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

[TiagoStein]

7 hours ago, vasok_aka_22v said:

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

Specially because 50 thousand km is one and half times around the world and you can reach anywhere in planet with only 17k km

[ZorinW]

Have a guess how many of these mined ports have actually minelaying capable ships in them 🤣

Answer: ONE

Honestly, what the hell are these internal testers doing?!? Why is EVERY feature they released bugged and broken. 

ALSO - the way it is now, missing at least TWO further zoom modes for the map (still can't select ports with ships close by...) it is impossible to have actual meaningful mining operations in fjords and river estuaries. Instead, a single TB, that costs absolutely nothing, can mine the entire English channel and stop all shipping.

This kind of BS annoys me because it shows how little respect the devs have for their paying beta testers. I would never let something this broken see the light of day for I would be too ashamed.

Edited October 17, 2022 by ZorinW

[Mandric]

came across an issue with starting as japan in 1890, you start with only 8k dockyard size so when you start the campaign with auto design ships you actually wont have any battleships built, conversely when you open up your finances or politics tab you are still marked down for having X amount of battleships in fleet. I'm not sure if this ghost fleet can effect tensions but I ran 2 campaigns where I deleted the fleet and 1st game I was able to stay in peace for nearly two decades but the 2nd game Russia was not pleased with my fleet activities. 

[Baboulinet]

3 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Honestly, what the hell are these internal testers doing?!? Why is EVERY feature they released bugged and broken. 

To be fair, I think there are no "real" testers. We kinda are those.
Adding to that that devs who worked on a project (even the best ones) make notoriously bad testers, and those assigned to UAD don't even seem to have the time to test features because they shall ADD NEW FEATURES. A LOT OF NEW FEATURES. ALWAYS MORE.

I guess we're good for another batch of 30ish fixes  
(Would be less if long standing issues were already solved btw).

Some of those like AI nations vanishing too easily, tech being too slow, overpowered 2, 8 and 12in, penetrations problems and HE being OP are simple variables in one file that take 5mn to fix. (Well let's say one hour because you have to launch the game to test the changes and play a couple of neverending turns in order to adjust things)
 

[Mutsu]

Seem to have an issues with some ships never being repaired, they just sit in port with 0% repair progress endlessly.

[ZorinW]

Utter mission fail:

HOW DID THE RUSSIANS MAKE IT THERE?!?!?!?! Everything is mined and on their way they passed 10 wolfpacks of unrestricted (offensive) submarines!!

Am really not going to bother with this game anymore for several weeks, because it is just soooooooo broken it is painful to play.

[ZorinW]

See this? All my submarines are set to attack. Not one of the russian contacts has been attacked during several turns! In turn my subs suffer mine damage, but they are not within a SINGLE mine radius, cause the ports don't even have mine laying ships in them!

So don't tell me the devs have spend a single minute testing their own new features, cause I won't buy it.

Edited October 17, 2022 by ZorinW

[LeoA]

Aside from all the bugs already reported, I think it would be nice to be able to see ship classes in battle.

The game already renders you a neat little drawing which includes the ship's class visible only at the shipyard. I think being able to see that in battle, maybe along with the year of the design, would improve QoL a lot and not be too hard to implement.

[Iuvenalis]

I'm having an issue with starting a campaign. I'm at about the 10 minute mark and the loading screen in the lower right is on December 1887... now it just changed to Jan 1888. At first it was advancing quickly, then it began to slow. It occasionally advances a month, sometimes several, but at the rate it has slowed to, I'm probably looking at half an hour to start a campaign.

[ZorinW]

ROFL!!! NEXT TURN!

Now they made it passed all ym subs in the Baltic and ALL 10 wolfpacks along their route in the North sea and are now sitting in my mined waters to come and attack me. Honestly, I have no words left for how ***** this is.

[ZorinW]

Just now, Iuvenalis said:

I'm having an issue with starting a campaign. I'm at about the 10 minute mark and the loading screen in the lower right is on December 1887... now it just changed to Jan 1888. At first it was advancing quickly, then it began to slow. It occasionally advances a month, sometimes several, but at the rate it has slowed to, I'm probably looking at half an hour to start a campaign.

That's normal. Wait till you are in a campaign and have to wait minutes between turns, while having a state of the art PC...

[ZorinW]

Not generating a single mission.....

In all seriousness, did the devs not start up their own game and put subs and enemy ships right next to eachother and press next turn? How on earth can this happen? This is your job! If I would be this bad at my job I would be fired ASAP.

[Iuvenalis]

So it took about 19 minutes to launch an 1890 campaign. Sadly, this seems unplayable at the moment.

[Zuikaku]

You know, subs had a difficult time engaging rather fast combat task forces. It was allways a matter of lucky positioning during initial sighting. So chances for early subs to successfully engage fast moving (escorted) warship was kinda like winning a lottery.

Anyway, where is the first hotfix?

Edited October 17, 2022 by Zuikaku

[ZorinW]

18 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

You know, subs had a difficult time engaging rather fast combat task forces. It was allways a matter of lucky positioning during initial sighting. So chances for early subs to successfully engage fast moving (escorted) warship was kinda like winning a lottery.

Anyway, where is the first hotfix?

That taskforce was stationary for half a year and these subs are not early as I boosted the sub tech levels.

[ZorinW]

This is now just comedy gold 🤣

We (the German Navy) have the local (a mined Russian port) advantage against an enemy Task Force (invisible Italian ships in the Baltic, which also all passed 20+ wolfpacks in the North Sea and Baltic unharmed). My BB was sitting in my own North Sea port at this moment, btw.

[mikekervin]

With a fleet of 8 BBS and 8 CLS with maximum towers and radar in a narrow strait, somehow 50 ship task force can sneak by undetected.

It seems that the recon and spotting values aren't being applied correctly in the map layer.

[ZorinW]

100 submarines doing absolutely nothing! No missions are being generated, not even passive ones or sinking of enemy transports.

Edited October 17, 2022 by ZorinW

[Lastreaumont]

About obsolete hulls but not so obsolete from my point of view, according to how I'd to use them. 

On previous version, I didn't use DD and CL because they were to weak to resist against ennemy fire.
But now submarines and mines come. So I need escort ships specialized in mines and submarine hunting. 
I started a campaign with France, in 1910. I used Destroyer I hull, lowest size, to build a nice cheap quick DD specialized against Submarines and mines, and also good scout. 
Time is going and this hull becomes obsolete. Ok, I took the smallest available hull to build a successor for this nice little DD. 
But impossible to build a better escort DD. The refited version of the old one has same ASW score as the new one, but with a better recon score, for less than half the cost. Why should I build a more expensive and less efficient new model? 
For now it's too late, but for my next campaign, I know I'll have to build lot of these small DD, probably mothballing the majority of them, to be sure I'll have enough of them until the end of the campaign, when their hull will become obsolete. 

[bshaftoe]

4 hours ago, ZorinW said:

Honestly, what the hell are these internal testers doing?!? Why is EVERY feature they released bugged and broken.

Because the game is in early access. It's a beta. It's not a finished game.

[RumHam237]

I have noticed some of the weight-saving techniques used by the AI in this update seem a little extreme...

As well as some interesting turret placement!

 

[ZorinW]

12 minutes ago, bshaftoe said:

Because the game is in early access. It's a beta. It's not a finished game.

Don't make excuses for them.

 

If a feature is bugged that means it works 90% of the time but on rare occasions there is a hickup that needs to be found and fixed.

In the case of UAD it is almost always the case that features work 10% of the time if at all and in most cases something that was working half decent got broken in the process of introducing a new feature.

 

PLUS! They took our money to allow us to test their game for them and having the audacity to present us with a build, after weeks! of waiting, that is completely broken is quite offensive.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

5 hours ago, ZorinW said:

This kind of BS annoys me because it shows how little respect the devs have for their paying beta testers. I would never let something this broken see the light of day for I would be too ashamed.

Be careful what you wish for... Watch the next 1.10 update take until next next year lmao 

[bshaftoe]

34 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

Don't make excuses for them.

 

If a feature is bugged that means it works 90% of the time but on rare occasions there is a hickup that needs to be found and fixed.

In the case of UAD it is almost always the case that features work 10% of the time if at all and in most cases something that was working half decent got broken in the process of introducing a new feature.

 

PLUS! They took our money to allow us to test their game for them and having the audacity to present us with a build, after weeks! of waiting, that is completely broken is quite offensive.

I don't agree with the features working 10% of time, but the definite number would be a separate discussion, and imho, irrelevant to the point.

I am not making excuses for them. It's simply reality of early access games:

- Early access games build the game while you get the test the alphas and betas. So you're bound to find lots and LOTS, and, really, LOTS of bugs and errors.

- All of them, or the vast majority at least, charge you money to do that. If it's wise or not to spend money to be given the chance to help them with the test is a discussion that is to have for all games in early access, not just this one.

- To be honest, one mistake they're having is not labelling correctly the phase in which they are. Software is in beta when all or almost all functionalities have been implemented and you're mostly debugging, balancing and maybe optimizing or doing the last passes of optimization to the game. If you're still building features, the software is in alpha or even in development stage. That is where we are now with the game: this game is in alpha, right now. Not in beta. Maybe labelling the game as an alpha would clear some air.

- Some of the early access games are in beta state, others in alpha: some are more polished, some are less when they open the access to the general public. But early access is an umbrella term that covers all: not because one of them was super-ultra-polished (for being an early access, I mean), means that ALL of them need to be in that state.

- And finally: this is a small team, as far as I know. You cannot compare games in early access developed by a major company with a big team with early access games done by smaller teams. There's a financial reality that makes one being able to develop a game faster, and thinking that, no matter their size, they should be able to write and test software as if they were funded by EA (for example) is, simply, unrealistic and won't happen. Let's not discount the effect that COVID pandemic had on a smaller team like this one.

- Addendum to this last point: a game this "niche" would not be developed by bigger companies with more money. The other alternative (Rule the waves) was/is being developed by a company that is much smaller than this one, with no-graphics dating back to the 90s.

In short: buying this game in early access and expecting a super polished experience and super fast pace of development is unrealistic.

 

[ZorinW]

33 minutes ago, bshaftoe said:

I don't agree with the features working 10% of time, but the definite number would be a separate discussion, and imho, irrelevant to the point.

I am not making excuses for them. It's simply reality of early access games:

- Early access games build the game while you get the test the alphas and betas. So you're bound to find lots and LOTS, and, really, LOTS of bugs and errors.

- All of them, or the vast majority at least, charge you money to do that. If it's wise or not to spend money to be given the chance to help them with the test is a discussion that is to have for all games in early access, not just this one.

- To be honest, one mistake they're having is not labelling correctly the phase in which they are. Software is in beta when all or almost all functionalities have been implemented and you're mostly debugging, balancing and maybe optimizing or doing the last passes of optimization to the game. If you're still building features, the software is in alpha or even in development stage. That is where we are now with the game: this game is in alpha, right now. Not in beta. Maybe labelling the game as an alpha would clear some air.

- Some of the early access games are in beta state, others in alpha: some are more polished, some are less when they open the access to the general public. But early access is an umbrella term that covers all: not because one of them was super-ultra-polished (for being an early access, I mean), means that ALL of them need to be in that state.

- And finally: this is a small team, as far as I know. You cannot compare games in early access developed by a major company with a big team with early access games done by smaller teams. There's a financial reality that makes one being able to develop a game faster, and thinking that, no matter their size, they should be able to write and test software as if they were funded by EA (for example) is, simply, unrealistic and won't happen. Let's not discount the effect that COVID pandemic had on a smaller team like this one.

- Addendum to this last point: a game this "niche" would not be developed by bigger companies with more money. The other alternative (Rule the waves) was/is being developed by a company that is much smaller than this one, with no-graphics dating back to the 90s.

In short: buying this game in early access and expecting a super polished experience and super fast pace of development is unrealistic.

 

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.