>>>v1.6 Feedback<<< (Latest version: 1.6.0.6 Optx3)

[sf1_raptor]

I feel like I have to ask. It’s been, what, 2 years or more since the “Stuck turret” bug, and it’s still a constant issue. Add to that stuck torpedo tubes and you can easily end up with a ship with a lot of its firepower just gone. 

[justMike247]

3 hours ago, Aldaris said:

I'd be fine with actual smoke on the horizon as a substitute. That's something visual I can work with.

That'd work, if the "enemy smoke spotted" referred to even approximately the right direction, but when the text says one direction, but target indicators indicate another, invariably up to 90deg off the text reference, which one do you believe?

Edited August 16 by justMike247

[Spitfire109]

I still think we need some greater flexibility of what turret housing we can use. When double, triple, and quad barrel becomes available, and armor limits need to be less restrictive on the low end.

[vonPeretz]

AI design always reduces the length of the barrels! It is stupid.

 

Edited August 16 by vonPeretz

[Urst]

10 hours ago, vonPeretz said:

AI design always reduces the length of the barrels! It is stupid.

 

Not quite. It makes it so they're more likely to get deck hits, which is probably one of the least likely to be armored by a player or the AI.
(the grey circles on the deck are also supposed to be the danger zone of being hit by the guns, so they should be inside of those anyway)

[justMike247]

On 8/12/2024 at 10:26 AM, StoneofTriumph said:

I'm just trying to figure out when in history

When??

 

Pray, tell me, when has UAD ever been troubled by historical accuracy?

Would that be the historical fact that fire control innovations have absolutely zero impact on inproving ranging, bearing and target prioritisation? Or the history of RADAR/SONAR sets being constructed from material with at least 100x the mass of depleted uranium? Or the history of fitting afforementioned electronics into superstructures and that insane mass having zero impact on the vessels' roll centre or metacentric height?

 

Maybe it's the historical record of vessels in a fleet spending up to 50% of their time in engagements humping/being humped by their nearest capitol ship, giving no thought, much less making attempt to collision avoidance. Or is it the history of fitting weapon systems with a target engagement rate so deplorably low that they present far greater risk to the vessel bearing them than any supposed target?

 

Is that the history you're referring to?

 

Maybe you refer to the histories of vessels entering harbour to refuel/rearm, only to instantly ignore the sorry state of their stores, only to instantly teleport themselves to the other side of the planet while engaged in privateering?

 

I could go on, but I believe I've illustrated the point that UAD pays absolutely zero heed to known laws of physics, much less historical record created while working within the restrictions imposed by those laws. Accordingly, the DD design you seek to mock is my own attempt to work within the muppetry set out by the restrictions of the game, where the only way to ensure a successful outcome is to throw enough chit at the wall in hope that some of it sticks. 

[Nick Thomadis]

12 hours ago, vonPeretz said:

AI design always reduces the length of the barrels! It is stupid.

 

Will be fixed in the next small update.

[Zuikaku]

@Nick Thomadis Any chance for including Turkey, Brazil and Argentina as major playable factions?

[TheFurTrapper]

I'm finding that its often easier to hit ships that you're not aiming at then ones that you are. Not sure if this is new or not. Example, year 1900, my CA vs one CA one TB. Their CA is at 5km range, and the TB is directly in-line with the CA at ~5.2km range. Set my CA secondary battery to target the TB, and almost every shot hits the CA instead. Set the secondaries to target the CA itself, and most shots will go over-top and hit the TB. Seems to happen with all gun calibers and at all ranges, and isn't dependent on the targeted ship hit chance.

[Grayknight]

I will repeat my thought given the comment asking for other nations to be added as playable.

 

While i am neutral with the whole MP controversy (did not even knew it was the case before stealth video) I want to point out that adding dlc with minor nations as playable without ability to build ships like, CA, BB or BC with having to buy them from major nations would be awesome and i belive it would be far better recived if price would be adequate and i am preaty sure it would not be as hard to implement as mp.

Thank your for your work cannot wait for hulls

[bso1capt]

Issues…
Ammunition carried has been reduced and not being replenished after battle for the next turn. Each turn is a month, plenty of time to resupply. Go back to the way it was before the update .

STOP THE AI FROM CHANGING MY TARGET SELECTION. Yes, I am shouting because the constant target changes ruin accuracy, very annoying.

Unseen enemy ships shooting at me from short range, as if I had no advanced radar. Better off with a sailor in a crow’s nest using a telescope and a speaking trumpet.

Stop with the homing torpedoes, in certain scenarios, torpedoes will find you even if you’re violently maneuvering. Same for gunnery.

In a prolonged battle my gunnery loses accuracy, AI ships disappear and you’re forced to close range, this leads to the aforementioned homing torpedoes.

Crew ratings for AI seem to disconnect from observed results. They will be rated regular but shoot veteran.

If I’m at war with a country, why can’t I bombard their undefended ports???

How can one DD keep an entire task force consisting of multiple BBs, BCs, CAs and DDs from getting past them, the world wonders.

Sigh

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello,

You can check the latest small update which we have just deployed:

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/4248669523817630624

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello,

You can check the latest small update which we have just deployed:

v1.6.0.3

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1069660/announcements/detail/4248669523817630625

[Zuikaku]

This doesn't seem like a small update

[Pretorianus]

Hello 

Have been removed the ai buton?

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded repaired version including:
- Tension mechanics adjustments, to have more consistent negative effects.
- Shell kinetic energy fine tuning (affects shell ballistics and penetration).
- Fixed some graphic setting issues. Vsync and FPS limit settings work more consistently. You may notice performance increase depending on your system.
You need to restart Steam to get this update

[justMike247]

U.A.D. rev 1.6.0.3 post update 4248669523817630625 breakages

 

I’m sadly forced into producing yet more verbiage on the latest aborted attempt to right some of the nonsense plaguing the game. This time around, I’ll ignore complaints re battle realism or absence thereof, and focus on economy.

 

My game date is May 1914, and I’m about a year into licking wounds following successful conquest of Spain. Throughout the entirety of the campaign, my coffers are being bled dry through being blackmailed by Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia. During the engagement with the Spanish, my transport losses were eye-watering, with an average loss of 25+ hulls per month; no surprise that half those losses occurred where there were no adversarial forces in theatre.  During the 15 month engagement, my transport capacity fell from 200% to 34%; this while transport replacement was max’d, a rate of loss guaranteed to give Karl Donitz wet dreams.

 

One year into recovery, I’m still being told there’s not enough funds for the navy, despite zero new naval construction, zero crew training, zero research, and curiously, an economy that has recovered from a shade over 4% to 10.875%. Since the end of hostilities, my entire fleet has been in harbour, set to Limited. Despite this minimal threat posture, and having zero naval forces in the same theatre as the countries extorting me every month, I’m still being  challenged by Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia; I’ve yet to accept their invitation to kick their respective ass’s while I try to figure what the hell the dev’s have broken this time.

 

First curiosity that leaps off the Finances page; despite being at peace for over a year, I’m being billed monthly for $13.5 million for ammunition. Whatever the ammunition’s being expended on, it has no bearing on improving in-battle accuracy.

 

Second curiosity; despite having a monthly surplus, the monthly naval deficit keeps growing. This, while as I said earlier, my entire fleet is Limited, with zero research or crew training expenditure, no refits, and no new construction. Despite an economy that is getting healthier every month, there’s no alteration to the navy budget to remedy this deficit. Attempts to remedy the monthly blackmail via political “ease tension” measures are, as usual, a waste of time and effort. No great surprise there.

 

I can only conclude that whoever was responsible for fundamentally screwing up new ship construction (see post re effect on displacement and trim) has now been unleashed to “improve” the in-game economy, and in so doing, have yet again advertised their absence of familiarity with arithmetic on even the most basic level.

 

Footnote...

A mere 6 months following the above campaign date, campaign over; reason apparently was low prestige. Prestige had been in excess of 1.5k following defeat of the Spanish. Evidently declining combat until merchant fleet is back up to strength constantly bleeds Prestige. Just when you think the game can't possibly become more insane... it does.

Edited August 19 by justMike247

[brothermunro]

The UAD naval budget doesn’t work the way a real one would, if your funds are in deficit an event will trigger that gives you some money but also reduces GDP to do so and sets off an economic death spiral (you see the AI getting this event when they warn admirals for excessive expenditure). If you chain those events eventually the government will fire you which results in a game over for the player (AI counties will get a new admiral).

[justMike247]

1 minute ago, brothermunro said:

The UAD naval budget doesn’t work the way a real one would

I'm well aware of your point, to the point that I'm particularly gun-shy of incurring too many notifications too quickly. However, this time around, no increase in budget/decrease in GDP followed the warnings. Result... stagnation while waiting for sorely depleted merchant fleet to replenish at its' glacial rate.

[brothermunro]

Huh that’s odd, event misfire bug perhaps? At any rate you’ve done all you can to save money aside from scrapping your ships, so something seems off (I’m assuming g you’re playing as France). My only other suggestion involves joining the dark side (aka mods) 😅

[justMike247]

negative on the French... Brit...

 

things that I find infinitely frustrating...

Fleet set to Limited for budget/defuse tension among the neighbours... zero effect

Fleet geographically nowhere near areas of "increasing tension"... zero effect

Diplomatic intervention... zero effect...

 

net result... thanks to dev muppetry, you're as helpless as a one-legged man in an ass-kickin' contest, utterly incapable of corrective measures no matter what you try.

[Darth Khyron]

I just finished two campaigns and...well...this is what it has come down to:

In that picture, you can see the typical AI design nowadays. Some minimal gun armament, always with very rapid reload and more often than not reduced ammunition. Very, very, VERY many torpedo tubes on all designs except battleships. Battleships are now, as can be seen, often construced with only the main guns and...that's it.
Every nation, regardless if you set it to "historical" or not, identifies the torpedo as the weapon to go. And rightfully so. Firing 30+ broadsides per vessel and a hit from a 19-inch torpedo very often triggering ammunition explosions (yes, even on max Bulkheads, Anti-Torpedo IV and Barbette IV), they can rightfully claim to invest in the correct weapons system

Dear Developers, I know I will not get an answer, but is this really what the game should be about? I thought it would be about battlewagons clashing with, of course, smaller vessels to escort and interfere. Yes, of course, I wanted torpedo-armed vessels to ruin the day of the big bruisers when handled correctly. But later in the game, around 1920, it comes down to dodge massive salvoes, nay, walls of torpedoes (especially when the enemy developed Oxygen-propelled eels) and try to stay alive.

Personally, I do not think that this is the direction the game should go. Thank you for your consideration.

[PhoenixLP44]

2 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

I just finished two campaigns and...well...this is what it has come down to:

In that picture, you can see the typical AI design nowadays. Some minimal gun armament, always with very rapid reload and more often than not reduced ammunition. Very, very, VERY many torpedo tubes on all designs except battleships. Battleships are now, as can be seen, often construced with only the main guns and...that's it.
Every nation, regardless if you set it to "historical" or not, identifies the torpedo as the weapon to go. And rightfully so. Firing 30+ broadsides per vessel and a hit from a 19-inch torpedo very often triggering ammunition explosions (yes, even on max Bulkheads, Anti-Torpedo IV and Barbette IV), they can rightfully claim to invest in the correct weapons system

Dear Developers, I know I will not get an answer, but is this really what the game should be about? I thought it would be about battlewagons clashing with, of course, smaller vessels to escort and interfere. Yes, of course, I wanted torpedo-armed vessels to ruin the day of the big bruisers when handled correctly. But later in the game, around 1920, it comes down to dodge massive salvoes, nay, walls of torpedoes (especially when the enemy developed Oxygen-propelled eels) and try to stay alive.

Personally, I do not think that this is the direction the game should go. Thank you for your consideration.

I built a japanese cruiser with about 100 torps once as a joke, but jesus that is certainly something I haven't encountered for quite some time now. Also is the BB on the last image missing the rear tower?

[Darth Khyron]

Yeah, it is fun sometimes. And if ONE or TWO navies decide to go all torpedoes...okay. But this is getting out of hand. No, the battleship has a minimal tower, but just the 531.2cm main guns with auto II loading and reduced ammunition. Who needs secondaries or a balanced ship?

 

[Aldaris]

At least it has 3 triple turrets in a kind of sensible layout. I mean, the citadel is way longer than it needs to be, and the barbette on the rear turret is superfluous, but other than that it doesn't look stupid (apart from not having secondaries of course).

Definitely one of the better looking AI BBs I've seen, apart from those problems.

 

Those cruisers are plain silly though.

Edited August 19 by Aldaris