>>>Beta v1.4 Feedback<<< [Final version released]

[Nick Thomadis]

  

Quote

 

Dear All,

Since my last posting, I have ran a number of campaigns and am currently engage as Germany starting in 1930. I am in full admiration for all of you who have tirelessly engaged in constructive feedback for the latest Beta 1.4 feedback, with lots of great comments and useful suggestions.

I apologise if this suggestion may come rather late in the process, or has been mentioned already, but one aspect of the game that I feel would really add some 'spice' to the game, would the ability to declare war and initiate an invasion, upon a minor power.

At the moment, one appears only to be able to initiate a war, (using increased tension option in the diplomatice screen, and/or place a large fleet off their coast) and then hope that the major power will get so annoyed, that they issue a diplomatic ultimatum message that ends up in a war.

However, in my view it would be great if one could initiate a conflict with a minor power, expand ones empire with a number of similar conquests, and then face a major power accordingly. For example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declaring war on Serbia, which inturn resulted in WW1. Two decades later Germany initiating Anschluss as a covert invasion of Ausria, then Sudetenland, followed by the Czech Republic and then Poland, which of course resulted in Britain and France declaring war. Similar examples can be found with Japan and Korea in the late 1890-1900s etc.

Whilst I appreciate that in UAD, one plays as 'head of the nation's admiralty', and not head of state, however, at the moment, it only appears that one has to jump into a major power conflict without consuming the minor powers first, which is not always the way that history works, unless I am missing something witihin the game mechanic?

Now I appreciate that this might entail a substantial modification of the game engine, but it would be far more enjoyable, not to say realistic.

I look forward to any comments, and once again, I am in full admiration for all of you who are making constructive suggestions in improving the game.

 

Hello, already this is simulated. Attacking some nations may cause the interference of other major nations, resulting in deterioration of relations. We have tried in older versions an intensified effect which caused too many wars suddenly, so now it works more subtly. There can be a deterioration of relations but if you have good relations you may get away with the incident and not ignite an instant war, or this war may come out much later after a continuous tension caused by the incident.

[Deadpan_Alpaca]

In my opinion, game could quite benefit from ability to interact with minor powers the same way we currently do with major ones - push them into alliance or antagonize until war starts. While, yes, we don't play as head of the state, we still have quite a lot of power for "just head of admiralty". Right now it is just way too random about "colonial invasions" and similar war types.

Also, IRL there were false flag operations used to start such wars (looking suspiciosly on the Maine incident) through the legit casus belli of old obsolete ship sunk in the foreign port. Something, we could certainly organize in the position, we are in the game.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Deadpan_Alpaca

[ilguisco]

Don't you think that after signing a peace agreement with a faction there should be a period of enforced ceasefire? I have been at war 3 times with England in the space of a few years and have won all 3 wars.

 

Do you foresee improvements still to be made in the diplomatic field?

 

 

[Dave P.]

8 minutes ago, ilguisco said:

Don't you think that after signing a peace agreement with a faction there should be a period of enforced ceasefire? I have been at war 3 times with England in the space of a few years and have won all 3 wars.

 

Do you foresee improvements still to be made in the diplomatic field?

 

 

Seems like a cynics view of diplomacy at work there. You beat them, but not badly enough - civilian leadership isn't listening to the navy or something and a couple years later they're back for more.

There should be some kind of boss battle. Sail a battlefleet up a river and bombard parliament or congress or whatever. Big throwdown with their entire fleet + reserves/mothballed ships, no retreat option. If you win it's 2x war indemnity and 10 year ceasefire. Maybe some kind of arms control treaty that knocks that AI empire out of the "great game" like Versailles.

[Sydd]

@Nick Thomadis Hello Nick, First off, thank you to both, you and your team for working tirelessly to fix all the issues. I am very excited and can't wait for this version to be released. With that being said, as was discussed earlier in the thread with regards to weight balancing.... 

Could the dev team please consider giving the player the option to move the engine room? The way it is now, the engine room seems to sit centered below the funnels in most cases. This means most ships have a foreweight offset and it makes things frustrating to balance. Allowing the player to move the engine room would really help with balancing and would give a lot of freedom with ship designs. 

[kineuhansen]

from a custom battle i had early today and myship armedwith 16 inch did nothing to this ship with no amour also i doubt this ship has 160 % quality of armour

Edited October 13, 2023 by kineuhansen

[Dalk]

Here is another thing I realized while I was messing around with a USA 1890 campaign- the secondary mounts attached to the towers available for the new small battleship only permit attaching 6" secondaries. In most all circumstances this looks very odd (the attached screenshot showcases this). I think a good fix for this issue would be to permit using smaller secondaries in these attachment points. Very excited for this update, by and large the new hull options are greatly appreciated.

[Admiral Hipster]

I'm really hope to see some small barbetes for main guns, only sufficient to be able to mount <2 inch secondáries next to them without interfering

[Nick Thomadis]

[Update 23]
- Further optimizations in auto-design.
- Some fixes for issues in hulls that were reported.

Please Restart Steam to get this update fast

[MDHansen]

Auto-design is definately getting better. I am still getting quite a few failed* designs in the log (running MelonLoader with Unity Explorer)

In particular it is
1) weight offsets
2) empty barbettes

Not sure this helps you in any way, but thought I'd just say something. Compared to 2 weeks ago, it is much, much better. The log list of failed designs is 70% shorter. I also assume that this is not something that can be corrected completely, there will always be failed designs (from the ai).

*by failed, it means the ai have tried 3-5 times before it fails

Edited October 14, 2023 by MDHansen

[Abuse_Claws]

4 hours ago, MDHansen said:

weight offsets

Those honestly cause quite a few failed designs for the player too. Like, I think it was at least a dozen times that I went "huh, it would be interesting to try this layout", and then I see that it has like 45% fore weight offset and go "naaah". Some balancing instruments would be nice (like the engine room moving somewhat towards center of balance if possible, or maybe an option to add ballast to increase stability and reduce weight offset at the cost of floatability and mass)

5 hours ago, MDHansen said:

empty barbettes

That seems like a logical error. IMO barbettes should only exist in autodesign as turret attachments and be only placed together, although I don't exactly know the autodesign logic, maybe it's not a viable option

[Nick Thomadis]

[Update 24]
- More small fixes for hulls for reported issues.
- Ship part special collider logic is further improved for even more accurate fire arc calculations and less errors in auto-design, errors that previously caused delays to find a valid design.

It seems this is a good Release Candidate. Brace yourselves for the final release, very soon!

Please Restart Steam to get this update fast

[spinaker]

What disadvantages do I see at the moment. English is not my native language, so if I write incomprehensibly, I'm sorry.
1. The relationship between ships. Ambush mission, a squad of torpedo boats or destroyers against a battleship. It would seem that having seen such an excellent goal in front of them, for the sinking of which a rain of awards will be poured on the team, the boats and destroyers will rush into the attack and at least try to reach the distance of a torpedo salvo, and they will do it from different sides. In the game, they're just cowardly trying to get away. And in general, the logic of the actions of torpedo ships should be as follows - attack, move away to recharge torpedoes or withdraw from the battle.
2. The design has become much better, although there are still ships with different pipes, it looks terribly ugly.
3. The behavior of ships in the water. The underwater part of the ship is exposed too much, in reality this never happens. I would also like to see the capsizing of sinking ships on board.
4. It would be logical to form formations of ships, to send balanced squadrons into battles, and not gatherings from what was at hand like one battleship, one cruiser, one destroyer. It would also be great to assign roles for specific ships, for example, this cruiser will guard convoys, and this one will attack convoys. Then some obsolete ships can be used for these missions.
5. Give the opportunity to capture small countries.
6. Convoy protection mission. The enemy does not even appear on the horizon, despite its numerical advantage. It would be logical to at least see who is guarding the convoy there, shoot a little, and then get out of there. And in ordinary battles, this happens very often. As a result of such battles, time and interest in the game are simply lost.

Edited October 14, 2023 by spinaker

[MDHansen]

1 hour ago, Abuse_Claws said:

seems like a logical error. IMO barbettes should only exist in autodesign as turret attachments and be only placed together, although I don't exactly know the autodesign logic, maybe it's not a viable option

Its a bit weird it turns to a failed design, since a barbette cant stay without having a gun on it. Placing a barbette should automatically attach a gun to it, and not give a failed design. So I agree, there must be some kind of logic error as it gets designed (by ai)

Edited October 14, 2023 by MDHansen

[Nick Thomadis]

[RC Version]
- Fixed a few more issues found in some hulls.
- Further Auto-Design/ Part Collider logic optimizations for more effective AI designs and more accurate part placement of parts by players.
- Battle AI adjustments.

This is an RC version. From now on, minor updates may happen with further optimizations, minor fixes, without news' updates., until the full release, which is arriving very soon, tomorrow, or on Monday.

Please Restart Steam to get this update fast

[spinaker]

While there wasn't much time, I started a new campaign.
At the moment, the biggest problem for me is that the enemy is dodging battles. I didn't collect exact statistics, but at about 60-70% I don't see the enemy at all, that is, he slept far away from me and immediately started running away at full speed. Sometimes he spawns closer and I see him showing me the poop. Real battles happen when 7-8 or more ships are involved on the part of the enemy.
Unfortunately, because of this, you just have to squander time in order to get out of the battle.
I imagine that it is difficult to achieve optimal logic of battles through programming. The enemy will either stupidly fly one small cruiser at a column of battleships, or vice versa, run away, abandon the convoy and escape from destroyers. In reality, a lot of meetings happened like this - they met, shot, maybe someone was sunk and dispersed. This happens in the game, but very rarely.

[Fangoriously]

Auto build will still allow the barrels of B turret, in this picture, to clip into the forward structure of hulls like this.

[Dave P.]

FWIW, most of the german battleship superstructures (that almost all have an integrated barbette) can't fit most of the quad turrets, and some can't even fit the triples, depending on gun mk and turret design.

Not sure if this is intentional or not.

[Sydd]

In the image above, modern german heavy cruiser hull, there are floating boats on the latest funnel and the towers.

Foreweight offset is also annoying to balance, but atleast it seems possible now. 

 

 

This is the german scout cruiser hull, still can't fit secondary towers.. 

I once again urge the dev team to consider allowing users to move the engine room around to help with ship balance, thanks! 

Edit: The secondary tower issue is still there with the german cl 5 hull as well. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Sydd

[Knobby]

Seems like portstrike missions don't generate in latest build

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

Can we please have an easier way of making designs per year rather than making the same design five times for AI shared designs? 

[Astor]

I would like to point to this two bugs again.

Please fix this two chinese hulls.

Medium Cruiser has duplicate torpedo slots

Experimental Turret Ship has one casemate not useable, because of borders.

Also you can't place weapons on funnels when they are placed on towers

Another example:

[Nick Thomadis]

[Update RC v5]
Consecutive updates have been uploaded today including:
- Fixes for some hulls and parts
- Changes in Battle AI and Targeting.

[Urst]

https://imgur.com/a/YmT7px5

It's not just on US Experimental Battleship, but on just about every single hull. The ship says it's got a fore-weight offset, the line says it's an aft-offset.

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, Astor said:

I would like to point to this two bugs again.

Please fix this two chinese hulls.

Medium Cruiser has duplicate torpedo slots

Experimental Turret Ship has one casemate not useable, because of borders.

Also you can't place weapons on funnels when they are placed on towers

Another example:

In RC 6 all issues fixed except the guns not working on funnels that are mounted on towers. We will fix this tomorrow.