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

[Thramoun]

1 hour ago, jtjohn1 said:

I have seen it many times before over the years.  Game designers have a great idea.  They then decide to overcomplicate things.  

This isn't Ultimate Admirals the World At War.  This is Ultimate Admirals Dreadnoughts. 

Nix the sub mechanics.   

Nix the smaller nations such as Spain and China etc

If you must have these in the game wait until you have the "Dreadnought" portion mostly debugged.  

Trying to force these things into the game takes resources away from your core audience and game play experience and will, inevitably, lead to failure.

Things like my 12000+ KM range destroyers running out of fuel before they make it from New York to London?  That's a ~5800KM trip..

Things like "Look this battleship you designed and built is 4000 tons over the designed displacement...  That's TWO DESTROYERS WORTH of added displacement!
 

Get the core product right.  Nix the bells and whistles until you do.  You will be much more successful

 

That is not how game development works. Adding features and additional mechanics becomes harder and more resource intensive as the product matures, so it's important to experiment early on to create a rounded out package that contains what's needed. Polish is mostly relevant when going towards a wider audience.

Of course the fact people can buy the game already in this early phase complicates things, but many of the people here calling for feature freeze need to understand after the game is polished there will not be any new core features until an expansion or successor.

[StoneofTriumph]

Yeah, the thing about flaws in ship design is that they tended to express themselves in the realm of build quality issues, unforseen stability problems, certain parts of the ship having unintended interactions with other parts of the ship, or some systems just not working they way they were intended.

Not from a ship suddenly gaining or losing hundreds or thousands of tons of extra weight in the construction process.

[o Barão]

19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- Your torpedo boat is out of fuel so it has 2/3 of its max. speed. This is an expected behavior, we will fine tune so that smaller ships do not have so fast fuel consumption during battle.

• From my testings the ship will sail at 2/3 of its max speed only if is detached from any division. If there are equal ships in a division, the speed will be around 1/3 or less. It seems the number of ships in a division will have an impact.
• If I set the same division to screen or scout another division, then the max speed will be almost 1/2 (around 45%) or it can be almost full speed.
• Follow order will not have any impact.

- About the CA having only 3 knots, seems that you have put them in tight formation and this conflicts with their avoid mechanism, that slows them down. We will try to address this.

• The tight formation doesn't seem to make any difference.
•  It seems there is a fuel consumption issue in battle.

Detailed report.

All my CAs started the battle with fuel around 45% +/-

Moments later (only 15 minutes). All my CAs are low on fuel. (the cruiser is the same on both images - "Mogami") and now they are travelling at 1 knots.

• It seems the more ships are in a division the bigger will be the speed impact.
• There is a missing fuel issue in battle.

Mogami sailing alone at full speed losing fuel.

Mogami at under 10% fuel (low status), the speed drop to 2/3

My suggestion would be to remove the fuel consumption from ships in battle to avoid these issues.

3 TBs low fuel division - Max speed 9 knots

4 TBs low fuel division - Max speed 6 knots

• In short, more ships with low fuel in a division the bigger the impact will be to the maximum speed.

3 TBs low fuel division on screen duty - Max speed 9 knots, but they are sailing almost at full speed.

2 TBs low fuel division on scout duty- Max speed 14 knots.

• The screen and scout orders can ignore or cause an impact to the fuel mechanic in battle. This one is a little difficult to understand. Needs more testing.

 

Save file link: https://app.box.com/s/b75tbyfpekwu2w0c519xuauseo7z5ich

Edited October 17, 2022 by o Barão

[Plazma]

Short:

This update is amazing, it is far more better than 1.06, but yes ofc have some "issue". Mostly positive feedback from my side. One question only, how to use mines? I don't see any minus about this patch, maybe fuel is strange, but... let's test it little more.

Still some bugs and unbalanced stuff exist... but looks like some bugs are for Game-Labs are "features"... At least they added possibility to save a game. It sad that after few months, some opinions, bugs and very broken things still exist and NOTHING was done.

Generally I have mixed feelings about this game. From one side we have very good patch, no matter how I look the version 1.09 is amazing! Anyway after 1.06 some things are not changed also right now the devs are very much concerned about adding new stuff and some features that not everyone like... For some reasons 12" are still OP, Guns length still OP. I don't understand it. I know this is beta etc. but the communication Game-Labs -  Players is bad. I feel like most of the team don't care about players they want finish the game and only that. As someone mentioned it. Maybe little focus on existing bugs and some features that are not perfect/hated by some group of players and balancing the game, not to perfect, but to the point things looks normal, acceptable for arcade games? 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Plazma

[mikekervin]

Ship designer is freezing more than in previous updates

[mikekervin]

Ship designer is also incorrectly reporting guns with poor sector of fire after deleting the guns in question

[mikekervin]

Diameter adjustment indicator in ship designer has an extra " = ie +0.9""

[mikekervin]

map scroll speed doesn't scale to zoom level

[mikekervin]

Every saved ship design adds +1 to the active ship count

[Vagrant]

 

 

So, what kind of drunk shipyard workers built a ship that is over 3000t overweight? What is causing it to be overweight?

 

[brothermunro]

1 hour ago, Plazma said:

 

 

To use mines make sure your DD’s and/or CL’s have mine laying equipment (or a mine laying submarine I guess). When war is declared if your ships are in port they’ll start placing mines and you’ll see a small coloured circle appearing around your ports - that’s the minefield. If enemy ships stray into them they run the risk of hitting one - damage is reported each turn after the tensions pop up.

Edited October 16, 2022 by brothermunro

[Mandric]

6 hours ago, Tycondero said:

Encountered the same issue. Wars are happening too quickly and escalate involving all nations due to breaking down of relations because of conflicts between nations and events that cause rapid increases in tension. It seems that once a war between two countries break out, eventuality everyone gets involved. The AI should try to also stay out of conflict if there is nothing to gain. 

messed with a couple a different decade campaigns and if you just start with no navy at all everyone kind of just leaves you alone. peace time does last for about a decade and you're able to stay out of wars, though I would prefer to have some kind of functioning navy and still be able to achieve a similar result if I want to aim for peace.

[Jubedy]

Refit seems to be broken somehow, Im in 1890 and have a refit for both a TB and Light Cruiser that i for sure have like 30 running around and yet it tells me that the refit has been applied to all ships of the class? its been applied to zero, i am just unable to refit my ships.

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, jtjohn1 said:

Oh and my entire 16 ship fleet in New York Harbor took more than 2 months to fuel...

 

What, were they refilling the tank one hand-carried bucket at a time or something?  All those laborers would explain the high costs...

 

EDIT:  Using the Global 20 ports average for HFO/bunker oil I got $6,831,571.5 to fill up an Iowa's 8,983 metric tons at $760.5 per metric ton.

That's in today's dollars, so you are definitely on the high end of prices.  Keep in mind the Iowa's at construction time cost roughly $100 million each and their total operating costs (crew/fuel/ammo/maintenance etc.) in 1990 were $58 million per year, so the numbers Game-Labs are using are beyond screwy.

Edited October 16, 2022 by SpardaSon21

[Werwaz]

4 hours ago, Vagrant said:

 

 

So, what kind of drunk shipyard workers built a ship that is over 3000t overweight? What is causing it to be overweight?

 

And you thought that was bad...

Keep in mind that these were both built as part of the same class, and yet one is 25 percent bigger than the other. 

A lot more than just drunk shipyard workers would have had to wrong for this to happen...

I think that construction flaws should be limited to legendary difficulty, or scaled back so that they are ±2% as opposed to the current ±20%. I'm pretty sure that if there was a flaw that serious in real life, the navy would have had the ship scrapped and rebuilt. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Werwaz

[SodaBit]

I've got some campaign/battle feedback here, And It Needs To Be Addressed ASAP.
There seems to be a bug with the ammo supply system, and ships don't properly restock when in port. The result of this is ships bugging out, And Being Unable To Move Or Fire Their Main Guns In Battle.

Not only is there a DD well within torpedo range, but he's got a BB as fire support somewhere further back.
The best Katori here can do is sit and wait for the inevitable, as her 12 inch shell magazines are now home to a blackhole that has been gradually consuming the entire nation's supply of AP shells.
I suppose I should have left this one for auto-resolve, yes?

[Dave P.]

On 10/15/2022 at 8:39 PM, SMS said:

The Philippines should belong to the U.S. instead of Spain, which is more prone to conflict with Japan and more in line with history.

Depends when the campaign starts. In 1890, it was Spanish territory. In 1900 it wasn't.

[Tycondero]

I feel that the fuel/range mechanic in the game is currently very conflicted. We have four ways to affect the absolute range (km):

- Range slider (according to tooltips impact mission generation and distance that can be travelled)

- Engine efficiency (directly impacts distance that can be travelled)

- Draught of hull (higher allows for more fuel storage)

- Fuel used (engine and type)

However, these feel quite conflicted in terms of affecting mission generation. Does the absolute distance that can be travelled impact mission generation or does the range slider only impact this? One can make a ship that can travel much further by affecting the engine efficiency and have a low range setting for the range slider. Does this mean that the ship will get relatively more unfavourable missions eventhough its absolute travel range could be superior to a low efficiency engined ship with a maximum range slider setting??

Also it would be great if we could see how much a fleet travels when sending it around on the map and how this would affect mission efficiency. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Tycondero

[vasok_aka_22v]

A very huge request to make a limitation in the settings on the size of the task force. 

Nonsense AI when he brings his 200 torpedo boats over 50000 km

[RumHam237]

Has any one else had any issues with ships needing constant repair while in port? 

I am playing as Japan in the 1920s, and my battleships keep sustaining damage, even though they do not seem to be leaving port or actually doing anything. The damage is minimal (only 3 or 4%) however as they all need to be repaired, it absolutely destroys my naval funds. 

The ships will get repaired next month, still not do anything and then become damaged again the following month. 

There don't seem to be any enemy ships near and as far as I can tell they aren't being damaged by enemy mines (they don't appear on the mine pop-ups, and they haven't moved so this shouldn't be a problem). 

Has any one else had this? I've never had this before this update playing any other nation. 

[Lastreaumont]

One of my ships returned to harbor with a negative percentage of ammunition. I don't understand the concept. What does "-44%" of ammo mean? 
(The percentage is stored in a signed byte and there was an overflow somewhere in the calculation?) 

[Thramoun]

1 hour ago, Lastreaumont said:

One of my ships returned to harbor with a negative percentage of ammunition. I don't understand the concept. What does "-44%" of ammo mean? 
(The percentage is stored in a signed byte and there was an overflow somewhere in the calculation?) 

What ammunition amount did the ship in question have in the designer? Increased/normal/reduced?

[Max Sin]

It's time for a review.

Map, and nations. What we have been waiting for so long and got. Thank you for this. BUT !

The FUEL mechanic ruins the entire game. Not only do ships sail on the map for 1000 years, allegedly due to lack of fuel, but they also lose speed sharply in battle due to VERY high fuel consumption. Sometimes I don't even have time to swim to the enemy. Well, it can't be like that in real life. Moreover, interestingly, enemy ships do not suffer from this problem.

There are also of course many more little things, like a buggy distance slider, as described in other posts above, I also have all this.

It is also very disappointing that the old problem with the accuracy of guns has not been fixed. The most accurate gun continues to be 305mm, although I see no logic in such a difference in accuracy from caliber.

Even more offensive is the fact that the adjustment of the length of the guns is insufficient, 20% is very little. You need at least 50%, but 80% is better. And with this, you need to rework the reload time. It should not depend SO MUCH on the length of the barrel as it does now.

I really hope that you will correct these shortcomings. But first of all, you need to do something with the fuel mechanics, or it’s better to completely cancel it in battle, leave it only on the map.

[Lastreaumont]

2 hours ago, Thramoun said:

What ammunition amount did the ship in question have in the designer? Increased/normal/reduced?

Normal amount. Heavy shells. 

Even with increased or reduced amount, I don't see what a negative percentage could mean. Did they fire more ammunitions than they had? ☺️   

Edited October 17, 2022 by Lastreaumont

[TiagoStein]

14 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

What, were they refilling the tank one hand-carried bucket at a time or something?  All those laborers would explain the high costs...

 

EDIT:  Using the Global 20 ports average for HFO/bunker oil I got $6,831,571.5 to fill up an Iowa's 8,983 metric tons at $760.5 per metric ton.

That's in today's dollars, so you are definitely on the high end of prices.  Keep in mind the Iowa's at construction time cost roughly $100 million each and their total operating costs (crew/fuel/ammo/maintenance etc.) in 1990 were $58 million per year, so the numbers Game-Labs are using are beyond screwy.

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.