>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)

[Candle_86]

21 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

This. Panzerschiffs should be grouped with CBs. As most CBs were equipped with 10 to 12" guns, they would neither have a fair match against either CAs or BCs. We need more ship classes.

 

This is why I'd like to see Armored cruiser separated from Heavy/Light, because an Armored did have 10in guns, but heavies didn't. I'd break it down as Protected Crusier, Armored Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Heavy Crusier.

 

the Leniage is

 

Armored becomes Battlecrusier, while protected gives rise to Heavy/Light with the diffrence only happening in the London Naval Treaty, prior it was just a ship with 8in guns under 10,000 Tons. 

 

Honestly it only exists because of the treaty system, because what happened when it broke, everyone planned large crusiers with 11 or 12in guns or bigger

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Candle_86

[The PC Collector]

4 hours ago, Candle_86 said:

 

This is why I'd like to see Armored cruiser separated from Heavy/Light, because an Armored did have 10in guns, but heavies didn't. I'd break it down as Protected Crusier, Armored Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Heavy Crusier.

 

the Leniage is

 

Armored becomes Battlecrusier, while protected gives rise to Heavy/Light with the diffrence only happening in the London Naval Treaty, prior it was just a ship with 8in guns under 10,000 Tons. 

 

Honestly it only exists because of the treaty system, because what happened when it broke, everyone planned large crusiers with 11 or 12in guns or bigger

 

That's precisely why I proposed gettin only Cruiser hulls, without the current distinction between heavy and light, and the ships made with those hull being classified dinamically depending on their specs: if you mount 6" guns or smaller, you'll get a light cruiser or a protected cruiser depending on the armour. If you mount guns between 7 and 9" you'll get a heavy cruiser, and if you mount guns larger than 9" you'll get a large cruiser.

And I agree, Armoured cruisers should be classified as battlecruisers for gameplay purposes, as their role were the same.

[Littorio]

20 hours ago, SodaBit said:

I've got some uh...
"Interesting" campaign feedback, let's say.
To be honest I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature of the Legendary campaign difficulty, but some ships seem to have difficulty staying dead.

MN Saigon sailed into the North Sea this month with nobody aboard. The reason being that the ship was lost with all hands in a battle several months ago in the English Channel. 

In fact, of the enemy fleet's ration strength of roughly 15,000 men, over 11,000 of them are already dead. Most of the enemy's ships were previously sunk, but have been redeployed without so much as a scratch in the paint to fight again. Here's the French order of battle for this engagement:

Of these units, the BC Neptune, CA's Admiral Trehouart, Imprenable, Latouche-Treville, Paixhans, and Saigon, CL's Alger, Dubourdieu, and Laperouse, and DD's Bordelais, Jaguar, and Sirocco, were all sunk in the same battle back in August of 1940. The fleet that was destroyed in this battle only contained a single "living" ship, that being the CA Belier. Neptune was also redeployed with a full crew, though I suspect this is due to the French re-manning the ship with what replacements they had available after they bribed Cthulhu to get it back.
Like I said, I'm not sure if this is a bug, or a feature of Legendary difficulty. That said, if it is a bug, it's probably going to cause a lot of headaches for players who were expecting their enemies to stay dead.

Beware! The French are zombies and field Flying Dutchmen! I have seen ghost ships too but I didn't look at the crew count. I will keep an eye out.

 

3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

That's precisely why I proposed gettin only Cruiser hulls, without the current distinction between heavy and light, and the ships made with those hull being classified dinamically depending on their specs: if you mount 6" guns or smaller, you'll get a light cruiser or a protected cruiser depending on the armour. If you mount guns between 7 and 9" you'll get a heavy cruiser, and if you mount guns larger than 9" you'll get a large cruiser.

And I agree, Armoured cruisers should be classified as battlecruisers for gameplay purposes, as their role were the same.

While in theory I agree with this, in practice, I expect game design (at least as it currently stands) will trump it. As things are, the CL/CA divide is important to the battle generator because it is UAD's way of getting rough parity in said generator when engagements are created. Of course, we know this doesn't mean that CAs can't duel CLs or whatnot, but the distinction is currently important nonetheless.

Ultimately, I don't see this being changed until the campaign recon/ battle spotting systems are finally redone, and I believe that would be optimal for the following reasons:

1) With a redo of campaign layer pre-engagement intelligence+reconnaissance, the decision to enter a prospective battle or not takes on new meaning. Currently, you know exactly what you will be facing like 1 BB, 2CAs, etc. In reality, this would be next-to impossible to know. Therefore, having general cruisers in early years which could vary widely in tonnage and gun caliber, and in later years something like CBs, doesn't really matter anymore because it might be TBs you face, or a whole squadron of BBs! You won't necessarily know. Engagements won't be generated by the computer ("gamemaster" I will call it) for parity, but by simple positioning of your forces and the enemy's.

2) The same applies on a more micro level to the actual in-battle spotting system, which ideally would be an offshoot of what happens on the campaign map. For example, you have 2 "CL" tier cruisers, and you decide to engage a group of three enemy vessels. However, you took a risk because you only knew the class of one of their vessels, a TB. The identity of the other two is unknown. When the first enemy is on the horizon at the proper distance, you see the TB. So far it is alone, it comes at you slowly to engage, but you sink it, congratulations.

But then suddenly masts and smoke appear on the horizon, the following unknown vessels, which were obviously far behind the TB and slower. Oh no, it turns out it is a BB and a CA! Suddenly you are very much outranged and outgunned, and decide to use your superior speed to flee the engagement envelope of their guns and retire from the battlefield. This is infinitely more satisfying that the current WoWS type spotting linked to arbitrary values on "more advanced" towers, but that is another discussion largely and beyond the current point.

For now, we simply see that making general cruiser classes to start, and CBs later on, loses its current importance to battle generator parity and actually fighting. We will be taking risks anyway, so potentially being widely outgunned cruiser versus cruiser isn't a big deal, because at least it isn't a battleship!

Edited March 8, 2022 by Littorio

[The PC Collector]

6 hours ago, Littorio said:

Beware! The French are zombies and field Flying Dutchmen! I have seen ghost ships too but I didn't look at the crew count. I will keep an eye out.

 

While in theory I agree with this, in practice, I expect game design (at least as it currently stands) will trump it. As things are, the CL/CA divide is important to the battle generator because it is UAD's way of getting rough parity in said generator when engagements are created. Of course, we know this doesn't mean that CAs can't duel CLs or whatnot, but the distinction is currently important nonetheless.

Ultimately, I don't see this being changed until the campaign recon/ battle spotting systems are finally redone, and I believe that would be optimal for the following reasons:

1) With a redo of campaign layer pre-engagement intelligence+reconnaissance, the decision to enter a prospective battle or not takes on new meaning. Currently, you know exactly what you will be facing like 1 BB, 2CAs, etc. In reality, this would be next-to impossible to know. Therefore, having general cruisers in early years which could vary widely in tonnage and gun caliber, and in later years something like CBs, doesn't really matter anymore because it might be TBs you face, or a whole squadron of BBs! You won't necessarily know. Engagements won't be generated by the computer ("gamemaster" I will call it) for parity, but by simple positioning of your forces and the enemy's.

2) The same applies on a more micro level to the actual in-battle spotting system, which ideally would be an offshoot of what happens on the campaign map. For example, you have 2 "CL" tier cruisers, and you decide to engage a group of three enemy vessels. However, you took a risk because you only knew the class of one of their vessels, a TB. The identity of the other two is unknown. When the first enemy is on the horizon at the proper distance, you see the TB. So far it is alone, it comes at you slowly to engage, but you sink it, congratulations.

But then suddenly masts and smoke appear on the horizon, the following unknown vessels, which were obviously far behind the TB and slower. Oh no, it turns out it is a BB and a CA! Suddenly you are very much outranged and outgunned, and decide to use your superior speed to flee the engagement envelope of their guns and retire from the battlefield. This is infinitely more satisfying that the current WoWS type spotting linked to arbitrary values on "more advanced" towers, but that is another discussion largely and beyond the current point.

For now, we simply see that making general cruiser classes to start, and CBs later on, loses its current importance to battle generator parity and actually fighting. We will be taking risks anyway, so potentially being widely outgunned cruiser versus cruiser isn't a big deal, because at least it isn't a battleship!

I think you misunderstood me, my friend. My proposal is not getting rid of the CA/CL (or even more possible cruiser classes) but that the kind of cruiser your ship is becomes determined by the specs of your ship (mostly the main guns and the armouring) rather than by the hull you choose. That, also, would allow for reclassification of ships. Just like some late protected cruisers were reclassified as light cruisers after WWI.

[Littorio]

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

I think you misunderstood me, my friend. My proposal is not getting rid of the CA/CL (or even more possible cruiser classes) but that the kind of cruiser your ship is becomes determined by the specs of your ship (mostly the main guns and the armouring) rather than by the hull you choose. That, also, would allow for reclassification of ships. Just like some late protected cruisers were reclassified as light cruisers after WWI.

Ah, well in that case I don't think it should be too big of an issue, except the necessary code to facilitate different kinds of generated events pertaining to these newer classifications. Still, I don't think they will touch upon this if at all until later in development once larger issues are removed.

[Norbert Sattler]

Is there any way I can build new ships from a refit tempalate?

I tried to copy and save it under a new name, but that just results in a completely unusable tempalte that can neither be used for refits nor for building new ones.

[TehGreenlandFox]

Is there a planned release date of 1.05?

[Nick Thomadis]

58 minutes ago, TehGreenlandFox said:

Is there a planned release date of 1.05?

We plan to finish everything next week. In the meantime, more betas will be shared.

[Admiral Unterhosen]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We plan to finish everything next week. In the meantime, more betas will be shared.

WhooHoo! You guys are amazing!!

  This is probably low on the list, but as a graphic designer this is just driving me nuts...

  ... also on the Politics Page I'm listed as a Democracy for some reason

Edited March 9, 2022 by Admiral Unterhosen
clarity

[The PC Collector]

Okay, @Nick Thomadis since we shouldn't edit saves anymore to prevent bugs that flaw the testing, then we need implemented some kind of stopgap game option to make campaigns longer. Like, an option to make campaigns not end when there is a revolution, and make the AI not ask for peace. As of right now, the average campaign is still too short for some features to be properly and throroughly tested.

[Captain Basilone]

Two errors i've found.

(1) Ships that i have sunk are reappearing in battle. Now the timeline is long enough that a second vessel might be built and named after the dead one (ie USS Yorktown CV5 and USS Yorktown CV10.) but it doubt it.

(2) Changing torpedoes to anything other than normal rate of fire fails to detonate. The torpedoes hit and go through the target even at point blank.

[Iuvenalis]

50 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, @Nick Thomadis since we shouldn't edit saves anymore to prevent bugs that flaw the testing, then we need implemented some kind of stopgap game option to make campaigns longer. Like, an option to make campaigns not end when there is a revolution, and make the AI not ask for peace. As of right now, the average campaign is still too short for some features to be properly and throroughly tested.

I agree with the sentiment that the campaigns are ending too early. I generally get about 3 years in, someone revolts, and then I get the broken campaign ended screen. I'm not so concerned with the broken campaign screen, but I generally dont even have a 2nd generation of ships operational for more than a couple months, if at all, before it ends. Like many other campaign oriented games, (CIV, Total War) we should be able to just keep playing.

[Littorio]

3 hours ago, Admiral Unterhosen said:

WhooHoo! You guys are amazing!!

  This is probably low on the list, but as a graphic designer this is just driving me nuts...

  ... also on the Politics Page I'm listed as a Democracy for some reason

I second the issue of the politics page listing all nations as democracies.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Basilone said:

Two errors i've found.

(1) Ships that i have sunk are reappearing in battle. Now the timeline is long enough that a second vessel might be built and named after the dead one (ie USS Yorktown CV5 and USS Yorktown CV10.) but it doubt it.

(2) Changing torpedoes to anything other than normal rate of fire fails to detonate. The torpedoes hit and go through the target even at point blank.

Sunk ships are absolutely reappearing and this is a very maddening issue that must be fixed ASAP.

In regards to the torpedoes, I have noticed two things that may describe what you are saying. First is torps running too deep. I have seen some physically much lower in the water column than they normally are, and as a result pass clear under the enemy ship. I don't know under which precise conditions this occurs, but I have clearly watched it occur in open battle.

I know they stated on one of the hotfixes that they had "Improved ship buoyancy" and thus fixed a "rare" issue regarding torps passing under craft. This would indicate that the problem was the ship's positioning, rather than the weapon...but that is not what I am seeing. Rather, the weapon is physically deeper in the water than it usually is and thus passing under normal ship keels.

The other issue/feature that might cause some of your torpedo troubles is the minimum arming distance. The real question though is what exactly that value is, and does it change based on era/type/angle/etc? It definitely is a factor in-game currently, and if ships fire torpedoes too close they simply either disappear or bounce off and sink, I have never been able to look closely enough to tell. They do not detonate, and they do not keep running "through" the ship either.

So all things considered those are the factors I have seen that affect torpedo detonation or not, but nothing specifically tied to "firing rate" alone. You say "point blank," but the minimum arming distance would prevent such a detonation anyway. Can you describe or better yet get a screenshot of the scenario you are describing?

[ilguisco]

Yes same problem, I have no way to test my new technologies discovered that the campaign ends.

[Andersonpettransportation]

Quick question, how do you go into beta if you don't have UAD on steam? I bought this before it was available on steam.

[neph]

On 3/6/2022 at 11:05 AM, Urst said:

Similarly, I've had enemy ships arriving with upwards of 1/3rd of their hull integrity missing. I could explain it as previous battle damage and they just hadn't made it to port yet, but they have no other damage and neither do any of the other ships with them.

I see this quite frequently--once I saw a CL start a fight with 5% hull left. I think it's from previous fights with other nations

[neph]

On 3/7/2022 at 1:41 AM, El Jefe said:

Can confirm this happening, with Italy in 1940. Beat Austro-Hungary, peace signed, was marked as a defeat.

all victory screens show defeat vs british right now, even if you're allied with them. probably just a UI bug

[Mattymul29]

Player Suggestion

can we please have an override on the game speed clock.

there is nothing worse than when an enemy is retreating and your stuck chasing them at x3 speed

[1MajorKoenig]

Stupid question: when is the current Beta content going to be a „normal“ release?

 

Or is the way to change to BETA now anyway (which wouldn’t be a big deal either) - maybe I just missed the Memo?

 

Thanks!

 

PS: Derfflinger, Mackensen, Ersatz Yorck when…? 🙂

[Andvarus]

20 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We plan to finish everything next week. In the meantime, more betas will be shared.

There is no date yet but they are working on a release next week. 👆

[Fangoriously]

            It's not so much that wars are ending too quickly, it's that most battles when you have large battle groups deployed force huge fleet actions where the ai gets half its ships destroyed. ya, of course the war is over. There needs to be a disincentive to parking 10 capital ships off your enemies coast, i imagine that what subs and mines will be for, an off screen threat to ships you have deployed. Not just transports getting sunk off screen, but battleships as well!        In one campaign, I kept all my ships docked, much smaller battles were generated regularly, and over 10 years passed before a beta update purged that save file. Refits still don't work, though. Go into the refit editor and it says my turrets are too far away or whatever, preventing you from saveing a refit that has any forward guns. The 1 thing you would want to test on a long term campaign.      

Edited March 10, 2022 by Fangoriously

[Norbert Sattler]

12 hours ago, Andersonpettransportation said:

Quick question, how do you go into beta if you don't have UAD on steam? I bought this before it was available on steam.

The store from which UA:D was originally sold should have sent you an E-Mail with a steam code. If you didn't get one, I suggest contacting them.

[Norbert Sattler]

17 hours ago, Captain Basilone said:

(2) Changing torpedoes to anything other than normal rate of fire fails to detonate. The torpedoes hit and go through the target even at point blank.

Unfortunately it isn't as simple as "standard works, rest doesn't"

This bug seems to come and go at random. I use a lot of fast torpedoes and most of the time they work. And I've also seen standard torpedoes becoming ethereal by the same bug.

I've also seen time when the bug only affects one side, but not the other in a battle (despite both using the same propulsion and size of torpedoes) and other times when both sides were.

I didn't find any common denominator when the bug does or does not appear. It seems to be completely random.

[Urst]

17 hours ago, Captain Basilone said:

Two errors i've found.

(1) Ships that i have sunk are reappearing in battle. Now the timeline is long enough that a second vessel might be built and named after the dead one (ie USS Yorktown CV5 and USS Yorktown CV10.) but it doubt it.

(2) Changing torpedoes to anything other than normal rate of fire fails to detonate. The torpedoes hit and go through the target even at point blank.

Torps are supposed to not hit at point-blank. They go a lot deeper than their cruising depth and haven't armed yet. Torps also should have a failure rate. Such as the American Mark 14 Torp's 70% failure rate.

[JHorsti]

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

PS: Derfflinger, Mackensen, Ersatz Yorck when…? 🙂

Any german WWI hull when...? There isn't one single dedicated german battleship or battlecruiser hull in a game that's called ultimate admiral dreanoughts.