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

[Airzerg]

Уважаемые джентльмены-разработчики должны подумать о найме специалиста по управлению проектами, потому что у вас даже нет дорожной карты! А еще вам нужен программист, который разбирается в принципах построения кампаний в стратегических играх. Вы создали конструктор кораблей, он более или менее работает. Математика и физика на месте. Но тогда у вас полный провал. Дипломатия не работает, экономика не работает, исследования не работают. В кампании ничего не работает! Вы создаете ошибки и исправляете их новыми ошибками. Может быть, ваша команда изменилась? То, что происходит сейчас, полностью отличается от того, что происходило два года назад. Мне кажется, что люди, которые сейчас делают игру, просто не знают, с чего она началась.

[Urst]

7 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

Ehrm... I'm at 1930 and my newest, state of the art BB takes 28 months to build. No navy in the world would keep a ship which they would take three years to reactivate, they would simply scrap it and build a new one. Reactivation time should be a 10% of the build time of the ship, tops.

They could in the 1800s, and by the 1930s you have much better technology than they do in the 1800s. The theoretical 3 years is assuming at least 20 years in mothball with the worst technology you can have.

 

7 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

And your economy will sink because of the cost of the reactivation, which will be impossible to assume without war income.

You must be bad at managing your economy, then. I have my entire navy, which has handily beaten France and Britain at the same time, active at all times and still have at least a positive growth while tech is set to no less than 80% funding and building enough new transports to maintain 200% at all times.

[The PC Collector]

38 minutes ago, Urst said:

You must be bad at managing your economy, then.

Or you might be cheating, then. Right now is not possible, or at least very difficult, to keep a fleet of more than 20-30 ships active on peacetime income, as more people besides me have provided evidence. I really can't stand people like you whose only reply for game issues is "git gud". Sometimes there are REAL issues, despite what you might think.

Edited August 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Urst]

39 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Or you might be cheating, then. Right now is not possible, or at least very difficult, to keep a fleet of more than 20-30 ships active on peacetime income, as more people besides me have provided evidence. I really can't stand people like you whose only reply for game issues is "git gud". Sometimes there are REAL issues, despite what you might think.

I'm not cheating. Don't insult someone like that just because you're bad at the game.
In 1900 I have 8 battleships and 28 heavy cruisers, and in peacetime, I maintain a positive income of ~1 million, which only goes up over time because I'm good at managing my economy and technology.

Also: why would I cheat when:
A: that doesn't help the devs solve problems and
B: it's an easy game that doesn't require any cheating to succeed.
The only gameplay for the campaign is economy and research management. If I wanted the battles then I'd just play custom battles and not bother cheating. Cheating for either tech or econ just removes the only thing that's actually in the campaign at the moment.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Urst

[Nick Thomadis]

6 hours ago, Vinrellren said:

I agree that right now maintanance cost are absurd. Usually I can maintain 20 BBs (average BB, not that great) with around 30 to 40 escorts (DD/CL) or around 10 well designed BBs and similar amount of escorts just fine. Now I am even struggling to maintain a 4 well designed and expensive BBs with no escort at all while playing germany 1920.

I build 20 of the state of the art BBs and now 16 of them on Mothballed without any chance to ever fight a battle, in addition to the fact that maintaining this 4 BBs has made me bankrupt twice, reactivating one of my BBs immediately puts me in negative although at war budget (8% naval budget) and as @The PC Collectorsaid, it took soo much time that I rather scrap the BB and build a new (arguably better) one.

Here I am struggling to maintain a positive monthly with 4 BB's. I have 2 Billion in funds but let's see how that holds if I try to reactivate all of my BB's (20 BB)

Voila! Now I am down 552 MILLION PER MONTH! So within 4 months all of my 9 years of saving (and two war reparation) just gone... reduced to atoms. All of my BBs need 13 MONTHS to reactivate leaving me no chance to actually reactive all my BBs. 

 

Never thought UAD will simulate 1929 Great Depression (Economy goes brrrr)

You can also see, I sunk a lot of the AI fleet (which after this update only hovers around 60-70 ships, only the british can maintain 100+ ships) that they spent a lot of money in building and maintaning new ships which resulted in their tech lagging behind and make the AI easier to beat (This is on hard difficulty).

 

AI building a new ships is an excellent change, but they always focus on building smaller classes
(Look at those CLs and CAs)

This made the game so much easier, by just build a BB's or a BC's that has a small turning circle and have big guns and all of those fancy ships will sank without too much trouble for us.

 

So, what I can say is that there must be a economy rework and probably maintanance cost rework.

Research focus button are too powerfull (Heck even 100% research budget in this update is too strong)

We can easily beat the AI by just researching the best tech early and proceed to build an overpowered battleship/Heavy cruisers and proceed to annihilate the entire AI fleet.

The player should not try to have the same amount of ships with the AI, and each ship to cost 4x more. The campaign is not supposed to be won with 20 super battleships that can switch from zero maintenance to normal maintenance whenever player wants to. It is not realistic, it is not proper.

If the AI manages its economy in Normal Difficulty then the player should also do it. The player should not try to maximize everything and complain if there is no money with max. everything.

There is no cheat for AI except extra money in the higher difficulties. If players become happy by playing with the mothball feature each turn, enabling their overpowered BB instantly while their damaged ones are in repair, everyone should see this as an exploitation and not complain if this exploitation stopped to exist.

[Kiknurazz91]

This is why I only play custom battles 🙂

[Grayknight]

52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The player should not try to have the same amount of ships with the AI, and each ship to cost 4x more. The campaign is not supposed to be won with 20 super battleships that can switch from zero maintenance to normal maintenance whenever player wants to. It is not realistic, it is not proper.

If the AI manages its economy in Normal Difficulty then the player should also do it. The player should not try to maximize everything and complain if there is no money with max. everything.

There is no cheat for AI except extra money in the higher difficulties. If players become happy by playing with the mothball feature each turn, enabling their overpowered BB instantly while their damaged ones are in repair, everyone should see this as an exploitation and not complain if this exploitation stopped to exist.

If shipyard tech is added and things like cost and time of taking ship out off storage is dependent on IT themln i 💯 agree with the change

[Vinrellren]

Ah even if I use the usual style (Little to no BBs, only BC CA CL and DD) I just cannot maintain all the ships. I am forced to use less technologicaly advance ships although there are more advance technology on my disposal.

The AI now have less ships that usually one major battle would be deceisive enough for the AI to sue for peace, but usually the AI only send 1 to 3 ships at times.

 

[Grayknight]

@Nick Thomadisif shipyard increased ship maytanance and ship logistics techs are added i am all for increased maintanance.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Grayknight
Autocorrect on the phone

[Urst]

7 minutes ago, Grayknight said:

@Nick Thomadisif shipyard increased ship maytanance and ship logistics techs are added i am all for increased maintanance.

 

53 minutes ago, Grayknight said:

If shipyard tech is added and things like cost and time of taking ship out off storage is dependent on IT themln i 💯 agree with the change

There're too many techs already. These should be rolled into currently existing techs, and make it so that you can get more than one thing per tech level advancement.

[ZorinW]

7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The player should not try to have the same amount of ships with the AI, and each ship to cost 4x more. The campaign is not supposed to be won with 20 super battleships that can switch from zero maintenance to normal maintenance whenever player wants to. It is not realistic, it is not proper.

If the AI manages its economy in Normal Difficulty then the player should also do it. The player should not try to maximize everything and complain if there is no money with max. everything.

There is no cheat for AI except extra money in the higher difficulties. If players become happy by playing with the mothball feature each turn, enabling their overpowered BB instantly while their damaged ones are in repair, everyone should see this as an exploitation and not complain if this exploitation stopped to exist.

Just to be clear, you don't want players to be able to recreate historically accurate ship numbers?

If I want to recreate the Hochseeflotte of 1914 with their 17 dreadnoughts I would be broke and lost my campaign after one month.

 

Let's face the facts here. We as your beta testers are here to help you with our feedback and our feedback is: You can't teach the AI to build proper ships, to refit ships properly or maintain a sensible decommissioning routine.

Just look at these 1920 BC/CA/CL the AI came up with:

Edited August 18, 2022 by ZorinW
Added pictures

[Rucki]

9 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Just to be clear, you don't want players to be able to recreate historically accurate ship numbers?

If I want to recreate the Hochseeflotte of 1914 with their 17 dreadnoughts I would be broke and lost my campaign after one month.

 

Let's face the facts here. We as your beta testers are here to help you with our feedback and our feedback is: You can't teach the AI to build proper ships, to refit ships properly or maintain a sensible decommissioning routine.

Just look at these 1920 BC/CA/CL the AI came up with(FIX THE IMAGE UPLOAD ON THIS FORUM PLEASE):

https://bilderupload.org/bild/84f735204-uad-ai-bc

https://bilderupload.org/bild/7c7835665-uad-ai-ca

https://bilderupload.org/bild/822735684-uad-ai-cl

The Hochseeflotte with its 17 useless Dreadnoughts was a big part of the reason why Germany got bankrupt towards the end of the war, without archieving anything with that costly asset. 

So maybe the game is quite realistic on that case.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Rucki

[Dave P.]

IMO maintenance costs aren't too high, it's just hard to positively influence your GDP growth.

It would be nice if older, smaller, less expensive hulls would remain available/buildable for those of us who happen to be playing a poor country.

[o Barão]

19 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

FIX THE IMAGE UPLOAD ON THIS FORUM PLEASE

Try Imgur. Works fine.

[ZorinW]

11 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Try Imgur. Works fine.

Tried it, doesn't work.

[ZorinW]

24 minutes ago, Rucki said:

The Hochseeflotte with its 17 useless Dreadnoughts was a big part of the reason why Germany got bankrupt towards the end of the war, without archieving anything with that costly asset. 

So maybe the game is quite realistic on that case.

And the Royal Navy with their 29 dreadnoughts? Honestly, why bother when you have no point?

[o Barão]

2 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Tried it, doesn't work.

Works for me very well. It is very easy and quick. No registration needed.

[ZorinW]

28 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Works for me very well. It is very easy and quick. No registration needed.

Neither embedded link nore "Insert image from URL" work for me.

[o Barão]

10 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Neither embedded link nore "Insert image from URL" work for me.

Try this simple method. It is the one that works for me.

Upload the images you want.

But now instead of embedded link nore "Insert image from URL" you simply right-click the image you want and open in a new tab.

Now you just copy the address link and post in the forum as a regular text.

The only thing important to remember is the image address must start with https://i.imgur.com/xxxxxxxx

If you see BLOB or something like that in the address, is because the image is still not available. In that case, close the tab and reopen the image you want in a new tab again. Usually only takes a few seconds.

[ZorinW]

28 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Try this simple method. It is the one that works for me.

Upload the images you want.

But now instead of embedded link nore "Insert image from URL" you simply right-click the image you want and open in a new tab.

Now you just copy the address link and post in the forum as a regular text.

The only thing important to remember is the image address must start with https://i.imgur.com/xxxxxxxx

If you see BLOB or something like that in the address, is because the image is still not available. In that case, close the tab and reopen the image you want in a new tab again. Usually only takes a few seconds.

Thanks! That worked!

[Kiknurazz91]

Invalid design in custom battle no matter what I do! Cant upload pictures because of the stupid ass file size limit here even though I have cropped the photo down as far as it would go!

[o Barão]

4 minutes ago, Kiknurazz91 said:

 

Invalid design in custom battle no matter what I do!

Try this.

Cant upload pictures because of the stupid ass file size limit here even though I have cropped the photo down as far as it would go!

Use Imgur to upload the images. I mentioned in a post above a simple method to upload and post the images here.

[The PC Collector]

6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The player should not try to have the same amount of ships with the AI, and each ship to cost 4x more.

In my current campaign I have 23 BB. Only 2 are of comparable cost of the ones the AI are making like if they were donuts  (111 M the british one for 122 mine) The rest are older refited ships which have a cost which range from 30 to 60% of that cost. Half of them (10, to be more precise) are even AI captured 22K T dreadnoughts.

Same goes for all my other classes, where only a small chunk of them are the newest , expensive techs. Are you really telling us this is not reasonable as a Major power fleet, and that we are expected to fight on a global map on upcoming updates with 40-50? ships fleet?

Or this is a plan to force us to reduce tech funding to levels where the AI doesn't lag behind, once again limiting players instead of improving the AI?

Edited August 18, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Panzergraf]

In my current British campaign (starting year 1900, now 1935) I'm doing a gimmick where I make each new design on a restricted budget.
What I do is I have the auto designer roll up 5 designs on the hull I want to build a new ship on, and then average out the cost.
So if I want to make a new modernized Dreadnought, the 5 auto designs might cost 90 million, 110m, 120m, 80m, and 100m, for an average of 100m.
Then I reduce that cost by 20%, so my budget for the new design will be 80 million.

I've found that by reducing beam, draft, and size, I can still get som very good ships within that budget.
When it comes to refits, I take the cost of the existing ship I'm refitting, comparing it to the cost of a newer comparable ship, and splitting the difference.

However, my ships are still better and more expensive than the enemy ships. This is in large because I've focused my research more towards battleship and cruiser related tech, foregoing torpedo stuff.

My enemies often have more expensive DD's, and better torpedoes, but that hardly seems to matter. My 10m gunboat DD's are still picking enemy 15m torpedospammers apart, then burning down capital ships without breaking a sweat.
They weren't even designed to burn down BB's, they just happen to be really good at it.

I think the tech priority is too OP at the moment, as the AI just doesn't seem to use it. Yes, I'm lagging behind them in certain tech branches, but many of those aren't even in the game yet (like the submarine and mine stuff) so it doesn't matter. I currently have radar III, none of the 3 AI nations (AH split apart early on) have even radar 1 yet. This is one of many things giving me a massive and frankly unfair advantage.

Deck armour is one of the areas I've had to reduce to keep my "cheap" ships under budget and under the displacement limit of their shrunken hulls, so once the enemy gets radar and I start taking really long range fire in return, I might face a bit of a challenge.

Suggestions:
-Reduce the effect of tech research priorities.
-Discourage the AI from using outdated tech in their ships (still seeing new ships with Krupp 1, and very recently even Harvey!), especially when I know they have better stuff researched.
-As long as long guns are vastly superior to short guns (they still are), AI designs should use long guns more and short guns never.
-The AI gets more money on legendary difficulty, but it seems I get more as well? Ideally high/low funds should be a separate selection, so on high funds the base GDP of each nation is much higher, while higher difficulties multiply enemy GDP further rellative to player GDP.
-Reduce small guns' effectiveness at burning down capital ships.
-Make torpedoes a bit more effective again, or at least give the AI the memo that torps were nerfed many patches ago and they shouldn't keep focusing their ships around them.

 

[The PC Collector]

For the record, I don't mind having to do more contained budgets ships, I even welcome the challenge. But forcing an update like this into an stable build... just NO. This is for what the beta branch is.

Edited August 18, 2022 by The PC Collector