>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)

[kineuhansen]

please do a performance upgrade to the game it freeze when i click next it does not happend that offen also when i leave the build the game like stop also the research tree dont seem to fit have not notice it playing as the british but from what i have seen it dont fit

[Lima]

Non-consensual aliiance system

In WWII, the US fought with Japan. The US was allied with the USSR. However, the USSR did not fight with Japan until 1945, because the USSR did not want to fight on two fronts. In this game, the USSR would immediately enter into an unnecessary war with Japan.

The player must be able to reject the automatic alliance at the start of the war. The current system does not add anything good to the gameplay. 

Note: Lord Khorne is happy with the current system and asks to leave it as it is. Skulls for the Skull Throne!

[M3rky1]

Bug on Japanese  Modern Heavy Cruiser 4 hull. When trying to mount Mk V 8.9 inch guns on the aft hull barbet, it says the turret is colliding with some hull border I think. When I turn the turret a couple if degrees either way it will fit. This seems to happen on several of the hulls with built in barbettes. 

[brothermunro]

I‘ve noticed a bit of stuttering on the campaign map, usually after loading back to the map from a battle. The game locks up for perhaps half a second and is unresponsive, happens a couple of times a few seconds apart, then it’s fine. Hard to reproduce it doesn’t do it all the time. I had a system monitor up, the game doesn’t seem to be drawing extra resources when it happens. Only seen this behaviour on 1.2.9 and 1.2.9R.

[SodaBit]

Please, for the love of God, and all that is holy, PLEASE LET US REJECT ALLIANCES.
I Don't Need Spain or America's Help To Fight A No Longer Austrian, Nor Hungarian, "Empire" That Only Possesses A Single BB, All They'll Do Is Sign A Peace Treaty That Will Prevent Me From Putting This Failed State Out Of Its Misery, And I Couldn't Give Less Of A F*** About What Ever Conflicts These "Allies" Of Mine Drag Me Into. There Is No Reason For Me To Fight Their Wars For Them. 
PLEASE.
STOP.
FORCING ME TO.
I don't care if I'm only the head of the navy, this lack of control is only detracting from the gameplay experience. Even though it has been in the game for multiple patch cycles at this point, this feature has yet to provide any benefit to me. The allied ships I am assigned to help with my own missions are often poorly designed deathtraps that would only serve to give me revolt risk and my enemy free victory points. I'd rather sail into battle with a single 35,000 ton BC of my own making that two of the honestly laughable 70,000 ton BB's provided by my allies. Every land battle has been won by weight in numbers provided by my own nation's army, with next to no contribution from allied forces. In return, all I get is my wars cut short, even when my side is decisively winning, and under no pressure to sue for peace, and my own ships are kept out of action so that my allies can send along some "help" that I never asked for, which I always send away for the sake of not helping the enemy by giving them VP.
Please Revert This Change.

[AlJabberwock]

V. 1.2.9 Live R

 

1

I love this game, but it is a shame 

That all this love goes down in flame! 

Shadow fleets on maps are ghosts complete

While physically they're a deceit.

Shown in Lima, but now off Trent 

How can 'The Moltke' be present?

The Stardate is not late enough

For transporters and the 'warp' of stuff.

 

2 

The armor-up techs are wonders, aye

But why on some it now breaks the die?

Sure CA, DD, CL, - all lose their weight 

But now on BBs might be _more_ great?  

 

3

Torpedoes may show shells instead

Whilst on the sea, I could be dead

Trying to figure the real tally.

Might as well ask Rand McNally...

 

4

Some pages might agree with one another

On Stats, and versions, name and numbers.

But going back, now the result is "other"!?

What point if truth is oft encumbered?

 

5

Forshame the collapse of the British Empire,

Their fleet is now a mixed-up vampire

Their one retrieved region bases no ships, 

Unfound on any map: no matter loose lips;

113 (in 0 task forces) 

Fight-noughts use no resources.   

 

6

Verify, delete and re-install 

Restart yet still hit the wall 

Of random and intermittent

Bugs that are intransigent. 

 

7

Could it be hurried patches

Untested and released in batches

Make bugs harder to find,

Covering our shiny, new game in scratches?

Beware the quick fix or new objectives

'Till the current nest is dealt correctives!

 

PLEASE! 

[Zuikaku]

In ambush missions AI ambushers runcaway all the time before making contact! Please remove tonnage check AI is doing at start of the missions. It makes missions unplayable. What is even the point in generating missions that tactical AI sabotage by evading combat? Why is even AI doing this tonnage check and how can it be done before even making visual contact??

 

In convoy missions, when AI is attacking it is more focused on slugging with escorts than trying to rush to the transports.

[mk4m]

99% combat missions - DD and CL. Why?

[Zuikaku]

37 minutes ago, mk4m said:

99% combat missions - DD and CL. Why?

Ships shoul'd be pulled to missions taking into account range, speed, battle location and availability. The same few Cls are being pulled into missions while I have numbers on faster and longer ranged BCs and CAs sitting in the same port with sea control orders. 

[o Barão]

Two issues.

Every time a ship needs to fall back in the formation, because of damage, it will do the movement to the port side. Unless I am mistaken, the movement (180º turn) is always to the port side. Is it possible to improve the AI logic in this movement to take into consideration the nearest enemy ship/division? So if the nearest enemy in on the division port side, the ship will disengage to the starboard side, and vice versa.

 

One flash fires is enough to disable all the main guns. Does not matter if they don't share the same magazine. One flash fire in the bow turrets, it is enough to disable all guns. I suspect this can be some bug, maybe? I fail to remember when I saw a last flash fire chain reaction.

Edited March 26, 2023 by o Barão

[MishaTX]

Oh, the Ghost Battles are back in full force and Auto Resolve is just plain silly.

If I try to engage a task force of 3 TBs with my entire fleet, they run away (understandably so), but if I decide to forgo the nonsense of entering battle, then telling my entire fleet to retreat so I don't have to wait for the End Battle button for so long, and select "Auto Resolve" instead, half my task force takes severe damage from those three TBs who somehow manage to penetrate my screen of 6 CLs and 8 DDs, the very same ships they were fleeing from earlier.

Seriously???

And, to add insult to injury, if I retreat, more often than not my entire task force relocates to a random port, interrupting my invasion and forcing me to have to put them together again after they "fled" in terror of three Chinese TBs.

*Slams head on desk.*

Would it be impossible to keep the "player only allowed to have DDs and, perhaps, a borrowed CL" mission generator from generating missions that the AI has no intention of fighting?

[Zuikaku]

AI should be prevented from retreating until it visualy (not by Starfleet long range scanners) indentifies ships it is fighting.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Zuikaku

[kineuhansen]

man i really hate the ai using klingon cloaking device even when they are 3 km out from my battleships with best tech i cant see them also the refit could use some it does not allowing me to fit a brand new barbette it saying too far away from previous position"

[mk4m]

Auto targeting logic is wrong, all my ships firing at enemy BB many kilometers away, and absolutely ignoring very dangerous TB in close range. 

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis I know you must be very busy with the upcoming update, but if possible add this change to the game code. To allow towers to have a recon value.

 

I tried to add scout planes to some towers that have plane facilities (recon +250; +10 long accuracy), but sadly this does not work. The tower component will vanish from the game. It seems to me the issue is the recon modifier is only being applied to towers from radar, but is not possible to have a tower with a recon value from the start.

 

If possible, thank you.

[MishaTX]

5 hours ago, mk4m said:

Auto targeting logic is wrong, all my ships firing at enemy BB many kilometers away, and absolutely ignoring very dangerous TB in close range. 

That would be your mains going after the biggest threat (and easiest to hit), so that makes sense. Your secondaries should be pounding away at the small targets, that's what their job is. If you're ever in a situation where you need your, say, 14"ers to engage DDs getting close, then that ship needs a refit.

[M3rky1]

9 hours ago, MishaTX said:

That would be your mains going after the biggest threat (and easiest to hit), so that makes sense. Your secondaries should be pounding away at the small targets, that's what their job is. If you're ever in a situation where you need your, say, 14"ers to engage DDs getting close, then that ship needs a refit.

What if you created a custom component that allowed a scout plane? like having a custom radar component that includes scout plane. You could increase the cost and weight of it to compensate.

Edit.  Maybe this could be a better use of the radio component since it becomes useless after getting radar. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by M3rky1

[M3rky1]

On 3/27/2023 at 4:55 AM, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis I know you must be very busy with the upcoming update, but if possible add this change to the game code. To allow towers to have a recon value.

 

I tried to add scout planes to some towers that have plane facilities (recon +250; +10 long accuracy), but sadly this does not work. The tower component will vanish from the game. It seems to me the issue is the recon modifier is only being applied to towers from radar, but is not possible to have a tower with a recon value from the start.

 

If possible, thank you.

I did some messing about and figured out how to make a custom component. This increases the the spotting range for the ship significantly to simulate having a scout plane. I put 1000 tower spotting just for testing it but it allowed me to spot a DD at over 20km. Recon didn't seem to affect the spotting range. I Believe you need to modify or add the following to the tower if you only want this to apply to s specific tower: ,stat(tspot;1000)

[o Barão]

5 hours ago, M3rky1 said:

I did some messing about and figured out how to make a custom component. This increases the the spotting range for the ship significantly to simulate having a scout plane. I put 1000 tower spotting just for testing it but it allowed me to spot a DD at over 20km. Recon didn't seem to affect the spotting range. I Believe you need to modify or add the following to the tower if you only want this to apply to s specific tower: ,stat(tspot;1000)

From my understanding, recon is only applied in the campaign map. Your solution is different to what I would like to see. You are applying a "scout plane" component to all ships, even DDs. It is not exactly the same thing.

But still an interesting option. 👍

[HaMaT]

BTW why there are no aircraft carriers? It's a huge branch of technology, ships, etc. Is there any explanation?

 

[Urst]

6 hours ago, HaMaT said:

BTW why there are no aircraft carriers? It's a huge branch of technology, ships, etc. Is there any explanation?

 

Because "aircraft are too hard"
Despite at least 2/3rds of þe games timeline having aircraft and aircraft carriers.

[Lastreaumont]

11 hours ago, HaMaT said:

BTW why there are no aircraft carriers? It's a huge branch of technology, ships, etc. Is there any explanation?

IMHO because if you add aircraft carriers, the game will become Ultimate Admiral: Aircraft Carriers, and the dev seem to prefer developping Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. I'm pleased with this choice. 

[Urst]

4 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

IMHO because if you add aircraft carriers, the game will become Ultimate Admiral: Aircraft Carriers, and the dev seem to prefer developping Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. I'm pleased with this choice. 

As long as jets don't get added, and being þat þe game stops at 1950 it'd be reasonable for þem to not be, AAA batteries will still be enough to defeat planes.

I believe þey should've just done what was done for þe oþer two "Ultimate -" games and did a WW1 British naval campaign and noþing like what we've got. Game starts in 1914 or wiþ þe launching of HMS Dreadnought, and ends in 1918.

[o Barão]

Campaign won at January 1899 - World record I guess. (diplomacy feedback)

All good buddies at a party.

Events explained to how I get here:

1. I joined A-H in a war against Russia.
2. I managed to convince Italy and Japan to join our war against Russia.
3. After Russia almost lost half their territories, they signed a peace treaty. A-H left the alliance a few turns later.
4. Spain dislike me, and all other nations in the game also don't like the Spanish. So I provoke a war with them to expand my empire.
5. In the next turn, USA, France (both didn't like me) and A-H also declared war against Spain, and because of this we are all good friends. Makes sense?
6. So now that I have friends all over the world, well let's provoke a war against the Great Britain.
7. Now everybody hates the British and the Spanish? Makes sense?
8. It only takes a few turns for these nations to dissolve, with many merchants being sunk every turn all around the world.
9. World peace is declared, and all live in harmony and joy for all the eternity.

Edited March 29, 2023 by o Barão

[HaMaT]

11 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

IMHO because if you add aircraft carriers, the game will become Ultimate Admiral: Aircraft Carriers, and the dev seem to prefer developping Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. I'm pleased with this choice. 

With the same explanation, devs could name the game Ultimate Admiral: Submarines. You can't see them, they are overpowered for the AI opponent but they exist in the game.

As for the CVs and CVLs there is even historical fact in the game about the first real Aircraft Carrier. And there were historical events of converting the BB to CV like the Japanese Shinano. So they are closely related to the Dreadnoughts. Also, there is a tech to balance their power - the Fleet's size. You simply won't have too many CVs in your fleet as they will be expensive and thus not overpowered. IMO.