Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 691
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Greetings Admirals, The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to rel

Hello all, We understand your anticipation for the campaign and it is welcome. The last patch which you all play has revealed very few remaining issues that we already sort out to fix in the

Hello all, Tomorrow a new hotfix patch will become available. It will include the following: *Hotfix v90* (30/9/2021) - Refactoring of the Auto-Design code, addressing various issues that coul

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Is this life boat for real blocking the turret from firing?

I suspect it's the little walls the main tower has in front of the lower Oerlikon mount points. The arc is only yellow rather than red so maybe it can shoot over them in practice? (Not that I'd want to be one of said gunners!)

Edited by Evil4Zerggin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2021 at 5:29 PM, Scorpion said:

Guys, do your graphical settings "keep" when you restart the game?

I changed my graphical settings to a ridiculously high level (new gaming PC) and after a few battles, the setting remained the same, but when I closed the game and started it back up again, the graphical setting had gone back to their defaults.

Bug, I guess.

I've been having the same issue, not sure if its a general bug or the game doing it intentionally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a combination of the superstructure footprint and border interference, see sequence of the turret moving from inner to outer...

1001...

s03VX3K.png

1002...

kj2pBYO.png

1003...

aduNdLp.png

Image 1002 shows the arc pushing out from in-between the two red zones. 1001 & 1002 positions should not be stopping the full arc on the outside.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DougToss said:

Partial penetration or penetration by splinters - Low Casualties (I'm not sure about that, how bad was spall?)

Drachinifel actually touched on this in his latest drydock episode (164 i think) although more specifically in relation to conning towers than turrets, and also mentions several examples of partial pens disabling turrets in his 3 part jutland series.

In summation, conning towers became more and more of a double edged sword once 12" and above calibres of guns were introduced, as the kinetic energy carried by such shells would literally ring the towers like a bell with enough force to potentially liquify the brains of anyone inside said conning towers due to the highly confined space with little to no shock venting routes, even if the shell was completely blocked by the thickness of the tower.
Moreover, in case of a partial pen, the spalling created would act like a cartoon bullet fired inside a confined space, pinging around inside repeatedly and cutting all officers stationed there to minces.
This is why the British completely abandoned conning towers on their world war two ships (and partly also the fact that none of their officers ever used them anyways, perhaps because staying on the bridge was simply more convenient or perhaps because they were to some extend aware of above mentioned factors).
They instead opted for mere splinter protection of 2-3", enough to stop splinters whilst also allowing major incoming ordinance to "over-pen" and pass through.  Whilst such an over-pen would still create spall, shrapnel, and casualties from all the damage it caused tearing through the tower, at least the entire conning tower crew wouldn't have their brains liquefied.

Examples of shells hitting conning towers and doing significant damage without penetrating even partially include SMS König taking a 13.5" shell at Jutland from HMS Iron Duke, which, although it ricocheted off the turret and exploded over the water, still wounded rear-admiral Bencke and killed several of his officers.

In regards to direct turret hits specifically, multiple turrets were hit and both permanently or temporarily disabled by partial pens during jutland.

Listing all examples would take forever, but suffice it to say that even though no hits suffered by HMS Warspite during that battle actually penetrated either the main turrets or their barbettes, only A turret was still capable of combat by the end of the battle.

 

Edited by Draco
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that german BBs from 1930s onwards are ridiculously survivable. Like, way too survivable.
Just had a fight with a single german super BB of 103.900t.
My two british modern BBs achieved a total 167 full penetrations with superheavy 18" shells before the german ship finally died to HP loss (it suffered barely any flooding at all). with each Mk.III 18" SH shell weighing 2153kg in game, that means the german BB took 363 tonnes of armour piercing shots before being rendered combat incapable, and this is completely disregarding the numerous ricochets and partial pens it also shrugged off.

I know H-class type ships are supposed to be OP, but I have to call into question whether they would realistically be this OP.

RN the only balancing factor is that half the time the AI apparently forgets to bring any rangefinders or radar, and hopefully we all agree that the main balancing feature should not be the AI's inability to put decent modules on their designs...
Screenshot-3.jpg
Screenshot-4.jpg

 

Edited by Draco
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So err the AI might want re-examining their designs have been missing a ton of key features, and half the battles ive fought in post 1930 the enemy AI has turned up without any form of rangefinders or device to assist aiming on gun heavy builds.

I might suggest in the next patch we get the ability to design enemy AI ships to avoid this issue of the AI either under performning heavily with ships that cant hit anything and are made of paper or super ships that are completely impossible to fight against in a reasonable sized battleship.unknown.pngunknown.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI is apparently tweaked in this patch, but I'm still noticing it concentrates on the weirdest targets. It frequently prioritises light ships well out of torpedo range (or without torpedoes at all) over heavy ships.

I was playing the semi-dreadnought mission this afternoon and the AI spent most of its time shooting at my 2x6" no torps light cruiser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These hotfixes are great and they do fix many of the bugs with this main release but what we really need is info on core patch one right now. Even if its going to be a month or two we would like some info on what the campaign will be and details of features. This drought of info is not great although it seems to be par for the course from this company as ive seen it since day one of the alpha. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2021 at 11:41 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
Greetings Admirals,
The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to release not together with the campaign since it has many new features which owe to be tested solely. Please read everything about it in our blog:
https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/core-patch-0-5-released
 
Your feedback will be much appreciated, as always!
 
FIXED 20/9/2021
=Note: There is a known bug of freeze if you click mouse button while waiting to load a battle. If you choose to not terminate but wait for the program to respond, the battle should load successfully. We delayed the patch in order to make this freeze not critical. We will fix fully as soon as possible.
 
 
*Hotfix v89* (20/9/2021 UPDATE)
- Fixed various bugs of auto-design, which were also responsible for freezes while loading battles. 
- Fixed gun collider issues. You should be able to mount guns with more flexibility, especially in towers.
- Fixed bug in gun selection when it was placed on a tower.
- Fixes on other minors you reported.

I disagree.  This battle was left to run overnight while attempting to load.  It has run from approx 10PM to 4PM and still "loading level"  I think it is safe to say that the program will NOT respond and battle load successfully.

 

Capture.JPG

Capture2.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think having AI design templates that scale displacement/protection/firepower but retain templates for layout might be the best path going forward. Getting AI to design ships from scratch does not seem to be working, but if the AI has a design that includes all of the essential systems, ratio of secondary to primary armament, appropriate armour thickness relative its gun power and speed, etc. then it would be much easier to have the decision left up to it to be which template turret layout, or if it should take 11, 12, or 13in guns etc. 

Dreadnought.jpg

If the AI is picking from designs A-H above, and each has properly pre-set compartmentalization, engines, fire control systems and so on, and the AI is mainly picking what calibre of gun (from a predetermined range for hull type, size and year) and how it will be mounted, then we, the player, can be confident that whatever the choice the AI will have constructed a fundamentally sound ship, while still seeing a variety of possibilities that would be different game-to-game or nation-to-nation. 

 

This is essentially just an evolution of the system already available to players now - hull forms are made by the devs, so whatever the possibilities, there are constraints and a baseline to start from along a range of displacements. So, just like the player does not have to work out the pre-built structure of the ship, the AI would start from a ship "pre-built" with masts, funnels, bulkheads, fire control and so on, (appropriate for availability by year, and in campaign nation technology). This could be further complicated in a campaign context by cost, so that when systems such as radars are new, they are reserved and prioritized for certain ships. 

 

The overall idea here is to reduce overtaxing the AI to design a great ship from scratch. Giving it a leg-up, where essentially whatever choices it does make from a more limited set of options will still be good, I think would be worthwhile. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I think having AI design templates that scale displacement/protection/firepower but retain templates for layout might be the best path going forward. Getting AI to design ships from scratch does not seem to be working, but if the AI has a design that includes all of the essential systems, ratio of secondary to primary armament, appropriate armour thickness relative its gun power and speed, etc. then it would be much easier to have the decision left up to it to be which template turret layout, or if it should take 11, 12, or 13in guns etc. 

Dreadnought.jpg

If the AI is picking from designs A-H above, and each has properly pre-set compartmentalization, engines, fire control systems and so on, and the AI is mainly picking what calibre of gun (from a predetermined range for hull type, size and year) and how it will be mounted, then we, the player, can be confident that whatever the choice the AI will have constructed a fundamentally sound ship, while still seeing a variety of possibilities that would be different game-to-game or nation-to-nation. 

 

This is essentially just an evolution of the system already available to players now - hull forms are made by the devs, so whatever the possibilities, there are constraints and a baseline to start from along a range of displacements. So, just like the player does not have to work out the pre-built structure of the ship, the AI would start from a ship "pre-built" with masts, funnels, bulkheads, fire control and so on, (appropriate for availability by year, and in campaign nation technology). This could be further complicated in a campaign context by cost, so that when systems such as radars are new, they are reserved and prioritized for certain ships. 

 

The overall idea here is to reduce overtaxing the AI to design a great ship from scratch. Giving it a leg-up, where essentially whatever choices it does make from a more limited set of options will still be good, I think would be worthwhile. 

 

I hope they do this, facing ships somehow carrying 16x508mm guns is kinda getting old...

Imagine spending time crafting a carefully balanced, effective and grounded ship only for the AI to bring a clown car with an impossibly heavy armament array and sink it in two salvos...

Also, limiting the AI with templates would hopefully allow us to have a more varied designer. I feel like the devs wanting to leave the AI design ships from scratch is completely castrating the ship designer, as they want to keep it "as simple as possible" so that the AI doesn't do what it's already doing anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2021 at 2:37 PM, DougToss said:

I just wanted to say, @Nick Thomadis I genuinely appreciate this, and would like to see this attitude going forwards. It makes an Old Grog happy to see that you are adhering to simulating real results, and hope that carries over into buoyancy etc.  

I am not sure if what I said earlier came out as me wanting the crew to die by the hundreds. It was not my intention. Right now a crew member will die from a partial penetration to the fore or aft extended armor section every time. Its like all crew is distributed evenly in the entire ship. I don't want the crew do just vanish each time the ship is hit, I want critical hits like center citadel penetration to have an impact on the performance and heart rate of crew. And as I and some other people specified, a flash fire, even a localised one that doesn't *hood* a ship imidiately, should at least remove the crew manning the turret from this earth. As I said, I had 3 turrets flashfire one after another and the gun and control crew were both at a 100%. This is just not right. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Draco said:

I'd like to point out that german BBs from 1930s onwards are ridiculously survivable. Like, way too survivable.
Just had a fight with a single german super BB of 103.900t.
My two british modern BBs achieved a total 169 full penetrations with superheavy 18" shells before the german ship finally died to HP loss (it suffered barely any flooding at all). with each Mk.III 18" SH shell weighing 2153kg in game, that means the german BB took 363 tonnes of armour piercing shots before being rendered combat incapable, and this is completely disregarding the numerous ricochets and partial pens it also shrugged off.

I know H-class type ships are supposed to be OP, but I have to call into question whether they would realistically be this OP.
Screenshot-3.jpg
Screenshot-4.jpg

 

I see you're encountering what a high Resistance does to incoming shellfire.  The only thing German, Russian, and A-H BBs need to fear is a flash fire.  At 1930 the German Super Battleship II has a Resistance of 133.9, with 105 from the base hull and extra from techs right off the bat, giving it a damage multiplier against shellfire of -67% before modules, or in other words taking a mere 33% damage from your shell's listed damage.  Max out anti-torp, add a triple hull, and give it a turtleback scheme, and that resistance shoots up to 160.7%, negating 89% of all incoming gun damage.  Max out the bulkheads as the AI loves to do, and I don't think the 290~ damage a 20" Mark 3 using Triple Base and TNT III does to that design will put a very large hole in the side.  Do you?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hm...been playing the patch now for some time and most things have been said about it.

Generelly, I am positive about it. There are some things, that are not that nice.

1.Creating your own balanced fleet is a powerful asset and makes my lesser ships now actually contributing to the overall picture. That was the feature I was waiting for and it is finally here, so a big thank you for that.
Now...if we could have that for the AI as well, that would be awesome. While the AI now creates more viable ships as it seems, I have had my fill of soviet..eerrr...russian superbattleships armed with twenty 19 inch guns devastating my treaty-like battleship line in a few salvoes.
2.The addition of crew is a nice touch and I like it. Yes, there are some things like taking a hit in the prow and losing gun crew is a bit strange, but I am sure that will be corrected in the future.
3.The new models are beautiful, especially the russian ships, but the italian as well. I am hoping for individual styles for Austrian-Hungarian, Chinese and Spanish ships in the future and I am hoping that German superstructures will be revamped as well. (Still hoping for an Odin-style bridge stucture).
4.Torpedo evasion is now much more realistic, though I am still getting frustrated by the spread of my torpedo strikes.
More often than not there are convinient gaps between the torpedoes for the enemy to exploit, even when launching amassed strikes by several vessels.
5.I truely appreciate the fact, that larger guns now fit on German/AH barbettes that come with the superstructure. But that's it. They fit. They do not turn or fire for they have no firing arc. The same is true for many turrets placed on the hull. For some reason, they do not turn or have only a very limited firing arc. Speaking of that, I would like to have the ability to mount 5 and 6 inch guns on the "wings" of German-style superstructures, like many other countrys can and the ability to mount at least 6 inch guns on German battlecruisers and 5 inch on German heavy cruisers without needing awkward placement methods :)
Speaking of it, I would like to see 6 inch guns for German destroyers, too ;)
6.I still think that armor is too heavy. But perhaps that is me wanting to armor my ships against the inevitable rain of devastation from the AI.

7.There are sometimes extreme lags when designing a ship. Also, loading a previous design often results in bad-placed items, where before they were fine.

Edited by Darth Khyron
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Major issue with German DD's here. Rear Tower 5 is able to placed inside the ship's model allowing it to use up significantly less deck-space than other rear towers. This allows for some pretty insane builds when using max tonnage. Currently, my most powerful build with this glitch is a 3,750t monster of a DD with 9 twin 5" turrets and 3 quintuple 24" torpedo launchers. 
R1iO4Jf.png

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

Flooding is even more useless than it was before. FIX FLOODING! I've seen a destroyer that has taken 5 torpedo hits, display the flooding icon... and not actually reduce the flooding percentage AT ALL. Explain that PLEASE!

they probably landed all in places already flooded...

Link to post
Share on other sites

To build on the line of thinking I was going down earlier, 

It's clear that @Nick Thomadis has put a lot of research into making the ship hulls. The new Italian ships, for example are beautiful. The historical forms were also intelligently scaled up or down to have the choice of different displacements. Would it not be possible, then, to just fully fit out those hulls for the AI? Italian AI builds Italian ships etc? 

I don't mean what they do now, which is cram 20 inch guns onto every hull form, I mean, why not just have the Littorio class pre-configured, so when the Italian AI needs a battleship, it builds Littorios of various displacements and gun calibre?  That could be as simple it has everything the Littorio had - 9 guns in the primary battery, 12 in the secondary, or it could mean that it distributes that same share of gunpower between 4 turrets, or uses quadruple mounts, losing a gun in the process. The point being, whatever the combination - the AI knows what to put on that hull! 

That would solve the problems of bizarre superstructures and funnels, strange armour and armament choices, and of course bulkheads/fire control etc. It would simply be a matter of including all of the stuff they must have documented in designing the in-game hulls in the first place, and then omitted for the editor. So, just as we have Italian Large Cruiser II, available from 1929 between 32 500 and 42 500 tonnes, the AI does too, but it also outfits it along the lines of - I dunno, the Trento Class

There could of course be several kind of variation of this - look at how many possible turret layouts were considered for Dreadnought and Invincible! The point to me is not if there is a super firing pair, wings, wings en echelon, whatever - the point is that consciously or not, in selecting hulls the Devs already did a great deal of research and have an idea of what that ship should be, or at least, the real ship each hull represents. This would simply be a matter of "pre-assembling" a set of combinations of superstructure, funnel, armours, propulsions and gun layouts. Yes - it means manually creating a database, and then building in a way for it to scale with displacement and technology, plus randomization between templates, but that seems far easier than giving the AI a set of building blocks and then having to code the AI so it's able to make a great ship out of it. 

Actually, regarding the problem of creating a database for the AI to choose from...

We have so many people here who do just that! It could be as simple as asking for volunteers to design a set of ships of a certain class for the AI of a particular nation, say 2-4 designs per decade, per 5000t displacement. So far as I can see the AI just picks the largest possible displacement for a given hull size, so this would also add variety, as well as authenticity and believability to AI designs. 

Tl;dr

Rather than asking the AI to design Italian destroyers, why not do it for them?

It's got to be easier to code AI to pick and modify than to start from scratch, yeah?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SiWi said:

they probably landed all in places already flooded...

If that were the case, that would cut the ship in half, if we're talking about ships that were that light. The flooding mechanic just seems broken to me. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

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...