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

[slightlytreasonous]

23 minutes ago, Urst said:

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.

 

The mark 14 was terrible because basically the only realistic testing it got was in the war, because of how terrible torpedo production amounts were, they didn't want to waste them.

Duds and general failures really shouldn't be a thing without some decent space for player interaction, to improve them.    Not necessarily being able to make them perfect all the time, but a player should definitely feel that a dud was avoidable, and not because RNG decided to screw them

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[Littorio]

13 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.

Go to the support forum here and ask for help and Ink should contact you. You should have received an emailed code by now.

 

7 hours ago, Mattymul29 said:

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

Old suggestion, much asked for, but I don't think they will tweak the clock until the game is much more finalized.

 

1 hour ago, Urst said:

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.

Do you know if in-game they had modeled depth differences in torps? Have you seen them mention that anywhere? That would explain some of the things I have seen.

 

42 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

 

The mark 14 was terrible because basically the only realistic testing it got was in the war, because of how terrible torpedo production amounts were, they didn't want to waste them.

Duds and general failures really shouldn't be a thing without some decent space for player interaction, to improve them.    Not necessarily being able to make them perfect all the time, but a player should definitely feel that a dud was avoidable, and not because RNG decided to screw them

 

Please don't try and defend the Mark 14. That's probably the greatest mistake of naval engineering and procurement in history.

[Urst]

2 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Do you know if in-game they had modeled depth differences in torps? Have you seen them mention that anywhere? That would explain some of the things I have seen.

They have. They said that part of the reason for torps missing ships is the ships draft being too shallow or the torp being modeled too low in the water incorrectly. Can't remember where, but it was some time before page 10 and after page 4 in this thread, I think.

[Littorio]

1 minute ago, Urst said:

They have. They said that part of the reason for torps missing ships is the ships draft being too shallow or the torp being modeled too low in the water incorrectly. Can't remember where, but it was some time before page 10 and after page 4 in this thread, I think.

They did say "ship buoyancy," and said they corrected it in a hotfix. I said above earlier that I had seen torps running too deep it appeared. I was not aware though that they might possibly model them differently based on launch location and distance to target. I know there is a minimum arming distance of undetermined length, but I had no evidence they deliberately included depth differences. I will have to keep an eye out.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

1 hour ago, slightlytreasonous said:

 

The mark 14 was terrible because basically the only realistic testing it got was in the war, because of how terrible torpedo production amounts were, they didn't want to waste them.

Duds and general failures really shouldn't be a thing without some decent space for player interaction, to improve them.    Not necessarily being able to make them perfect all the time, but a player should definitely feel that a dud was avoidable, and not because RNG decided to screw them

 

torps are too op in early game, every ship HAS to have torps. Imo forcing a player to fire multiple spreads to ensure damage is good. It works in rule the waves, I dont see a reason it should not work here. 

[slightlytreasonous]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

 

Please don't try and defend the Mark 14. That's probably the greatest mistake of naval engineering and procurement in history.

I'm not?  All I'm saying is things went very, very wrong.  You can't throw in duds unless we can also feel that things went wrong and that it's our fault it is a dud, apart from just tech and year.

[Urst]

3 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

I'm not?  All I'm saying is things went very, very wrong.  You can't throw in duds unless we can also feel that things went wrong and that it's our fault it is a dud, apart from just tech and year.

Except that it can't be the players fault. It's the designer and manufacturers fault. You can't know which torp is a dud until it hits the enemy. Unless you mean the player chose not to let their new technology be tested, but that's part of the default process of the game's research mechanics. You can't tell the game to start using tech that hasn't finished research.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Urst

[slightlytreasonous]

27 minutes ago, Urst said:

Except that it can't be the players fault. It's the designer and manufacturers fault. You can't know which torp is a dud until it hits the enemy. Unless you mean the player chose not to let their new technology be tested, but that's part of the default process of the game's research mechanics. You can't tell the game to start using tech that hasn't finished research.

Obviously the player won't be hovering over each individual torpedo.  But that doesn't mean you can't add player interaction, everything from crew skill to doctrines could and should have an affect.  There should still be plenty of things out of player control,  but a dud should always have the feeling it could have been avoided.  Otherwise, it will always seem like the game just screwed you over for no reason.     The Navy was very much responsible for the nightmares that led to the MK 14, and in general, their terrible torpedoes.  We should be go- you just obviously can never go into every tiny historical aspect.

And no, I dont think actually testing weapons should be a huge thing, I'd rather see it abstracted, I'd go no deeper then target ships as a alternative scrapping, and fleet problems.  

Edited March 10, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[Urst]

1 minute ago, slightlytreasonous said:

Obviously the player won't be hovering over each individual torpedo.  But that doesn't mean you can't add player interaction, everything from crew skill to doctrines could and should have an affect.  There should still be plenty of things out of player control,  but a dud should always have the feeling it could have been avoided.  Otherwise, it will always seem like the game just screwed you over for no reason.  

And no, I dont think actually testing weapons should be a huge thing, I'd rather see it abstracted, I'd go no deeper then target ships and fleet problems.  

Nothing has an effect other than tech-level, design, level of testing, and production quality. Duds can't be avoided in combat, only in the drawing board and in the factory.

[slightlytreasonous]

7 minutes ago, Urst said:

Nothing has an effect other than tech-level, design, level of testing, and production quality. Duds can't be avoided in combat, only in the drawing board and in the factory.

I'm not saying that duds can or should be avoidable by choices in battle. I have had my fair share of horrific defeats that I knowingly prepared in the design screen.

If you make a terrible choice you shouldn't be able to glide past it during battle, but after you're defeated you should be able to learn and change things so it doesn't happen again.    Tech basis just cuts that down to a % chance- sure, altering doctrines for example would probably do nothing more, but you feel responsible.  When you are defeated it feels avoidable, and even even if it would have gone the same way if you did make that choice x turns ago, how would you know?  And that keeps it from feeling like the game just hates you

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[Norbert Sattler]

3 hours ago, Urst said:

They have. They said that part of the reason for torps missing ships is the ships draft being too shallow or the torp being modeled too low in the water incorrectly. Can't remember where, but it was some time before page 10 and after page 4 in this thread, I think.

The model does not need to intersect for the collision to correctly calculate. I once had torpedoes that looked like they were flying high enough above the water to go clearly over the enemy ship's funnels, but still hit the hull just fine.

There also used to be a bug where the visible ship-model would drift forward after dying, but the collision model stayed in place (which has been corrected quite a while ago).

Edited March 10, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[beepboop6]

cant seem to refit any ships in campaign, the button is just greyed out

[slightlytreasonous]

16 minutes ago, beepboop6 said:

cant seem to refit any ships in campaign, the button is just greyed out

Enter the ship designer of the class, click the wrench at the top, make your design, then save.  Send the ships you want to refit back to port and then they will be available to refit.

 

[Littorio]

6 hours ago, slightlytreasonous said:

I'm not?  All I'm saying is things went very, very wrong.  You can't throw in duds unless we can also feel that things went wrong and that it's our fault it is a dud, apart from just tech and year.

Well you made your statement as if the only reason they were bad was that they avoided testing because of the cost. The designs should never have had so many issues to begin with. Taking this to UAD, I don't see the duds having some sort of preventable game mechanic other than something affecting maintenance. A normal, good torpedo may go bad and function incorrectly if maintained improperly by a green crew or a negligent commander.

A dud from the factory is still a dud no matter what you're doing in the field 9/10 times and we are nowhere close to even thinking about logistics systems which would cover this. It would involve factories, contracts, etc. We don't even have real shipyards and slipways at the moment, and can just build infinite ships at will only constrained by the treasury. I don't forsee anything dealing with armaments manufacturing being considered for some time, including torpedoes.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Littorio

[Andvarus]

9 hours ago, JHorsti said:

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.

They will probably be part of this Update. And to be fair most of the Battleships Hulls in the Game atm are only kinda historical. For example the Fuso-Class Hull is the italian Dreadnought I atm. 

[slightlytreasonous]

54 minutes ago, Littorio said:

Well you made your statement as if the only reason they were bad was that they avoided testing because of the cost. The designs should never have had so many issues to begin with. 

I did, so, thats on me.  

54 minutes ago, Littorio said:

 Taking this to UAD, I don't see the duds having some sort of preventable game mechanic other than something affecting maintenance. A normal, good torpedo may go bad and function incorrectly if maintained improperly by a green crew or a negligent commander.

A dud from the factory is still a dud no matter what you're doing in the field 9/10 times and we are nowhere close to even thinking about logistics systems which would cover this. It would involve factories, contracts, etc. We don't even have real shipyards and slipways at the moment, and can just build infinite ships at will only constrained by the treasury. I don't forsee anything dealing with armaments manufacturing being considered for some time, including torpedoes.

Maintenance/crew quality is the majority of the way I can see it for now, but I would also offer up expending ships in weapon tests, as alternative to scrapping them, and fleet exercises.   Expending could improve progress in any number of fields.  Fleet exercises serve a similar role, but you get to fight them out.

Logistics and manufacturing is probably the ideal but I frankly doubt that would be implemented.   Even if its simple I wouldnt be surprised if it sounded "too in depth" and acts as a deterrent for a lot of people.  Dont get me wrong though, I wanna spend atleast a few thousand hours per campaign.  Letting me manage and design every single aspect of the navy? Yes please!

Ideally, a lot of ways, and make it simply very unfeasible to go with all possible ones, to always keep that feeling that you could have done more.    The game does that really well as is and I have to say thats probably my favorite part about it.

Edited March 11, 2022 by slightlytreasonous

[beepboop6]

16 hours ago, slightlytreasonous said:

Enter the ship designer of the class, click the wrench at the top, make your design, then save.  Send the ships you want to refit back to port and then they will be available to refit.

 

thanks for that. Managed to find it. 

Is it possible to build a new ship directly to the refit standard, instead of having to build first to original build then refit to the refit standard, as at the moment the build button is greyed out for the refit design

Have tried copying the refit design to a new design, but the build ship button is greyed out for the copied "new" design as well

 

[richarddenk]

enjoying the beta although the campaign is too easy and i can usually get germany to surrender within several years.  most of the other issues ive encountered have already been covered, looking forward to further development!

[Norbert Sattler]

Starting as Austria-Hungary in 1910 my technology page says I should have Destroyer II available, but I can only select Large Torpedo Boat hulls to design and build.

Also Destroyer I isn't listed as being unlocked, only the Destroyer II directly, so maybe it's this missing tech that's the issue.

[jtjohn1]

Played 2 campaigns as the Italians,  Destroyed the Austria Hungarians both times.  Both times they surrendered due to political revolt.  Both times I was allied to the British and my enemy was Germany.   Both times was a massive defeat to the British who were my allies....

[jtjohn1]

Also French Campaign the victory points are still screwed up.  They go to the Austrio Hungarians instead of to the French

[SodaBit]

9 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:

Also French Campaign the victory points are still screwed up.  They go to the Austrio Hungarians instead of to the French

Can confirm that the French are still very unsure of the definition of "Victory."
Kinda sucks to wipe out 2 entire battlefleets while sustaining no losses only for the French to pull a reverse UNO card out of their ass and get all your 23k of your victory points.

[mikekervin]

In the first battle as Italy in 1915 campaign all my victory points went to Austria-Hungary

Re: ghost ships it seems like task forces have something to do with this. The game seems to change the status of a ship (sunk, scrapped, repairing, etc.) while it's still at sea after the battle, but if it gets intercepted by an enemy force before it can return to port in the end turn calculation it reverts back to active fleet. In this way it can actually be impossible to get rid of an obselete ship, so you get forced into battle with it over and over.

[Stealth17]

10 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Can confirm that the French are still very unsure of the definition of "Victory."
Kinda sucks to wipe out 2 entire battlefleets while sustaining no losses only for the French to pull a reverse UNO card out of their ass and get all your 23k of your victory points.

This is causing my campaign to fail too

[Hawkmoon98]

not sure if it was already mentioned, but currently formation are completly borked, even if it turn off the "avoid Collision" that creates even more chaos with ships avoiding ships in the same formation currently, iships really struggle to keep formation