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

[Kebla]

2 hours ago, ZorinW said:

L'ho ridotto allo 0% strutturale, quindi, qualunque cosa accada, ho dovuto infliggere 19.000 danni per affondarlo. Questo è il mio punto, è il 1890 e dovevo generare 19k danni per portare una torpediniera allo 0% strutturale. Un 1890 TB ha tecnologia ZERO su di esso. Tutto quello che puoi cambiare è trave, pescaggio e paratie e voglio sapere come questi DA SOLI sono in grado di portare una TB a 19k di salute.

no, that torpedo boat could be destroyed even with less damage inflicted probably, it was enough that the hits inflicted were well placed; in fact a hit that inflicts fOR example 300 damage in an already damaged area of the ship does not actually take away 300 points from the life of the ship but less , being the hitted area already damaged and thus absorbing part of the damage

[ZorinW]

48 minutes ago, Kebla said:

no, that torpedo boat could be destroyed even with less damage inflicted probably, it was enough that the hits inflicted were well placed; in fact a hit that inflicts fOR example 300 damage in an already damaged area of the ship does not actually take away 300 points from the life of the ship but less , being the hitted area already damaged and thus absorbing part of the damage

Even more reason to have a health bar if the indicated dmg is a lie.

[Nick Thomadis]

3 hours ago, Rucki said:

Im not going to further test anything until the ballistics are fixed, this is a major problem for me. Why testing the campaign if the combat simply doesnt work.
 

-Over and partial pens when they shouldnt (deck and belt)
-Deck hits at very close distance (and then sometime even overpens)

I (and lots of other) wrote detailed bug reports with pictures here in this thread and it got totally ignored so far.
 

When you see visually a shell to land on the deck, why you should not accept this phenomenon? We are playing a 3D game where you see what is happening, not a Text Adventure 2D where in theory everything is documented strictly. So again, if we see a deck hit, why we do not accept it?

Moreover, when deck hits happen at a very small angle, because the target is near, why you do not like the possibility of a partial pen? Why everything must do zero damage, ricochet or shutter of the shell? Partial pen means that a shell hits and does some minor damage to the armor, but it does not pass through. Why it should always do zero damage, unrealistically, as in other games? A shell explodes on the surface of the ship, it must often do something.

[ZorinW]

20 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

When you see visually a shell to land on the deck, why you should not accept this phenomenon? We are playing a 3D game where you see what is happening, not a Text Adventure 2D where in theory everything is documented strictly. So again, if we see a deck hit, why we do not accept it?

Moreover, when deck hits happen at a very small angle, because the target is near, why you do not like the possibility of a partial pen? Why everything must do zero damage, ricochet or shutter of the shell? Partial pen means that a shell hits and does some minor damage to the armor, but it does not pass through. Why it should always do zero damage, unrealistically, as in other games? A shell explodes on the surface of the ship, it must often do something.

Since it is all 3D can you show us the 3D armor scheme that is created for each ship and used in this calculations? That would be VERY helpful to actually understand what is going on.

[Sturmalex]

15 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Since it is all 3D can you show us the 3D armor scheme that is created for each ship and used in this calculations? That would be VERY helpful to actually understand what is going on.

That is something I would like to see vor 1.07. Basically a 3D Armor viewer just like in WoWs or WT. That would be very cool.

[Nick Thomadis]

13 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Since it is all 3D can you show us the 3D armor scheme that is created for each ship and used in this calculations? That would be VERY helpful to actually understand what is going on.

Please show me a 3D game which explains more than our game in terms of statistics. We should try to offer more info in next updates, but currently, we show much more than needed already, with penetration tables, penetration info when clicking on target, angle estimations and so on. Please show me another 3D naval game, as a reference, to understand what you want to see more, although most players always ask for more, and cannot understand that there are development limits.

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, Sturmalex said:

That is something I would like to see vor 1.07. Basically a 3D Armor viewer just like in WoWs or WT. That would be very cool.

In this game you see a 3D armor viewer while in the port. When you play do you see this? Do you have explanations why something penetrates or not?

[Sturmalex]

22 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In this game you see a 3D armor viewer while in the port. When you play do you see this? Do you have explanations why something penetrates or not?

Well its not quite on WTs or WoWs level. and for your second part of the post I have no frigging clue what you want to say. vOv

[Rucki]

54 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

When you see visually a shell to land on the deck, why you should not accept this phenomenon? We are playing a 3D game where you see what is happening, not a Text Adventure 2D where in theory everything is documented strictly. So again, if we see a deck hit, why we do not accept it?

Moreover, when deck hits happen at a very small angle, because the target is near, why you do not like the possibility of a partial pen? Why everything must do zero damage, ricochet or shutter of the shell? Partial pen means that a shell hits and does some minor damage to the armor, but it does not pass through. Why it should always do zero damage, unrealistically, as in other games? A shell explodes on the surface of the ship, it must often do something.

But I do not have a problem with any of the points you mentioned.
My only problems with ballistics are those I already tried to explain as good as I can (english is not my native language, so I hope its understandable enough).

Please see here:

On 6/29/2022 at 3:58 PM, Rucki said:

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) // EDIT inside Quote: If you want this to be a partial pen instead of a ricochet to simulate smaller deck damage, thats fine for me, but certainly not a full pen or overpen //

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.

And here:

On 6/30/2022 at 11:33 PM, 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 ( +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

 

And those things didnt happend in the patches before, I think they were introduced with the citadel upgrade, although Im not sure about that one. 

I also dont want to criticize to much, im very happy with the very high amount of patches we got, especially considering the hard circumstances at moment. Its just that as long as the ballistics are not functioning I personally dont see a point in play testing the campaign. The battles are the most important part in my opinion, I still dont demand them to be 100% realistic and that every shot must be understandable, but if a 305mm gun cant penetrate a thin CL armor at very close distance and perfect angle (like in my example, even the ingame "penetration info display" shows everything green and 100%  penetration value), then something is too much wrong at the moment.

[Nick Thomadis]

12 minutes ago, Sturmalex said:

Well its not quite on WTs or WoWs level. and for your second part of the post I have no frigging clue what you want to say. vOv

I am saying what happens in this game you mentioned. Nevermind. 

[Sturmalex]

3 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

I am saying what happens in this game you mentioned. Nevermind. 

So? I never said I want that in the game(Battle), no? Maybe should check who you are replying to before going off of a tangent.

 

EDIT: Clarified "game"

Edited July 5, 2022 by Sturmalex

[Candle_86]

23 hours ago, Littorio said:

Let's handles this point by point shall we?

1. "Having visible ranges....balance...different classes...same instance...own purpose" - Uhhhh no. Are you telling me that the only difference in your battles between a BB and a TB is how far their respective, gamey memetower with it's particular "values" can "spot" the enemy?

If so, I don't know what kind of ships you are building. The differences should be patently transparent: vastly different armament, armor, speed, hull durability, crew size, propulsion, etc. Trying to say "Ohh well the #1 distinguishing feature between different vessels is their god-gifted sight range from their super-special towers!" is ridiculous. They will behave differently and have different roles based on all of the aforementioned characteristics. If you keep DDs in a line trying to hit BBs, that's on you.

2. "If all visible...rapid death...destroyers...slugfest...horizon...every battle" - Wrong again, because for some reason you seem to think that a "visually-acquired target" directly translates to "we can accurately hit that target repeatedly at this range." This doesn't bear up to the historical reality that we are suggesting be followed. If what you stated was true, no navy would have ever built anything but BBs, because any other class of ship in battle would be useless, unable to see and thus hit larger ships at range.

I fail to see any condition in UAD in which simply being aware of an enemy vessel on the horizon suddenly translates to being able to hit them squarely time and again. There will always be uses for different classes of vessels. Obviously, BBs are meant to fight other BBs. You seem to be of the simplistic belief that fleet actions wouldn't have many more moving pieces. Lighter ships are meant to fight their counterparts, not the larger vessels (usually). DDs kill TBs, CLs kill DDs, and CAs kill CLs. Anything else is just happenstance and particular battlefield positioning/luck (i.e. a timely torpedo run from light vessels on the battleline).

The scenario you are describing is just BBs siting back and annihilating everything they see from the moment they see it, which is of course ridiculous both in game as well as in reality. BBs can't even reliably hit what they CAN SEE NOW based on your ridiculous spotting fog. Why would that change and increase greatly given another 10-15km of vision???

3. "But in UAD even blind-firing enemies challenges the player, you cannot deny that." - I would not say this current system imposes any more challenge, so yes, I will argue that point. Sure, it's ANNOYING to be invisibly shelled by a vessel I can clearly see the shells ORIGINATING from (or even better surrounded in a CL "smoke ring" clearly marking it's position for all to see - defeating your and the games point of this invisibility adding more "challenge"..). Sure, it makes more of a PAIN to fight every battle, particularly a ship fleeing as it shoots invisibly. Sure, it makes the battles LESS tactically-inclined because no one can make any actual fleet moves but must instead flail about in a literal, non-weather created, dev-mandated "fog."

Instead of having something like Jutland happen, with escalating situations and runs to the south because we see BCs but don't know BBs are just over the horizon, we have an ever-increasing number of Guadalcanal brawls with a mass of ships engaging point blank on top of each other.

4. "'Ease' the challenge'" - And this one just takes the cake as your most ridiculous statement yet. We, the players who want to do away with this fake, battle-map-centric system of "spotting" that negates WHAT WE WERE ALREADY TOLD on the campaign map, (enemy type, armament, speed, etc) and which you haven't addressed AT ALL in your poor response, are the ones pushing for a harder challenge based on reality. YOU, and those supporting your position, be they devs or players, are the ones pushing for an easier challenge. You just stated it above: "If all were visible then it’ll be a rapid death of destroyers to cruisers, cruisers to battleships and battleships in a slugfest to the horizon, every battle. At some point realism has to be balanced for gameplay."

Thus, you feel it would be too hard to compensate for "long-range battleships able to pummel all others" or some such equally nonsensical notion. I already addressed that above, in this doom scenario you describe, the escorts of each fleet would be focused on each other, and the BBs their counterparts. "OMG WHAT IF THERE ARE NO BBs ON THE ENEMY SIDE! WOULDN'T I JUST DOMINATE, OR VICE VERSA IF IT WAS THEM???" So you want every encounter balanced? Who is wanting it easy now? Not every battle featured symmetrical opposition, and indeed most did not.

Regardless, as I stated above in passing - your argument is lacking as it completely disregards any notion of campaign-map, operations-level scouting, reconnaissance, and intelligence, which would abrogate most of the issues on the battle-maps anyway. In a manner, the game already hints at this as it gives you enemy classifications and details entering a given fight. IF WE KNOW THIS GOING IN, which means we sighted and classified the enemy already, WHY IN NEPTUNE'S SALTY BEARD do we need to do it all over again in battle!?

You want to talk about what is "best for gameplay"? Ok, how about not having players chase smoke sighted for 10 mins until the game lets them exit? How about having players actually have to take agency over their forces when the full enemy fleet is spotted on the horizon, giving ample but dangerously critical time to plan moves and countermoves.  How about having the player understand that just because he can see the enemy, does not mean he will hit the enemy with any chance of success, and therefore must move closer to the foe, and thus be in a more dangerous position, in order to hit anything?

Your idea of what is best for the game is flawed and is decisively shot down by your own logic, or dare I say, the lack thereof.

All i can say is people taht think range = ability to hit they need to check out Battle of Tushima or Battle of Battle of Santiago de Cuba. Both of these battles they dected each other, in Tushima the Japanense still went and did breakfast while closing the range, same with the Americans. Now the American's also missed 99% of all shots at battle ranges of 1-2KM, this is actual history, and this is how it should work I 100% agree

[Candle_86]

Message deleted as offensive to another member @Skeksis

[Nick Thomadis]

30 minutes ago, Sturmalex said:

So? I never said I want that in the game(Battle), no? Maybe should check who you are replying to before going off of a tangent.

 

EDIT: Clarified "game"

You mentioned something related to the conversation I had with another user. If you see my post 10 times again there is no tangent. You should not heat up the conversation when there is no point in doing so. 

[Nick Thomadis]

41 minutes ago, Rucki said:

But I do not have a problem with any of the points you mentioned.
My only problems with ballistics are those I already tried to explain as good as I can (english is not my native language, so I hope its understandable enough).

Please see here:

And here:

 

And those things didnt happend in the patches before, I think they were introduced with the citadel upgrade, although Im not sure about that one. 

I also dont want to criticize to much, im very happy with the very high amount of patches we got, especially considering the hard circumstances at moment. Its just that as long as the ballistics are not functioning I personally dont see a point in play testing the campaign. The battles are the most important part in my opinion, I still dont demand them to be 100% realistic and that every shot must be understandable, but if a 305mm gun cant penetrate a thin CL armor at very close distance and perfect angle (like in my example, even the ingame "penetration info display" shows everything green and 100%  penetration value), then something is too much wrong at the moment.

These are old images of older beta. The final, upcoming version, will have fixed most of these unwanted outcomes, which should be less now already, in the current build.

[Norbert Sattler]

As Austria-Hungary I just researched "Longitudinal strength of hull girder I", which says it unlocked battleship II for me.

But the hull in question doesn't show up in the designer or in the tooltip of the Hull Strengthening group.

[Plazma]

at 6-8km 12.9"/52 gun have 2:9 belt:deck ratio of hits ~1910

at 6-2km 12.9"/52 gun have 3:8 belt:deck ratio of hits ~1910

+ I don't count a lot of structural hits (like sec/main tower, funnel) 

(Also I must mention that I tested it in few battles, so the ratio can be different from what we have in reality)

 

It looks like around 4-3km you get 1:1 hit ratio and below 2km significant like 2:1 for belt penetration, from 12" gun. 

 

8.9"/54 & 8.9"/43 have ratio 1:1 around 2-8km.

 

Guns also sometimes don't shoot waiting for something? 

 

Unfortunately 12" & 8" are the strongest guns in the game for some reasons and when Player maximizing the accuracy often the AI doesn't. Effect: My 12.9"/52 gun could have 50% accuracy when the enemy have 13.3" and 9,5% accuracy. I don't need pen, I need hit. After hitting funnel 5 times by HE from main gun the enemy ship is in very poor shape. 

 

I thinking to remove 2x1 8.9" casemate gun to put my main gun forward and reduce Pitch to 17.5%, but I like guns...  

Edited July 5, 2022 by Plazma

[itolan1752]

5 minutes ago, Plazma said:

Guns also sometimes don't shoot waiting for something?

If you mean main guns don't shoot,

Maybe you can try to turn off the sec guns.

I notice that if cruiser have too many sec guns fire at once, they will stop the main gun fire.

I don't know it is BUG or some unknown mechanism.

[Littorio]

14 hours ago, Skeksis said:

You’re right, very little in the way of blind-firing damage, but psychological, yeah that is having a big impact.

But also wrong in actual damage, firstly humans are designing horrendously large 'signatured' ships for the AI to shoot at and secondly, after the player decides he’s had enough and charges in, he will suffer subsequent damage.

Do you really think Dev’s (or anyone for that matter) are going to create an AI equal to that of a human. Because that is what it’s going to take, isn’t it, to perform on an open ocean, horizon to horizon, simulating the order of battle, to create an AI to operate in realistic visible environment, and be effective. ha.

Sorry to burst your bubble but AIs aren’t that great, they’ll be nothing more than mindless zombies being pick off one by one. In fact pc gaming AIs are very limited in how they can reproduce human behavior. Could never mimic Jutland – that's a dream.

Though Dev's have done an excellent job with what they have.

No, the fog of war gives the AI a chance, gives the AI as much advantage as possible. Lets the AI  approach the player uncontested, creates a close combat zone and then lets the AI duck for cover then remerge to attack again. From this the game can produce good content.

You’re asking the Dev’s for the impossible. What we have is the historic probable.

12 hours ago, Skeksis said:

I agree, once!...

But after 2 years, 5 months and 2 days, you gotta run with what we have.

So essentially you have given up and are just suggesting that anything but the currently used, utterly woeful, and totally inadequate system would be too much for the devs?

Well if that is the case I would like to hear them say that and commit to locking in things the way they are.

That way, myself and many others can flee this sinking ship (pun intended) and not come back.

If the finished product of UA:D intends to keep operational level reconnaissance the way it is on the campaign map (essentially non-existent), and makes us re-spot in battle what we already identified (according to the game itself before you click begin battle), then I and many others are no longer interested and would rather save time and aggravation leaving now.

It is quite hard to enjoy a naval game that neglects the most important part of naval warfare - locating your enemy in the first place.

The ocean is large place, and even once you find someone, you must identify them!

Currently, none of this is enjoyable in UA:D and it is very clearly taking a backseat to other priorities, mainly this disastrous "diplomatic" system that you pushed so vigorously for.

 

1 hour ago, Candle_86 said:

All i can say is people taht think range = ability to hit they need to check out Battle of Tushima or Battle of Battle of Santiago de Cuba. Both of these battles they dected each other, in Tushima the Japanense still went and did breakfast while closing the range, same with the Americans. Now the American's also missed 99% of all shots at battle ranges of 1-2KM, this is actual history, and this is how it should work I 100% agree

Yes, sadly they do. "Better" towers should speed up classification of already identified targets, and enhance the accuracy of fire on said targets, nothing more.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Littorio

[Norbert Sattler]

As Austria-Hungary I joined my ally Italy in their war with France.

Then all of a sudden the war was just over, presumably because Italy peaced out. I was not asked or even informed of the end of the war. I just noticed one round that France no longer shows up in the VP list at the bottom right.

At the very least send out a message box informing the player when a war they are a part of ended.
And preferably give them a cut of the war reparations. I was ahead about 18000 to 5000 agains the French. That should be worth at least something in the peace deal I'd think.

Edit: And now I noticed that at some point my alliance with the Italians also ended. Once again I would appreciate if I was told about such things.

Also I got the same thing with BB3 that I got with BB2 (i.e. I am told I have unlocked them without actually getting to use them).

Edited July 5, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Sacro321]

@Nick Thomadis

Just for clarification: was the port capacity that you can build supposed to grow as the years progress?

I did a quick campaign test with Germany where I avoided war as much as possible to see tech/GDP progress, and I noticed that the port capacity I can build stayed at 4000t/24 Months - I thought it was supposed to grow? I went until 1921 so far.

[SodaBit]

2 things I'd like to see fixed Before 1.06 goes live
1. Decrease secondary gun influence on weight offset.
2. Lower meta-centric height of multi-deck hulls, as these units currently have a fair bit of instability issues caused by the starting position of the center of gravity not actually being at the hull's center before adding components.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Sacro321 said:

@Nick Thomadis

Just for clarification: was the port capacity that you can build supposed to grow as the years progress?

I did a quick campaign test with Germany where I avoided war as much as possible to see tech/GDP progress, and I noticed that the port capacity I can build stayed at 4000t/24 Months - I thought it was supposed to grow? I went until 1921 so far.

Did other large ports have growth? Can you check that?

EDIT: It works normally but growth can be too small if GDP is low and initial port capacity is small. We will increase the growth.

[Norbert Sattler]

I just had one of my ships with switched on "avoid ships" ram itself to death on a sinking enemy. It would seem the option only considers functioning ships...

[aznfoo]

3 hours ago, Rucki said:

But I do not have a problem with any of the points you mentioned.
My only problems with ballistics are those I already tried to explain as good as I can (english is not my native language, so I hope its understandable enough).

Please see here:

And here:

 

And those things didnt happend in the patches before, I think they were introduced with the citadel upgrade, although Im not sure about that one. 

I also dont want to criticize to much, im very happy with the very high amount of patches we got, especially considering the hard circumstances at moment. Its just that as long as the ballistics are not functioning I personally dont see a point in play testing the campaign. The battles are the most important part in my opinion, I still dont demand them to be 100% realistic and that every shot must be understandable, but if a 305mm gun cant penetrate a thin CL armor at very close distance and perfect angle (like in my example, even the ingame "penetration info display" shows everything green and 100%  penetration value), then something is too much wrong at the moment.

I agree, the citadel addition sort of messed up gun damage and armor schemes, and turtlebacks are pretty much impossible to deal any real damage against