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

[AdmiralKirk]

Some other things I've noticed:

• I've also had some issues with battles starting in the campaign. I started in 1930 as Italy, successfully got into a war with France but not Austria-Hungary (The politics system let me engineer the outcome I wanted, nice!), and then deployed my fleet against Toulon and Marseille. But the AI refused to actually engage my fleet despite having an advantage in tonnage and sheer numbers, and it took months to actually find a few relatively small battles.
• Despite the hotfix I still have way too little money. I ended up with an initial fleet of two battleships ($160M) and a cruiser ($100M) plus three destroyers ($14M). I recognize that my cruiser is too expensive—it was a bit of a meme ship—but even if I cut the cost in half and designed a CL at $25M, that's a starting fleet of 2 BB, 1 CA, 2CL, and 3 DD. Meanwhile all my rivals have more than double these numbers.
• It still seems like task forces don't do anything. I placed my full fleet at the shores of Toulon, met no resistance, set the fleet to Invade, and nothing happened.
• Is the torpedo dud chance related to the angle of impact or position on the ship? I've had several cases where I almost avoided a torpedo strike and it impacted right at the bow or stern, often as a glancing hit, and the weapon turned out to be a dud.

[Cryadis]

3 hours ago, Vato said:

Is it intended that the most rear gun matters for weight balance that much? I was trying to reconfigure armament otherwise, but it seems no other gun changes balance that much (not even the most fore one). 300 ton TB in AH 1890 campaign (currently feb 1898)

 

 

This one is partly explainable: if you check the picture on the right you see that the citadel becomes smaller if you place the last gun more to the center.

But i am not sure if the effect should be that great, also a TB does not have a specific citadel armor, at least according to the game (not adjustable, but could be some).

These values prolly need tweaking, but it is a beta and we are here to provide feedback...

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Cryadis

[Werwaz]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadisabout the new barrel and gun mechanics.

100% accuracy for the main and secondary guns against a target at 31 km away.

This new mechanics are a great addition. No doubt. But is possible to consider lowering, by half, the positive and negative effects?

The only sort of target that is 100% at that distance would be a super BB. Right now, long guns provide a hard counter to torpedo spammers that had been missing for some time in game, besides dumping 15% your tonnage into torpedo belts. 

[Masonator]

55 minutes ago, dasHopsili said:

i dont know if someone already did report this but some japanese hulls dont work properly anymore as their barbettes are unusable

 German hulls too.  The new gun mechanics must've changed the colliders, because the Bismarck superstructure barbettes can't hold anything larger than a 16" now.  Tried making an H-44 to fight my Lion-class, but couldn't fit the 18" turrets onto the ship.

[admiralsnackbar]

Game Damage

I'm noticing the time-to-kill on alot of guns is higher than it was before. Not necessarily a bad thing. Guns feel like they have a punch, and in cases where they can't penetrate properly there's still the ability to burn ships down. (Seems more common in the 1900s era when main guns are not terribly accurate)

I've noticed quite a few cases of high damage overpenetrations. Is this a case of shells doing a lot of damage because they're going through the bow or stern but still overpenetrating? or are they being treated like penetrations but visually still show as overpenetrations. 

Towers

Some tower structures are too wide for a normal beam ship they are designed to accommodate, and some bespoke barbettes are not useful.

Barbettes

You've got so many barbettes options now that I would suggest renaming them based on the [max] turret size they are roughly intended to accommodate. Frankly the AI would benefit from being told this as well because I do see a lot of dreadnought designs where they put small secondary-like guns amidships on fairly large barbettes. Though this may be done in order to give them the ability to superfire over larger turrets in front. 

A probably cleaner option would be to have barbettes be a hot-key for the turret itself much as the T button rotates the turret, maybe press 'B' to elevate the guns with a barbette made specifically for that gun. Bonus points if you can increase/decrease the height of the barbette. But I've been recommending this for awhile and I keep seeing new barbettes get added. It should still be possible for you guys to rename the barbettes though for ease of use. 






 

[Skeksis]

11 hours ago, Dirlinger said:

Well, people screwed around with stuff they did not understand and then enough BS reports were sent to the devs due to these modifications causing unintended issues that this had to be posted:

 

 

And as is traditional, people don't do QA on their own changes to the save files but rather offload that work to devs. And that is why we can't have nice stuff.

A few at best. Far more players edit than there are those who mess it up. Judging from the forums, we're looking upwards of 30%-50% of the playerbase who edit. Modding is a huge part of gaming, cutting it out will mute out that subculture. Go and check out how big that subculture really is.

And I don't want to be punished for a few who are incompetent.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Skeksis

[SodaBit]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadisabout the new barrel and gun mechanics.

100% accuracy for the main and secondary guns against a target at 31 km away.

This new mechanics are a great addition. No doubt. But is possible to consider lowering, by half, the positive and negative effects?

I absolutely second this. Seems like half my BB builds have secondaries that range out past some of the lower BB calibers in 1.05. If this isn't changed, we might go back into a secondary spam meta where capital ships get burned to death at 25km by hundreds of secondary hits. Also, I'd be fine with a reduction in pen values as well, given that the upper limit of armor penetration capabilities has gone from ~2,800mm at 1km and 1,500mm at 30km to 4,000mm at 1km and 2,400mm at 30km.

[Masonator]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

A few at best. Far more players edit than there are those who mess it up. Judging from the forums, we're looking upwards of 30%-50% of the playerbase who edit. Modding is a huge part of gaming, cutting it out will mute out that subculture. Go and check out how big that subculture really is.

And I don't want to be punished for a few who are incompetent.

 +1.  If you edit game files and brick your game, that is 100% on you.  If the devs don't want to deal with user-error bug reports, put out a boilerplate disclaimer about editing saves (which they've done), and ignore those reports.

 Don't change the damn file structure so only you and your dev tools can edit them ffs, that's literally the opposite of what you should be doing about it.

[Dirlinger]

 

2 minutes ago, Masonator said:

 +1.  If you edit game files and brick your game, that is 100% on you.  If the devs don't want to deal with user-error bug reports, put out a boilerplate disclaimer about editing saves (which they've done), and ignore those reports.

 Don't change the damn file structure so only you and your dev tools can edit them ffs, that's literally the opposite of what you should be doing about it.

If people can't figure out what is wrong with these 4 words, they belong in the group that should not be touching any game files, unless named readme.txt. 

[Masonator]

11 minutes ago, Dirlinger said:

 

If people can't figure out what is wrong with these 4 words, they belong in the group that should not be touching any game files, unless named readme.txt. 

 Even I don't know what you mean by this, and I wrote the OP.  I've been modding video games for about the past 20 years now, including this one without issue.  Posting a simple disclaimer and ignoring reports caused by user error has worked for literally every other moddable game that has ever existed; this very series itself evolved from a Total War mod, ffs.  I don't see why UA:D should be any different, and it definitely isn't just because you want it to be.

 From your earlier post in this thread, your problem seems to be that you don't like it when users break their own game by poking around under the hood and, to paraphrase, "offload [the fixing work] to the devs" by making bug reports (lmao).  As I said earlier, if the concern is a slew of bogus reports being generated by changing settings you're not supposed to change, just ignore those bogus reports because they're not representative of the intended user experience.  If the game only breaks when used in such an obviously unintended manner and I have to deliberately go out of my way to do it, I don't think it's remotely fair to expect the devs to fix that, and so I don't.  That said, I also think it's just as unfair to entirely restrict user access to those features because of the extreme edge case of people who get it wrong.

 On the other hand, it's not even remotely the end-user's job to do the developers' QA for them, and maybe - just maybe - they shouldn't release a product that can be bricked by simply editing a plaintext config file?  If your file system is that flimsy, design a new file system.  It's not my job as a user (nor is it yours) to do that for them, and completely removing the ability to make those changes in the first place doesn't solve the problem, it only hides it and prevents users from reporting it as one.  It's a quality-of-life change for the devs, not for the game, and one that severely restricts user freedom and interaction in the process.  It's a bad change and I want to see it reverted.

 This is explicitly a feedback thread, and I have no idea what the hell you're doing here if all you're going to do is deflect user complaints with the same tired old arguments about end-user responsibility that we've been hearing for decades.  You don't seem to be providing any feedback yourself, just replying to others with useless statements of developer support and ivory-tower admonishment about the dangers of modifying software that we've paid to own and are free to use however we see fit.

 Care to elaborate, buds?

[Dirlinger]

To put it as simply as I can - I feel you have a very superficial understanding of the problem and I have no idea where to start. I really tried. But I got nothing to work with even after restarting this post 4 or 5 times.

I have no ability or desire to condensate a masters degree and MANY years of professional life (where I worked within every level in a company) with 8 successful product launches and even more importantly - 3 failed ones... In your country there is good chance that doctor you use, is using extension (part of) or even the entire EMR system that I contributed to early in my career.

As to my involvement in the thread - writing what others have already mentioned tends to clutter the thread. No need to report bugs mentioned 2-3 times before. If you are not satisfied with my participation on this forum - that sounds like a "you problem" to be honest. I will call people out when they make comments which I find stupid. If you feel that strongly about that report it to the moderators.

Finally regarding my attitude to mods:

Professionally: excellent for a game/product once that game is feature complete - distractions in a early phases of the game development unless one is willing to take a huge hit in the development speed. And if dev takes a decision that is known to be  unpopular one - usually there is good reason for it, especially in the game industry.

Privately : I like to work with mod distribution tools - something like CKAN for KSP or Rimworld's integrated one. I did not work with these two, just using them as an example of my interests. Don't have so much time for that right now because real life obligations. But trying to call me out for being against people experimenting with their software is not exactly accurate assessment of me.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Dirlinger

[Dave P.]

I haven't seen anybody complain about the "god mode" button. If you hit "Reverse" not only does your ship stop dead, but it seems like the AI keeps using your original speed/heading to calculate their torpedo trajectories, so any more they fire will pass ahead of you too. It sometimes damages your engines but the crews usually get everything sorted in a couple minutes.

I wouldn't sit there frozen the entire battle - mobility is too useful - but it works to get your heavies past the enemy screen.

I assume this is unintended?

[ColonelHenry]

27 minutes ago, Dave P. said:

I haven't seen anybody complain about the "god mode" button. If you hit "Reverse" not only does your ship stop dead, but it seems like the AI keeps using your original speed/heading to calculate their torpedo trajectories, so any more they fire will pass ahead of you too. It sometimes damages your engines but the crews usually get everything sorted in a couple minutes.

I wouldn't sit there frozen the entire battle - mobility is too useful - but it works to get your heavies past the enemy screen.

I assume this is unintended?

Might work if you are going under the cruising speed. Going at or above the cruising speed usually means your engine is irreparably damaged for the rest of the battle. And depending on the distance that the torpedoes are fired, it would only make sure that you have a damaged engine while eating the other half of the torpedo salvo.

Edited June 1, 2022 by ColonelHenry

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

It seems armour is useless in 1930 as 15" guns just punch through it like paper. Especially in custom battle. My 15"/80 gets me 53 km range and 28" of armour pen at 22.5 km.  

Edited June 1, 2022 by PalaiologosTheGreat

[Dave P.]

3 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Might work if you are going under the cruising speed. Going at or above the cruising speed usually means your engine is irreparably damaged for the rest of the battle. And depending on the distance that the torpedoes are fired, it would only make sure that you have a damaged engine while eating the other half of the torpedo salvo.

I assure you it works, even at cruising speed. Yes, there's a chance for engine damage, but like I said, the crew usually repairs it. (And, honestly, a slow ship is better than a leaky one.)

The biggest problem is stopping myself from shouting "parkour!" when I press the button.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Dave P.

[SodaBit]

Started a new campaign, 1940's Germany
Proceed to construct the usual suspects, H-39 BB's, Bismarck BC's, O Classes, etc.
Can't build Bismarck BC's anymore, 381mm Mk.4 guns no longer fit on any of the superstructures
Okay then, I'll use 14" guns and up the caliber to 378.9mm I guess.
Only 1B starting funds, can't afford much
Have to restart and rebuild everything twice due to crashes
Finally get into a working campaign, can only afford 4 ships, 2 H-39's 2 O's.
Kaiser decides in his infinite wisdom to ally the Italians, because that goes so well every time anyone tries it
I've got no say in this, sucks, but oh well
Get dragged into war against France, started over a bowl of spaghetti or something, idk
First fight is 2 O's against a BB, CA, CL.
Win decisively, enemy only scored 9 hits with all ships sunk.
French pull 5,400 victory points out from behind their sofa
Kaiser is furious that I got my ass handed to me

Can't wait for the next battle to be a 50 minute long stern chase

Edited June 1, 2022 by SodaBit

[Dave P.]

I was thinking of ways the campaign might be a little more interesting, and, well, what about "hero ships"?

When the system pulls certain names out of a hat, those ships get a certain buff (or nerf?) that's historically consistent with certain famous ships of that name. (Additional durability/armor for a 'Yamato', a gunnery accuracy boost for a 'Washington' and so on.) Not likely enough to make a big difference, I suppose, but it would be a nice touch.

[o Barão]

17 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Seems like half my BB builds have secondaries that range out past some of the lower BB calibers in 1.05. If this isn't changed, we might go back into a secondary spam meta where capital ships get burned to death at 25km by hundreds of secondary hits.

Who needs main guns these days?

I present, the machine gun from hell.

Note: In the stats, we can compare how a stock 22 main battery gun and a 22 cm modded secondary gun performs in battle. 8.1% vs 100% accuracy. Sounds right?

And yes, my secondaries range was higher than the enemy main guns.

Please @Nick Thomadis consider in lowering the positive and negative effects by a lot when changing the gun barrel. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by o Barão

[dasHopsili]

probably the most annoying campaign bug. lost my campaign cause all VPs i earned went to the enemy. literally lost because i was winning too hard 

[TiagoStein]

So far I am liking a  lot the improvement. The only  new bug I saw was when I created a new German Ship design int he campaign the game suggested a BRITISH  ship name for the class.. Very minor bug,  but whatever.

 

Continue the good work.

[Hardlec]

Iam not allowed access to the beta version.

If there is access, may I switch back to 1.05?

[o Barão]

12 minutes ago, Hardlec said:

Iam not allowed access to the beta version.

If there is access, may I switch back to 1.05?

yes

[Dave P.]

44 minutes ago, Hardlec said:

Iam not allowed access to the beta version.

If there is access, may I switch back to 1.05?

After switching back from the 1.06 beta, I had to delete the stuff out of AppData before 1.05 would load. Otherwise it stuck on a “loading menu” screen. Just FYI.

[Darth Khyron]

Oookay...so I just played twenty years of war. The campaign did not conclude, it would have gone on and on and on, but I decided enough is enough. Campaign startet 1900.

1.) In the beginning, there were two random events. One basically was "The french are angry at you. Pay up or face war." The second basically was : "The british are angry at you. Pay up or face war." Well, I did not pay and soon after, we were at war. I managed to get good relations with the italians and austria-hungaria, but they did not enter the war.
So just germany versus the Belle Entente.
In the first few turns, the british threw everything they had against me, resulting in very lopsided battles. BUT I was able to win all of these, albeit not without losses. The french never bothered to attack.
But as the campaign progressed, I was able to outproduce the british and my battlegroups surrounded the british isles, each consisting of four battleships or battlecruisers, four armored cruisers, four light cruisers and between 16 to 35 escorts of different kinds.
But no more battles except "Convoy" or "Meeting". Convoy actions pitted two of my destroyers or old torpedo boats against a greater number of british vessels. Meeting engagements only occured, when I moved small forces around (after repairing damaged escorts or moving newly-built ships to their intended locations). Here, the AI pounces with superior numbers and often capital ships and tries to engage my smaller warships.
And that's it.
The war went on for twenty years. The british are blockaded, but...hey...nothing happens. Surrounded by all sides, yet my forces do not have any upper hand. No bombarment missions, no peace offers, nothing.
The french had far superior numbers, easily outstripping my forces by three to one. But their technology was so far behind, they never, ever engaged my forces.
Needless to say that I am very dissapointed in the current campaign design. What is the use of battlegroups if you can only use a fraction that the AI determines? What use is the total domination of the seas, if the enemy refuses to fight without any consequences? What use is the moving of forces, if the AI totally decides what battle is generated or not?

I wanted to try out a campaign at a later date, but reading that funds are so severally limited, I rather don't.

[TiagoStein]

35 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:

Oookay...so I just played twenty years of war. The campaign did not conclude, it would have gone on and on and on, but I decided enough is enough. Campaign startet 1900.

1.) In the beginning, there were two random events. One basically was "The french are angry at you. Pay up or face war." The second basically was : "The british are angry at you. Pay up or face war." Well, I did not pay and soon after, we were at war. I managed to get good relations with the italians and austria-hungaria, but they did not enter the war.
So just germany versus the Belle Entente.
In the first few turns, the british threw everything they had against me, resulting in very lopsided battles. BUT I was able to win all of these, albeit not without losses. The french never bothered to attack.
But as the campaign progressed, I was able to outproduce the british and my battlegroups surrounded the british isles, each consisting of four battleships or battlecruisers, four armored cruisers, four light cruisers and between 16 to 35 escorts of different kinds.
But no more battles except "Convoy" or "Meeting". Convoy actions pitted two of my destroyers or old torpedo boats against a greater number of british vessels. Meeting engagements only occured, when I moved small forces around (after repairing damaged escorts or moving newly-built ships to their intended locations). Here, the AI pounces with superior numbers and often capital ships and tries to engage my smaller warships.
And that's it.
The war went on for twenty years. The british are blockaded, but...hey...nothing happens. Surrounded by all sides, yet my forces do not have any upper hand. No bombarment missions, no peace offers, nothing.
The french had far superior numbers, easily outstripping my forces by three to one. But their technology was so far behind, they never, ever engaged my forces.
Needless to say that I am very dissapointed in the current campaign design. What is the use of battlegroups if you can only use a fraction that the AI determines? What use is the total domination of the seas, if the enemy refuses to fight without any consequences? What use is the moving of forces, if the AI totally decides what battle is generated or not?

I wanted to try out a campaign at a later date, but reading that funds are so severally limited, I rather don't.

Well that is realistic.  The British were probably complaining of the same thing during ww1 when the germans kept their fleet in harbor avoiding combat. The hard thing is, realistic  AI is a non fun AI almost by definition. It needs some tuning but one cannot forget that pushing to one side harms the other.

 

Sea Warfare tends to be boring when you have the upperhand. The only way to change that would be a system to  setup an Invasion.  IT can be done, but that is a complex feature to make it right (if you invade a plaace you get resources but you need logistics  running for that place etc).