>>> Beta 1.09 Feedback (Released)<<<

[Nascarboi22]

When I go into a CA vs CA battle and try to go back to the map it doesn’t work

[bshaftoe]

25 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

I don't expect a polished experience, but a development team that plays with open cards and ranks communication with their testers as an absolute priority.

You can't stop all communication for weeks and then hand us a beta that is 90% broken and expect us to not throw a tantrum.

I think that's a consequence of being a small team in a mid size company, with probably no one taking care of communication with community. I mean, I agree that the communication could be better and that dropping small posts to update us would be better, but I also think that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't like to do any extra job that the company should do for me. Especially because it's hard to draw the line where you stop working mainly on the coding/management side of it and end up working more time as a community manager.

Anyway, sorry if I was rude, didn't mean to tell you how to post or whatever.

[Zuikaku]

39 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

I don't expect a polished experience, but a development team that plays with open cards and ranks communication with their testers as an absolute priority.

You can't stop all communication for weeks and then hand us a beta that is 90% broken and expect us to not throw a tantrum.

Calm your nerves or return in a year when, hopefully, all the issues are going to be adressed!

[ZorinW]

27 minutes ago, bshaftoe said:

I think that's a consequence of being a small team in a mid size company, with probably no one taking care of communication with community. I mean, I agree that the communication could be better and that dropping small posts to update us would be better, but I also think that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't like to do any extra job that the company should do for me. Especially because it's hard to draw the line where you stop working mainly on the coding/management side of it and end up working more time as a community manager.

Anyway, sorry if I was rude, didn't mean to tell you how to post or whatever.

I didn't take it that way. Sorry if I made you feel that way.

Regarding the matter at hand I feel very strongly that it is within the responsibility of a development team to have a sufficient size that allows for filling all necessary posts including a communications manager - especially if you rely on your testers to get your game out the door.

I have my fair share of experience with working on multi-million euro projects (architecture) and if one of the projects would have ever even barely resembled what is happening with UAD we would have gone to court a long time ago. The teams working on such projects are also of a similar size of less than 10 people (only counting the design and development phase).

So yes, I am throwing a tantrum as I feel that a lot is going very wrong within the development process of UAD and if the dev team doesn't take swift action I don't see a bright if any future for this game.

[mikekervin]

26 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

I didn't take it that way. Sorry if I made you feel that way.

Regarding the matter at hand I feel very strongly that it is within the responsibility of a development team to have a sufficient size that allows for filling all necessary posts including a communications manager - especially if you rely on your testers to get your game out the door.

I have my fair share of experience with working on multi-million euro projects (architecture) and if one of the projects would have ever even barely resembled what is happening with UAD we would have gone to court a long time ago. The teams working on such projects are also of a similar size of less than 10 people (only counting the design and development phase).

So yes, I am throwing a tantrum as I feel that a lot is going very wrong within the development process of UAD and if the dev team doesn't take swift action I don't see a bright if any future for this game.

If you feel that way I suggest that you should wait for the full version instead.

[Lastreaumont]

About travels from one harbor to another. 

Il a ship goes from one harbor to another and this ship is selected to participate to a mission in the area of her destination just after reaching it (same month), please change her "go back harbor after mission" to the destination port before the mission. 
Example:
1BC with 2DD travel from Saint Denis to Saigon. They reach Saigon and the BC is called to participate to a mission against the Chinese near Taiwan, with 2 CL from Fort Bayard. At the end of the mission, the 2CL go back to Fort Bayard (OK), the 2DD are in Saigon (OK), and the BC is back to Saint Denis (WTF?!).

About refuelling.

What are the reasons that justify the refuelling (fuel only, not ammo) of a ship can be up to 4 months long in 1920? Even the famous french big strikes don't paralyse the country for a so long time. 
Lack of transports? My transport capacity is just 199%.  

[mikekervin]

It seems that map travel speed is much faster in my second game as Germany compared to USA in the Pacific Ocean. Is there some distortion perhaps?

[Makko]

I just want to say, autoresolve seems relatively good? 

 

What are people's experiences with it? 

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Please restart Steam to receive the following update!

Beta Update 2 (18/10/2022)

- Completed map edges so that ships can travel via the Pacific Ocean.
- Fixed bug of negative ammo which also affected the AI and made it passive or cause battle crashes.
- Fixed bug that could cause ship operational range to become negative.
- Fixed old issue with repair of task forces that caused ships to be teleported in far away ports. Now ships that need repairs will seek for nearest port that can be reached in one turn or else they will not detach from the task force.
- Fixed small Campaign UI issue which showed wrong active ships number.
- Fixed bug that could make AI to not be affected by "Low Fuel" State.
- Improved fuel consumption mechanics as per feedback.
- Fixed issue which caused very slow ship movement on the map.
- Fixed problem in ship evasion which caused ships in line formation to stall often.
- Warning: Added new shipyard but is mostly incomplete with untextured objects. Please report if you find any ship that overlaps with the current shipyard layout.

Note: The remaining turret rotation issue which causes turrets to not follow the ship's listing will be fixed ASAP.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

Thanks kindly for the update

[SpardaSon21]

12 hours ago, TiagoStein said:

The game prices are not Dollars. They are generic moneys  to keep  comprable between nations. It would make  too much confusion to keep currency conversion  in game.

Doesn't really matter IMO.  Fuel is far too expensive compared to the base cost of the ship.  Again, filling up an Iowa costs $6 million USD in today's dollars, but in 1936 that would have been roughly $291k, or 0.291% of the total build cost of $100 million dollars.

[Werwaz]

37 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Please restart Steam to receive the following update!

Beta Update 2 (18/10/2022)

- Completed map edges so that ships can travel via the Pacific Ocean.
- Fixed bug of negative ammo which also affected the AI and made it passive or cause battle crashes.
- Fixed bug that could cause ship operational range to become negative.
- Fixed old issue with repair of task forces that caused ships to be teleported in far away ports. Now ships that need repairs will seek for nearest port that can be reached in one turn or else they will not detach from the task force.
- Fixed small Campaign UI issue which showed wrong active ships number.
- Fixed bug that could make AI to not be affected by "Low Fuel" State.
- Improved fuel consumption mechanics as per feedback.
- Fixed issue which caused very slow ship movement on the map.
- Fixed problem in ship evasion which caused ships in line formation to stall often.
- Warning: Added new shipyard but is mostly incomplete with untextured objects. Please report if you find any ship that overlaps with the current shipyard layout.

Note: The remaining turret rotation issue which causes turrets to not follow the ship's listing will be fixed ASAP.

new drydocks look good

that being said the construction flaws desperately need to be rebalanced and the AI needs to not be a coward.

besides that everything looks good

[Tycondero]

2 hours ago, Werwaz said:

that being said the construction flaws desperately need to be rebalanced and the AI needs to not be a coward.

I completely disagree with this statement. It is good that you have to hunt down the AI and that the AI retreats if it feels it is at a disadvantage. It makes no sense for navies to fight eachother on unequal terms to only get smashed and lose all their ships. I think it is one of the single most important AI upgrades implemented so that the AI remains in a fighting chances against the player. 

[Dave P.]

15 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

I completely disagree with this statement. It is good that you have to hunt down the AI and that the AI retreats if it feels it is at a disadvantage. It makes no sense for navies to fight eachother on unequal terms to only get smashed and lose all their ships. I think it is one of the single most important AI upgrades implemented so that the AI remains in a fighting chances against the player. 

Sure; from a realism standpoint, it makes perfect sense, but from a gameplay perspective, it's boooooring with a capital B.

My complaint is, rather than the AI running (and avoiding battle entirely) I have a choice - I can use Autoresolve / Leave Battle (which opens me up to random ship losses that make no sense) or I can play it out, which often means several minutes of staring at a battlescape with nothing to do but wait, or, more likely, play a different game on my cell phone.

IMHO the "fix" for the AI's survival instinct is an "Everybody goes home safe" button.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Dave P.

[Dave P.]

"Building New Ships" delays/freezes are back. 😞

[ZorinW]

After the update submarines still do not generate any missions plus they don't add to the power projection.

 

[ZorinW]

About that improved AI ship designer...

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

I think that might be a bit late, just a little bit

[Eirchirfir]

1 hour ago, ZorinW said:

After the update submarines still do not generate any missions plus they don't add to the power projection.

 

Submarines are not meant to generate missions. They are meant to raid convoys and hurt large ships of screen in auto resolve battles or lay mines. This is stated in the update log about submarines and ASW.

On 10/14/2022 at 9:43 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

 

Submarines & ASW: The technology tree is enriched with the submarines which you can fully use in the campaign map. ASW new techs will help in the countermeasures against submarines. Fleets with no ASW and light ship escorts will be very vulnerable against submarines.The submarines will only be playable on the campaign map and will execute autoresolved missions against convoys and enemy fleets.Special mine submarines could sink enemies with their mines without engaging them.

Whould it be better if submarines could generate battles: YES!

Whould it be better if we hade to hunt down enemy submarines with lighter ships in battles: YES!

This is not something the devs are trying or planing to implement right now as stated in the their 2022 Q&A.

Submarines are still useful as a supplament to surface fleets to convoy raid or as minelayers. Submarines can not win wars alone as the enemy will just mass build ships design to for ASW. This is what the allies did to counter the german U-boat fleat during WW2. This would not be possble if germany was able to maintain a surface force in the atlantic then it would increase the usefulness of the U-boats as the ASW forces of the allies would need to be protected agenst surface combatens.

The americans were able to use submarines to disrupt japanese shiping during WW2 and became a bigger threat as the japanese lost more warships due to american surface and air forces.

Submarines should not be the main focus of a navy and strategy but used with a strong surface presense becomse a great economical threat to the enemy.

[ZorinW]

36 minutes ago, Eirchirfir said:

Submarines are not meant to generate missions. They are meant to raid convoys and hurt large ships of screen in auto resolve battles or lay mines. This is stated in the update log about submarines and ASW.

Whould it be better if submarines could generate battles: YES!

Whould it be better if we hade to hunt down enemy submarines with lighter ships in battles: YES!

This is not something the devs are trying or planing to implement right now as stated in the their 2022 Q&A.

Submarines are still useful as a supplament to surface fleets to convoy raid or as minelayers. Submarines can not win wars alone as the enemy will just mass build ships design to for ASW. This is what the allies did to counter the german U-boat fleat during WW2. This would not be possble if germany was able to maintain a surface force in the atlantic then it would increase the usefulness of the U-boats as the ASW forces of the allies would need to be protected agenst surface combatens.

The americans were able to use submarines to disrupt japanese shiping during WW2 and became a bigger threat as the japanese lost more warships due to american surface and air forces.

Submarines should not be the main focus of a navy and strategy but used with a strong surface presense becomse a great economical threat to the enemy.

 

36 minutes ago, Eirchirfir said:

The submarines will only be playable on the campaign map and will execute autoresolved missions against convoys and enemy fleets.Special mine submarines could sink enemies with their mines without engaging them.

This doesn't happened and that is what I am referring to. 

All I get, very seldomly, is a prompt that says I damaged ships with mines, but it doesn't say if those ships were damaged by my submarine mines or by mines in and around my ports. Also, those events don't give you any victory points.

[Nick Thomadis]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

After the update submarines still do not generate any missions plus they don't add to the power projection.

 

Submarines do not add power projection. They increase the Raiding power against enemy shipping (Chance to sink enemy TR per month).

They should trigger missions against enemy Task Forces or other Submarine Groups (in your image there is a Task Force, if you proceed to next turn, it does not interact?) and should create special missions against TR which include defenders.

Your tone is rather offensive, no need to be. If you like the game and want it to become better, feedback helps, all the rest is unnecessary.

[ZorinW]

8 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Submarines do not add power projection. They increase the Raiding power against enemy shipping (Chance to sink enemy TR per month).

They should trigger missions against enemy Task Forces or other Submarine Groups (in your image there is a Task Force, if you proceed to next turn, it does not interact?) and should create special missions against TR which include defenders.

Your tone is rather offensive, no need to be. If you like the game and want it to become better, feedback helps, all the rest is unnecessary.

Why did you decide that submarines should not add to power projection? That is very counterintuitive.

 

No, submarines have not triggered a single mission in 30 years of my campaign and I have more than a hundred of them. 

[Baboulinet]

4 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

No, submarines have not triggered a single mission in 30 years of my campaign and I have more than a hundred of them. 

Same for me !  

[TiagoStein]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

About that improved AI ship designer...

Come on, I have seen far worse in the past

[TiagoStein]

On my campaign I have frequently  face a situation where the enemy is blockading me  and taking so much damage from  mines that when I  sail to face them  EVERY SINGLE ship in a fleet with  almost 60 ships  has all engines  damaged. The result is that with 3 battleships I  wiped a 7 BB 28 CA (and a crapton of auxiliaries) ...

 

I think  there is need of a diminishing return on mines. A fleet that has lost 20 ships  in an area due to mines will start to sail more carefully and the losses should reduce.