>>>Alpha-11 HotFix v84 Feedback<<< (1/4/2020)

[Nick Thomadis]

The new hotfix update has just become available. Restart your launcher to get it.

*HotFix v82* (10/3/2021)

• Japanese late tech 4/5-inch guns of large capital ships got their proper model (for making Yamato looking secondaries).
• Various repairs in Auto-Design. (Addressing some potential overlapping issues between guns and superstructure).
• Fixed bug that could cause AI to build ships with underwater guns or player to create floating guns. Please report if you anticipate this bug again.
• Fixed "empty barbette" warning on new British towers, caused by unoccupied side gun placements.
• Fixed "Mount 2" error that could make parts to not mount as they should.
• Fixed bug that caused turret barrels to overlap with superstructure when rotating during battle.
• Fixed a rare bug that caused the critical exception "Too many threads".
• Various tower and ship part fixes/improvements as reported.
• Reduced further the distance in which AI scout and independent ships operate away from the main fleet. 
• AI should save ammo with more efficiency, it should fire at medium ranges with low ammo.- Penetration improvements as per players' suggestions. Deck penetration power is not so much pronounced compared to side hit penetration.

Please note two issues that are known and we are working to fix them:
- Sometimes the auto-design of a fleet in a custom battle or Naval Academy battle may delay too long and hang the game.
- The "Too many threads" error can still happen. We will investigate the cause and fix ASAP.

[madham82]

53 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Good players will command every single ship, ensuring every ship is going to be in the best position, lazy players will switch on auto-captain.

This is elitist thinking. Simply because "you" want it to be that way, doesn't mean everyone does as clearly indicated by the fact people are chiming in on both sides of the discussion.  This is a "game" as you usually bring up. Good games don't force players to micromanage. Bad games offer no other choice. We have choice as is in the game, the problem is just the AI needs to be tweaked. We can meet both sides here, but calling someone "good" and another "lazy" is not helpful.

59 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

That is the feedback from RTW2, to which this game is inspire by, essentially in the height of battle you do not use time compression and auto-captain, otherwise you’re going to take losses.

Take losses using time compression and auto-captain assumes you are "perfect" player. So every player micromanaging will not take losses?...of course not. In fact, a newbie trying to micromanage might lose more than letting the AI take control. You are generalizing here. What you should have said is those that can micromanage well will be more "effective" than those relying on the AI. 

 

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

This game is not an HOI4 campaign only style game either, the battle instance is a major part of the game, dumbing down the battle instance and leaving players idle for the duration of battles we currently have is destined to fail, it would create a boredom factor beyond belief.

I agree with some of this, but boredom happens just as often with steep learning curves. Not everyone reacts to a challenge in the same way, especially with games. We've talked about customizable difficulties before, the same applies here. Choice is what is needed. They can take the sit back and watch approach, or go hands on. 

 

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Which then brings the game back to torpedo’s and there role.

With them…

• Creates torpedo attack runs.
  • Create the need to design fast attack ships i.e. DDs.
  • Create a avenue for cheaper ships that can actually do something.
  • Create a role for DDs/CLs since there’s no sub role.
• Creates torpedo defence.
  • Create the design need for secondaries on battleships/cruiser etc.
  • Creates the need for cruiser to support capital ships against fast and hidden attackers.
• Creates battle tactics.
  • Capital ships can’t blindly charge in and must keep on station, else face losses.
  • Create support ships roles such as screening.

I’m sure I could run up a very long list but to suffice to say without torpedo’s it would be detrimental to the game's overall battle interaction. Dev’s would have tested historical reloads i.e. just one load and must of found it doesn’t work for the overall concept, “torpedo soup” is here to stay.

All good points here, except the "Create a avenue for cheaper ships that can actually do something". This doesn't need special consideration as the technology itself created this. 

And your last sentence is not accurate. The Devs have never stated they tested it, they only made a peace gesture which reduced the number per option by 1 reload/tube. Personally I've not harped on this anymore because of the balance issues with TDS that make excessive numbers of torpedoes necessary to sink well protected ships. Once that issue is fixed, it would be worth pursuing further.

But a point I find funny is how you can talk about people using AI captain and time compression are lazy, but people who want unrealistic numbers of torpedoes and ability to reload are vindicated. If those people weren't "lazy", they wouldn't need but one salvo. But more importantly since you brought RTW2 as the game this one should aspire to be? How exactly do they handle it there? It sure isn't “torpedo soup”. 

[Cptbarney]

Think we might have to decide on the number of reloads if any. I vote 1 at least for DD's 2 at least for CL's since im assuming the campaign will punish questionable design choices.

Either way glad too see the new hotfix anyways.

[Tousansons]

1 minute ago, madham82 said:

This is elitist thinking.

This is wrong. Games have a set of rules and propose a challenge to players. A big part of a game is overcoming the challenge. Depending on the game, the challenge will be different, be it easier or harder. There is nothing elitist at thinking a player that overcome the challenge by it's rules is good while the other is less good. Lazy was perhaps a bit harsh, but who cares it is the internet, your avatar can't be harmed.

5 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Good games don't force players to micromanage.

Age of Empire 2 force the player to micromanage. It is one of the best RTS ever made. Some will even say it is the best RTS to date. It is probably not avoiding torpedoes, but still. Converting unit is microgestion, setting farms is microgestion, ect.

Also:

Yay, hotfix.

[IronKaputt]

2 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Think we might have to decide on the number of reloads if any.

Perhaps just follow the historical path? DD's reloads as separate component + additional crew training?

Also sextuple launchers won't hurt.

[Bigjku]

11 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Think we might have to decide on the number of reloads if any. I vote 1 at least for DD's 2 at least for CL's since im assuming the campaign will punish questionable design choices.

Either way glad too see the new hotfix anyways.

I think the simple fix would be to add a launcher with a reload mechanism as a part.  It can fire two salvos and the others can fire one.

Single Fire US Models

 

Reload Japanese Models

Those big rectangular boxes in front or behind the tubes are where the reloads go.  Basically you double the length of the installation to have reloads.  Just implement a new part for the quad and quint launchers that has reloads and you should be in good shape.

The logical question of course is why not just put another launcher in that space.  Japan had a very doctrinal reason for doing reloads.  Every other navy just installed more torpedo launchers if they wanted them.  Russians might have been an exception but they did it Russian style and just lashed the things to the deck if I remember right.

[o Barão]

40 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Think we might have to decide on the number of reloads if any. I vote 1 at least for DD's 2 at least for CL's since im assuming the campaign will punish questionable design choices.

Either way glad too see the new hotfix anyways.

You are ignoring another option. Reload yes. But between battles. This would be more historical accurate.

[Skeksis]

50 minutes ago, madham82 said:

We can meet both sides here, but calling someone "good" and another "lazy" is not helpful.

Sure lazy is a poor word choice but was trying to describe a way of how not to play the game (in my opinion), in the shortest term possible, I think you got that anyway.

53 minutes ago, madham82 said:

What you should have said is those that can micromanage well will be more "effective" than those relying on the AI. 

Yes that's better put, thanks.

What's needed now is Nick to put up the facts on reloads, put to bed any re-hashing of any pipedreams. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Reload as an actual deck mounted module, and/or account for that with reloads being HEAVY.
It's not a heresy to allow non-japanese do reloads, it's heresy to make those reloads a norm, coming by default with not much additional cost.

In few words, ability to spam torpedoes like bullets should have a specific reason, a hefty cost, and an option to not pay that cost by not doing the thing.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[Cpt.Hissy]

A sudden thought.. or a realisation, that i tried to not think about.
Looks like most, if not all, non bug related complains here are caused by the fact that the game sells itself as "realistic" and "highly detailed".
While with all this "balancing" based on "player feedback", they clearly not even trying to make it as such.

devs could avoid so much noise, and get better and more useful feedback, by just admitting that they are making a gamey game first and foremost, primarily driven by gamey balance, and only vaguely inspired by real ships.

[Tycondero]

10 hours ago, Skeksis said:

And yet it has both, strategy and battle tactics, both “grand”, lets keep it that way.

Indeed, battle tactics as in requiring planning and tactical warfare (organization, formation, roles and positioning), not showing an individual subordinate captain of a ship within a division how to use the steering wheel to not drive into a friendly ship or avoid easy to avoid long spotted torpedoes (micromanagement). If the torpedoes happen to appear all the sudden due to technology (e.g. electrical) or bad weather and thus cannot be avoided by the ship because they couldn't be spotted early enough or the ship is not agile, then I would say it is perfectly fine to get hit by them. Now the subordinates in the formation just ignore them completely and drive right into them.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Tycondero

[killjoy1941]

10 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Think we might have to decide on the number of reloads if any. I vote 1 at least for DD's 2 at least for CL's since im assuming the campaign will punish questionable design choices.

Either way glad too see the new hotfix anyways.

 

I'd be perfectly okay with 1 reload, if the player/AI chose "Increased" torpedo reload.

People either don't understand or don't want to consider the cost and purpose of IJN torpedo reloads: They were meant to happen outside combat.

How does that work? You fire your torpedo complement, then withdraw, reload, then reengage. You now fire again. Now you engage in gunnery.

Ideally, you'd not know your opponent's torpedo reload. If they detect you, fire torpedoes, withdraw, and reload, you'd never know other than the two waves of torpedoes.

 

IJN surface engagement:

• Identify Target
• Fire torpedoes
• Assess damage
• Retreat, fire again

@Cptbarney is right. Torpedoes should be limited, but potent. I'd add that detection equipment should mitigate torpedo strikes to an extent, but not eliminate them.

[Tousansons]

 

5 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

A sudden thought.. or a realisation, that i tried to not think about.
Looks like most, if not all, non bug related complains here are caused by the fact that the game sells itself as "realistic" and "highly detailed".
While with all this "balancing" based on "player feedback", they clearly not even trying to make it as such.

devs could avoid so much noise, and get better and more useful feedback, by just admitting that they are making a gamey game first and foremost, primarily driven by gamey balance, and only vaguely inspired by real ships.

Players should also lower their expectations and like this game, aim for realism. Telling that a naval video game will first and foremost be a naval video game will not help at all. Regardless of it's developpment You will still have flocks of people demanding that their shipfu be added, or that their research show that the shellweight at X moment is wrong, that there is no tactical map, or that battles takes ages and there is little to do in them, ect. If UA:D aim is to have some sort of realism in ship design and battles, I'll stick with that and start praising/roasting when the dev team will tell me that it is basically done. Which as of now is clearly not the case, mind you.

I wrote and fought during the first great spreadsheet war against filling the game with 40 years of naval data immediatly. I have not changed my view, and I still find it useless. UA:D is already lacking some of it's base feature (like crew members) and the only way to test designs is random battles where the player have little control, or the puzzles of naval academy. Do we need to talk about ship AI in battle? Or the barebone UI? What about economy and design costs? How does campaign will work and how battles will be generated/fought? I couldn't care less about historical weight or range, or tonnage when it is already hard to TELL what the game is trying to do with it's numbers.

I still believe it is much easier to start tweaking numbers when your base is solid enough to test them in a "realistic" environnement. And in my opinion we don't have this environnement yet.

Will it take time? Certainly, like I already wrote somewhere else on this forum, a similar game of the same scope started it's developpement around 2013 (some of the first post in Steam and Iron forum date to this year) and spawned three games, countless patches and bugfixes. It is still flawed and developped to this day (RTW2 will have it's missiles DLC). This alone should have tempered the expectation of any UA:D early baker, without counting the fact that we also learned that the dev team at the time was three people, and their objectives was to release the game half a year later (correct me if I'm wrong). Thankfully this changed and we can now expect a bit more with no real ETA.

Do we need to stop spreadsheeting? No, on the contrary, it is still important to show them that we want realism in the game at some point. It can even summon some needed changes early. While I understand it can be frustrating, we just need to be aware that we don't have their internal workflow and that the changes "we" want are probably not their priority, even after feedback. Be it good or bad in the long run.

TL;DR: There will always be noise regardless of the gamey/realistic elements. There will probably be even more noise if suddenly the game shift developpment towards pure arcade. Telling the devs to "Admit" something will not help, this is not a trial but the forum of a game still in early Alpha after two years. And yes, this is a pretty bad sign if you want my blunt opinion on the subject.

[liaxelot]

 

hi all ! i like this game,

now what we need is DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN, and some adjustements

for exemple : the size of turret sould be not only related to the caliber of gun but also to the number of these guns   
double gun turret sould be smaller than a quad turret
other thing very important : COLLISION DAMAGE should be modeled and most importantly should exist !

 i m impatient, it pass the alfa

[madham82]

On torpedoes reloads, again how does RTW2 implement it? If I read correctly they have reload equipment option checked which then consumes weight for the reloads and the ability to reload is impacted by sea state/combat/damage. Also reload is only 1 per tube it looks like. Anyone confirm this? If so, again why not use the same approach here. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Don't know about RTW2, but RTW1 is mostly the same as i know?

So first thing to remember, RTW uses very schematic, map-like battle "world", with most of the interactions running in background as, apparently, a lot of RNG. So methods from there will require some adaptation to work in the fully simulated environment of UAD.

Now, there, ships fire torpedoes wherever they think they should, in my experience most of the time this was at already crippled and possibly sinking target. Sometimes at a ship that was outmanoeuvred, cut off of it's fleet and basically bullied by your forces for a while at that point. No torpedo soup towards fleets at full speed.
Another important thing, there's no torpedo soup at all, and no physical torpedo avoidance and micromanagement. Torpedoes come out as (visually) single unit instead of ocean wide fan of dozens, and ships seem to have a high chance to avoid, even if torpedo visually hits. This chance here in UAD represented by AI's auto avoidance.

Speaking of which, if you don't do something silly, and try to play the game the way it seems to be intended, avoidance AI works more or less decently now. If they have the space, they try to avoid torpedoes most of the time, sometimes even turning not the way i'd manually turned them, and in result avoiding hits more optimally.

[Cptbarney]

Also having the ability not too fire all torps would be pretty cool as well. Maybe one at time or half and half etc.

[Mutsu]

 

Still this issue exists where the large funnel can't be used on the superstructure which these large ships really need to have full engine efficiency unless you want them to be USN Standards slow

[disc]

On 3/10/2021 at 2:54 PM, Bigjku said:

I think the simple fix would be to add a launcher with a reload mechanism as a part.  It can fire two salvos and the others can fire one.

Single Fire US Models

I've posted about this before, but a fair number of US destroyers had a small number of reloads for their torpedo launchers. This picture is USS Fletcher, which was designed to carry 4 reload torpedoes. The weight required was probably not huge -- as far as I am aware, the reloading equipment was the crane system used for normal restocking. The torpedoes would be stashed in lockers near each mount, usually below it.

Reload lockers can be seen next to the second funnel on this picture of USS Porter.

On the other hand, no doubt this approach was slow and awkward, even if the ship wasn't being shot at. Weight was also relatively high in the ship. It seems that most US destroyers lost their reloads sometime in 1943 (?), in favor of other equipment. Why waste weight on these sluggish reloads, when radar and radio and AA and ASW are so pressing?

The Japanese example is different in that it was designed to reload quickly. There was a special chain drive intended to pull the torpedoes straight from the storage bins into the tubes. This required that the torpedoes be stored directly adjacent to the launchers and at the same level. Additionally, the most common Type 93 variant weighed about 1000kg more than its US counterpart, at 2700kg.

[Skeksis]

Torpedo history lessons are irrelevant, here's a real fact...

Torpedo's are in the current meta and to change it would mean restructuring the whole meta from top to bottom and that's not going happen if the team is to stay on this year schedule. 

[madham82]

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Torpedo history lessons are irrelevant, here's a real fact...

Torpedo's are in the current meta and to change it would mean restructuring the whole meta from top to bottom and that's not going happen if the team is to stay on this year schedule. 

So RTW2 and War on the Sea both are off in fantasy land with completely unbalanced gameplay that marginalizes the need for Destroyers? Do tell. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by madham82

[Zuikaku]

Torpedo reloads shoul'd be a very rare (and costly) exception rather than a rule.

Having not just one but multiple reloads by default is just laghable. Hope that will change soon, especially if this game does not want to devolve to brainless shooter.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Zuikaku

[Bigjku]

46 minutes ago, madham82 said:

So RTW2 and War on the Sea both are off in fantasy land with completely unbalanced gameplay that marginalizes the need for Destroyers? Do tell. 

More than that who are you going to sell this game to if not people interested in naval history?  There isn’t some mythical market of people who will buy this who aren’t interested in a reasonable degree of accuracy.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Bad news to you, we all here already bought it. For smol team this might be enough profits already.
Meh.. I'm not even launching this alpha anymore again, will just lurk, flood on forums and wait what it will become eventually. Who knows, might be a decent unrealistic game after all.

[Nick Thomadis]

Sorry but what is the problem with torpedo reloads? The new update offered so many things and we discuss here about something that has been addressed. Already, torpedoes are not unlimited, such as in other games. Torpedo reloads already cost significant weight and money. In campaign torpedo and ammo rounds will have more impact as there are going to be realistic shortages. So now, exactly, what is the problem? Do we need torpedo rounds to be even more expensive and heavy so that they are even more limited? Usually torpedo rounds are up to 2 on average. You can increase but the weight cost will limit the Destroyer in protection and speed significantly.

In the end, torpedoes from distance are not so lethal, since they seldom find a target. 

PS. Ships in formations already auto-evade torpedoes except the division leaders. Divisions leaders which are under player control, if they are commanded badly, they will be hit by torpedoes, of course. Ships in their formation will do their best to evade but they also try to keep a formation which is an extra effort that might make their evasion less effective. Later we can give more automation options, but it is not a priority.