

Not an AI design, but I feel this definitely has a place on this thread.
The worst Battlecruiser I've ever designed, the Minimato.

The thing I hate most about this design isn't the stupid proportions, the total lack of a secondary battery, or the fact that the vibrations of the guns firing has a decent chance of damaging the hull of the ship. The thing I hate most about Minimato is the fact that it works.

In fact, it works exceptionally well.
This stupid design I came up with at 4 AM after having only a Mountain Dew for breakfast preforms better than most of the BC's the AI throws at me in campaigns and custom battles.
Wargaming's bullshit is what made me pick up UA:D in the first place, but bullshit like this is what keeps me playing it.

 

On 4/29/2022 at 6:26 AM, SodaBit said:

Got some more for this thread.
Decided to make myself a snack while waiting for custom battle to finish designing AI ships.
Came back, ate my taco, and was greeted with this beauty.

And of course, her BB counterpart.

Apologies for the massive ping. Would it be ok with you guys if I use your screenshot in a video, showcasing all the crazy ships the AI has built over the years?

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Stealth17 said:

screenshot in a video, showcasing all the crazy ships the AI has built over the years?

This would mock UADs.

Quote

·         Further Auto-Design improvements: AI will design ships even better following the logic of the new mechanics for Citadel and Guns.

This is typical of every single patch. The game has come a long way since those posts, very few now.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Skeksis

[SodaBit]

1 hour ago, Stealth17 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for the massive ping. Would it be ok with you guys if I use your screenshot in a video, showcasing all the crazy ships the AI has built over the years?

You've got permission for mine.

As for the optics that would surround showcasing these ships, while it can be seen as mocking U:AD by some, it is also important to learn from one's mistakes. Chronicling U:AD's mistakes can make the game look bad in the short-term, but it will have a tangible long-term payoff as the various issues that lead to these designs leaving the dockyard are addressed by the devs.

I've seen games make some pretty dire mistakes before, having played Destiny 2 since it launched. It was in horrific shape back then, a total slap in the face to fans, and an insult to Bungie's legacy as a development studio. While Bungie got a lot of flak for their mistakes, they recognized them as mistakes and learned from them. It took them a good long while before the game was what it was meant to be, and they had to bust their asses to get it in shape, but they got it done in the end. Destiny 2 is in excellent shape now, it's easily one of the top 5 MMO's on the market, but it sure as Hell didn't get there by pretending nothing was wrong, and ignoring its flaws. 
Lucky, U:AD isn't in that bad of shape. It still has flaws, but they can be fixed, and for this game to become what developers and fans want it to be, those flaws must be fixed. It isn't going to happen over night, and it'll probably feel like bashing one's head against a wall most days, but it can be done. The main thing that it's going to take is knowing what those flaws are, and having the drive to fix them. We on this forum might not have the capability to fix U:AD's issues, but we can point them out, and in doing so, save the devs a bit of time by identifying what issues need to be addressed, and how much of a priority we think they should be.

[Skeksis]

12 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

it is also important to learn from one's mistakes

But using out-of-date posts or as you have put it,  out-of-date "mistakes", would be a massive misrepresentation on his part.

[Nick Thomadis]

Using ancient videos to showcase something irrelevant to the current state of the game is not helping anyone.

Closed.