Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<


Recommended Posts

That is a known problem. You might want to use CTRL-button and turn the turrets to fix this. Seemingly, the secondaries are a bit large now and will not fit. This also goes for smaller secondaries on smaller hulls, mainly on Japanese and German hulls.
 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Guys, we are sorry for the silence. The campaign is in works, and it is the primary thing we do now. The game is certainly not dead. The version you play is stable so what remains as top priority for

Admirals, The anticipated patch has been finalized and is ready for you to play! Explore the many new hulls, the Ship Design improvements and lots of interesting mechanics. The AI is also signifi

Please keep this thread relevant to the topic. Some of the latest irrelevant posts were deleted and Elrerune The Honorbound has been warned. It is very understandable to discuss about histor

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Darth Khyron said:

That is a known problem. You might want to use CTRL-button and turn the turrets to fix this. Seemingly, the secondaries are a bit large now and will not fit. This also goes for smaller secondaries on smaller hulls, mainly on Japanese and German hulls.
 

Thanks mate I'll try it. I posted the issue here in the thread because on the steam announcement it says "Fixes of various reported bugs related to hulls and guns." so I thought it was fixed but it's still there. I'm looking forward to it being fixed one day.

Edit: I tried it! It works! Thank you mate!
build-2021-06-08-22-18-52-841.png%20build-2021-06-08-22-24-51-819.png

Edited by Elrerune
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2021 at 7:25 AM, PainGod said:

TL;DR: mark and caliber of gun should influence battery precision, while mark of the rangefinding equipment should influence its accuracy.

Yes, you've put more precisely what I was getting at when I split the factors that 'generally' determined likelihood of hitting something.

You need to be able to make an estimate as to where to shoot that in fact overlaps where the ship is when the shells arrive AND you need to be able to put the shells there.

The latter element is what I had in mind when talking about 'other factors' such as mount, propellant charge consistency etc, things you can't do much about.

I wrote a much longer (what a surprise) and detailed discussion of all this stuff a long time back (it seems to me at least). Don't remember when.

Edit: Here's one such post from the latest 'Long list of issues' thread

On 3/29/2021 at 1:42 PM, Steeltrap said:

Am curious to know what scenario that is.

Believe it or not, the fact is this game greatly OVERSTATES how accurate these guns were.

The final iteration, supposedly late WW2 tech integrated radar fire control direction, have hit rates that are utterly absurd.

We've said over and over that THE most significant governing factor when it comes to accuracy between same calibre guns on different ships ought to be fire control tech yet for most of the tech development it appears that is NOT the case.

No, it's simply "bigger is better" because accuracy is tied largely to the guns you're using and NOT the directors that aim them, which makes very little sense when you think about it. To highlight that, the 12" guns for some reason are magically more accurate than 10-11" or indeed 13-14" (or at least has been for the past 6 months at least; I've not played for some time, but I doubt that's changed). Why? No idea.

The main factor that OUGHT to be relevant to the guns is how well they go where you think you are aiming them. In that respect there's no reason why a 14" shell ought to be any better at hitting a spot at which you're aiming, which is what your gunnery solution is, than an 8" shell.

The GREATEST difference ought to be a reflection of how well your tech takes the factors that go into producing a solution and generates a good one. Yes, shell flight characteristics are a contributor both for accuracy AND flight time reasons, but the fact is a properly calibrated fire control system has all those built into it, kind of like bore sighting an infantry rifle with a scope. Factors such as how the Italian 15" of WW2 had issues both due to the mount but also inconsistency of propellant quality can affect how well you can take advantage of a good firing solution, obviously, because if your guns can't fire shells that will go where you believe you are telling them to then the solution becomes less relevant to some degree. That could be put into the game or not, or the player given an option.

That DOESN'T change the main point about fire control systems being of greater significance.

To use an example, consider the final battle of Scharnhorst. When it came to the ability to hit Scharnhorst in atrocious visibility and bad sea conditions, which was more relevant, the fact that HMS Duke of York was using 14" guns, or that she had very sophisticated radar tied to her fire control systems, radar that detected Scharnhorst at ~41km or over 45,000 yards?

OK, that might not be quite a fair question because, as I said before, the bizarre thing is just how crazily accurate radar makes the late war tech ships. Yet it remains true that the accuracy is tied more to the gun calibre and version (marks 1-6 from memory) than the directors.

It's annoying and frustrating, but there's little evidence it's going to change.

Cheers

My general opinion remains, however, that the game GROSSLY overstates the gun and reduces the importance of all the OTHER elements that varied considerably over time and between navies as they developed. It also does so somewhat peculiarly, with, as we all know, certain calibres apparently being 'favoured' for no apparent reason I can discern.

Even the whole "bigger calibre with larger range is inherently more accurate at most if not all ranges" is flawed IMO, although that's arguably more a symptom of what I think the problems are with the current system as opposed to a cause.

The crew elements are yet to be added, so no criticism there.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure you and I agree 95% on this stuff, although I am always happy to take on board relevant and constructive criticism/feedback. I am 100% sure we all want the 'best' possible representation even if just what that is may vary in the minutiae.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Elrerune said:

Edit: I tried it! It works! Thank you mate!

The potential downside of that is the turrets can get jammed, or at least could in the past, when in the battle.

It could be that's been corrected, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2021 at 4:59 AM, Stormnet said:

We really need a super long issue/feature suggestion list. There has been so many ideas/issues, yet their implementation and fixing has taken so long/never happened that we end up forgetting 70% of them, until they come to mind a few months later, and the cycle repeats.

I volunteered to run such a thing quite some time ago but without moderation rights, at least in that thread, it would be too unwieldy.

It would also require genuine commitment from the team to classify the things as needing a fix soon, later, or nice to have soonish, or nice to have but not in the next 24 months. Without that a list could become an increasing source of irritation, which one might suggest is why it's not been pursued. If the same things are on there over and over and over without any comment or commitment from the devs, what would that suggest or achieve?

In part perhaps the biggest 'issue' is there are some of us who feel some very substantial core system design choices did, are, and will always continue to cause problems, and the dev team shows zero interest in acknowledging such discussions, let alone engage on them. They'd be on the list and remain 'uncommented' by devs. As I mentioned above, that could become awkward.

Anyway, as I couldn't satisfy either of the requirements I mentioned I haven't bothered.

It would be entirely possible to go through the 'long list of issues' and various 'patch feedback' threads to sort out a list of things. If someone wants to WITHOUT covering the two points I raised initially, they're welcome to do so. I suspect they'll never manage to control the thread, and without some sort of commitment from devs it's more or less pointless even if they could.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

The potential downside of that is the turrets can get jammed, or at least could in the past, when in the battle.

It could be that's been corrected, however.

Yes. It's corrected in this new version. I'm really happy about it. Tested the rotation and it really works.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm glad graf spee has come, I wonder if the scharnhorst hull and superstructures will come? Will ships like Agir come too?I'm afraid to ask, but are you planning to bring in aircraft carriers?If this happens, I think at least the small caliber guns on the ships will be more useful than the secondary battery, they will be more functional.

Edited by Admiral Lütjens
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Admiral Lütjens said:

I'm glad graf spee has come, I wonder if the scharnhorst hull and superstructures will come? Will ships like Agir come too?I'm afraid to ask, but are you planning to bring in aircraft carriers?If this happens, I think at least the small caliber guns on the ships will be more useful than the secondary battery, they will be more functional.

the last official statement I remember was that they didn't plan to because they were focusing on the campaign.

 

 

Thou I have to say: they keep putting more and more loading screens which are either CV related or just plane related

Link to post
Share on other sites
08.06.2021 в 22:15 Дарт Хайрон сказал:

Это известная проблема. Вы можете использовать кнопку CTRL и повернуть турели, чтобы исправить это. Казалось бы, второстепенные звенья стали крупноваты и не влезут. Это также относится к меньшим вторичным частям на меньших корпусах, в основном на японских и немецких корпусах.
 

How to do it? I've been playing for a year and a half, but I still don't understand ((

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, while moving the object with the mouse, you press the CTRL button. That allows you a wider range of placement options.

For turning, you press the T or R buttons. Rotating heavier turrets is also the only way to mount these on standard german battleships. 

Looks crappy, but works.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the very tall barbette still actually shorter than the tall barbette? I found a post all the way back to alpha 9 that pointed this out but it's still an issue.  I would think this would be a very easy change.  Also, when you guys decide to fix this, please don't make the height difference as miniscule as the current height difference between the two.  I would say that the very tall barbette should be at least 1/3 taller than the tall barbette.  Also, on the subject of barbette heights, it would be nice to have a taller huge barbette so the 18+ calibers can be mounted in a short-tall-short config (like the Rodney/Nelson).

Thx

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the starter of the Clown Car thread, I'm aware that it's pi*sed off Nick in the past, but... I just wanted to say this patch seems to have gone a long way towards making it unnecessary.

Aside from too many Mogami-type turret layouts (three turrets forward, only C turret superfiring with B turret obscured), some uneven weight distribution, and still too much variety in secondary armament, I haven't noticed any more immersion-breaking issues.

So, well done devs. Keep up the good work!

and let's have anadjustable length:beam ratio in the designer please ❤️

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SonicB said:

As the starter of the Clown Car thread, I'm aware that it's pi*sed off Nick in the past, but... I just wanted to say this patch seems to have gone a long way towards making it unnecessary.

Aside from too many Mogami-type turret layouts (three turrets forward, only C turret superfiring with B turret obscured), some uneven weight distribution, and still too much variety in secondary armament, I haven't noticed any more immersion-breaking issues.

So, well done devs. Keep up the good work!

and let's have anadjustable length:beam ratio in the designer please ❤️

I think the secondaries issue is pretty bad still. Why on earth do 'modern' dreadnoughts regularly have 7-8 inch weapons in weird numbers and places, coupled with 3 inch weapons sprinkled EVERYWHERE?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SonicB said:

As the starter of the Clown Car thread, I'm aware that it's pi*sed off Nick in the past, but... I just wanted to say this patch seems to have gone a long way towards making it unnecessary.

Aside from too many Mogami-type turret layouts (three turrets forward, only C turret superfiring with B turret obscured), some uneven weight distribution, and still too much variety in secondary armament, I haven't noticed any more immersion-breaking issues.

So, well done devs. Keep up the good work!

and let's have anadjustable length:beam ratio in the designer please ❤️

Good to know. Further upcoming improvements will make Auto-design even better and faster.

19 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I think the secondaries issue is pretty bad still. Why on earth do 'modern' dreadnoughts regularly have 7-8 inch weapons in weird numbers and places, coupled with 3 inch weapons sprinkled EVERYWHERE?

Because colliders have some issues we need to fix, allowing too big guns on the sides, that can overlap with the superstructure (They should not fit). Those turrets may not fire during battle (known bug, that is fixed in the upcoming core patch).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I think the secondaries issue is pretty bad still. Why on earth do 'modern' dreadnoughts regularly have 7-8 inch weapons in weird numbers and places, coupled with 3 inch weapons sprinkled EVERYWHERE?

In an alternate universe where aircraft didn't exist and secondary batteries were never required to double as AA armament, I could maybe see 7-8" secondaries as realistic by the 1930s and 40s. It would be logical to expect them to keep pace with cruiser main armament, and also to counter the increased range of torpedoes.

However, in this alternate universe of UA:D, you're completely right in that there's no logical reason for a bunch of 2" and 3" guns. One problem is that the devs have decided to base the towers on real historical designs that did co-exist with aircraft, and so the AI is presented with a bunch of small-calibre slots to fill because the real ships had AA guns there.

The only solution I can see for that particular issue, at least for the time being, is model inactive AA guns on the towers much in the same way as depth-charge racks on DD hulls.

As for the small calibre guns all over the deck, that's clearly still an issue that needs to be looked at within existing auto-design rules, and I'm sure it will be addressed.

Edited by SonicB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SonicB said:

In an alternate universe where aircraft didn't exist and secondary batteries were never required to double as AA armament, I could maybe see 7-8" secondaries as realistic by the 1930s and 40s. It would be logical to expect them to keep pace with cruiser main armament, and also to counter the increased range of torpedoes.

However, in this alternate universe of UA:D, you're completely right in that there's no logical reason for a bunch of 2" and 3" guns. One problem is that the devs have decided to base the towers on real historical designs that did co-exist with aircraft, and so the AI is presented with a bunch of small-calibre slots to fill because the real ships had AA guns there.

The only solution I can see for that particular issue, at least for the time being, is model inactive AA guns on the towers much in the same way as depth-charge racks on DD hulls.

As for the small calibre guns all over the deck, that's clearly still an issue that needs to be looked at within existing auto-design rules, and I'm sure it will be addressed.

Unless they add in lighter air elements, like ww1 fighters, interceptors, scouts, bombers, attackers and airships, maybe with a few interwar stuff as well.

Otherwise yeah the smoll caliber stuff is kinda trivial unless you give them unique purposes (so maybe being far more useful against transports and maybe not having to waste bigger and more precious ammo on small or civilian ships, could even have them for targeting life-boats, cutters and tugs too.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SonicB said:

In an alternate universe where aircraft didn't exist and secondary batteries were never required to double as AA armament, I could maybe see 7-8" secondaries as realistic by the 1930s and 40s. It would be logical to expect them to keep pace with cruiser main armament, and also to counter the increased range of torpedoes.

However, in this alternate universe of UA:D, you're completely right in that there's no logical reason for a bunch of 2" and 3" guns. One problem is that the devs have decided to base the towers on real historical designs that did co-exist with aircraft, and so the AI is presented with a bunch of small-calibre slots to fill because the real ships had AA guns there.

The only solution I can see for that particular issue, at least for the time being, is model inactive AA guns on the towers much in the same way as depth-charge racks on DD hulls.

As for the small calibre guns all over the deck, that's clearly still an issue that needs to be looked at within existing auto-design rules, and I'm sure it will be addressed.

There was mention of aircraft as non-interactive entities, the same as subs, if this is still on the cards then small caliber weapons would/could contribute to the influence upon aircraft, as destroyers do upon subs.

This would give late small caliber weapons purpose, such as recently added bofors.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2021 at 2:17 PM, SonicB said:

In an alternate universe...I could maybe see 7-8" secondaries as realistic by the 1930s and 40s...

You can see 7-8" secondaries on real pre-WW1 ships in mass. Italian Regina Elena  have 8" secondaries, austro-hungarian Erzherzog Karl have 19 sm secondaries, hunnic SMS Deutschland have 17sm secondaries, Liberté-class have 194mm secondaries  and USS Vermont have 7" and 8" secondaries.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

You can see 7-8" secondaries on real pre-WW1 ships in mass. Italian Regina Elena  have 8" secondaries, austro-hungarian Erzherzog Karl have 19 sm secondaries, hunnic SMS Deutschland have 17sm secondaries, Liberté-class have 194mm secondaries  and USS Vermont have 7" and 8" secondaries.

I was replying to @ThatZenoGuy raising the issue of heavy secondaries on modern dreadnoughts - i.e. those with a unified main battery.

Of course, there were plenty of pre-dreadnoughts with guns of that calibre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had to apologize to all my gaming friends who purchased this game.  There's no levels of "Easy" "Medium" or "Hard" there is only "Have your butt handed to you".  I've managed to finish 13 of the Naval Academy levels.  After 6 weeks I've given up on the game; a game should have at least a 50/50% chance of winning instead of 100% losing.  My friends have complained about it, I have complained about it, I've sent emails about it.

 

I am ashamed that I was conned into purchasing this game.  I am ashamed that what started out as a really nice game from watching such guys as "Stealthgamer17" and "Brothermanard" on YouTube videos I watched for a year before deciding to get this game.  I am ashamed that for growing up at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Keyport and Bangor Submarine bases, and listening to the men who actually fought in World War Two then comparing their real life stories to this awful game?  Delete or post if you want Mod- I'm sending it by email where I'm sure it'll be trashed anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Trailltrader said:

I've had to apologize to all my gaming friends who purchased this game.  There's no levels of "Easy" "Medium" or "Hard" there is only "Have your butt handed to you".  I've managed to finish 13 of the Naval Academy levels.  After 6 weeks I've given up on the game; a game should have at least a 50/50% chance of winning instead of 100% losing.  My friends have complained about it, I have complained about it, I've sent emails about it.

100% agree about easy mode.

Difficulty levels:

  • Challenging.
  • Normal.
  • Novice.
    • Guys who just want to design/build and not necessary want to engage in long and drawn out battles. 
    • Guys who can't or are not capable of playing at under normal or challenging combat/campaign conditions or modes. 
    • Guys who just want to go through the campaign smashing up everything.... ME, I'm one of these guys, well for the first campaign run anyway, like work the campaign/designs etc. but steamroll everything else - much more fun.
    • Guys who want to do campaign practice runs first - to properly understand the campaign part first.
    • Guys who want to do fast or quick campaign to get to late era tech/ships and then fight some sort of late era campaign, pre-WW2, only canvas earlier era.
    • Guys who are the most detached from anything like a challenge.  

Games should have support for all walks of life. Shouldn't be restrictive as example by Naval Action. Optional is the key.      

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trailltrader said:

There's no levels of "Easy" "Medium" or "Hard" there is only "Have your butt handed to you"

UA:D naval academy is like a strangely designed puzzle. Game balance as changed numerous time but the mission did not (or very little), resulting in some mission being easier/harder to complete as patches goes. It's not really relevant and shouldn't be minded too much.

Let the dev hopefully finish the game and then we'll talk about "difficulty sliders".

In the meantime, play some custom battle, fool around in some of the better naval academy and like most of us. Wait for something.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...