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

[camelith]

2 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Well, refiting is limited with previous component placing. You can not just move parts left and right during the refit. It is a modernisation, not building brand new ships where you can rearrange turrets and towers in completely different way. 

On the ship that started with two barbettes nothing has moved.  The second barbette begins as invalid in the refit screen and prevents the design from being altered in any way.  The ship that began with one barbette does not allow for the addition of a second, even with no other parts moved, giving the same 'Too far from previous place' error.

[Suribachi]

3 hours ago, ЬЬФЛ said:

I am sorry if anybody already asked it. I restarted Steam several times. I still have 1.09.3 live. Please suggest how to get latest...

In steam you will need to manage the properties of the game, then go into betas and turn it on.

Bit bear in mind, what is being referred to here is a beta branch, bugs and changes are to be expected.

Sorry I cannot find a better link, but it should get you started:   https://www.technipages.com/how-to-opt-into-a-game-beta-on-steam

[AdmiralKirk]

21 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

RN there is no easy way to dedicate a particular warship to escorting or raiding convoys *only*. Dedicated ASW escorts create a problem in that they will end up participating in battles that are frequently matched up in sea battles on the basis of tonnage.  

Yes, that's a real problem and it ultimately makes DDEs/frigates untenable at the moment. I would really like this game to have deployment options for commerce raiding and commerce protection—we can already design adequate ships to do the job, we just can't order them to do it yet. For the moment all destroyers really need to be fleet destroyers.

Actually one idea that comes to mind is to have the player designate an escort destroyer design that automatically populates in convoy defense missions to simulate escort assignments; then you wouldn't need to handle the logistics of manually supporting your convoys in every operational area. I don't know whether implementing that would be easier or harder than assigning ships specifically to commerce protection, though.

[ЬЬФЛ]

38 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

Well, refiting is limited with previous component placing. You can not just move parts left and right during the refit. It is a modernisation, not building brand new ships where you can rearrange turrets and towers in completely different way. 

I saw this issue. For me it was not after moving component  around. I clicked refit and it showed existing barbette  as red right away. And I didn't manage to find place to make it green.

[Nick Thomadis]

Reverted new code about overweight ships, which caused problems.

***It is highly advised to stop using old saves as you may report bugs of corrupted saves that cause bugs that are not reproducible in new campaigns.***

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Stephensan]

5 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Reverted new code about overweight ships, which caused problems.

***It is highly advised to stop using old saves as you may report bugs of corrupted saves that cause bugs that are not reproducible in new campaigns.***

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

what does RC 1 or 2 mean?

 

release content 1

[admiralsnackbar]

52 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

what does RC 1 or 2 mean?

 

release content 1

candidate

[The PC Collector]

Okay, seems that with the new gunnery changes, BBs can again hit DDs reliably enough so the can't simply YOLO under normal circumstances.

Edit: CAs, however, are still off. While for BBs is okay having relatively low chances, because more often than not they only need to manage to hit once, three 1918 cruisers equipped with 4 twin 9.4" mk III guns and trained crew needing to spend over one hour and half of in game time on knife range (under 3 km) and nearly their whole ammo supply to sink other three CAs is simply ludicrous. It was impossible for them to get any meaninful hit chance beyond that range.

Edited January 18, 2023 by The PC Collector

[camelith]

Tested the barbette issue a bit further post-hotfix and white it's still present I tested some additional hulls across several nations in new campaigns starting at 1910.  The Japanese Dreadnought I hull, the one in my earlier screenshots, appears to be the only one exhibiting this behavior in refit.

 

Since this turned out to be a relatively small bug my biggest issue is probably now that after a mission of any kind completes every single task force you have out on the map has a chance to get split up and sent back to completely random ports.

Edited January 18, 2023 by camelith

[Lima]

46 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Okay, seems that with the new gunnery changes, BBs can again hit DDs reliably enough so the can't simply YOLO under normal circumstances.

Edit: CAs, however, are still off. While for BBs is okay having relatively low chances, because more often than not they only need to manage to hit once, three 1918 cruisers equipped with 4 twin 9.4" mk III guns and trained crew needing to spend over one hour and half of in game time on knife range (under 3 km) and nearly their whole ammo supply to sink other three CAs is simply ludicrous. It was impossible for them to get any meaninful hit chance beyond that range.

CL💀 

I think they were the ones who suffered the most, since they were not too good at gunnery before. Although I can kill destroyers with a CL, this turns into close combat with 5-10% hit chances at best.

[GronusCZ]

Unfortunately FPS keeps dropping😥 Not that big, but still noticeable and extremely distracting. Definitely bigger than the previous version 1.09 (with the same number of ships).
Some battles are smooth and others are a disaster (but staying above 10fps - a small victory🥳).

[The PC Collector]

2 hours ago, Lima said:

CL💀 

I think they were the ones who suffered the most, since they were not too good at gunnery before. Although I can kill destroyers with a CL, this turns into close combat with 5-10% hit chances at best.

Cruisers in general, and CLs in particular have always been, at least in my opinion, the ugly ducklings of this game. More often than not, they're simply too expensive for their combat value. For example, I found that, if you want to make a cruiser with big guns (10" or bigger) they become so expensive that you'd be better simply building a much more powerful BC instead for only a bit more money. But worst offenders are CLs. if you keep them with 5-6" guns, they become obsolete the second you unlock DDs. As 5-5.9" armed DDs can do the job just as well as the CLs, if not better, for a fraction of the price. And if you get to big CLs, they become so expensive that you'd be better building a CA with 6" guns and light armour. But with access to torpedo protection and other stuff CLs don't have.

[The PC Collector]

Well

Some gameplay feedback after giving up the campaign:

We need more feedback on what's going on. There are simply too many things which we have no infor about, like why logictics are going up or down, what is the government doing... There are simply too many things which feel completely RNG based and that's not healthy for a Grand Strategy mode.

Likewise, for the sake of the mode working properly, we need some degree of control on what our land forces do. I know where are supposed to be tha admirals, but again, the overall feeling in the campaign is that there is too much RNG and too many things out of our control for an enjoyable Grand Strategy mode as the campaign is supposed to be.

[AdmiralBert]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

Cruisers in general, and CLs in particular have always been, at least in my opinion, the ugly ducklings of this game. More often than not, they're simply too expensive for their combat value. For example, I found that, if you want to make a cruiser with big guns (10" or bigger) they become so expensive that you'd be better simply building a much more powerful BC instead for only a bit more money. But worst offenders are CLs. if you keep them with 5-6" guns, they become obsolete the second you unlock DDs. As 5-5.9" armed DDs can do the job just as well as the CLs, if not better, for a fraction of the price. And if you get to big CLs, they become so expensive that you'd be better building a CA with 6" guns and light armour. But with access to torpedo protection and other stuff CLs don't have.

In my playthroughs, CLs have been reliable stalwarts from 1890 to at least the 1920s (my games have petered out then due to new updates or annoying bugs). They have the range to cover large areas, good enough speed to run down convoys & harry any enemy fleets transiting between regions, and durable enough to trade blows with AI built CAs, CLs, DDs & TBs. My experience with attempting to use DDs in a similar fashion has wound up with my DDs getting sunk or crippled, but that may be a product of my not getting deeper into the 1920s/30s.

CAs, however, are miserable. The Armoured Cruiser hulls just can't fit the funnels they need for decent engine efficency until the later hull forms (I think they start getting middling efficiency around AC 3, with good performance possible at the AC 5 hull), but by which time in my current Britain campaign I was rolling out my first dreadnoughts and I couldn't spare the slipway space for a 10k+ cruiser.

7 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:

Yes, that's a real problem and it ultimately makes DDEs/frigates untenable at the moment. I would really like this game to have deployment options for commerce raiding and commerce protection—we can already design adequate ships to do the job, we just can't order them to do it yet. For the moment all destroyers really need to be fleet destroyers.

Actually one idea that comes to mind is to have the player designate an escort destroyer design that automatically populates in convoy defense missions to simulate escort assignments; then you wouldn't need to handle the logistics of manually supporting your convoys in every operational area. I don't know whether implementing that would be easier or harder than assigning ships specifically to commerce protection, though.

My ideal, pie-in-the-sky vision would be that you could view the sea trade routes your TRs will take during war (or after a few months, before then they'd be scattered/not sailing in convoys). You could then assign vessels to the ports related to that route in a 'Convoy' stance, and they'd then provide limited power projection & only engage in defensive Convoy missions. Other ships may also join the action, but they'd be reinforcing the convoy, not sailing with it at the start of the mission.

[Fangoriously]

57 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

Cruisers in general, and CLs in particular have always been, at least in my opinion, the ugly ducklings of this game. More often than not, they're simply too expensive for their combat value. For example, I found that, if you want to make a cruiser with big guns (10" or bigger) they become so expensive that you'd be better simply building a much more powerful BC instead for only a bit more money. But worst offenders are CLs. if you keep them with 5-6" guns, they become obsolete the second you unlock DDs. As 5-5.9" armed DDs can do the job just as well as the CLs, if not better, for a fraction of the price. And if you get to big CLs, they become so expensive that you'd be better building a CA with 6" guns and light armour. But with access to torpedo protection and other stuff CLs don't have.

light cruisers sort of go in and out of vogue, early on before destroyers the protected cruisers can smoke up, torps BBs, and gun kill torpedo boats pretty well, after destroyers are introduced though they are out run and priced out of that niche though. I believe that at all times they can get the highest ASW score though, and pretty much always can protect capital ships from subs on a 1 to 1 basis. That would be the only reason to build them until proper light cruisers that can mount deck torps are unlocked, then they become quite useful again. These days i always design the smallest light cruiser possible, usually with just 5in and 2in guns, and torps, sort of 5-7k ton super destroyers to keep my capital ships safe from subs. On their own if you can put enough torps on them they can threaten and keep up with pretty much anything. these are very cheap to build and run, but pretty fragile, I often just tell them to retreat when a battle actually starts. I find large CLs utterly pointless, unless perhaps the superstructure is small enough to fit an ass load of torp launchers on it. I'd rather build capital ships for offense though.

 

With the right hull, 10in-11in gun heavy cruisers can have a niche. If you have a lot of imperial holdings i build them to protect shipping and project power out of foreign ports, they are still almost always cheaper then an older hulled battle cruiser, but when they are not, and i only have a home territory, they are skipped. Your typical 8in gun CA i find utterly pointless. They don't hit hard enough to be a threat to anything larger than themselves, 8in don't really kill smaller ships that much better than 5in- 7in, and they seem hardly optimized for launching effective torp attacks.

 

If i were to make changes to cruisers, I'd make the main gun range for CLs be 4in to 9in, and at least on certain hulls having main gun caliber casemates. 'Modern light cruisers' hull would be the proper hulls used to build treaty restricted heavy cruisers, if you wanted to do that, plenty of those CL hulls can be built to over 10k tons. Wile the heavy cruiser hulls would be for restriction free large gun Panzerschiff cruisers. I'd make the possible main guns be 8in to 13in for them, again with at least some having main gun caliber case mates. Trying to actually put 9in guns on a CL, or 13in guns on a heavy cruiser might sound like a pretty impossible ask, but the same goes for tying to put 20in guns on any battleship. If they don't physically fit, you cant place them. Hulls that shouldn't be carrying them, cant.

[MDHansen]

ugh... The issue of (undamaged/fully fueled and not involved in anything) TFs returning to port (often a random port) is in all honesty breaking the game (for me) at the moment. It was fine for a few patches, then returned with a vengeance. Hopefully this can be adressed before you go live

 

MDH

Edited January 18, 2023 by MDHansen

[Lima]

Austria-Hungary, 1920: we are barely alive after the previous war. But it doesn't matter, it's time to attack Serbia (again)!

Edit: after the failure of the last attack, they made another one.

I just sit and watch it, can I get Danube Flotilla?

Edited January 18, 2023 by Lima

[Admiral Donuts]

Manual steering back yet?

[Zuikaku]

Even lightly damaged ships from the TFs after the battle return to nearest port. This is OK for heavily damaged cripples but not for lightly damaged ships 

[Lima]

Sometimes I still encounter completely delusional situations with ladder aiming.

Stationary target, distance 3 km, aiming does not increase. My ship is practically intact, the weather is normal.

[AdmiralBert]

58 minutes ago, Lima said:

Austria-Hungary, 1920: we are barely alive after the previous war. But it doesn't matter, it's time to attack Serbia (again)!

Edit: after the failure of the last attack, they made another one.

I just sit and watch it, can I get Danube Flotilla?

Given Austria-Hungary's policy towards Serbia, this isn't exactly inaccurate....but I've seen similar in my games, most notably Soviet Russia launching attack after attack into Chinese-controlled Manchuria.

[Lima]

11 minutes ago, AdmiralBert said:

Given Austria-Hungary's policy towards Serbia, this isn't exactly inaccurate....but I've seen similar in my games, most notably Soviet Russia launching attack after attack into Chinese-controlled Manchuria.

I hate it because

1. There is no chance to occupy Serbia
2. We're losing soldiers for nothing
3. I can't do anything about it

[The PC Collector]

17 minutes ago, Lima said:

I hate it because

1. There is no chance to occupy Serbia
2. We're losing soldiers for nothing
3. I can't do anything about it

Exactly the kind of thing I'm complaining about. For the Campaign to work as a Grand Strategy mode, we need at the very least some degree of control about what out country as a whole does.

[Alnitak]

1 hour ago, Lima said:

Austria-Hungary, 1920: we are barely alive after the previous war. But it doesn't matter, it's time to attack Serbia (again)!

Edit: after the failure of the last attack, they made another one.

I just sit and watch it, can I get Danube Flotilla?

It seems that the territory acquired through the peace treaty also has this problem, and will abnormally reduce the loyalty of the army.

[AdmiralKirk]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

Exactly the kind of thing I'm complaining about. For the Campaign to work as a Grand Strategy mode, we need at the very least some degree of control about what out country as a whole does.

I understand why the devs don't want UAD to feature-bloat its way into being a Paradox-style 4X, but I think it would be sufficient for player agency purposes if your role was as a sort of supreme military commander with direct control over the details of navy logistics, and authority (but not direct control) over the rest of the armed forces. So you can choose when and from where you invade—which you can already do using the Naval Invasion option; that's clearly a combined army/navy operation—but you don't need to manage production of infantry equipment, recruitment of army personnel, control over particular divisions, etc. That stuff is fine to remain abstracted and AI-managed. Just having a big arrow from one province to another is totally sufficient for this game—all I would want is the ability to draw that arrow myself.

In general I respect the desire to limit this game's scope to naval operations—indeed, that's why I like this game: I can't be bothered to learn all the ridiculous minutiae that's required to be competent at something like Europa Universalis. But I think this approach results in a frustrating lack of agency in some places, and while the devs are of course free to create the game experience they think is best, I would personally err on the side of greater player control rather than less.