>>>v1.5 Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.5.1.0 Opt)

[Panzergraf]

1 hour ago, Kraut said:

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.

For those wanting a quick workaround to this problem:
Before splitting, order the entirety of TF X to where you want TF A to go, then split off TF B and order them somewhere else.

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Kraut said:

@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? 

Your sarcasm is no longer tolerated my friend. I cannot reply to a person speaking like you. Please do not write anything here in our forum unless you change your tone. You get a forum banning. I suggest you switch to another game to make your life easier.

[HMS Implosive]

15 hours ago, Harwood_39 said:

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.

Just sayin', as someone who cares more about realistic looks than ingame optimization, I have so much wanted this.

[SirTrafalgar]

18 hours ago, Harwood_39 said:

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 am in the last ten years of an Italian campaign. I have encountered German BCs that run 44.5 knots and Austrian BCs that hit 42 knots. Most destroyers are running 38 knots from all nations, even the old ones. One of the reasons why I liked playing Italy was that their ships tended to have a slight edge in speed due to better hull forms and higher hull speeds. So, I think speed calculations are off when the AI ships are built. I haven't filed a bug report since I am unsure if this qualifies, but it feels strange. 

In games lasting more than twenty or thirty years, moving beyond the bordering territories with your armies feels impossible, even with huge disparities in logistics. I have occupied Austria, but even though I am blockading. Austria-Hungry and having the only ships in the Adriatic Sea moving beyond Austria is impossible because I can only get about 20 thousand troops. In contrast, the bordering provinces all have 100k+ troops. My army logistics is 100%, and theirs hovers around 19%. Since Austria-Hungary doesn't have ports outside Croatia, I can't invade even if they are along the coast.

Trieste, in Modern-day Italy, near the border of Slovenia, was one of the biggest ports and a constant source of conflict between Italy and Austria-Hungary. At the start of the timeline in our game, it belonged to Austria-Hungary and remained part of the empire until its dissolution, when it moved to Italian possession. It has always seemed odd to me that Trieste wasn't represented in-game as a port belonging to Austria-Hungary. Since it's such a small territory, it could be like Hong Kong or Gibraltar, explaining why Slovenia doesn't have a port. I think it's the only coastal territory that doesn't. 

 

 

[Dave P.]

59 minutes ago, SirTrafalgar said:

I am in the last ten years of an Italian campaign. I have encountered German BCs that run 44.5 knots and Austrian BCs that hit 42 knots. Most destroyers are running 38 knots from all nations, even the old ones. One of the reasons why I liked playing Italy was that their ships tended to have a slight edge in speed due to better hull forms and higher hull speeds. So, I think speed calculations are off when the AI ships are built. I haven't filed a bug report since I am unsure if this qualifies, but it feels strange.

It’s just how the ai designs certain ships. If you check their armor values they’re usually made from construction paper.

[Dave P.]

Still would really, really like "attack move" option for routing which forces a direct route to the destination regardless of enemy fleet presence/influence areas and engages anything that gets in the way.

[SirTrafalgar]

5 hours ago, Dave P. said:

It’s just how the ai designs certain ships. If you check their armor values they’re usually made from construction paper.

These weren't paper thin; they had 13 inches of Krup IV on the sides and 9 inches on the deck with 13.4 x2 in guns in five turrets plus a whole host of the secondary crap that the Ai likes. The citadel was also exceptionally long. It looked like the AI saved weight by forgoing torpedo protection, engine efficiency, barbets, and bulkheads. They weren't too hard to kill and were trash like many AI designs, but they were constantly running away from my fleets with superior numbers. I couldn't design a ship half as well as the AI design with the same speed. The tonnage requirements for that speed went way over any designs I came up with. Still, I am sure there is a way that the AI managed to make it legally. 

All of that is beside the point. 44.5 knots seems excessive for a ship designed in the early 1940s, regardless of whether it was a good design. The fastest ship in that time period was the USS Muray, a Gridley class DD that achieved a speed of 42.5 knots during a special speed run. Basically, that ship had positive flaws. (By the way, research that reduces flaw chance also reduces positive flaws. It should have a reduction for negative flaws but also a slight bump for positive flaws.) I am running up against BCs of 40k tons, running two knots faster. 

[HMS Implosive]

I think a good way to address issue of impossible fast ships would be to limit maximum amout of shaft horse power (SHP) a ship can produce or transfer to water. Ways to implement this, from simpliest to most complicated could be:

1. set hard cap for max SHP that depends on technology levels

2. Set hard cap for max SHP per shaft that depends on tech level. This would require new mechanics and propably rework of some of the hulls to have more realistic number of shafts. IRL, with modern technology, max SHP per shaft is some 70 000 in most applications. (bonus: give the player an option to choose the number of shafts)

3. Set a minimum volume for machinery space to produce SHP required. This would make it so that you can't just fill the ship with turrets and magazines, and still make them lightning fast, as there would be no room for machinery.

If any ar all of these would be implemented, massively high speed would become more difficolt to accieve. Main way to get there would be reducing beam and/or displacement to reduce SHP required.

[SeaAlex_175]

23 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

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.

@Nick Thomadis

I recorded a longer video without pausing, where you can see that without switching to a ship that has stopped firing, this ship will periodically stop firing for a while.

 

Edited April 20 by SeaAlex_175

[Nick Thomadis]

22 minutes ago, SeaAlex_175 said:

@Nick Thomadis

I recorded a longer video without pausing, where you can see that without switching to a ship that has stopped firing, this ship will periodically stop firing for a while.

 

You are at the edge of the maximum range and your base accuracy is too low. Due to the recoil of your guns, the accuracy becomes even lower triggering the ammo save mode. If you put your guns to "Aggressive" mode and come closer, you should notice more consistent firing.

[SeaAlex_175]

17 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

You are at the edge of the maximum range and your base accuracy is too low. Due to the recoil of your guns, the accuracy becomes even lower triggering the ammo save mode. If you put your guns to "Aggressive" mode and come closer, you should notice more consistent firing.

@Nick Thomadis
But if instead of the player there is AI, how will the AI understand that it needs to fire aggressively and come closer? The player can always restore shooting in different ways, yes, but for the AI this is a problem that reduces its effectiveness in battle.

Edited April 20 by SeaAlex_175

[Nick Thomadis]

10 minutes ago, SeaAlex_175 said:

But if instead of the player there is AI, how will the AI understand that it needs to fire aggressively and come closer? The player can always restore shooting in different ways, yes, but for the AI this is a problem that reduces its effectiveness in battle.

It is the player's responsibility to fight a battle. When allocating this fight to player AI, it is for seeking an assist, vs an opponent AI which has a better understanding on what to do.

[PhoenixLP44]

@Nick Thomadis what are the devs thoughts on setting your taskforces layout manually before entering battle?

I have always been annoyed by divisions being spread out amongst the entire taskforce and having to get in line first before being useful in battle.

Also can we get a new faq channel?

Edited April 20 by PhoenixLP44

[Nick Thomadis]

12 minutes ago, PhoenixLP44 said:

@Nick Thomadis what are the devs thoughts on setting your taskforces layout manually before entering battle?

I have always been annoyed by divisions being spread out amongst the entire taskforce and having to get in line first before being useful in battle.

Also can we get a new faq channel?

It has been asked, and if we decided to make it, it can have a risk of bugs. Next patch  can provide less risky features and many new 3D models for guns and hulls. Not sure what you mean FAQ channel, you mean to have more questions answered in the FAQ thread?

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Hi All,

I have a question, which I may have an answer to, but it would be great if the forum experts and dev's could confirm for me.

I decided to take on a challenge and play as Spain from 1890. My first war is with Russia (or rather now as the Soviet Union) and I've been trying to launch an invasion of 1) The Soviet territories around the Black Sea and 2) The Soviet territories in the Far East.

However, despite me positioning a sizable task force next to either the Russian provinces around the Back Sea or Russian Far East - the invade option is ALWAYS 'greyed out'. At first I thought that this was a bug, but now I am wondering if one is to launch an invasion of an enemy territory, one needs an uninterupted clear route, with no enemy ships in between, between my territory and the intended invasion destination. Thus allowing ones troop transports to be able to reach the invasion destination un molested.

Is this the case?

I appologise if this is an obvious question I should have been aware of, but I couldn't find any quidance or reference on this.

I look forward to your comments.

Kind regards...

[SeaAlex_175]

22 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It is the player's responsibility to fight a battle. When allocating this fight to player AI, it is for seeking an assist, vs an opponent AI which has a better understanding on what to do.

@Nick Thomadis

Okay, but there was a time when there were no such sudden stops in shooting with a reset in accuracy. If I remember correctly, in one of the patches of versions 1.4-1.5, the developers increased the influence of base accuracy. You also mentioned the decrease in accuracy from gun recoil. What if it is the incorrect values of these parameters that cause the shooting to stop? Apparently, the numbers of base accuracy and the accuracy penalty from gun recoil begin to conflict at such moments, since they have approximately the same values. Perhaps increasing the initial base accuracy values, or even more likely fine-tuning the accuracy penalty from gun recoil would solve the problem with interruptions in shooting.

[Panzergraf]

12 minutes ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

However, despite me positioning a sizable task force next to either the Russian provinces around the Back Sea or Russian Far East - the invade option is ALWAYS 'greyed out'. At first I thought that this was a bug, but now I am wondering if one is to launch an invasion of an enemy territory, one needs an uninterupted clear route, with no enemy ships in between, between my territory and the intended invasion destination. Thus allowing ones troop transports to be able to reach the invasion destination un molested.

You need 100,000 tons (in one or more task forces) in the associated sea region* to initiate a naval invasion, no matter what the actual required tonnage to complete the invasion is.
Late game, this is pretty much a non-issue, as even a single super BB or a pair of BC's will provide you the needed tonnage.
But early game, 100k tons is quite a lot, maybe even more than some entire navies.

*hover over the province you want to invade so you get the popup showing population and income etc. It should also tell you which sea region it belongs to. For the black sea provinces it's easy; the black sea. In asia and some other places it can be a bit weird some times; Phillipine Sea, South-East Asia, Yellow Sea, Ohkotsk, etc.

[Nick Thomadis]

13 minutes ago, SeaAlex_175 said:

@Nick Thomadis

Okay, but there was a time when there were no such sudden stops in shooting with a reset in accuracy. If I remember correctly, in one of the patches of versions 1.4-1.5, the developers increased the influence of base accuracy. You also mentioned the decrease in accuracy from gun recoil. What if it is the incorrect values of these parameters that cause the shooting to stop? Apparently, the numbers of base accuracy and the accuracy penalty from gun recoil begin to conflict at such moments, since they have approximately the same values. Perhaps increasing the initial base accuracy values, or even more likely fine-tuning the accuracy penalty from gun recoil would solve the problem with interruptions in shooting.

As said above, using the Aggressive mode will solve the "problem" of interrupted shots. It is not a problem for the game to try to save ammo, rather a player's preference to spend more ammo and fight with zero or almost zero accuracy.

17 minutes ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

Hi All,

I have a question, which I may have an answer to, but it would be great if the forum experts and dev's could confirm for me.

I decided to take on a challenge and play as Spain from 1890. My first war is with Russia (or rather now as the Soviet Union) and I've been trying to launch an invasion of 1) The Soviet territories around the Black Sea and 2) The Soviet territories in the Far East.

However, despite me positioning a sizable task force next to either the Russian provinces around the Back Sea or Russian Far East - the invade option is ALWAYS 'greyed out'. At first I thought that this was a bug, but now I am wondering if one is to launch an invasion of an enemy territory, one needs an uninterupted clear route, with no enemy ships in between, between my territory and the intended invasion destination. Thus allowing ones troop transports to be able to reach the invasion destination un molested.

Is this the case?

I appologise if this is an obvious question I should have been aware of, but I couldn't find any quidance or reference on this.

I look forward to your comments.

Kind regards...

You need to have more than 100,000 tonnage in the sea to start a naval invasion.

[Suribachi]

Mexico and Georgia have got to be the most loyal minor nation allies I have ever seen.  In my current USA campaign spanning from 1890 to 1958, not once have I given them any ships, new or mothballed.  Yet they never broke their alliance with me.  70 years of getting nothing would usually make me rethink a relationship haha.

I want your territory not your friendship!  

[Drenzul]

9 hours ago, HMS Implosive said:

I think a good way to address issue of impossible fast ships would be to limit maximum amout of shaft horse power (SHP) a ship can produce or transfer to water. Ways to implement this, from simpliest to most complicated could be:

1. set hard cap for max SHP that depends on technology levels

2. Set hard cap for max SHP per shaft that depends on tech level. This would require new mechanics and propably rework of some of the hulls to have more realistic number of shafts. IRL, with modern technology, max SHP per shaft is some 70 000 in most applications. (bonus: give the player an option to choose the number of shafts)

3. Set a minimum volume for machinery space to produce SHP required. This would make it so that you can't just fill the ship with turrets and magazines, and still make them lightning fast, as there would be no room for machinery.

If any ar all of these would be implemented, massively high speed would become more difficolt to accieve. Main way to get there would be reducing beam and/or displacement to reduce SHP required.

Max SHP by ship width + tech level probably makes the most sense. 
Wider the ship, the more and larger drive shafts + props you can fit on the ship.

[Dave P.]

One bug I've been noticing for a while is that when an enemy ship sinks when I can't see it, I'll get a notification that the ship sinks, but the green target blip on the screen keeps appearing, and the ship keeps registering on RDF/Radar as a target.

Happens a lot on convoy missions, since the TRs are so clustered together, and have lower visibility than warships, you can accidentally blow one up with a stray shot before you can see it.

Edited April 21 by Dave P.

[ioulaum]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It is the player's responsibility to fight a battle. When allocating this fight to player AI, it is for seeking an assist, vs an opponent AI which has a better understanding on what to do.

Hi Nick, 

Really love this game and I have ordered the game pre steam and sank 600hrs into it, so far I can definitely say I enjoyed it.

Just wondering, is there a way to make both side AI equal? Our community loves to run design contest in variety era/scenario(17 sessions currently), but we do noticed the AI behaves differently on each side.

Thanks!

Edited April 21 by ioulaum

[HMS Implosive]

16 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Max SHP by ship width + tech level probably makes the most sense. 
Wider the ship, the more and larger drive shafts + props you can fit on the ship.

This is actually a viable 4th option (in addition to 3 I listed earlier) as I would expect it to be relatively easy for devs to implement. Ship width is already something that the game calculates, after all.

This would work even better if hull form and the "max optimal speed" were fuctions of the ships legth to width ratio and not only a fixed number. So you could make the ship wider to fit bigger machinery and longer to retain good hull form.

The devs could even remove the width slider and decouple hull lenght from the displacement slider, and then introduce  legth-to-beam -slider instead. The new displacement slider would make the ship bigger or smaller in every direction while the new legth-to-beam -slider, (or just length -slider), would add or remove hull sections when needed.

Edited April 21 by HMS Implosive

[Panzergraf]

1 hour ago, HMS Implosive said:

The devs could even remove the width slider and decouple hull lenght from the displacement slider, and then introduce  legth-to-beam -slider instead. The new displacement slider would make the ship bigger or smaller in every direction while the new legth-to-beam -slider, (or just length -slider), would add or remove hull sections when needed.

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

[HMS Implosive]

One thing I would love to have is an option to check gun firing arcs in degrees or some fixed interval tick marks, rather than just visualy guestimate them. The current way results in all the time some awkward view adjustements while I try to figure out if my turrets have decent and/or equal arcs of fire.

Edited April 23 by HMS Implosive