Nick Thomadis Posted August 10 Share Posted August 10 The new update v1.6 is live: You can read information on Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4338740797819561815 or in our blog: https://dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/large-update-v1-6 === v1.6.0.1 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4338740797827853913 v1.6.0.2 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4338740797831224730 v1.6.0.3 R https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4248669523817630625 v1.6.0.4 Rx2 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4250921873119313455 v1.6.0.5 Optx2 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4612337011490606744 v1.6.0.6 Optx3 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4577434747959804085 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suribachi Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 Can no longer put spaces in class names of ships. This was extremely useful for organization like when renaming refit classes. Renaming the ships in the fleet menu with spaces still works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urst Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 Were the hulls not added? I thought they were supposed to be in once 1.6 went live. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suribachi Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 54 minutes ago, Urst said: Were the hulls not added? I thought they were supposed to be in once 1.6 went live. Pushed back. From the release notes: """ An update which improves and optimizes the game in all aspects is available. It was intended to add new ships, guns, content for at least +50 new ships but it would delay this necessary update further. """ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrdplatypus Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 Maybe this should be it's own topic, but can someone please explain power ratings to me? How is it that I have twice the tonnage, twice the number of hulls, the same number of ships in construction, a higher GDP and higher technology level... but my Navy's power rating is less than half of Austria's? How is this calculated? What does it affect? Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urst Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 Kindly put the AI back in or give a better indication of where the enemy's ships are. It's next to impossible to find the enemy by the cardinal direction instructions. That, or, ensure that my ships spawn IN SIGHT of the enemy. One of the two of us should be opening fire or at least see the enemy and be steaming into gunrange the second the battle starts if the means of finding the enemy aren't dramatically improved or the AI mode is put back in so I can have my ships find the enemy for me. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 I also don't see how the AI controls where bugged? They worked just fine and where very useful to find the enemy. Give mes kinda the same vibe as back when manual rudder was removed because it was "buggy" 😕 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Found a bug in shipbuilding that needs some fundamental correction. Hull I’m working with is British DD leader, displacement max’d at 2850, 12k range, 35kts using double geared steam turbines (gas turbines apparently aren’t available now). Oil 3, balanced boilers, Modern 2 armour set to max for all belts, superstructure and conning tower, no deck armour, Mk5 Mine Sweep and Depth Charges, Gen 3 RADAR, and SONAR with RDF radio. Ammo type/load, propellant and turret enhancements are at default values. On an otherwise empty deck, I’ve fitted the Enhanced Modern Tower Mk2, Dual Barbette for small guns, both as far to the rear of the fo’c’s’tle as permissible, Type 3 Large Barbette on the rear set to allow just enough clearance for either a gun turret or torp launcher on the fan tail. Standard Funnel (Medium) is last of the deck fittings, positioned as close to the stern barbette as possible. Hull displacement at this stage (no weapons fitted) is 2501 tons. I selected the Mk5 5” triple turret and tried positioning it on the fan tail, aft of the barbette. The description lists the turret as weighing 47tons with 12 tons of ammo. The menu however lists the turret as weighing 53 tons. Ok, typo’s happen; this is a Beta build. So I fit the turret to the fantail and check displacement; it now reads 2402 tons. No surprise that this caused a double-take! So… debug mode… relocate the same turret from the fantail to the upper position on the stern barbette and recheck displacement; 2374 tons now. Cue another doubletake. Relocate the same single turret to the uppermost position of the double barbette on the fo’c’s’tle; displacement is now 2472 tons. Relocate the same turret to the lower barbette position; 2498 tons. Final relocation is to the deck of the fo’c’s’tle; 2521 tons. Remember, this is the same unmodified 5” Tripple, just moved from position to position. But it gets weirder… I added a 2nd turret after relocating the first back to the fantail. Verified that the turret’s back where it was and displacement is as above, at 2402 tons, then added the 2nd turret to the stern barbette; 2462 tons displacement. Relocate the 2nd turret to the fore/upper location; 2630 tons. Relocate to the lower forward barbette location; 2656 tons. Final relocation for just 2 turrets, to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2679 tons. Try fitting a 3rd turret, relocated the 2nd to the stern barbette, so now I have 2x triple 5” 35’s as far to the rear as possible; displacement now reads 2464, not the 2462 for the identical setup recorded earlier. Fit a third identical turret to the fore/upper barbette location; 2691 tons. Relocate to the fore/lower barbette location; 2718 tons. Relocate to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2741 tons. Reset the 3rd turret to the fore/upper location, added a 4th identical turret to the fore/lower barbette location; 2780 tons. Relocate 4th turret to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2803 tons. Reset 4th turret to the fore/lower barbette location, displacement reverts back to 2780 tons, added a 5th identical turret; 2865 tons with the turret located as close to the barbette as possible while retaining a good arc of fire. At this point, I’ve had enough weirdness, so I’m content to simply post this as a flag to indicate that there’s something very VERY wrong with equipment weights and their effect on displacement. Displacement doesn’t CARE WHERE equipment is fitted, it’s just a measure of how much water the mass of the hull is displacing. Equipment location affects the TRIM of the hull; at least now I have some idea why all rev 1.6 builds have completely messed up trim, when moving colossal BB turrets large amounts has negligible effect on trim, but moving a funnel the slightest amount can shift trim by as much as 4deg depending on the hull/superstructure/funnel selected. Up until rev 1.6, I’ve been able to equip all my DD leader hulls as above, with 5x 5” triple turrets, a single 5x torp launcher and (when gas turbines) are available, 4x triple 2” guns on the Enhanced Tower. With belt, superstructure and conning tower armour max’d, they’ve had a respectable though hardly remarkable speed of 38kts. Rev 1.6 with its buggered up equipment weights and their effect on displacement and trim has reduced my DD speed to barely greater than my BB’s. This, we’re told, is what the dev’s believe is fit for a release version; “I don’t think so Yogi”… 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneofTriumph Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 After all that, I'm just trying to figure out when in history 15 5" guns was a reasonable gun loadout for a 2800-ton destroyer. Because even the 3,000-ton 1936C had only 6x 5" guns along with their torpedoes and somewhat modest AA armament. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuikaku Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 (edited) And now... japanese light cruisers (and I suspect all the others too) have all the guns turreted since 1890. Only 100mm guns are shielded. Turreted guns 150mm and smaller should be available for Cls and DDs only when late techs are explored. This is insanity! Edited August 12 by Zuikaku Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenskayaBulochka Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 Hello everyone, after the release of 1.6 update, I got the serious problem... The ships, which l built in shared designs haven't been saved and after I remembered the game. P.S. Sorry for bad english. P.S. №2 All ships have been built in version 1.6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus1985 Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 22 hours ago, Urst said: Kindly put the AI back in or give a better indication of where the enemy's ships are. It's next to impossible to find the enemy by the cardinal direction instructions. That, or, ensure that my ships spawn IN SIGHT of the enemy. One of the two of us should be opening fire or at least see the enemy and be steaming into gunrange the second the battle starts if the means of finding the enemy aren't dramatically improved or the AI mode is put back in so I can have my ships find the enemy for me. Either that or add a visual element of actual smoke where the smoke from the ship is actually "spotted". 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted August 12 Author Share Posted August 12 Hello, The following update has become available: https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4338740797827853913 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiyang Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 I'm the translator of the Chinese version, I'm sorry there are some items that need to be adjusted. $compTypes_name_barbette;炮盾厚度 → $compTypes_name_barbette;炮座防护 $Ui_Constr_Plan;计划 → $Ui_Constr_Plan;方案 $Ui_Constr_Sections;部分 → $Ui_Constr_Sections;剖面 $partcategories_name_OtherGuns;其他枪支 → $partcategories_name_OtherGuns;其他火炮 The translation of the artillery barrel length and caliber adjustments is not reflected in the game.It still shows"guns"and"click to manually edit". Some Chinese characters cannot be displayed correctly in the game. I think this should be a problem with the game font, but since I haven't had any game development experience, I'm not quite sure how to fix this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverickpoet Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 AI for ships is bugged now. Ships in detachments no longer follow the detachment lead ship. DD's run from BB? CL's stop following? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted August 13 Author Share Posted August 13 Hello, Here is another small update offering an important fix: v1.6.0.2 https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4338740797831224730 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzergraf Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 I notice Ammunition has been halved for most guns compared to previous versions of the game. Before, ammo count for a 14" twin turret would be 220/220 with a standard balanced ammunition loadout (equals 110/110 per barrel) While now it's 110/110 for a twin turret (55/55 per barrel) Is this intentional? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 2.5 battles fought... 32 game crashes... Welcome to rev 1.6.0.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 U.A.D. game terminology (as witnessed during rev 1.6.0.2.) 1/ Capitol Ship Gun modes and translations 1a/ Off... Freeze turret traverse at whatever precess the A.I. has decided to slew the guns to, invariably away from whichever side is the logical side of the ship to fight. 1b/ Save… Commence killing fish when the chance to hit the A.I.’s prioritised target reaches 3%. Note, this isn’t 3% per rifle, but 3% per broadside. 1c/ Normal… Commence killing fish when the chance to hit the A.I.’s prioritised target is no lower than 0%. 2/ Torpedo Modes and translations 2a/ Off… Avoid the pointless buildup of player optimism that the ballast your ship is carrying that masquerades as a weapon system might actually hit anything. Apparently even with 1960’s tech and Mk5 launchers, torpedo developers have yet to resolve exploders going off prematurely at a rate that would make popcorn jealous, much less detonate reliably either on contact with or close proximity to an opposing target. 2b/ Save… Slew ballast launchers in roughly the approximate direction of the A.I.’s prioritised target but do nothing unless within suicidal range of opposition. 2c/ Normal… Slew ballast launchers in roughly the approximate direction of the A.I.’s prioritised target, and cast withering glares at said target. When target is safely within range, ignore them or change target priority to one that isn’t within range. 2d/ Aggressive… Launch ballast in whatever random direction the A.I. deems appropriate… who cares if this means you’re firing at your own ships; there’s an enemy out there… somewhere… 2e/ Two consequences to be aware of when trying to launch ballast… Firstly, if set to Aggressive before targets are in range, launching vessels will IMMEDIATELY go into panic mode as soon as ballast is launched, wriggling around like headless chickens before Switching into Screen Mode 2 (explanation to follow). The fact that these torpedoes are outgoing has no bearing on commencement of panic mode, which on reflection is probably a good thing given the A.I.’s habit of launching straight into your own ships. Sub-note 1/ If launching vessel is a DD, launch is invariably followed by auto-engagement of Death Ride mode, where column of DD’s charge straight at the opposing fleet, achieve exactly nothing before retreating (sometimes) invariably at less than half speed while wiggling the fantail violently in invitation of getting said fantail shot off. Sub-note 2/ If launching vessel is CL, following initial launch of ballast, column will ignore orders (Screen, Follow etc) and immediately reverse course to launch tubes from opposite side of the ship. This tactic is usually followed by Lost mode, where column proceeds in random A.I. generated course at less than half speed in hope of attracting opposing forces’ attention, invariably to the detriment of said CL’s survivability. 3/ Formation Modes 3a/ Screen (Mode 1) Spend as much of initial hour of engagement as possible humping the nearest capitol ship to Screening vessel **when DD humps BB, does this create CA or CL?**. Mode 1 pays no heed to whether collision avoidance is active or not. If/when humper/humpee eventually disentangle, assume formation on selected screening force and play nice long enough to BS player into believing there’s a fighting chance of screening force doing something constructive in battle. 3b/ Screen (Mode 2) N.B. User has no control over engagement of Mode 2. Mode 2 usually, not always, engages following completion of aforementioned headless chicken mode (auto-engaged reaction to outgoing ballast in the water). Mode 2 is typified by a Death Ride in general direction of opposing force. Sometimes this is a feint, with screening force resuming screening station without user intervention. However, invariably some user intervention is required to regain formation integrity. During such times, selecting formation lead ship and setting Retreat merely results in formation leader wallowing around aimlessly while producing copious amounts of smoke (note, auto engagement of Make Smoke). Remaining ships in formation will proceed in utterly random directions, at random speed, firing at whichever target has least chance of suffering damage from main guns. Presumed objective behind aimless wallowing is to get the fantail shot off. 3c/ Follow Mode intended to BS the player into believing there’s a fighting chance thst the A.I. that’s actually in command will follow player instructions. Mode generally plays nice until there’s a need to take avoiding action, at which point any/all formation integrity simply disintegrates, never to be resumed without extensive player intervention. At some point, generally mid-battle, mode will give up any pretence of playing nice, sending formations in random directions, at random speed, doing as much of as little as possible to interdict opposing force. 4/ Torpedo Avoidance Torpedo *A.K.A. ballast* avoidance has two distinct reactions depending on whether ballast is outgoing or incoming. N.B. in most engagements, both modes apply to your own ballast; chances of being hit by your own dud torpedo are negligible. Reaction to outgoing ballast kicks in as soon as ballast hits the water. Any hull in close proximity commences pointless wiggling with no major change in mean vector. Result is immediate breakup of formation integrity and loss of formation control until pointless wiggling times out. Reaction to incoming torpedoes, irrespective of how “state of the art” your sonar/ spotting is, is invariably to turn away from opposing force, especially if hull in question isn’t being targeted. If hull IS being targeted however, there’s a 50/50 chance that target will turn broadside on to incoming torpedoes and make zero effort to avoid them. 5/ Smoke N.B. Effect should NOT be confused with opposing A.I. controlled ships ability to simply disappear without making smoke. Two wholly contradictory laws of physics apply in game to use of Smoke, depending on which force is trying to screen itself. If opposing force uses smoke to screen, they disappear completely, rendering targeting impossible. Screened vessels are impervious to damage; incoming shells or torpedoes will pass right through them with no effect. Radar, irrespective of its Gen, is immediately blinded by smoke, forcing guns back into Ranging mode once smoke dissipates. Player employed smoke has zero impact on opposing forces ability to range accurately and maintain target lock. It will, however, adversely affect player hulls’ ability to target opposing force. Footnote… Yes, I recognise that the above reads with a degree of hilarity; that’s necessary to accept the utterly messed up physics hard-coded into the game. Steam keeps asking if I’d recommend/review the game for others, presumably because I’ve wasted over 3200 hours trying to find/understand and post notice of the bugs. I’ve yet to respond, simply because there’s no “Oh HELL NO!” tick-box to check. This isn’t the first time I’ve played a game where dev’s sorta kinda bend the laws of physics, but it IS the first game where I’ve encountered two completely different sets of physics in application at the same time; some of the assumptions are so utterly divorced from reality that I’d need the IQ of a fruit fly not to be fundamentally offended by them. Radar sets that weigh more than the belt armour for a heavy cruiser? Give me a freakin’ break!! Eight million tons of fighting steel blockaded by a single DD simply by virtue of it patrolling a geographical choke-point… Seriously?? Fleets that refuse deployment orders because two and a half THOUSAND MILES away there’s an opposing fleet projected to sail along a similar route? Ghods teeth, give me a break!! Smoke screens that can blind Radar more effectively than chaff??? Ughhh!! These faults, and countless more have been inherent to the game since release of campaign mode, they’ve been ticketed countless dozens of times, not to mention documented in detail on forums, just to be ignored. I wouldn’t have spent as long as I have on the game if I didn’t believe it had the potential to be worthwhile, but until there’s an even playing field between player and AI opposition, a playing field that at least TRIES to follow known and documented laws of physics, that’s all it will ever have; merely potential, falling a hellova long way short of its name. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortenschachtel Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 (edited) On 8/12/2024 at 5:31 AM, justMike247 said: Found a bug in shipbuilding that needs some fundamental correction. Hull I’m working with is British DD leader, displacement max’d at 2850, 12k range, 35kts using double geared steam turbines (gas turbines apparently aren’t available now). Oil 3, balanced boilers, Modern 2 armour set to max for all belts, superstructure and conning tower, no deck armour, Mk5 Mine Sweep and Depth Charges, Gen 3 RADAR, and SONAR with RDF radio. Ammo type/load, propellant and turret enhancements are at default values. On an otherwise empty deck, I’ve fitted the Enhanced Modern Tower Mk2, Dual Barbette for small guns, both as far to the rear of the fo’c’s’tle as permissible, Type 3 Large Barbette on the rear set to allow just enough clearance for either a gun turret or torp launcher on the fan tail. Standard Funnel (Medium) is last of the deck fittings, positioned as close to the stern barbette as possible. Hull displacement at this stage (no weapons fitted) is 2501 tons. I selected the Mk5 5” triple turret and tried positioning it on the fan tail, aft of the barbette. The description lists the turret as weighing 47tons with 12 tons of ammo. The menu however lists the turret as weighing 53 tons. Ok, typo’s happen; this is a Beta build. So I fit the turret to the fantail and check displacement; it now reads 2402 tons. No surprise that this caused a double-take! So… debug mode… relocate the same turret from the fantail to the upper position on the stern barbette and recheck displacement; 2374 tons now. Cue another doubletake. Relocate the same single turret to the uppermost position of the double barbette on the fo’c’s’tle; displacement is now 2472 tons. Relocate the same turret to the lower barbette position; 2498 tons. Final relocation is to the deck of the fo’c’s’tle; 2521 tons. Remember, this is the same unmodified 5” Tripple, just moved from position to position. But it gets weirder… I added a 2nd turret after relocating the first back to the fantail. Verified that the turret’s back where it was and displacement is as above, at 2402 tons, then added the 2nd turret to the stern barbette; 2462 tons displacement. Relocate the 2nd turret to the fore/upper location; 2630 tons. Relocate to the lower forward barbette location; 2656 tons. Final relocation for just 2 turrets, to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2679 tons. Try fitting a 3rd turret, relocated the 2nd to the stern barbette, so now I have 2x triple 5” 35’s as far to the rear as possible; displacement now reads 2464, not the 2462 for the identical setup recorded earlier. Fit a third identical turret to the fore/upper barbette location; 2691 tons. Relocate to the fore/lower barbette location; 2718 tons. Relocate to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2741 tons. Reset the 3rd turret to the fore/upper location, added a 4th identical turret to the fore/lower barbette location; 2780 tons. Relocate 4th turret to the fo’c’s’tle deck ahead of the barbette; 2803 tons. Reset 4th turret to the fore/lower barbette location, displacement reverts back to 2780 tons, added a 5th identical turret; 2865 tons with the turret located as close to the barbette as possible while retaining a good arc of fire. At this point, I’ve had enough weirdness, so I’m content to simply post this as a flag to indicate that there’s something very VERY wrong with equipment weights and their effect on displacement. Displacement doesn’t CARE WHERE equipment is fitted, it’s just a measure of how much water the mass of the hull is displacing. Equipment location affects the TRIM of the hull; at least now I have some idea why all rev 1.6 builds have completely messed up trim, when moving colossal BB turrets large amounts has negligible effect on trim, but moving a funnel the slightest amount can shift trim by as much as 4deg depending on the hull/superstructure/funnel selected. Up until rev 1.6, I’ve been able to equip all my DD leader hulls as above, with 5x 5” triple turrets, a single 5x torp launcher and (when gas turbines) are available, 4x triple 2” guns on the Enhanced Tower. With belt, superstructure and conning tower armour max’d, they’ve had a respectable though hardly remarkable speed of 38kts. Rev 1.6 with its buggered up equipment weights and their effect on displacement and trim has reduced my DD speed to barely greater than my BB’s. This, we’re told, is what the dev’s believe is fit for a release version; “I don’t think so Yogi”… On the face of it this sounds like the citadel expanding and shrinking. Although, if fore/aft belt/deck are the same as the main belt/deck this shouldn't really matter ... Edited August 14 by Tortenschachtel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justMike247 Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 4 hours ago, Tortenschachtel said: On the face of it this sounds like the citadel expanding and shrinking. Although, if fore/aft belt/deck are the same as the main belt/deck this shouldn't really matter ... That was my initial thought... but DD's don't have a citadel... Hell, they barely have armour... not for nothing they were called Tin Cans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuikaku Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 Battles are too fast for my taste now. Targeting is to good. In 1890 I've got 10% hit chance with Cl 140mm guns at 5km after second salvo. 19% hit chance in same conditions in 1900s. I guess there will be 99% hit chance after 1920. Hit chances are way off, this has nothing to do with historical accuraccy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Khyron Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 uhm...just when you think you haven't had enough enemy torpedo ships : I have now encountered several vessels, austria-hungarian and chinese at least, that are crammed with torpedo tubes. Okay, no big deal, that's normal. But in these cases, these vessels did not possess any bridge structure at all to facilitate a 60-torpedo tube armament. A little overboard or a bug? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lrdplatypus Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 Finding the enemy fleet prior to RDF is now an exercise in frustration. I'd love a better indication of their location either with some smoke on the horizon or instead of "North-West" give me a heading such as "enemy smoke spotted on the horizon at 265 degrees" 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldaris Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 (edited) 44 minutes ago, lrdplatypus said: Finding the enemy fleet prior to RDF is now an exercise in frustration. I'd love a better indication of their location either with some smoke on the horizon or instead of "North-West" give me a heading such as "enemy smoke spotted on the horizon at 265 degrees" Even that would be of limited usefulness, unless it was updated a lot more often than the "smoke spotted" thing is, and if we had any indication which ship the game is referring to when giving that bearing. 265 degrees from where?! That has always been a problem, and has always made the directions largely useless outside of single ship duels. You're certainly screwed once the initial fight is over, you have ships all over the place and you're trying to locate the rest of the enemy fleet to finish off. Not a chance with this method. Especially considering sinking ships sometimes still seem to be considered for those directions. I'd be fine with actual smoke on the horizon as a substitute. That's something visual I can work with. Edited August 15 by Aldaris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now