>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.6)

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version x4 including the following:
- Further optimization, fix of a potential issue in AI logic which could cause AI to slow down too much, and become an easy target, or cause speed freeze bugs or cause a rare target reset. If a player still has issues with manual targeting becoming overridden by auto-target, he has to verify that he orders ships that are not in AI command and the target is in range. 
- Further optimization in Battle UI update logic. Battle fps increases further. It is advised to check and reset the game's graphics settings or disable any overclocking in case you have very high fps problems, that could potentially cause bugs to the game.
You have to restart Steam to get this update properly.

[jw62]

On 4/21/2024 at 11:31 AM, Panzergraf said:

Or just remove the displacement slider and replace it with a length slider, and just make displacement calculated from lengthxbeamxdraught.

I like it, I like playing with the proportions to max possible hull speed, etc. Also have gotten closer to fletcher hull by minimizing beam and then increasing displacement. And yeah, Germany hit my lone destroyer with four 44kt BC's, and it sank one and messed the others up pretty good, and got away with enough hit-points to call it a win. side armor was 0.4inch, 5" guns had no problem penetrating, so that's about right

[Nender]

I'm back in game after a long time, and I do see improvements, but there's an issue that makes no sense, and if I'm correct it's been adressed already in the past. The situation is as follows:

The year is 1892. Playing with Spain, I get tasked with invading Costa Rica, with at least around 13k tonnage needed to succeed. I then bring my entire Cuban fleet; 1 BB, 2 CA and 4 CL, concentrating a tonnage of around 22k. My surprise was when I checked how the invasion was going, and it said "33% chance to succeed", and ultimately failed.

Like... what? I almost duplicate the needed tonnage to effectively conquest a country, and somehow I manage to fail?

This makes no sense to me, honestly. I believe a way to improve the system could be "If you have at least the required tonnage, your chances are 50%. The more it goes up, the higher your chances will be". I know invasions are somewhat hard during early-game, but if you duplicate the tonnage I see no justification to my Navy's failure.

That's all! There are some other minor issues such as flags still being messed up, but it's an enjoyable game overall. I hope this is of some use!

[brothermunro]

‘Required tonnage’ is the tonnage needed for your chance to succeed to be more than zero. The tonnage required for 100% chance is usually 5-10x the ‘required’ (aka minimum) tonnage.

[Nender]

3 hours ago, brothermunro said:

‘Required tonnage’ is the tonnage needed for your chance to succeed to be more than zero. The tonnage required for 100% chance is usually 5-10x the ‘required’ (aka minimum) tonnage.

Hmm, got it, the term might be somewhat confusing (but I guess that's me). Thanks for the info!

I'm also taking the opportunity to make a short suggestion for Spain (since it had its own, decent maritime industry). I've been doing research in the Battle of Santiago de Cuba (1898) and I found a picture of the Spanish Armored Cruiser 'Vizcaya' showing its 11 inch turrets. My question is, in order to bring something unique to a country that's possibly not played often, is there a possibility we could see these in a future? (I also personally like the look of the turret!).

[Dave P.]

Just wanted to provide some evidence of the Radar Phantoms I complained about earlier in case nobody believed me.

 

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Campaign Map - Task Force Overlay.

I have a question for the community and dev's, which has bugged me for some time.

In the campaign map, I notice that all to often, when one is about to launch an invasion, sometimes the Task Forces seem to have the habit of sitting ontop of each other. 

As much as I try to provide adequate space between the two different task forces, the game has a habit of making a slight move location to 'super-impose' two seperate task forces and despite careful movement of the mouse, and stacked them ontop of each other.

So for example, take task force A, consisting of ten ships, is super imposed onto Task Force B, consisting of ten ships. However, when one mouses over to the location of the two Task Forces, one does not see 20 ships, but just 10 ships, presumably highlighting the task force on top of the stack.

The only way I have found to do move seperate the Task Forces, is to highlight the map where the two task forces have congealed, click the move function, move what is one of the two task forces to another very seperate and distinct location and next turn move the second task force to a distinctly differing part of the sea.

This is not helped by the fact that prior to launching an invasion, one never seams to know the location of the exact sphere of the invasion area for a territory.

This is annoying from two aspects.

1) You initialy think that you've lost one of the task forces, but it is infact UNDERNEATH THE OTHER.

2) One wastes a turn repositioning the two task forces

It is only a small point but an irritant at that.

Any thoughts of recoding the game in this aspect that might assist task force placement?

 

 

[StrikerDanger]

8 hours ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

1) You initialy think that you've lost one of the task forces, but it is infact UNDERNEATH THE OTHER.

2) One wastes a turn repositioning the two task forces

Right-click on the two stacked task forces. That's allowed me to deal with ships/groups that I have stacked on top of one another.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, StrikerDanger said:

Right-click on the two stacked task forces. That's allowed me to deal with ships/groups that I have stacked on top of one another.

holy shit! right clicking on the stacked fleets cycle them! how long has this been a thing!?

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello fellow admirals,

We had to respond to your continuous feedback regarding some remaining issues of the game. The following few but very important improvements are offered:

v1.5.1.0
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4168720398303988255 

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded hotfix including the following:
- Fine tuned initial funds for own fleet so that they are not too low in early time periods. This change will affect only new campaigns.
Please restart Steam to get this update

[flaviohc16]

I'm more intrigued by the " Very soon we will announce something that should excite most of you that currently enjoy Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts."

 

Completely new game or massive patch with something big coming? @Nick Thomadis can you tell us something?

[Azerostar]

The barbette armor of secondary gun turrent may really need some rework, it's totally insane and cause many trouble to armor system.

If a shell penetration at a 4 inch or bigger secondary gun turrent which has no barbette armor, than its ammo may easily detonation and cause huge structure damage to hull. However,if a secondary turrent has a little barbette armor, for example, 0.2 inch, then it will prevent all this kind secondary guns from ammo detonation,no matter how big the coming shell is.

Is this reasonable? I think not. And what even worse is those secondary turrent barbette armor will also add a lot armor to the citadel. Or to say,it not only some very thin barbette armor, but also a threshold in citadel armor check.

All these problems can be seen in tests easily. Just compare with same ship design with and without secondary turrent barbette armor. I usally think the citadel armor system has some problems, but I'm sure the secondary turrent barbette armor is the worst thing in armor system for now.

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

20 hours ago, StrikerDanger said:

Right-click on the two stacked task forces. That's allowed me to deal with ships/groups that I have stacked on top of one another.

WOW! A very big THANKYOU to StrikerDanger. I've just tried it with a task force that moved (all by itself I may add) under another - and it works! I am forever indebted!

[applegrcoug]

I started a new campaign a week or so ago.

A few things I've noticed...first, refitting captured ships is nice.  Really get to see the turds they design.

Odd behavior I see:

If I sell a mothballed ship to a minor ally, they dont ever activate it.  They seem to be collecting a fleet of museum ships.

 

Major powers scrap ships at the five year mark.  Seeing it takes 2-3 years to build a battleship, this seems ludicrous.

 

 

[StrikerDanger]

On 4/26/2024 at 5:13 PM, MDHansen said:

holy shit! right clicking on the stacked fleets cycle them! how long has this been a thing!?

I have honestly zero idea. I discovered it one day, forgot about it for a couple of weeks and then rediscovered it again. H haven't seen anyone mention it here at all, so I figured it was common knowledge lol.

[Panzergraf]

On 4/26/2024 at 9:29 PM, StrikerDanger said:

Right-click on the two stacked task forces. That's allowed me to deal with ships/groups that I have stacked on top of one another.

Adding myself to the list of people who had no idea this was a thing. Thank you!

[Aldaris]

I'd like to adress two issues that screwed my recent German campaign hard, despite completely dominating the seas.

First off, army mechanics.

It absolutely sucks that we have no way of influencing deployment or anything else, and that it's handled in such a non-responsive and arbitrary manner generally. I gradually took the Baltics and Finland off the Soviet Union. The problem: every subsequent war, those areas are guarded by like 30000 men, and then the Soviets attack with at least half a million. Now that might make sense at the start of a surprise attack, but there is no redeployment as far as I can see. Those areas should be reinforced. Forces should be distributed according to the war situation.

But that's not happening. So in every war, I'm on a timer on how long it can go, before I pretty much automatically lose territories (which can completely skew war scores too. Losing almost undefended Prussia turned the war score from 250000 to maybe 5k to 250000 to 500000 in their favour).

What also plays into this is army size. The thing is, our populations aren't that different - about 90 million for Germany and its territories and 140 for the soviets. I almost double their GDP, but our army-navy spending ratio is completely skewed. Germany spends WAY too much on the navy, I have stupid amounts of money, way more than I know what to do with. Something like 400 billion in the bank with 10+ coming in every month. While supporting a huge fleet. I recently built about 40 heavy cruisers simultaneously without going negative.

And in every decision about finances, I favoured GDP over Navy budget, every single time. And yet, the army is severy underfunded compared to the Soviets. I mean, why? HOW? Why can I not say "look boys, I have several times your yearly budget in the piggy bank, maybe we should talk to the Government about some redistribution?"

It would be very nice if there was some way to influence budget more, particularly when you have way, WAY too much. Or if the game noticed itself.

 

The other thing - please, please please add an option to engage blocking forces in choke points. They should get the option to either fight or get out of the way. They are not doors, or walls. They're just ships, and if they're not willing to fight, they should not block anything.

The current solution with the impenetrable red circle is completely infuriating. And dumb. Having a Naval invasion with almost a million tons of warships nearby fail because of a single ancient CA sitting in the way of them getting into the circle is enough to make me want to stop playing.

Edited April 28 by Aldaris

[kineu.a.hansen]

i am also looking forword to see what they will announce i asume is 1.6

[Dave P.]

I would like to know how the autoresolve logic works.

Towards the end of a war, after I've wiped out most of the opposing navy, their ships seem to ridiculously outperform in autoresolve vs. battling it out.

More than once I've had a "meeting" of 6+ BBs plus escorts vs. an enemy CL and a couple of destroyers, and autoresolve will have them heavily damage or destroy half my fleet. But if I actually run a similar battle myself, their ships will either run away or be destroyed outside of their own weapons range.

When you're bumping into 2-3 of these sorts of mini-battles per turn it gets kinda boring. But the alternative is losing large numbers of capital ships to a handful of destroyers.

I'm also curious why, when my ships run into a bunch of unescorted transports in a convoy or port battle, the autoresolve will let some percentage (usually a majority) of the transports get away, even when I have more ships, all faster, than there are transports? Shouldn't it be trivial for my fleet to bag them all?

I don't expect perfection, and I realize the RNG is a thing. But maybe the autoresolve could weight things based on the current victory points or ratio of tonnage sunk? The best predictor of future performance is past results.

[Dave P.]

Would also be nice if we had the option to deploy damaged ships. At least if they have less than a certain amount of damage. I'd be happy to do so with some kind of disadvantage. (Morale, unrest, higher maintenance costs, whatever.)

I mean, I can have ships with 50% damage that haven't been sent home yet, so they're in the fleet and fighting, but if a ship with much less damage than that hits a port, it's stuck there until its fully repaired? Seems wrong.

[Dave P.]

The integrated Barbette in the superstructures for many of the modern german BBs and BCs have a problem fitting quad and even triple turrets for sizes that I would otherwise think are pretty appropriate for the era/size/role. (Or it can fit them, but the firing arcs are restricted to the point of being useless.)

Modern BC with Modern Tower III can't fit Quads bigger than a 10":

Hybrid BC with Modern Tower X can't fit Quads bigger than 12":

Can't fit a triple 16" either.

Modern BB II w/ Modern Tower III can fit a triple 18", but not a quad 16":

As a practical matter, I don't find this too limiting, except that my preferred Large Cruiser (BC) design w/ 4x Quad 12" (as a cheap late-game BC you can field in stupid-high numbers) is kinda hard to build from German parts unless I use the smallest towers, resulting in a sighting and fire control penalty, as well as looks only a mother could love:

I've been running into this since quad turrets were introduced, assuming it's just a hitbox/collision thing.

Wondering if it's an oversight, since the British/US BB superstructures with integrated superfiring barbettes are generally more capacious? Also, since several of the german hulls don't get a superstructure design that doesn't have the integrated barbette, it makes it hard to turn those hulls into properly dakka-equipped vessels. (And forget about doing an all-forward design.)

Edited April 28 by Dave P.

[Dave P.]

Finally (last post I promise) it would be a nice QOL thing if there was a "retire now" option in campaign. Clicking through those last couple years worth of turns after you've defeated your enemies and seen them driven before you is pretty boring. Especially with the AI still trying to design ships it can't afford to build.

Edited April 28 by Dave P.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimized version including the following:
- Fixed rare but also critical error of shell calculations which could cause a code exception when fighting at very large ranges. This error could cause the game to hang after some time.
- Fixed potential error of formation logic, causing formation points to desync and some ships of the division to zig zag indefinitely. This issue could happen more often when placing all ships of a fleet in one "super" division of more than 10x ships, something that normally should not be allowed in the game, but is preserved to please a small portion of players that use this ability. Please note, that it is NOT efficient, therefore it is not advised to place all of your ships in one division. If your ships delay to assume a working formation it happens because you give an unrealistic command expecting all ships to instantly take a position and create a 20+ km line of 100 ships....  
Please restart Steam to get this update

[TK3600]

May I suggest an UI improvement that will go a long way?

The port on map currently do not show if any ship inside. I suggest an anchor icon for port like HOI4. If there is ship inside, the icon lit up, otherwise it dims. This also fix the problem of port being hard to click.