>>>Beta v1.3 Feedback<<<(Released)

[Gregg]

Well that's nice, my saved campaign is now gone, after the uncommanded update being loaded, upon my restarting Steam, to continue playing my campaign.

I had to shut down the campaign I was playing, due to a Microsoft Windows forced restart, due to the automatic software update of Windows 10 on my computer.

I restarted Steam, and started Admirals off Steam. Upon entering the "Continue Campaign", I discover the saved campaign is gone.

Yes, I made sure the campaign was saved, before I exited the game, and then to the desktop. I was at Feb 1899 in a 1890 campaign playing the Japanese. My time invested in playing the campaign for the entire month of April 2023, is now lost.

Thank You So Much!

[Nick Thomadis]

Beta Update v1.3 "Build 9"
- New USA ""Dreadnought IV"" with a displacement between 28,500 and 39,500 tons, as an enlarged variant of the New York class battleships, and is available from 1914 to 1926.
- New USA ""Dreadnought V"" with a displacement between 32,500 and 44,500 tons, available from 1919 to 1926.
- Fixed initial ownership for Eastern Poland.
- Fixed UI measurement for Beam in meters or feet not updating fully.
- Other minor.

Please note that the recent changes on the gun models will surely affect designs and gun fire arcs. If you notice guns to stuck it can be due to this reason so you will need to update your designs or restart your campaigns.

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO GET THE UPDATE FAST

[MDHansen]

Re: main turrets not shooting. In many cases they actually wait for all turrets to get in position. (this is not the issue of "stuck turret")

If f.ex. the front turret isnt shooting, and the back turret dont have a firing angle, I turn the ship enough for them to have a clean sight, and et voila, salvo away.

This works only when that certain situation happens. I can turn my ship normally during a fight and turrets will fire when they have a clean sight.

This is just observations I've done last few days, and I've corrected the turrets 7/10 times it happens. There is often a firing delay aswell, but keep it steady for a few seconds and it'll shoot

Edited April 29, 2023 by MDHansen

[Werwaz]

54 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Beta Update v1.3 "Build 9"
- New USA ""Dreadnought IV"" with a displacement between 28,500 and 39,500 tons, as an enlarged variant of the New York class battleships, and is available from 1914 to 1926.
- New USA ""Dreadnought V"" with a displacement between 32,500 and 44,500 tons, available from 1919 to 1926.

Seeing as in game the old USA "Dreadnought IV" hull, will we be getting a hull of similar displacement (50-70k tons) to replace it? As it stands, the USA currently has a large size disadvantage compared to other fleets from about 1920 to 1930.  Almost everyone else can field 70k ton dreadnoughts while the USA can only construct dreadnoughts up to 50k tons during that time, and the player would have to wait until modern battleships to have competitively sized ships again. 

[Candle_86]

5 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

Seeing as in game the old USA "Dreadnought IV" hull, will we be getting a hull of similar displacement (50-70k tons) to replace it? As it stands, the USA currently has a large size disadvantage compared to other fleets from about 1920 to 1930.  Almost everyone else can field 70k ton dreadnoughts while the USA can only construct dreadnoughts up to 50k tons during that time, and the player would have to wait until modern battleships to have competitively sized ships again. 

It fits the US strategy they built short fat ships upto and right after WW1 focusing on firepower and armor, not speed which right now you can fit 6x3 12in, 5x3 14in, 4x3 16in turrents, I don't seem them lacking in firepower at all. And honestly I'm thrilled these hulls are finally in game. Now I can build every class from South Carolina - Iowa, and being able to make delware-Texas is awesome. The only thing we really miss now is pre Dreadnought USA hulls. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Candle_86

[SpardaSon21]

1 hour ago, Candle_86 said:

It fits the US strategy they built short fat ships upto and right after WW1 focusing on firepower and armor, not speed which right now you can fit 6x3 12in, 5x3 14in, 4x3 16in turrents, I don't seem them lacking in firepower at all. And honestly I'm thrilled these hulls are finally in game. Now I can build every class from South Carolina - Iowa, and being able to make delware-Texas is awesome. The only thing we really miss now is pre Dreadnought USA hulls. 

Yes, but considering the USA doesn't have the historical advantages in weight savings it did IRL, it needs some sort of compensation.  Just compare the Revenge-class to the Colorado-class in terms of tonnage and capability and tell me there isn't a stark difference, especially since the Colorados were using the incredibly weight-inefficient turbo-electric drive system compared to the Revenges, not to mention 16"/45 guns instead of 15"/42 guns.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

Minor thing, but the flag on the US Advanced main tower IV is still floating over it without visible connection

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, Käptn_Flitschauge said:

Minor thing, but the flag on the US Advanced main tower IV is still floating over it without visible connection

Can you tell its exact name to find and fix? It is a new tower of the beta or an old one?
EDIT: Seems it is found. Thanks.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

As far as provinces go, this is roughly what I mean (please excuse my horrible edit skills). Poland can - and IMHO should - be split down into more territories. I think the game should use for that the Prussian, Austrian and Russian provinces, considering they can be used for a realistic progression of the map in different starts/as the game goes on. Ukraine should also be broken up further (though I only marked Galicia/Ruthenia here, the part that belonged to Poland between WW1 and WW2 should be seperated as well), as should Romania. I have only marked Transylvania, but I think a tripartite split would work best, with the other two being the traditional princedoms of Wallachia and Moldavia, probably. The area now named Moldavia on the map should be renamed Besserabia. Serbia should be split into at least Novi Sad/Peterwardein (being part of Austria-Hungary) and the southern part being independent. North-Eastern Italy should also be broken up into Venetia, Trient and Romagna, and maybe Lombardy. Norhtern France should have Alsace-Lorraine broken off which before WW1 should be German. Southern Spain may also feasibly be broken up into two areas.

Edit: The province now called Galicia is in fact not Galicia and should be renamed to Slovakia

Edit2: Also, aside from Ethiopia and arguably Marocco, there is no idependent nation in Africa in this time period. Just divvy all those lands up between the Europeans as historically accurate

Edited April 29, 2023 by Käptn_Flitschauge

[RNV]

I agree that the map, while certainly not the biggest concern with the game, has to have more, smaller provinces to better represent borders in 1890-1945. Also, as other posters pointed out before, a way to push the government for invasions against minors would be great, and there is already a mechanic which increases tensions when a Great Power invades a Minor that is friendly with another Great Power.

On a more general note: in my opinion peace treaty should have a truce period of at least 2 years.

[Nick Thomadis]

The map already offers many provinces, far more than planned for the main scope of the game. By dividing it to even more provinces, we increase calculations, complexity and overall direction of the game, which is to fight naval battles and not wage detailed land wars. 

[SirTrafalgar]

18 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

The map already offers many provinces, far more than planned for the main scope of the game. By dividing it to even more provinces, we increase calculations, complexity and overall direction of the game, which is to fight naval battles and not wage detailed land wars. 

There are some places that it doesn't matter that there are multiple provinces, for instance Korea and Anatolia. Especially since its so hard to interact with minors at this point, so their nations having boarders doesn't make sense beyond creating modern day national boundaries within minor powers. So Korea would be split into north and south only.

I am just confused that a minor power like Korea (4) has more providences than the French Hexagon (Mainland France (3)) does. In addition to the inconsistencies in province placement I think many in the community are frustrated by land invasions being out of our control. Another part of the problem is the fact that once core territory is lost it compounds the snowballing effect. I think many of us want a small province on the border with great powers to lessen the snowballing chance and make it hard for the AI or player to gain an insurmountable advantage.  I am really pleased that you spit Poland since it gives Germany the needed buffer against the Russians. It does not need to be split further. Belarus does the same thing for Russia giving the two great powers a province that they can afford to lose. Small inconsequential provinces on the boarders with major power, especially in a dense area like Europe would make it possible for territory to shift hands without one side gaining a huge advantage allowing the player to focus on the naval game. Navies should be the tool to break stalemates on the ground because right now it seems that land invasions are far too dynamic. 

Ideally, ports could only be taken with a naval invasion, thus giving the player more agency in the campaign map, but obviously the system doesn't support that and it doesn't have any accuracy either to any militaries campaign in the Real World. 

[RNV]

For me the snowballing effect and the fact that land war is completely out of player control (which makes sense in the philosophy of the game) are the main reasons to have more provinces: it reduces the impact on the game of an uncontrollable variable while keeping it in the game equation.

Then there is the merely aesthetic issue of modern day borders on the map which just look funny.

Edited April 29, 2023 by RNV

[Tiggun]

I noticed a big speedup in load times which is great. I also started my first battle in a 1890 chinese campaign and was surprised that the weather was stormy rain. I didnt take any screenshots but I liked it. I had germany sign peace but i wish i could close the peace treaty window because I don't know where all their colonies are. I just looked the names up on my phone. I took German New Guinea and had 20 mil left over so i grabbed the Marshall islands also. unfortunately they are on the other side of the world map >.> the good news is they can sail across the map boundary.

[Candle_86]

2 hours ago, RNV said:

For me the snowballing effect and the fact that land war is completely out of player control (which makes sense in the philosophy of the game) are the main reasons to have more provinces: it reduces the impact on the game of an uncontrollable variable while keeping it in the game equation.

Then there is the merely aesthetic issue of modern day borders on the map which just look funny.

consider this Earth II, i mean we don't have planes this is obviously not our world 

[JaM]

Dual Barbette for small and medium guns is impossible to use on ship stern, as it refuses to be rotated... even if you rotate it (which is quite chaotic) it still gets placed the opposite way.. I have reported this bug at least 5x  since 1.3.0 Beta came out, checked after each update, but still these barbettes are unusable. 

[StoneofTriumph]

On 4/29/2023 at 9:59 AM, RNV said:

For me the snowballing effect and the fact that land war is completely out of player control (which makes sense in the philosophy of the game) are the main reasons to have more provinces: it reduces the impact on the game of an uncontrollable variable while keeping it in the game equation.

Then there is the merely aesthetic issue of modern day borders on the map which just look funny.

I'm actually in a situation where I'm playing as Italy and I'm about to get wiped out because of factors that are completely out of my control due to how the land war is going no matter how much I wreck face in the parts of the game that I can actually interact with. This is because my government refused to accept Germany's surrender while they were storming over the Alps.

Edited April 30, 2023 by StoneofTriumph

[MDHansen]

Ukraine has Soviet colours when owned by Austria

[Urst]

It is impossible to give a ship a Triple Expansion steam engine in 1910, meaning I cannot build Texas for Shared designs. Kindly remove þe block on obsolete equipment and just put it in a sub-folder or someþing if you're trying to avoid cluttering þe screen.

Additionally: I cannot mount 14" guns on her, which were her armament as designed.

Finally: Þe scale of þe turrets is impossibly large and þe barrels far too long. It is impossible to create Texas on Dreadnought II hull at BB-35 Texas' closest approximate lengþ possible in-game. (578'3" at 26,000 tons, which is at least 1000 tons less þan her standard load and 2300 less þan her full load.)

Don't try to argue "Þis isn't supposed to be a 1:1 historically accurate ship building game." You gave us a ship builder and supposedly historical hulls, turrets, etc.
You should've designed þe game like þe oþer Ultimate Admiral/General games if you want to dodge þat complaint.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Urst

[SMS]

I recommend that the Dreadnought V be extended to 1942 and be able to use a modern bridge.

[Knobby]

game still hanging at 'next turn' on the second turn

 

edit: actually this seems fixed, thanks!

edit2: Aaaand it's back

Edited April 30, 2023 by Knobby

[Zuikaku]

AI created transport ships always use best techs available ehich is ridiculous. I'we defended convoy of mine consisted of turbo-electric driven transport ships while my best warships used geared turbines. That is just wrong. Transports shoul'd always be 3 techs behind warships and never better than turbine engines. I mean by the mid '30ies most of the transports were still driven by triple expansion engines 

[Suribachi]

22 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:

I'm actually in a situation where I'm playing as Italy and I'm about to get wiped out because of factors that are completely out of my control due to how the land war is going no matter how much I wreck face in the parts of the game that I can actually interact with. This is because my government refused to accept Germany's surrender while they were storming over the Alps.

@Nick Thomadis  I once again put forward that there needs to be a feature in place that allows us, the players, to spend accumulated naval prestige in order to force, or at the very least heavily influence, civilian government decisions.  This can include, but is not necessarily limited to:

Naval invasions of minor powers -- more territory means more GDP, more GDP means more budget
Force War or Make Peace with a major power -- player may want to get out of war in order to repair or rebuild their fleet or prepare for a future confrontation
Naval Budget increase -- self explanatory
Army Budget increase -- maybe you know there is a land war coming up and don't want to be invaded or have extra budget that can be better spent elsewhere

Yes, I understand that the player is not in full control since we are playing as an Admiral and not the head of state.  However, there has to be a point where the game aspect needs to make sacrifices in terms of realism in order to be fun to play.  Using the above example, if the player is dominating on the seas, they should have greater influence over matters of state, such as forcing a peace treaty.  On the other hand, if the player is not doing well on the sea, which is the player's primary job, the player should not be rewarded with the ability to influence the government.

If this kind of feature existed, a fair number of the player base's complaints about land battles may go away over night.  Yes, I understand that we should not have complete control over the state or army, but if a playthrough is completely left up to random chance not a lot of players will have fun and continue playing the game.

[Nick Thomadis]

Beta Update v1.3 "Build 10"
- New USA "Modernized Dreadnought I" with a displacement between 25,750 and 32,500 tons, which can recreate the *modernized New York-class battleships* and is available from 1927.
- New USA "Modernized Dreadnought III" with a displacement between 41,500 and 49,500 tons, available from 1927.
- New USA "Modern Battleship I" with a displacement between 44,500 and 52,500 tons, available from 1929.
- New USA "Fast Battleship" with a displacement between 47,000 and 62,500 tons, available from 1935.
- Various fixes, improvements on some model parts.

Please note that the recent changes on the gun models will surely affect designs and gun fire arcs. If you notice guns to stuck it can be due to this reason so you will need to update your designs or restart your campaigns.

***It is highly advised to restart campaigns and check or delete your old designs, because they will most likely not function as before.***

PLEASE RESTART STEAM TO GET THE UPDATE FAST

[o Barão]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

- New USA "Fast Battleship" with a displacement between 47,000 and 62,500 tons, available from 1935.

In game, the "Fast Battleship" is a battlecruiser hull.