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

[dasHopsili]

i dont find it to be costraining at all. its really just about beating the ai which is the issue. if you try certain designs like a baltimore class cruiser you will generally find it to lack fire power since 8 inch usually cant properly damage an ai designed cruiser with more than 10 inches of armor

[o Barão]

 

[Nick Thomadis]

A quick improvement has just been deployed:

HOTFIX
- Balances on the Campaign Technology Progress.

[Urst]

32 minutes ago, Vanhal said:

At this point i just give up with getting to catch the bugs, all change so fast - and it is a good thing, this is probably the most active and responsive dev team i ever seen, standard for an industry, even indie, is waiting weeks for even tiny things to get fixed (or at least attempted to... godspeed devs).

However i noticed yet another problem that is increasing with every version since 1.0

Namely lack of space for fun. For me, this game was always "here you go some ship parts, have fun". And lately i just noticed the margin of ship creativity is getting smaller. Especially with no modifications, all of my ships has been boringly plausible, else they just don't work at all. Boring.

It would be better if the superstructure elements were separate, peaceable, parts. This way we'd have more options. Especially if the superstructure parts weren't limited by nation. This way, you could see the main hull come from a British design, the secondary gunplacement from a French design, the main superstructure from an Italian design, and the towers from a German design. (In theory, of course. Not all of the superstructure and secondary placements would be compatible, but still)
I'd also like it if we could adjust how wide, tall, and long the superstructure is.
Let me add a Von Der Tann bow superstructure to the hull that should belong to a Nelson.

[admiralsnackbar]

17 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

An old post from 2019 mentioned that the basic Iron Plate armor in the game (yes, the starter 1890 armor), has performance on-par with IRL USA Class B armor from WW2.  Yes, that homogenous Class B armor, arguably the finest homogenous armor in the world.  And we only improve quality from there, dramatically.  The issue isn't that light cruisers can mount 6" of armor, but that 6" of armor can stop all but the largest shells.

The OP doesn't mention the original penetration capabilities during that patch but someone else does:

 

The Issue:

Currently, the in-game penetration value of guns seems to be based off real life data (with the range fall-off issue seems to be addressed in the upcoming patch). 

For example, the in game 12" Mark 2 gun have a 1000m pen value of 15.3", this closely match the British 12"/45 Mark X gun used on Dreadnought, which have point blank penetration of 16" against KC armor. (There are many other similar case, like similarity between in game Mark 1 12" and the British 12"/35， I wont list them all)

The problem is that while the most irl penetration data is measured against KC armor, the in game "baseline" for armor is the worst armor variant, aka wrought Iron. Meaning that the in-game Mark 2 gun penetrate 15.3" of wrought iron armor, not 15.3" of KC armor, which receives a 70% effectiveness thickness modifier. 

To see the implication of this discrepancy. The IRL 1888 French Pre-Dreadnought Brennus have an armored belt of 18“ Nickel Steel. This translate to an effective thickness of 25.2". This is the same as 1000m penetration of in game 16" gun in the modern battleship mission, with most advanced tech. In other word, the most advanced 16" gun in game cannot defeat the armor of an 1888 pre-dreadnought at point blank range. (Using SH shell and powder will allow it just barely do this)
 

Looking at the penetration values in the current game, it *looks* that things have been adjusted, because that 15.3" penetration value they give seems low compared to what I can get now. Guns can penetrate more effectively now then they could in the past. 6 inches of iron plate won't stop a 12 inch shell unless it's at an insanely steep angle, but 6 inches of krupp steel at an appropriate angle *probably* could. 

My main suggestion for the developers though would be some way to database the hits and the characteristics of those hits for the players. Data should include more than shell type and damage but also the range and angle of hit. I suspect people will continue to complain, but aside from the fact that I think the armor allowance for light cruisers is a bit too much I think things are fine. 
 

Edited June 30, 2022 by admiralsnackbar

[aradragoon]

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

The problem isn't just the bug. The problem is that there are so many bugs I cannot tell which is intended and which is a feature (dead serious). The current problem of partial pen, I noticed it for awhile now, but I wasn't sure if it's wacky armor calculation, AI over-armoring their ships, or as some people now suggest the game is mistaking deck hit percentage with belt hits. We all expect bugs and we're here to test the product. But we can only go so far without the debugging console and everything falls apart within 30 seconds of starting a campaign.

I just hope this game turn out to be good.

With the partial pens, has anyone considered this is the result of the inner belt(s) and inner decks?

I am not saying that it isn't messed up but rather just not complete.

[jtjohn1]

I have had three "Build Ship" crashes in the first 10 months of the game (Letting it sit 3-5 minutes) Not sure what your business model is but I wouldn't release until I can make sure the build ship crashes are at least a lot less common. 

Will let you know what else I find (I build ships, play a bit, yall reset saves, rinse and repeat)  

[outerexodus]

I didn't see it anywhere, but has the peace treaty exchange of provinces been fixed, does anyone know?

[Nick Thomadis]

8 minutes ago, aradragoon said:

With the partial pens, has anyone considered this is the result of the inner belt(s) and inner decks?

I am not saying that it isn't messed up but rather just not complete.

Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry. 

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, outerexodus said:

I didn't see it anywhere, but has the peace treaty exchange of provinces been fixed, does anyone know?

Yes, it should be all fine now.

[Nick Thomadis]

19 minutes ago, jtjohn1 said:

I have had three "Build Ship" crashes in the first 10 months of the game (Letting it sit 3-5 minutes) Not sure what your business model is but I wouldn't release until I can make sure the build ship crashes are at least a lot less common. 

Will let you know what else I find (I build ships, play a bit, yall reset saves, rinse and repeat)  

Did you press keyboard buttons while waiting.? This might be a reason for crash that we must repair, but the game should continue fine, with no crashes. Sometimes it can load more than usual.

[Nick Thomadis]

34 minutes ago, o Barão said:

 

Can I use the image in our release notes? I will give full credits, with your mod link, if you have one in this forum.

[Rucki]

18 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry. 

 

Could you please just explain my question below? How does UA:Dreadnoughts handle this ?

 

10 hours ago, Rucki said:

To add something more to the current ballistic issues:

Hovering over my 330mm guns ingame I see a whole lot of partial pens against f.e. 30mm when fighting at a distance about 2.5 Km, but according to my understanding that should be absolute impossible ?

I just make a quick draw in Paint, how I would understand (roughly) how penetration should work.

How does it work ingame ? How can a 400mm penetration gun make partial pens against 30mm ? If those were shot at an angle, so that the effective armor is higher, bigger than the pen value, then this should be displayed and not the "flat" armor value, right ?

 

Shouldnt it be much more displayed and calculated like this ? (the values and angles are made up by me of course) :

 

[o Barão]

28 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Can I use the image in our release notes? I will give full credits, with your mod link, if you have one in this forum.

Yes of course!

Steam mod link: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/5116650215577174875/#c3184613494756848022

Game-labs forum mod link:

 

[Rucki]

This is with the latest patch.
The distance is 1.6 Km and my 305mm guns have between 450 and 500 pen value there with ap, the enemy CL hase only 57.5mm armor on the belt ( +38%), so how is it possible that my hit was only a partial pen ?

The CL armor values:

Main Armor Belt: 57.5
Fore Belt 21mm (funny that the 76mm canon had no problem penetrating the fore belt armor with HE=20-30mm pen value)
First inner deck citadel: 8mm

 

Edit: The deck armor hit is also weird, that should be a ricochet at this distance

Edited June 30, 2022 by Rucki

[aradragoon]

52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry. 

Yes sorry my question was directed more at the people saying "My gun has X penetration and the armor of the enemy ship is only 1/2 and..."

P.S. Just to add I can't speak to whether everything is working properly/as intended was my second point since I can't see the code itself but it sounds like from what you said it is working more or less as intended.

Edited June 30, 2022 by aradragoon

[aradragoon]

5 minutes ago, Rucki said:

This is with the latest patch.
The distance is 1.6 Km and my 305mm guns have between 450 and 500 pen value there with ap, the enemy CL hase only 57.5mm armor on the belt, so how is it possible that my hit was only a partial pen ?

The CL armor values:

Main Armor Belt: 57.5
Fore Belt 21mm
First inner deck citadel: 8mm

 

What is the armor level of the enemy ship? Citadel type?  Inner belt? Angle the shot was taken from? (position of the ship and which turret along with enemy ship position)? Type of shells you are using for AP?

[Plazma]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

(Saves had to be reset - We plan to release tomorrow with some final minor improvements. Please report if you find any critical bugs

Not yet release, but can we address some of major issue what we have right now? Maybe not this patch, but the next one? 

Adjustment to the guns are too effective, First what I do is set max caliber to the whole guns no matter what. And long barrels with some exceptions (like when we had a bug when we hit only deck). (I probably see improvement in 1.06.21) 

Torps are very weak and sometimes refuse to shot. Also please make them visible for players. After long playing this is annoying to look on the water with hope to find the torps what was spotted by ship! Plus I see this same bug, the torps go in wrong directory...

Also guns sometimes refuse to shot.

The chance to hit DD or TB are too low. Even if I have 2.9" long barrel the chance are very low and this make DD, TB in hands of the player the most effective weapon. Sometimes is better to send one DD than one BB!  (I probably see improvement in 1.06.21) 

The tech tree need some improvement. Playing long campaign is not funny when you started on 1890 and in 1910 you have coal as the fuel, but very close to the radar... 

Explanation or fix penetration. Right now AI penetrate the 0,5" +38% deck armor via shell what should have 0,2"-0.3" deck penetration strength.

 

And some minor issue and ideas like:

-realistic armor 

-realistic penetrations

-crew recruitment and crew training separately 

-eliminate bugs (we have a few small bugs, not big deal, but the quality of the game little sunk... hehe :D) 

-more improvement about building ships, it will be nice to recreating the ships what we have in this period. 

-save/load

-guns have more linear statistic, example 12" are not better than 10", 11" 13" 14" for no reasons (accuracy) or 8" are not better than 9-11"... 

-when we building ships we saw big fps drop.

-simulating battles (they are too random)

-Task forces (general improvement) 

-Explanation how TR works right now

-If enemy have 0.1% chance to hit DD that means have 99.9% chance to hit anything around it. In general when 2 DD are close one DD have 0.1% chance to get hit, and the second one around 9,9%, because of the miss chance. 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Plazma

[jtjohn1]

44 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Did you press keyboard buttons while waiting.? This might be a reason for crash that we must repair, but the game should continue fine, with no crashes. Sometimes it can load more than usual.

No didn't push any keyboard buttons.  Just hit the next button and pulled up my phone after waiting a bit for something to do.  Then glanced at my watch.  They went away after the first year but just had another one in April of 24.  I have also had three times where I went in to do a minor refit (Upgrade Fire Control, Oil 2 instead of Oil 1 etc) and look up and notice my ship is out of balance by a massive amount (I usually have less than .2% out of balance for and aft and these jump up into the 30 to 40% out of balance)  I exit out of the refit, go back in and do it again and it seems to fix itself.

[Rucki]

9 minutes ago, aradragoon said:

What is the armor level of the enemy ship? Citadel type?  Inner belt? Angle the shot was taken from? (position of the ship and which turret along with enemy ship position)? Type of shells you are using for AP?

The informations are all in my post. My ship was the Würzburg, so the angle is viewable on the screen, also in the "hit calculation display".

Edit: its all 1890 tech. so normal AP shells

Edited June 30, 2022 by Rucki

[MasterBurte]

Found a gun that seems to be bugged. The 8 inch gun get's enormous boosted due to increasing the caliber to 8.9. Nearly five times more accuracy at close range.

[Aloeus]

Seems like the issue of gun models not updating until they are placed is back. When I put down a 5.9" gun it looks like a standard 5" in the highlighted preview image, but as soon is I place it pops back up to the larger 5.9" model. IIRC in patch 18 and 19 at least it would show the full size model before placing it down. 

[Hangar18]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry. 

Statistics being shown to us seem to be giving us one expectation, but what is happening is another thing entirely.

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Did you press keyboard buttons while waiting.? This might be a reason for crash that we must repair, but the game should continue fine, with no crashes. Sometimes it can load more than usual.

I think there might be a memory leak, i dont remember the game eating 7gb of ram. They might have just not had enough ram, so the game crashed.

[SodaBit]

Got some campaign feedback here.
I've been trying to avoid allying Austria as Germany, but alas, I've gotten dragged into one of their pointless wars without even being allied to them.

I'm currently at peace w/ GB, but GB is at war with Austria, who's at war with France, who's at war with me. 
So according to the AI GB is at war with me?

Even though that is very clearly not the case?
Honestly, I was rooting for the Franco-British alliance in their war against Austria, but now that alliance is trying to kill me, so... 


I'm still not going to ally Austria.

[Carl_Bar]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Of course it is this. The game is far too complex than a simple math to evaluate a certain amount of penetration minus a certain amount of armor. We have so many new mechanics with the citadel. There are too many parameters, physics involved which provide a result close to realism. We provide so much statistical info to players. Yet there are players who want them to explain why a certain shell with a certain angle of impact did not penetrate, because X - Y = Z.
I am sorry but I have really little personal time to explain all this currently to the players who want to explain them everything. I am really sorry. 

 

That the inner citadel armour affected things like causing partial pens wasn't clear before this. The way it was described previously, i understood it to mean that it would cause pen damage to be reduced, not that it would convert full pens to partial pens. Some more detailed info in the damage log on if we went through one layer of armour and then bounced off another would be very much appreciated. It makes figuring out whats happening so we can provide good feedback much better.