Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Kraut said:

Id rather say nerf C RF, Accurracy is good enough already.

True
I'd say the break point where S RFs start giving more accuracy bonus than C RFs should be at around 12km
And lowering the accuracy across the board, except in the early game, seems like a good idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abuse_Claws said:

And I assume it's linear? So at say 10km I get 23% of the long range accuracy bonus? Wow that's a scam
On a sidenote, I wonder if there are historical examples of actual gun hits in ship vs ship combat (so no training exercises) at 48km. Or even in training???
A quick google search suggests that 40km is more or less the maximum theoretical range of any naval gun ever
And Guinness book of world records suggests that the longest range naval gun hit in history was only 24km!
Can we have the upper limit for "long range" switched from 48km to 25-30km? That would seem reasonable.
(I don't necessarily mean "buff Stereoscopic RFs", I mean "make it so the accuracy bonus you see in the ship builder has at least some relevance to the actual bonus you'll get in battle")
Also I would prefer the minimal value be 0 instead of 1500, and then Stereoscopic RFs would just have a minor bonus to base accuracy
Just for clarity's sake, because the fact that "long range" begins at -1500m is not exactly intuitive

UPD: so I opened the game and did the math. At 20km range stereoscopic RFs are just marginally better then coincidence RFs in terms of the accuracy bonus (and even then it's like 1-2% more).
In my experience so far with the game, actual fights almost never occur at that range.
Sure, splash interference reduction is nice, but simply keeping main and secondary batteries firing at separate targets does the trick just as well (with some passive techs reducing splash interference from other ships I think it won't be much of an issue, unless your whole fleet is firing at a single target)
So yeah, I do mean "buff Stereoscopic RFs please" after all

 

I don't have access to the game files atm so I can't say if it's linear or not. Can be. 

The values if I am not mistaken can be edited in the "params" file. I don't think there is a need for editing, but the possibility is there for anyone interested. 

 

You could try a simple test. Custom battle , 1 vs 1 gigantic BBs, 1940 tech , perfect weather conditions, with perfect light conditions, long range guns and tech and make them spawn at 50 km range.  Take note at what distances the enemy is spotted and the values from the accuracy modifiers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, o Barão said:

The values if I am not mistaken can be edited in the "params" file. I don't think there is a need for editing, but the possibility is there for anyone interested.

I kinda still treat this game as if it was in beta and therefore avoid any modifications to be able to provide correct feedback for the devs. When the development is finished I might start looking into making a mod myself to fix a few of my pet peeves. IDK, haven't looked into the mod API yet, don't know how much of what I want to do can be easily implemented

 

 

23 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You could try a simple test. Custom battle , 1 vs 1 gigantic BBs, 1940 tech , perfect weather conditions, with perfect light conditions, long range guns and tech and make them spawn at 50 km range.  Take note at what distances the enemy is spotted and the values from the accuracy modifiers.

I poked around in the shipbuilder, the break point between stereo and coinc seems to be indeed around 20km, which supports the linear theory. I might do the test you suggested later if I decide to make a mod after all and therefore need to have a more detailed understanding. So far I'm just switching most if not all my designs to coinc RF for the foreseeable future

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we have a 8x centre gun layout upgrade for the game? It would be only another node in the gun layout tech tree. This way we could do a 4 aft and 4 fore configuration ship, and it's also a better number for designing ( and also the number for side guns)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else missing Deck Torpedo Tubes on Japanese Modern Cruiser hulls when they are available? the longer available Light cruiser hulls have them... Or actually everyone else... 

and now to something completly different! (not really, but meh);

Look at those to beauties:

 

https://imgur.com/a/BTm4YN2

The Chishima-Class-DD(Experimental CL Hull) has the much heavier and much much much more costlier Engine despite featering the same Top-Speed, a Hull-Form lower by aroudn 6 (138,x to 144,x) !!!, HALF !!!! the displacement and three meters less beam width, two meters more draught, and a hull given top speed of 35.5 Knots compared to the Chihaya modern CL hull with 36.5 Knots  and beeing only fourteen meters shorter

( length to beam ratio is 9,76 for the Chishima and 9 for the Chihaya ).

Any reasons why the Experimental CL (Based on Yubari, i assume) has that much more draught to begin with?

Am i wrong or is the calculation for Engine power / weight / Cost just out of place here. 

Even with the Chihayas top Speed raised to its hull optimal top speed limit of 36.5 Knots its still way cheaper, although atleast the engines now are heavier thx to an weight increase of 50% for that one last Knot.

I call BS on that. The Engine Cost calculations make the smaller ship unreasonable pricey and a no go cost wise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PalaiologosTheGreat said:


I focus fire a lot, aren’t later Stereoscopics better for this? Like SS 4 and SS 5?

That should be found out quiet easily in custom battles.

Question then remains, even if they are better at focus fire, is that worth the extra weight they cost?

Is the reduction in Aiming speed compared to C RFs acutally not that much of a difference?

Scoring the First critical hit is a good advantage and should be priority over long term aim bonusses, id say.

I try to have as few ships as possible in battle cause im to lazy to babysit many of them and i dont trust the computer enough to keep my precious crews / ships alive (although my lazyness has already costed multiple destroyer crews their lifes 😢), so focus fire of many ships is not that big deal for me, especially since i rarely operate a fleet consisting of a lot of different ship types.

 

edit: so i did some testing, 1940 tech, range 20/21 km, Main Battery 425mm/52, biggest Secondary  220mm/44.

Those Batteries could shoot right from the start. With S V there was no Interference malus indicated, with C V the Interference malus from own !!!!, not other gunz was around 3%. Thats nothing.

With my Setup the C RF saved 400 t in weight. 

The resulting accuracy was mainly determined by the circumstances, tech / towers in general, cruising speed and most importantly, Range found.

A Strange Observation: While Driving on Full Speed the Rangefound Bonus with S RF never exeded 208isch %, with C RF it was around 230isch %. Another Pro for C RF, although its strange that Range found is speed depend and limited when not cruising.

About Interference in general;

edit2: deleted, own/ other refers to the ship, not the caliber / battery.

So, my Conclusion remains, C RF all the way.

edit2:

i did another battle with lesser tech, 1923 or so, 375mm/38 gunz, the Interence from the other ships gunz varied from 24-35 or so % with S IV. Starting range was 21km, closing to 13km, then the game crashed, and i dont bother to redesign the ships to test for C RFs. but we can just do the math.

a Mk. IV S RF reduces other gunz splash inference by 40%, means the 24-35% in battle were  around 60% of the original value. so the Original Value would be something around 58%. I never observed such a high value during the campaign, so my trust in that result is low. 

 

 

Edited by Kraut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played this newest 1.3.9.9.Rx2 version and problems happened.

 

Strike missions are triggered weirdly; they could be triggered by parking a task force in port or just never triggered. The mission itself is also weird; how can I attack an "undefended port" guarded by BB's CA's and DDs? 

Also, can I please get a strike mission BEFORE conducting a naval invasion? It reduces the tonnage needed for naval invasion. In practice, I always get strike missions DURING a naval invasion to where I needed the port for repair and resupply, not to destroy. Fortunately, the port tonnage seems to return after conquering the port (Check me on this).

War seems too damaging to be waged for a long time in this game, which is ironic for a game focusing on naval warfare. War reduces your GDP growth by half, and a long war could cause issues in the late game, with players unable to maintain a lot of ships compared to the AI. (This is not exactly a problem, as the player's ship would be technologically superior compared to AI's anyway) so it's just profitable to take as many oil-producing provinces from the enemy at war and quickly peace out.

I achieved a ridiculous 15% GDP growth as the USA and surpassed 1 Trillion in 1929; by 1940, I was at 2.5 Trillion. At that time, money isn't even a problem for me. I can have 30 Super BBs with 150 Super CAs and 300 Super DDs just fine, while the AI continuously on war struggles to maintain six outdated BBs and 40 other ships.

Submarines are useless except for the Super variant, but Super Subs are OP. 50 stealth for a Super Coastal and 45 for a Super Cruiser, with a good attack from Super Fleet. The Super Minelayer is the only meh because I use DDs as a minelayer rather than a sub.

Transport losses and blockade doesn't seem to affect GDP growth heavily. I blockaded Italy and sunk their convoys every turn, but they still have a comfortable 4% Growth.

Please, could the devs add a white peace? Having 0v0 VP for a year or a long time could result in a white peace. It's stupid to wait a year or two while at war without anything happening and not peace out, especially if the AI cannot attack us due to range or is already at war with another AI. The lost time is good enough to affect our economy in the long run.

An accurate tonnage shown during the naval invasion menu would be handy; I hate when I met or doubled the required tonnage only to have a 7% chance of success with 100% army logistics. Not to show the real 100% required tonnage, but to show the tonnage in which at least we have a 50% (adjustable) chance of success, that would be nice.

AI battle simulation needs fixing, they are the ones who engage us in a battle, but once engaged, they tuck their tails between their leg and run away like a coward. If that's the case, then there is NO BATTLE to begin with. I hate staring at my screen at 10x or even 5x speed trying to catch the battle that AI started because they ran away as soon as the engagement began.

This is an old complaint, but please, for all of the player's sanity. Make time compressions available anytime; in late game where RADAR is used, I can only use 5x compression while chasing a retreating enemy 21km away. Our difference in speed is that I am faster by 3 knots than the enemy. How long would it take for the enemy to enter my 5-inch DDs firing range at 13.5km? I have no idea; I rage quitted.

A lot of promise in this game, but there is a lot to be desired in the execution of the idea. I know it's hard to make a game, so I hope the devs will improve this game.

 

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with Spanish names? (Currently in 1.3.9.9.Rx2)

- "La Corunia" You mean "La Coruña"?

- "Nuestra Senora del Pilar" You mean "Nuestra Señora del Pilar"?

- "Cristobal Colon" You mean Cristóbal Colón?

- "Méndes Núñez" You mean "Méndez Núñez"?

- "Malaga" You mean "Málaga"?

I understand you may want to display the names of cities in English, but it's just a mix of languages. I see "Lisbon" (obviously in English), then "Cádiz" (which is written in Spanish), it's really inconsistent.

And then the flag, I know it's been brought up several times but man, seeing the flag Nationalists used during the first years of the civil war of 1936 waving in your 1898 cruiser is kind of... weird. The flag should be the same as the one that's being currently displayed on the bow and stern of ships, the one with the circular coat of arms. (Although I've also read a suggestion of adding a jack, national and ensign flag system, which I would love to see)

I really like this game, I've been playing it nonstop since I bought it, but man it can be weird and/or frustrating sometimes. 

Edited by Nender
Gramatical error.
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be some serious bug in the game somewhere. My latest campaign is completely corrupted.

The map goes black or shows the previous background in the battle.

Ships show up invisible in the battles.

The game constantly crashes to desktop.

There have been no patches since this campaign was started, I verified the integrity of the game cache on steam, and I'm not running any mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Schmitty21 said:

The map goes black or shows the previous background in the battle.

Ships show up invisible in the battles.

The game constantly crashes to desktop.

1. Never heard anyone else mention it here. Although it is a rather small amount of people active on the forums.

2. This (bug?) is most likely related to the feature that came earlier this summer; a hidden ship has a chance of revealing its position when firing. Seems to be happening mostly to smaller ships. Oddly enough, I've never had this happen.

3. So far in my playtime (1.6 release) I've never encountered a crash/ctd. And I've modded the game quite extensively from the start (ish). In what situations is it crashing?

Edited by MDHansen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MDHansen said:

1. Never heard anyone else mention it here. Although it is a rather small amount of people active on the forums.

2. This (bug?) is most likely related to the feature that came earlier this summer; a hidden ship has a chance of revealing its position when firing. Seems to be happening mostly to smaller ships. Oddly enough, I've never had this happen.

3. So far in my playtime (1.6 release) I've never encountered a crash/ctd. And I've modded the game quite extensively from the start (ish). In what situations is it crashing?

MY ships are invisible. And when it happens the game crashes at the end of the battle.

The game just crashed again after completing designing a new ship.

The game is crashing constantly, end of turns, end of battle, exiting ship designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Schmitty21 said:

MY ships are invisible. And when it happens the game crashes at the end of the battle.

The game just crashed again after completing designing a new ship.

The game is crashing constantly, end of turns, end of battle, exiting ship designer.

Be more clear next time then, no need for capital letters.

I obviously have no access to bug reports, but this sounds very spesific, and I haven't read anything about these problems here before. Maybe best make a new thread for it in the support forum?

edit: graphic card/ driver issues? there is a log file in "C:\Users\"user"\AppData\LocalLow\Game Labs\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Player . There might be something there to shed some light to the situation

Edited by MDHansen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where these German turrets came from historically, but they have got to go. They're hideous, don't even look like they would work properly, the modeling is just bad, and they ruin every design they retrofit onto. Which is still a problem because we can't choose which Mk gun we want and every generation only has one choice.

 

uglygermtturr.thumb.jpg.95b3ee7f983e8efd4b1e2064abdff901.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2023 at 8:43 PM, PalaiologosTheGreat said:

Btw, can we have free placement of barbettes? Especially smaller ones so that I can put them on the sides of ships? 

I double this. Small barbettes should be free for capital ships to be placed - so that player could work out his own architecture of secondary artillery.  

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2023 at 6:21 PM, eirinym said:

I really think there should be some system to agree with whether your armies can invade a province or not. I keep having issues where they're invading provinces they can't take while not defending against attacks from the enemy. As a result I have virtually no defenders and even with a navy dominating my opponent, their army just steamrolls in even with terrible logistics.

This, the Army will invade a neighboring province with 8,000 troops, against a defending force 10 to 50 times its size. They get squashed.

Then there’s Naval Invasions, to have a realistic chance to succeed you have 500k-1 million tons of ships. After it succeeds, the Army packs back up, gets back on the boats and leaves 4-12,000 troops. If the AI has an inland force, the Army gets folded up less than a year later.

Time for a “Marines” dynamic you can fund, deploy and use if the Army forces are brain dead.

Edited by Halcion
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soo I took a few months break from UAD and 2 weeks ago i returned to version 1.3.9.9 live Rx2.

I have to say overall i am realy really impressed in a posive way, its great fun to play my usual campaign setting (2 times: AH 1890 start, hard, own ships, historic in this case i think, 1 similar as Japan):

+ no crashes and no more super long turn calculation times

+ we are finally able to block enemy fleets from passing gibraltar unless they are going to fight me for passage.

+ naval invasions, woo, I can more effectivly start to paint the map in a more effective way

+ limited diplomacy (actually it is necessary to check diplomatics to control who and how many allies / enemies / wars you are going into, even if not everything is avoidable i like the options).

+ i spent over 80 hours last to weeks and having a good deal of fun :)

Of course there is room for improvement and i'll limit myself to minimal suggestions on existing mechanics (without requesting new features):

- formation changes during battle. example: If for formations's lead ship gets to certain amount of damage it automatically tries to change it formation position to last in that formation. AT least so far I see no advantage of this behavior, but i see the annoying / adverse effects of that behavior: This ship will be close to your other ships, most likely AI will still target it and then there is the "magnetic hit" logic that makes misses on main target hit ships near the target. In short the damaged ship changes position close to your other ships and due AI fire chances are your entire formation gets hit a lot (with TBs and DDs this can even be fatal for the entire formation).

- on blocking taskforces i mentioned as plus above: The taskforce radius seems to also act as a force shield: i cannot plot a TF into the enemy TF's radius to actually force a fight. i.e.: Soviet TF is parket at Instanbul and i am at war with them and want to reach the Black sea for some naval invaion action: Now i cannot force the engangement with enemy TF (might be a single ship even) nor will a mission be forced be them (can it ? i am not sure on logic there).

- missions generated where enemy ships retreat right at start: i think this one has been mentioned a lot already. in my example i am waging was as AH vs Italy which is lossing badly. each turn I get around 3 convoy missions where i have to sink their TR plus a TB (30 knots) usually with my destroyers that can do 31 knots. so each turn i manually play thes emission sinking all TR and the TB retreats ( not going to chase that forever). So the TB of italy is alive so it can "protect" the next convoy next turn. rinse and repeat. In that case i'd be nice if they try at least or some other solution. for non convoy missions i could imagine something like: all enemy ships are retreating --> promt do you want to chase Yes / no (plus hint of enemy ship speed ideally)

- time compression: also mentioned many many times by others: please let the player choose the timecopression they want as you sped a lot of time "chasing" enemy ships doing nothing. IF you fear the engine might destabilize my suggestion is adding an option to turn it off in options with a warning on own risk (i remember some ppl using cheatengine to speed up the game and it seemed to work).

- campaign - GPD growth: in general it is not bad, playing for a longer time 2 decades, GPD of various countries is hugely different (iirc normal is intended for balance, but please downturn diffuculty or make more settings: enemy gets 5, 10, 15, 20% GPD bonus). in example: i guess a boring way to get head of other countries woul dbe starting as USA, and avoiding all wars. eventually your GPD with be so huge that your budges enable you to outtech and outnumber the world by far.

likewise: in ym current campaign vs Italy i conquered compe provicnes of italy (central italy, western silicy,..) and sink TRs of their left and right, still they have a GPD growth of 4% while i have between 0.8 and 1%. speaking fo that, would be a neat info to know others TR % value which could help with testing.

- spotting range in combat: aside fromt he fact the AI always knows all positions ( i take advantage of that pre radar to acually find the enemy ships) they always seem to be able to spot me first. I.e. AH before dreadnaught you can only build a BB up to a bit below 14ktonnes. I tend to go for good towers early on as well. still an enemy BB of 15 or 16 ktonnes with worse towers in a 1 on one always seems to spot me first and get the first shots. -> this one is tricky, I might be wrong on my observation or it might be buggy. i cannot check as i cannot see all details of other ships also I am not sure if i can take the values "detectability" vs "spotting range" by word. regardless for testing or in general teh ability to open ships of other nations in shipviewer showing full stats would be neat (down the road knowledge is power if you intend to make a feature / DLC for intelligence effects)

- personal gripe for playing Austria: you get a single and small pre-dreadnaught hull. Also your first DD hull is limited to 750 tonnes untill you research Destroyer 2 meanting all DD research that increases max tonnes for destroyers is a waste as you hull is the limit not your tech untill Destroyer 2 onwards.

-balance on maintenance: ship maintenance seems to be a % of design cost. this seems logical to a degree, but then a huge cost factor of a ship its her armor (fun fact, overweight / underweight flaws also affect maintence, where underweight makes ships cheaper to maintein :) ). So if you use better armor they is generally way more expensive the ships maintence increases exponentionally.

- refitting and naming of them: a personal one but i am not a fan of the automated refit design names. it would be nice to change it to a more logic way i.e. DesignName_YYYYMM where YYYYMM represents the year and month the disgn was created (in my opinion this seems more logical and its unlikely you make more then 1 design of a specifi ship per turn).

in my current game my DDs are named: "Pandur" initially, "Pandur(1899) - 2" and "Pandur(1904) -3".

This looks funny and we are almost there to my suggestion.

also: Please let me build the refit design directly, please please please.

- naval invasion time needed: minus the mentioned points of tonnage needed vs sucess chance (and enemy TF force field making engagement impossible) i "feel" they take too long. Plainly speaking 7 turns to invade / conquer Marroko looks okay, but then consider thats 7 months which seems quite a long time.

- army logsitcs: is percentage indicates how good your army is, so far so good. Then we have the tooltip that is not that clear to me, assumtions in (  ) : it is affected by number of provinces (negative) population (negative or positive ?), Tr capacity (positive) and navy size (tonnage / number of ships / posive and to what expend). From a game perspective i'd like to know what i can do the improve that value which is very unclear and also from my assumptions above, limits my options i have incluence on (i want to conquer more provinces, but do i need more or heavier ships, also the GPD growth topic from above plays a role here). Additionally from playing it also seems to relate to GPD in some way, or down the road to army budget %.

 

 

I hope this feedback helps you and i am looking forward to try 1.4 eventually !

Ps.: sry for typos

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All,

As a newby, I've now played through a couple of campaigns.

Initially, my campaigns started in 1890, but then I felt like trying a more recent campaign start date like 1930. Whilst a shorter campaign game, I would take advantage of newer tech from the beginning of the campaign.

However, I have found that the loading a NEW campaign to start at this later date (as mentioned above 1930) takes considerably longer (half an hour plus in some circumstances).

The countdown clock at the bottom right of the screen still starts in 1880 or so and counts through the years until it reaches 1930, which does take considerable time.

Now it is not that I have a slow PC (CPU - AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12 core, Asus Crosshair Hero VIII motherboard, 128gb RAM DDR4 3000mhz, NVidia RTX 3080 GPU) so can someone kindly explain why iy is slower to commence the later start date campaigns?

I would have thought that the tech and hull designs required for later start dates would have been pre-loaded in the game software?

I apologies if this topic has already been covered in a previous post, but I'd appreciate some kind feedback from the community or the developers.

Kind regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...