>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.3)

[Aldaris]

3 hours ago, Drenzul said:

So have the following issues being fixed yet?

1> Build direct to refit spec not possible
2> Build becoming "overweight" so can't be built anymore
3> Drunk following ships in formation

1) no

2) no

3) yeah, I think so. Some ships, especially the more maneuverable ones, still wobble about a bit after a course change, but that feels realistic. Nowhere near as bad as it once was.

[Drenzul]

@Nick Thomadis Any chance you could raise these issues?
1+2 have been around a while and are REALLY annoying and shouldn't be major to resolve.

[Aldaris]

This seems slightly off.

Also, what's up with my army logistics? I've had the transport slider at max for the entire campaign, and I've stomped in every conflict.

Also, something that should be a really easy fix: make it so that suppressing a rebellion actually reduces unrest. When I militarily suppress an uprising, it should help with public order. Currently, there is no way to actively reduce it, you just have to hope and pray for events that give you options.

That kind of sucks because when your army takes a bunch of territory, your unrest completely skyrockets without any way of reliably getting it back down again.

Edited May 9 by Aldaris

[justMike247]

On 5/8/2024 at 10:47 AM, Aldaris said:

That could be fixed with a one month refit in port, simulating the guns being swapped out for new ones and the old ones being shipped back to the manufacturer to have a new liner installed.

that would be an accurate RL reflection of fleet refitting, but in game, when it takes up to three months to refuel (something that takes mere hours to perform in RL, even while underway at sea) I'm guessing barrel replacement would mean refit time exceeding six months... Not that barrel replacement would affect accuracy any. With the latest nerfage, I'm having to resort to Nelsonian tactics and combat ranges. State of the art 1960's tech and I'd have more offensive capability throwing potatoes...

[brothermunro]

2 hours ago, Aldaris said:

This seems slightly off.

Also, what's up with my army logistics? I've had the transport slider at max for the entire campaign, and I've stomped in every conflict.

Army logistics seems to be calculated at least in part by the size of your *navy* compared to your army force not the transport capacity

[Aldaris]

5 minutes ago, brothermunro said:

Army logistics seems to be calculated at least in part by the size of your *navy* compared to your army force not the transport capacity

I didn't know that, thanks!

Although I'm not sure I should have a bigger fleet. When those refits and builds were through, I was at 32 capital ships. That seems like a decently sized Navy.

[applegrcoug]

Another bug...at least I hope a bug...

 

Minor nations ships dont seem to refuel.  Might not rearm either, but definitely dont refuel.

 

There are some Danish ships that have been running on fumes for over a year and continue to go out into battle bear Jutland.

[TK3600]

1 hour ago, applegrcoug said:

Another bug...at least I hope a bug...

 

Minor nations ships dont seem to refuel.  Might not rearm either, but definitely dont refuel.

 

There are some Danish ships that have been running on fumes for over a year and continue to go out into battle bear Jutland.

They do not rearm either. Lastly, they also have infinite money. They will happily buy my most expensive BB despite having GDP of 500k. 20 year in, most minor will have a bigger fleet than major power, since they dont concern for maintnence. Well, ships are certainly not maintained either, no refuel, no rearm.

[HMS Implosive]

Simple quality of life improvement idea:

On the ships speed slider in combat there is a marker on the three quarters or so of the nominal max speed. I think it would be more usefull if this marker was instead on the ships maximum cruise speed, to make it easier to figure out what speed gives the highest cruise speed bonus.

Edited May 10 by HMS Implosive

[imb39]

It's possibly been mentioned already, but is there anyway of nerfing the speed of dreadnoughts? I find that Britain and Japan seem to be able to make quite fast dreadnoughts pretty early on. Bear in mind that the QE battleships where hideously expensive and could go up to about 24/25 knots and that was midway WW1. The Resolution Class was more orthodox (21kts) and built as a cheaper alternative. 

I love the fragility of BCs in this game,. 

[TK3600]

I think the best way to fix formation problem is to have ability to temporarily override it. If I click a place, all ship move to the location as quick as they can, as opposed to maintain the formation. It predicts where each ship would go at destination in a line. Then it reform the formation at destination.

[Suribachi]

5 hours ago, HMS Implosive said:

Simple quality of life improvement idea:

On the ships speed slider in combat there is a marker on the three quarters or so of the nominal max speed. I think it would be more usefull if this marker was instead on the ships maximum cruise speed, to make it easier to figure out what speed gives the highest cruise speed bonus.

It think its position currently is legacy from when all engines had the same cruise speed sweet spot, so yeah, it needs updating.

[imb39]

A few observations:

When the lead ship of a division has too much damage, it is crazy for it to turn  towards the enemy. Can this be adjusted so it turns away. 

Changing targets - it is astonishing how often you have acquired a target and the main battery is in the process of hitting it. Suddenly a destroyer comes out and then becomes the target of the main guns. The good firing resolution on the main target is lost. Maybe a way of prioritising targets can be implemented? eg largest ship (as suspected at that time) etc for main batteries. For the secondaries, the priorities might be CL/DD etc. 

Where it comes to screening, can there be 2 options? A tight screen which is defensive and stays reasonably close to the main ships and a loose screen which enables them to have a lot more freedom and clash with the enemy line or screens. 

Overall, love the game, though. 

[MDHansen]

I think an option to attack minors is needed. It's been mentioned before several times.

something like this maybe;
-place a fleet (50kt (it's a minor after all)) on top of the minor port you want to attack <same procedure as you would dock at your own port>
-next turn an event pops asking if you want to attack said minor with the potential consequences of warring a major nation
-if response is yes, the allied major nation will decide if it's worth going to war with you. say 80/20 for/against
-next turn the invasion happens as per usual

Edited May 11 by MDHansen

[TK3600]

2 hours ago, MDHansen said:

I think an option to attack minors is needed. It's been mentioned before several times.

something like this maybe;
-place a fleet (50kt (it's a minor after all)) on top of the minor port you want to attack <same procedure as you would dock at your own port>
-next turn an event pops asking if you want to attack said minor with the potential consequences of warring a major nation
-if response is yes, the allied major nation will decide if it's worth going to war with you. say 80/20 for/against
-next turn the invasion happens as per usual

You are certainly not the first guy to mention this, but I doubt developer will listen. So far they ignored all suggestions on attacking minors, unlikely to suddenly change their policy.

[justMike247]

Back in February, I spent three days writing a comprehensive bug list for U.A.D rev 1.4.1.1 . Now, three months later, and using rev 1.5.1.1, it's disappointing, but not entirely surprising to find that not one of the multitude of issues raised in that post has been addressed. On the contrary, if I were to waste a similar amount of time writing a list for the current rev, I'd need to double the length of the list.

 

Now, we're going into battle with guns nerfed to the point of being little more than ballast with each salvo having a 98% chance of missing, range irrespective. This is irrespective of gun calibre, amunition weight and propellent type. From personal experience, at least 50% of damage received is from my own ships torpedoing ships they're supposed to be screening or being screened by. Latest instance of this; destroyer sunk by a cruiser it's supposed to be screening. Oppososing fleet was universally on the port side of my battle line, screening vessels had deployed to starboard of the battle line. No opposing vessels to starboard.

 

Noteworthy new bugs... Task Forces set to "Follow" sailing in the exact opposite direction, or worse, proceeding in circles, at the grand speed of 0.6kts, initially with no damage, while refusing to engage opposing vessels closing rapidly on them. Every attempt to use automatic controls to extract them from this mess results in returning to turning in circles with next to zero boat speed.

 

In Campaign mode, the game sets huge value on the importance of researching the latest and greatest innovations and tech, and yet, in battle, that tech makes not the slightest difference in improving targetting accuracy or ship survivability, begging the question, what's the point? I've lost count of the times that the opposing force has had double the spotting range of my fleet, despite their tech level being very behind, while my own is very advanced.

 

I seriously detest having to be so negative all the time; if I didn't genuinely believe the game had the potential to be truly awesome I wouldn't have paid for it twice, but the way things are currently, with every update serving to ignore long standing reported bugs and merely increasing the crap-outage, I'm seriously contemplating demanding a refund; the product I paid for is no longer fit for purpose. And yet... the dev's believe the way things are, the game is in a good enough condition to launch onto a multi-player platform. Seriously?? There's no point at all in developing new features while the game is still crippled with a multitude of fundamental bugs. I'm neither against nor discouraging introducing new features or expanding the game platform, merely pleading that such development be suspended until the majority of the issues reported to date are addressed.

[justMike247]

U.A.D rev 1.5.1.1 End of campaign thoughts

 

So… sometime around the end of 1945 I finally finish a protracted series of conquests against countries that thought extortion won’t have paybacks. My fleet, or what’s left of it, is worn out, thoroughly beat to chit, and, well… lets be honest, with the nerfed economy we have to put up with now, most of my fleet is obsolete. Time to rebuild from a clean sheet.

 

It took almost 17 years, cut my fleet size in half, but just after 1961 ended, I’ve a newly rebuilt fleet, totally state of the art, with just two surviving though thoroughly upgraded hull classes remaining from the 1940’s fleet. Despite my entire fleet being in home waters for over 15 years, apparently I’ve pissed off the yanks to the point where its time to kick some ass again… only… there’s a problem… The devs have released another nerf that’s basically made the whole game completely and utterly pointless.

 

No, I’m not talking about the AI spotting advantage that would mean AI spotting tops would need to be over 300m high to spot me, I’m not talking about the AI’s ability to avoid torpedoes by turning figure eights in less than two ship lengths, nor am I talking about AI’s evident tech advantage in torps, that gives them the ability to ripple fire without reloads, reloads that have no issue running over 50 clicks with an unghodly ability to home on a target… Nope… none of them… this is a whole new level of nerfage that basically makes the entire game pointless…

 

As spelled out, my entire fleet is refitted to best of what’s available in 1960’s tech, Gen III RADAR, Mk5 guns throughout, standard ammo weights and loadout, gas turbine engines, Modern II armour, whole nine yards.. all the bells and whistles that can improve long range gunnery and survivability, every one of my hulls has them… and fresh out of drydock, they’re all completely worthless. Why? Well, evidently, some devs have the idea that newly fitted guns come straight from the proving ranges already worn to the point that they can’t hit the broadside of a barn even from within spitting distance. None of them have fired a round yet, but still… nerfage means they’ll never hit any target they’re pointed at, because of barrel wear… or so we’re told.

 

I tried… Lord knows I’d plenty opportunity. Over ten engagements per month, every month until campaign ended… each and every one with the same results; at best, my main guns achieved an accuracy of just 1.7% firing at ranges from 40km all the way down to just 3km… Fall of shot landing long and to target’s port side, broadside after broadside, exactly the same shot dispersal pattern. Sure, I sunk a bunch of ships, but never the ships I was actually aiming at, just some poor unfortunates that got too close to AI BB’s; as soon as they give their battle wagons some breathing room, my hits fall off to nothing.

 

So… new campaign… still feeling sick over wasting so much time and effort with the previous, and I’m thinking, if the best of available tech means every gun fitted is just so much ballast to haul around, how much worse will it be with 1890’s tech? Is there any point building capitol ships at all when they’ll be lucky to land a shell within the same time zone as the targets?

 

Torps, nerfed to the point of uselessness, secondary guns, unable to pen anything with more than 6mm of armour, and now main guns that can’t hit a damned thing they’re pointed at…

 

I’m willing to try again, one last time… Call me stupid, but I still believe that with the right devs behind the game, it has the chance to be truly awesome. I’ve always believed that, to the point that I paid for the game, twice… But as the game stands right now, as a product, it’s no longer fit for purpose. I’m contemplating demanding a refund on my purchase.

 

I could write a comprehensive list of what needs to be fixed before the game is fit to be called playable, much less ready for multi-player, but… no point… I did that exercise for rev 1.4.1.1… nothing’s been addressed.

[TK3600]

14 minutes ago, justMike247 said:

U.A.D rev 1.5.1.1 End of campaign thoughts

 

 

 

So… sometime around the end of 1945 I finally finish a protracted series of conquests against countries that thought extortion won’t have paybacks. My fleet, or what’s left of it, is worn out, thoroughly beat to chit, and, well… lets be honest, with the nerfed economy we have to put up with now, most of my fleet is obsolete. Time to rebuild from a clean sheet.

 

 

 

It took almost 17 years, cut my fleet size in half, but just after 1961 ended, I’ve a newly rebuilt fleet, totally state of the art, with just two surviving though thoroughly upgraded hull classes remaining from the 1940’s fleet. Despite my entire fleet being in home waters for over 15 years, apparently I’ve pissed off the yanks to the point where its time to kick some ass again… only… there’s a problem… The devs have released another nerf that’s basically made the whole game completely and utterly pointless.

 

 

 

No, I’m not talking about the AI spotting advantage that would mean AI spotting tops would need to be over 300m high to spot me, I’m not talking about the AI’s ability to avoid torpedoes by turning figure eights in less than two ship lengths, nor am I talking about AI’s evident tech advantage in torps, that gives them the ability to ripple fire without reloads, reloads that have no issue running over 50 clicks with an unghodly ability to home on a target… Nope… none of them… this is a whole new level of nerfage that basically makes the entire game pointless…

 

 

 

As spelled out, my entire fleet is refitted to best of what’s available in 1960’s tech, Gen III RADAR, Mk5 guns throughout, standard ammo weights and loadout, gas turbine engines, Modern II armour, whole nine yards.. all the bells and whistles that can improve long range gunnery and survivability, every one of my hulls has them… and fresh out of drydock, they’re all completely worthless. Why? Well, evidently, some devs have the idea that newly fitted guns come straight from the proving ranges already worn to the point that they can’t hit the broadside of a barn even from within spitting distance. None of them have fired a round yet, but still… nerfage means they’ll never hit any target they’re pointed at, because of barrel wear… or so we’re told.

 

 

 

I tried… Lord knows I’d plenty opportunity. Over ten engagements per month, every month until campaign ended… each and every one with the same results; at best, my main guns achieved an accuracy of just 1.7% firing at ranges from 40km all the way down to just 3km… Fall of shot landing long and to target’s port side, broadside after broadside, exactly the same shot dispersal pattern. Sure, I sunk a bunch of ships, but never the ships I was actually aiming at, just some poor unfortunates that got too close to AI BB’s; as soon as they give their battle wagons some breathing room, my hits fall off to nothing.

 

 

 

So… new campaign… still feeling sick over wasting so much time and effort with the previous, and I’m thinking, if the best of available tech means every gun fitted is just so much ballast to haul around, how much worse will it be with 1890’s tech? Is there any point building capitol ships at all when they’ll be lucky to land a shell within the same time zone as the targets?

 

 

 

Torps, nerfed to the point of uselessness, secondary guns, unable to pen anything with more than 6mm of armour, and now main guns that can’t hit a damned thing they’re pointed at…

 

 

 

I’m willing to try again, one last time… Call me stupid, but I still believe that with the right devs behind the game, it has the chance to be truly awesome. I’ve always believed that, to the point that I paid for the game, twice… But as the game stands right now, as a product, it’s no longer fit for purpose. I’m contemplating demanding a refund on my purchase.

 

 

 

I could write a comprehensive list of what needs to be fixed before the game is fit to be called playable, much less ready for multi-player, but… no point… I did that exercise for rev 1.4.1.1… nothing’s been addressed.

 

I used to be skeptical of multiplayer, but I think it is a great idea. Here is why: developers has no interest for fine tuning, but they like adding new features. I get it, bug fixes are boring. We can be like Bethesda, let players mod bugs away, developers focus on technical features. We all play to our strength.

If you demand them to do things where their heart is not, things may get worse, like the new accuracy system. 

It may sounds like crazy talk, but devs are humans too. people get bored. I program too, I get the feeling too.

If they are willing to share some of their tough problems, I am willing to help them polish the boring stuff. If they share the code file responsible for the problem.

[Azerostar]

2 hours ago, TK3600 said:

I used to be skeptical of multiplayer, but I think it is a great idea. Here is why: developers has no interest for fine tuning, but they like adding new features. I get it, bug fixes are boring. We can be like Bethesda, let players mod bugs away, developers focus on technical features. We all play to our strength.

If you demand them to do things where their heart is not, things may get worse, like the new accuracy system. 

It may sounds like crazy talk, but devs are humans too. people get bored. I program too, I get the feeling too.

If they are willing to share some of their tough problems, I am willing to help them polish the boring stuff. If they share the code file responsible for the problem.

Moders of UAD mainly using the resources.assets file, and though resources.assets file,there are still many things that can't be modified. If someone wants to be like Bethesda, at least let us to modify most parts of the game first.

[PhoenixLP44]

Just my thoughts but if anything kills this game it's poor communication from the devs.

[TK3600]

7 hours ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

Just my thoughts but if anything kills this game it's poor communication from the devs.

It can't be poor communication. They straight up ignore some inputs. So I can't see how it is a communication issue when they made it pretty clear they do not talk about some stuff. Like building refitted ships. You can bring it up 1 million times and they will never reply. Submit a bug report about formation and you will see 10 patch dedicated to it. Every post of that get active communication. So no, no communication issues here. They never intended to address some of the problem, that is why they do not talk about it. Source of problem is misplaced priority.

And you certainly cannot say they are lazy. Far from it, they are working on multiplayer, they are pushing out minor patch every couple days. They certainly do some rigorous testing when it comes to stability. If they are neither lazy, nor is it matter of communication, then it is simply misplaced priority.

[PhoenixLP44]

1 hour ago, TK3600 said:

It can't be poor communication. They straight up ignore some inputs. So I can't see how it is a communication issue when they made it pretty clear they do not talk about some stuff. Like building refitted ships. You can bring it up 1 million times and they will never reply. Submit a bug report about formation and you will see 10 patch dedicated to it. Every post of that get active communication. So no, no communication issues here. They never intended to address some of the problem, that is why they do not talk about it. Source of problem is misplaced priority.

And you certainly cannot say they are lazy. Far from it, they are working on multiplayer, they are pushing out minor patch every couple days. They certainly do some rigorous testing when it comes to stability. If they are neither lazy, nor is it matter of communication, then it is simply misplaced priority.

Fair criticism on your behalf here but straight up refusing to talk about something is poor communication. 

I know developing a game is time consuming and expensive but you brought up a pretty interesting example. Why do they need 10 patches to repeatetly break and repair one system? If we bring something up 1million times perhaps the devs should reconsider their priorities. Formations still suck at best and are a pain in the ass to untangle in larger battles (so much in fact that I have resolved to just autoresolve most of them).

I also never claimed that the devs were lazy, quite the opposite in fact having played the game since Alpha 3 I know how much hard work has been put into the game.

Misplaced priorities is a confusing one as we, the players, have given them more than enough clues as to what we want and right now it certainly wasn't multipalyer, although a lot of us surely appreciate it.

Edited May 13 by PhoenixLP44

[TK3600]

3 minutes ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

Fair criticism on your behalf here but straight up refusing to talk about something is poor communication. 

I know developing a game is time consuming and expensive but you brought up a pretty interesting example. Why do they need 10 patches to repeatetly break and repair one system? If we bring something up 1million times perhaps the devs should reconsider their priorities. Formations still suck at best and are a pain in the ass to untangle in larger battles (so much in fact that I have resolved to just autoresolve most of them).

I also never claimed that the devs were lazy, quite the opposite in fact having palyed the game since Alpha 3 I know how much hard work has been put into the game.

Misplaced priorities is a confusing one as we, the players, have given them more than enough clues as to what we want and right now it certainly wasn't multipalyer, although a lot of us surely appreciate it.

My point is poor communication cannot be the cause of problems, because they are constantly engaging with players. The problem is they intentionally ignore some problems for whatever reason. If someone is purposefully ignore the problem, would you call it bad communication, or wilful neglect? When someone is wilfully neglecting, no amount of communication will lead to anything. At best you make them lie.

 

For example, try convincing a kid to do homework who is unwilling to. You tell him to do something, and he starts ignoring you or change topic. If he 'forgot to do it' would you say problem is communication? No, he does not want to do it, that is the root cause. Not wanting to talk about homework is just a small symptom of not wanting to do it.

[PhoenixLP44]

1 minute ago, TK3600 said:

My point is poor communication cannot be the cause of problems, because they are constantly engaging with players. The problem is they intentionally ignore some problems for whatever reason. If someone is purposefully ignore the problem, would you call it bad communication, or wilful neglect? When someone is wilfully neglecting, no amount of communication will lead to anything. At best you make them lie.

 

For example, try convincing a kid to do homework who is unwilling to. You tell him to do something, and he starts ignoring you or change topic. If he 'forgot to do it' would you say problem is communication? No, he does not want to do it, that is the root cause. Not wanting to talk about homework is just a small symptom of not wanting to do it.

That still doesn't explain why they don't communicate with us about these issues and that's what bugs me and let to my comment.

Also comparing it to a small child while a neat example is not the best idea because a small child is a child and children are rebellious. I don't think (and hope) there are small children working on this game.

We are speaking to fully grown adults here who for whatever reason refuse to talk with us about certain issues. But I get the point you are trying to make here.

[TK3600]

Just now, PhoenixLP44 said:

That still doesn't explain why they don't communicate with us about these issues and that's what bugs me and let to my comment.

Also comparing it to a small child while a neat example is not the best idea because a small child is a child and children are rebellious. I don't think (and hope) there are small children working on this game.

We are speaking to fully grown adults here who for whatever reason refuse to talk with us about certain issues. But I get the point you are trying to make here.

I think it is pretty self explanatory. They don't talk about it because they dont want to fix the problem, either because they cannot, or because they dont see it as a problem. Would you talk about stuff you don't want to do? You either must lie, or embarrass yourself by straight up refusing. Then people would ask you why not? Then you gotta dig yourself deeper by trying to justify it. The best option is to stay silent.

You will see they are otherwise pretty talkative. When they stay silent on certain issue you know something is up.