>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)

[ZorinW]

29 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Common main gun layout (15 inch guns)

Well, technically you achieved it, but at what cost - literally. Your designs are more than twice as expensive and missing key parts like a radio or Hydro. Also, you added non-historical secondary twoers with tons of armor, whcih in the second example, hang out way back and block your main guns so to have some counter weight. Also try using the best towers so you actually don't drown in smoke. 

This hull is, in my opinion, still VERY flawed.

[ZorinW]

24 minutes ago, musicbox said:

I see you guys updated and tried to fix this issue, the funnel now has mounts there and no longer clips through the structure. However it still can't be placed regardless how the hull is extended or not.

That is the least of the problems with the German torpedo boat hull. So far the biggest offender in the pitch/roll field after the latest update. Started my German campaign without any TBs, cause they are so useless.

[Nick Thomadis]

7 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Hull stability & tower is at -45.7%, could be canceling out all the aiming parameters? Would like to see if when you stopped maneuvering, aiming re-starts. If so then stability on light ships seems like a reasonable mechanic.

When a ship has problems firing it happens due to temporary ship instability (Pitch/Roll) or high listing of the ship or very slow turret turning compared to current ship's turning rate. The way you design a ship has an impact.

I see some players making 40 knots torpedo boats, turn like mad then complain why their ships cannot fire at that moment. No proper firing solution can be achieved when a ship shakes so much. Still the game is much forgiving compared to reality. In reality the ships must significantly slow down to fire torpedoes for their own safety. In reality, guns are not aimed so rapidly and fire in arcade mode (as many players ask from all games).

[o Barão]

48 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

and missing key parts like a radio or Hydro. 

I never use radio (is not worth it), and I will not going to use a hydro in a capital ship.

you added non-historical secondary twoers with tons of armor

Nothing about the challenge mentions what type of components or how much armor I need to use.

Your designs are more than twice as expensive

Nothing about the challenge mentions what is the cost limit.

Also try using the best towers so you actually don't drown in smoke. 

You are still new in this game, right? Maybe you didn't notice I am only using one funnel and is the smallest available?

But anyway, if your problem is the cost, I only need to replace the components that I am using to lower the weight offset, lower crew quality,  add more fuel to balance the ship and lower the speed. Problem solved. And you can also look what is the real smoke interference values.

This hull is, in my opinion, still VERY flawed.

The only thing I can agree with you with the new stability mechanics. 😉

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by o Barão

[CAR DOOR]

Heavy cruisers seem to have a problem currently that makes them rather reluctant to fire at an ememy when it has a main of 8" or smaller, usually firing only one or 2 turrets, or stop firing entirely for several dozen seconds. This happens even when the guns are fully aimed, set on a target at low speed (16kn) with no maneuvering on either party.

This does not happen to guns of larger caliber, with 9" inch and larger ones behaving and firing as expected, even though the higher resulting pitch and slower turn rate would make that theoretically harder.

It also seems to be a problem unique to heavy cruisers, as light cruisers and destroyers do not have such a delay on their guns, and 8" inch secondaries also behave normally when used on battleships.

Interestingly, the 8"/9" jump is also the games cutoff point between small caliber and heavy caliber. Perhaps there is a correlation? are aiming procedures between small and large coded differently?

EDIT: This delay seems to have something to do with a heavy cruisers secondary battery, as it only is present when the secondaries are currently actively firing at a target, if there is no secondary present or not within its range, there is no such delay.

Edited June 29, 2022 by CAR DOOR
I found more information

[Nick Thomadis]

5 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis and I lost the long range, low quality shadows in the recent update. 😒

I have no idea why this happens, since I am always playing at ultra quality settings.

The new update shadows draw distance feedback.

HQ shadows

LQ shadows

LQ shadows already disappearing at this distance? Why?

For comparison, this was 2 weeks ago.

HQ shadows

LQ shadows

LQ shadows still visible at long distances.

Could be possible to add draw distance shadows option in the settings for the player?

We haven't changed anything regarding the graphics recently.

[Norbert Sattler]

Austria-Hungary 1890 campaign.

I declared war on France. Right the next round Germany offered an Alliance.

I accepted the alliance and the Germans dutyful as ever immediately declared war on France... and myself...

Now I am at war with both France and Germany thanks to accepting their offer of an alliance? oO

Edit: Right the next round the Germans declared war on me again and on the Italians too for some reason.

And even though the messages only said that Germany declared war on me and Germany declared war on Italy... for some reason I am now also at war with Italy despite not getting any notification about a war declaration and having over 60 relationship just the round before.

I guess that's one way to solve the "I can't go to war with anyone" issue, though somewhat less than optimal.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Nick Thomadis]

14 hours ago, IsmaelMolina2021 said:

Good job!

Also @Nick Thomadis, when the Helgoland-type battleship hull for Germany would come out?

You can already build a ship similar to Helgoland with Dreadnought II of Germany.

[SodaBit]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

Common main gun layout (15 inch guns)

Well, it ain't the best build I've seen, but at least it can be done. Just wish I didn't need to use a bloody distributed armor scheme to pull it off.
Could you post the full components list? It looks like you made some sacrifices in certain departments, and I'd like to know what they are.

[Rucki]

I could not find a better example to show that the current ballistics are out of place.

How can my BB Szent Istvan make a shot with 305mm AP over a distance of only 2.1 Km and overpenetrate the fore deck armor of the enemy BB ? The enemy BB does have "only" 72mm foredeck armor (with -22% quality), but at this distance and angle the AP shot would rather strive the foredeck, how could it penetrate anything ? It should clearly be a "fore deck hit=ricochett)

The only way I can imagine that this can happen is if my BB would shoot straight in the air, so the that AP shot come down in an 90° angle, just 2.1 Km away, must be experimental turrets I got there 🤣

Edit: Just looked up the Deck Penetration value for the 305mm gun, which is 43.8mm @ 2.5 Km. So that deck armor overpen should have been impossible, even if we ignore the angle.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Rucki

[Norbert Sattler]

I just got an aft-belt hit... from a ship right in front of my ship. Are they firing homing missiles that go around the ship and hit from the other side instead of shells? oO

[IshPR7777]

58 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You can already build a ship similar to Helgoland with Dreadnought II of Germany.

Thank you

[kjg000]

17 hours ago, o Barão said:

There are improvements, but is still needing some tweaking.

- A Nelson BB is now possible. +/-

Playing around with lighter towers, it seems is possible to get something capable. If we had the Nelson superstructure towers in the game, which should have less weight, then we should be able to place the guns closer to the center and reduce the pitch.

For comparison. The small superstructure in the Nelson class.

ATM we are forced to move the guns too much forward to act as a counterweight and because of that we have a higher pitch? Maybe.

- The Dunkerque BB is still difficult. It is better now, but still needs some tweaks.

Trying different options with towers and funnel position to get something ok. We can notice that in both designs, there is already an imbalance in the armor to compensate the weight difference, but it is still difficult to get a good ship from this hull.

I haven't a chance to play 1.06.19 yet. 

That said one problem with the Nelson is that the N/G hull is unsuitable as the  fore superstructure can't be placed back far enough, pushing everything too far forward.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

Well, it ain't the best build I've seen, but at least it can be done. Just wish I didn't need to use a bloody distributed armor scheme to pull it off.
Could you post the full components list? It looks like you made some sacrifices in certain departments, and I'd like to know what they are.

I made some small changes, and I left some room in the displacement for you to choose what you want.

Longer barrels? Maybe a citadel and barbettes? If you still need more displacement to place the components you want, you can always lower the speed. The thing with this new mechanics is that we are forced to use the maximum hull displacement to lower the weight offset if using heavy components.

 

[kjg000]

42 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

I just got an aft-belt hit... from a ship right in front of my ship. Are they firing homing missiles that go around the ship and hit from the other side instead of shells? oO

A problem, but not a new problem. I started playing long before the steam release and have always noticed things like the fore turrets of a  BB  being  chased by a BB just a few km directly aft, a very common event, having its own front turrets knocked out.  No turning, no manuvering.  How? The shells would have had to pass through the superstructure as if it weren't there.

As with the deck hits, levitating secondaries, too restrictive placement rules and many other faults, something that needs to be fixed, but not as high on my wish list as fixing or improving the UI, campaign, ship balancing and other near game breaking problems or frustrations many have mentioned before.

Some annoyances I think general players will accept in an early  release game, others will push them away.

[o Barão]

23 minutes ago, kjg000 said:

I haven't a chance to play 1.06.19 yet. 

That said one problem with the Nelson is that the N/G hull is unsuitable as the  fore superstructure can't be placed back far enough, pushing everything too far forward.

Seems ok to me. The problem is the weight offset will probably force you to move the superstructure forward to get a balance design.

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Austria-Hungary 1890 campaign.

I declared war on France. Right the next round Germany offered an Alliance.

I accepted the alliance and the Germans dutyful as ever immediately declared war on France... and myself...

Now I am at war with both France and Germany thanks to accepting their offer of an alliance? oO

Edit: Right the next round the Germans declared war on me again and on the Italians too for some reason.

And even though the messages only said that Germany declared war on me and Germany declared war on Italy... for some reason I am now also at war with Italy despite not getting any notification about a war declaration and having over 60 relationship just the round before.

I guess that's one way to solve the "I can't go to war with anyone" issue, though somewhat less than optimal.

So much for the campaign bugs they keep supposedly fixing. What is the point of a campaign-focused update if the campaign is unplayable? Once again - campaign extension should not have been the focus here, and it should not going forward. Fixing and improving game mechanics must take precedence if this title is to survive...

[kjg000]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Seems ok to me. The problem is the weight offset will probably force you to move the superstructure forward to get a balance design.

Pretty sure you couldn't do that in 1.06.18. Good to see it improved.

[admiralsnackbar]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

So much for the campaign bugs they keep supposedly fixing. What is the point of a campaign-focused update if the campaign is unplayable? Once again - campaign extension should not have been the focus here, and it should not going forward. Fixing and improving game mechanics must take precedence if this title is to survive...

I agree with this sentiment although most of my comments on the game are focused on the campaign precisely because, back in the earlier builds where there was no campaign and i was complaining about the fact that every battle you have to re-arrange your fleets because the 'screen' formation + 'avoid' button = chaos.  --- During this time what we heard was... that the campaign was being worked on. 

If I had a time machine I would have recommended the developers make the first game with:
- Finalized configuration of all surface ships; get everything you are going to need to make the ships ready

- 'Tutorial' Missions for how to build ships properly and command ships and fleets properly.

- 'Campaign' missions, some historical and some not

- ability of players to easily share and create ships and fleets for other players and AI opponents

and lastly a multiplayer option where maybe 2 or more players could set a year and budget and fight eachother. 

Once you have all of that, release a DLC for the game that includes a campaign.

__________

The impression I keep getting is the UAD team bit off more than they can chew.  

Edited June 29, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[RegamusMaximis]

Is it just me or are the building ship crashes back to being really regular

[o Barão]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We haven't changed anything regarding the graphics recently.

This is so strange.

This is at very long distances in an update 2 weeks ago. If we zoom in, we will see this...

LQ shadows cast from the superstructures to the ship deck and turret.

And now we have this again...

Shadows ON

Shadows off.

Not going to bother you again with this. But it is very strange to me.

[Danz_Von_Luck]

8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello guys, do war reparations work now? We have fixed in the current beta you play now.

Very hard to say tbh as every other turn the nations im at war with declare war again which resets the VP so ending a war is impossible atm for me

[Littorio]

33 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

The impression I keep getting is the UAD team bit off more than they can chew.  

So it seems. Honestly at this point I would rather they announce the game is on hold and just not update it for 6 months. Tell everyone to leave and come back in 6 months. Then we decide if it lives or dies. Give us:

- Completely redone scouting/reconnaissance, both in battle and operationally on the map. This means no more spotting tied to towers, and gets rid of all the  unrealistic "sMokE-SiGhTEd" nonsense.

- Tying into this, naval intelligence, both of materiel and movement . What kind of ships are the enemy building? How are they armed? Where are they deployed? Which ports are their home bases?

- Actual weather and sea state visualization, as well as accurate time of day/night

- Balanced shipbuilding in the designer. No obvious placement bugs and overlaps and instabilities. Check all the existing hulls fully.

- Redone UI which includes the task forces and ports.

If all this makes sense and is fine? Sure, then continue working on the campaign. Make sure events fire properly and nations can fight and make peace. But if everything leading up and supporting a campaign is broken, imbalanced, buggy, or nonfunctional, what is the point of campaign extension?

A perfectly workable campaign that is "supported" by a cramped, awful-looking UI (where you can't see task forces clearly), poor shipbuilding riddled with inconsistencies (as it is right now), tedious battles with unrealistic spotting (as we see), no intelligence whatsoever (thus no challenge from one of the primary aspects of naval warfare historically), and nothing to be seen for visualized sea states and weather (which is now very basic and yet has gigantic effects behind the scenes on your ships' performances).

This is of course without even going into how nations can just construct unlimited ships and make ports continually larger. Having realistic constraints on slipways, drydocks, etc is ultimately necessary, as is the resource-based economy to fill them, but right now we are so far from something like that I do not even want to entertain the thought.

The bottom line is: Given their current abilities, the devs should make the campaign the lowest priority. It causes more issues than it solves, and sucks out more enjoyment than it brings.

Disable diplomacy, peace, war, events, etc. Put Spain in the game. Lock in 3v3 eternally fighting. Either North vs. South (GB, France, Germany vs. Spain, Italy, AH) or East vs. West (Germany, AH, Italy vs. GB, France, and Spain). Either way it is static and for testing mechanics.

Add all the things I mentioned above, and I damn well will bet any amount of money that the game will be more fun and accessible to all than continuing on as is with this campaign-centric lunacy where nothing still works anyway and we all lose.

[Aloeus]

8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello guys, do war reparations work now? We have fixed in the current beta you play now.

It was working flawlessly for me in patch 18, I haven't had a chance to end a war yet in patch 19. 

 

[Danz_Von_Luck]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

So it seems. Honestly at this point I would rather they announce the game is on hold and just not update it for 6 months. Tell everyone to leave and come back in 6 months. Then we decide if it lives or dies. Give us:

- Completely redone scouting/reconnaissance, both in battle and operationally on the map. This means no more spotting tied to towers, and gets rid of all the  unrealistic "sMokE-SiGhTEd" nonsense.

- Tying into this, naval intelligence, both of materiel and movement . What kind of ships are the enemy building? How are they armed? Where are they deployed? Which ports are their home bases?

- Actual weather and sea state visualization, as well as accurate time of day/night

- Balanced shipbuilding in the designer. No obvious placement bugs and overlaps and instabilities. Check all the existing hulls fully.

- Redone UI which includes the task forces and ports.

If all this makes sense and is fine? Sure, then continue working on the campaign. Make sure events fire properly and nations can fight and make peace. But if everything leading up and supporting a campaign is broken, imbalanced, buggy, or nonfunctional, what is the point of campaign extension?

A perfectly workable campaign that is "supported" by a cramped, awful-looking UI (where you can't see task forces clearly), poor shipbuilding riddled with inconsistencies (as it is right now), tedious battles with unrealistic spotting (as we see), no intelligence whatsoever (thus no challenge from one of the primary aspects of naval warfare historically), and nothing to be seen for visualized sea states and weather (which is now very basic and yet has gigantic effects behind the scenes on your ships' performances).

This is of course without even going into how nations can just construct unlimited ships and make ports continually larger. Having realistic constraints on slipways, drydocks, etc is ultimately necessary, as is the resource-based economy to fill them, but right now we are so far from something like that I do not even want to entertain the thought.

The bottom line is: Given their current abilities, the devs should make the campaign the lowest priority. It causes more issues than it solves, and sucks out more enjoyment than it brings.

Disable diplomacy, peace, war, events, etc. Put Spain in the game. Lock in 3v3 eternally fighting. Either North vs. South (GB, France, Germany vs. Spain, Italy, AH) or East vs. West (Germany, AH, Italy vs. GB, France, and Spain). Either way it is static and for testing mechanics.

Add all the things I mentioned above, and I damn well will bet any amount of money that the game will be more fun and accessible to all than continuing on as is with this campaign-centric lunacy where nothing still works anyway and we all lose.

While I like all the suggestions above, putting the game on hold will not help at all, you do understand this game is in testing and not released right? if it was a finished game atm I would be sorely disappointed but it IS NOT. most if not all games go through this process some behind closed doors and some publicly but its not finished yet.