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

[Cryadis]

So a friend got me into UAD and i really enjoy it and spent many hours on it last 2 weeks.

Playing the latest available Steam beta i came across one main thing that is quite annoying when playing a campain (i tend to extend it by not accepting peace):

Refit does not really work, or I do not understand it. Specifically i can create a "refit" design of an existing ship (i.e. i beeline tripple expanse steam engine and also got guncotton), so i refit all my ships and at least according to combat info during fights, game still states my ships use the old components after i refit the ship (i check the tooltip there, i cannot sayy if it is a display error of the tooltip or if the refitted ship is actually not refitted with the new components).

The 2nd issue on the same topic is that a player is (at least to my knowlege) is unable to actually build a refit design.

If someone has a clue what I might be doing wrong i'd really appreciate it, but if this can be confirmed it is at least not intended (=bug) and a fix would make playing a campaing from start (1890) to end (1940 or so) viable.

Also i am not using any old save (assuming it was wiped, but i re-start a new campain and still same behavior)

 

Small addon: i just won my campaing because the italian goverment was overthrown. would be neat to be able to skip that in current state of game and continue ?

Edited March 16, 2022 by Cryadis
corrected abysmal spelling, improved clarity (don't drink and post !

[SodaBit]

Got some auto-designer feedback here.

While the AI has gotten much better at designing ships over the past few patches, it still needs work with regards to how it handles secondary ship stats, such as ship stability and handling. This CL would be pretty decent for a torpedo centric fleet, as it carries enough torpedos to make even Shimakaze jealous. Pingdingshan's biggest flaw however, is that she's liable to take more casualties due to intense sea-sickness than to enemy action. Being assigned to this ship must be some sort of disciplinary punishment, not only is it extremely uncomfortable to be aboard, but accurate gunnery is a fool's errand. Despite having some decent gunners aboard, this ship's base accuracy at 1km is only 33%.
While this is a very extreme example of poor stability on the part of the auto-designer, it's far from the only example. During campaigns, I regularly see ships with over 30 roll and pitch. I understand that compromises need to be made to design effective units, but the line for what is an unacceptable trade-off must be drawn somewhere. As I've said previously, I still want to see creative and occasionally outrageous designs from the auto-designer, but I also believe that the majority of those designs must be viable combatants and not just free kills.

This is best summed up with a quote from one of our favorite salty old geezers; If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid. But, if it's stupid, and it doesn't work, then it's just plain stupid.

Quick Edit: AAR of CL Pingdingshan
Not much to be said here. CL was able to engage the enemy for ~23 minutes before being knocked out. 4" belt was able to keep out some 6" fire from opposite number, but wholly insufficient against 11" and 12" guns on enemy CB's. Despite decent position in regards to enemy units, only a single hit was scored. This hit was from one of the CL's many torpedo tubes, but was unfortunately scored on allied CA, causing heavy damage. Main battery was unable to score any hits, and at times did not fire upon enemy units, despite being under 8km away. Accuracy when firing was abysmal, chance to hit never rose above 1% on opposite number. It is assumed that the reason for CL's tendency to hold fire at targets well within gun range is due to the chance of actually hitting said targets being effectively 0%, causing the guns to not fire when set to anything other than fire-at-will.

Edited March 15, 2022 by SodaBit
AAR explaining gunnery issue

[Danz_Von_Luck]

The reversed victory points as far as I can tell only now applies to fights against Italy.

[Dave P.]

Playing as GB:

I've noticed that in some of my campaigns (not all, though) when I lose transports, the "TR Losses" value on the Finances screen will increase but never decrease. It seems like when it's working "correctly" the value will spike to cover the loss of transports, but then drop back to zero after a turn or two of no losses. When it's working "incorrectly" it will just climb with each transport loss, to the point where I'm losing $150M/turn or more. (Although I'm not sure this is exactly correct either, since the numbers don't add up to my operating surplus/deficit either.)

I may be mistaken, but it also seems like the value gets into this "no recovery" state when my transport capacity is below 100%. (But since funding transports seems to be handicapped in later eras, growing at 0.33% in 1910 vs. 1.00% in 1890, my transport capacity usually drops to 90% or so in the first couple turns and then never recovers fully to 100%.)

Feedback-wise, it would be cool if winning the initial war didn't end the campaign. I mean, it's Western Europe in the 1890s: peace treaties were just timeouts between fighting.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this but the bug where in the refit screen it says the turrets are too far from previous place, I've done some testing with lots of designs for Diff nations and it's seems to always happen with 15in or higher guns 14in and lower doesn't seem to happen. 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Danz_Von_Luck

[Fangoriously]

7 hours ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this but the bug where in the refit screen it says the turrets are too far from previous place, I've done some testing with lots of designs for Diff nations and it's seems to always happen with 15in or higher guns 14in and lower doesn't seem to happen. 

That, and sometimes getting points going to the loser of a battle, seem to be the main bugs left on this version.

Been a week now since we've heard anything, I was under the impression that the development was going on mostly remotely outside of Ukraine, but the silence has me worried the actual devs might be in peril after all.

[Phelidai]

Has anyone else noticed/reported that the Modern Destroyer (Leader) hull quite literally splits in half when changing the Draught percentage? It appears that the stern of the ship and the bow of the ship both stretch/shrink in opposite directions.

[Urst]

53 minutes ago, Phelidai said:

Has anyone else noticed/reported that the Modern Destroyer (Leader) hull quite literally splits in half when changing the Draught percentage? It appears that the stern of the ship and the bow of the ship both stretch/shrink in opposite directions.

Note, this is only on the two with the long main-deck.
(German and Russian)

[Danz_Von_Luck]

Ran into this bug

The ship I designed is not what was delivered, top is the design bottom is what I have in the the fleet

[Andvarus]

GOD damn I sunk this guy three times already and he keeps on appearing in each battle I fight. STAY DEAD ALREADY xD

[Dave P.]

Noticing that some of my ships return to the wrong (closest?) port after a battle instead of their home port. Is this intentional?

[Vanhal]

9 hours ago, Dave P. said:

Noticing that some of my ships return to the wrong (closest?) port after a battle instead of their home port. Is this intentional?

It was in game at least since the release, annoying as hell that ships just go to the random ports, and it's not even the closest ones, german ships very often just go to east Baltic for no reason.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Vanhal

[Fangoriously]

  Saved Austria hungry for last among the new empires to play as, gotten as far as the 1920 campaign, and decided to build ships with very long range this time so I can go harass the British. 1890 and 1900 I built them with very short range, 1910 short range, should be all I'd need to dominate the medateranian, but I was never able to send ships past Gibraltar. Understandable I thought, with those short ranges. But even in my 1920 campaign, with very long range ships, I still can't send ships out of the med. Was able too just fine with Italian short and standard range ships, but the move button past Gibraltar is just grayed out for my Austria Hungary ships. Intentinal?       

[Andvarus]

31 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

  Saved Austria hungry for last among the new empires to play as, gotten as far as the 1920 campaign, and decided to build ships with very long range this time so I can go harass the British. 1890 and 1900 I built them with very short range, 1910 short range, should be all I'd need to dominate the medateranian, but I was never able to send ships past Gibraltar. Understandable I thought, with those short ranges. But even in my 1920 campaign, with very long range ships, I still can't send ships out of the med. Was able too just fine with Italian short and standard range ships, but the move button past Gibraltar is just grayed out for my Austria Hungary ships. Intentinal?       

Fleets create death Zones, the Circles around them, which blocks enemy ships from moving near them. I guess you have an british fleet blocking Gibraltar cause with Italy I have no problem sending a 1890 short range TB up in to the Baltics. Iirc the Range of the ships tell you on how big the death Zone circle is going to be. 

-> just look it up in the Help tab in game 

[WT91]

On 3/17/2022 at 7:22 AM, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Ran into this bug

The ship I designed is not what was delivered, top is the design bottom is what I have in the the fleet

 

Wanted to report the same issue. I noticed in campaign, playing as french, 1900 start. 1903 I wanted to update my CA design with new engine, new funnels, and an increased top speed to make use of lighter more powerful engine. Made changes, also improved armor from Krupp 1 to Krupp 2. Refit all 20~ of my cruisers to this new spec. Now all of them show the basic/starting equipment in the construction menu. Black Powder/Brown powder, Compound armor, basic steam engine, natural boilers, etc.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

It's weird though with mine I had a look at all of my destroyers refitted to this spec of the 10 i have 7 are to spec and 3 r reduced to basic stuff 

[TiagoStein]

I have been loving this beta version, congratulations!

The most common problem I have been facing is the gunners sometimes  decide that the target is about 500 m ahead of where it is and all shots clearly aim there, even it the hit chance is like 80%. It seems changing targets  sometimes fix it, but it is a problem if there is only 1 enemy ship.

 

Also,  Austro-Hungary empire economy is on drugs in 1900. I had them  several times start building 8-12 Battleships per MONTH for a whole year!

 

Also  A very secondary Issue (again in 1900 campaigns) the auto resolve seems to   overestimate the capability of the old French  "Baguette like"  battleship hulls. I get absurd victories on auto resolve when I have those ships,  on situations I would be crushed  in hulls from other nations. The issue is very apparent because when I change to  dreadnought hulls I start to LOSE these auto resolve  battles.

[Dave P.]

So... I hit this enemy battleship with two hits early on at long range, before it popped back out of visibility. When I get closer and see it again, it's flooding... and flooding... and flooding. Never received any more hits, but it sank.

It looks like I somehow killed its entire crew? Or does the AI making a 23k ton Battleship in 1920 randomly leave out watertight bulkheads? Dunno if it's a bug, but it seems a bit odd...

Edited March 19, 2022 by Dave P.

[Vanhal]

2 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

Also  A very secondary Issue (again in 1900 campaigns) the auto resolve seems to   overestimate the capability of the old French  "Baguette like"  battleship hulls.

Funnily enough, this kinda fits their current state. For example, you can widen the hull of Battleship II (i think) a bit and construct literal dreadnought with 16x305mm guns in 1900 start. One of the armored cruiser hulls at this date is equally ridiculous with something like 26 x 152 mm guns plus 4x bigger ones.

[IshPR7777]

4 minutes ago, Vanhal said:

Funnily enough, this kinda fits their current state. For example, you can widen the hull of Battleship II (i think) a bit and construct literal dreadnought with 16x305mm guns in 1900 start. One of the armored cruiser hulls at this date is equally ridiculous with something like 26 x 152 mm guns plus 4x bigger ones.

One day, we would have need a new dockyard model that would be bigger than the rest of dockyards in terms of ship size. For example, a dockyard that has 40 meters deep, 200 meters wide and 730 meters long, with that, we could make giant battleships that's bigger than normal battleships and even the super battleships like Montana, H Class and Yamato, so we can put a large amount of bigger guns and smaller guns in one giant battleship. I watched blueprint pictures of Zipang Ultra Dreadnought and H-45 Battleship from Google to see what they look like. For Zipang Ultra Dreadnought from Japan, the ship itself would have 100x 16 inch guns (50 twin turrets), 200 casemate secondary guns (100 5.5 inch guns and 100 4 inch guns) and 50 24 inch above deck torpedo tubes, the size of that thing is 609 meters long and 91 meters wide but we do not know what draft's size of that ship would be like, we also do not know how much horsepower would this ship have but it's said that it would have 6 shafts for propulsion, the speed of Japanese Ultra Dreadnought is pretty absurd which is 42 knots that has a speed ability of Shimakaze Class destroyer and the weight of the ship is 500,000 tons which is equal the weight of the supertanker ship or 5 Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, the crew members of that Japanese Ultra Dreadnought would have a least around 12,000 and the armor of the ship would have 14 inches of belt, 5 inches of deck, 12 inches of turret/barbette, 16.1 inches of conning tower and 4 inches of bulge. As for H-45 Battleship from Germany, it's just completely ridiculous, the ship itself would have 8x 31.5 inch guns (4 twin turrets, yes, this thing is huge guns from Gustav railway guns) and it has a large amount of secondary guns that it would have 12 x 9.45/73 (240mm) long-range anti-aircraft guns, 24 x 5.04/60 (128mm) anti-aircraft guns and an unknown number of lighter guns like 55mm Gerat 58 and 30mm anti-aircraft guns, the armor of this monster German battleship is all around 16.1 inches, it makes the weight of the ship at a staggering 700,000 tons, the size of the ship is 606 meters long, 91 meters wide from beam and 16.75 meters wide from draft, the planned engine power of that German battleship would have 480,000 shp, powered by 8 shafts producing 372,000 kW and the top speed is 28 knots. So if you build a giant warship and having your allied ships on your side, you must to protect your ships at all costs, but if the enemy has a giant warship and you have a large fleet on your side, you must to destroy the enemy giant warship at all costs

[TiagoStein]

A small update on  what I posted about  Austro Hungary Empire.

 

It seems sometimes (I managed to do it while I was playignwith them. The game simply does not compute ship mantenaince cost for them.

 

If you sum the cost from the fleet tab it shoudl be  a few million, but the Austro HUngarian empire  stays stuck paying the cost of only 1 ship.

 

 

[Andvarus]

8 hours ago, Dave P. said:

So... I hit this enemy battleship with two hits early on at long range, before it popped back out of visibility. When I get closer and see it again, it's flooding... and flooding... and flooding. Never received any more hits, but it sank.

It looks like I somehow killed its entire crew? Or does the AI making a 23k ton Battleship in 1920 randomly leave out watertight bulkheads? Dunno if it's a bug, but it seems a bit odd...

this is called 'Few Bulkheads', a ship with few Bulkheads that has been breached is going to sink with 90% now thanks to the new flooding Mechanics. 

TBH, I love it

[Dave P.]

I stumbled across Drachinifel's video on battle line tactics, and surprised to learn that ships in a line typically engaged each other individually so that no enemy ship was left without something to worry about. I've noticed that the AI here doesn't do that - at the very least, opposing AI divisions will focus-fire on a single target, even when they're outnumbered. (That's how I've been playing strategy games since forever, so I assume it's more effective?) Is there any intention to make the AI's tactics more "correct" and/or balancing the game in a way that incentivizes more historically accurate tactics? Or do we just know better now?

I've also noticed that if a ship starts to sink in the middle of a large salvo, the remaining turrets will immediately switch to a different (closest) target (there's no delay for them to rotate or reacquire range/aim) and they _seem_ to be firing without an accuracy penalty at the new target. I've even gotten a couple double-kills this way. (Destroyers are... not suitable for tanking 18" HE shells.) I'm assuming this is unintended?

Edited March 20, 2022 by Dave P.

[Fangoriously]

 Also In real life, If ships all focus fire 1 ship, they wouldn't get any feedback on how accurate their own gunnery was umong all the splashes. In game, there should be terrible accuracy penalties if ships are simultaneously sending salvos at the same target.

[TiagoStein]

29 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:

 Also In real life, If ships all focus fire 1 ship, they wouldn't get any feedback on how accurate their own gunnery was umong all the splashes. In game, there should be terrible accuracy penalties if ships are simultaneously sending salvos at the same target.

Ignore, missquoted.

Edited March 20, 2022 by TiagoStein
Quoted wrong person