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

[Gulaman]

Lost a campaign under just 5 months due to lowering unrest. I just can't do anything about it since all other choices are basically are worse. TBH I kinda laugh how fast it went from Czar to Great Leader.

[Admiral Donuts]

9 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

You must have played the year of 1890-1930,the year of TB.

ps：But in v1.1 gun accuracy worse than in v1.09.In v1.1 even the year 1940 you have to go into 20km to keep accuracy,it very dangerous because the torpedo range is 20km.So that l cant let the BB stay in 27km,BC in 20km and CA in 15km，they all  must stay within 20km like in v1.09.it make me hard to control my fleet to avoid torpedo now.

What's worse it was an entire task force shooting at that ship. It wasn't JUST the dreadnought. It's 1912 in a 1900 campaign. It was the DN, a CA, 2 CLs and 2DDs - all of which missed entirely. Over an extended period too, not just right at the last second. All right on top of the target.

I don't want to hear excuses from them anymore. I don't want to pretend it's historically accurate that ships didn't maneuver or shoot right. I want it fixed.

If this goes live, they are going to have a hard time paying the help.

I mean what potential this game has! Now being ruined by their own designers! I've been hooked since day one!

But it's true, you know. The higher you go, the lesser the oxygen gets to the brain.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Admiral Donuts]

And now, stopped responding 3 months in a row at Update Missions. I have 4 task forces that refuse to move out as a result.

Looks like the 3rd campaign in a row about to come to a halt.

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, Admiral Donuts said:

In a series of new features in one battle, a Chinese torpedo boat, sailed up right next to my Dreadnought bristling with guns but never hit it once, torpedoed it once because it can't maneuver properly, and flooded it out entirely and sank it through Torpedo Protection III and Anti-Flooding III.

If that was my first experience with the game, I'd hate it as much as I do right now.

You're ruining this game.

 

If that was my first experience I would outright refund the game.

 

17 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:

I don't want to hear excuses from them anymore. I don't want to pretend it's historically accurate that ships didn't maneuver or shoot right. I want it fixed.

100% agree. A game's first task is to be fun, entertaining and enjoyable. Realism shouldn't get in the way of that, because you know what? 100% accurate/realistic games, save for very specific genres, which usually are very niche, rarely are fun.

Edited December 29, 2022 by The PC Collector
Fixed grammar and typos

[Alnitak]

10 minutes ago, Admiral Donuts said:

What's worse it was an entire task force shooting at that ship. It wasn't JUST the dreadnought. It's 1912 in a 1900 campaign. It was the DN, a CA, 2 CLs and 2DDs - all of which missed entirely. Over an extended period too, not just right at the last second. All right on top of the target.

I don't want to hear excuses from them anymore. I don't want to pretend it's historically accurate that ships didn't maneuver or shoot right. I want it fixed.

If this goes live, they are going to have a hard time paying the help.

I mean what potential this game has! Now being ruined by their own designers! I've been hooked since day one!

But it's true, you know. The higher you go, the lesser the oxygen gets to the brain.

Im really agree with you.Low accuracy make the Dreadnought and gun become a joke and v1.1 made it even worse.Its a game not history.

[Admiral Donuts]

So I end up at war because I don't want t go broke and lose outright. The army starts invading territories which add nothing to my empire honestly. The army conquers said territories, adding 54 unrest to my empire - to which I can do nothing to mitigate these arbitrary unrest increases because I'm at war - due to the fact that I'm in a war that will never end - because I can't control my god danged task forces right - which was once the only thing I COULD control.

Brilliant design.

After the 4th month in a row of the game crashing or hanging up at Update Missions, I've decided to start a new Brandenburg campaign in EU4. I'll check later to see what I'm lied to about being fixed in the next patch.

 

[Admiral Donuts]

7 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

Im really agree with you.Low accuracy make the Dreadnought and gun become a joke and v1.1 made it even worse.Its a game not history.

Mark III 13 inchers, with 5x dual 6 inch secondaries on the deck, 3 inchers in the towers, and a whole rack of 6 inch casemate guns. That's just the one ship lol What a joke.

At least now we've learned the whole slideshow thing was because of all the guns missing and making splashes.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[admiralsnackbar]

2 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

So, according to you, ships not being controllable at all, not responding to movement orders, not responding to speed change orders, is a feature? We have been complaining about that, and you have done absolutely nothing at all, the game is unplayable because the most basic thing as is controlling our damn ships DOESN'T WORK.

Por the last 4 hotfixes my testing has been:

- Launch software
- Go to custom battle
- See that nothing at all has been improved and ships are still pretty much uncontrollable
- Close software and wait for next update.

I can understand the wobbling thing, as it sorts of makes sense. What doesn't makes any sense is that we can barely set the overall direction we want to sail to. Besides, last time I tested in custom battles, it was a 30000 T BB. Unless in a severe storm, the impact of waves on the handling of such a heavy warship should be negligible. So even if it is an intended feature, is clearly detrimental for gameplay, and as such should be discarded.

I have not experienced performance this bad against TBs and I have been using pre-DN BBs  which should not have better accuracy than a dreadnought class BB. However, I am usually: 

1. relying on lots of OP 2.9 inch guns to cripple vessels at destroyer size or lower
2. Locking the rudder with the manual rudder button once the ships are in the right position 
3. Keeping the ships close to their cruising speed once in range (also reduces turning circles which makes dodging torpedoes easier) and may also reduce the vibrations. 

The ships vibrations may be keeping it in a state of "maneuver" longer than they ought to, and excessively debuffing the accuracy of the ship. 



 

 

[Suribachi]

At this point, I think many of the players still running the beta branch have made their grievances pretty clear.  So, I want to show my list of what I think would be a good live patch for now. 

I make this list not as a means to put the screws to anyone, merely as a means to show what I think can draw in new players, bring back some old ones and get current players to a place where they would feel comfortable recommending it to friends.  This is a game I love and I want to see it succeed. 

I am going to be missing a few things obviously, it does not mean I do not acknowledge the existence of an issue or feature, I just likely have not run into it as others have.

In no particular order:

1. Fire control system -- Revert this to 1.09.3's version.  The 1.10 version needs some more time in the oven or a redesign.  Sorry but that is what it is.

2. Mines -- 3 options.  First, remove feature entirely until better understood how to implement as a feature by both player base and dev team.  Second, make it a toggle on/off when starting a campaign.  This way, a player can test them if they want or disable them if they do not want to use them in their current form.  Third, defensive only.  Mines are only deployed around home ports and prevent enemies from coming onto your doorstep.  If a player or AI fleet wants to encroach on an enemies territory that is mined, unless you want to suffer loses, bring minesweepers.

3. Submarines -- 3 options.  First, remove feature entirely until better understood how to implement as a feature by both player base and dev team.  Second, make it a toggle on/off when starting a campaign.  This way, a player can test them if they want or disable them if they do not want to use them in their current form.  Third, submarines only target transports.  This way, a player or the AI need to deploy ASW units into a region to defend against subs attacking transports.  This would be a stop gap measure until subs are fully realized into what they need to be.

4. Ship Maneuvering -- Revert this to 1.09.3's version.  The player base has been pretty adamant.  The 1.10 version needs some more time in the oven or a redesign.

5.  Nations on the World Map -- This one is a broad scope, so I will try and be as precise as I can in subpoints. 

5a.  Major Nations breaking up -- I believe that the player base, at this time, does not what to see a major nation knocked out entirely.  Instead, if a "break up" occurs, the nation should revert to only its home territory and lose all its colonies.  As an example, Germany would lose control of colonies in Oceania and Africa and retain only the German home country.  GDP should also reset so they are not out for the next 30 years and can recover.  I seriously do not know what to do about the fleets, whether they should dissolve or be captured by minor nations, so I am open to discussion on this.

5b.  Minor Nations -- The player should be able to invade these to gain control of critical oil resources.  Obviously, there is more, but I cannot think of anything right now and am open to discussion on it.

5c. Army Invasions -- Borders should not change unless the player can definitely make an impact on it.  What I mean by this is that, for now, there should not be any land locked invasions.  For example, China invades Tibet.  No navy in the world can help with that.  Instead, invasions should only happen on the coast or at most 1 country in with your fleet supplying the troops to make that push.  Additionally, the player should be able to give some sort of feedback as to if they think an invasion is a good idea.  Maybe an event popup where the Army General says "Hey, I want to invade this place, will you support my army with your navy?"  The player can then say yes or no.   This can be evolved down the line.

6. Bugs -- self explanatory.  Includes things like hulls not being hit by torps, $NaN and battle ending prematurely when escorts are sunk and transports are still alive among others.

7.  Features -- halt.  No new features until bugs have been squashed and the game is stable.  I understand features are fun and exciting to work on and can keep things fresh, but you cannot build a shiny new roof on a house that is rotten from termites.


This is not a list that is meant to be an ultimatum or to meant to be definitive, merely a glimpse into what a single player thinks and I am tired and cannot think of anything else right now other than sleep.


I once again want to reiterate: I love this game.  I do not want to see it fail and I do not want the dev team to lose heart.  The game has a seriously good idea and template, it just needs some tweaking.  I sincerely hope that the dev team takes a moment to stop, listen, take a breath and then move forward, one step at a time with the player base helping as much as they can providing feedback that the devs and use and trust while having fun along the way.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Suribachi

[Admiral Donuts]

I want to mitigate my recent negative reviews of this mess with some positives. What's done right? (In my opinion)

1. The addition of the possibility of changing the political state between my nation and others, other than through use of naval funds. Though it has always seemed unfair to me that *I* am somehow responsible for the political state, since *I* have to expend *my* available resources (naval), when the government goes and does it's own thing anyway - at least *I* have a hand in politics now without having to dig deep in my own pockets to fix the government's mess. This is a positive thing.

2. The addition of minor nations, the possibility of allying with them (though out of my hands), and building ships for profit. Though minors are still asking way too much of me in the form of ship production utilizing limited shipyard capabilities, a possibility still arises that DOING SO should also enhance shipyard capacity.

3. Addition of the ability of ships to fire on both sides of the ship is also an improvement (in general), given that mechanic also gives the player more control. This will be a fine feature once fixed.

4. Land invasions are also an improvement, as is control of territory. Although completely out of the hands of the player, and addition of huge unrest numbers is a negative, it adds possibilities to the game that are undeniably a positive. Actual war is taking place. Not just naval scraps.

These are the foci of positive things in this beta version. And although they need much work to fix and tweak them, they add much to the game and are desirable.

I want full control of my fleet back, and therefore full control of how it conducts itself in a battle, and therefore full control of the outcome of war. Otherwise it's a wash outright. This should be the focus of the designers and developers until fixed. It's the only thing I can control. Otherwise the game is just playing itself and not worth my time.

Aside from that, there are things well done in this beta that should be pointed-out.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2022 by Admiral Donuts

[Alnitak]

17 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I have not experienced performance this bad against TBs and I have been using pre-DN BBs  which should not have better accuracy than a dreadnought class BB. However, I am usually: 

1. relying on lots of OP 2.9 inch guns to cripple vessels at destroyer size or lower
2. Locking the rudder with the manual rudder button once the ships are in the right position 
3. Keeping the ships close to their cruising speed once in range (also reduces turning circles which makes dodging torpedoes easier) and may also reduce the vibrations. 

The ships vibrations may be keeping it in a state of "maneuver" longer than they ought to, and excessively debuffing the accuracy of the ship. 



 

 

This is feasible for 1-2 ships.But It's a disaster for a large fleet which include 3BB,5BC,3CA,8DD.It means now in v1.1 l cant cntrol an Annihilation battle of a large fleet.Ai can control their fleet and dodge torpedoes easily but you cant.🤣

[Fun Police]

I'm getting massive turn times when I go more than 6 years or so. It would be fine if I had stuff to do during these turns, but a lot of the time I'm just hitting end turn and waiting for a particular bit of tech or for things to finish building. 

[Alnitak]

1 hour ago, Suribachi said:

At this point, I think many of the players still running the beta branch have made their grievances pretty clear.  So, I want to show my list of what I think would be a good live patch for now. 

I make this list not as a means to put the screws to anyone, merely as a means to show what I think can draw in new players, bring back some old ones and get current players to a place where they would feel comfortable recommending it to friends.  This is a game I love and I want to see it succeed. 

I am going to be missing a few things obviously, it does not mean I do not acknowledge the existence of an issue or feature, I just likely have not run into it as others have.

In no particular order:

1. Fire control system -- Revert this to 1.09.3's version.  The 1.10 version needs some more time in the oven or a redesign.  Sorry but that is what it is.

2. Mines -- 3 options.  First, remove feature entirely until better understood how to implement as a feature by both player base and dev team.  Second, make it a toggle on/off when starting a campaign.  This way, a player can test them if they want or disable them if they do not want to use them in their current form.  Third, defensive only.  Mines are only deployed around home ports and prevent enemies from coming onto your doorstep.  If a player or AI fleet wants to encroach on an enemies territory that is mined, unless you want to suffer loses, bring minesweepers.

3. Submarines -- 3 options.  First, remove feature entirely until better understood how to implement as a feature by both player base and dev team.  Second, make it a toggle on/off when starting a campaign.  This way, a player can test them if they want or disable them if they do not want to use them in their current form.  Third, submarines only target transports.  This way, a player or the AI need to deploy ASW units into a region to defend against subs attacking transports.  This would be a stop gap measure until subs are fully realized into what they need to be.

4. Ship Maneuvering -- Revert this to 1.09.3's version.  The player base has been pretty adamant.  The 1.10 version needs some more time in the oven or a redesign.

5.  Nations on the World Map -- This one is a broad scope, so I will try and be as precise as I can in subpoints. 

5a.  Major Nations breaking up -- I believe that the player base, at this time, does not what to see a major nation knocked out entirely.  Instead, if a "break up" occurs, the nation should revert to only its home territory and lose all its colonies.  As an example, Germany would lose control of colonies in Oceania and Africa and retain only the German home country.  GDP should also reset so they are not out for the next 30 years and can recover.  I seriously do not know what to do about the fleets, whether they should dissolve or be captured by minor nations, so I am open to discussion on this.

5b.  Minor Nations -- The player should be able to invade these to gain control of critical oil resources.  Obviously, there is more, but I cannot think of anything right now and am open to discussion on it.

5c. Army Invasions -- Borders should not change unless the player can definitely make an impact on it.  What I mean by this is that, for now, there should not be any land locked invasions.  For example, China invades Tibet.  No navy in the world can help with that.  Instead, invasions should only happen on the coast or at most 1 country in with your fleet supplying the troops to make that push.  Additionally, the player should be able to give some sort of feedback as to if they think an invasion is a good idea.  Maybe an event popup where the Army General says "Hey, I want to invade this place, will you support my army with your navy?"  The player can then say yes or no.   This can be evolved down the line.

6. Bugs -- self explanatory.  Includes things like hulls not being hit by torps, $NaN and battle ending prematurely when escorts are sunk and transports are still alive among others.

7.  Features -- halt.  No new features until bugs have been squashed and the game is stable.  I understand features are fun and exciting to work on and can keep things fresh, but you cannot build a shiny new roof on a house that is rotten from termites.


This is not a list that is meant to be an ultimatum or to meant to be definitive, merely a glimpse into what a single player thinks and I am tired and cannot think of anything else right now other than sleep.


I once again want to reiterate: I love this game.  I do not want to see it fail and I do not want the dev team to lose heart.  The game has a seriously good idea and template, it just needs some tweaking.  I sincerely hope that the dev team takes a moment to stop, listen, take a breath and then move forward, one step at a time with the player base helping as much as they can providing feedback that the devs and use and trust while having fun along the way.

Mines make strategic places such as Panama, Egypt and Gibraltar important. If the enemy controls these places, it is a gamble to pass through these place. Mine can also prevent the enemy from navy invasion.

Player now can definitely make an impact on Borders change between two main country.You can defeat enemy's navy and sign a peace treaty.(

I would also like to add: please let the game load faster. Load times often take upwards of five minutes when you play 100+ rounds, which is too long.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Alnitak

[spinaker]

That's what else is starting to bother me. The campaign begins, the first technologies are being explored, more advanced ships are being built, the first wars are being declared. After a while, I see the statistics of the battles taking place in the world, battleships, cruisers and all the others are fighting with each other. Then my fleet begins to actively conquer the sea and after a few moves, the crews of my ships become sea wolves who know their technique perfectly. But the opponents, despite the fact that they are constantly fighting with each other, remain inexperienced rookies. After a couple of years of the company, I can safely take the fight in a ratio of 1 : 5 and win without loss. My ships die only from rare explosions of ammunition or particularly successful hits of torpedoes. In an artillery battle with equal ships, it is useless, the skill of my opponents remains in the red, and their ships essentially become disposable. It seems to me that developers need to do something about it.

[Zuikaku]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

@Nick Thomadis Have you considered adding realism settings so all can be happy? Insteadnof that you are forced to turn features on and off with each update. And now some of the players want casemate guns to be snipers. If you do that, torpedo boats are becoming useless, part of the players happy and other part dissappointed. And that is with every feature somebody likes or dislikes.

[Zuikaku]

5 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

If that was my first experience I would outright refund the game.

 

100% agree. A game's first task is to be fun, entertaining and enjoyable. Realism shouldn't get in the way of that, because you know what? 100% accurate/realistic games, save for very specific genres, which usually are very niche, rarely are fun.

You know what, some of us want realism snd not another WoW sniper arena arcade clone. I don't find it enjoyable when being able to hit anything anywhere with pinpoint accuraccy. That didn't happened and is not realistic. And I certainly won't play the game where 4" casemate guns can easily hit fast moving torpedo boat at 4km on rough seas in 1900. It's just silly! How can you make any strategy in laser gun arena?

BTW, tell us something about experiences of "bristlin' with guns" players like Szent Istvan, Hiei in Guadalcanal at point blank range or japanese TF in Indian ocean against single US DD or "bristlin' with guns Yamato against slow, fat CVEs and pesky DDs at Leyte, or Bismarck vs. shadowing DDs or russian BBs against japanese torpedo boats and believe me, there are many more. I bet all of these players feel that game engine is flawed and are quite dissapointed by game experience cause, you know, they got BBs with bristling guns and the hit rates were not enjoyable at all. Results were also not as expected 

I propose realism panel to keep everyone happy!

Edited December 29, 2022 by Zuikaku

[Norbert Sattler]

It looks like suspending construction only has an effect on shipbuilding capacity when it's done with ships that are newly built, but not for ships that are in refit.

[Alnitak]

34 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

You know what, some of us want realism snd not another WoW sniper arena arcade clone. I don't find it enjoyable when being able to hit anything anywhere with pinpoint accuraccy. That didn't happened and is not realistic. And I certainly won't play the game where 4" casemate guns can easily hit fast moving torpedo boat at 4km on rough seas in 1900. It's just silly! How can you make any strategy in laser gun arena?

I propose realism panel to keep everyone happy!

Your so-called realism is destroyers rule the battlefield, and dreadnoughts are just a symbol and a vase?its ridiculous🤣

and we never ask for 100%.You are distorting the meaning.

[Zuikaku]

15 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

Your so-called realism is destroyers rule the battlefield, and dreadnoughts are just a symbol and a vase?its ridiculous🤣

and we never ask for 100%.You are distorting the meaning.

I'm not asking for destroyers to rule the battlefield. But I think you are asking for BBs no longer requiring to have screens of the light units cause... Bristling with guns shoul'd do fine.

[Aurora]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Regarding the so called "Drunken movement" it is just a visual representation of the movement path estimation which utilizes ship's velocity.

The ship's velocity is not static but pulsates because of waves (there is calculation involved) so the estimated path changes accordingly with oscillation. Ships will steer straight whatsoever if the ship is not steering too much. In reality do ships straight in absolute straight lines?

I wanted to test this so that we're all on the same page.

i made a fairly simple ship (dreadnought 1 with 1910 tech):

I'm making it go at half speed (so a gentle cruise) and i try to make it turn slightly to port as you can see from the picture:

As you can see now, it turned very quickly, overshot the turn and then started to turn to starboard to correct (the cursor still indicates the original turn direction):

It overshot again and turned port once more to correct again (although a lesser amount):

Then after 5 oscillations it manages to stick to the intended trajectory and stops turning left and right.

 

In my opinion this behavior would be perfectly fine if i wanted the ship to go full rudder to port to avoid a torpedo or something, because it's clear that it's trying to reach the intendend heading as fast as possible and overshooting it in the process before doing it again to correct itself.
However in most combat situations i want turns to be gentle so that the guns stay accurate and the formation can be kept easily.

I then tried turning the ship by making multiple small turns of 3-4 degrees like this:

By doing this several times in a row i was able to make the ship turn to port gently and without snaking left and right, of course at the cost of a wider turning circle than with the first attempt. But it's a bandaid, as i cannot do this for an entire fleet worth of divisions without getting bored halfway through a minor battle.
 

IRL, a ship that is turning will gradually reduce the angle of the rudder towards the end of the turn so that the ship will face the desired heading with its rudder straight. In game this seems to either not be happening or not be happening quickly enough to prevent an overshoot of the correct heading. 

And of course this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that the manual rudder is not even working correctly, as can be easily seen by loading a ship and trying it out.
So yeah, there's something borked in how turning is computed.

[Spitfire_97]

7 hours ago, Admiral Donuts said:

You keep adding features that the player has no control over

This is the biggest problem with 1.09 and 1.10 imo. You just need to look at the way Rule The Waves 2 handles minefields and land invasions to know this complete dependence on rng is strangling the game. UAD claims to be a strategy sandbox game while playing more and more like a deckbuilder

[Alnitak]

52 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

I'm not asking for destroyers to rule the battlefield. But I think you are asking for BBs no longer requiring to have screens of the light units cause... Bristling with guns shoul'd do fine.

I konw you're not asking for this.What i mean is destroyers rule the battlefield before 1930 is the truth in this game.And it must be changed.In v1.1 even you have done everything to increase aiming accuracy it's still a mess.it make dreadnought become a stupid choice.

Edited December 29, 2022 by Alnitak

[DableUTeeF]

 

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

You really should try to understand that what you made isn't even remotely close to "realism" and his suggestion is way more realistic than what we have in game now.

No "Admiral" ever told the ship to follow the imagination line he draw in his head after he tell it to turn. They only tell the ships "how many degree to turn and which way".

16 hours ago, DableUTeeF said:

Nobody is talking about how "absolute straight lines" the ships had to be. But how they behave to the turning order.

For example, if a ship is heading 030 and I ask it to turn 20 degrees to starboard in the last patch it'll slowly turn until its heading is 050.

But right now it'll turn hard to starboard in an attempt to follow the exact line created then overshot the line and then turn to port oscillating over and over instead of simply "head to that direction". Which is a lot worse than useless and not in the slightest realistic.

[DableUTeeF]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

And no, "artificial bonuses" is not the only way to fix them. That is just the laziest way and scream incompetent.

[DableUTeeF]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This happens when ships are too fast and heavy and cannot follow the leader. The only way to repair is to override their physical properties with artificial bonuses, and we will do it so that players can more easily control their ships with much less realism. 

Seriously. If your programmer really can't make it without "artificial bonuses" then tell me what language you're using and I'll the make the rough altorithm for you.

Edited December 29, 2022 by DableUTeeF