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

[Lima]

My French allies are slightly optimistic in their shipbuilding program

[Deathbringer221]

19 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Because is not an issue. You have a terrible deck pen because you are increasing the barrel length and by consequence also increasing the muzzle velocity and your range, and your cost, weight, reload time, etc, etc...

So now you have a shell that will get more far and faster than the previous version, but in a more flatten trajectory in comparison with the previous version.

 

Lower your barrel length to increase the deck pen.

Except no that's not how gun length should work at all, while yes the velocity does increase, it also means that Penetration values should remain similar but at increased range brackets, instead here all range brackets become near impotent if you increase the barrel length too much. It's just a bug straight up the values are definitely not matching a linear increase.

Edit : For example if my 20 inch gun has a maximum range of 30km and has 127 inches of pen, increasing the gun length gave it a new possible range of 45km. The new extended barrel should have lower penetration values of course but still in the same ballpark at 45KM logically. That's the entire point of higher velocity to begin with so the shell can retain it's energy at longer distances.

Edit 2: If the game values were to follow proper physics and proper velocity. All increasing gun barrel length should do is change which range brackets you will hit the belt instead of the deck, nothing more, the gun itself would not lose 80% of it's penetration values at the new range bracket where the deck will now be hit. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Deathbringer221

[Lima]

11 minutes ago, Lima said:

My French allies are slightly optimistic in their shipbuilding program

In short, I think that a check like "If the shipyard capacity is close to filling, stop building" exists, because most of the time AI doesn't go crazy with building ships.

But perhaps there is another check, such as "If there are not enough ships, build", because of which this happens.

This is a big problem, because due to debuffs, the AI does not actually build a fleet.

[o Barão]

23 minutes ago, Deathbringer221 said:

That's the entire point of higher velocity to begin with so the shell can retain it's energy at longer distances.

That is not exactly how it works, but I understand what you are saying. I say this because yes, you have higher muzzle velocity and your shell will go faster and for longer distances but, your shell is also fighting air resistance for longer distances and in different altitudes for different time periods. So is never the same. It is not because you doubled the range in your gun that you will get the same pen value in the end at 2x distances.

 

This being said, I agree with you that the values feels awkward. The formula could have some tweaks, but I don't have any source to back up this. One thing is to say something doens't feel right, the other is to have proofs why.

[Fangoriously]

Longer barrels and higher velocity create flatter trajectory shells, if they hit the deck it will be at an extream angle, makeing the effective armor the actual thickness plus half the beam of the ship. If you want high deck pen you need to set your guns up like mortars. Choped barrels with only like 15 km range, super heavy with tube powder to slow velocity more, then shot will hit the deck at a favorable angle.

[Lima]

I can't cancel the emergency alliance (wars are over). Fantastic.

[PhoenixLP44]

4 hours ago, 5thYL said:

Amusing how the Brits has more naval budget than its national GDP... Does legendary AI just not get affected by drops in GDP?

Thats not the yearly budget but the funds that are already available to the british (stored money).

Like I dont know maybe I am getting wooshed but its just one line above how did you miss it.

[o Barão]

@Deathbringer221

I found interesting the issue you bring up, so I went on and tried to find anything that could be useful.  And I found it. And I think you and others will find this very interesting. In the navweaps website, we have historical data for many guns, but what I was interesting to see was two similar guns, with different barrel lengths but using the same shell type. Well, we have this.

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

"An improved weapon when compared to the older 16"/45 (40.6 cm) gun used on the Colorado class battleships, this weapon was to a simpler, lighter design. A major difference was that the mountings for these guns were specifically designed to handle the 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 projectile. This gun had a slight advantage over the 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 in terms of deck armor penetration due to its lower muzzle velocity. "

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

"More powerful than the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6 guns used on the North Carolina (BB-55) and South Dakota (BB-57) classes, this was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much. "

 

 

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

 

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

 

So in conclusion, we can see that in similar ranges, the shorter barrel have better deck pen values. This is normal, however what is important to see here, is the longer barrel will have much better deck pen values at maximum range.

 

So yes the formula for deck pen in game when changing the barrel length, is completely wrong.

[popcap200]

Finnalllyyyyy penetration feels so much better from the little I've played.  The turret sticking is still pretty bad tho.  I submitted a bug report.

[5thYL]

3 hours ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

Thats not the yearly budget but the funds that are already available to the british (stored money).

Like I dont know maybe I am getting wooshed but its just one line above how did you miss it.

I've been playing this a bit too long I think that I'm dilussional

[5thYL]

Also please give us an option to disable autosaving on combat end and end turns, late game autosaving makes those 2 take an extremely long time and it's painful.

[Warspite96]

I've been crashing a lot in this most recent version, sometimes trying to click battle icons on the campaign map and even pressing the tabs at the top of the campaign menu can cause me to crash to desktop now. Was wondering if anyone else was having issues with crashes?

[5thYL]

5 minutes ago, Warspite96 said:

I've been crashing a lot in this most recent version, sometimes trying to click battle icons on the campaign map and even pressing the tabs at the top of the campaign menu can cause me to crash to desktop now. Was wondering if anyone else was having issues with crashes?

I'll often get a huge lag when I mouse over any territory names, but it doesn't crash. Though I do suspect  this is related.

[Warspite96]

1 minute ago, 5thYL said:

I'll often get a huge lag when I mouse over any territory names, but it doesn't crash. Though I do suspect  this is related.

This might be what I'm getting, the game will freeze and if I try to click during the freeze my PC treats it as a crash and sends me to desktop. 

[Dave P.]

Would be nice if allies who buy my ships would occasionally pay me a little to refit them to the latest standards when a new version is available. Heck, I'd even do it for free since I know I'll end up using them in battle.

[Deathbringer221]

6 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Deathbringer221

I found interesting the issue you bring up, so I went on and tried to find anything that could be useful.  And I found it. And I think you and others will find this very interesting. In the navweaps website, we have historical data for many guns, but what I was interesting to see was two similar guns, with different barrel lengths but using the same shell type. Well, we have this.

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

"An improved weapon when compared to the older 16"/45 (40.6 cm) gun used on the Colorado class battleships, this weapon was to a simpler, lighter design. A major difference was that the mountings for these guns were specifically designed to handle the 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 projectile. This gun had a slight advantage over the 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 in terms of deck armor penetration due to its lower muzzle velocity. "

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

"More powerful than the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6 guns used on the North Carolina (BB-55) and South Dakota (BB-57) classes, this was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much. "

 

 

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

 

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

 

So in conclusion, we can see that in similar ranges, the shorter barrel have better deck pen values. This is normal, however what is important to see here, is the longer barrel will have much better deck pen values at maximum range.

 

So yes the formula for deck pen in game when changing the barrel length, is completely wrong.

Wow you actually went above and beyond here to pretty much put in a clear well defined post what I was trying to convey here! I love you this is such a beautiful post. This is what I would have expected to happen to guns in game if I improved the barrel length.

Worst penetration values (at least about 20% from the looks of it) at the mid-range brackets (probably because of the ricochet angles being quite sharp from the increased velocity) but better penetration at the new increased brackets of range. Thank you very much for this post it must have taken you quite some time to make.

[SpardaSon21]

9 hours ago, o Barão said:

@Deathbringer221

I found interesting the issue you bring up, so I went on and tried to find anything that could be useful.  And I found it. And I think you and others will find this very interesting. In the navweaps website, we have historical data for many guns, but what I was interesting to see was two similar guns, with different barrel lengths but using the same shell type. Well, we have this.

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php

"An improved weapon when compared to the older 16"/45 (40.6 cm) gun used on the Colorado class battleships, this weapon was to a simpler, lighter design. A major difference was that the mountings for these guns were specifically designed to handle the 2,700 lbs. (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 projectile. This gun had a slight advantage over the 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7 in terms of deck armor penetration due to its lower muzzle velocity. "

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

"More powerful than the 16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6 guns used on the North Carolina (BB-55) and South Dakota (BB-57) classes, this was possibly the best battleship gun ever put into service. Originally intended to fire the relatively light 2,240 pound (1,016.0 kg) AP Mark 5 projectile, the shell handling system for these guns was redesigned to use the "super-heavy" 2,700 pound (1,224.7 kg) AP Mark 8 before any of the USS Iowa class (BB-61) battleships were laid down. This heavier projectile made these guns nearly the equal in terms of penetration power to the 46 cm (18.1") guns of the Japanese Yamato class battleships, yet they weighed less than three-quarters as much. "

 

 

16"/45 (40.6 cm) Mark 6

 

16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

 

So in conclusion, we can see that in similar ranges, the shorter barrel have better deck pen values. This is normal, however what is important to see here, is the longer barrel will have much better deck pen values at maximum range.

 

So yes the formula for deck pen in game when changing the barrel length, is completely wrong.

Yep.  A longer range means the shell comes in at a steeper impact angle at that range.  Its also important to note that shells IRL had much flatter impact angles than they do in this game, not exceeding 45 degrees until at their most extreme range unlike what currently happens.  Its almost like super-heavy shells were intentionally designed to have reduced ricochet chances unlike how they currently operate in game.

 

Hint to the devs: lighter shells have both reduced sectional density and inertia compared to heavier ones, which means they're more likely to wind up deflected if they hit at an angle.  You have SAP and AP Capped backwards when it comes to ricochet angles and chances.

3 hours ago, Deathbringer221 said:

Wow you actually went above and beyond here to pretty much put in a clear well defined post what I was trying to convey here! I love you this is such a beautiful post. This is what I would have expected to happen to guns in game if I improved the barrel length.

Worst penetration values (at least about 20% from the looks of it) at the mid-range brackets (probably because of the ricochet angles being quite sharp from the increased velocity) but better penetration at the new increased brackets of range. Thank you very much for this post it must have taken you quite some time to make.

Not really.  The information is all right here: http://navweaps.com/  Actual IRL gun, mine, torpedo and armor specifications, pre-computed tables that are very close to reality... its probably the single best source out there for 1880-1945 naval warfare.  And yet for whatever reason the devs ignore the actual historical data and facts more often than not.

Edited February 26, 2023 by SpardaSon21

[SodaBit]

I've got some campaign battle feedback here, but I'm pretty sure the issues here go beyond battlefield tactics and doctrines.
Bloodless victories in naval warfare are an exceptionally rare occurrence, even with one-sided slaughters like Cape Mattapan, or Santiago de Cuba, the victors still lost some personnel to enemy fire. However, in UA:D, bloodless victories are not only rather common, but actually completely bloodless.
Examples Given.

French cruiser taskforce engaged by 2 old British battleships and their screen. 0 British casualties.


French battle-line units engaged by British heavy cruisers. 0 British causalities.

Large contingent of the Spanish Navy is engaged by 2 British CL squadrons. 0 British casualties.

HMS Minotaur Engages 15 French Warships By Herself. No French Survivors. 0 British Casualties.

That's dozens of ships sunk, and tens of thousands of enemy sailors killed, for no loss of life on the British side. I'll spare you the rant about how unrealistic this is, and how bad it is for game balance, and get right into what I think's causing it.

1. Reliance on Obsolete Units to Achieve Numerical Superiority/Parity
Numbers alone don't mean anything in warfare if you can't maintain those numbers. While it is much cheaper to keep a bunch of obsolete deathtraps hanging around to oversee quiet sectors or escort shipping through low-threat areas, these same units are liable to be destroyed before they even get to spot the enemy, let alone engage them. Furthermore, whilst obsolete battleships and battlecruisers might be able to deter enemy cruisers from going after a convoy, the same cannot be said about obsolete cruisers. They are more likely to be viewed as a nice bonus for catching a convoy rather than an actual threat. It's more beneficial for the raider if a convoy is guarded by these units than if it were simply unguarded, because now you get to send several million dollars worth of hardware and a trained military crew to a watery grave along with the vital war material and a civilian crew. 

2. Use of Short Range "Mortar-Style" Guns.
This is one of those things that can be argued as a personal preference on paper, but doesn't hold any water in practice. The main benefit that you get out of using short-barrel guns in an improved rate of fire, at the cost of range and accuracy. On paper, overwhelming the enemy through an unending torrent of fire can work, where the lack of accuracy is made up for by volume of fire, with more hits being scored using this method, and thus more damage being dealt to the enemy than to you. In practice however, this tactic relies on something that cannot be achieved by modifying barrel length and loading arrangements: actually being able to outmaneuver your opponent, and getting into range to use your weapons to their greatest effect. In short, in order for this approach to work, you need to be significantly quicker than the enemy, and have armor to withstand the hits they will inflict before you get into an effective firing range. If you are unable to do this, You Will Die. This is one of the reasons why my cruisers pictured above have been so effective, they're taking the opposite approach to gunnery superiority, while maintaining a higher speed than the enemy and having more durable armor. My CL's are armed with 12 200mm/L50 guns, with a maximum range of over 24 kilometers, while my CA's are armed with 8 300mm/L55 guns, with a maximum range approaching 40 kilometers. This allows them to hit targets before they get spotted, and keep hitting them with extremely accurate fire as the enemy closes the range. It's not uncommon for one of these units to land several dozen, if not over 100 hits, before the enemy gets the chance to open fire. Thus, slow-firing long barrel weapons can achieve a higher effective rate of fire than their short barrel counterparts.

3. Ineffective Scouting. 
The method by which the AI searches for their opponent is rather ineffective. They will often use fast units capable of very effective scouting in the screening role, denying them the opportunity to make use of their high speed by being tethered to larger, slower units. The best approach I've found to scouting is to form a small unit of my fastest ships, usually my CL's, who can go 40 knots (or 73.5 in HMS Juno's case?) and send them ahead of everyone else to establish contact with the enemy. Once they achieve this, everyone else behind them should still have the range to engage the enemy, albeit at somewhat reduced efficiency, leaving the scouts free to do whatever they please, so long as they can keep the enemy spotted. The AI, on the other hand, has the situation awareness accompanying tactical foresight of a headless chicken, when using their current method. The results are somewhat predictable.

My forces are able to engage the enemy with almost no threat of retaliation, as the enemy refuses to do proper reconnaissance. Unspotted, and thus in no real danger, they are able to maneuver freely about the battlefield, and destroy the enemy at their leisure. 

4. Lack of Crucial Technological Advancements.
In my current campaign, only a handful of powers have discovered RADAR technology, and despite having the technology myself for several years as of 1940, I Have Yet To Encounter An Enemy Ship Using RADAR. When you go to design a ship for 1940, either in custom battles or as a shared design, you have access to RADAR Gen 3, the most advanced variant available. It makes sense that the campaign's AI should have something approaching the baseline tech level that is available for custom battles. Even powers that are considered Advanced or Average have yet to implement it on their frontline warships. This might be due to the enormous backlog in the world's ship-building industries, as it seems everyone and their grandmother is trying to build at least 1,000,000 tons of warships at any given time, causing massive delays to everything, but as I mentioned above, only a few powers actually have this technology. The second nation to get it was Japan, and that was back in 1936. I believe this to be down to the tech priorities that the AI sets, and these priorities not changing as they should, or to adapt to the current situation.
EG. French "big gun" technology circa 1939:

A Mark 1 16" weapon. I understand that France generally adopts the Jeune École doctrine of fleet building, but that's hardly an excuse to neglect a technology branch this badly, especially one as essential as big guns. By 1939, they should at least have a Mark 3 variat of either a 16" or 15" gun to use on their battle-line units. That said, even the "small gun" technology of the French navy seems to have been somewhat neglected as well, I don't think they have any Mark 5 weapons available in that category. 

The net result of all these issues is the AI getting slaughtered at every turn, and posing no real challenge to a decently competent player. To date, I've only lost 4 ships in this campaign, despite having fought dozens of battles, and sinking hundreds of enemy ships. Iirc, the harder difficulties in this game just give the AI more income. This might result in them having more units and slightly better technologies, but won't fix some of the fundamental issues present with the way the AI conducts itself.

[Dave P.]

1 hour ago, SodaBit said:

I've got some campaign battle feedback here, but I'm pretty sure the issues here go beyond battlefield tactics and doctrines.

*snip*

I'd also add that having a seasoned or veteran crew vs. the cadet/regular level crew the AI fields is... a pretty big advantage. Bigger than it probably should be, compared with the relative benefit you get from, say, moving up a couple generations of gun tech or something.

[applegrcoug]

9 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

I've been crashing a lot in this most recent version, sometimes trying to click battle icons on the campaign map and even pressing the tabs at the top of the campaign menu can cause me to crash to desktop now. Was wondering if anyone else was having issues with crashes?

What is your system?  Is it overclocked at all?  

 

I had some crashes that were related to on OC.

[German CL mk II guns]

bug report; shift right click for torpedo target selection doesnt work anymore. main battery secondary battery works but not torpedoes.

you can work around like target right click for all weapons, then select another target for main and secondaries).

also when you change target with right click torpedoes (or another weapon group is not updated, some weapon group stays at old target showing two separate red doted lines)

[Cryadis]

Took a break and went for it again today (most recent version 1.2.4).

I am sure much effent went into finally fixing shell balistics and targeting, but the issues that annoyed me in the grand  campain (1890 start) are still present, namely:

* You get mission when enemy with superious amount of ships just flees (an example was a TR defense of mine: me 1 CL and 1 (unarmed TR) vs 3 enemy CL and a TB, fight started, we never made contact.. wasted time)

* after a fight you still must go search for your ships of your involved taskforce in various ports

* still unable to block enemies from passing your taskforce for example at gibraltar

besides that land invasion are not that clear to me:

in my campain AH tried to invade serbia twice with superious army strenght, but each time failed (can i assist as its landlocked ? is there some tech ?)

[Warspite96]

Ship design bug: trying to change ammo allocation in a refit doesn't work, I accidentally kept my ammo allocation to "max HE" when building a ship, switched it to "increased AP" in a refit but the ship is still carrying 700 HE rounds to 300 AP rounds. 

[Admiral Donuts]

Emergency alliance with Austria-Hungary and Spain versus Russia due to war, automatically given to me.

Now in alliance, I fight one battle, CA vs CA and win and the war is over.

I keep cancelling alliance every turn and the people are up in arms. Cancelled with Spain no problem, twice wouldn't let me cancel with AH. Then finally it took, and now I'm allied with Spain again.

Now my unrest is 26.6 after being zero. And I'm still in a friggin unwanted alliance.

edit - did I ever mention I hated games that played themselves?

And I still can't manually maneuver my ships, which makes the entire thing suck actually.

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Admiral Donuts

[applegrcoug]

1 hour ago, Admiral Donuts said:

Emergency alliance with Austria-Hungary and Spain versus Russia due to war, automatically given to me.

Now in alliance, I fight one battle, CA vs CA and win and the war is over.

I keep cancelling alliance every turn and the people are up in arms. Cancelled with Spain no problem, twice wouldn't let me cancel with AH. Then finally it took, and now I'm allied with Spain again.

Now my unrest is 26.6 after being zero. And I'm still in a friggin unwanted alliance.

edit - did I ever mention I hated games that played themselves?

And I still can't manually maneuver my ships, which makes the entire thing suck actually.

 

I had that happen too....

 

Trying to invade and nope...instead I get to share in the war reparations of zero.