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

[SodaBit]

2 hours ago, Tetra_OwO said:

What even are these sub combats? Very advanced Tech and DDs kitted for sub hunting, 4 were escorting my BB in 1927 when a lone submarine approached the task force? Shouldn't this sub have been countered? All DDs were at trained and the BB was seasoned.

Unfortunately, DD's in this game are actually a kinda crap option when it comes to dealing with enemy submarines.
Which, I know, is the exact opposite of how it should be. So, until this is rebalanced, I suggest using CL's for ASW escorts. It sounds like it should be an even worse option, but thanks to the auto-battler creating a result based purely on ship stats, the CL's in this game are actually more effective ASW platforms.

1947 DD with full ASW suite: 1,818.25 ASW points.


1947 CL with full ASW suite: 8,624.33 ASW points.

Given that the 1947 DD has an ASW rating about ~4.9 times that of the 1927 DD, it stands to reason that a 1947 CL would have an ASW rating that is also about ~4.9 times that of a 1927 CL, which would be about 1760. So, a single CL would be worth almost 5 DD's when it comes to ASW. I'm not really an expert on the specifics of ASW during the 1920-40's, but I'm pretty sure an Omaha wouldn't be that much more effective than a Clemson when it comes to dealing with contemporary subs, nor would a Cleveland be that much more effective than a Fletcher in the same scenario.

[admiralsnackbar]

27 minutes ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis It seems this example is good to illustrate the issue with targeting in the recent update.

The moment I change target, the guns will get immediately a target solution and with reasonable accuracy values. The issue is in a few salvos, the target solution will be lost. So I need to keep changing targets to at least get a few salvos working properly. (bug)

I think the fact that you can get a locked first salvo is itself a bug. It makes more sense to perform a ladder salvo first. 

But on top of that is the fact that with normal ship movement [in the context of UAD this means 20-40kt movement of ships towards and away from eachother at various angles] it's not possible to get a lock on a ship in ladder aiming right now. 

 

[Kowalskicore]

Two more things I've noticed:


-When you have a division following another, you cannot change the speed of the division being followed. 

-Torpedo Evasion is super broken and ships often get stuck evading, leading them to sail ridiculously far away until you disable the function.

[Fangoriously]

I must second the use of light cruisers for escorts in place of destroyers, even in just a 1 to 1 ratio with a capital ship they always seem to protect from submarine nonsense. They are also much more durable and capable of doing a destroyers job in actual missions, of course at a much higher cost, but not even 3 destroyers could protect that dude's BB. As for destroyers, I only make cheap as possible mine layer frigates to leave at ports to make mine fields, they are not for use in combat, except against other destroyers. with just 2.9in guns and a few single torp launchers that reload fast, those actually counter enemy 5in gun, ~8 torp, anti capital destroyers quite well. If i can't make a decent 11in gun platform out of the available CA hulls, i wont even bother designing CAs. They need to be able to at least threaten capital ships with guns alone, and being able to drop their own depth charges they don't even need escorts. I station these around my distant imperial holdings to protect shipping, wile i use my BBs and BCs for exclusively offensive operations.

[o Barão]

44 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

I think the fact that you can get a locked first salvo is itself a bug. It makes more sense to perform a ladder salvo first.

Sadly I think is not a bug. I say this because this is the natural way how the guns work in UAD since the beginning. It is an unrealistic behavior that doesn't make any sense, but we have this since forever I think. Maybe I am wrong and there was a version in the past that had more realistic gunnery mechanics, but I fail to remember now.

[Alnitak]

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

Lovely attitude. This is going to be fun. 😉

 

Let's start from the beginning. Pay attention to what I am going to say. I understand that you not only have a problem with education, but you are also slow to learn. Don't worry, special people exist everywhere. You just need more work, but you can get there.

 

"It‘s a 11.9-inch gun 16% Your turning gun will not keep up with your turning rudder. "

Lesson nº 1 . Components that improve the turrets turn rate are in general only important in two situations. A ) ships in the frontline, dodging torpedoes in close quarters fight aka DDs or CLs or B ) capital ships with big guns with incredible slow turn rate. Something like 17 inches guns or higher. Any ship that doens't fit category A or B does not need this upgrade. Will cost money, will add more weight, will increase your flash fire chance and will not give you any benefit if you are playing well. In other words, sailing in a straight line for most of the time.

 

"Aren't you anti-submarine?"

Lesson nº 2. Is not worth it. It is increasing your ammo detonation for no good reason. You have, or should have, DDs and CLs in your fleet. It is their job to protect the fleet from subs. So, in other words, depth charges only for the cheap ships escorting the fleet. It is a mistake IMO, but not a big one.

 

"The penetration depth of high explosives in version 1.09 has been greatly weakened. Don't you know that high explosives have no meaning except for firing and attacking destroyers. "

Lesson nº 3.  

A ) If you are expecting to kill a BB in 1940 only by firing AP from your 11 inches guns, you are a fool. If you can do it, yes, but you are still a fool. It is much better to have choices.

B ) And this is a big noob error from your part. Doens't matter if the penetration for HE was nerfed or rebalanced. Two important things about HE that you always must remember.

• HE ammo don't have ricochet angles.
• Irrelevant the option you are comparing between HE or AP, the HE option will always deal more damage if manage to penetrate the armor. Below, you understand why this is important, or not.

Look at this example.

At 2500 m the HE can pen 6.9 inches of belt armor. In other words, this gun can pen any CL in game at 2500 m only by using HE. Now compare the damage difference between the AP and the HE. What you would prefer to use if you were in CQC with an CL?

C ) And finally the last error in this choice.  You are ignoring the option to kill faster an enemy by only using fires. This can be very useful if designing a ship with QF guns and using Pricric Acid. And if not using QF guns can always help to concentrate fire with other ships to bring down a target quicker. The benefits of having choices at your disposable.

 

Capped ballistic II can provide the highest penetration, and other effects are irrelevant.

Lesson nº 4. 

• 80% AP damage difference is irrelevant?
• Is the ricochet chance the same?
• Is the ricochet angles the same?

Or is possible that you are so blind that until now you didn't notice this "small details". Don't you worry, many noobs go crazy when they see the high penetration values. You are only one more.

 

"Sonar acoustic III is used to avoid torpedoes. It's ridiculous that you call it useless.🤣hit by two when used it, if not use it will hit by six.I don't know what you're thinking. "

Lesson nº 5.  Learn to read a joke. We understand you are special, stupid and slow, but don't worry, no one is perfect. I will help you here to explain. You were saying that you didn't have room for a good torpedo protection and I made a list with many things that were not worth it that you could remove or change with the intention to gain room for a torpedo protection. The funny part is that you were using sonar acoustic III and still managed to get hit by torpedoes. So for special kids like you is better to remove this component and use instead torpedo protection. Think this way. Imagine a father teaching the son how to use the bathroom. If the kid is so stupid to learn this basic step, the only solution is to make him use diapers for a little longer. That is you, the new kid on the block, still using diapers.

 

I think is enough for now. Don't worry if I am making fun of you. I love to make fun of arrogant idiots that think they know everything. And you are the new kid on the block. Just don't forget to change the diapers. 😉✌️

 

Pen any CL in game at 2500 ? You must have telling a joke.Please don't prove your point with unrealistic words, AI is not stupid.If you think AI is stupid, it's the producer's problem. He can't make AI smarter.

If you want to Pen a CL in game at 2500,You don't need to turn the gun quickly?Utter words that do not hang together.Or you just enjoy bullying AI？

It doesn't make sense to play a lot of low-damage defense. HE can only be used to play DD and CL and ignite. Besides ignition, AP is more versatile. Why don't you even admit that.

You should understand that it's not me who wants to use 11.9 inches, but CA can only use 11.9 inches at most.

I don't understand the meaning of CA when you deny all its features.If you think so, why not delete CA ? Why not build a BC to install a 14-inch main gun and carry semi ?

I just came to the forum because I am very interested in 1.1, but I didn't expect hotfix 20 to become so bad, otherwise I wouldn't argue with you here.

I didn't expect to see animal husbandry here.You must be a loyal user of Apple and Tesla.🤣

An old man face is really disgusting.🤮

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[applegrcoug]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

Unfortunately, DD's in this game are actually a kinda crap option when it comes to dealing with enemy submarines.
Which, I know, is the exact opposite of how it should be. So, until this is rebalanced, I suggest using CL's for ASW escorts. It sounds like it should be an even worse option, but thanks to the auto-battler creating a result based purely on ship stats, the CL's in this game are actually more effective ASW platforms.

1947 DD with full ASW suite: 1,818.25 ASW points.


1947 CL with full ASW suite: 8,624.33 ASW points.

Given that the 1947 DD has an ASW rating about ~4.9 times that of the 1927 DD, it stands to reason that a 1947 CL would have an ASW rating that is also about ~4.9 times that of a 1927 CL, which would be about 1760. So, a single CL would be worth almost 5 DD's when it comes to ASW. I'm not really an expert on the specifics of ASW during the 1920-40's, but I'm pretty sure an Omaha wouldn't be that much more effective than a Clemson when it comes to dealing with contemporary subs, nor would a Cleveland be that much more effective than a Fletcher in the same scenario.

 

Huh?  That doesn't make sense...I mean it makes sense what you explained, but I thought destroyers were for......I dunno, destroying submarines?

Robert Mitchum wasn't trying to catch Curt Jurgens with the Northampton.....

 

I haven't played since Saturday.  My next mission is my two BBs and maybe a DD and CA against like 20 DDs.  I don't want to get slaughtered without taking a few DDs with me at least.  

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by applegrcoug

[ЬЬФЛ]

Great game. Three most annoying problems for me in campaign:
1. Auto resolve: destroyers or other weak ship may fight much bigger fleets of various ships for many months and deal a lot of damage.
2. "Time machine". You started battle and sunk some ships. Then if you leave, game will use auto-resolve which ignores sunk ships and seems to start from scratch.
3. And the worst: you started battle, try to catch enemy, no luck; you see and click "end battle". Then "Click to continue" and oops: you see that game used auto calculation of battle result. No battle should mean no battle. Btw, it's very annoying when you started manual battle and cannot fight. Please don't offer battle, if gamer cannot fight. It is waist of gamer's time.

[Kowalskicore]

Is everyone seriously getting this? I've been told that it's known, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.

I get SPF, not FPS. The enemy fleet isn't even that big! 1 BB, 2 CA, 7 CL, 9 DD, 8 TB I believe. In the stable version, I would get a smooth 60 FPS throughout even at 5x speed.

This is also not an isolated instance, every battle that includes more than 10 or so armed ships gets like this.


Edit:
It appears related to distance, as as soon as the closing DD was sunk, the framerate increased to 10 to 20-ish with short lag spikes.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Kowalskicore
Edit2: more info

[Alnitak]

5 minutes ago, Kowalskicore said:

Is everyone seriously getting this? I've been told that it's known, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.

I get SPF, not FPS. The enemy fleet isn't even that big! 1 BB, 2 CA, 7 CL, 9 DD, 8 TB I believe. In the stable version, I would get a smooth 60 FPS throughout even at 5x speed.

This is also not an isolated instance, every battle that includes more than 10 or so armed ships gets like this.

It's a beta version now, so bear with it if you can.There are other more serious problems to be solved in this game.

[Suribachi]

12 minutes ago, Kowalskicore said:

Is everyone seriously getting this? I've been told that it's known, but it's honestly a bit ridiculous.

I get SPF, not FPS. The enemy fleet isn't even that big! 1 BB, 2 CA, 7 CL, 9 DD, 8 TB I believe. In the stable version, I would get a smooth 60 FPS throughout even at 5x speed.

This is also not an isolated instance, every battle that includes more than 10 or so armed ships gets like this.


Edit:
It appears related to distance, as as soon as the closing DD was sunk, the framerate increased to 10 to 20-ish with short lag spikes.

Check to see if as soon as you de-select both the enemy ship and your own ship that the FPS goes back to expected levels.  If that is the case, this is a known issue. 

It has to do with how elements in the UI are now real time instead of a momentary snapshot.  The % chance to hit is the one that immediately comes to mind.  Notice how it rapidly changes, almost as if it has a 1000 Hz polling rate.  Before, when you moused over a ship, it would grab the % chance to hit from the moment you moused over and display that, not updating it.


EDIT:  Changes to the fire control system, namely an independent secondary gun targetting system that is attempting to prioritize targets is a factor but not the primary cause when the UI is active

Edited January 17, 2023 by Suribachi

[Kowalskicore]

9 minutes ago, Alnitak said:

It's a beta version now, so bear with it if you can.There are other more serious problems to be solved in this game.

I did know what I was doing when I clicked the beta thing, and as long as the game gives me plenty of small scale-engagements, I'm gonna stick with it since the other added things are a fun time and very useful.
 

5 minutes ago, Suribachi said:

Check to see if as soon as you de-select both the enemy ship and your own ship that the FPS goes back to expected levels.  If that is the case, this is a known issue. 

It has to do with how elements in the UI are now real time instead of a momentary snapshot.  The % chance to hit is the one that immediately comes to mind.  Notice how it rapidly changes, almost as if it has a 1000 Hz polling rate.  Before, when you moused over a ship, it would grab the % chance to hit from the moment you moused over and display that, not updating it.

Tried deselecting ships in a small engagement, seems to work. What a weird issue.

Why is the UI real-time now, anyway? Wouldn't it be sufficient to update things like hit chance only every second or so?

[Fun Police]

I'm still having the aiming negative issue. My 12 mk3s are getting a -65% rangefinding penalty. The AI of course has no problem getting its guns aimed. And this is at 1km, so pretty much point blank. 

 

Edit- And then of course it works properly in the next battle 

Also, it would be fantastic to have an option to demand core provinces back in a peace deal. I'm currently dealing with two million Italians pouring into my nation, and I have zero control over what my army is doing. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Fun Police

[Nick Thomadis]

*RC 1*
- Finalized new formation code and fixed all major bugs.
- Targeting / Fire Control further optimizations.
- Auto-Design further optimizations.
- Battle performance optimizations.
- Various campaign UI fixes / optimizations.
- Various campaign bug fixes.
- Campaign calcs optimizations, turns should pass faster.
- Fixed issues that could cause allied ports to not supply the allied fleets.
- Improved Transport Capacity mechanics so that transport capacity upkeep becomes much cheaper when it reaches its limit while it grows faster when it reaches its minimum. In this way nations who invest in transport capacity have real gains after a number of turns (because transport capacity does not cost so much as before)  while there is a better chance to overcome the transport destruction during war(simulating a larger effort to grow the transport fleet in an emergency situation). This change also aids the AI economics in such a way to not cause the AI to collapse economically so easily as before.

The campaigns are advised to be restarted. All shared designs should pass an inspection for inconsistencies or just delete them all (they can cause errors in campaigns if they are invalid).

This build is considered a release candidate. Some minor fixes will follow according to your urgent feedback.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO DOWNLOAD

 

EDIT: 
- Some changes not mentioned in changelog, for example overweight gun fixes for some late tech medium caliber turrets.

[Fangoriously]

This small battle looked like it could make for an excellent vidio to document the effects of the literal order of magnitude nerf to the crew training bonus from "Range found", a stat that displays when you mouse over your targets, and your guns have the "aimed" condition. Currently this yields a tiny +138.1% with these seasoned, nearly veteran, crew. Before, id expect a bonus like that, with a 0 on the end with crew this experienced, 1380% would be about right. What complaints were there that guns seemed to accurate? The hit rate i was getting with my very well built ship and expert crew aided by radar assisted firing control felt just about right to me, now the best i can pull off is sub 'great war' gunnery at most.

I had to engage these heavy cruisers at under 5000km to have any hope of hitting them with these large main guns, acting out a battle from the 1890s, before i would have stayed between 15k to 20k km and had them both dead in 5 minutes, not 15.

oh great *Nick Thomadis has replied    Show Reply* just posted a huge patch right as I'm about to post this, wonder if this has all been improved and is no longer an issue.

*edit

Its no better of course, the most gigantic nerf in the games history lives on, with no compensation for this loss in any other area or stat pool. At least the weapons tab doesn't lag the game to death anymore.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Fangoriously

[AdmiralKirk]

EDIT: This test was in Update 20, not RC1.

4 hours ago, SodaBit said:

Unfortunately, DD's in this game are actually a kinda crap option when it comes to dealing with enemy submarines.
Which, I know, is the exact opposite of how it should be. So, until this is rebalanced, I suggest using CL's for ASW escorts. It sounds like it should be an even worse option, but thanks to the auto-battler creating a result based purely on ship stats, the CL's in this game are actually more effective ASW platforms.

1947 DD with full ASW suite: 1,818.25 ASW points.

1947 CL with full ASW suite: 8,624.33 ASW points.

So I tested ASW score for five different types of ship for the US Navy in 1927. I built all five ships with maximum RADAR, sonar, and depth charges, and otherwise built them normally. Here were my results:

1. 1500 ton destroyer escort, minimal equipment. 1114 ASW score at $7,000,000. 0.74 ASW/ton, 0.16 ASW/$1000
2. 2000 ton fleet destroyer, typical equipment. 1425 ASW score at $21,000,000. 0.71 ASW/ton, 0.06 ASW/$1000
3. 3000 ton destroyer leader, similar to above. 2863 ASW score at $37,000,000. 0.95 ASW/ton, 0.07 ASW/$1000
4. 7000 ton light cruiser, balanced loadout. 3732 ASW score at $56,000,000. 0.53 ASW/ton, 0.07 ASW/$1000
5. 15000 ton heavy cruiser, balanced loadout. 1258 ASW score at $80,000,000. 0.08 ASW/ton, 0.02 ASW/$1000

I would conclude based on this that building frigates/DDEs is economical in terms of overall ASW effectiveness per dollar spent, but those escorts aren't capable of doing much else. The most efficient proposition appears to be a large destroyer leader type ship, delivering high ASW score for its tonnage while being an overall capable warship. Thankfully sanity prevails and heavy cruisers aren't good anti-submarine escorts.

Edited January 17, 2023 by AdmiralKirk

[Kevin Alexander]

2 hours ago, Alnitak said:

Pen any CL in game at 2500 ? You must have telling a joke.Please don't prove your point with unrealistic words, AI is not stupid.If you think AI is stupid, it's the producer's problem. He can't make AI smarter.

If you want to Pen a CL in game at 2500,You don't need to turn the gun quickly?Utter words that do not hang together.Or you just enjoy bullying AI？

It doesn't make sense to play a lot of low-damage defense. HE can only be used to play DD and CL and ignite. Besides ignition, AP is more versatile. Why don't you even admit that.

You should understand that it's not me who wants to use 11.9 inches, but CA can only use 11.9 inches at most.

I don't understand the meaning of CA when you deny all its features.If you think so, why not delete CA ? Why not build a BC to install a 14-inch main gun and carry semi ?

I just came to the forum because I am very interested in 1.1, but I didn't expect hotfix 20 to become so bad, otherwise I wouldn't argue with you here.

I didn't expect to see animal husbandry here.You must be a loyal user of Apple and Tesla.🤣

An old man face is really disgusting.🤮

Would you consider stopping? Ever since I've seen you pop up in this thread you've been non-stop arrogant, annoying and unable to accept any second opinions.

My honest suggestion: go and touch some grass. Maybe this isn't the place for you.

[admiralsnackbar]

2 minutes ago, AdmiralKirk said:

EDIT: This test was in Update 20, not RC1.

So I tested ASW score for six different types of ship for the US Navy in 1927. I built all five ships with maximum RADAR, sonar, and depth charges, and otherwise built them normally. Here were my results:

1. 1500 ton destroyer escort, minimal equipment. 1114 ASW score at $7,000,000. 0.74 ASW/ton, 0.16 ASW/$1000
2. 2000 ton fleet destroyer, typical equipment. 1425 ASW score at $21,000,000. 0.71 ASW/ton, 0.06 ASW/$1000
3. 3000 ton destroyer leader, similar to above. 2863 ASW score at $37,000,000. 0.95 ASW/ton, 0.07 ASW/$1000
4. 7000 ton light cruiser, balanced loadout. 3732 ASW score at $56,000,000. 0.53 ASW/ton, 0.07 ASW/$1000
5. 15000 ton heavy cruiser, balanced loadout. 1258 ASW score at $80,000,000. 0.08 ASW/ton, 0.02 ASW/$1000

I would conclude based on this that building frigates/DDEs is economical in terms of overall ASW effectiveness per dollar spent, but those escorts aren't capable of doing much else. The most efficient proposition appears to be a large destroyer leader type ship, delivering high ASW score for its tonnage while being an overall capable warship. Thankfully sanity prevails and heavy cruisers aren't good anti-submarine escorts.

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.  

[Alnitak]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Alexander said:

Would you consider stopping? Ever since I've seen you pop up in this thread you've been non-stop arrogant, annoying and unable to accept any second opinions.

My honest suggestion: go and touch some grass. Maybe this isn't the place for you.

Then you know why I haven't come to the forum for some time befor hotfix 20. Because I think the game is good enough, I enjoy the fun it brings.

I don't accept it? I accepted his understanding of the type of shells. Can't you see.

Neither will I when the opposite side won't understand and respect me.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[Kevin Alexander]

Just now, Alnitak said:

Then you know why I haven't come to the forum for some time befor hotfix 20. Because I think the game is good enough, I enjoy the fun it brings.

Neither will I when the opposite side won't understand and respect me.

Yeah well don't expect respect when you won't even bother seeing past your own opinions when coming to a forum to *discuss* things. I've seen your posts in the thread and whenever someone replies to you you answer with sarcasm and mockery. If you'd consider changing your tone a bit then you might also find that others will start taking you seriously and respecting you. 

[Alnitak]

27 minutes ago, Kevin Alexander said:

Yeah well don't expect respect when you won't even bother seeing past your own opinions when coming to a forum to *discuss* things. I've seen your posts in the thread and whenever someone replies to you you answer with sarcasm and mockery. If you'd consider changing your tone a bit then you might also find that others will start taking you seriously and respecting you. 

You are right, I will try to make changes.Thank you.

In fact, the point I said is that the accuracy is too poor and the torpedo is relatively too strong. If you want to weaken the accuracy, please weaken the torpedo.I think this is the right way to go in game.But no one seems to understand me. Instead, arguing with me that the torpedo should be so strong and One-sided view that this is a fact in history.I think this is a kind of arrogance.

I seriously disagree with him.When a thing suddenly becomes a mess, it will be full of resentment. I hope you can understand.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Alnitak

[Skeksis]

@Nick Thomadis what about this...

You said to @Lima that you would "look into it". What say you?

Because the problem is how to automatically re-crew ships without re-commissioning every other ship that's mothballed. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Skeksis

[Sobakaa]

Based on the issues reported on the last page alone idk why we need an RC version now. I'd think a wider release is needed when there's no *major* bugs left and you want a wider audience to test the build, but we still have *major* issues that can be addressed.

[antifleshnimbus]

Hi, Just want to know how i can delete alredy shared desings?

[Lima]

What can I say...Ultimate Admiral: Destroyers is still a thing.

Eternal glory to HMS Acasta and her followers.