Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<


Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

About mighty and powerful torpedoes.

СА 3500, starter ship, base technology 1890

2N3vaDQ.jpg

ВВ 9000-1100, base technology 1890

4L4CcWW.jpg

Also, in 1890, four inches decimates my 200 ton 27-knot torpedo boats.

Never struggled with this since the new patch, I won't lie. I've sunk numerous battleships with two torpedo hits -- I think I sank a battleship with even just one. 1890 cruisers may be a bit tanky against torpedoes, though I'll need to do more testing to confirm that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The new update which includes the early test campaign is finally available! Read a brief guide on how to play and all the details of the patch in our official blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ult

@Skeksis@DougToss @Steeltrap @Airzerg @HusariuS @Marshall99 @IronKaputt @Shiki @Bluishdoor76 @Aceituna @CapnAvont1015 @Commander Reed @T_the_ferret @Admiral Lütjens @BuckleUpBones @roachbeef @Schirüno

Admirals, an important hotfix has just become available. Hotfix Update v94 (29/11/2021) READ HERE - Added movement of ships between ports. You can now select ships from each port and move th

Posted Images

Just now, Verdant said:

I honestly think there needs to be a refit system. I shouldn't have to build a whole new class of ships just to change the shell propellent.

Regarding rangefinders, once I unlocked them in my 1890 campaign, they showed up once I put guns down on a design.

Even if i put guns on they don't show up. i tried it on different classes with different guns. very strange.

Maybe the upgrade was about improving the rangefinding capabilities of the main tower itself, and not the seperate rangefinding component. the game is very unclear about what you actually get when you research something. like if it is an upgrade for an already existing component, or an entirely new one.

A refit system is going to be added in the future. a  developer mentoned it in a Q&A a while back.



 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

Even if i put guns on they don't show up. i tried it on different classes with different guns. very strange.

Maybe the upgrade was about improving the rangefinding capabilities of the main tower itself, and not the seperate rangefinding component. the game is very unclear about what you actually get when you research something. like if it is an upgrade for an already existing component, or an entirely new one.

A refit system is going to be added in the future. a  developer mentoned it in a Q&A a while back.



 

Are you copying a design to then add the new part, or building from scratch?

I just tried copying an existing design that I had just started production on when I got a message that I unlocked Guncotton, so I figured I'd do a variant where I used that instead of Black Powder. Hit the copy button, and guess what? It's not an option. It has to be a new design.

Edited by Verdant
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Verdant said:

Are you copying a design to then add the new part, or building from scratch?

I just tried copying an existing design that I had just started production on when I got a message that I unlocked Guncotton, so I figured I'd do a variant where I used that instead of Black Powder. Hit the copy button, and guess what? It's not an option. I has to be a new design.

Will try that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Verdant said:

Is it possible to change the In Being/Sea Control button to be a toggle instead of a prompt? Changing large numbers of units gets really annoy after a while, needing three clicks instead of one on what could easily be done.

Hold shift for selecting and entire row, from -> to, and ctrl to pick them one by one, then make the order in one go. The same works IN BATTLE when selecting battleline cards. With one selection, I set all orders for the entire fleet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

More time acceleration would be nice - it keeps lethality and survivability historical without played battles taking too long. 
 

I want to piggyback off @ColonelHenry -early gunnery, fire control etc means that battles are going to feel slow. Most guns weren’t Quick-Firing, hitting out beyond 2000m was extraordinary, ships were slow, torpedo ranges short and their runs slow as well.

I don’t want to break from historical values, but I realize that this is going to drag for players. You can see what I mean here. The battle is great - it’s also 2 hours long.
 

Just giving players a way to speed up time allows us to still have a game without speedboats armed with incredibly lethal and rapid firing guns, or throwing crew damage, floatation etc out the window. 
 

Is that a possibility? 
 

e: I just wanted to say @Nick Thomadis being active in nearly every page of the thread is by far the best development I’ve seen so far. I really appreciate it.

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Speglord said:

Never struggled with this since the new patch, I won't lie. I've sunk numerous battleships with two torpedo hits -- I think I sank a battleship with even just one. 1890 cruisers may be a bit tanky against torpedoes, though I'll need to do more testing to confirm that.

CLs I faced, have taken 5 torps before diving, many bulkheads builds.  TRs @ 6K tonnage take 2+ torps to sink, 12K tonnage ones die to 1. Can not recall bulkhead stats on TRs. This may not be historical wrong, just seem like an anomaly considering displacement only.

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

@DougToss I agree with you, this is specially true for 1890 and 1900 campaign as you have to get within the 2.5km/3x speed zone to have any chance to hit the enemy. It result in unbearably long battle. The only battle I manually did in these two era where torpedo rush vs BBs as they are quick and decisive. In 1910 its more bearable trough. We need faster play speed, at least by a notch (5x close range, 10x above that).

There is allot to say about the cost/effectiveness balance, atm the quickest way to lose is to make upgraded ship. Part of the issue is the transport protection mechanic. I like it, but I think it there is too much weight on it. If it were to have a reduced impact it would allow player to make advanced creation. I prefer to stick to the gameplay over historical accuracy, but If real life would have been as the game is Russia would have won the Russo-Japanese War. As numeric advantage matter much more than quality.

Edited by RedParadize
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

@All
With the latest hotfix, the accuracy at close range should be more consistent. Previously the angular velocity measurements created large maneuverability accuracy even for very slow moving ships. But now you should be able to notice an increased accuracy against slow or immobile ships. Can you share your feedback about this?

Early Pre-dreadnought ship combat with cadet crew were very bad in aiming at previous versions of the game. Is it now better? 
 

Accuracy at low range is not good at all. The secondary batteries should be a good defense again a lone TB or 2. It is absolutely not the case.

0.7 km, 2 knots at only 7% change!

At 1 km and less it should be a dead zone trying to approach a capital ship. Currently it is easy to build only TB and sink everything. Main and secondary need to be way more deadly at very close range (1km and less). It is very bizarre to see a CA trying to miss every shot at a CL at 500m.

Other thing, the AI do not build anything, there is only the spawn fleet and never any others ship seems build?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the building side of cost balance here is two cruiser. First one of them being as cheap as possible while still being battle worthy and the second one built as good as technology allow it (no torpedo on both of them, it scare the AI too much):
U3pZ3C9.png

NEIiWcj.png

Second one is faster by 4 knot, has a armour +- 30% stronger. Accuracy and other soft stats are better, but not enough to justify a doubling the price tag. To make it worst, compare it to the next hull you would get on the British side and the minimum price is doubled again. which would be suicidal given how the transport protection mechanic currently work.

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

Other thing, the AI do not build anything, there is only the spawn fleet and never any others ship seems build?

I suspect it does. I had games where I did not massively sink AI transport and it still went bankrupt within the first two year.

I think that AI do more research than player do ( I do none) resulting in a much more constrained budget.

Edited by RedParadize
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baatsman said:

Just noticed, convoy defence mission reward you with a loss, when driving off the attackers, all TRs 100%, 815dmg vs 846dmg no losses on any side. Somth wierd going on, when results are evaluated?

I just experienced this as well, submitted a bug report

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Verdant said:

Is it possible to change the In Being/Sea Control button to be a toggle instead of a prompt? Changing large numbers of units gets really annoy after a while, needing three clicks instead of one on what could easily be done.

Shift-click is your friend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DougToss said:

I want to piggyback off @ColonelHenry -early gunnery, fire control etc means that battles are going to feel slow. Most guns weren’t Quick-Firing, hitting out beyond 2000m was extraordinary, ships were slow, torpedo ranges short and their runs slow as well.

The accuracy were bad due to the technology of the time, yes, but I think another main problem that needs to be fixed beside gunnery, is the damage model. We need more detailed damage model ASAP. The fact that a ship will continue to stern facing like it's WOWS in a losing close range battle is just ridiculous. If you hit, and flood the entire stern of the ship, it should not be continue to float away and firing with accurate fire, more accurate than your own guns! Please, we need that fixed. If a ship is flooded, and continue to get hit in that area, it should either flood the next area (which is band aid fix tbh), or we need detailed flooding, which is what I think should be added. So many times, a flooded, heavily damaged ship would just turn away to "tank" damage and then proceed to somehow score multiple engine, flooding, tower damage hits on my ship, practically making my ship as damaged as it is. I can't kill it from afar because "deflection" mechanic, I cannot get close because it will hit me while I cannot sink it, I guess the Germany Navy during Jutland were noobs, should be stern faced the entire British Home Fleet. If this is the case, then why bother playing as any states that isn't UK or USA since what only thing that matters is number because being good with accuracy does not grant you the victory needed? Is it historically accurate that more ships = win? YES! Is it represented in the game? Maybe. Is the combat represents how more ship = win? NO! Because more ships means you should be able to replace losses and be at many places at once; NOT tanking 100s of BB shells and then float away and not take any losses!

This ties into my problem with damage, guns should not be firing if the hull is damaged all over, it should disable the guns due to various internal damages. Again, ships that are entirely red in large sections should not have their guns near that area operating at all! Damage to the rudder should make the ship uncontrollable completely, not still evading torpedoes left and right (yes, I have seen ships with rudder destroyed still evading torpedoes coming from both sides. No it was not 10 months ago.)

And so many more... I think the campaign shows how broken the combat is. It needs serious attention.

EDIT: Here's the thing as well. Some people will think "This guy probably f**king hates this game". I don't. I really REALLY like the concept of a 3D strategy naval game with modern graphics and sound design. I want this game to be good, feel good to play, and be realistic to early 20th century combat while doing so. And the last part for me, is important, and as shown by many people in this community, for them as well. I might be harsh, and my tone sometimes reeks of frustration, annoyance, etc, but it does not EVER come from hate. @Nick ThomadisAnd I want you to know that the most.

Edited by ColonelHenry
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AdmER said:

Accuracy at low range is not good at all. The secondary batteries should be a good defense again a lone TB or 2. It is absolutely not the case.

What if I ask you to prove this assertion? Not by intuitive feel, but by showing battles where secondary batteries were actually effective against torpedo boats? One reason countries had to build torpedo boat destroyers was that they really can't expect very much from the secondaries.

From a gameplay perspective, you need to balance your annoyance when you can't defend against the torpedo boat versus what you'll feel when you are the torpedo boat. When the firing range of your torpedoes is nine hundred meters, you don't want the enemy ship to suddenly become an Aegis cruiser at say under 1000m. In the time it takes you to get into range, turn to expose your torp tubes and fire, your torpedo boat might be fatally crippled and you'll never get the shot off.

In my experience people over-rate the torpedo threat, at least in this era. Your ship simply isn't that big, so if you are careful, you won't be getting under 900m from your opponents. And if you did, unless you let them get very close, even a battleship can turn in time to avoid torpedoes. People get clobbered because they play on high time accelerations, which means let the torpedo multiple tens of seconds of "free time" before they even notice the torpedo. Then they try to set course rather than use rudder control. Then they get hit by the torpedo and they say "Torps OP, plz nerf".

Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents on torpedoes being overpowered in 1890s/1900s. I say it's historical and mostly fine (though minor balance tweaks might be necessary to even out and get consistent results, especially with certain people saying overpowered and some saying underpowered), but the battle generator is making a slightly overpowered tool even worse.

If we had proper screening elements (namely DDs or CLs), this wouldn't be so much a problem. If, to close on the enemy, you had to go through three or four DDs (also carrying torpedoes) for a single CA/BB, it wouldn't be a worthwhile trade. As it is now, since the battle generator doesn't give you proper screening elements, there is nothing stopping a TB from coming up to a BB and sending a full broadside of torpedoes into the BB, except for whatever secondaries you might have (and good luck on the accuracy of those).

On the other hand, if you could intercept the opposing DDs at even 2km out with your own DDs, you immediately hit torpedoes with the realistic nerf bat. Given how slow and short range the torpedoes are, even 2km out is a huge game changer.

If you note Battle of Jutland and Battle of Heligoland Bight (roughly at the end of the current campaigns), screening elements are, by far, the majority. In Jutland, the British, to get 45 BBs/BCs/CAs out to sea have a 104 screening ships (26 CLs, and 78 DDs). In Heligoland Bight, there are 5 BCs, but 8 CLs and 33 DDs out at sea as well. Germans had comparable numbers as well at Jutland. A comparable ratio (2 screens to 1 armored ship or even better) would be a huge tool against stopping torpedoes from being so decisive.

Even in WW2, you have at least a 1:1 ratio for most major battles that I can think to double-check at the moment, and most British/Germany engagements have much better ratios, though I think this is more a lack of capital ships/cheapness of destroyers (except for the Bismarck battle, which I think is a range/speed/stealth issue on the German side, rather than actual sound tactical thinking).

Link to post
Share on other sites

One pressing issue now that we have to handle fleet is the collision/torpedo avoidance. As it is ship in formation do not avoid torpedo. On the other hand there is the issue of collision avoidance bug like this one: oAgcanl.png

Ship on the left of the image refuse to turn ether way. because of it ship on the middle and top cant turn to avoid torpedo...

Really annoying.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

One pressing issue now that we have to handle fleet is the collision/torpedo avoidance. As it is ship in formation do not avoid torpedo. On the other hand there is the issue of collision avoidance bug like this one: oAgcanl.png

Ship on the left of the image refuse to turn ether way. because of it ship on the middle and top cant turn to avoid torpedo...

Really annoying.

This really gets at one of the long standing issues in UA:D; a lot, and I mean A LOT, of the micro you do is defensive in nature, that is making sure that your own units don't do anything extremely stupid, like sitting completely still, broadside on, in front of the enemy fleet because an ally is going at the same course and speed as them and they want to go somewhere else, or refusing to change their course and speed because dropping out of formation to dodge a torpedo is not ideal, but apparently being crippled or sunk is a better option than doing so? I understand that there will always be defensive micro in RTS games, but the level to which it is present here is kind of ridiculous, especially given how easy it is to do the little things that can keep a ship alive and fighting.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since almost everything I could say has already been said, I'll add (I don't really know if this is already planned) that a slider (or whatever) to adjust the budget assigned to individual ships building or reparing would be a nice addition. The time the ship takes to build or repair would be dependant on the budget allocated. This would allow to adjust your "ship production" to your real budget and allow for some historical situations with minor nations *ahem* Spain spending 10 years to build a single protected cruiser *ahem*.

Another nice addition would be to be able to build ships for other nations (for a price), sell your own designs to other nations o even old ships you don't need anymore (and being able to do the reverse).

I know this campaign is extremely limited but it'd be two things t have in mind for the future.

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

Somehow, while player cant transfer ship form port to port, it seem to be automatically done, but in a very wrong way. As Germany, almost all my fleet got transferred to the Baltic Sea... Leaving the North sea transport unprotected... now I am losing hard.

Looks like it doesn't matter that these ship have a range of 15000 km. They will not protect convoy if they are not in the region.

Edited by RedParadize
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe somebody still thinks torpedoes are not OP. In the situation where there are no duds, torpedo failures, breakdowns, failures to explode on impact and imperfect detonators. So, yes, if you look from perspective of WOWS players torpedoes are not OP. But if I remember correctly this game was advertised as historically accurate  and some of us find flawless torpedoes unacceptable and OP.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...