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

[Sobakaa]

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

Edited January 19, 2023 by Sobakaa

[Nick Thomadis]

20 minutes ago, Sobakaa said:

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

Probably you have not noticed that most if not all have been addressed and v1.1 is much more stabler and better than the live v1.09.3. And this happened because of players that helped us with continuous feedback.

[neph]

24 minutes ago, Sobakaa said:

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

It's an aggressive feature addition & debug process but the devs have released 24+ patches in almost as many days. They're doing a ton of work!

Sure, the emphasis is on campaign mechanics right now & I think most players would prefer combat/shipbuilding bugs to be fixed first, but either way, you can't say they're not progressing rapidly towards a finished product.

[neph]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There are known issues on overpens bypassed in MainBelt, MainDeck hits, so this can lead to less probable hits in other sections of the hull and much smaller damage on average. We will address.

Additionally, when we hit a large hull we cannot expect to always overpen. It is wrong assumption that a shell which scratches an unarmored deck's surface of a large hull (due to almost flat angle) must overpen at all cases. A large hull is a thick steel construction of large width and by itself plays role in the ship's protection.

Certainly, but please watch at least from minutes 4:00→14:00 of that video. 18" AP shells, being fired at 1 km, flat, into a ship that is exactly parallel & unangled, are being blocked by extended belt and deck that has 0 (!!!) inches of armor.

 

I'm really begging you to take a look at the video & treat it as a bug report. Or tell a coworker to do it! But please don't release 1.10 while this bug still lingers.

Edited January 19, 2023 by neph

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, neph said:

Certainly, but please watch at least from minutes 4:00→14:00 of that video. 18" AP shells, being fired at 1 km, flat, into a ship that is exactly parallel & unangled, are being blocked by extended belt and deck that has 0 (!!!) inches of armor.

 

I'm really begging you to take a look at the video & treat it as a bug report.

Already addressed in RC5  More improvement later, if needed.

[neph]

5 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Already addressed in RC5  More improvement later, if needed.

Much love! Thank you!

[Narbar]

When is this going live? I think it will be received well.  Great work

[lordcmdr]

51 minutes ago, Sobakaa said:

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

Please give Nick and his dev team some credit. This has been one the most actively updated early release games since it hit Steam. Since 1.10 hit beta branch his team has obviously been working non-stop through weekends and late at night. This thread has been holding the devs to task (rightfully so) since this beta dropped and they have delivered daily fixes based on our feedback. 

[Zuikaku]

Ambush missions are not working. AI ambushes me with torpedo boats, but then does tonnage check and run away. Couldn't you just force AI to fight agressively if ut got an ambush mission and can attack a CL or CA with 4 torpedo boats???

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

Concerning land attacks, instead of outright conquering and immediately annexing territories, which at least in Europe was getting out of fashion, how about having areas taken by military might declared "occupied" and then allow the occupying faction to annex during peace talks?

[applegrcoug]

I don't know if this is a bug or how things are displayed...I think bug considering I've never seen this one...

Check out BBs Eagle, Prince of Wales and William and Mary at the bottom of the page.  All three are brand new and just now being commissioned.  How can three brand new ships have 67% damage?  They've never left port.

 

 

[o Barão]

58 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Already addressed in RC5  More improvement later, if needed.

Sadly, is not fixed.

[Nick Thomadis]

20 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Sadly, is not fixed.

Fix addressed only Citadel issues. Fore/Aft Belt Deck in large hulls may still not get fully penetrated due to angle because the ship is large and it's steel construction is taken into consideration. We need to see how the hull size matters here, but it is considered minor compared to the problem that existed before.

[Lima]

I couldn't even dream of half of what was done in this patch. All infuriating bugs have been fixed, a lot of interesting things have been added to the campaign, core game systems have been completely redesigned. I couldn't ask for more. This version surpasses 1.09.3 in everything.

[MDHansen]

6 minutes ago, Lima said:

I couldn't even dream of half of what was done in this patch. All infuriating bugs have been fixed, a lot of interesting things have been added to the campaign, core game systems have been completely redesigned. I couldn't ask for more. This version surpasses 1.09.3 in everything.

Hear! Hear!

[Norbert Sattler]

2 hours ago, Sobakaa said:

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

Because even the non-Beta version is still pre-alpha early access.

While the game is quite accessible, it is not yet released... nor in an actual Beta for that matter. They only call the non-stable patches beta, because that's what the feature in Steam is called.

Anyone who's making a review of this game right now, who's dropping it permanently or who's complaining about the game feeling unfinished really needs to pay more attention.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Norbert Sattler

[Lima]

1 hour ago, applegrcoug said:

I don't know if this is a bug or how things are displayed...I think bug considering I've never seen this one...

Check out BBs Eagle, Prince of Wales and William and Mary at the bottom of the page.  All three are brand new and just now being commissioned.  How can three brand new ships have 67% damage?  They've never left port.

 

 

This is not a problem, just a display feature. After commissioning, they will be fine.

[Sobakaa]

@Nick ThomadisI apologize if my comment sounded too harsh, i'm in no way saying the dev team isn't doing its job or doing it too slow. I'm an enterprise developer myself and i know that sometimes things that look trivial are the hardest to implement.
My point was that a wider release would be most useful if there wasn't any major bugs and you were looking for more people to inevitably stumble into more issues on more varied systems.

Guess my feelings were hurt by the videos i've seen of people dropping the 1.0.9 campaigns more than yours, which is great cause it means you're confident in 1.1.0 and going beyond. Please keep up the great work you're doing, i love the ship designer and would love to enjoy the campaign to the same extent one day.

[admiralsnackbar]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

There are known issues on overpens bypassed in MainBelt, MainDeck hits, so this can lead to less probable hits in other sections of the hull and much smaller damage on average. We will address.

Additionally, when we hit a large hull we cannot expect to always overpen. It is wrong assumption that a shell which scratches an unarmored deck's surface of a large hull (due to almost flat angle) must overpen at all cases. A large hull is a thick steel construction of large width and by itself plays role in the ship's protection.

I mentioned this to Munro on his video. HE partial pens on a deck at close range makes a certain amount of sense if we're just talking about a solid object skimming at an almost parallels angle. One thing I'm not certain the game does except perhaps indirectly through resistance is properly model what would happen if a shell with a sufficiently large explosion arms but does not penetrate a relatively thin (e.g. the 1 inch minimum) hull. 

I did have a few questions:

1. Does the 25mm minimum for calculating overpenetration account for armor strength? i.e. if you've got a 0 armor destroyer sailing around with krupp IV does that 1 inch of vinsible plate actually become 2. I imagine it should remain some type of non-hardened steel for most of the game. 

2. in the games text assets Params references a penetration rule where 2x the effective penetration of armor [+/- 10%?]  gives you an overpen, but the technologies section references a fuse timer. Is there a plan to change penetration rules using fuse timers instead of just assigning penetration values to the AP/HE on guns [accounting for modules, gun size, barrel length, etc] 

3. The games text assets also has a default penetration table, but changes to the mass and velocity of shells are already in the game. It seems like starting with a table and then modifying the values with scalars that are supposed to account for modifications is unnecessarily complicated. 

Would it not be easier long term to manage the impact of selecting different modules/barrel lengths by having the terminal velocity and angle of fall for a shell of a given mass/diameter and muzzle velocity calculated within the game (ideally within the ship builder) then build a penetration table off of that? The builder already knows the mass/diameter of the shell and any scalar factor for all other penetrative qualities of the shell can be selected judgmentally by the developer. With the angle and terminal velocities you would get the maximum penetration of a given shell and assuming you use fuse timers you can always take that maximum and cap it by some amount. 

4. Similar to the above, instead of using shell damage as a single value why not split the damage into shell mass damage and bursting charge damage? 

Burst charge damage would become: Burst charge mass (2-10% of shell mass depending on shell type) * burst charge explosive (e.g. gun cotton, black powder, TNT I etc.) factor So for example a 500kg HCHE where damage is scaled to TNT would have 500 x 10% x1.0 or 50 explosive damage. 

Damage of an overpenetration would be: Mass Damage * [whatever factors you want to apply for what is being hit]"

For example an overpen through the side of the nose might be .2 times the mass damage, an overpen through the front of the nose might be 2.5x the mass damage. 

penetration damage would include the mass damage plus explosive filler damage, calculated above. 

It's a *bit* more complicated then what you have currently but using the above means you don't have different formulas for HE/AP damage like you do in the current game that get slapped with different multipliers.  
 

[o Barão]

59 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Fix addressed only Citadel issues. Fore/Aft Belt Deck in large hulls may still not get fully penetrated due to angle because the ship is large and it's steel construction is taken into consideration. We need to see how the hull size matters here, but it is considered minor compared to the problem that existed before.

"...not get fully penetrated due to angle..."

I didn't post this image first time since I didn't think it was worth it. But reading this, I know I should have.

We can see in this image that the target was almost perpendicular. 5 degrees difference only. So an 18-inch shell hit a 0 armor aft belt at almost 90-degree angle and still only got a partial pen. It's difficult to think of a reason why this would happen.

Also, very interesting to see a 31% chance to hit the deck area at target at 2.8 km away with 18-inch guns. I would expect a lot less, but it is what it is.

[admiralsnackbar]

18 minutes ago, o Barão said:

"...not get fully penetrated due to angle..."

I didn't post this image first time since I didn't think it was worth it. But reading this, I know I should have.

 

It has a 10 inch inner belt and an 8 inch second inner belt, plus an 18 inch main belt. 

Something to note about citadels, in parameters:

penetration_1st_layer_reduction,0.5,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck,,,,,,,
penetration_2nd_layer_reduction,0.25,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer,,,,,,,
penetration_3rd_layer_reduction,0.1,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer & 2nd layer,,,,,,,

I don't know if these reductions are applied only once or in sequence. If they are applied in sequence then it would need 

The effective armor which is 167% this turns the citadel into 26.7 inches and 21.36 inches respectively. (167% is already way tougher than any historical battleship armor IIRC)

The timestamp showed an unmodified penetration value of like 111 inches at that range, multiplying the belt armor values by 2.67:

111 > 48 so it should penetrate the first belt
111*.5 = 55.5 > 26.7 so it penetrate the 1st inner belt
111*.25 = 27.75 > 21.36 so it should penetrate the 2nd inner belt as well at a relatively flat angle. 

There is probably more to this story but I don't have time to look for more factors. I know there's a fudge factor for penetrations that gives ships a chance to block more or less than they would normally, but on average it looks as if it should be able to penetrate at that range. 

[Lima]

This is a minor problem, but I think it is worth paying attention to if its fix cannot be inserted into the already created campaigns (on release).

In short, the entire population of Ukraine lives in Crimea and vice versa.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Lima
fix

[Nick Thomadis]

*RC6*
- Fine tuned the dependence of the hull size and overpenetration thresholds (so that large unarmored hulls do not get so often partial pens).
- Fixed an old problem of shell dispersion causing too wide shots at close distance. (Problem solved to a large extent but not fully).
- Fine tuned hull resistance statistic.
- Fixed a hull availability issue for the Italian "Small Semi-Dreadnought".

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

[Nick Thomadis]

42 minutes ago, Lima said:

This is a minor problem, but I think it is worth paying attention to if its fix cannot be inserted into the already created campaigns (on release).

In short, the entire population of Ukraine lives in Crimea and vice versa.

Will be fixed shortly this, needs a new campaign, thanks!

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:

It has a 10 inch inner belt and an 8 inch second inner belt, plus an 18 inch main belt. 

Something to note about citadels, in parameters:

penetration_1st_layer_reduction,0.5,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck,,,,,,,
penetration_2nd_layer_reduction,0.25,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer,,,,,,,
penetration_3rd_layer_reduction,0.1,Base Reduction of  penetration power after penetrating main belt/deck & 1st layer & 2nd layer,,,,,,,

I don't know if these reductions are applied only once or in sequence. If they are applied in sequence then it would need 

The effective armor which is 167% this turns the citadel into 26.7 inches and 21.36 inches respectively. (167% is already way tougher than any historical battleship armor IIRC)

The timestamp showed an unmodified penetration value of like 111 inches at that range, multiplying the belt armor values by 2.67:

111 > 48 so it should penetrate the first belt
111*.5 = 55.5 > 26.7 so it penetrate the 1st inner belt
111*.25 = 27.75 > 21.36 so it should penetrate the 2nd inner belt as well at a relatively flat angle. 

There is probably more to this story but I don't have time to look for more factors. I know there's a fudge factor for penetrations that gives ships a chance to block more or less than they would normally, but on average it looks as if it should be able to penetrate at that range. 



 

o7!

 

Well, your detailed explanation is very interesting, but the important thing here is that we are talking about a hit in the aft section, so we should assume that is an area outside the citadel. So all these values should not be applied.

However, I run another test, now with no armor values. Nothing, only 9 inch belt armor because the game force me to have. And the result for 95% of the time, were only over pens. The only partial pens were in the belt area and in the deck area. So with this I am reaching the conclusion that citadel mechanics in UAD cover the entire hull length. Which is really odd IMO.

This detail got me thinking, since previous tests with armor sections and weight made me to believe that the citadel would only be applied in the main belt section.

So I run another quick test in the dockyard.

Note that I don't have anything. No armor, no citadel, nothing. Only one funnel and one gun. let's change the gun placement to see what happens.

And now the weight increased from 2880 to 3009 tons. With 0 armor, no citadel, nothing, I still got an increase in weight just by moving the gun to the forward section. So there is some values hidden in the code that could explain this. Maybe you can explain this. I simply can't find a reason or an answer to why this works this way.