Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

Population is growing too slowly

France at the beginning of the 1900 scenario

24.png

This is France in 1920, after 20 years in the game.

25.png

As you can see by the size of GDP, it has been a good 20 years for France, but the population has grown by only 500 thousand people.

For comparison, France at the beginning of the 1920 scenario.

26.png

You might think that the population is not so important in this game. But for such a small country as SPain, this is very important. In fact, you are locked up with your very small population until the end of the game, despite all your efforts to strengthen the economy. Your army remains terrible, and you have a small crew pool.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report on the actions of land armies

Quote

The campaign AI will manage the economy more efficiently, and will send land armies in major offensives more logically, evaluating in more detail the strength of the enemy in the target provinces.

Well, in my first campaign in this beta version as China, it seemed to me that the AI armies really got better. The actions of my army were almost always reasonable, for example, the army did not attack with low logistics.

However, then I watched Russia/Germany/France/Austria enthusiastically making meat grinders without a chance of success. Here is an example from the last campaign.  It seems that this was the third such offensive by Germany. Although it's obvious that it just wouldn't work.

27.jpg

And this is my colonial operation which from the very beginning did't have a single chance of success

28.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HaMaT said:

Aaaaand my saves disappeared again after the update (9) :(

wich is bolded in big red letters in Nick's post 😶

at Nick if you read this. Regards army invasions; is there a logic in place, so that a small army won't attack a large army (by an x divider or something). Also, a failed attempt from one region should incure a cooldown* for atleast a few months, if not a full year.

*I thought this was actually a thing, but can't find any references of it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

[Update 9]
- Fixed critical issue of the autodesign creating delays. The new side barbette freedom was not "hard checked' for fire arc blocking so the AI often put side barbettes obscuring main guns and cancelling the design in multiple tries.
- Fixed other critical issues which could create unbuildable ships.
- Other minor fixes.

***Saves had to be reset. Please delete your shared designs that may be incompatible or repair them***

Please Restart Steam to get this update fast.

 

Regarding the not-targeted ship receiving every fired shot with 100% accuracy & 100% penetration once it intersecting the red aim line...

Has the issue been fixed?

I will keep annoy with this until I get a clear answer about it from @Nick Thomadis or anyone of the developers team, because there was no such answer no matter how often it was asked!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captain Meow said:

 

Regarding the not-targeted ship receiving every fired shot with 100% accuracy & 100% penetration once it intersecting the red aim line...

Has the issue been fixed?

I will keep annoy with this until I get a clear answer about it from @Nick Thomadis or anyone of the developers team, because there was no such answer no matter how often it was asked!

I can join you with fore belt penetrations from shells coming from rear arc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

[Update 9]
- Fixed critical issue of the autodesign creating delays. The new side barbette freedom was not "hard checked' for fire arc blocking so the AI often put side barbettes obscuring main guns and cancelling the design in multiple tries.
- Fixed other critical issues which could create unbuildable ships.
- Other minor fixes.

***Saves had to be reset. Please delete your shared designs that may be incompatible or repair them***

Please Restart Steam to get this update fast.

 

On 9/24/2023 at 6:03 PM, Knobby said:

ok so it just took really really long. left it running and went out, came back hours later and campaign was finally loaded. previously i left it for 20m but that wasn't long enough yet

 

On 9/24/2023 at 2:47 PM, Knobby said:

Since update 7 or 8 I have not been able to start a new campaign. The game doesn't seem to hang but stays forever at januari 1907 (started a 1910 campaign).

I even did a full reinstall and deleted the entire dreadnoughts appdata folder

with old saves being incompatible and no possibility of starting a new campaign it means the game is unplayable for me atm

this update fixed my "new campaign takes hours to initiate bug".

now it took 'just' ~15m. still way to long IMO, but at least i could see the months tick slowly up so i knew it was going somewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis 

Feedback on some hulls after the latest patch.

The British Battlecruiser V hull seems to have several issues.

Only the first tower option fits on the hull at all at standard width, and you need to increase the beam by 8.1 percent to fit any of the other towers.

All secondary towers are missing the second funnel spot.

By all aspects of it's design it seems to be HMS Hood, but can only have 8.3 inches of armor applied to the main belt. HMS Hood had 12 inches. Really, this issue is present on basically every Battlecruiser hull the Brits have access to, their belt allowance is WAY too thin. I get that we want to have Battlecruisers distinct from Battleships, but by the end of WWI, the British were designing Battlecruisers that were closer to Fast Battleships than the Invincible style Battlecruisers (See Hood and the G3s). We can always under armor our ships if we want to follow a lighter armor doctrine, but cannot go above the hard limit.


British 2 inch guns of MK3+ do not seem to fit on any mounts made for them on the Heavy Cruiser 1 hull. The base model for even the single guns is WAY too big.

Like the Heavy Cruiser 1, Light Cruiser IV is very, very hard to place secondary guns on, and for some reason the depth charge racks interfere with the rear turret firing arcs (I know this happens on DDs of many nations as well, and it's incredibly unrealistic in both scenarios. You can physically see the guns are well higher than the depth charge racks, even when placed on the deck).

The Dreadnought IV, V, and VI, which I am pretty sure are based off the Orion, King George V and Iron Duke Classes do not have a proper rear tower (with no mast). The existing towers would be close enough if they did not have the super tall masts, heck, the compact tower that you can get on the Dreadnought VII would be close enough.

I will update this post as I play a bit more and notice any issues with hulls I build on.

EDIT:

I am still seeing major, borderline unplayable delays when loading a new turn, with the game getting stuck on Building New Ships constantly. I am unable to report this time as the settings button seems not to work when turns are loading like it used to.

EDIT 2: The large light cruiser hull is pretty dang awesome.
2sMUfsO.png

 

EDIT 3: The fact that we still CANNOT choose to not upgrade turrets when refitting is really sad. This has been requested since the Refit feature was added. Either that or let us skip some techs in the research tree all together like every other strategy game. I know it's probably a little bit harder than it seems to add either of those features but its quite upsetting to have a perfectly capable Battleship that either is hopelessly outclassed due to weaker rangefinders/lack of radar/low armor tech, or has to go through a major rebuild just to adjust a few techs because the new guns don't fit.

Part of the problem here is that 1 gun and 2 gun turrets are the same size as 3 gun turrets. This is not the case in reality. If ALL of the 2 gun turrets from a given nation fit on the same footprint without having to do major edits to the ship design, this would not be a problem. I could deal with the ugly late game guns.

Here is an illustration of a Nevada Class Battleship that had mixed turrets of similar designs. As you can see, the 2 gun turrets in the super-firing positions are not the same size, rather they are quite a bit smaller in length and width.
USS Nevada BB-36 battleship, lead ship of her class | Battleship, Us  battleships, Warship model

Another example is the King George V class Battleship. The Quad 14s are significantly larger than the twin 14 as shown below.
The King George V Class Battleships: British Bulwarks | The Inglorius Padre  Steve's World

Edited by ijp8834
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I have noticed so far. 

The move to limit armor and the increase in the armor penetration of guns is a great start but now it feels artificially limiting as it did with the hard speed cap.  A similar solution could be done with armor. Have each hull have a soft cap that the armor upgrades will go to, for instance, a Heavy Cruiser Hull in 1900 that has a 6-inch belt limit will only get the weight reduction savings from Krup I up to 6 inches after that the first point in armor is equal to .1 inches of regular unmodified armor in weight and then faces an exponential growth in armor weight as each tenth of an inch is added. 

Super Cruiser hulls, i.e. the large cruisers that aren't battle cruisers but still have the BC tag are all set at a speed of 21 knots for the hull, and yet the floor for battle cruisers is 24 knots. Rather than just lowering or raising the arbitrary floor for ship speeds tied to hulls the floor needs to be removed entirely for all hulls. However, we still need to balance it so that someone doesn't cram a bunch of .5 knot minelaying ships in their ports and while it's not realistic operating and purchase costs should go up if the ship is designed with a speed less than the current limits. That way the team at UAD can lower the cost of those large cruisers pretending to be battlecruisers so they fall in line with other ships. The cost increase should also be exponential. I am open to other ways of balance by removing the speed floor, but money was the thought that occurred to me, and maybe just higher operating costs are all that is needed to reflect the stately pace it takes for the ship to get anywhere in supplies and food along with unreliable engines since the designers skimped out on high-quality engines for the ship. It also occurs to me that very low-speed ships would only really be used as auxiliary ships, which only the wealthiest of navies could maintain large fleets of. 

Removing hard limits like this would allow us to design proper auxiliary ships, like minelayers and monitors, and to think outside of the box to create a fictional design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Army topic Lima mentioned above:

Army Logistics seems to play a big role, especially in the early years starting 1890. There seems to be something off with the Army logistic which may play a role with land invasions that seemingly have no chance of success.

From my observations It happens that Army Logistics seems to jump, occasionally vastly i.e.: One turn in my AH campaign my Army logistic is 57%, next turn it is 23%, next turn 56% again, then 20 something. (i need to collect some screeshots of that).

Regardless such jump could likely play a role that an invastion is started when you logistics is high and then makes no progress because of these jumps.

The fact that it is not that clear how much army logistic is influenced by your navy tonnage (or #ships) in relation to your provinces and also by your GPD (it seems on a 1890 start around 1910 to 1920 i end up with 100% logistics) does not make tracking potential issues any easier. likewise you cannot track AI TR percentage (which is supposed to also play a role, but then sinking enemy TRs left and right seems to have no impact at all)..

 

 

Edited by Cryadis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems there's still some issues to iron out with troop numbers during land battles. A report from the front, if you will.

Summer, 1902, The German Imperial Army's advance into Slovakia has proven costly for both sides. Despite the brutality of the combat through the region, the fighting spirit of the men on both sides remains unbroken.
So Much So That Troops On Both Sides Have Overcome Death To Continue The Fight.
s38lw6t.png

One can only speculate as to the physical state of these undying soldiers, but I'm not sure their wives will be too happy to see them when they return from the front anymore...
facebook-linked_image___nazi-zombies.jpg

Seriously though, the troop counts need a bit of fleshing out. If reinforcements are being sent to the region to help, that should be reflected in the tooltip. A better tooltip might include two categories for each party: "Active Troops" and "Losses."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some UI suggestions for the game that would be very convenient for the user experience:

  • Show how many ships of a given class we have in our fleet on the ship design tab.
  • Have a button to click on the ship builder just under the class name that randomly picks a new name for you. 
  • When we hover over a minor allied nations flag on the politics screen show us an approval rating similar to the one we can see for major nations. 
  • Have a tool tip appear explaining what impact our navies' "Power Rating" has in the same way that tool tips appear for Army Logistics, Oil Production, etc.
  • Show us the total tonnage in our task forces in the tooltip when you hover over a fleet on the map screen.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add one more: allow us to build refitted versions of our designs please. It's extremely annoying (and unrealistic) to have to build an outdated version of a design that can be upgraded to the current standard only after it has finished commissioning.

That would also take care of another problem: tech advances sometimes make designs unable to be built, because they're suddenly overweight. If I want more of that class, I'll have to refit and then copy the design, giving it a new name and effectively creating a branch. Meaning that if further upgrades become available, I'll now have to review to identical designs.

All that could simply be solved by making refit design versions buildable.

Edited by Aldaris
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis I would like to add ship hull and parts of the HMS Vanguard for Britain in 1946 as my request to be added in the game. As such, I would like to have new components and the ship hulls and parts that appeared in WW2 period for both built and never built and the early years of the Cold War period into the game in the future that it goes after the version 1.4 if I would like to extend the technological time period in the custom battles like 1960s and the campaign's end time date would be 1970s, such as Allen M. Sumner Class, Gearing Class, Mitscher Class, Forrest Sherman Class, Baltimore Class, Oregon City Class, Des Moines Class, Cleveland Class, Brooklyn Class, Fargo Class, Worcester Class, Montana Class, Alaska Class and so much more

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have such a heretical idea and I know that it has been discussed here many times (unfortunately, not very convincingly for me). Wouldn't it be possible to place a quick button on both ends of the map that would take us to the other side of the map?
It works for the missions in the upper left corner, something small on the edge of the map would work?
Or a keyboard shortcut (ideally one button).
The game in the Pacific is quite painful for me, but I guess I'm too spoiled by Paradox and similar titles.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beta Update 9 Feedback

Made a 1910 French Career.   Took longer than I would like to build the Op-4 but it was not excessive (30 minutes or less I walked away)    MUCH better than being stuck in Jan 1907 for 3 hours!  THANKS team for addressing that issue!

Minor issues that persist but really are not bugs (more just less than perfect navigation from secondary ships in the formation)   But overall campaign seems to be working as intended!   Huge improvements over Update 8

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the developers.

Please incorporate a Block Updates button in the game, and tell us where it is located.

We do have to shut off our computers from time to time, and having the game automatically update when Steam is restarted is very annoying.

I really do like this game, but I'm getting very tired of the:

Playing the campaign game for days, just getting into battles; then the campaign game is destroyed by the next update.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gregg said:

To the developers.

Please incorporate a Block Updates button in the game, and tell us where it is located.

We do have to shut off our computers from time to time, and having the game automatically update when Steam is restarted is very annoying.

I really do like this game, but I'm getting very tired of the:

Playing the campaign game for days, just getting into battles; then the campaign game is destroyed by the next update.

There is, you just have to disable the optional beta in your steam settings

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, flaviohc16 said:

There is, you just have to disable the optional beta in your steam settings

I think what Gregg means is a way to block updates without withdrawing from the beta. Doing what you suggested would cause steam to download the 1.3.9.9 version of the game, which is almost certainly incompatible with 1.4 beta saves. Given that players can sink a dozen or more hours into a single campaign, it makes sense that they would want to see each one to conclusion, and not have them thrown out because of an update. While saves do sometimes need to be wiped during a beta, players should still have the opportunity to finish the campaigns they want to finish, and it should be simple to do so in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to >>>Beta v1.4 Feedback<<< [Final version released]
  • Nick Thomadis locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...