Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Patch 1.03-1.04 Feedback<<


Recommended Posts

Hello Admirals,
We are offering an intermediate patch which improves gameplay and fixes various issues, before our planned major update which will include a larger map, more nations, more ships and many other new features. Let's have a look at what this small but very important update has to offer:

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/small-patch-v1-03

==========

HotFix v1.04 (25/1/2022)
- Fixed bug in saved battles which caused them to not function or make the game to crash.
- Fine tuning to Auto-Targeting, Guns' aiming at close range.
- Fixed an occasional problem in mission "Sink the Raiders" in which the transports could spawn too close to the enemy.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay Well done team. Now comes the fun though the next update should be a cracking addtion we csan finally start proeprly testing the campaign soon. speaking of which any word yet @Nick Thomadiswhen the next patch is launching vaugely and will it have a beta before the full release?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got a bug that was not their in the beta of this patch.

on all hulls the bridge of the ship when plaved in ship builder seems to hover about 40 feet off the deck. no clue whats cuasing this and as i said it was not their when running the beta patch. i have swapped from the beta back to the main build incase that makes a differnce to the bug appearing or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toby said:

got a bug that was not their in the beta of this patch.

on all hulls the bridge of the ship when plaved in ship builder seems to hover about 40 feet off the deck. no clue whats cuasing this and as i said it was not their when running the beta patch. i have swapped from the beta back to the main build incase that makes a differnce to the bug appearing or not

It is an old visual bug, happening in previous patch as well. We have fixed part of it, but cannot find the last cause that triggers it. It happens when "Pause" is wrongly set in ship design, pausing the mount animations and thus the parts hover on air, but if you exit Design and re-enter the problem is fixed.

We need player help to fix this completely. It is hilarious, but players who "mash random buttons" from anxiety between loading screens, can get this error often. We need a definite reproduce method, of what a player frequently does between loading sessions, or during ship design, what keys are frequently pressed, what special key bindings might be active etc.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick feedback about campaign balance.
I'm starting to think that maybe Large Cruisers (Alaska, Stalingrad, B-65 and the like) should be their own class. Currently, they're considered Battle Cruisers, but can't compete with interwar BC's, like the Renowns, Kongos, or Lexingtons as designed. If they were designated as Heavy Cruisers, they'd be complete overkill, and be the only viable hull choice in that category. Something like an Admiral Hipper or Country class doesn't stand much chance against a ship armed with 11" or 12" guns. I know that some ships of similar capability were actually classified as BC's, but from a game balance perspective ships like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau really aren't competitive BC designs for the 1930's campaign, let alone 1940.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SodaBit said:

Quick feedback about campaign balance.
I'm starting to think that maybe Large Cruisers (Alaska, Stalingrad, B-65 and the like) should be their own class. Currently, they're considered Battle Cruisers, but can't compete with interwar BC's, like the Renowns, Kongos, or Lexingtons as designed. If they were designated as Heavy Cruisers, they'd be complete overkill, and be the only viable hull choice in that category. Something like an Admiral Hipper or Country class doesn't stand much chance against a ship armed with 11" or 12" guns. I know that some ships of similar capability were actually classified as BC's, but from a game balance perspective ships like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau really aren't competitive BC designs for the 1930's campaign, let alone 1940.

I agree completely that CBs should be their own class. As should be Armoured cruisers and protected cruisers.

And the Scharnhorst aren't BCs. They were BBs. People oftem mistaken them as being BCs due to their high speed and small guns. But they were designed as BBs. The reason they were equipped with 11" guns was that due to the versailles treaty, Germany didnt had bigger guns available, but the ships were designed with the intention of retrofitting them with 15" guns as soon as they were available. In fact using the same turrets as the Bismacks. However, that retrofit never happened due to the loss of the Bismarck and the Gneisenau being incapacitated during the first months of the war, as Germany simply couldn't afford to have one of their two only BBs out of service for a retrofit.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

I agree completely that CBs should be their own class. As should be Armoured cruisers and protected cruisers.

And the Scharnhorst aren't BCs. They were BBs. People oftem mistaken them as being BCs due to their high speed and small guns. But they were designed as BBs. The reason they were equipped with 11" guns was that due to the versailles treaty, Germany didnt had bigger guns available, but the ships were designed with the intention of retrofitting them with 15" guns as soon as they were available. In fact using the same turrets as the Bismacks. However, that retrofit never happened due to the loss of the Bismarck and the Gneisenau being incapacitated during the first months of the war, as Germany simply couldn't afford to have one of their two only BBs out of service for a retrofit.

I guess they're sort of like the Mogami's in that sense. As designed, they were heavy cruisers, but were given 6.1" guns when built so the Japanese could claim they were just light cruisers, and they weren't in violation of the London Naval Treaty. I think it's fair to say that as designed the Scharnhorst's were meant to be battleships, but were built as battle cruisers due to certain limitations, with the same sort of intention to upgrade them to more capable units down the line. 
Also, I'd like to see this sort of underhanded refit process in game, if at all possible, as well as some sort of naval treaty system that limits tonnage in addition to the limitations on tonnage based on what dockyards are capable of actually building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know pressing ESC during the peace negotiations was a bug, but in the absence of a completed campaign it was the only way I was able to experience the research mechanic! For reference, my campaign was 1900-1955 as Germany. During this run, I noticed a few interesting things that may or may not be relevant at this point in development. Firstly, despite maintaining 100% research spending, my tech was noticeably lacking as compared to the other campaign milestones (1920 vs. 1920 start, etc.). Also, the AI seemed to be developing new ship classes very rapidly, thus very quickly running out of names and subsequently being replaced by names such as BB 00756, etc. Interestingly, their designs also appeared to be iterations of previous ships as opposed to novel designs.

Loving the structure of the game so far and am very much looking forward to a fleshed out campaign experience!UAD_EA1.thumb.jpg.627483c4070a0f7aefe9d18d3eaab20b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the German ships have either English or odd names.

One such example was the Prinzess <forgot the definitely male name>... for one thing the German word for princess is Prinzessin. And the male noun is Prinz.

So a Prinzess <male name> is really confusing to me on both accounts.

Another example is the Saxony. In German that should be Sachsen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit upbeat for this patch. Sure, I'll probably find some minor niggling issues later on, but on first impressions, the game as of this patch is pretty good quality on the tactical side. Ship building usually forces you to make reasonable compromises (except for the radio issue), torpedoes aren't too overpowered now, the AI is pretty aggressive and targets well. The AI does screw up occasionally on its own ship building, but most of the time it doesn't and makes decent ships.

Good job, devs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I start let me just say I REALLY enjoy this patch. I've played another 2 campaigns yesterday just cause the patch released, but I found a few things worth mentioning.

The sinking of the ships still feels kinda odd. A totally shot up Merchant stays afloat while a Battleships has allready sunk? I agree it looks more satisfying now but it still needs some fine tuning imo. And a ship that had a Ammo detonation should be counted as a kill instandly -> USS Maine, HMS Queen Marry, HMS Invincible, HMS Hood

I really like the new port strikes and the wounded bear battles were you intercept a damaged fleet. 20220121011044_1.thumb.jpg.c34895033f0c44e99349a0d2da028416.jpg

I've tried to pull a Maximilian von Spee here and charged the enemy with my Battleships so that my cruiser could get away. It was a really fun battle and in the end I even managed to fend them off.

Which brings me to my next point: The AI still isn't aggressive enought. I should have lost both of my ships in that battle but the AI never really tried to go for the Kill. 

Also the AI ship designs did not really improve as far as I saw 🤷‍♂️

And as OldTobyGreen mentoined the reseach is really of. I played a 15 year Campaign from 1890 to 1905 and I didn't even came close to the reseach level you get when you start in 1900. We need some more balance here. 

And could we please change the naming for the Hulls: Battleship Hull I (1890) -> Pre-Dreadnought 1885 / Battleship Hull 2 ->Pre-Dreadnought 1895 etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One Thing I've noticed is my crew pool no longer increase, putting ships into mothballs if i commision more than 2-3 at a time, but if i manually set the crew i can, and it doesn't change my crew pool total under finance 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got something here and I'm not sure if it's a bug or not.
XLEx2MV.png
BB just entered into combat with minor damage from its last engagement still present?
I'm not sure how this was caused, but I think I reassigned the ship to another station before it went into that turn's battle? Don't quote me on that though, don't really remember since I just started playing for the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can roll a mission that has your ships intercepted returning from another battle, or vice versa against AI ships.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure something is wrong with the auto-designer for CLs:

1858034859_CLautodesignfail.thumb.jpg.b3dedbd580f84d6fec6a1e1898236bce.jpg

I've noticed that sometimes (but not always? Or just always with a recent update?) when you select a CL hull for building, the armor defaults to 0 for all values.  It seems the AI starts with 0 armor in its design process, loads up on guns (here it has 4x 6-inch and 12x 4-inch on less than 3,500t), then adds HP, then fills what tiny leftover displacement it has with minimal armor values (2mm belt!).

@Nick Thomadis, also curious how these super thin, non-armor armor values work. Are they considered to be on top of the structural steel that should already be present in the structure? Or do you need to put, for example, 5mm of "armor" on the hulls of all ships (including destroyers / TBs that should be unarmored) to have the game treat the hulls as normal structural steel (which of course has a thickness and armor value, even if minimal)? 

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SodaBit said:

I've got something here and I'm not sure if it's a bug or not.
XLEx2MV.png
BB just entered into combat with minor damage from its last engagement still present?
I'm not sure how this was caused, but I think I reassigned the ship to another station before it went into that turn's battle? Don't quote me on that though, don't really remember since I just started playing for the day.

Was the mission called "Straggle" or something like that?

Because if so, then it is definitely not a bug. There is the chance that ships returning from a previous mission can be intercepted. This works both ways. If you're lucky you can also intercept enemy ships this way sometimes, though that seems to happen a lot less often than the other way round...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Formation keeping is nearly completely broken.
    • Ships take forever to get into formation, take inefficient paths trying to get into path.
       
    • Ships crowd each other in formation.   Case in point, chasing down a CL (loaded with an insane number of torpedos), with a card of CA's in Line Ahead(tight).   The CL fires an oblique broadside of torpedos, which prior to this patch, would have been avoidable.   What happens?   The 2nd CA rams the lead CA and PUSHED it and itself into about 10 torpedos.   
       
    • Ships will 'wobble' in line abreast, zig zagging back and forth, for no apparent reason.   This results in them constantly breaking their locks.
       
    • Ships won't reliably fire salvos of torpedos when in line ahead... something that used to be possible.
       
  • As always, the AI Ship Designer is garbage and needs to be rethought.

 

 

Edited by TheRealJostapo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...