Werwaz Posted July 29, 2022 Share Posted July 29, 2022 54 minutes ago, o Barão said: So let's digest what it means: My ships are much superior in comparison to the AI. One key aspect to the superiority in my designs is how well armored my capital ships. My ships are so well armored that a few of them can sink entire enemy fleets without any chance of counter-play. I don't care if the armor values are unrealistic, it works great, so in conclusion I am right in what I am doing. So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options. option A: All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor. Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI. Quality over quantity, right? And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs. Or we can have the other option... option B: Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers. Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty. Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL. So what will be your choice? - To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do? - To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values? The first point makes sense. However, the logic begins to fall apart from there. My capital ships are indeed better protected than their AI counterparts, however that is only one of many notable advantages of player designs to AI designs, notably better module selection, better weight offset margins, better optimized guns, better gun layout, better engine efficiency, etc. I hardly have seen a ship capable of soloing entire fleets, notably because the only ships capable of carrying 20+ inch belts and 10+ inch decks with any decent firepower and speed (notably USA, UK, and France super BBs) all have below average resistances, and can die to HE and torp spam (favorite tactics if the AI). Option A actually doesn't sound that bad, considering that the entirety of UAD is fantasy, since most super BBs in game are 1.5 to 2 times the displacement of Yamato, 70k ton 1920s dreadnoughts exist, and pre dreadnoughts can be built to rival most early dreadnoughts in displacement. As for the "fantasy BS designs", battleships are supposed to be hard to sink. if they are put down after taking only a few hits like most AI clown cars, that design is bad. Simply put, I would rather see the AI build more challenging ships rather than have myself handicapped because the Artificial Stupidity can't design at least a mediocre ship. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, o Barão said: So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options. option A: All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor. Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI. Quality over quantity, right? And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs. Or we can have the other option... option B: Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers. Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty. Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL. So what will be your choice? - To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do? - To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values? Option A should be the way to go. Make the AI make the best ships possible and let us deal with them. The other way of limiting the player so the AI can remain more competitive is the easy, lazy way. But we we don't need to go to the extremes. As we say in Spain, neither bald nor wearing three wigs. They should start slowly improving how the AI handles tech advancement. For example, making them make new designs each 3-4 years, and coding in that they have to use the newest hull available with maxed displacement, then making sure they can only build the newest design. That would be an excellent first step, that on its own would make the AI competitiveness to dramaticly improve, as one of the problems I've faced is that their ships are too small, and consecuently they have too little structure points. Edited July 30, 2022 by The PC Collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 33 minutes ago, Werwaz said: Option A actually doesn't sound that bad, considering that the entirety of UAD is fantasy, since most super BBs in game are 1.5 to 2 times the displacement of Yamato, 70k ton 1920s dreadnoughts exist, and pre dreadnoughts can be built to rival most early dreadnoughts in displacement. As for the "fantasy BS designs", battleships are supposed to be hard to sink. if they are put down after taking only a few hits like most AI clown cars, that design is bad. Simply put, I would rather see the AI build more challenging ships rather than have myself handicapped because the Artificial Stupidity can't design at least a mediocre ship. I subscribe this word by word. Impossible to express it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorinW Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 I just don't understand how you guys struggle with the weight. I can build a Bismarck (+more speed and more heavy secondaries) and still stay below her historical tonnage. Plus, four of them and six BCs I built in the 1920s were enough to sink 130 out of 160 ships (among them 23 BBs with up to 50,000t) in a 1937 battle vs. the British with minimal damage to my own fleet. So what do you need 90,000t BBs for?!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 47 minutes ago, ZorinW said: I just don't understand how you guys struggle with the weight. I can build a Bismarck (+more speed and more heavy secondaries) and still stay below her historical tonnage. Plus, four of them and six BCs I built in the 1920s were enough to sink 130 out of 160 ships (among them 23 BBs with up to 50,000t) in a 1937 battle vs. the British with minimal damage to my own fleet. So what do you need 90,000t BBs for?!? Is not the weight struggle on itself, at least for me. The reason why I'm against this change is because I'm afraid that if we as the community allow it to go through, it might mark the start of the devs going the easy path of making the AI more competitive by limiting what we as players can design and forcing us to make worse ships, instead of making the AI more competitive by improving how it designs and fights and so on. That's why this change, at least in my eyes, is VERY concerning. I've seen great sandbox building games ruined due to that (lack of real variety) and I wouldn't like to see this game destroyed that way. Edited July 30, 2022 by The PC Collector 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeksis Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, ZorinW said: I just don't understand how you guys struggle with the weight. I can build a Bismarck (+more speed and more heavy secondaries) and still stay below her historical tonnage. You've used the wrong hull, Modern Battleship I, it has different towers than the original Bismarck. Modern Battleship II, is the correct hull with correct towers. Edited July 30, 2022 by Skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted July 30, 2022 Author Share Posted July 30, 2022 Hello all, We have just deployed a necessary set of changes as per your recent feedback, which should surely improve your gameplay experience. https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3379406856640287599 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorinW Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 1 hour ago, Skeksis said: You've used the wrong hull, Modern Battle I, it has different towers than the original Bismarck. Modern Battle II, is the correct hull with correct towers. Fair point, still not a problem. Especially after the latest fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IshPR7777 Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 6 hours ago, o Barão said: You are comparing a multiplayer game to a single player game. I agree that there were many changes to NA that made many players angry. And truth be told, they were right in many situations. Farming woods for many hours and forcing the player to be part of a guild just to have a chance to build the ship they wanted, and suddenly a new patch is released and change all the meta? Many things to dislike. However, in single player game is not the same thing. First, let's not forget that we are still in EA. Every mechanic can be changed or improved, and I hope to see this happening until the game is released. Now the big difference is the fact you are playing a single player game with a campaign that can be played in a week or less. We have changes to the mechanics? So what? They are the same for you and the AI. You are not wasting hundreds of hours sailing from an island to another to farm woods in open sea afraid of being ganked. You are not afraid a new patch will drop and completely ruin hours of gameplay. Just go to the dockyard and spend a few minutes to design a new ship. Different realities. One thing doesn't apply to the other game. BINGO!! This is the key argument IMO. So let's digest what it means: My ships are much superior in comparison to the AI. One key aspect to the superiority in my designs is how well armored my capital ships. My ships are so well armored that a few of them can sink entire enemy fleets without any chance of counter-play. I don't care if the armor values are unrealistic, it works great, so in conclusion I am right in what I am doing. So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options. option A: All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor. Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI. Quality over quantity, right? And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs. Or we can have the other option... option B: Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers. Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty. Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL. So what will be your choice? - To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do? - To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values? Do I really have to choose one of these two options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeksis Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, ZorinW said: Fair point, still not a problem. Especially after the latest fix. LOL that's because it's just been hotfix. Edited July 30, 2022 by Skeksis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorinW Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, Skeksis said: LOL that's because it's just been hotfix. They didn't roll the change back completely, but adjusted it. Plus, I only used Krupp III, so there is still some weight to be safed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Okay, good to see that now balance pre dreds can be built again. But, something you need to fix soon, is that garbage of the AI asking for peace, you accepting, and the war continuing nonetheless. On my current war against France has happened now three times in a row. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Also, good to see that now ships behave like ships again and not like carousel horses. Good job on quickly addressing that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o Barão Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 @Nick Thomadis please take a look at these hulls. I removed all the fore and stern armor to make it easier to see the issue with the weight offset. I also placed the funnel in the best possible location. These are the results. Germany Battleship I hull. In this hull, there is also a big issue with the central main gun placement. The moment we get the mark2 variant, it will not be possible to fit any main gun in this position unless it is rotated outside to one side. It is possible to see that both the 9-inch and the 10-inch mark 2 variants can fit inside, with enough room to rotate both sides, but the game doesn't allow. Germany Battleship II hull. Russia Battleship V hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodaBit Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 I've got some design balance feedback here. It would seem that late game tech is a bit over the top, especially in regards to the "Speed/Firepower/Protection" trinity that has been the hallmark of ship design for the entire age of steel warships. Case is point:A 50,000 ton BC that can outrun an M1 Abrams. This thing has 335,255 Horsepower in 1932. It's got more armor than the Bismarck class BB's, and has only taken a side-grade with regards to firepower, swapping out 8 380mm guns for 12 350mm guns. If it was possible to mount 380's on the Modern BC Hull for Germany, I would, but that hasn't been the case since 1.05 beta so, as far as recreating Bismarck goes, you can get away with some pretty insane design options and not pay much in the good old trade-off trinity. You don't need to make an design sacrifices if you play your cards right, you can be not only a jack of all trades, but a master of all trades to boot. I get that this is a sandbox with which you can design your perfect ship, but being able to design a truly perfect ship each and every time might be a bit of an issue in the long run. God forbid we ever get multiplayer campaigns with this sort of balancing. It'd be a nightmare for anyone making historically accurate ships, that have actual drawbacks that have been implemented to allow a desired advantage in another area. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 @Nick Thomadis Okay, seriously, when do you plan to fix the issue with convoy raiding missions ending after you sink the escorts and not letting us chase down the TR, nor count them as destroyed despite their chances of running away from a warship being essentially none? Really, I can't believe that an issue like this which should not take more than 10 minutes to solve and has been reported since the Steam release has remained unresolved for nearly 8 months at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o Barão Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 @Nick Thomadisit seems there is an issue with towers in game atm. Correct me if I am wrong. But it appears the tower we choose will not make any difference to the accuracy values. In fact, it seems that in the current state, it is better to go with the lighter and cheaper version all the time. Hull base accuracy values. Let's add the best tower available. And we can see that will not make any difference to the base accuracy, aiming speed and long range accuracy modifiers. If we add range finder, RDF and radar, now we will see improvements. So the tower is an irrelevant component to the ship accuracy? It seems that there must be a UI bug, not updating. Let's look at another example. First, this hull is missing some accuracy penalties modifiers. That is strange. But there is no long range accuracy bonus in this hull. Let's add the best tower available with +9 long range accuracy. And we can see there is no difference to the long range accuracy values. So a UI bug or something else? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Also, about refits of captured ships... I've noticed that, in the fleet management screen, the "view" button say that "From here, you can also design refits of the ship". But this is not actually true, regardless of if the ship is captured or not, as the button is greyed out. This might have something to do with captured ships not being refittable? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) The bug in which if ship A gets close to another ship B which is being shot at, then ship A receives a 100% accuracy from the shots fired at ship B is still present. Edited July 30, 2022 by The PC Collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, The PC Collector said: Also, good to see that now ships behave like ships again and not like carousel horses. Good job on quickly addressing that. I must rescind this. The issue is still not fixed, or at leas it is only partially fixed. Sometimes the ships behave well, sometimes they still behave like carousel horses even on calm sea. Edited July 30, 2022 by The PC Collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PC Collector Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Someone else has noticed that if you use CM as measurement unit, the 5.9" or 149.9 mm guns become nominally 15 cm guns, just like germans did in real life? I just noticed and think it is a very nice detail for immersion. good job with that. Now just find some way of letting us have 380 mm guns instead of 381, and will be perfect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorinW Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, o Barão said: @Nick Thomadisit seems there is an issue with towers in game atm. Correct me if I am wrong. But it appears the tower we choose will not make any difference to the accuracy values. In fact, it seems that in the current state, it is better to go with the lighter and cheaper version all the time. Hull base accuracy values. Let's add the best tower available. And we can see that will not make any difference to the base accuracy, aiming speed and long range accuracy modifiers. If we add range finder, RDF and radar, now we will see improvements. So the tower is an irrelevant component to the ship accuracy? It seems that there must be a UI bug, not updating. Let's look at another example. First, this hull is missing some accuracy penalties modifiers. That is strange. But there is no long range accuracy bonus in this hull. Let's add the best tower available with +9 long range accuracy. And we can see there is no difference to the long range accuracy values. So a UI bug or something else? The Tower specs are listed under the Towers category on the right, but the UI simply doesn't tell you the full truth as their is no final listing for the combined gains and losses regarding for example base accuracy. I made a quick test with the Battleship I hull for 1890 in custom battle mode. TOWERS Front Tower I = +2% base accuracy Rear Tower I = +1.8% base accuracy => +3.8% base accuracy - 15% (crew skill 0) => +3.2% (shown by the UI under Towers accuracy) Smoke Interference 12.5 = -3.8% base accuracy TOWERS = - 0.6% base accuracy HULL Stability 60 = - 5% base accuracy Pitch 22 = -5.5% base accuracy Roll 16.6 = -4.1% base accuracy Beam 0 = -0.5% base accuracy Draught 0 = +0.6% base accuracy HULL = -14,5% base accuracy WEAPONS +1% (tech bonus) WEAPONS = +1% base accuracy Resulting base accuracy = -14.1% 229mm main guns 1000m AP accuracy = 16% Now swapping the Towers to MK V: TOWERS Front Tower V = +5% base accuracy Rear Tower V = +4.5% base accuracy => +9.5% base accuracy - 15% (crew skill 0) => +8.1% (shown by the UI under Towers accuracy) Smoke Interference 0.5 = -0.2% base accuracy TOWERS = +7.9 % base accuracy HULL Stability 60 = - 5% base accuracy Pitch 22 = -5.5% base accuracy Roll 16.6 = -4.1% base accuracy Beam 0 = -0.5% base accuracy Draught 0 = +0.6% base accuracy HULL = -14,5% base accuracy WEAPONS +1% (tech bonus) WEAPONS = +1% base accuracy Resulting base accuracy = -5.4% 229mm main guns 1000m AP accuracy = 17% So by swapping the towers you lose 8,7% base accuracy less off your guns base accuracy. Due to rounding that is the 1% difference between the 16% and 17% accuracy of the gun as displayed. This is why we need to see a proper summary tab that shows ALL gains and losses to the different ship stats. Not just some result hidden in a single value. Edited July 30, 2022 by ZorinW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o Barão Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 28 minutes ago, ZorinW said: The Tower specs are listed under the Towers category on the right, but the UI simply doesn't tell you the full truth as their is no final listing for the combined gains and losses regarding for example base accuracy. I made a quick test with the Battleship I hull for 1890 in custom battle mode. TOWERS Front Tower I = +2% base accuracy Rear Tower I = +1.8% base accuracy => +3.8% base accuracy - 15% (crew skill 0) => +3.2% (shown by the UI under Towers accuracy) Smoke Interference 12.5 = -3.8% base accuracy TOWERS = - 0.6% base accuracy HULL Stability 60 = - 5% base accuracy Pitch 22 = -5.5% base accuracy Roll 16.6 = -4.1% base accuracy Beam 0 = -0.5% base accuracy Draught 0 = +0.6% base accuracy HULL = -14,5% base accuracy WEAPONS +1% (tech bonus) WEAPONS = +1% base accuracy Resulting base accuracy = -14.1% 229mm main guns 1000m AP accuracy = 16% Now swapping the Towers to MK V: TOWERS Front Tower V = +5% base accuracy Rear Tower V = +4.5% base accuracy => +9.5% base accuracy - 15% (crew skill 0) => +8.1% (shown by the UI under Towers accuracy) Smoke Interference 0.5 = -0.2% base accuracy TOWERS = +7.9 % base accuracy HULL Stability 60 = - 5% base accuracy Pitch 22 = -5.5% base accuracy Roll 16.6 = -4.1% base accuracy Beam 0 = -0.5% base accuracy Draught 0 = +0.6% base accuracy HULL = -14,5% base accuracy WEAPONS +1% (tech bonus) WEAPONS = +1% base accuracy Resulting base accuracy = -5.4% 229mm main guns 1000m AP accuracy = 17% So by swapping the towers you lose 8,7% base accuracy less off your guns base accuracy. Due to rounding that is the 1% difference between the 16% and 17% accuracy of the gun as displayed. This is why we need to see a proper summary tab that shows ALL gains and losses to the different ship stats. Not just some result hidden in a single value. Ha!! Thank you! I completely miss that section. Many thanks!😉✌️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiknurazz91 Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Bug has come up in custom battle I chose German vs British a single BB duel. When finished with my design the launch button had the error indicator on it and stated I needed to select a ship of the required type. Even though I had the super BB hull selected. This just came up after last hotfix maybe a conflict in coding somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanhal Posted July 30, 2022 Share Posted July 30, 2022 Please extend the ship name lists. AI is building so many ships they just end up with numbers even for battleships. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts