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

[TK3600]

45 minutes ago, brothermunro said:

Makes sense to me. Main fire control should also have some concept of what it can hurt (which I think it already does) and if the greatest threat cannot be hurt then it goes to the next greatest threat etc. as you don’t want a CA trying to sink a BB when another CA would be a better choice. There can (and absolutely should) be more to it than ‘closest enemy’, my point was more that the closest enemy is often a reasonable choice even if it isn’t the best choice.

I mean, TB can hurt or counter BB. A CA/CL could hurt BB if loaded with torp. How can AI tell?

I suggest AI use the heuristic of going after most threatening ship as a formation, and ignore the closer DD. Once in position, it picks the best targets.

Too often AI pick closest enemy to chasr instead of key target, like you said. As a solution I think this is the compromise:

Only secondaries should prioritize closest(even if suboptimal pen). Main armament prioritize most threatening target it can hurt. Movement favor what main armament is ideal for, not secondary. The focus closest thing only apply for secondary battery target selection.

Ex: a CA is closing in for torp. My 4.1in secondary should focus that, even if cant pen. Instead of hitting the DD further away, which it could pen.

I view secondary as a self preservation tool than damage dealers. With exception of early CL, this is always the case.

Edited May 17 by TK3600

[brothermunro]

Mains, secondaries & torps would (and do) have independent logic for picking targets. The AI is definitely aware of its chances of hurting a target, which I assume is the ‘pen percentage’ that is displayed in the target overview pop up.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello everyone,

We offer a small update which includes the following:

v1.5.1.2
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/6180705524413318728 

[TK3600]

Nice, minor nation refuel bug is pretty big deal.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello Admirals,

You can now receive a new small update including the following:

v1.5.1.3
https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4155212136877042097 

[kineu.a.hansen]

one thing i loveto do in uad is to invade minor nations if they are allied with an enemy major power i also love to see minor nations change side more offen like if i sold a couble of ships to belgium and they change side to germany so i have to fight my own shis wich had happend like once but it would be nice if it did happend more offen and conquest battles would be nice to see more offen in my mind minor nations have been more or less useless in battles they where always low on fuel and have outdated ships and atm they are imune for beeing invaded from land or sea i like to see something be done to minor nations also let certain nations have thier own ship designs like the dutch navy or turkish navy and make it so they can declare war on a major nations on thier own without beeing allied with major

[Aldaris]

Friendly fire by torpedoes is so incredibly frustrating.

Seriously, If you don't watch like a hawk who has permission to launch and who hasn't, you're almost guaranteed friendly fire in any sort of major engagement with several divisions. Just now? I had a fight that was going very well for me, couple of cruisers and destroyers on each side. That is, it was going well until my destroyers decided an absolute YOLO long range salvo against a maneuvering enemy cruiser squadron was worth dumping 30 torpedoes right into the path of my own cruisers.

Also, Naval Invasions could use a good looking at. If there's an enemy province that's requiring 150k tons to invade, and I park 750k there with no enemy fleet presence besides a lousy destroyer, I should probably get a higher than 57% success chance. Failing that, at least tell me accurately what I need to make this a success.

[TK3600]

Maybe we can turn off friendly torpedo fire until it is fixed?

[TK3600]

Can we have more save file slots? As we know, a new campaign still takes a while to load. As a solution, I have various pre-made 1890 save files. Having more than 5 save file locations could be helpful. Thank you.

[vonPeretz]

TK3600

Win Explorer.

Edited May 24 by vonPeretz

[Aldaris]

Something seems way off with late game penetration values.

Since forum attachments seem super weird right now, I'm just going to describe. 2 of my 11" cruisers vs. a BC. Point blank range, below 3000 m. Side on.

Hundreds of hits, and yet I've only scored 7 pens and 22 overpens. The vast, vast majority of shots bounce.

This thing has a 7" main belt, with citadel III, and not a ton of layering.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Aldaris

[Aldaris]

Those are the guns we're using:

There's no way in hell those should ever bounce against that BCs armor. And yes, I'm using AP.

Those are punchy enough to go through that BCs belt twice at that range. And yet, they don't.

Is it possible that if penetration is too high vs. a target, there's some kind of overflow and it reverts back to bounce? Or is there something I'm overlooking?

Edited May 24 by Aldaris

[brothermunro]

Your guns have a pretty high muzzle velocity so what’s probably happening is that most of your shots are hitting the deck and skipping off.

[Aldaris]

Possibly, although I'd be equally surprised if I got a majority of glancing deck hits at sub 3000 meters with ships on a parallel course. That's almost Nelsonian range, I reckon you could bore sight the guns for center mass and do pretty well.

[TK3600]

10 minutes ago, Aldaris said:

Possibly, although I'd be equally surprised if I got a majority of glancing deck hits at sub 3000 meters with ships on a parallel course. That's almost Nelsonian range, I reckon you could bore sight the guns for center mass and do pretty well.

Some hulls are bugged. Belt cant be hit. Only deck can be hit. 3 mast cruiser for example.

[NathanKell]

Glad to see continued development!

 

Two bugs in Ship.AdjustHullStats()

• targetWeight is a ratio, but is evaluated as if it's an actual weight. It either needs to be multiplied by ship.Tonnage() in the function (or when passed), or the check needs to be ship.Weight() / ship.Tonnage() in both the delta >0 and delta < 0 cases.
• shipType.speedMax and speedMin are in knots (confirmed as such by the UI) but the function expects them to be in m/s since the hull PartData's speedLimiter is multiplied by 0.51444f. ShipType's speeds need to be converted to m/s as well whenever used here.
   

[TK3600]

Another issue with AI ship is funnel placement. It seems to use a predetermined system as opposed to place based on needs.

If ship has 5 spot for funnel, there will be 5 funnels. Engine efficiency and ship balance be damned.

I am not sure if devs are willing to enhance the builder at this point, but I think as a compromise it can reduce amount of AI funnel spot for late game destroyer hulls, like those on French DD.

[King_Tiger_II]

Can Battlecruiser belt armor minimal thickness be lowered to 2-inches? Because there was Battlecruisers like the Courageous-class Battlecruisers also known as "large light cruisers" who had a belt of 2-3 inches in thickness. As well as the British 20-inch Battlecruiser designs as they had a 3-inch belt at minimum. These are Light Battlecruisers, but the 20-inch armed designs of the Incomparable design. I am just wondering if it is possible.

[King_Tiger_II]

Also, your battlecruiser minimum speed is too high, at least for some hulls.

[Baked-Tater97]

ok seriously, I've been playing this game since the alpha, the last few updates (really everything past 1.5) has been horrible in my honest opinion, I know the developers are doing what they can going off of what they have, but does anyone know how I can revert my game back to update 1.5.1 because I know for a fact I didn't pay $60 to design the most powerful ships known to man only for England, who's lost ALL of their territories, and has $150B GDP in 1930 to develop a 45 knot BC that has death star lasers at 15km despite using MK2, maybe MK3 guns, while my ships despite being crewed by veterans, using the best tech in the world, are somehow critically ill and past their prescription appointments. I'm not trying to throw shade at y'all, I'm just one of many that feel wronged by these last few updates that have, quite frankly, bricked many peoples games.

[XerMGGW-2]

On 5/25/2024 at 9:29 AM, NathanKell said:

Two bugs in Ship.AdjustHullStats()

• targetWeight is a ratio, but is evaluated as if it's an actual weight. It either needs to be multiplied by ship.Tonnage() in the function (or when passed), or the check needs to be ship.Weight() / ship.Tonnage() in both the delta >0 and delta < 0 cases.
• shipType.speedMax and speedMin are in knots (confirmed as such by the UI) but the function expects them to be in m/s since the hull PartData's speedLimiter is multiplied by 0.51444f. ShipType's speeds need to be converted to m/s as well whenever used here.

Since we're at it, it'd also be great to mention the Engine Weight multiplier being a sum of all Stats bonuses predetermined by a chosen hull instead of being many separate multipliers.
This results in particular hulls with high Hull Form achieve –100% Engine Weight single multiplier when combined with minimum Beam and Draught sliders.

Though of course I'd instead prefer having all minus-something type bonuses be redone as a 1/(∑ bonuses + 1) to avoid the cascading bonuses where a few % become double the net positive, resulting in theoretical stuff like 0 damage taken, 0 flooding chance, 0 gun reload, 0 weight, 0 cost... In case if "∑ bonuses" is negative of course revert to 1-(negative ∑) which makes "base 1" increase and worsen just as linearly as the end result improves in positive bonus case. But that'd require rewriting stuff that was made years earlier and is just a hassle to please barely anyone, as I don't see this game having any community-run AI ship tournaments (and similar competition) whatsoever.
 

15 hours ago, King_Tiger_II said:

Can Battlecruiser belt armor minimal thickness be lowered to 2-inches? Because there was Battlecruisers like the Courageous-class Battlecruisers also known as "large light cruisers" who had a belt of 2-3 inches in thickness. As well as the British 20-inch Battlecruiser designs as they had a 3-inch belt at minimum. These are Light Battlecruisers, but the 20-inch armed designs of the Incomparable design. I am just wondering if it is possible.

Sorry if it's a blasphemy for you to hear, but you do just use a mod that aids all the listed battlecruiser issues, don't you?

[DougToss]

I've been away for a while. Is there an X-Ray view so we can see how armour is arranged within a given hull? I am having the damndest time trying to work out if early light cruisers, which should be victorian protected cruisers, have the armoured deck come down to protect the waterline, and, if so, what adding belt armour is doing? Ditto all of the later citadel, turtleback, all or nothing schemes. 

[TK3600]

Could late vairant of Pictric Acid get a buff? They are all downgrade of Pictric Acid 1. They give half the benefit for 2/3 of the drawback. Or perhaps nerf Pictric acid 1, because it is kinda OP, bummed it go obsolete. I would use it to end game if I could.

[HMS Implosive]

5 hours ago, DougToss said:

I've been away for a while. Is there an X-Ray view so we can see how armour is arranged within a given hull? I am having the damndest time trying to work out if early light cruisers, which should be victorian protected cruisers, have the armoured deck come down to protect the waterline, and, if so, what adding belt armour is doing? Ditto all of the later citadel, turtleback, all or nothing schemes. 

Unfortunately, if I am not mistaken, the main armor deck in game is the weather deck, ie. armor deck cruisers are just ordinary armored cruisers with fancy name. Armor belt is everything of the ship side exept the extremities. The front belt is similarly entire nose section of the ship that is not part of the citadel and aft belt is everything aft of the citadel.

Similarly, I don't think the citadel shemes add actual armor plates inside the model but only add multipliers to the penetration and damage equations, thus improving survivability but not really changing the armor model.

It would be cool if we had more realistic armor regions. I suggested earlier this thread my idea of siplish yet more sophisticated armor layout; really wish the devs consider that.

 

edit: to answer your question: no, the armored deck doesn't protect the waterline, even though those protected cruiser IRL had such a feature.

Edited May 27 by HMS Implosive

[King_Tiger_II]

12 hours ago, XerMGGW-2 said:

Since we're at it, it'd also be great to mention the Engine Weight multiplier being a sum of all Stats bonuses predetermined by a chosen hull instead of being many separate multipliers.
This results in particular hulls with high Hull Form achieve –100% Engine Weight single multiplier when combined with minimum Beam and Draught sliders.

Though of course I'd instead prefer having all minus-something type bonuses be redone as a 1/(∑ bonuses + 1) to avoid the cascading bonuses where a few % become double the net positive, resulting in theoretical stuff like 0 damage taken, 0 flooding chance, 0 gun reload, 0 weight, 0 cost... In case if "∑ bonuses" is negative of course revert to 1-(negative ∑) which makes "base 1" increase and worsen just as linearly as the end result improves in positive bonus case. But that'd require rewriting stuff that was made years earlier and is just a hassle to please barely anyone, as I don't see this game having any community-run AI ship tournaments (and similar competition) whatsoever.
 

Sorry if it's a blasphemy for you to hear, but you do just use a mod that aids all the listed battlecruiser issues, don't you?

There are mods for that?! If there is I like to know, please!