>>>v1.3 Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.3.9.9 Rx2)

[__Arminius_]

Something went wrong in my campign and USA declare war to the almost all countries.

 Also, in the given screenshots, you can see how many ships the AI builds.

P.S. Campaign for Germany 1900 hard difficulty.

[Vaarsuvius]

2 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

I'm curious about the mathematics that goes into successful penetration, my gun has 285mm of penetration at 10km vs 79mm of armour with a quality rating of 140% (so 110mm effective), the two ships were almost perfectly broadside with each other at the point of impact and my gun's velocity at the barrel is over 1000m/s so the guns fire at a relatively flat trajectory at that distance......I'm wondering where the other 175mm of effective armour is coming from to get a fully blocked shot at that distance? Sometimes it feels like there is some magical force stopping you from penetrating parts of a ship that should logically be easy pens.

Pretty sure that with regards to armour if it shows +140% then it's actually a total value of 240%. So is this Compound or Harvey armour in 1895 with a total of +40% armour quality or is it Modern Armour with Citadel 4 or 5 for +140% armour? If the latter then the effective armour is closer to 190mm effective.

 

If the latter is the case you may be getting partial pens because the shells lose a lot of penetration before hitting the inner belts (up to 3 of those) and they have the same armour modifiers. Also if the latter I would like someone to tell me/us if there's a roll on the penetration value. It does feel like not every shot has the stat card listed value and I'm curious if there is variance on what we see and what we get.

[Aurora]

I can report that there is still a bug of guns getting stuck at certain angles, which also applies to torpedo tubes. I just lost 4 good DDs against an old BB because none of them launched torpedoes during their attack run, which is caused by their torpedo tubes being stuck aiming forward.

A similar issue happened with a CL that had a turret stuck aiming at an angle and never moved.

I really hope this bug gets fixed, it's been around for ages.

[clavernever]

3 hours ago, Vaarsuvius said:

Pretty sure that with regards to armour if it shows +140% then it's actually a total value of 240%. So is this Compound or Harvey armour in 1895 with a total of +40% armour quality or is it Modern Armour with Citadel 4 or 5 for +140% armour? If the latter then the effective armour is closer to 190mm effective.

 

If the latter is the case you may be getting partial pens because the shells lose a lot of penetration before hitting the inner belts (up to 3 of those) and they have the same armour modifiers. Also if the latter I would like someone to tell me/us if there's a roll on the penetration value. It does feel like not every shot has the stat card listed value and I'm curious if there is variance on what we see and what we get.

Still needs to be confirmed by a dev, but I did some research right before the 1.3 beta and at least then there was for sure a degree of randomisation. I think it was only like +-10% though so for the numbers shown, even after accounting for the fact it's additive 140% (aka x280% like you said),the full blocks mentioned wouldn't be explained by the bit of randomness.

If I had to bet it's either getting deck hits (as far as I know deck/belt hit chance isn't affected by shell ballistics so you can expect a reasonable amount of belt hits at 30km and likewise with deck hits at point blank)... or the good old mega-overpens-get-blocked bug rearing it's ugly head again. (in that case it would likely be superstructure or fore/aft belt hits getting blocked).

As for whether shells blocked by inner belts get reported as partial pens, full pens or blocked hits I don't know and would really like a dev to clarify (they probably have at some point but I can't just go and read the whole forum >.<)

Even after saying all that let me add that there's so much more math and stuff involved in this game's mechanics than most people realise.
If my research into it taught me anything, it's that it's way more complicated than we think to code this sort of game, and we really should respect the devs for the work they've done.

Edited May 21, 2023 by clavernever
duplicated mention, fixed typos, added caveat

[JaM]

One thing that makes quite a little sense is how land offensives happen.. practically, even if AI loses the attempt, it will redo next turn with fresh troops until it succeeds.. that's now how things work.. if you fail, there should be repercussions, same as with losing naval battles.. Also put some timer on redo offensives so they don't happen all the time.. its not fun watching AI occupy other AI home provinces all the time...

[SpardaSon21]

Ships that are in the building queue or mothballed should not contribute to army logistics, only those that are finished building and either commissioning, being refitted, or in service.

[clavernever]

Quote

One thing that makes quite a little sense is how land offensives happen.. practically, even if AI loses the attempt, it will redo next turn with fresh troops until it succeeds.. that's now how things work.. if you fail, there should be repercussions, same as with losing naval battles.. Also put some timer on redo offensives so they don't happen all the time.. its not fun watching AI occupy other AI home provinces all the time...

Losing an offensive (be it land or naval) penalises you (or the AI) with a bunch of unrest points.

And if you think unrest does nothing, think again when you have 5 rebellions and a revolution within a year.

As for the re-trying penalty.. not only it isn't historically accurate (there were quite some stubborn repeat offensives during WW1 if I remember correctly), but also it limits the player and leaves you at the mercy of RNG.

-Say you're trying to conquer Northwest England to get a foothold on the British Isles and let your land armies invade the provinces that have ports too big for your navy, so there you go, you put a fleet 2X the size the game suggests, you endure 6 turns of constant economic damage to your transport fleet.. and then you fail.
Would you like being told that no, you can't try again for the next 6 months (aka you'll have to end the war in defeat cause RNGsus didn't bless you); or would you prefer the game to let you queue up another invasion on the same province every 2 turns (as it currently does), so that if your first attempt fails you'll only have to wait 2 more turns to roll the dice again?

And as I said before, do remember that forcing a victory in that way does have it's cost. If you fail one invasion every 2 turns cause you're biting more than you can chew, the game can and will punish you (and the AI too if they do the same thing) for that mistake, by kneecapping your GDP growth and causing constant rebellions.
 

Edited May 21, 2023 by clavernever
added quote

[Zuikaku]

A-H looses too easily land wars against Russia and France looses to easily against Germany causing them to be eliminated.

[HaMaT]

I think torpedoes must be fixed. If their radius is 6500 then it's 6500. Not 20000.

Also, the torpedo avoidance behavior must be removed from AI control mode as the ships try to avoid torpedoes moving kilometers away from the ship in another direction. There is a separate button to avoid torpedoes. Let it be there

[JaM]

9 hours ago, clavernever said:

Losing an offensive (be it land or naval) penalises you (or the AI) with a bunch of unrest points.

And if you think unrest does nothing, think again when you have 5 rebellions and a revolution within a year.

As for the re-trying penalty.. not only it isn't historically accurate (there were quite some stubborn repeat offensives during WW1 if I remember correctly), but also it limits the player and leaves you at the mercy of RNG.

-Say you're trying to conquer Northwest England to get a foothold on the British Isles and let your land armies invade the provinces that have ports too big for your navy, so there you go, you put a fleet 2X the size the game suggests, you endure 6 turns of constant economic damage to your transport fleet.. and then you fail.
Would you like being told that no, you can't try again for the next 6 months (aka you'll have to end the war in defeat cause RNGsus didn't bless you); or would you prefer the game to let you queue up another invasion on the same province every 2 turns (as it currently does), so that if your first attempt fails you'll only have to wait 2 more turns to roll the dice again?

And as I said before, do remember that forcing a victory in that way does have it's cost. If you fail one invasion every 2 turns cause you're biting more than you can chew, the game can and will punish you (and the AI too if they do the same thing) for that mistake, by kneecapping your GDP growth and causing constant rebellions.
 

Land offensives are completely out of player control, and are not very fun to experience.. especially when its AI vs AI and it causes entire world to spin into chaos which greatly reduces the fun with the game. AI just goes for offensives like crazy, often occupying places nobody cared about.. like Sahara, or central Asia.. WHY? what's the purpose of that?? And yes, failing gives AI unrest points, but it just keeps doing it round and round, until it disintegrates, removing itself from the game as potential adversary for player..

 

Gameplay mechanics that are out of control of the player are not good gameplay mechanics...

[HaMaT]

In continuation of my previous torpedo post:

This little DD has pissed in her pants because of the torpedo which WAS NOT threatening her.

She is screening my BB from 21 km away and is not going to come to help.

Edited May 22, 2023 by HaMaT

[Warspite96]

17 hours ago, Vaarsuvius said:

Pretty sure that with regards to armour if it shows +140% then it's actually a total value of 240%. So is this Compound or Harvey armour in 1895 with a total of +40% armour quality or is it Modern Armour with Citadel 4 or 5 for +140% armour? If the latter then the effective armour is closer to 190mm effective.

 

If the latter is the case you may be getting partial pens because the shells lose a lot of penetration before hitting the inner belts (up to 3 of those) and they have the same armour modifiers. Also if the latter I would like someone to tell me/us if there's a roll on the penetration value. It does feel like not every shot has the stat card listed value and I'm curious if there is variance on what we see and what we get.

In my case it was the aft belt of a light cruiser, so it isn't protected by an inner belt. However I wasn't aware that the armour effectiveness is actually calculated as 240% instead of 140, it seems I've been misled by the in-game UI. 

So does this mean a gun's penetration value is given as its effectiveness against base armour quality values and not against what I assumed would be roughly 100% armour quality? Perhaps this needs to be made clearer in-game as now I am massively confused. 🤨

[HaMaT]

@Nick Thomadis

Could you please add an option to remove Subs from the game? It is very frustrating to lose a new BB to an old Coastal sub I or II when protected by several most advanced (for the current period) DDs.

I usually play Campaign till that happens but close the game right after this first encounter.

[PhoenixLP44]

1 hour ago, Warspite96 said:

In my case it was the aft belt of a light cruiser, so it isn't protected by an inner belt. However I wasn't aware that the armour effectiveness is actually calculated as 240% instead of 140, it seems I've been misled by the in-game UI. 

So does this mean a gun's penetration value is given as its effectiveness against base armour quality values and not against what I assumed would be roughly 100% armour quality? Perhaps this needs to be made clearer in-game as now I am massively confused. 🤨

The value that you give the ship like 10 inches of main belt armour is your standard armour protection. If your armour quality is now 140% you need to add those 140% on top of it. so 10 inches +140% =24 inches of armour protection.

It might be confusing but if you look closely it says +140% just above the armour layout.

Base armour quality is just the value you gave the ship. 140% is that value +140%.

 

Gun penetration is the total amount of armour that can be penetrated. say the penetration value is 24 inches and you have 10 inches of armour +130% of armour quality then the shot will be able to penetrate because, calculation 10 + 130% = 23.

I hope this was somewhat helpful.

 

[Alphaone]

I don't seem to get the new map, even started a new campaign but still only see the old colorless map. Also naval invasion doesn't work, they always fail. I'm on 1.3.2 R but I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. 

[Vinrellren]

42 minutes ago, Alphaone said:

I don't seem to get the new map, even started a new campaign but still only see the old colorless map. Also naval invasion doesn't work, they always fail. I'm on 1.3.2 R but I can't tell what I'm doing wrong. 

There is an overlay button in top right corner of the screen. Should be there.

[o Barão]

The "Modern heavy cruiser II" for the Americans will not be available for the player when is unlocked. The reason being is a 18200 tons minimum hull ship and the unlock happens at 17k tons. The player needs to unlock CA 19k tons hulls in the tech tree to be able to build them.

[Schmitty21]

There seems to be a random issue where ships (mostly CL's so far) stop firing their guns until you set torpedoes to Save.

[clavernever]

12 hours ago, JaM said:

Land offensives are completely out of player control, and are not very fun to experience.. especially when its AI vs AI and it causes entire world to spin into chaos which greatly reduces the fun with the game. AI just goes for offensives like crazy, often occupying places nobody cared about.. like Sahara, or central Asia.. WHY? what's the purpose of that?? And yes, failing gives AI unrest points, but it just keeps doing it round and round, until it disintegrates, removing itself from the game as potential adversary for player..

 

Gameplay mechanics that are out of control of the player are not good gameplay mechanics...

Oh, I totally agree in that regard!
I'm usually all for more player agency where it makes sense, and more UI clarity where player agency isn't an option (aka if something is RNG, then wherever possible the UI should give a clear-cut explanation of what the randomness is supposed to represent).
As for what approach should be taken to improve said situation, I'd lean more toward either letting the player choose or at least "influence" what provinces the government attacks (like with peace treatises), instead of implementing a hard countdown on attack frquency.
It could be done as simple (simple from the players pov, not necessarily from a coding standpoint) as letting the player right-click on a province that can be invaded and choose "attack" from a drop down menu; ooooor maybe to keep the spirit of "the player is only the admiral and doesn't directly control the government" you could let them "influence" the government by choosing a "land invasion stance" from a button in the politics tab, where they choose between more general strategic options (some examples of what could be in said menu: focus navy budget and don't do land invasions, attack only if your nation has military superiority over the defending province, focus large/minor provinces, focus inland provinces, focus provinces with highest port capacity, focus army budget and attack everywhere, etc)

Still, you're a seasoned tester and i'm just a random person that likes speculating over game mechanics, so you probably have better ideas than I do (and most importantly, reasonable ideas that don't require weeks of development time to complete).

[Oxygenes]

Ships have weird system of aiming, probably pure random. Two parallel barrels can not to have such dispersion like shotgun, otherwise how you want hit target at big distance, if here at 1100 m distance guns fires ad hoc. Normally lock could be gradually created by both turrets, one aim at front, second at rear and observing water splash helps officers can do correction for aiming.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Oxygenes
other picture format

[clavernever]

11 hours ago, HaMaT said:

In continuation of my previous torpedo post:

This little DD has pissed in her pants because of the torpedo which WAS NOT threatening her.

She is screening my BB from 21 km away and is not going to come to help.

I've noticed "avoid torpedoes" applies evasive action to all ships in the division so long as any of them is threatened by a torpedo.

It's really a panic button you should toggle on if you can't be bothered to pause the game and do the dodging yourself, and even then only toggle it on for a few seconds to make your ships change course, then quickly toggle off to let them fall back into line.

Of course this is just a player mitigation for behaviour that should be handled per-ship rather than for the whole division
...buuuuuut that would probably be a massive coding headache, dev time is better spent on other stuff and just removing the button would cause outrage the same way removing the rudder did (thanks for bringing rudder back btw, it's extremely useful to force ships into a straight course after a hard turn, with a quick double click).

[Suribachi]

11 hours ago, HaMaT said:

@Nick Thomadis

Could you please add an option to remove Subs from the game? It is very frustrating to lose a new BB to an old Coastal sub I or II when protected by several most advanced (for the current period) DDs.

I usually play Campaign till that happens but close the game right after this first encounter.

When I last booted up the game, I got a popup poll asking if I wanted to keep/remove/optional subs and mines.  Dunno if this is tied to the Anonymous Analytics option, but makes sense to me.  Sounds like the devs are trying to get votes from all the players.

[HaMaT]

Yeah, but the best option in this case IMHO is to make Subs optional from Settings, so if you want to fill the pain - turn them on. Plus I accidentally voted for the Balanced approach but would like to change my vote to TURN THEM OFF.

@clavernever The problem is that the ships with AI control ON try to run from the torpedo once they spot it. In theory, it's a correct behavior but if the torpedo is not threatening formation at all by heading away to the West while you are sailing from the South, that is an incorrect behavior. And since the torpedoes' range is way higher than in its description it often breaks the entire battle plan and the game process.

Also, there is a related bug. When ships in AI control mode start evading torpedoes and you try to take manual control back by clicking somewhere to change formations' heading direction, it will do nothing. The ships will remain in AI control mode but their corresponding button will not be highlighted. You will have to manually turn AI mode back on and then click somewhere again. Only in this case, you will get control of your formation back.

[Idean]

I am beginning to get a bit tired of battles at night in the fog or in a storm.  Yes these may happen but virtually everyone is in some kind of poor visibility.  What makes it worse is most of the time I never find the enemy fleet so I'm looking at my ships just sailing along.  It gets repetitive and frankly boring. 

 

Edit......six battles since I posted this and every single one of them in poor visbaulity...so poor cant even see my own ships!

 

Please allow weather to be edited as well.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Idean
update

[o Barão]

Small suggestions/questions list.

• Is it possible to place the allied flag on the ship hull?

 

• Is it really important to have the encounters between subs and transports? We can have a simple end turn report saying how many transports were sunk in the sea region.
• About new turn reports. Is it possible to get a message pop up to inform the player if any ship being build by the player was commissioned? And also to inform the player if a ship was sold for the allies.
• In the campaign map can we have all the time the information about the ship damage, fuel, ammo and range added when we hover the mouse above our ships?
• In the encounter screen (in the campaign map) can we have an info about the initial weather situation and hour of the day the battle will take place?
• Can you consider placing borders in the sea regions? There are many places where is difficult to understand where a sea region ends and another one starts.
• About mines and subs. I don't have any issues with subs, but the mines mechanic is strange. In one example I sent a fleet of 11 DDs, to cross the Atlantic between New York to an area near Gibraltar. In the middle of the voyage almost all of them were damaged by mines.  This is very strange since almost all of them being hit in the middle of nowhere at the same time, and the damage is also strange. Is only small damage. I don't remember ever seeing a ship sunk by mines until now. My suggestion would be to buff the mine damage but to make it more rare to happen. So fewer ships being hit by mines, unless of course sailing close to an enemy port with a minefield. At the moment is only an annoying mechanic that don't reflect very well how they work, with the player forced to send many ships to port for 1 month repairs when it happens.

 

From playing RTW3, I saw two mechanics that I really enjoyed that if possible would be great to add to UAD IMO.

• Colonial service. To force the player to keep a small naval presence in the sea regions where his government have colonies to prevent them of rebelling. To force the player to spread the navy around the globe to maintain the empire.
• A reload penalty for ships with low freeboard (minimum draught penalty stat in UAD) when sailing in a bad sea state. This would help to balance the draught mechanic since at the moment there is little gains in having ships with a normal freeboard when designing the ships.

 

From the bugs list I need to mention this two:

• The main guns not working because there are small guns with a big ROF being used onboard. This should be priority nº1 IMO. Critical bug that ruins the gameplay.
• The guns getting stuck still happens, but is not common anymore. However, I notice if disable the guns and turn them on again will fix the issue. Maybe this helps to understand the issue.

 

Gameplay improvement.

• When a ship is forced to make a turn, will only use the main guns when all turrets available are aiming at the target. The issue with this is that is possible to make a turn and the turrets in the bow are still aiming at the target but will not be used because they are waiting the guns in the stern to make the turn. Special annoying in ships with slow turrets.