>>>Beta v1.1 Feedback<<< [RC 6]

[Kane]

And I still have wars ending for no reason at all, don't even get a notice that the war has ended.  Its just over, and we're all friends again.  No solicitation of my input, no reparations, just spontaneous peace.  Just happened between me (Germany)/Autro-Hungary/China vs Soviet Union.  Peace for everybody!

Considering I was less than 10% away from conquering several of their territories, this is extremely aggravating.

Edit:  And it consistently happens when reverting to a previous save.  There is a definite bug of some kind here that is causing wars to spontaneously end.

Edited January 8, 2023 by Kane

[Darth Khyron]

Thanks for the answers, everyone. But at this point, I cannot continue playing. I have not the weakest of machines here and every other game effordlessly works fine. But UA:D is now reduced to a slow-motion picture.

I was beginning to enjoy it again with the new additions, but now, sorry...

[anonusername]

4 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I think it's the targeting of secondaries being constantly altered in very brief intervals [lag is most extreme when selecting 1 ship and mousing over another]

Pretty sure this is it. I was able to avoid lag for the most part by using fully manual target selection for ships I am manually controlling.

[Suribachi]

  

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Regarding this, we could not reproduce. The shipyard growth changes according to year. So in 1891 it should be different than 1890's max. shipyard growth. Do you remember if in your test, you played all campaign turns continuously, without loading a saved game?

@Nick Thomadis I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant by the shipyard increasing in size.  The player base is not talking about the maximum tonnage of the shipyard, we are talking about the rate of the expansion the player can invest in.  When the player first starts a campaign, clicking the Finance tab we can see a "Build" button next to the Shipyard size.  This is what we are talking about.  @Lima made a good post with screenshots on this that I will include below.  If the campaign is started in 1890, we can invest to increase the maximum shipyard size by 4,000 t over 2 years maximum.  However, if the player chooses a different start year, this amount can change as shown below.  For the sake of eliminating variables, I used Japan for all the starts changing only the starting year.

Maximum Shipyard size increase over 2 years from the Finances tab by year if the player slides the slider all the way to the right:
1890: 4,000 t

1900: 9,600 t

1910: 15,200 t

etc...

What players are asking for is that the in between years increase the rate of expansion so the players that start in earlier years are not punished by having to make ships is smaller batches.  For example:

1890: 4,000 t

1892: 5,200 t

1894: 6,400 t

etc...

Obviously the numbers can change for balance purposes.  I hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding!


@Lima's post as I talked about earlier:
 

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Did it just now, continuous session.

1890

January 1892

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Suribachi

[Nick Thomadis]

7 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

  

@Nick Thomadis I think there is a misunderstanding of what is meant by the shipyard increasing in size.  The player base is not talking about the maximum tonnage of the shipyard, we are talking about the rate of the expansion the player can invest in.  When the player first starts a campaign, clicking the Finance tab we can see a "Build" button next to the Shipyard size.  This is what we are talking about.  @Lima made a good post with screenshots on this that I will include below.  If the campaign is started in 1890, we can invest to increase the maximum shipyard size by 4,000 t over 2 years maximum.  However, if the player chooses a different start year, this amount can change as shown below.  For the sake of eliminating variables, I used Japan for all the starts changing only the starting year.

Maximum Shipyard size increase over 2 years from the Finances tab by year if the player slides the slider all the way to the right:
1890: 4,000 t

1900: 9,600 t

1910: 15,200 t

etc...

What players are asking for is that the in between years increase the rate of expansion so the players that start in earlier years are not punished by having to make ships is smaller batches.  For example:

1890: 4,000 t

1892: 5,200 t

1894: 6,400 t

etc...

Obviously the numbers can change for balance purposes.  I hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding!


@Lima's post as I talked about earlier:
 

 

It should work, as this, we need to check why it does not.

[Suribachi]

3 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It should work, as this, we need to check why it does not.

Thanks!  Just wanted to ensure that everyone was talking about the same thing.

[PainKiller]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It should work, as this, we need to check why it does not.

i always assumed you guys knew about this bug, only it wasn't a high priority to repair. How is it possible that the same thing is not happening / reproducable? You don't have the same game version as we, testers / players have? No wonder it's so hard to report something  

[SpardaSon21]

16 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

The Austro-Hungarians built compact, heavily armed, but also decently protected and NOT slow ships. The Italians were faster, but everyone else - GB, France, the Yankees and the Russians were about the same speed, or slower.
With all this, their ships were also quite seaworthy and most surprisingly, cheap.

These are real masterpieces of shipbuilding, almost unnoticed. You will see the skill of Austro-Hungarian engineers when you compare AН warships with ships of similar size and tonnage. 

What are the chances of a pre-dreadnought 7-8 kilotonn cruiser of any nation when meeting SMS Sankt Georg, with its 240x2,  190x5, 150х4, 200mm armor and speed of 22 knots? Yeah, good luck.

Well, 2x9.4" is a pretty terrible main armament for armored cruisers, and compared to ocean-going cruisers unlike ones intended for purely Mediterranean operations a cruising range of 8,300km is tiny.  In 1894 the USA was commissioning protected cruisers for commerce raiding with double that, at the same cruising speed of 10 knots and only 3 knots less in maximum speed.  The US Pennsylvania class of CA's that was concurrent had a maximum bunkerage twice that of the Sankt Georg. Keep in mind its 3,900km from California to Hawaii, so good luck conducting Pacific patrols with a Sankt Georg.  Yes, its a magnificent coastal defense ship, but I'd not want to take one of those out on a patrol into the Atlantic, never mind the Pacific.

And yes, range matters a great deal considering a British fighter pilot once said he'd prefer a Spitfire over a Mustang for a dogfight over Berlin if not for the fact he'd never have the fuel to return home in a Spitfire.

Quote

The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar-flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!

That was said by one Eric Brown, perhaps the single most accomplished test pilot of all time.

13 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Basically, CV-6 USS Enterprise, like her sister CV-5 Yorktown, survived hits that both the Japanese and the Americans thought would sink her.  The Japanese would announce that they sunk her only for her to return angrier than before.  This happened three separate times.  Each time, the crew performed the repairs at sea, with dry dock repairs mostly only happening during her retrofit in 1943.  She earned her nickname "The Grey Ghost" due to this.

To this day, the Yorktown repair crews are the stuff of legend, especially in the US Navy.

I think we can see where Gene Rodenberry got the inspiration for Montgomery Scott from...

9 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

...it's literally one and the same hull. Seriously, it's worse than not historical  - it's boring. The hull of the battleship itself is not bad, and even a limit of 5 inches in the casemates is acceptable, you can increase them to 5.9 inches anyway and get version of Habsburg-class battleship.

The same thing about CA III hull -  you can even build some kind of SMS Kaiser Karl VI even if it looks completely wrong.

But Erzherzog Karl-class battleship and SMS Sankt Georg СА completely closed, since 190mm guns in casemates are simply impossible on early AH hulls displacement of 10.500 or less.

Fast CA this is a copy paste of the old ВВ hull and with a stability of 25 plus 2'' casemates, it's just junk. Experimental CA It's not bad, but I don't see anything typical of Austria-Hungary in it like a bunch of QF 150-190mm guns in the central casemates. It's still better than nothing, I guess.

Early light cruisers are a typical set of junk, no better and no worse than many. Why the developers banned 6-inch guns in the casemates of light cruisers, I don't have any ideas.

When you enter the Dreadnought era, hulls becomes more diverse, but again, you don't get anything that other factions lack. Well, at least you have this archaic large torpedo boat, lol. By the way, this is a lot of progress, previously the player was stuck with the TB until something like 1910, when the DD2 hull appeared.

The problem with Austria-Hungary in the game,  is that you don't have anything that other factions wouldn't have. At the same time, other factions have unique and interesting hulls that are interesting to play with.

 

The USA has the same issue, with the devs not liking main gun casemates (6"+ casemates are mandatory for the USA) or proper pre-dead and dreadnought hulls, with designs like Connecticut and its 4x2 8" turrets and Delaware and its five centerline turrets flat-out impossible.  I don't think anyone asked for Maine considering it you know... exploded before doing anything whereas interest in a proper St. Louis, Omaha, or Delaware or Connecticut hull has been pretty consistent.

[admiralsnackbar]

Spain in my 1890 campaign collapsed after 6 years but reformed and didn't immediately collapse afterwards. 

So, some good, some bad. 

[Fun Police]

From what I've played, nations seem to go communist pretty frequently. I've never seen them go to any other ideology. 

[Lima]

1 hour ago, Fun Police said:

From what I've played, nations seem to go communist pretty frequently. I've never seen them go to any other ideology. 

Sooner or later, all AI become communists. There is a very good modifier for rebellion, so they are not so worried about constant defeats. Without the participation of the player (without a very strong beating), AI will never give up being a communist.

And this is a problem, given the absolutely unplayable -GDP modifier for communists, AI grows very slowly, even at high difficulty.

[Bigbear1975Fin]

Just a thought. Would it be awesome to be able steal another country technologies or even reverse engineer tech what you get from another country's ships after winning warJust a thought. Would it be awesome to be able steal another country technologies or even reverse engineer tech what you get from another country's ships after winning war

[The PC Collector]

Edit: Nevermind, the blockade just took a few turns to be lifted for some reasons. All is good now.

By the way, I feel really accomplished right now



By the way, Spain had a BB as early as 1888, what about giving them a BB hull they can build from the start?

Also, captured ship refit when?

Edited January 9, 2023 by The PC Collector

[TAKTCOM]

7 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The US Pennsylvania class of CA's that was concurrent had a maximum bunkerage twice  that of the Sankt Georg

Dude, the US Pennsylvania class total displacement was almost twice that of the Sankt Georg. 15,381 vs 8,200 t.   You're comparing apples to oranges.  A more or less correct comparison is SMS Sankt Georg vs USS New York. The Yankees are still bigger, but at least they are ~10% bigger not ~90%.

7 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The USA has the same issue, with the devs not liking main gun casemates (6"+ casemates are mandatory for the USA) or proper pre-dead and dreadnought hulls...

Sure, the Americans need new hulls, no question about it. My opinion is that all factions need at least one common early cruiser hull, whose casemates support 6 and 8 inch guns.

Edited January 9, 2023 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Lima]

29 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

By the way, Spain had a BB as early as 1888, what about giving them a BB hull they can build from the start?

Waiting for her

[The PC Collector]

22 minutes ago, Lima said:

Waiting for her

Me too, but I don't have too many hopes. For now I would be happy to have a hull with a minimum tonnage low enough so it can be built in the 1890 start

[Lima]

@Nick Thomadis

Are transports sunk in battle counted in the "transport capacity"? Recently, 10 of my transports were sunk in battle, but my transport capacity remained 200%. Also, I have sunk a huge number of US transports (I have 500K VP), but it doesn't look like it has affected them in any way.

 

[Zuikaku]

Battle AI is just horrible. It runs away in every mission. Really, why even generating missions if AI runs away instantly? You are forced to have at least 1 30kt TB in order to catch the fleeing AI ships, force them to divert until your fleet manages to get in range.

Solution: Force AI to sail toward your fleet. When the contact/indentification is done then it can choose either to fight or run away. That gives player chance to fight, makes battles more interesting and realistic. Current system is just ridiculous!!

[The PC Collector]

4 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Battle AI is just horrible. It runs away in every mission. Really, why even generating missions if AI runs away instantly? You are forced to have at least 1 30kt TB in order to catch the fleeing AI ships, force them to divert until your fleet manages to get in range.

Solution: Force AI to sail toward your fleet. When the contact/indentification is done then it can choose either to fight or run away. That gives player chance to fight, makes battles more interesting and realistic. Current system is just ridiculous!!

Dunno, so far I've only had one instance of the AI running away in a situation in which I think they shouldn't. The rest of the times they have, it was in situations in which it would have made sense for them to run away.

[MDHansen]

As above, or:

If the game first decides to throw a mission at you, simply set the distance between the fleets to within visual range. Ai can choose to run, but atleast you can see them straight away and send your hunters after them to pin them down, and the big pea shooters can have a go at them from the getgo.

Another solution could be to "end mission" if ai decides to run, right from the start. Instead of running after them for 20 minutes, you can end the travesty there and then, after 10 seconds.

 

Or a mix of both

[MDHansen]

Just now, The PC Collector said:

Dunno, so far I've only had one instance of the AI running away in a situation in which I think they shouldn't. The rest of the times they have, it was in situations in which it would have made sense for them to run away.

Yes. As long as we are roughly equal they will fight. I've even seen them fight against the odds, but then try and run once I get a BB or two down

[Zuikaku]

13 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Dunno, so far I've only had one instance of the AI running away in a situation in which I think they shouldn't. The rest of the times they have, it was in situations in which it would have made sense for them to run away.

OK, but why generating these missions anyway? AI runs all the time, it only puts the fight if it has tonnage advantage. So, what, it is forcing you to sail single ship TFs so you can actually play the game?

[AdmiralBert]

43 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Dunno, so far I've only had one instance of the AI running away in a situation in which I think they shouldn't. The rest of the times they have, it was in situations in which it would have made sense for them to run away.

The issue comes when the game generates a mandatory battle (one which you must either fight or attempt to withdraw from), withdrawing fails, and when you choose to fight the action manually (because I'm not going to risk an auto-resolve result seeing several BBs take heavy damage from a single torpedo boat) the enemy fleet immediately turns and leaves, giving me five/ten/fifteen minutes of uselessly trying to chase them down.

I've even had this happen on Convoy missions; the enemy escort will immediately abandon the transports to their fates, which while good for me (transport kills are worth far more than the VP of a cruiser or two) is both a waste of time for me as a player and also laughably ahistoric (where hopelessly mismatched convoy escorts would charge far more powerful vessels to buy time for their wards to disperse/escape).

[The PC Collector]

20 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

The issue comes when the game generates a mandatory battle (one which you must either fight or attempt to withdraw from), withdrawing fails, and when you choose to fight the action manually (because I'm not going to risk an auto-resolve result seeing several BBs take heavy damage from a single torpedo boat) the enemy fleet immediately turns and leaves, giving me five/ten/fifteen minutes of uselessly trying to chase them down.

Yeah. I agree on that. I've been claiming since 1.02 that if the AI is going to run away, the battle should not even be generated. Pretty much the reason why I always rush RDF. Because with RDF, they can run, but they can't hide. xD

[SpardaSon21]

3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Dude, the US Pennsylvania class total displacement was almost twice that of the Sankt Georg. 15,381 vs 8,200 t.   You're comparing apples to oranges.  A more or less correct comparison is SMS Sankt Georg vs USS New York. The Yankees are still bigger, but at least they are ~10% bigger not ~90%.

USS New York was also commissioned in 1893, or 12 years earlier and was also designed as an ocean-going cruiser, so that's hardly a fair comparison given the technology differences.  I'm also not denying she's a fine ship, I'm just saying that when one is designing something purely for Mediterranean service one can make compromises one can't for an ocean-going vessel, unless you think adding another thousand tons of coal bunkerage wouldn't force the designers to make significant cuts elsewhere.  For example, in a straight fight between a Littorio and a North Carolina my money is on the Littorio due to the heavier armor and faster speed... but then again, they had barely more than a quarter of the cruising range of the North Carolinas.

3 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

Yes, the Yankees are second on my personal list of bad factions, although for the most part this is because they are on the other side of the planet and the global map is still quite clumsy. But, of course, the Americans need new hulls, no question about it. My opinion is that all factions need at least one common early cruiser hull, whose casemates support 6 and 8 inch guns.

Agreed, although I'd go further and argue the USA needs some 8" light cruiser hulls, too.  The treaty cruisers of every nation had more in common with protected cruisers than armored cruisers in terms of protection scheme and overall design, and the USA was the only to adopt 8" guns as standard on those until Mogami, even going so far as to designate the Pensacolas as CL's until a couple years after commissioning in recognition of their light build despite their firepower, and we had some early protected cruisers with 8" guns such as New York and Baltimore, not to mention USS Olympia and her 2x2 8" guns.

 

Also, as I've pointed out in this thread, the new Mark 1 and Mark 2 turrets preclude cruisers with 6" broadside mounts, despite those being our standard protected cruiser guns and mounting scheme.

 

Then again, I could rant for ages about the horrible treatment cruisers get in this game, from the tech tree setup to hilariously tiny hull sizes compared to IRL... the USA should be able to build 9,500 ton CA's and 5,000 ton CL's in 1890 if we want to be historically accurate, and yet in shared design they don't get a 4k ton hull until 1893 when the 4,657 metric ton USS San Francisco had been commissioned in 1890.

Edited January 9, 2023 by SpardaSon21