Nick Thomadis Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 The new major update v1.5 is fully released with more improvements based on your very recent feedback. You can read the information on Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4139442565100870996' Or in our blog: https://dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/major-update-v1-5 Thank you for your participation in the beta! Enjoy the game! You can use this thread for further feedback. IMPORTANT! If you want to use your older, compatible saves, then you need to switch to an older version of the game, by clicking on the game's properties and choosing the appropriate version as shown: Patches: v1.5.0.1 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4139442565109677742 v1.5.0.2 Opt https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4139443198875919551 v1.5.0.3 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/6924919658781470311 v1.5.0.4 R https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/413156253037551584 v1.5.0.5 Optx4 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4131562530381629772 v1.5.0.6 Optx4 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4194613560098959849 v1.5.0.7 Opt https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4202495492880053713 v1.5.0.8 Optx2 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4221636425812960586 v1.5.0.9 Optx4 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/7129836059820765920 v1.5.1.0 R https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4168720398303988255 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narbar Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Great job I think this is a great update 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeltrap Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 (edited) Armour being "too effective"?? Don't know who could possibly believe THAT to be an issue. IMO it's demonstrably the OPPOSITE. For example, a 1.8" shell strikes the 12" belt, gets a 'partial penetration' AND starts a fire. Or 3" shell striking a 12" armoured turret from a range where it had next to nothing penetration yet results in a 'partial pen' AND damages the main gun. With all due respect, a mechanic that produces these results regularly, as is the case right now, needs a substantial correction, but NOT in the direction of making armour even LESS effective. Edited March 10 by Steeltrap 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGib Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 I am seeing very bizarre behaviour by my ships. For instance A: I spawned in with 3 light cruisers, 2 in battle line and 1 in screen except the screening cruiser was over 20km away! I had to turn my ships around and race to it so I could engage with all three ships. B: Ships in division behind the leader drive like they are drunk. They zig zag all over the place, in some instances they run into and pass the division lead. C : Ships other than the lead frequently do not fire at targets that are well with in range. I had one cruiser refuse to fire its 7 inch guns at transports that were 3km away. The seconderies opened fire first, then the 7 inchers started. Once that transport sank the cruiser just stopped firing at the other transports around, all within 5km. Something has changed from prior to this patch and its not good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 3 hours ago, Steeltrap said: For example, a 1.8" shell strikes the 12" belt, gets a 'partial penetration' AND starts a fire. I’m not sure (perhaps Nick can clarify 😇) but I think there is a chance that a HE shell will cause a partial penetration regardless of its penetration characteristics, AP shells need to meet the partial pen threshold (which is 25% of the armour iirc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlJabberwock Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 (edited) 3 hours ago, McGib said: I am seeing very bizarre behaviour by my ships. For instance A: I spawned in with 3 light cruisers, 2 in battle line and 1 in screen except the screening cruiser was over 20km away! I had to turn my ships around and race to it so I could engage with all three ships. B: Ships in division behind the leader drive like they are drunk. They zig zag all over the place, in some instances they run into and pass the division lead. C : Ships other than the lead frequently do not fire at targets that are well with in range. I had one cruiser refuse to fire its 7 inch guns at transports that were 3km away. The seconderies opened fire first, then the 7 inchers started. Once that transport sank the cruiser just stopped firing at the other transports around, all within 5km. Something has changed from prior to this patch and its not good. Sadly items B and C already were taking place prior to this latest patch with clean installs. As irritating as they are, they are not new in my experience. A is something new, I agree. Now it is true that the C and B behaviors were virtually 100% evident on Naval College missions and not always evident in campaign - however, they were quite likely, and make some strategies difficult to achieve. Drunken ship and overly thrifty ammunition officers should be culled - or at least keel-hauled like in the good old days. Edited March 10 by AlJabberwock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssdd Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 I appreciate that you guys decided to support Korean and now I can invite my Korean friends to play with me! Unfortunately, the quality of the translation seems very poor. For example: General > 일반적인 = of Common Control > 통제 수단 = a Means of Control Graphics > 제도법 = Technical Drawing, or Institutional Law Sound > 소리 = Sound (this worked) Back > 뒤쪽에 = In the Rear, At the Back Instead, it should have been: 일반, 조작, 그래픽, 소리, 뒤로 Will there be an improvement to this eventually? Will translating them myself be much better or faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HMS Implosive Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 (edited) 5 hours ago, Steeltrap said: With all due respect, a mechanic that produces these results regularly, as is the case right now, needs a substantial correction, but NOT in the direction of making armour even LESS effective. I have to agree vanilla pen values are too high. I have been testing out some mods you fine people here have made and personally would prefer penetration values greatly nerfed and armor weights tweaked as per N.A.R. mod, but simultaneusly also damage per penetration substantially increased as per Dreadnought Improvement Project. (Btw, big thanks for showing how to mod this game in youtube@brothermunro) Edited March 10 by HMS Implosive 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixLP44 Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 I know crew and Engines can be some of the most expensive parts of a ship but this is just ridiculous. Like even a nuclear reactor would cost less at this point and would be magnitudes of times more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramenhenry Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 There's still a major bug that hasn't been addressed I have seen for quite a while. When Main belt armor to Aft/Forward armor reaches a certain ratio where Aft/Forward armor increasingly becomes the same as the main, a larger Citadel will actually decrease displacement. I noticed this a lot as I often create ships that are all around well armored in fear of getting penetrated in the Aft and Forward when presenting my broadside and having major stability issues as a result. This is such a huge case that I always now place two turrets at the very opposite end of the ship in order to get maximum stability which really should not be the case. Here's some evidence of this 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narbar Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 4 hours ago, HMS Implosive said: I have to agree vanilla pen values are too high. I have been testing out some mods you fine people here have made and personally would prefer penetration values greatly nerfed and armor weights tweaked as per N.A.R. mod, but simultaneusly also damage per penetration substantially increased as per Dreadnought Improvement Project. (Btw, big thanks for showing how to mod this game in youtube@brothermunro) I to feel armour is to weak, even before this update. I remember coming across a BB with 18 inches of armour thinking wow this is going to be a struggle. But had no issues damaging and sinking it, you would never have guessed the ship was so heavily armoured. When I put 15 inches or plus of armour of high quality on my my ships belt and high deck armour. I never feel like it's tanky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGib Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 6 hours ago, AlJabberwock said: Sadly items B and C already were taking place prior to this latest patch with clean installs. As irritating as they are, they are not new in my experience. A is something new, I agree. Now it is true that the C and B behaviors were virtually 100% evident on Naval College missions and not always evident in campaign - however, they were quite likely, and make some strategies difficult to achieve. Drunken ship and overly thrifty ammunition officers should be culled - or at least keel-hauled like in the good old days. I've only got 200 hours in so far but I've never seen anything like I saw yesterday. That was all new to me. I find it quite frustrating when glaring bugs like this don't get fixed and new stuff gets added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knobby Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 What's up with tech progression? In most my recent USA campaign I'm the second largest economy in the world and have always had the tech slider on 100%, yet I'm falling behind. Now I'm even very behind in tech while the even the likes of Austro-Hungary are average and Italy is very advanced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 Are you using your tech priorities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knobby Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 yeah, like I always do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brothermunro Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 There’s your problem then, when you assign a priority it lowers all your other research, leaving all three assigned all the time is very inefficient and is probably what is causing you to be behind in tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knobby Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 ok, but 've always done that and always ended up very advanced... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o Barão Posted March 10 Share Posted March 10 1 hour ago, Knobby said: ok, but 've always done that and always ended up very advanced... What is the difficulty level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 On 3/10/2024 at 1:19 PM, ramenhenry said: There's still a major bug that hasn't been addressed I have seen for quite a while. When Main belt armor to Aft/Forward armor reaches a certain ratio where Aft/Forward armor increasingly becomes the same as the main, a larger Citadel will actually decrease displacement. I noticed this a lot as I often create ships that are all around well armored in fear of getting penetrated in the Aft and Forward when presenting my broadside and having major stability issues as a result. This is such a huge case that I always now place two turrets at the very opposite end of the ship in order to get maximum stability which really should not be the case. Here's some evidence of this If you use an "All or nothing" armor scheme, which had the main belt greatly armored and the fore/aft sections not much armored, or not armored at all, you should notice the weight to decrease. But if you have highly armored the fore/aft sections and by reducing the main belt, you make these fore/aft sections too large, then you actually see an increase in displacement, an increase of ship weight, because the weight of armor in fore/aft sections is very large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techbro Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Hi, I would like to suggest the name of the class of a selected ship be placed in an easy to read and obvious position in the battle interface. It would be a very easy way just to help immersion, as sometimes I lose track of my ship classes and being able to know "The Narva class squadron is pushing left and going to intercept the German Kaiser Class squadron" is better than "My ships are going to intercept their battleships". Below I have attached a picture of two possible locations this could appear, let me know what you think. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knobby Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 On 3/10/2024 at 9:43 PM, o Barão said: What is the difficulty level? hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o Barão Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, Knobby said: hard ai_difficulty_normal_income_multiplier,1,modifier of AI GDP in Normal Difficulty Mode,,,,,,, ai_difficulty_hard_income_multiplier,1.25,modifier of AI GDP in Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,, ai_difficulty_legendary_income_multiplier,1.5,modifier of AI GDP in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,, ai_difficulty_hard_tech_multiplier,1.25,modifier of AI tech n Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,, ai_difficulty_legendary_tech_multiplier,1.33,modifier of AI tech in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,, From "params" file The AI gets a 25% tech research bonus in the hard difficulty and as @brothermunro mentioned, there are penalties by using the priorities to focus on specific techs. Add all together and that will explain why you are falling behind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 Hello everyone, This is a quick add-on patch including prompt improvements and fixes after your first feedback about the v1.5 plus some minor UI enhancements. https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4139442565109677742 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AacornSoup Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just played a quick US 1900 campaign to try out 1.5.1. Really appreciate the increased frequency of invasion prompts in the early game. Don't like how a mini-map was added but the world map hasn't yet been made cylindrical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramenhenry Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 18 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said: If you use an "All or nothing" armor scheme, which had the main belt greatly armored and the fore/aft sections not much armored, or not armored at all, you should notice the weight to decrease. But if you have highly armored the fore/aft sections and by reducing the main belt, you make these fore/aft sections too large, then you actually see an increase in displacement, an increase of ship weight, because the weight of armor in fore/aft sections is very large. Nah mate this is not about that. Outside belt armor should not effect internal citadel armor the way it does regardless if I even have a citadel tech which I don't in this case. I shouldn't get negative displacement for making my citadel bigger or in this case the entire length of the ship. For some reason in the coding y'all have some weird link for aft forward armor ratioed in with main belt armor to cause bigger citadels to eventually have negative displacement. I am recommending you have citadel displacement completely seperate from main belt, aft forwad belt calculations. Here are even more examples of this, this being a Spanish Dreanought hull 1 1905 shared design situatin and the other Japanese to also show that this is game wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now