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

[ColonelHenry]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

Sometimes, speakers have to take into account what people hear. They have take into account how the combination of two (or more) of their stated positions will result in what they claim they do not want.

Not only do I have a philosophical objection to binding up the AI more than the player, as I said even if we are going to do that, a critical problem will be HOW MUCH discretion the AI will still have after that shackle. Which depends on how much creativity people like Henry is willing to tolerate. Their other statements tell me that their tolerance for creativity is low to the point they cannot tolerate even one more gun than an already executed maximum (and it was executed at HALF the weight limit of a UA:D destroyer).

May I be allowed to add one plus one together?

First, let's not give up too fast. Second, one problem with the argumentation of Henry and Co, at least in my view, is that they confound two problems. The first is the AI making ships that aren't tactically effective in-game. The second is when they make something that's tactically effective in-game, but that somehow offends their sense of realism, aesthetics or otherwise. If anything, given their constant complaints about being "forced to" make something, their emphasis is on the latter, not the former.

Obviously, I agree that we need to somehow fix the first problem. But I am much more ambivalent regarding the second. In its end state, I want this game to be "fair" to unconventional designs. That is, I want it to have realistic rules, but then to be accepting of the results that bring. If that means ships with no secondaries is the winner. If that means putting large secondaries on the centerline rather than the conventional solution of smaller secondaries on the sides. If it turns out destroyers should be more heavily armed.

I don't want this game to start with the preconception that majority designs are automatically the best designs and to warp all the rules accordingly. Of course, choices like the above have disadvantages, and they should be reflected. But they also have advantages and those should be reflected as well. I don't want, for example, secondary battery hit rate to be buffed or a nerf to the main battery just to substantiate the conventional solution of retaining secondaries. I don't want a mysterious and increasing penalty as soon as I go above five 5-inch guns on a destroyer class vessel and by the time I get to the ninth gun my DD will roll over for nothing, just to prove the conventional 5-gun armament as the optimum. I want this game to at least have the potential to prove that our naval designers hadn't gone down the optimal routes after all, and the AI can also have its hand in investigating this possibility. I definitely would not have been able to conceive of the possible solution of putting large secondaries on the centerline, and I don't think Henry et al can, either.

I end this discussion by asking you to bring your mind back to a 1907 mentality, and consider the below "meme ship"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Invincible_(1907)

What do you mean they designed this stupid, overgunned thing with paper thin armor? It's clearly waiting to be blown up - a poor concept and execution. And let's talk about the ridiculous gun layout - the guns are allowed to fire across the deck! Surely that would cause heavy damage to the decks just firing the guns. We need to limit the enemy ship designer. He must use this nice, safe, hexagonal layout:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Nassau

And really, I don't want to be building cruisers that are nearly 20000 tons just to fight this thing. We need to make the Brits use templates...

 

  

Actually, those thirteen destroyers were built with double barrel SP guns of limited elevation. One of the problems, which seems to be US-unique, is the ridiculous weight of dual-barrel 5"/38 turrets. You would think if nothing else they would be less than the weight of 2 single-barrel turrets, but for some reason this is not true. Both have power, both have hoists ... etc. So they had to make a SP turret (less elevation) to save weight and keep the dual turret to less than twice the weight. I think it is easy to see how the disproportionate weight had a deterrent effect ...

Again, what you spent that entire time writing has already been discussed long before this conversation started. The designer to which the devs have been adding stuffs that are borderline fantasy. We have voiced our frustration many times and it had fallen on deaf ears or ears like yours. What the "AI" are making is because the ship designer caters to: gamey-arcady numbers and AI inability to consistently design a ship with flaws and advantages correlating to real life.
Destroyers with as many guns as possible in game are effective against other destroyers are simply because the devs allowed these ships to be built with no downside other than when not enough "protection" is applied, they get ammo detonation or flash fire and die. This aspect of more and bigger = better is EXTREMELY easy to translate to video games. I mean ffs, that's why most action orientated FPS at least let you use a "minigun" of some sort. It's fun, it's crazy, it's cool and irl of course the minigun would shred anything that isn't a modern IFV or tank which is usually the case in games too. The problem is when you let players use these "miniguns" and walk around, it's not realistic and for most games, that's fine. For UA:D, that's not fine. Because it is being as advertised with "realism" at the forefront. And to be frank, the devs are not doing it. They translated the bigger and more = better into this naval game without giving any realistic downside to having so many guns. Having many guns = easier flash fire? No worries, add a bit more protection and you basically nullify enough flash fire to kill your well balance designed enemy ship before they could deal enough damage to you. A realistic game can't translate the realism part of more and bigger = better... Well you get the 9 5 inch guns destroyers in tripple barrel config.

And then there's the AI themselves. Literally said by devs they couldn't get it to work with a more complicated ship designer. I do not need to say much more about this. We want a better designer. That's all.

And I can assure you, if the AI actually build ships like HMS Invincible, I wouldn't be calling the AI designs out like this. 4x12 inch double barrel turrets that are at least somewhat protected =/= 5x12inch double barrel turrets 3 of which are in the 2 inch extended belt area =/= 3 quadruple 18inch turrets with 15 inch of belt armor and 28knt (which is just fantasy at this point cmon)

Edited September 28, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[TAKTCOM]

Game mechanics that are described in the Campaings section of Ultimate Admiral:Dreadnoughts are directly taken from the game mechanics from Rule the waves. Are there players here who have Rule the waves experience? How is the issue with the ship designer resolved in RtW? I read from the walkthroughs that the designer is significantly random, but nevertheless presents the player with a challenge.

1 hour ago, ColonelHenry said:

Destroyers with as many guns as possible in game are effective against other destroyers are simply because...

 ...game has no aircraft, submarines, MTB and mines. 20-40mm cannons are ballast, trawls and anti-submarine armament  do not exist at all. 

19 hours ago, DougToss said:

Below is a short list of the texts I have read to provide feedback for the game

This list says a lot about you, thank you. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[ColonelHenry]

Welp now I know why the game is like this. I bought the wrong game I guess. Maybe I should just stop hoping for a good historically authentic and realistic naval game. Waited for a whole year and all I get are 50k ton ships shoving in my face in a so called Dreadnought

I'm not going to waste my time further when the devs are enabled by people who have to get their dopamine rush from COD like gameplay. This is the last post I'm going to post about this game directly. It's not like the devs care about a few players who want the product to actually deliver with some substance anyway.

Since that's the case,

BatChest QUADRUPLE 20 INCH SO COOL BatChest I LOVE SUPER BATTLESHIPS BatChest CAN'T WAIT TO MAX OUT ALL THE STATS OF MY SHIP TODAY BatChest RANDOM AI IS SOOO CHALLENGING BatChest I CAN'T GET ENOUGH EXPLOSION BatChest

Enjoy your superdreadnought vs supercruisers vs superlightcruisers gameplay because that's all you're going to end up playing otherwise it's not optimal to kill the AI superdesigns fast enough.

I'll stick to Age of Sail, this one is a lost investment.

Edited September 28, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[arkhangelsk]

Well, TBH I can just about roll with 12 18-inch guns, Yamatoish armor and 28 knot speed. The real Yamato is 9 18-inch and 27 knot speed for 150,000 SHP. By increasing the rated power to an Iowa-like 212000 SHP, or pushing it a bit (because I'll assume this ship is physically bigger than Yamato, let alone Iowa), I can see a plant of 240,000 SHP (on 4 shafts) pushing a suitable hull form at 28 knots. I will agree however that's about the limit of a plausible WWII plant and frankly don't understand why HP limitations have not yet been implemented - but when they do, it'll greatly (and naturally) disincentivize the use of the largest ships.

Now for destroyers.

Quote

No worries, add a bit more protection and you basically nullify enough flash fire to kill your well balance designed enemy ship before they could deal enough damage to you.

In other words, the heavily-gunned destroyer is a feasible concept in the game. The game does simulate the stability reduction associated with topweight, so the ship is getting penalized. However, the unfortunate fact (for your argument) is that the nine-gunned destroyer may well be a more feasible design than you imagine in real life - in which case all the game is doing is reflecting reality.

While some sources have indeed said the Somers-class destroyer is top-heavy, you have to remember the older Porter has the same basic armament (in fact, the Somers put even more armament on the deck). We can only infer that while Porter was top heavy, it was not to the point of being unacceptably unstable on the trials, and thus no one rushed to remove armament from the other Porters or the Somers. I'll also point out that when they were regunned in the war, they went from 8 guns to 6 guns ... except the DP mounts are about 10 tons heavier. The old configuration was about 136.532 tons, the new configuration 130.227 tons - a mere six ton difference. If the stability problem with the old configuration was serious, they'd have to bring it down to 5 guns or less to hope for significant improvement but that did not seem necessary.

The other factor is that Somers is only a 1850 ton standard displacement destroyer. The biggest factor for the reduction of weight in the succeeding class is most likely because the succeeding class was simply smaller ... another 1500 to 1600 tonner.As for the Mogador-class destroyer, with its eight 138.6mm (=5.5 inch) guns and ~4000 ton FL displacement (2880 ton standard).

Quote

EVALUATION In service Mogador and Volta proved to be excellent sea-boats, with a robust hull that coped well with even severe weather in the stormy waters of the North Atlantic. They were easily able to sustain 35 knots in sea state 4, and 40 knots with a 200-metre swell. Pitch was moderate, although like earlier contre-torpilleurs they were heavy in the bow when the forward fuel tanks were full. Despite the increase in topweight, stability in the undamaged condition was adequate, and the moderate 7-second roll made them steady gunnery platforms.

Jourdan, John; Moulin, Jean. French Destroyers: Torpilleurs d'Escadre and Contre-Torpilleurs,1922–1956 . Seaforth Publishing. Kindle Edition.

For the above reasons, I cannot agree with your assessment that a 9-gun destroyer with triple turrets is manifestly unreasonable.

Edited September 28, 2021 by arkhangelsk

[Microscop]

58 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Game mechanics that are described in the Campaings section of Ultimate Admiral:Dreadnoughts are directly taken from the game mechanics from Rule the waves. Are there players here who have Rule the waves experience? How is the issue with the ship designer resolved in RtW? I read from the walkthroughs that the designer is significantly random, but nevertheless presents the player with a challenge.

 ...game has no aircraft, submarines, MTB and mines. 20-40mm cannons are ballast, trawls and anti-submarine armament  do not exist at all. 

This list says a lot about you, thank you. 

In RTW2 AI uses templates but has a degree of freedom to utilize the technology they have at the moment.

If they have smaller guns researched they will use free tonnage to uparmor the ship or make it go faster etc. So in the end all ai ships make sense. 

Superbattleships are generaly dumb for both player and AI to build unless you are playing easy mode max fund game as USA or something like that. You need ships to defend your home waters (often mroe than 1 zone) and valuable colonies, ships get damaged and take months to repair or they get sunk by subs or mines. This basicly means neither you nor ai can affoard to build super battleships and have enough of them to both defend your colonies and form a proper battleline to combat enemy fleet. Also Guns above 16 inch have very diminishing returns, 17 inch is quite nice but above that it's really pointless. Also for the cost of 3x 12 gun ship you can build 4x 8 gun ship so there are alot of economical considerations, you get 2 guns less but whole 1 more ship.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Microscop

[DerRichtigeArzt]

can someone who knows his ships create a crosssection heat map of where most of the crew would be located when in battle? something like this but actually make it correct, this pic is just a guess and done literaly on the knee as I am going to work. 

[TAKTCOM]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk said:

...destroyer with triple turrets is manifestly unreasonable.

I'm not going to teach you what to do or declare you as heretic, but ...destroyer with triple turrets is  unreasonable IRL😄 

Point of triple (or quarter) turrets  in that they reduce firepower but save weight and space. 3 х triple turrets weigh and occupy less space than 4 × twin turrets. This means that the citadel can be made shorter - and thicker. And use a more powerful propulsion system becomes variant. This works on cruisers and battleships, also because the guns are very heavy and the turret armor typically weighs a lot.

You pay for this by reducing the rate of fire, the more guns in the turrets, the less convenient it is to handle them. Look at modern ship guns - almost all of them are in single-gun turrets.  Because it is optimal for supplying gun with ammunition and achieving the maximum rate of fire.

Returning to the destroyers, what could be the purpose using triple turrets? Saving space - but large destroyers like Tashkent or Shimakaze have plenty space on their decks. Saving weight?

Fletcher class single gun turret was 18,779 kg, while Gearing class twin gun turret was already 43 409 kg, which is more than doubles the weight of turret.  The triple turret will be at least 60 tons, and possibly more, due to the increase in the size of the turret itself. So this is not an option too.

So yeah triple turrets on destroyer  it's just pointless complication and increase cost of turret construction. If you needs more main guns on destroyer, just add some single or twin gun mount. Or just get more powerful cannons with a heavier shell. This is how destroyer artillery evolved in reality.

Again, I have nothing against weird ships as long as they are effective. No offense.

[Tankaxe]

6 hours ago, Microscop said:

Superbattleships are generaly dumb for both player and AI to build unless you are playing easy mode max fund game as USA or something like that. You need ships to defend your home waters (often mroe than 1 zone) and valuable colonies, ships get damaged and take months to repair or they get sunk by subs or mines. This basicly means neither you nor ai can affoard to build super battleships and have enough of them to both defend your colonies and form a proper battleline to combat enemy fleet. Also Guns above 16 inch have very diminishing returns, 17 inch is quite nice but above that it's really pointless. Also for the cost of 3x 12 gun ship you can build 4x 8 gun ship so there are alot of economical considerations, you get 2 guns less but whole 1 more ship.

Micro got how it works in one except for this bit. Not sure about Micro but to other people I hang out in the RTW community the battleship game is essentially over by 1925. No that's not because of carriers but instead that the AI doesn't have super BB templates to counter player ones.

 

Indeed even playing as a non-USA/UK nation such as France, Germany and Russia can consistently come out of fleet actions outnumbered 3 to 1 by the infamous royal navy and win with a battle line of three super BBs. Quality is quantity and RTW has alot more nastier events for non-penetrating hits than what UA:D does and yet player built 70k ton battleship still come out on top against four 40k AI BBs. It's such an issue that the devs have acknowledged to give the AI more super BB templates in the next expansion.

 

I would also add that colonial protection is down to your cruisers not battleships. The Germans didn't exactly split their battle line for colonial obligations in world war 1 did they?

 

Anyways main point is super battleships most certainly have a place and trying to shoo them out is only going to bring RTWs late game problem to UA:D

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tankaxe

[Arrigo74]

Is not a super BB problem... it the problem that currently the AI is incapable to design a decent Dreadnought... look at the miracle of AI engineering (BB vs BC mission):

 

Now this spectacular failure had only two 11" twin turret, a mass of 10", and then 7", 6", 4", 3", 2"... if you call it a dreadnought... it was  a quite poor semi-dread in my book. Note, my BC just kept at long range and pounded it. Current AI is incapable to design modern ship, despite his early one being acceptable.  And I am not talking about the funnels. To be quite hones the AI has a penchant for mixed caliber main batteries and love side guns. Side guns made sense to a point,  after barbette for superfiring guns were introduced they lost appeal and sense... yet I have seen frequent AI design of dreadnoughts with a large barbette with a secondary over it.  So yes, AI designs ugly, unrealistic, and poor ships. 

[Tankaxe]

1 hour ago, Arrigo74 said:

Is not a super BB problem... it the problem that currently the AI is incapable to design a decent Dreadnought... look at the miracle of AI engineering (BB vs BC mission):

Ah I was just against that super BBs we're impractical in RTW.

But your point is made the AI desperately needs a template system

[Commander Reed]

Unrelated, but I seriously need a game that is similar to this but for Star Trek. I'd be designing Starships all day - Honestly, I wouldn't be able to put it down for months. (Yes, space engineers and the like exists, but it's not star trek, and I'd want a format more similar to the designer present in this game)

Back on topic, I'm really loving the design saves so far. However, it really does need a lot of polish still. 
For example, I personally think it needs a separation for the ship classes, not all clump them in together. 
So a section for DD, CL, CA, And so on. It's great, but definitely needs polish.

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

Unrelated, but I seriously need a game that is similar to this but for Star Trek. I'd be designing Starships all day - Honestly, I wouldn't be able to put it down for months. (Yes, space engineers and the like exists, but it's not star trek, and I'd want a format more similar to the designer present in this game)

Back on topic, I'm really loving the design saves so far. However, it really does need a lot of polish still. 
For example, I personally think it needs a separation for the ship classes, not all clump them in together. 
So a section for DD, CL, CA, And so on. It's great, but definitely needs polish.

Im actually making a star trek design myself, this will be my fourth or fifth design a federation ship about 800 or so metres atm.

Also agree with having seperate categories makes it far easier to organise as well.

[Arrigo74]

unrelated... if you are commander Reed... why you have Ryker pic? ST fan too and I agree it would be nice to have one... but here is for warships not starships! 😀

[Commander Reed]

Just now, Arrigo74 said:

unrelated... if you are commander Reed... why you have Ryker pic? ST fan too and I agree it would be nice to have one... but here is for warships not starships! 😀

Yeah, I'm aware. This game just reminds me how much I need a game like that, only a one off comment, not like I'm gonna start a huge convo about star trek. Still about this game XD

[Microscop]

4 hours ago, Tankaxe said:

Micro got how it works in one except for this bit. Not sure about Micro but to other people I hang out in the RTW community the battleship game is essentially over by 1925. No that's not because of carriers but instead that the AI doesn't have super BB templates to counter player ones.

 

Indeed even playing as a non-USA/UK nation such as France, Germany and Russia can consistently come out of fleet actions outnumbered 3 to 1 by the infamous royal navy and win with a battle line of three super BBs. Quality is quantity and RTW has alot more nastier events for non-penetrating hits than what UA:D does and yet player built 70k ton battleship still come out on top against four 40k AI BBs. It's such an issue that the devs have acknowledged to give the AI more super BB templates in the next expansion.

 

I would also add that colonial protection is down to your cruisers not battleships. The Germans didn't exactly split their battle line for colonial obligations in world war 1 did they?

 

Anyways main point is super battleships most certainly have a place and trying to shoo them out is only going to bring RTWs late game problem to UA:D

You need battleships to prevent enemy invasions, british tend to send qutie hefty bb squadrons and force invasion battles on you. Especially important when defending a possesion with oil for example or if you want to use that possesion for invasions later.

Germans bearly had any colonies worth defending nor could they spare ships todo so but british for example had Force Z in ww2 and spanish (in 1890s) and dutch fleet were meant mainly for defending colonies.

 

Also 3 super bb vs 9 ai bb sounds like a strangely small fleet action, british fleet is much larger than that, about 30-40 capital ships. But i agree that it's too easy to wittle down enemy fleet in smaller engagements using better designed and more powerfull ships than ai uses.

And to be honest you could easily build 5 still very decent battleships for the cost of 3 super bb and also win without a problem vs 9 ships. 

Still overall i agree that ai should get more bb templates and pose a bigger chalange in the late game and should be reponsding more to what player does.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Microscop

[Afghanicus]

Welp you all convinced me to dive into this RTW2 game

[Commander Reed]

47 minutes ago, Afghanicus said:

Welp you all convinced me to dive into this RTW2 game

I'd wait about a year man, I love this game but I wish I waited a bit longer now.

[Afghanicus]

Wait for RTW2? or UA:D? I got UA:D way back when we were starting AoS in early beta.

[Commander Reed]

36 minutes ago, Afghanicus said:

Wait for RTW2? or UA:D? I got UA:D way back when we were starting AoS in early beta.

Don't mind what I said then, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about UA:D.
(The campaign is highly likely to be similar to RTW2, so I thought that's what you meant.)

Edited September 28, 2021 by Commander Reed

[RedParadize]

There is few issue that intertwine regarding AI capacity of building a decent Ship. There is the issue with the script that build them for sure, but it isn't the only issue.

I spend several hours looking at nations available hull trough ages. The choice is very limited until 1930. The most striking part is that in most era there is often one hull that is much better than others, mainly because of their tower. In allot of case there is one hull that outmatch all others for more than a decade. Of course most player will pick that hull, but the AI will pick at random.

With that much disparity in quality, the diversity in hull, tower and all do not really matter... As only one choice really stand out.
 

[Evil4Zerggin]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:37 AM, TAKTCOM said:

Are there players here who have Rule the waves experience? How is the issue with the ship designer resolved in RtW?

RtW seems to do a more reasonable job most of the time, but to be fair a) it's been around longer, and b) it has an easier task since it doesn't have free part placement like UA:D, instead you can only choose from predetermined locations for turrets (A, B, C... X, Y) with predetermined arcs, and superstructure/funnels are purely cosmetic. Even so, you still occasionally end up with some questionable designs. One time when we were having an alt-history WWII, I glanced over to starboard at my British ally and saw this:

Apparently the historical County class wasn't enough of a glass cannon!

Edited September 30, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[DougToss]

17 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

This list says a lot about you, thank you. 

Lol that I’m a defence professional working in defence who reads professional sources? 

[neph]

On 9/26/2021 at 6:59 AM, Draco said:

Somers class was dangerously overweight and extremely unstable as a gun platform in all but a perfect flat calm, why do you think it's successors went back to singles?

The French destroyers were all almost twice as large and expensive as their contemporaries, had horrible sea keeping characteristics, and were all several knots slower than their designed top speeds...

I don't consider examples that are widely regarded as failures as valid counter arguments.

Worth noting all our destroyers are massively oversized.

[Evil4Zerggin]

21 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

The game does simulate the stability reduction associated with topweight, so the ship is getting penalized.

Unfortunately, not really. Any turret on the centerline contributes nothing to Roll, no matter how high up it is. If they are far forward or aft, they will adversely affect Pitch, but I rarely reach 20 Pitch even on my most egregious turret farms.

Non-centerline turrets will of course affect Roll, but the major factor in Roll for non-centerline turrets is actually how forward/aft the turret is.

[SpardaSon21]

One thing I'd like to point out w/ regards to the destroyer talk is that so far all cannons in the game are SP mounts with none of the extra weight inherent to a DP design.  So, having a well-armed destroyer isn't entirely out of the picture.  That said, while Mogador's stability was acceptable... the guns themselves were absolutely not.  Heavy, overly complicated, poorly crewed, and completely bereft of remote firing due to poor results on the earlier La Fantastique ships.  Add in poor maneuverability (so poor Volta's captain mentioned in his log Strasbourg was more maneuverable!), extensive propeller cavitation (and therefore wear), short range due to the overstressed electrical supply, etc. and its clear there was no end to the compromises made to fit that firepower, even on a 3k ton vessel.  Unfortunately those downsides are poorly implemented or not at all in-game, which means there's zero reason to not build meme designs, especially since a ship that does maximum rudder shift while at 5 knots gives a massive to-hit penalty from erratic maneuvers as it comically wobbles in place!