>>> Update v1.05 Feedback<<<

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

We are very happy to announce the next major update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts! The campaign has received not only a map expansion but a crucial new functionality which allows you to create Task Forces. With the Task Forces you can bring the battles close to the enemy waters in a detailed manner, but beware, the enemy will do the same to you. The AI will counter your movements or will try to find opportunities to reinforce weakened sea regions and gradually destroy your convoys.

58 new ship variants enrich the huge roster of ships you can design, including the detailed model of the German Battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann. The game's interface has received a total clean up and visual enhancement while many other gameplay fixes and improvements await you to explore them in the largest update, in terms of content, that has been released so far for the game. You can read the long list of improvements in the below link:

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/major-update-v1-05

Your feedback will be much appreciated as always. We hope you will enjoy the new improvements!

The Game Labs Team

============

Known small issue:
If you click buttons in loading screens you may freeze the game but if you select to "Wait for the game to Respond" the game will continue normally. 

[Werwaz]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

We are very happy to announce the next major update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts! The campaign has received not only a map expansion but a crucial new functionality which allows you to create Task Forces. With the Task Forces you can bring the battles close to the enemy waters in a detailed manner, but beware, the enemy will do the same to you. The AI will counter your movements or will try to find opportunities to reinforce weakened sea regions and gradually destroy your convoys.

58 new ship variants enrich the huge roster of ships you can design, including the detailed model of the German Battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann. The game's interface has received a total clean up and visual enhancement while many other gameplay fixes and improvements await you to explore them in the largest update, in terms of content, that has been released so far for the game. You can read the long list of improvements in the below link:

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/major-update-v1-05

Your feedback will be much appreciated as always. We hope you will enjoy the new improvements!

The Game Labs Team

============

Known small issue:
If you click buttons in loading screens you may freeze the game but if you select to "Wait for the game to Respond" the game will continue normally. 

nice to see some new dreadnought era hulls in the game

I did notice that the resistance and hull form stats don't change when the beam slider is used. However, I do see the engine efficiency changes. 

I would like to see the last few nations like USA, China, Japan, Russia and Spain make their appearance in the campaign along with a fleshed out peacetime and diplomacy system. 

In terms of new hulls, I would like to see stuff like USS Colorado (1920s), Nagato, USS Lexington (BC), the Tillmans (Most likely Tillman IV-2), HMS Incomparable, Tosa/Kaga, and other pre-treaty super ship concepts. It certainly would be fun to pit these pre-treaty super ships against their more advanced counterparts from 1940.

Overall, well done Game Labs for this update

Edited April 12, 2022 by Werwaz

[Plazma]

I start new campaign as Britain 1890, create own fleet, hard and next I simply chose each class and auto-generate the ship. Except some very stupid things I don't touch anything, the cost was the same. When I tried to build that fleet I found that I can build something like 80% of what German have. I understand that the cost of ship be different, but in the late campaign(1940) I found myself building 40-60% of that what enemy have. For me is funny to wining camping with 4 BB 6 BC 6 CA 2 CL 5 DD vs 9 BB, 9BC, 30 CA, 15 CL, 20 DD. 

Yes, I found myself building BB what cost 2x more than enemy, but in this case I tried build relative small and cheap ships for myself. 

 

Edit: Ok, I found that in 1890 the enemy AI go in cheap as possible, smallest ships, smallest guns and 18" knots...  for CL... 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Plazma

[slightlytreasonous]

Honestly I think that it would be better to hold off on adding more countries+peace time.

Like it's been said, mechanics need to be refined.  There needs to be more depth everywhere, frankly.    

[Suts]

The groundwork for the campaign is there, but refinement is 100% necessary one what we currently have, kind of taken out of it when my Fleet concentrated in the Adriatic is somehow pulled all the way up north into a Fleet engagement in...the middle of Germany ? I know early tanks were called landships but this is ridiculous!
 

 

Besides refinements to bugs affecting the campaign, I think you should follow up on the huge variety of new capital ship type hulls with more unique cruiser and destroyer designs, as they are mostly very bland and generic at the moment, and you can make some hilariously efficient builds compared to historically.

[Hyperion]

i wanted more ww2 hulls but i rly like this

 

gj guys

[Cryadis]

40 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

Honestly I think that it would be better to hold off on adding more countries+peace time.

Like it's been said, mechanics need to be refined.  There needs to be more depth everywhere, frankly.    

I think that is a matter of preferance and ultimatly up to the devs to decide.

 

Me personally would favor getting the campaign to a point that makes it last longer plus peace time, which would be a likely necessary part of that.

For the sense of a game it would equal (to me of course) to build up the skeleton / baseline, Refining would be adding meat and fleshing it out later on.

But then for ppl prefering to do custome battles i guess refining is more important.

 

Different topic:

I assume 1.05 is released on steam now ?

 

 

[Maty83]

Great job with the update! I've been playing the Beta extensively and I really like the campaign

At this stage, I find Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts to be actually almost where it should be. However, there are still a couple items I'd like to mention, mostly as general feedback on ship classes. and the campaign.

Prepare for a wall of text.
 

• Gun calibres on DDs and CLs: There are instances of larger guns than we have in-game on ship classes represented. Such as the 1936A-class destroyers of the Kriegsmarine. I'd recommend upping the maximum calibres of DD through CAs by a single inch (Especially with the Panzerschiffe hulls, this would mean you have a more reasonable evolution of design going through Destroyers (Even larger leader-types like Tashkent, or Mogador) with guns which can reliably kill CL/treaty CAs (These fit on the current CL hulls if given different superstructures) at close ranges, up to CL-like types which can hurt the large CAs thanks to the availability of 8-inch guns (Fitted on pre-dreadnought era protected cruisers sometimes, plus Mogamis even if those are meant to be on CA hulls currently) and then CAs, which can at close range on the upper end of the scale hurt battlecruisers thanks to the access to the 12-inch guns. Honourable mentions here go to some of the interwar British large cruiser designs, which were contemplated with 12-inch guns despite the displacement staying below 20 000t. If it becomes a problem early with 1890s CAs being better than battleships, the hull technologies for more modern hulls could unlock the use of these greater calibres on CAs.
• Speaking of the 12-inch: BRING ITS ACCURACY IN-LINE. Right now there is practically no reason to use 11 and 13-inch guns on capital ships as the 12-inch gun has much greater accuracy than either of the other options. In fact, I consider it pretty much the best calibre in-game against non-capital units thanks to this frankly ridiculous number.
• Better yet, if streamlined a little the current system could be much more friendly by using a stat curve so we can set calibres in 0.1 inch increments and let the curve determine the statistics (With gun techs being tresholds where new marks of guns are available, such as the 16" gun tech providing 15.6-16.5 inch guns.)
• Stop limiting the amount of armour we can put on guns so much. This is a serious issue for small-calibre guns which remain useful on all ship types, especially within the 4-6 inch range (Though the issue persists up to the 12" gun). The 4" guns can only have basically structural plating and even the 6" being limited to 2/3 the armour you can put on the main belt of CLs (Or which was historically found on some CL turrets). Yes, I agree we shouldn't be able to cover the guns with 20" plates because reasons, but a more reasonable upper limit would be great.
• Same goes for CLs: Let us have slightly more belt armour. If CAs can go crazy, CL armour should be at least partially able to keep them out at extreme ranges if invested into.
• Quad-barrel guns. Why not let every calibre use them? I understand this is asset-heavy, but even with the placeholder quad turrets for everyone but the French there are ships which currently cannot be replicated, such as the Dunquerques (neither a 5, or a 6-inch quad exists), some of the designs of the Edinburgh-subclass with quad 6", or the designs for, again, British large cruisers with quad 9.2-inch.
• Barrels should not block lines of fire. Simple. Right now a person can massively upgrade some designs by just rotating the turrets they place on a ship. Best example of this being cross-deck firing main guns. Try placing two wing turrets firing aft and check the firing angles! Why can't you fire over the barrel of the other turret? Reasons!
  Seriously, this would also massively reduce the complexity of hitboxes for determining firing angles. Now you just need to draw a circle with the radius of the furthest point the body of the turret from the centre! Some ability to squeeze turrets together since they can rotate by elevating the berrels over other objects would also be nice, but that's a big ask.
• And last, but not least: Campaign. Creating our own fleet is great, but right now the simulation of the past 4 years before the campaign takes on average 15 minutes and if I try to let it run in the background, UA:D helpfully goes dormant until it is the currently selected window again. So much for watching videos while loading up a new campaign. Letting us spend some technology points instead of getting a random roll would also be neat, since for example in the 1920s campaign I've had some occasions where the best Mk.III gun I had was the 14-inch and I had Dreadnought III as my biggest hull, but on other occassions with similar naval budgets I've not only had 15" Mk.III guns (Even though you unlock the 15" Mk.I only after the Mk.III 14"), but I've also had Dreadnought V hulls available. Let the player have agency in this as well.
• Speaking of the campaign start: The amount of money to build your own fleet is only 10 months' worth of income as far as I can see. Having another slider here would be useful so we can start with much bigger fleets if we want.
• Heavy towers and radio tech: Now here's an interesting problem. I almost never put improved radios on anything larger than a CL in the campaign as despite the usefulness of RDF, the percentage cost and weight increase of the towers is almost never worth it. It should be the other way around, with your capital ships taking the hundred or so tons of equipment easily while your DDs almost never take it because it doesn't magically become 100x lighter like the main tower on those compared to a BB.
• In addition to this, the AI should NOT build battleships and battlecruisers significantly weaker than the player. I've had a campaign where playing as the Germans my capital ships had guns of calibres no lower than 16", but the British somehow decided that a 3x2 12"-armed battleship was the way to go. I shouldn't even mention how the 20000t CA I designed won a torpedo-free fight against one...
• We DESPERATELY need a proper save system for the campaign. Being able to start up multiple campaigns at once, just to explore some features while not overwriting other ones you've been playing for a week (Without going into the AppData folder to manually back up saves)

Despite all of these gripes with the game, it has become a rather addictive addition to my gaming library. I have to congratulate the dev team on the job they've done with it. As an early backer I have to say: I am quite impressed already.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Maty83

[Urst]

The size difference between 5" and 6" guns is a bit too large. That "6 inch" gun is a 9" gun by comparison to the 5" if they're on the same scale.
The bore of the "6 inch" gun is larger than the entire outer circumference of the 5" gun's muzzle.

You should also consider increasing the file-size so I can actually post screenshots from the game. This one saved as 2.2 megs.

Additionally, Cruiser casemates need to be able to get up to 6" so I can make a St. Louis Class Cruiser. I need 16 6" guns.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Urst

[Dave P.]

It would be nice if my guns that can't target the current enemy could be tasked to shoot at something else.

[Fangoriously]

To do screen shots effectively in this forum, you need to post links from steam screenshots that you uploaded online, it will auto display the picture instead of showing the web address.

 

Started a 1930s German campaign, was only able to build 2 BBs, 4 BCs, 4 CAs, and 5CLs with the starting funds. All of these ship were built on the max tonnage of the shortest hull length, the cost of these ships was not outrageous.

 

Anyway, here's the first battle I get

2BB, 1 BC, 8CA, 14CL, and 9 DD, thats not even half their navy of 77 ships.

If the rest of these 6 battles are anything like this one, this campaign will be over in 1 turn.

[neph]

Using "reverse engines" magically & immediately stops the vessels--no deceleration required. Also does something very weird with the targeting: see detail of the following image:

 

[UnleashtheKraken]

18 minutes ago, neph said:

Using "reverse engines" magically & immediately stops the vessels--no deceleration required. Also does something very weird with the targeting: see detail of the following image:

 

Yes, I've had this as well, I slapped the full reverse and the ship was immediately at 0 knts despite having been doing over 30 prior to me hitting the button.  And when reverse engines is toggled back off, the ship immediately resumes at whatever speed it had been going before the reverse was activated.  This makes dodging torps a breeze, and is maaaaaaaybe a wee bit broken.

Also, @Nick Thomadis, I've had this thread up for a while with no reply.  Under testing today (Apr 13 2022 1:14am Eastern Daylight), this is still a problem.  If a ship intersect the ideal trajectory of a shell between a ship that is shooting, and the selected target, the ship that intersects will suddenly take all fire, with very tight precision and far outside the normal accuracy.  More detail and playtesting notes and feedback from other players within.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by UnleashtheKraken

[Maty83]

1 hour ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

Also, @Nick Thomadis, I've had this thread up for a while with no reply.  Under testing today (Apr 13 2022 1:14am Eastern Daylight), this is still a problem.  If a ship intersect the ideal trajectory of a shell between a ship that is shooting, and the selected target, the ship that intersects will suddenly take all fire, with very tight precision and far outside the normal accuracy.  More detail and playtesting notes and feedback from other players within.

 

This is really bad when you're using your DDs to finish off wounded enemies in close quarters. I've lost several DDs to this.

[UnleashtheKraken]

27 minutes ago, Maty83 said:

This is really bad when you're using your DDs to finish off wounded enemies in close quarters. I've lost several DDs to this.

These were torpedo boats in a 1900 campaign, the last time they're really viable.  I got an 'ambush' mission, against a lone enemy BB.  I would coordinate strikes in a crossfire with the torps because of how unbelievably tight enemy ships can turn when under attack.  When the TBs were getting inside 400 meters, other TBs from my fleet would be shooting, their firing line to the target would be crossed by the closer attackers, and those closer TBs would suddenly get lit up by friendly fire.

With the 'no friendly fire' fix, that instance no longer happens.  But if you're firing at an enemy ship, and another enemy intersect the line and arc of the shell, it can still happen.  Against the current AI I have lost maybe one battle out of a couple hundred in campaign.  Often I get away with no ships lost, while the enemy is completely sunk.

[Vanhal]

I seem to get swarmed in the first few turns with battles like 1-3 of my ships vs 10+ enemy ones. Later it goes better, but the first turns are damn harsh.

Maybe some increase for crew experience for actually fight battles and less for just sitting in the port?

There are still way too many torpedos on AI cruisers, and those are way too good. Please make some restrictions for AI to not mount 40+ launchers (there is gun restriction i think why not for torps?), any battle with more than few ships is very unfun when you can cross the sea on foot just walking on torps.\

Or/and just optional toggle "no torpedoes at all" i would be happy then. Yes i know, WoWs trauma

Lastly, is there any possibility for mods planned?

Edited April 13, 2022 by Vanhal

[DableUTeeF]

Enemy cruisers sneak into 5km without anybody see them and flood the sea with torpedoes.

And the goddamn 10% accuracy at 4 km but a squadron of 4 ships with 10 guns each can't hit s%!t for 4 salvos straight.

The current accuracy system is, all the bullet has hit chance calculated before they even leave the barrel. Roll the dice 40 times and none hit anything despite a 10 year old kid manning the turret can blow the target out of the water. There's no way this is a feature it definitely a bug.

The bullets right now can already hit nearby ships that aren't the target so "not implemented yet" can't be the reason.

This game has very awesome promise but turned into garbage by nonsensical unrealistic accuracy and spotting range that called by devs "work as intended".

All the fun of building better ships always turned into frustrations, every single time.

Please devs, you make it this way because you guys never play your own game for fun but it isn't that difficult to listen to customer, even though we can't do anything else other than whining.

If someone make a mod that fix this >90% of the players will use it. Hope you understand what this mean, the current accuracy and spotting system is just stupid.

# PS

If you guys actually think this is difficult, I'm not familiar with the code base and project structure but I'm pretty sure I and a lot of people here can help with algorithm.

Edited April 13, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Suts]

7 hours ago, Fangoriously said:

Started a 1930s German campaign, was only able to build 2 BBs, 4 BCs, 4 CAs, and 5CLs with the starting funds. All of these ship were built on the max tonnage of the shortest hull length, the cost of these ships was not outrageous.

Funds seem really harsh and questionable in the current build, during the mid-point of the Beta it seemed very generous, able to have a healthy sized fleet alongside your opponents, now you're lucky to get a full battleship squadron with appropriate screening elements as the UK, let alone any of the other power, whilst your AI opponents are typically have able up to a dozen BBs, half a dozen BCs and over 20 CAs, and god forbid if you're in a 1930s+ campaign with each AI cruiser sporting 20+ torpedo tubes per side.

Most recent 1920s campaign, Im meant to challenge that many German ships?

With only a little over a Billion dollars? I'll be lucky to design a competitive BB design and get half a dozen, all whilst forgoing a much needed screening and escorts in the shape of cruisers. Starting economy is very questionable right now, during the beta it was admittedly far too generous, but now it seems far too harsh, especially with Austro-Hungary consistently having a MASSIVE fleet that it's 3 ports are frankly incapable of supporting.

I have a feeling this is a band-aid solution to balance out the fact the AI often makes terrible capital ship designs during the campaign, the AI designer needs looking into much more, possibly with much harsher restrictions to give a semblance of historical design for each nation, as opposed to fleets of mostly clown cars. 

[Spitfire109]

I cant start battles due top the game telling me I have 'Unfinished ships in fleet.' or 'You must select a ship of the required type.' 
This is in custom battles and seems to happen at random. Verifying integrity does not fix.

[DableUTeeF]

My BC with 14" belt and 7" deck got hit by a 7" and a 5" shell. And absolutely nothing else.

And somehow the fire destroy all engines and rudder.

This on top of accuracy and spotting issue it almost feels like you guys make this just to irritate players. And we losers can't do anything, not even refund.

[Nick Thomadis]

44 minutes ago, Suts said:

Funds seem really harsh and questionable in the current build, during the mid-point of the Beta it seemed very generous, able to have a healthy sized fleet alongside your opponents, now you're lucky to get a full battleship squadron with appropriate screening elements as the UK, let alone any of the other power, whilst your AI opponents are typically have able up to a dozen BBs, half a dozen BCs and over 20 CAs, and god forbid if you're in a 1930s+ campaign with each AI cruiser sporting 20+ torpedo tubes per side.

Most recent 1920s campaign, Im meant to challenge that many German ships?

With only a little over a Billion dollars? I'll be lucky to design a competitive BB design and get half a dozen, all whilst forgoing a much needed screening and escorts in the shape of cruisers. Starting economy is very questionable right now, during the beta it was admittedly far too generous, but now it seems far too harsh, especially with Austro-Hungary consistently having a MASSIVE fleet that it's 3 ports are frankly incapable of supporting.

I have a feeling this is a band-aid solution to balance out the fact the AI often makes terrible capital ship designs during the campaign, the AI designer needs looking into much more, possibly with much harsher restrictions to give a semblance of historical design for each nation, as opposed to fleets of mostly clown cars. 

Can you please elaborate "Clown cars"? Maybe show what you consider clown and what anti-clown and use as example one of your own designs? Regarding the initial money, can you check how many millions does it cost the average battleship of Germany, in your example image?

12 minutes ago, Spitfire109 said:

I cant start battles due top the game telling me I have 'Unfinished ships in fleet.' or 'You must select a ship of the required type.' 
This is in custom battles and seems to happen at random. Verifying integrity does not fix.

Please check if one of the other ships in the list of your fleet are "red" incomplete. Just auto-design them to progress fast, you cannot enter the battle with incomplete ships for your fleet.

7 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

My BC with 14" belt and 7" deck got hit by a 7" and a 5" shell. And absolutely nothing else.

And somehow the fire destroy all engines and rudder.

This on top of accuracy and spotting issue it almost feels like you guys make this just to irritate players. And we losers can't do anything, not even refund.

In your image your ships is barely floating with 9% structure integrity. We cannot make ship internals totally impervious to fire. It would be unrealistic, don't you think?

[DableUTeeF]

7 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you please elaborate "Clown cars"? Maybe show what you consider clown and what anti-clown and use as example one of your own designs? Regarding the initial money, can you check how many millions does it cost the average battleship of Germany, in your example image?

Please check if one of the other ships in the list of your fleet are "red" incomplete. Just auto-design them to progress fast, you cannot enter the battle with incomplete ships for your fleet.

In your image your ships is barely floating with 9% structure integrity. We cannot make ship internals totally impervious to fire. It would be unrealistic, don't you think?

It was 100% before the first shell hit. And somehow turned to 9% with more than 2200 fire damage over like 10 salvos from 12" guns. I already said in the post that it got hit by "absolutely nothing else".

Who need 15" guns when a single 5" and a single 7" is enough to sink a 27k tons battlecruiser.

And they hit the main belt and main deck BTW.

Very realistic indeed.

Edited April 13, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Nick Thomadis]

8 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:

It was 100% before the first shell hit. And somehow turned to 9% with more than 2200 fire damage.

Very realistic indeed.

Did you have minimal bulkheads for your ships and no component used for fire extinguishing? Fires can be really hazardous if you do not take the right measures for your designed ship. Additionally, as structure integrity of the ship becomes lowered, shells hits that do not fully penetrate can cause engine damage and flooding with a much lower chance, but they can cause it. So I see it as realistic, more realistic than a single health bar that suddenly destroys ships when is depleted, found in other naval games.

EDIT: Additionally, the sections including engines and rudder are fully destroyed or badly damaged, what else should happen, in your view?

[DableUTeeF]

17 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Did you have minimal bulkheads for your ships and no component used for fire extinguishing? Fires can be really hazardous if you do not take the right measures for your designed ship. Additionally, as structure integrity of the ship becomes lowered, shells hits that do not fully penetrate can cause engine damage and flooding with a much lower chance, but they can cause it. So I see it as realistic, more realistic than a single health bar that suddenly destroys ships, found in other naval games.

There are multiple points I can't get across here.

1. The ship was 100% before getting hit by 7" shell at the main deck from ~10km, and around 98% before getting hit by 5" shell at the main belt. So no it wasn't because low structural integrity that resulted in small shell penetration which then destroy the engine. It the tiny shells hit armor and then the fire almost sunk the ship.

2. It was standard bulkhead.

3. I'm not sure what is "component used for fire extinguishing" but if you mean sufficient bulkhead then refer to 2).

The fire enough to destroy 3 engines and rudder but the remaining crew is 80%. Regardless of how many bulkhead. A perfectly intact (Struct: 100%) ship getting almost sunk by 2 tiny shells hitting the main belt and main deck being "realistic" is questionable at the best.

Edited April 13, 2022 by DableUTeeF

[Suts]

15 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can you please elaborate "Clown cars"? Maybe show what you consider clown and what anti-clown and use as example one of your own designs?

There's a popular thread here all about the wild and wacky things the AI can come up with, as for an example here's Germany's Armoured Cruiser of choice, it isn't especially egregious compared to other cruisers I've seen the AI build (try a 1910s Light Cruiser hull, with the deck absolutely covered in an absurd amount of 5" guns.)
 

Compared to my Light Cruiser design of choice which vaguely resembles a squashed Leander with a rally big mast, but overall much more capable, 11 years older and on a much smaller displacement, something that I firmly believe needs to be balanced going forward.

 

22 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Regarding the initial money, can you check how many millions does it cost the average battleship of Germany, in your example image?

Here's the stat card for the German BB design for this campaign, much less capable and half the price of my own BB design, so on further reflection the economy doesn't seem to be as bad as I had first thought, but this is also not my regular approach for a 1920s campaign, going for a pseudo-fast Battleship and forgoing Battlecruisers, for comparison the AI's BC is around 32million per unit as well.

End of the day hope this feedback is at least useful in some way.