>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.4 Optx2)

[Warspite96]

So are campaign missions being generated on total tonnage of the ships involved instead of ship type? Usually three 10,000 ton cruisers are not the equivalent of a 30,000 ton battlecruiser, for example. Sometimes because of this method of mission generation, heavier individual ships in your fleet might never get involved in battles because the game seems obsessed with pitting 60,000 tons of your light/heavy cruisers against one 60,000 ton battleship instead of your 60,000 ton battleship fighting their 60,000 ton battleship, thus forcing me to sail my heavy capital ships in task forces and chasing enemy fleets around the map until I force an enemy task force to battle.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version including the following:
- Improvement of overall game stability, addressing potential issues for several kind of systems. Please do not report to us if you use modified versions of the game.
- Further Battle fps increase.
You have to restart Steam to get this update properly

[Azerostar]

A suggestion, show the battle results when player use 'leave battle' to end a custom battle.

Not sure if this has been asked by someone else.

 

[Panzergraf]

2 hours ago, Azerostar said:

A suggestion, show the battle results when player use 'leave battle' to end a custom battle.

Not sure if this has been asked by someone else.

 

Or let us set a time limit to custom battles. Like some of the challenges we've done in Shipyard Champions have involved us trying to sink X ammount of ships in 1 hour. It would be nice if we could just set 1 hour as a time limit when setting up the battles.

[dashingbear]

I can't modify war compensation ships with latest V1.509 update？ I' m sure this worked on V1.508. Is it a random bug or intended tweak?   

 

1st war vs JAP/transfered ship:mordern heavy cruiser 3 with no diagram

2nd war vs RUS/transfered ship:super cruiser with diagram

so it seems the bug is somewhat random? or has something to do with specific ships?

I will try another war with JAP and capture the same CA and another ship and see what will happen

 

I got another 2 types of Japanese CAs, but only one diagram of them. (they have different hulls)

So I'm sure there're some kind of bug here.  Besides Japanese CAs haven't seen the same problem occurs on other transferred ships, yet.

 

fought another war with RUS and got two ships, one of them the experimental battle cruiser had no diagram. 

Edited April 22 by dashingbear

[PhoenixLP44]

On 4/14/2024 at 11:22 PM, Kraut said:

I always struggle with myself if i should write something or not, cause the list of the Problems of the Game is even longer than these ugly dropdowns in the research tab ... 😕

(PS: reason is the amount of text following now, although i only wanted to complain about 3isch major points that make the game terrible)

Apart from the terrible UI, not fitting world map, the absence of basic select & command features like "LMB Selects" "RMB moves",´and the abundance of Oil for everyone, the things wich annoy me the most and make this game terrible or even better, not to play, are the following:

Ship-Designs by the Computer-Scripts:

- i dont know, if i shall laugh or cry everytime i read something about "improved auto-design", when auto-design results look like this ( pls seethe attached pictures)

- having a competition is a key element of Naval Designs and therefore a huge portion of the fun of that game mechanic. As long as the Computer-Designs are garbage, every campaign will be a stomp. I feel like a seal clubber. Not only cause the Computer will very soon fall behind in tech (except for the Brits), no ,even the game start designs, were player und computer are somewhat equal in tech, pose rarely, if ever, a real threat to an active player. And Seal-Clubbing has another Component;

Tactical Battles:

again, read it i dont know how many times; "battle script got improved, etc etc.". But the reality is still... total club fest. I keep my Taskforces small, cause handling 12 ships is already a great hassle to me (im usually on fast forward, since the battles are so boring). Another, but small Reason for that is, it let the Computer engage me. I rarely encoutered the runaway problem that plaqued so many others recently. But i know it from the past.

Some small ships engage the enemy in a V-shaped Torpedo attack, resulting usually in a satisfying number of Torpedo hits, cause although Computer-Ships seem to have magical abilites when it comes to dodging torpedos as a lone wolf, the opposite is the case, when it comes to handling torpedo attacks against its large formations. The Result is Chaos, dmged und sinking ships. The Rest is handled by the Artillery of my superior ships. 

This clubbing becomes extreme with technological advancement usually resulting in battles where the opponent is barely able to even scratch my ships.

The Campaign

- Performance of Computer-Opponent: peformance is not the adequate word.I dont know what the priorities are, but everyone except for the Brits falls behind in tech quickly. every time. 

- not as often, but recently a prominent guest in the patch-notes. Economy. Still GDP grows over 10% thru the field... like... really, wtf? Why? I really dont get it. These extremly fast growing economies soon resuliting in my and the Computer not knowing the hello kitty to throw all the money at... And a distinct question in that regard: why the heck is not only the UK but also France outperforming Germany in Economy in the 1910 start ? 

- Random-Mission-Generator: i know u got this from the game u copied almost 1on1, but why not improving the things u copy? or do something different ... Why are there forced Missions that i cannot object to as the player like .... We caught the enemy bla bla bla... if WE caught the enemy, WHY cant WE object to commit to the battle? THe enemy is smaller, off guard or heavly dmg, so clearly not in the position to engage us, yet there is nothing in the World i could do to prevent to load into these battles...

    - why are still battles created between forces, that are thousands of kms apart ? not even in the same waters? It seems the if-question in the code asks bout the destination and not the actual position of the taskforces...

    - Attacks on Harbours are only created for a fraction of the sieged ports

- Convoy losses are totally random and seem to have nothing to do with apparent or absent naval forces. WTF.

- Invasion Requirements are a complete joke. Who the Frick evar cared bout how many Tons of Ships can dock in a Harbour when it comes to a military engagment? The only Deciding Factor is the guns ACTUALLY PRESENT, not potentially... I had to park almost the complete Might of the German Hochseeflotte to conquer the mighty canary islands .... for example. 

- Diplomacy is a joke. We cannot decide where to invade, what to invade when it comes to non Major-Countries. If we are fighting a War with Major countries, Land battles can not be interfered with. they take aaages (wich wouldnt be so bad if the Fight on the Sea would actualyl be interesting i guess). Everything that is conquered during the war gets immediatly annexed without a Peace Conference, but when it comes to the Joke of a Peace Conference, only 50% of the Players demands (or non at all) are fullfilled resulting in fighting ( seal clubbing) for month for .... nothing! or some minor territories somewhere... over the rainbow... So much fun!

Ship-Designer for Player:

- the major selling point of the game. Not the existince alone, the game UA is copied from also had a ship designer. But UA takes Battles und Designer into 3d. thats the difference. And it could be a good designer if it werent for...

- Limits of what the player can do like ... armour limits, weapon size limits for classes/ hulls, Conditions of what towers / guns most be present on a ship, etc.

- unrealistic costs in terms of money and weight ( radar and the like still weigh a proportional part of the Towers, wtf), Diesel Engines are insanly overpriced und dont even save weight / incrase the Range( for a much much lower price and lower or same weight u get the sameisch Range with Turbines)

- non-adjustable Superstructures leading to huge problems when it comes to outfitting of the ships, especially Torpedo-Armament is a huge problem on German Cruisers. Later Torpedo-Launchers make things worse, where possible. Superbattleships lack a 2nd Funnel-Place in TowerStructure for no reason, cause modern BBs have two slots. Why do the smaller Hulls have more Options for Funnels?

- Inconsistant stats among Towers, most often with secondary Towers. 

-Arbitrary and incosistence Hull Stats. My biggest complaint here is the Resistence Value. Resistance, as in how much dmg is taken from a Torpedo or Shall hit is determined by the Armour Material and the Armour Layout, hence torpedo protection und which citadel sheme is used. It makes no sense at all to assign a resistance Value to the Hull, espeically not ,if that value is not constantly rising due to technology improvement, it just varies seemingly random for "balance" reasons? Most Prominent example is, iirc, Germanys "Modern CA II", wich has a ridicously low resistance overall and much lower compared to its predecessor and successor. Makes no sense whatso evar. Escecially not, when there are Destroyer Hulls, that have the Resitance Value of a Battleship ... 

- Bigger Hulls add much more Money and Weight than Buyoancy, leading to inflated Ship Costs regarding the Perfomance per ton and Money ratio.

Another thing about Hulls, wich are also often just copy cats of each other... When you introduced the "Scharnhorst" Hull to the game, why only 1935? Germany can build Modern and even Super BBs since the twenties already.

You might want to answer no: It is not a BB Hull, it says BC. Yeah, Problem is, Scharnhorst und Gneisenau were designed and intended as BBs, not BCs. Nobody built BCs in the 30ties anymore... Doesnt matter what some Brits called these ships, important is what the designers and users classified them. The Reason for the 28cm guns was solely a political / diplomatical play, so pls spare me the armament arguement. The Refitting to 38cm guns was planned from the start and only the Course of the War prevented it beeing reality. Not even starting bout the armour-levels of the Class...

Talking about German "BCs" und Ship designer: The real BCs from the 1910s had  apperently Armour of 300mm, but the game says: no, you player can only have ... 27isch. 

Wich brings me to my last question, hopefully...

What made you think, that a Player of a GAME needs limits in a Designer, wich sole purpose is to give the Player the Tool to use his creativity??? And why are you not instead limiting your Computer-Designer, wich clearly needs tide ropes if it shall evar produce useful results reliably ??? Just Look at the Armour Levels... wtf ?? I, as the Player of a GAME(not reality, not the Museum), am limited in how i am designing my ships but the Computer is allowed to create those abominations with ... 24cm Deckarmour ??? AFT ??? And Cruisers of the Computer have more often than not the maximum armour all around...

From my Observations the Priorites of the Computer seem to be low cost, low tonnage, maxium deck penetration at or below sight range and ... lots of crew... , as many guns as possible. everything else seems to be secondary to that. Armour has no clear priorities, but it seems to me, that deck armour resides more often than not over Belt armour. Engine Effiency and Balancing of the Ship seems to be ignored completly. I suspect the Computer ship get help in battle, cause even with those extremly unbalanced ships, they get aroundthe sameisch accuraccy during battle as my ships. And on the Same Accuraccy Probability, score more hits than my ships do. 

oh, forgot:

Pls remove that WoT-Spotting system... that is so stupid, that ships are not able to spot other ships beyond 10km (for example), thats just so obv. bullshit. What evar broken mechanic you try to cover with that... fix it und re-introduce realistic sight and spotting ranges...

The End

My Minor-Complaint: In your Info-Card of the Loading-Screen of the Week about the Lusitania you forgot to mention that it carried Ammunitions/War-Material throughouth the War. 

I am not saying, that no other complaints / reports should be mentioned, but imo its futile to fix minor stuff befor the core mechanics of the game are not working properly. The list is not complete, as always, but i am already annoyed that i wrote so much again cause with an increasing number of words the probability of all words beeing read decreases exponentially...

 

 

 

One thing I would like to add to this post:

The devs need to improve their communication with the community. Posts like this one just exist on the forum without any notable public response from the devs.

[HMS Implosive]

9 hours ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

One thing I would like to add to this post:

The devs need to improve their communication with the community. Posts like this one just exist on the forum without any notable public response from the devs.

That's why, when I come up with an idea I think is not too difficolt to implement, I have chosen to either try and mod it myself, or more resently, suggest it to
@o Barão and his wonderfull NAR overhaul, as he has been kind enough to actually fix many issues in the game people have suggested or at least answer us and let us know if he won't do something we requested.

It would be much appreciated if devs could similarly, at least, keep updated some kind of to-be-done or work-in-progress listing of things. Whiles a lot of the feedback we have given here are clearly being reseaved by the devs (thank you!), it would be nice to know if something we have asked them to do is being worked on or not.

P.S. Maybe devs could check out NAR and import some of the features there such as the improvements on armor and component weights, barrel lengths and hull dimensions parameters.

 

 

Edited April 16 by HMS Implosive

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version including the following:
- More improvements on game's stability and fps performance, increasing also the speed and efficiency of almost all game's processes.
- Fixed a potential error related to the AI logic which could cause ships to freeze prior to combat.
- Increased the initial distance in mission "Sink the Raiders" (Due to the latest AI improvements it was almost impossible to defend the transports quickly enough).
You have to restart Steam to get this update properly

[HMS Implosive]

I am not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but when one does mount a turret on a Richelieu-style hull near the main turret barbette, the firing arcs of that turret become extremely limited on the front sector, even though there is should be nothing nothing visibly blocking them.

Something similar happens on Iowa- and North carolina -style superstructures, where the upper tier secondary battery mountings have limited arcs of fire seamingly for no reason.

Edited April 17 by HMS Implosive

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version x3 including the following:
- Fixed critical bug that caused ships to reset their screen/scout/follow status and move forwards. We are sorry for this temporary inconvenience which was brought by last night's update.
- Fixed rare issue which could cause ships to start a campaign battle with the desire to stop movement (unless the player gave any other command. This bug could be caused in specific map coordinates. 
- Fixed, hopefully, the last reason related to AI logic that could cause damage calculations to fail and cause ships to freeze and the game to stop functioning. This could happen very rarely, depending on frame rate and fast forward of time.
You have to restart Steam to get this update properly.

At this point, we think that v1.5+ is stable and enjoyable for all players. We will provide more minor updates only if it is needed.

[Kraut]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Uploaded optimized version x3 including the following:
- Fixed critical bug that caused ships to reset their screen/scout/follow status and move forwards. We are sorry for this temporary inconvenience which was brought by last night's update.
- Fixed rare issue which could cause ships to start a campaign battle with the desire to stop movement (unless the player gave any other command. This bug could be caused in specific map coordinates. 
- Fixed, hopefully, the last reason related to AI logic that could cause damage calculations to fail and cause ships to freeze and the game to stop functioning. This could happen very rarely, depending on frame rate and fast forward of time.
You have to restart Steam to get this update properly.

At this point, we think that v1.5+ is stable and enjoyable for all players. We will provide more minor updates only if it is needed.

If you consider everyone swimming money after a few years into the campaign, but the computer still falling behind in tech, designing clowncars anyway, behaving suicidal in battle and as a result of those  factors, getting stomped by the player wich doesnt get anything interesting/decisive in a peace conference after the war, despite the fact of totally or almost totally annihilating the enemies navy, then yeah, this version is as enjoyable as the previous ones. 

As enjoyable as beeing limited by arbitrary rules (buhu, you are not allowed to design BC with german / bb level of armour, cause poor computer cant compete with you) but facing ships so horrible in balancing that they should sink themselves just by shipping around or so ugly that they should scrap themselves.

As enjoyable as the computer seems to be obsessed with South-East-Asia (Wich would be understandable, if there would be a ressource system in the game) und reliably low fueling its own fleets by sending them there and back, completly denying the protection of its Core Provinces

As enjoyable as having not enough Funnel Locations for german SBB due to a lack of Secondary Tower selection. Or as enyoable as not beeing able to outfit german Cruisers with sufficient Torpedo-Armament thx to way to big Superstructures, that cant be altered in size. 

And all the other enjoyable thingz. 

 

 

 

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis I need your help.

First, I am going to quote what I supposed to be your own words about shells.

 

Light shells.

"Lighter shells have reduced damage and penetration properties, but they are cheaper, reload faster and are less prone to detonation. Furthermore, the lighter shells cause less gun barrel erosion, affecting the gun accuracy positively. The range of a lighter shell is, on average, shorter than a heavier shell of the same muzzle velocity. Because of the higher muzzle velocity of a light shell, its range can become larger according to other shell properties."

 

Heavy shells.

"Heavier shells cause more damage and can penetrate thicker armor at all ranges because of their better ballistics. However, they cost more, they are more prone to detonation and increase gun barrel erosion. Furthermore, their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets."

 

Super heavy shells.

"Shells of the maximum possible size cause immense damage and may make guns of smaller caliber almost equivalent to bigger guns in terms of firepower and ballistics. However, those shells are much heavier, riskier to become detonated and cause more gun barrel erosion, while their slower muzzle velocity increases the chance of calculation errors when firing at long range targets."

 

Well, I have two issues here. One minor and a major one. What is written in the text is misleading for different reasons, that I will explain in details below. But the biggest problem is how muzzle velocity mechanic works in game, that it is exactly the opposite to what is in the text and still wrong at the same time.

 

How the muzzle velocity mechanic works in UAD? In short:

• The higher the muzzle velocity, the bigger will be the penalty to accuracy.

 

But the big muzzle velocity is tied to the light shells, which supposedly should have a better accuracy in game, according to the text, which it has by artificial means from other modifier. But is still wrong.

But the opposite is worse. The slower muzzle velocity will give better accuracy, and the text is saying the exact opposite. Totally misleading for the players.

 

The issue here is the muzzle mechanic and the weight of the shell, both combined are not having a real ballistic performance in game.

 

It should be something like this. Two shells, same shape, same gun, same amount of propellant, all equal except one thing, the weight.

The lighter shell will be sent at a higher muzzle velocity and with this it should more accurately hit targets at close range because:

• Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory.
• Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind.
• Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations.

The heavier shell will be sent at lower muzzle velocity but should it more accurately hit targets at long range because:

• Ballistic Coefficient: Heavier shells typically have a higher ballistic coefficient, which is a measure of how well a projectile retains its velocity and resists drag as it travels through the air. Shells with higher ballistic coefficients are generally more resistant to wind drift and other environmental factors, leading to better accuracy, especially at longer ranges.
• Trajectory Stability: Heavier shells tend to be more stable in flight, as they are less affected by minor disturbances such as air turbulence. This stability can contribute to greater accuracy, particularly in windy conditions or when shooting at distant targets.

 

Now I searched everywhere for a modifier about this mechanic and I can't find anywhere. I can in theory fix this by applying a negative accuracy modifier plus a positive long range modifier and vice versa, but much better would it be for this mechanic to be working well in game, also with a text description that does not lead the players to mistakes.

 

That is why I am asking for your help. I apologize for the long text, but this is not an easy thing to explain.

 

 

[o Barão]

Just to give a better example how bad it is the muzzle mechanic. Stock game, no mods. Wouldn't make any difference since I have no way to fix this.

Stock gun with 0% barrel length.

Gun with 22% barrel length increase.

What are the changes?

At low ranges, where we could expect a better hit chance due to these reasons:

• Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory.
• Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind.
• Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations.

We get in fact the opposite. This makes any sense?

 

At long range ranges where we could get a worse accuracy due to these reasons:

• Projectile Design: When fired at excessively high muzzle velocities, these shells may experience increased aerodynamic instability, leading to erratic flight paths and reduced accuracy at long ranges.

• Barrel Wear: Firing shells at higher velocities can accelerate barrel wear in naval guns. As the barrel wears down, the consistency of muzzle velocities and the quality of the barrel's rifling can deteriorate, negatively impacting the accuracy of shots fired over long distances.

• Projectile Dispersion: Naval artillery systems often have to contend with factors such as ship motion, sea state, and firing from a moving platform. These factors can introduce additional dispersion or variability in the trajectory of the shell, further exacerbating accuracy issues at long ranges, particularly when combined with excessively high muzzle velocities.

• Targeting Systems: Naval gunnery relies on advanced targeting systems to accurately engage distant targets. Extremely high muzzle velocities can introduce challenges for these systems, as they may struggle to predict the trajectory of the shell accurately, leading to less precise targeting and reduced accuracy at long ranges.

 

We have in fact the opposite.

 

And this mechanic is present everywhere. Shells weight, propellants, barrel length, gun caliber, the different between all HE and AP shells. It is such an important thing to how ballistics works that I can't stress enough how much this needs to be fixed.

 

And this artificial modifier implemented here to fix the issue with the light shells wouldn't have a need to exist if the muzzle mechanic were working properly.

 

Just my two cents.

[Azerostar]

I think the Citadel Armor System needs a improve too. For now the only meaning of the 1st and 2nd layer are to give a higher 3rd layer thickness threshold, or to say, the 3rd layer armor is too important, meanwhile the 1st,2nd and even the main belt/deck is too unimportant.

If there is no better way to simulate the armor system,at least reduce the armor thickness threshold limit of the 1st layer citadel armor.

[HMS Implosive]

51 minutes ago, Azerostar said:

I think the Citadel Armor System needs a improve too. For now the only meaning of the 1st and 2nd layer are to give a higher 3rd layer thickness threshold, or to say, the 3rd layer armor is too important, meanwhile the 1st,2nd and even the main belt/deck is too unimportant.

If there is no better way to simulate the armor system,at least reduce the armor thickness threshold limit of the 1st layer citadel armor.

I would personally be interested to build something like the interwar cruiser design with box armor sheme, ie. little to no actual belt armor but armored citadel box inside the ship instead. This sacrifices overall survivability to save weight while still protecting the ship from a single hit totally disabling it. Currently this is not possible in game as one must have thick belt armor to have thick internal belt armor.

Also, would you consider giving upper regions of the hull its own armor values? In real ships it was very rare for the main deck to be the main armored deck, as this would have been very bad for weight and stability. More common was to have the main armored deck somewhere inside the ship, whilest the uppermost deck was only splinter proof if even that. If the upper hull had its own armor region (or multiple regions) the ships armor weights could be made more realistic and it would be no longer that easy to turn a ship into a solid steel ingot.

Easiest way to implement this might be to have six belt regions instead of three (lower main belt, upper main belt, lower aft belt, upper aft belt, lower front belt and upper front belt, limited so that upper belts can't be thicker than the lower belts). The first citadel deck would be allowed to be as thick as one likes independent of the main deck, while the current main deck could still be made thick if one wishes, but with a cost of weight and huge destabilizing effect.

If that is too much of a work, at least remove the weight reduction of the advanced armor types for a given thickness, that is just weird and too easy to exploit.

Edited April 18 by HMS Implosive

[Nick Thomadis]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

Just to give a better example how bad it is the muzzle mechanic. Stock game, no mods. Wouldn't make any difference since I have no way to fix this.

Stock gun with 0% barrel length.

Gun with 22% barrel length increase.

What are the changes?

At low ranges, where we could expect a better hit chance due to these reasons:

• Trajectory Flattening: Higher shell velocity generally means the projectile reaches the target more quickly, resulting in a flatter trajectory.
• Reduced Wind Drift: Faster-moving projectiles are less affected by crosswinds, as they spend less time in the air and have less exposure to wind.
• Reduced Time to Target: A faster projectile reaches the target faster, which means there's less time for external factors such as wind or target movement to affect its trajectory. This can result in greater accuracy, particularly for moving targets or in dynamic shooting situations.

We get in fact the opposite. This makes any sense?

 

At long range ranges where we could get a worse accuracy due to these reasons:

• Projectile Design: When fired at excessively high muzzle velocities, these shells may experience increased aerodynamic instability, leading to erratic flight paths and reduced accuracy at long ranges.

• Barrel Wear: Firing shells at higher velocities can accelerate barrel wear in naval guns. As the barrel wears down, the consistency of muzzle velocities and the quality of the barrel's rifling can deteriorate, negatively impacting the accuracy of shots fired over long distances.

• Projectile Dispersion: Naval artillery systems often have to contend with factors such as ship motion, sea state, and firing from a moving platform. These factors can introduce additional dispersion or variability in the trajectory of the shell, further exacerbating accuracy issues at long ranges, particularly when combined with excessively high muzzle velocities.

• Targeting Systems: Naval gunnery relies on advanced targeting systems to accurately engage distant targets. Extremely high muzzle velocities can introduce challenges for these systems, as they may struggle to predict the trajectory of the shell accurately, leading to less precise targeting and reduced accuracy at long ranges.

 

We have in fact the opposite.

 

And this mechanic is present everywhere. Shells weight, propellants, barrel length, gun caliber, the different between all HE and AP shells. It is such an important thing to how ballistics works that I can't stress enough how much this needs to be fixed.

 

And this artificial modifier implemented here to fix the issue with the light shells wouldn't have a need to exist if the muzzle mechanic were working properly.

 

Just my two cents.

Hello Barao,

There are many hardcoded factors that cannot be tuned with a config. They simulate real ballistic factors of the shell. One of those is the increase of penetration according to terminal velocity (the velocity expected at the end of the range). 

Players do not have to always read the words and specific stats but use the penetration table which shows the final calculations. There, everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies.

In the battle, these penetrations do not apply deterministically but again take extra factors evaluating the final random shell fire arc, the angle of fall, angle of side hit, and other depended on ship characteristics.

Like in real life, you cannot predict 100% the outcome but you can expect a certain average result at range given by those penetration tables.

See how penetration is increased at short/medium ranges with a shell of high velocity etc.

[o Barão]

2 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Barao,

There are many hardcoded factors that cannot be tuned with a config. They simulate real ballistic factors of the shell. One of those is the increase of penetration according to terminal velocity (the velocity expected at the end of the range). 

Players do not have to always read the words and specific stats but use the penetration table which shows the final calculations. There, everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies.

In the battle, these penetrations do not apply deterministically but again take extra factors evaluating the final random shell fire arc, the angle of fall, angle of side hit, and other depended on ship characteristics.

Like in real life, you cannot predict 100% the outcome but you can expect a certain average result at range given by those penetration tables.

See how penetration is increased at short/medium ranges with a shell of high velocity etc.

I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒

[Nick Thomadis]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I am talking about the accuracy issues related to the muzzle velocity mechanic, not about the penetration. 😒

 

6 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

everything is included, the maximum horizontal/vertical penetration at range and the accuracies.

Accuracies are also estimated in the data.

[HMS Implosive]

39 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 

Accuracies are also estimated in the data.

@Nick Thomadis While you are right that the accuracies are estimated for the player in the penetration table, it is still either wrong or missleading (I don't know which one). I almost always use heavy or super heavy shells because they have always better nominal accuracy on these tables, even though the shell descriptions suggest othervise.

(disclaimer: I have no idea how the chance to hit is eventually calculated in game. I just wanted to note that @o Barãois right in the that the heavier shells are atleast indicated to be more accurate than the lighter shells even though the tooltip advices othervise.)

[Nick Thomadis]

19 minutes ago, HMS Implosive said:

@Nick Thomadis While you are right that the accuracies are estimated for the player in the penetration table, it is still either wrong or missleading (I don't know which one). I almost always use heavy or super heavy shells because they have always better nominal accuracy on these tables, even though the shell descriptions suggest othervise.

(disclaimer: I have no idea how the chance to hit is eventually calculated in game. I just wanted to note that @o Barãois right in the that the heavier shells are atleast indicated to be more accurate than the lighter shells even though the tooltip advices othervise.)

The tooltips, arguably, can be misinterpreted because in combat a gun of the same exact characteristics but using a much heavier shell, you will notice it to have a slower fire rate, which affects greatly the accuracy gaining. In practice the slower shell and with slower ROF will need more time to gain the maximum accuracy (not the base accuracy of the data).

In practice everything works as expected.

[Azerostar]

1 hour ago, HMS Implosive said:

Also, would you consider giving upper regions of the hull its own armor values? In real ships it was very rare for the main deck to be the main armored deck, as this would have been very bad for weight and stability. More common was to have the main armored deck somewhere inside the ship, whilest the uppermost deck was only splinter proof if even that. If the upper hull had its own armor region (or multiple regions) the ships armor weights could be made more realistic and it would be no longer that easy to turn a ship into a solid steel ingot.

Easiest way to implement this might be to have six belt regions instead of three (lower main belt, upper main belt, lower aft belt, upper aft belt, lower front belt and upper front belt, limited so that upper belts can't be thicker than the lower belts). The first citadel deck would be allowed to be as thick as one likes independent of the main deck, while the current main deck could still be made thick if one wishes, but with a cost of weight and huge destabilizing effect.

If that is too much of a work, at least remove the weight reduction of the advanced armor types for a given thickness, that is just weird and too easy to exploit.

I'm sure it will be great if this idea can be consider. The current citadel armor system is too simplified and too far away from reality.

Edited April 18 by Azerostar

[Harwood_39]

So I've played a couple of campaigns over the last couple of weeks - USA 1910 and UK 1900. 

 

First issue I came up with in the US Campaign was the high speeds the German Ships were able to reach, something that it just feels like the AI shouldn't prioritise as much as building an effective ship.  When I got my hands on a couple of their ships as war reparations, they weren't very well balanced, had low funnel efficiency (wonder why), coal burning, and steam engines (not turbines).  I think the AI should maybe cap their speeds at the recommended maximum speed for the hull.

 

I was in an extended war with France (in my UK campaign), and despite their being blockaded, and my having greater tonnage in all the places they had fleets, I was still losing 10-15 transports a turn (my fleets were on protect mode).  The real-world solution that would have happened with that number of commercial shipping losses would be the implementation of the convoy system, with dedicated escorts (corvettes/destroyers) and in the cases of larger ones, the addition of capital ships that didn't have the speed to keep up with the main fleet task forces (think the Revenge-Class Battleships in the second world war).  I would have assumed keeping a number of task forces spread around the shipping lanes on protect mode, while the main battlefleets took on the role of invasion/fleet interdiction would maintain the transport fleet, but this only reduced the losses partially and I was still regularly losing multiple transports a turn.

 

Additionally, In my opinion, the "peace treaty" option should always be highlighted when you are at war with a nation, I had an issue with this war with France that despite there being no meetings of ships or naval invasions, and France being blockaded and firing admiral after admiral, I was not able to suggest to the government to sue for peace.  When it finally was unlocked, it took me another 6 months to finally get the peace treaty we needed.

Also, unrest needs to be clearer how it escalates.  I went from 0 unrest to 66 in the space of a year, despite 0 failed naval invasions, no major ship losses (a handful of DDs and a couple of obsolete CLs).  It would be good if there were obvious options we can take (not relying on the random events) to reduce our level of unrest.

I'm also finding that when starting a campaign there is no difference between whether I select "random" or "historical" for the AI opponent, as I always start with a more historical looking diplomatic tab (e.g. Strongly negative relations between Germany/England pre-1910, etc...)  Maybe a better solution would be "historical" or "neutral" and you start with nil relations between all nations and you can advise your government on who you see as a big rival and who you would like to ally with.  Because after 800-odd hours of campaigning, it does feel like if you're playing as the Royal Navy, you're going to inevitably have a big war with Germany first off the bat, and it would definitely be more interesting if, for example, our first "big war" was against, say the USA or China/Japan, instead of it always being a European War.

My next point will need to be made without pictures as my current maximum upload is 112.48kB and my files are all larger than that.

I'm finding the RN CL Hull [Light Cruiser VI] and CA Hull [Heavy Cruiser I] have some issues with the towers available to them and the positioning of the deck step-down.  The 2 immediate solutions to me would be to cut a level off of the double barbette fore and aft towers to make them a single barbette, or make the option available to move the step-down from the fo'c'sle to the weather deck along the ship (this would be great for all hulls, especially if you want to do a battlecruiser with 3 turrets, at the moment to get a good balance, that aft turret looks like it is in a weird position).  Those ships also have border placement issues with torpedo tubes where they can sometimes be on the edge of the deck, but then move it slightly forward and it needs to be placed away from the edge of the deck (nothing else around them, just the torpedo tube).

Another, purely aesthetic thing, that would be cool is if you allow us to extend decks between superstructures, barbettes, and funnels.  basically, once you have everything in place, you can extend the sides of the ship and the deck to fill the gaps around barbettes and other accoutrements you place on a ship to fill in the gaps and provide a much better aesthetic.

Finally, it would be great if we can:
a) Place torpedo tubes on barbettes, and 
b) Be able to free place barbettes using the control button like you can do with other things, especially as there are some hulls where the spots for the barbettes are too close to the edge and don't allow any to be placed (I believe the large light cruiser is one of those), and it would be a definite quality of life improvement.
 

Edit:

Could you please also extend the Modern Tower III for the UK battlecruisers so they could have a Tall Funnel VI and Tall Funnel VIII on the same superstructure - this would allow us to make a more realistic Hood 

Edited April 19 by Harwood_39

[SeaAlex_175]

Hi, @Nick Thomadis

I have previously written about the problem of the sudden cessation of shooting. Here's a video. As you can see, at one moment the Italian dreadnought “San Pio V” stops firing. After hovering the mouse cursor over him, you will notice that his shooting accuracy has dropped to 0%. And only after switching to the Italian dreadnought, with the pause removed, its shooting accuracy rapidly increases and the ship opens fire again. Could you somehow fix this? The problem has appeared before, but apparently it has returned again.

I also confirm that I have an absolutely clean game without mods or corrections to the game files.

 

[Nick Thomadis]

9 minutes ago, SeaAlex_175 said:

Hi, @Nick Thomadis

I have previously written about the problem of the sudden cessation of shooting. Here's a video. As you can see, at one moment the Italian dreadnought “San Pio V” stops firing. After hovering the mouse cursor over him, you will notice that his shooting accuracy has dropped to 0%. And only after switching to the Italian dreadnought, with the pause removed, its shooting accuracy rapidly increases and the ship opens fire again. Could you somehow fix this? The problem has appeared before, but apparently it has returned again.

I also confirm that I have an absolutely clean game without mods or corrections to the game files.

 

Hello,

I  am not sure I understand what you want to show me here. For a few seconds your guns delay to shoot, then you spend almost 40% of the video time to  show me in pause mode that the guns do not shoot.

Guns may delay to fire sometimes, they try to aim, find target, it is simulated some kind of error finding process, that consumes time. I do not see a problem if a gun not always fires in a millisecond, in fast forward mode. Disabling pause will make the guns to fire again, but they would fire if you had let them, I assume.

[Kraut]

@Nick Thomadis

I was checking the old Road Map thread in case i missed / forgot that fixing the issues mentioned by others and me are already planned to be dealt with and thats why you are ignoring me, but no, couldnt find something like that. 

But i found something else ...

Is that pure mockery or did you not have the time to play your own game back then when you wrote this?

quote: "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is a game like no other with a unique 3D ship design system and a really challenging and immersive campaign covering in detail the time period between 1890 - 1940+. " src: https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40825-thank-you-for-the-participation-in-our-6-month-roadmap/

"a game like no other": Are you sure bout that? Except for the Designer and the Tactical Battles beeing 3D the Campaign looks pretty much like the one from that other game. Down to the wording in the random multiple choice events. Just forgot the Name, maybe you can help me?

"really challenging and immersive": Uhm, ja, many others and i already pointed out why the campaign is not challenging at all. And i dont know, whats the immersive part? That the Map shows the modern Region- / Provinces-Borders instead of the one fitting the Time Period? That Oil makes the world go round cause theres plenty of that readily available to everyone? That you cannot properly command your Taskforces at Sea cause as soon as you Split Task Force X into TF A and TF B, only one of them is selectable, cause one is buried beneath untill the other moves away next turn. 

Is there a new, secret roadmap about fixing the campaign that you might wanna share with us?