Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, neph said:

Worth noting all our destroyers are massively oversized.

Yeah you're right, most of them would probably be called small light cruisers by the designers of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 887
  • 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

2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

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!

You also forgot to mention that it took them four years to build just two of them. That's how over-engineered they were. Even if none of the above drawbacks ever gets modeled in game (which they should) such super-destroyers should at least take the same time as a small light cruiser to build to offset their other unfair/unrealistic advantages.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

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!

That was a great write-up. I said earlier that contre-torpilleurs, and the Italian ships built to counter them, were not interchangeable with other nations’ destroyers, and that seems to be a good explanation of why. To reiterate @ColonelHenry and @Draco’s point - I think ships like that have their place, but only if their many disadvantages do too. Without the many and varied downsides, of course the AI will build destroyers that match or exceed the contre-torpilleurs, why wouldn’t they?!

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Draco said:

You also forgot to mention that it took them four years to build just two of them. That's how over-engineered they were. Even if none of the above drawbacks ever gets modeled in game (which they should) such super-destroyers should at least take the same time as a small light cruiser to build to offset their other unfair/unrealistic advantages.

Well, French industry has never been known for its efficiency, same as Italian industry so I'd hardly consider that a fair comparison with any other nation.  That said, designing and building an overengineered anything due to pride is about as French as you can get. Well, maybe Italian as well.  I mean, both nations had a construction situation so bad they had to sit down and hash out who was allowed to build what during the leadup to the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 could cause errors and delays in the process. Most, if not all, problems regarding freezes, delays, unbuildable ships, should be fixed.
- Improved the overpen mechanics, so now you will be able to see full penetrations on the smallest craft such as the Torpedo Boats.
- Increased the torpedo damage (due to latest changes in ship section density, damage could be small in large warships). 
- Fixed bug that caused operational range to become reset when loading a custom battle saved design.
- Fixed bug of custom battle saves which included Transport ships, making them disappear when loaded.
- Fixed some other bugs related to battle saves.
- Some minor UI issues with overlapping buttons in 16:10 resolution have been resolved.
- Fixed bug of Bug reporter not allowing to use the Enter key.
- Fixed bug making graphical settings to reset. This could have been a source of graphical bugs, depending on player’s system.
- Fixed bug on smoke screen becoming available to BB, BC, CA if they were on the same division with DD or CL.
- Minor fixes in some hulls.

The main issue we wanted to fix was the serious issues in auto-design, and it appears we have accomplished that with this new upcoming update. The work on the campaign continues, finalizing technology mechanics and Campaign AI. More news will arrive on next week.

  • Like 19
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The work on the campaign continues, finalizing technology mechanics and Campaign AI. More news will arrive on next week.

Absolutely fantastic to hear, really looking forward to it. Thank you for the hotfix as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is amazing news! Maybe we will see the campaign sooner than I had expected? Also, please keep communicating to us in the current fashion, instead of being completely radio silent and give us nothing to work with. Thanks!

Edited by Commander Reed
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2021 at 4:57 PM, Cypher5018 said:

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

This is the exact issue i have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

would be nice if we got more convenient save files for both designs and battles. right now, it is possible to share ship designs, but it isn't very easy to do, since I had to copy a few hundred lines of text from the text file  with all of the saves.

a design/battle saves folder with individual text files for each design or battle would go a long way

also it'd be nice to see a hull and towers resembling the "big 5" US standard battleships.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to next week!

Hope you will also address the lack of ships from the 1880-1910 area. Still in the campaign, those would be the most important years. As we will focus to build or fleet and economics.  Super-BB will only be there for the last few years, so I hope the Dreadnought area will shown as the main focus of this game.

Crew mechanic have change a lot of thing for me, giving deep to this game and solve some of the issues for the campaign! A more experience crew will change everything!

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

Looking forward to next week!

Hope you will also address the lack of ships from the 1880-1910 area. Still in the campaign, those would be the most important years. As we will focus to build or fleet and economics.  Super-BB will only be there for the last few years, so I hope the Dreadnought area will shown as the main focus of this game.

Crew mechanic have change a lot of thing for me, giving deep to this game and solve some of the issues for the campaign! A more experience crew will change everything!

If you look at the hull for each nation individually you will see that there is around 2 to 3 hull at any given year (often one old and one new). The worst era is probably around 1920, most ship have generic hull and the same selection of tower.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the devs:

On the Japanese Tall Secondary Tower IV, I am unable to mount the dual 5-inch secondary guns that were historically there on Fuso and Yamashiro, because there is no mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello admirals, 

As promised yesterday, we just deployed a new update which brings major fixes and improvements. The most important is the refactoring of the Auto-Design code. Please read all about the update in the following list:

*Hotfix v90*
- Refactoring of the Auto-Design code, addressing various issues that could cause errors and delays in the process. Most, if not all, problems regarding freezes, delays, unbuildable ships, should be fixed.
- Improved the overpen mechanics, so now you will be able to see full penetrations on the smallest craft such as the Torpedo Boats.
- Increased the torpedo damage (due to latest changes in ship section density, damage could be small in large warships). 
- Fixed bug that caused operational range to become reset when loading a custom battle saved design.
- Fixed bug of custom battle saves which included Transport ships, making them disappear when loaded.
- Fixed some other bugs related to battle saves.
- Some minor UI issues with overlapping buttons in 16:10 resolution have been resolved.
- Fixed bug of Bug reporter not allowing to use the Enter key.
- Fixed bug making graphical settings to reset. This could have been a source of graphical bugs, depending on player’s system.
- Fixed bug on smoke screen becoming available to BB, BC, CA if they were on the same division with DD or CL.
- Minor fixes in some hulls.

Your feedback on the new improvements will be much appreciated!

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

Nothing major to mention specifically. Collider fixes should affect all hulls though, positively. If there are any major problems with hulls, you can post in forum or with the report button and we will look to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the wonderful work on Core patch 5  and the subsequent hotfixes.  Highly impressed with the stepped up communication I see.  I know some of these new features are going to continue to need monitoring and tweaking as you move forward but if you continue down this path, I think the game has a very green future on the steam store.

Edited by GDFKTT
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello admirals, 

As promised yesterday, we just deployed a new update which brings major fixes and improvements. The most important is the refactoring of the Auto-Design code. Please read all about the update in the following list:

*Hotfix v90*
- Refactoring of the Auto-Design code, addressing various issues that could cause errors and delays in the process. Most, if not all, problems regarding freezes, delays, unbuildable ships, should be fixed.
- Improved the overpen mechanics, so now you will be able to see full penetrations on the smallest craft such as the Torpedo Boats.
- Increased the torpedo damage (due to latest changes in ship section density, damage could be small in large warships). 
- Fixed bug that caused operational range to become reset when loading a custom battle saved design.
- Fixed bug of custom battle saves which included Transport ships, making them disappear when loaded.
- Fixed some other bugs related to battle saves.
- Some minor UI issues with overlapping buttons in 16:10 resolution have been resolved.
- Fixed bug of Bug reporter not allowing to use the Enter key.
- Fixed bug making graphical settings to reset. This could have been a source of graphical bugs, depending on player’s system.
- Fixed bug on smoke screen becoming available to BB, BC, CA if they were on the same division with DD or CL.
- Minor fixes in some hulls.

Your feedback on the new improvements will be much appreciated!

Not a bug but a change that I know a few people are unhappy with, reverting the BCs back to 46 knots feels like a major kick to BC thoroughbreds based on true speed and outgunning the enemy vs engaging at close range, I know it is ludicrous but please couldwe have our 55knot super battlecruisers back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, ChryssyH117 said:

Not a bug but a change that I know a few people are unhappy with, reverting the BCs back to 46 knots feels like a major kick to BC thoroughbreds based on true speed and outgunning the enemy vs engaging at close range, I know it is ludicrous but please couldwe have our 55knot super battlecruisers back?

Any large warship going beyond 35 knots with early 20th century technology is ludicrous enough

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember playing when BC were practically untouchable, it was not fun. BC are now very much unfavored as now what matter the most is hull resistance and not hull speed. I am ok with that if BC get a advantage on the strategic level, its something we cant judge yet. Having said that, a slight buff to aiming speed penalty might be welcome, DDs and CL are a bit too easy to nuke.

I more or less settle on 26knots on all my ship, simply because there is very little to gain in going faster. Excluding the strategic level advantage that speed may provide in campaign, its important to note that AI do not exploit speed within battle. A 14"er vs a 18"er should seek to get closer, most case scenario the 18"er should seek to get away if the enemy try to close in. If it were the case then speed may provide some form of tactical advantage again. Atm AI just circle around so there is nothing of this, AI ship often get far away from its optimal position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Nick Thomadis locked, unlocked, locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...