>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)

[Pizzafighter]

51 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

No, it doesn't. When they suffer a lot of losses they might get run out of crew (it happens to the player aswell) and as the new crew they get goes to the reaired ships which need their crew replenished and any mothballed ship they might have, they may take a while to start building up crew pool again. That is another completely unrelated problem that they should address, tho. I already gave feed back on that subject and mentiones that the base crew pool cap should at the very least be made 3 o 4 times the current one, and the base monthly crew gain should at the least be double. In addition, both numbers should increase as the campaign progresses, to compensate ships needing more and more crew as the campaing goes on.

Additionally, the option to raise emergency leaves or recruitment campaigns should be added. Sorry, but I don't buy that countries which are supposed to be great powers can't pull out 20-30k sailors out of thin air if needed.

it is back. I totally destroyed the royal navy in my campain (again) and looked, how many crews they had. It is mentioned with over +1000 and they have about 100 in the crew pool. But when I look it up a month later they don't have a ship in service but lost crew.

Also the bug applys for myself, two of my ships have no crew even if I have about 17k in my crew pool left. I also lost random cruisers and torpedo boats in my campain without them losing in a previous fight or anythingh like this, they just surrender due to high casualties...to click "add crew" doesn't change anythingh, it still tells me, I have no crew for those two ships wich are now in my harbor with low crew.

[The PC Collector]

7 minutes ago, Pizzafighter said:

Also the bug applys for myself, two of my ships have no crew even if I have about 17k in my crew pool left.

Have you tried to add the crew manually? The add crew works... a bit erratically, in my experience.

[Karlchen]

41 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Yeah. At the very most, they happened ONCE per war. Hence why they should be rare event battles, not your everyday battle.

That's why they called decisive battles I think

[Grizli60rus]

Greetings! On YouTube, I periodically made competitions based on your game: I took the custom_battle_data file from one player and the second, connected them and fought for both ships in turn. Compared, it was interesting.
This file is now encrypted. I understand your reasons, but could you make it possible to exchange ships and / or squadrons between players? At least in the form of a line of code and it is possible to copy it into the game or something else. This is sorely lacking. I understand that for many this is nonsense, but nevertheless. Please! 🙂

[The PC Collector]

8 minutes ago, Karlchen said:

That's why they called decisive battles I think

How does this exactly invalidate the opinion of most of the community that they should be rare event battles and not the everyday battle you get every single turn? Besides, even for keeping them as even battles there is still the problem that the game's engine struggles to make battles with more than 70-80 ships work decently even on high specs computers.

[o Barão]

4 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

How does this exactly invalidate the opinion of most of the community that they should be rare event battles and not the everyday battle you get every single turn?

Simple.

You said, and I quote:

"The number of ships which can be put on a task force need a hard cap"

This remove any possibility of having decisive battles.

 

If you had instead advocated for better AI task forces managements, or better, to implement mechanics to encourage split the forces, from both the AI and the player across the campaign map, that would sound a lot better.

 

I will share 2 ideas how this could be solved, but first we need to understand the current limitations in UAD about sea control and economic power. In UAD, the country GDP Is not tied to individual ports. In the same simplified way, the blockade mechanic is related to sea regions, but not individual ports. Also, there are no trade routes. Let's focus on this two.

 

- Instead of having the need to create a power projection unbalance in a sea region to create a blockade, why don't we have individual port blockades?

• The enemy have multiple ports in a region.
• I could move a fleet to one of the ports to start the blockade.
• That port will immediately would be under blockade next turn if the enemy fail to challenge my sea control in the area.
• Now you and the AI already have a good reason to split forces.
• The port tonnage capacity value would influence the country GDP according to the total ports tonnage capacity value of that nation. This is an arcade solution to make things easier to understand for the player when reading the campaign map. As an example, I will use round values in the following example to make it easier to understand.  A nation have a total  1.000.000 tons capacity from all the ports. If there is one port with 100.000 tons capacity, having that port under blockade, would influence the GDP of that country in 10%. Now the port tonnage is no more a value about how many ships you can have there, but is also a value to represent the economic power of that area.  With this simple change, now we have valuable targets and second rate targets in the campaign map. Much more interesting and realistic, right?

-To create the need to protect and raid commerce routes far away.

• For the players that played "total war" games, this will be easy to understand.
• There are trade routes generated automatically, coming from the ports to friendly or neutral ports or the nation colony ports.
• This will be trade lines in the ocean map connecting both destinations. (each nation trade route, can have a different color to make it easier to see in the map)
• The trade route can be raided anywhere where it travels. As an example. Let's say you are playing with the English. You have colonies in India. You automatically have trade routes in the Indian Ocean coming to Europe all the way to England. The AI can dispatch small forces to raid your trade routes in the Indian Ocean region.
• If the fleet raiding a trade route is not defeated, it will sink some transports every few turns and will add a small GDP negative modifier to the country that owns that sea route.
• Now both you and the AI have another reason why to split forces. To protect and raid trades routes far away.
• This also have the side effect of creating the need to have cheap but with long range ships (light cruisers and heavy cruisers) to protect or raid trade routes far away from the home ports.

*Colony ports are all ports in a nation from a different world map region.

So in conclusion, with this two ideas, now both the player and the AI have a good reason to split forces.

 

[Eirchirfir]

12 minutes ago, o Barão said:

If you had instead advocated for better AI task forces managements, or better, to implement mechanics to encourage split the forces, from both the AI and the player across the campaign map, that would sound a lot better.

Indead. This is baddly needed as I have NEVER seen the AI split a taskforce by its own will. The only time AI taskforces gets smaller is if ships needs repair or are sunk. Allowing the AI to split taskforces is the first step to make doomstacks rarer.

I would also try to have it so the AI will make taskforces around the same amount of tonnage as the average player taskforce. This tonnage amount could be greater if playing harder diffeculties. So let say the average amount of tonnage in a player taskforce is 30000t, then the AI will make taskforces around 30000t (Normal), 45000t (Hard) or 60000t (Legedary). Note that the AI should also try to at the same time as matching the players tonnage should it try to match divations from the average tonnage. As an example of this, let say the player has a lot of smaller taskforces with a few bigger once then the AI should aslo use a lot of smaller taskforces with a few bigger once. If the player is not deploying taskforces then the AI should try to match the average BB tongae with 1-2BB (Normal), 2-3BB (Hard) or 3-4BB (Legedary).

The calculations for average tonnage should be done after the player hit next turn but before AI movement and battle genration to allow the AI to react to player movment.

53 minutes ago, o Barão said:

- Instead of having the need to create a power projection unbalance in a sea region to create a blockade, why don't we have individual port blockades?

• The enemy have multiple ports in a region.
• I could move a fleet to one of the ports to start the blockade.
• That port will immediately would be under blockade next turn if the enemy fail to challenge my sea control in the area.
• Now you and the AI already have a good reason to split forces.
• The port tonnage capacity value would influence the country GDP according to the total ports tonnage capacity value of that nation. This is an arcade solution to make things easier to understand for the player when reading the campaign map. As an example, I will use round values in the following example to make it easier to understand.  A nation have a total  1.000.000 tons capacity from all the ports. If there is one port with 100.000 tons capacity, having that port under blockade, would influence the GDP of that country in 10%. Now the port tonnage is no more a value about how many ships you can have there, but is also a value to represent the economic power of that area.  With this simple change, now we have valuable targets and second rate targets in the campaign map. Much more interesting and realistic, right?

This sounds like a good idea which I can support. It could also be intresting if a blockaded port can no longer repair ships due to bombarment from blockading fleet. It should create insentive to try and keep some ships active to insure that no port gets blockaded.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

-To create the need to protect and raid commerce routes far away.

• For the players that played "total war" games, this will be easy to understand.
• There are trade routes generated automatically, coming from the ports to friendly or neutral ports or the nation colony ports.
• This will be trade lines in the ocean map connecting both destinations. (each nation trade route, can have a different color to make it easier to see in the map)
• The trade route can be raided anywhere where it travels. As an example. Let's say you are playing with the English. You have colonies in India. You automatically have trade routes in the Indian Ocean coming to Europe all the way to England. The AI can dispatch small forces to raid your trade routes in the Indian Ocean region.
• If the fleet raiding a trade route is not defeated, it will sink some transports every few turns and will add a small GDP negative modifier to the country that owns that sea route.
• Now both you and the AI have another reason why to split forces. To protect and raid trades routes far away.
• This also have the side effect of creating the need to have cheap but with long range ships (light cruisers and heavy cruisers) to protect or raid trade routes far away from the home ports.

This is also a good idea. Currently the only way to passively raid convoys is to have good power projection at a sea region and have a port in the same sea region. Having a system like this whould be better. It could also be points on a trade route were  a taskforce there whould be sufficent to blockade severale ports from the outside world. Points like this could be around Gibralter, Suez, Gothenburg and Bari were there are not a lot sea between diffrent landmasses.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

*Colony ports are all ports in a nation from a different world map region.

I whould say a colony port whould be a port not connected to a nations heartland by land so the brits whould hve problem if taskforces was able to get into the irish sea and strated raiding there.  

[o Barão]

54 minutes ago, Eirchirfir said:

I whould say a colony port whould be a port not connected to a nations heartland by land so the brits whould hve problem if taskforces was able to get into the irish sea and strated raiding there.  

Yes, that is a better definition of what a colony port could be in game

[Pizzafighter]

4 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Have you tried to add the crew manually? The add crew works... a bit erratically, in my experience.

you mean, klick on the ship in the fleet and then click on "add crew"? Yes, I tried this

[jtjohn1]

I am curious as to why the same ship type in the same port is costing twice as much (Not over the limit) as it's sister ship?  Why the same ships from port to port (Making sure to keep under the max tonnage for a port) have such HUGE disparity in cost.

[The PC Collector]

30 minutes ago, Pizzafighter said:

you mean, klick on the ship in the fleet and then click on "add crew"? Yes, I tried this

No, I mean going to the "set crew" button and seeting the crew manually.

 

 

3 hours ago, o Barão said:

 

If you had instead advocated for better AI task forces managements, or better, to implement mechanics to encourage split the forces, from both the AI and the player across the campaign map, that would sound a lot better.

 

I will share 2 ideas how this could be solved, but first we need to understand the current limitations in UAD about sea control and economic power. In UAD, the country GDP Is not tied to individual ports. In the same simplified way, the blockade mechanic is related to sea regions, but not individual ports. Also, there are no trade routes. Let's focus on this two.

 

- Instead of having the need to create a power projection unbalance in a sea region to create a blockade, why don't we have individual port blockades?

• The enemy have multiple ports in a region.
• I could move a fleet to one of the ports to start the blockade.
• That port will immediately would be under blockade next turn if the enemy fail to challenge my sea control in the area.
• Now you and the AI already have a good reason to split forces.
• The port tonnage capacity value would influence the country GDP according to the total ports tonnage capacity value of that nation. This is an arcade solution to make things easier to understand for the player when reading the campaign map. As an example, I will use round values in the following example to make it easier to understand.  A nation have a total  1.000.000 tons capacity from all the ports. If there is one port with 100.000 tons capacity, having that port under blockade, would influence the GDP of that country in 10%. Now the port tonnage is no more a value about how many ships you can have there, but is also a value to represent the economic power of that area.  With this simple change, now we have valuable targets and second rate targets in the campaign map. Much more interesting and realistic, right?

-To create the need to protect and raid commerce routes far away.

• For the players that played "total war" games, this will be easy to understand.
• There are trade routes generated automatically, coming from the ports to friendly or neutral ports or the nation colony ports.
• This will be trade lines in the ocean map connecting both destinations. (each nation trade route, can have a different color to make it easier to see in the map)
• The trade route can be raided anywhere where it travels. As an example. Let's say you are playing with the English. You have colonies in India. You automatically have trade routes in the Indian Ocean coming to Europe all the way to England. The AI can dispatch small forces to raid your trade routes in the Indian Ocean region.
• If the fleet raiding a trade route is not defeated, it will sink some transports every few turns and will add a small GDP negative modifier to the country that owns that sea route.
• Now both you and the AI have another reason why to split forces. To protect and raid trades routes far away.
• This also have the side effect of creating the need to have cheap but with long range ships (light cruisers and heavy cruisers) to protect or raid trade routes far away from the home ports.

*Colony ports are all ports in a nation from a different world map region.

So in conclusion, with this two ideas, now both the player and the AI have a good reason to split forces.

This looks beautiful. But we both know it won't be happening anytime soon. And until then, to keep the game on decent level of playability, we need the task force limit. Decisive battles can be implemented via events.

And your idea has a few flaws:

-I'm AH. Only have three ports, which can easily be protected from a single place. Which reason do I have (either as a player or as an AI) to split my forces?

- For the commerce protection stuff, we need first the "convoy raid" and "convoy protection" roles to become a thing. And considering they have been asked for since... 1.03, I think? I doubt if they ever will appear.

Other option, however, would be making that the maintenance of ships at sea raise exponentially as the size of the task force grows. This won't prevent decisive battles every now and then, but would make keeping large blobs of ships at the sea at all times not viable.

And before you keep criticising me, Your idea is good. But things like that take time to be done. And meanwhile, we need short term solutions (like for example the placeholder diplomacy we have right now) to keep the game playable. The hard cap on task forces would fall into that category.

Edited July 31, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Skeksis]

12 hours ago, Urst said:

You are, quite literally, the only person who thinks this

Except for the Dev’s!

How easy would it be to code at 10 ships each? But they haven’t. 30-40 ships per side is the peak of players skills, to what the game can challenge the player.

The game is simply not going to limit itself to a few comfortable tasks, lets say 10 ships each, that would be ludicrous. E.g. a turn of 3-4 meetings of 30-40 ships each split into 12-15 battles (all straggle battles), That would be an endless series of battles per turn, endless rinse and repeats, no thank you.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

Quote

This remove any possibility of having decisive battles.

And remove Jutland.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Skeksis

[Vinrellren]

Anyone know why either the AI or the player gets like 500 VP per turn? Both did not sunk a transport or even engaged in battle, it just adds passively per turn. Gets annoying when each battle I won just got below 500VP , the enemy still have more VP passively per month than I do (Happens when enemy fleet literally demolished so there are nothing I can destroy)

The armor nerf almost feels like nothing, the AI still design a BB with 10 inch armor in 1920 and still use an old dreadnought design. I think the only solution is to improve the AI rather than nerfing player's build ship.

Death Stack is getting annoying, it used to be fun engaging 100+ ships but the more I get that the more annoying and tedious it is. Please set a max cap on how many ships and tonnage can go in a single battle and maybe use the radio/RDF tech to increase the max cap or something.

RADAR,SONAR,Radio fixes are Godsend. I don't mind spending more money (which I have Hundreds of Billions) in exchange of lower tonnage.

[Skeksis]

And the tally's just keep going up and up and up...

[Werwaz]

19 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

And the tally's just keep going up and up and up...

when will it hit 2k?

[Skeksis]

5 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

when will it hit 2k?

At a guess, next weekend. 🤞

[AdmiralObvious]

7 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis about the new citadel mechanics, I have one question.

Why AP shells not capable of penetrating the citadel are able to deal damage to the engines?

 

The experiment:

Player ship

• 22.9 cm belt
• 22.5 cm 1st inner belt
• 18 cm 2nd Inner belt

AI ship

• spawns at 2 km distance
• the guns are only able to penetrate around 30 cm at 2 km away (+/-)

• The AI have a low penetration chance.
• The combat log shows many partial pens. In theory, the shells should be able to defeat the armor belt and cause damage. The damage report shows that is causing considerable damage to the player ship. This is all fine.

• The many partial pens.

But if the shells are defeating the armored belt and causing damage, but are unable to defeat the citadel. Why is the engine being damaged?

Out of curiosity, does that ship have the blacked out Citadel bug I posted earlier before the rant about capping ship count?

Edited July 31, 2022 by AdmiralObvious
Spelling

[AdmiralObvious]

I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of decisive battle here. The issue is that it happens far too frequently, and that it seriously bogs down the game performance. You can have a beast of a PC, and when the game decides to send all 415 of the AIs ships at you simultaneously, against your fleet of 200, the game basically does not run.

[The PC Collector]

9 minutes ago, AdmiralObvious said:

I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of decisive battle here. The issue is that it happens far too frequently, and that it seriously bogs down the game performance. You can have a beast of a PC, and when the game decides to send all 415 of the AIs ships at you simultaneously, against your fleet of 200, the game basically does not run.

Exactly this. I'm not against decisive battles. I'm against having one or two every single turn as soon as the AI gets to 200+ ships (which is not hard)

I'm all for good, detailed ideas to solve that. But in the meantime, an stopgap fix is needed to keep the game playable. And the easiest stopgap fix is hardcapping task forces UNTIL the AI learns proper fleet management.

[o Barão]

10 minutes ago, AdmiralObvious said:

against your fleet of 200, the game basically does not run.

You are not making things easier. What would you expect to happen when you sail with a 200 fleet? The AI will react to this. 

 

The issue with doomstacks is related to players sailing in regular fleet size and suddenly facing the entire enemy fleet without any good explanation.

15 minutes ago, AdmiralObvious said:

Out of curiosity, does that ship have the blacked out Citadel bug I posted earlier before the rant about capping ship count?

I saw your post about the citadel. But no, until now I never noticed that issue in my games.

[jtjohn1]

There is something screwy with the economy right now (At least I am experiencing it)  I have my merchant's maxed out.  I am at war.  I built 98K Ton BBs that are costing 27 million a month when at sea and I can only afford to have ~6 at sea during wartime at any one moment (And that's with the rest of my fleet in being in port)

What has made the costs go up so high so fast?  If this is intentional can we at least get rid of the penalty when I put ships in mothballs of their crews loosing all of their experience (Even though I have the crew slider between 75% and maxed out) 

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

 

And your idea has a few flaws:

Ok, let's see what are them.

-I'm AH. Only have three ports, which can easily be protected from a single place. Which reason do I have (either as a player or as an AI) to split my forces?

I suspect you are talking about the access to the Adriatic Sea. Well, you are incorrect for different reasons.

1. In UAD, current state, to have a fleet parked in a choke point doesn't make any difference, so you still need to split forces to protect your ports.
2. If choke points are fixed in the future, then if you go with war with Italy, this will be irrelevant since Italy also have access to the Adriatic Sea. You could try to block the Italian ports and also block the access to the Adriatic Sea, but in this case you are already splitting your forces, so is all good.
3. What is your objective playing with the A-H? Is only to survive until 1950? Is that a win for you? In that case, yes, you can play the campaign with a few fleets. But if you are going to win wars and expand your empire, then sooner or later you will have more ports to defend, and with this you will need to split your forces.
4.  It seems you didn't understand my idea about trade routes. Yes, you can park all your forces inside the Adriatic Sea, however, all your trades routes coming from neutral, friendly and colony ports (if you have any) will be undefended against commerce raiders. So again, you will always have a good reason to split your forces.

- For the commerce protection stuff, we need first the "convoy raid" and "convoy protection" roles to become a thing.

There is one important detail I should mention. In my idea to add trade routes and the changes how blockade works, there are no fleet roles. Why? Well because we don't need them. For anything really.

• You want to raid a trade route? Simply move any fleet to anywhere along the enemy trade route path.
• You want to protect your trade route? Simply move your fleets to engage the enemy fleets that are raiding your trade routes.
• You want to blockade an enemy port? Move your fleet to the port area.
• You want to attack an enemy port? Simply click in the enemy port with your fleet selected.

Instead of having the RNG system that we have atm in UAD, we would have direct control of what is happening.

And before you keep criticising me, Your idea is good. But things like that take time to be done.

I am not. It is normal to have different opinions. I like to have hardcore, realistic simulations where the AI can challenge me. Other players prefer to have arcade, simple mechanics just to play and relax. The devs need to know what they want. We can only debate and share ideas to them.

 

 

[Pizzafighter]

4 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

No, I mean going to the "set crew" button and seeting the crew manually.

Ah, I somehow overlooked this, thank you, this worked

[Pizzafighter]

2 hours ago, AdmiralObvious said:

I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of decisive battle here. The issue is that it happens far too frequently, and that it seriously bogs down the game performance. You can have a beast of a PC, and when the game decides to send all 415 of the AIs ships at you simultaneously, against your fleet of 200, the game basically does not run.

Oh it will run, with one frame every hour, but it will run xD

Maybe we could just get a slide bar where we can set a limit of ships per divison. Maybe start with about 10 and give players, who want it, the ability to set it to unlimited.

I mean, there are nearly 2.000 players out there, some of them don't like such huge battles and prefer smaller ones (like me, battles with such huge fleets are a micro management hell for me) and others, like some we heard here, like them, so why destroy their fun of the game? I can't imagine that it would be so hard to implement but every player would be happy with it.

and if somewhen in the futre maybe a multiplayer will be introduces (I absolutly hope for it, it would make this game so much better if there is a possibility to play the campain with friends), then someone opens the game and is the host, wich gives the settings like dificulty and, if implemented, max size of divisions.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Pizzafighter