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

[StrikerDanger]

On 8/24/2024 at 6:55 PM, Suribachi said:

USA Dreadnought II hull.  Casemate firing arc seems to be rotated 90 degrees from what it should be.  All other firing locations appear correct.

Replication notes:  Year 1908 in campaign.

This has existed for patches now. Just don't use that particular casemate pairing. I've never tested it outside of the campaign (so I wasn't going to risk it being broken) so I don't know if its purely a visual glitch or not.

[Suribachi]

8 hours ago, StrikerDanger said:

This has existed for patches now. Just don't use that particular casemate pairing. I've never tested it outside of the campaign (so I wasn't going to risk it being broken) so I don't know if its purely a visual glitch or not.

Yes, I am aware that it has existed for some time.  However, I think it should still be addressed

[DougToss]

Not to keep banging this drum, but the torpedo changes causing AI designs to go completely off the rails, to my mind, is another reason why the AI should be programmed to follow realistic ship designs and fleet templates, rather than just vibing it out. 

[Zuikaku]

It's OK if AI designs torpedo heavy ship from time to time, but not all tje time!

[Северная]

On 8/24/2024 at 3:44 PM, Aldaris said:

My preferred solution to the running away AI would be to never having to load into that battle in the first place.

Scenario: the AI doesn't want to fight, because it feels it's outmatched.

Force composition is known on the campaign map. From here, it should be a very simple, binary scenario.

Is the AI fleet faster? Can it escape? In that case, give me a bloody notification that the enemy fleet slipped away, done. No battle needed.

The AI fleet is not fast enough? Then the enemy fleet should step up and fight, regardless of force discrepancy. We can assume that the attempt to escape happened before the battle took place, and they have obviously been brought to bay. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a battle, would there?

Simple, effective, and no stupid stern chases ever again.

Developers, I made an account just so I could like this post.  This is the most elegant solution to by far the most intolerable problem of this game that wastes the most time and causes the most painfully boring experiences.

I have had the following scenario play out too many times:

1. Port Strike against inferior opponent who is stuck in port.

2.  Enemy immediately “runs away” and wastes my time on x5, x10, and x30 speed chasing “smoke” through terrible weather for five real life months 

3. OK they ran away from my fleet, I guess this port is mine now

4. The enemy fleet is still sitting in port on campaign map.  WTF. 🤬 

I can only assume it would be due to extreme incompetence or negligence that you would not address this often-reported issue at the soonest opportunity.

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Hi Everyone,

Can anyone provide me with the details as to what changes for the 1) Player and 2) AI opponenets if one moved difficulty levels in a camapign.

Brother Munro touched upon this in one of his video's ages ago, but I have never been able to find a definitive description of the details of the Human vs AI between:

1) Normal,

2) Hard, or

3) Legendary?

For example, I'm assuming the different levels impacts the GDP earnt per turn between human and AI players.

However, does the difficulty level impact the following:

Does it impact the time it takes the human to complete research levels?

Does it impact the time it takes to recruit and train seamen etc?

Does it impact the time it takes to build ships?

Does it improve the accuracy of gunfire / torpedoes from AI ships?

Does it make AI ships harder to sink?

Does it impact other characteristics and behaviours?

For example, does the AI become more aggressive? At the moment, one can pretty well keep at peace starting in 1890 campaign with little or no navy, max out the research and dockyard development unitl one acquires the Dreadnought technology, build dreadnoughts until ones navy sweeps the seas clean of any AI opponent!

It would be great if someone or the Dev's could post a quide as to what one expects at each level.

Many thanks.

 

[MDHansen]

12 minutes ago, HopefullAdmiral0786 said:

Hi Everyone,

Can anyone provide me with the details as to what changes for the 1) Player and 2) AI opponenets if one moved difficulty levels in a camapign.

1) Normal,

2) Hard, or

3) Legendary?

 

ai_difficulty_normal_income_multiplier,1,modifier of AI GDP in Normal Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_hard_income_multiplier,1.25,modifier of AI GDP in Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_legendary_income_multiplier,1.5,modifier of AI GDP in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_hard_tech_multiplier,1.2,modifier of AI tech n Hard Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,
ai_difficulty_legendary_tech_multiplier,1.3,modifier of AI tech in Legendary Difficulty Mode,,,,,,,

Basically more cash and more research to the ai. There shouldn't be other parameters to AI, to my knowledge, on higher difficulties

[Zuikaku]

Deafening silence is the most serious issue that plagues feedback between players and the devs from the early days. 

 

Edited August 28 by Zuikaku

[Nick Thomadis]

Repaired version uploaded
- Adjusted fuel/ammo replenishment. It should be not so strict now and Task Forces can remain at adequate levels of ammo and fuel if properly supplied.
- Further potential fixes for the reported issue of ships not firing or steering at start of combat in campaign (due to a code exception).
Please restart Steam to get the update

[Zuikaku]

Have you observed any improvements on ship bow-heavy issue after the latest repaired version?

[Suribachi]

On 8/24/2024 at 5:55 PM, Suribachi said:

USA Dreadnought II hull.  Casemate firing arc seems to be rotated 90 degrees from what it should be.  All other firing locations appear correct.

Replication notes:  Year 1908 in campaign.

Update on this since something was bothering me about it.

Went into a custom battle to test that specific mount out.  The casemate on the starboard (right) side of the ship is firing THROUGH the hull to the enemy on the PORT (left) side of the ship.  The firing angle as shown in my image is correct and needs to be addressed.

Please note, both visually and functionally, the port (left) side casemate is working as intended.  Also I incorrectly called that the starboard casemate seemed to be rotated 90 degrees from where it should be.  I was incorrect, it is rotated 180 degrees from where it should be.

@Nick Thomadis  I rarely ping direct, but this issue has so long prevented me from building on this hull that I would like to see some action on the issue.  I know you guys have a lot on your plates, but this seems like a very simple fix to me, like someone forgot a "-" or something.

[StoneofTriumph]

3 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

Have you observed any improvements on ship bow-heavy issue after the latest repaired version?

Sorry, no luck there. And this is on Modern Battleship 1. I can't imagine what would happen if I tried to build something with an Iowa gun layout.

Edited August 29 by StoneofTriumph

[Nick Thomadis]

7 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Update on this since something was bothering me about it.

Went into a custom battle to test that specific mount out.  The casemate on the starboard (right) side of the ship is firing THROUGH the hull to the enemy on the PORT (left) side of the ship.  The firing angle as shown in my image is correct and needs to be addressed.

Please note, both visually and functionally, the port (left) side casemate is working as intended.  Also I incorrectly called that the starboard casemate seemed to be rotated 90 degrees from where it should be.  I was incorrect, it is rotated 180 degrees from where it should be.

@Nick Thomadis  I rarely ping direct, but this issue has so long prevented me from building on this hull that I would like to see some action on the issue.  I know you guys have a lot on your plates, but this seems like a very simple fix to me, like someone forgot a "-" or something.

Ok, thank you. We will check to fix in a future update.

[Nick Thomadis]

4 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:

Sorry, no luck there. And this is on Modern Battleship 1. I can't imagine what would happen if I tried to build something with an Iowa gun layout.

What exactly is the problem with this picture? You expect zero weight offset to be achievable? It cannot be in reality and so it is the same in the game. These values affect how ships behave in the water. Small boats are expected to pitch/roll heavily. You can only minimize, not nullify the effect. Big guns also affect larger hulls. You can reduce the effect by various methods, but still, you cannot nullify it.

[Aldaris]

Pitch and roll are separate from weight offset, there is indeed only a limited amount you can do about that.

Offset I could always get the below 1% so far, which I consider to be pretty much zero. Are you saying that this has been made less achieveable deliberately? I hope not, but if you did - I hope you reconsider that decision. Because it's not a good one, game design wise.

Indeed I hope you make available more tools to correct weight offset - positioning of the machinery spaces for example. Optimizing is perhaps the most important fun factor when designing ships in your game, and we should have the tools to balance our ships correctly without compromising the builds. I refer you to the US Standard BB hulls as an example, where positioning the funnels where they're supposed to be leads to a huge frontal offset.

And deciding between a less effective ship that looks all right and one that looks plain dumb, but is well balanced, is not a fun or engaging choice.

Edited August 29 by Aldaris

[Zuikaku]

So, are you saying that forcing us to empty bow deck of everything and cram all possible to the stern of the ship in order to achieve reasonably balanced ship is good design decision. No, it's not! 

Did you seen what ship designs look lately? They are abominations! And you can not convince me that you have to empty first half of the ship in order not to be bow heavy! That is the section where no engines, boilers (or now guns) are placed!

And as I mentioned before, ships are becoming hopelessly bow heavy when you place front tower. After that, you just not correct it no matter what you put to aft of this black hole tower!

And before 1,6 we coul'd create balanced designs. By that I do not mean we coul'd do whatewer we wanted ,but if we placed 3 turrets fore, we were forced to move everything well aft. Now, if we place anything fore of the front tower it is impossible to compensate bow weight. So, what happened?

Edited August 29 by Zuikaku

[StoneofTriumph]

58 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

What exactly is the problem with this picture? You expect zero weight offset to be achievable? It cannot be in reality and so it is the same in the game. These values affect how ships behave in the water. Small boats are expected to pitch/roll heavily. You can only minimize, not nullify the effect. Big guns also affect larger hulls. You can reduce the effect by various methods, but still, you cannot nullify it.

Pitch and roll are one thing- That's just the price of doing business. What we've been talking about has always been the fore/aft weight offset and how very many hulls become bow-heavy well out of proportion to the weight of equipment placed in that position- Equipment that you put in the fore affects the fore/aft weight offset far more than things that you put far in the rear, no matter how far back you set either of them, and no matter if they have the same weight. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Repaired x2 version uploaded
- Fixed, possibly, the reason of rare code exception in campaign causing freeze of shooting / steering at start of combat. Thank you for the continued reports.
- Important performance optimization for this update, finalized. You should notice an overall increase in fps in all levels of gameplay.
- Fixed a minor casemate gun issue reported for USA Dreadnought II hull.
- Optimizations in shell dispersion and section hit logic. This is an important improvement. You should notice extreme consistency of armor protection when hitting a section, for example, previously all-or-nothing armor schemes could be more vulnerable due to sections of the fore or aft belt wrongly triggering a penetration on the mid belt when hit from the side, depending on angle of hit.
Please restart Steam to get the update

[Nick Thomadis]

4 hours ago, StoneofTriumph said:

Pitch and roll are one thing- That's just the price of doing business. What we've been talking about has always been the fore/aft weight offset and how very many hulls become bow-heavy well out of proportion to the weight of equipment placed in that position- Equipment that you put in the fore affects the fore/aft weight offset far more than things that you put far in the rear, no matter how far back you set either of them, and no matter if they have the same weight. 

Players should accept that ships cannot have, in most cases, zero weight offset and minimal pitch/roll. The reason that some Destroyers have large fore weight offset is because the forecastle has objects on a higher Y, and this is measured.  Ships with high forecastle have usually a larger fore weight, but also may benefit from better sea keeping due to their special hull stats. Historically, ships of world war I and world war II were not, by any means, perfectly balanced and perfectly stable gun platforms that players desire to have as an effect for their ships.

4 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

So, are you saying that forcing us to empty bow deck of everything and cram all possible to the stern of the ship in order to achieve reasonably balanced ship is good design decision. No, it's not! 

Did you seen what ship designs look lately? They are abominations! And you can not convince me that you have to empty first half of the ship in order not to be bow heavy! That is the section where no engines, boilers (or now guns) are placed!

And as I mentioned before, ships are becoming hopelessly bow heavy when you place front tower. After that, you just not correct it no matter what you put to aft of this black hole tower!

And before 1,6 we coul'd create balanced designs. By that I do not mean we coul'd do whatewer we wanted ,but if we placed 3 turrets fore, we were forced to move everything well aft. Now, if we place anything fore of the front tower it is impossible to compensate bow weight. So, what happened?

In the end, what we should really do would be to disallow so much freedom on placing funnels, to prevent the unrealistic and ugly looking ships that some players want to make to minimize weight offsets. What happened is that weights are more accurately and strictly measured, so it is more demanding to design a ship, which previously could be more easily become over gunned, too fast,  and generally overpowered.

4 hours ago, Aldaris said:

Pitch and roll are separate from weight offset, there is indeed only a limited amount you can do about that.

Offset I could always get the below 1% so far, which I consider to be pretty much zero. Are you saying that this has been made less achieveable deliberately? I hope not, but if you did - I hope you reconsider that decision. Because it's not a good one, game design wise.

Indeed I hope you make available more tools to correct weight offset - positioning of the machinery spaces for example. Optimizing is perhaps the most important fun factor when designing ships in your game, and we should have the tools to balance our ships correctly without compromising the builds. I refer you to the US Standard BB hulls as an example, where positioning the funnels where they're supposed to be leads to a huge frontal offset.

And deciding between a less effective ship that looks all right and one that looks plain dumb, but is well balanced, is not a fun or engaging choice.

If it becomes possible, in the future, to enrich the ship designer further, we can add more complexity.

 

[Zuikaku]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Players should accept that ships cannot have, in most cases, zero weight offset and minimal pitch/roll. The reason that some Destroyers have large fore weight offset is because the forecastle has objects on a higher Y, and this is measured.  Ships with high forecastle have usually a larger fore weight, but also may benefit from better sea keeping due to their special hull stats. Historically, ships of world war I and world war II were not, by any means, perfectly balanced and perfectly stable gun platforms that players desire to have as an effect for their ships.

In the end, what we should really do would be to disallow so much freedom on placing funnels, to prevent the unrealistic and ugly looking ships that some players want to make to minimize weight offsets. What happened is that weights are more accurately and strictly measured, so it is more demanding to design a ship, which previously could be more easily become over gunned, too fast,  and generally overpowered.

If it becomes possible, in the future, to enrich the ship designer further, we can add more complexity.

 

So it is design decision and not a bug. I accept your explanation, thank you.

The problem with the funnels is there are no separate boiler and machinery spaces.

Any news on new hulls?

Edited August 30 by Zuikaku

[Panzergraf]

Do submarine battles have higher priority than surface battles?

I ask, because whenever I position a task force to engage an enemy task force and there is an enemy submarine nearby, I get a submarine battle instead.

It's my main gripe with how subs are implemented in the game. I don't actually think they're overpowered or anything, as a TF with decent ASW escorts typically inflict more damage to enemy subs than they take in return, I just don't like how they prevent me from playing the game by giving me Submarine battles instead of Meetings.

And when I just now moved two of my own subs to hopefully attak a lone unescorted enemy battleship, I instead got a sub VS sub battle, three turns in a row with the lone BB just sitting there...
Did sub VS sub battles even happen historically?

I think it would be much better if submarine battles were prioritized lower than surface engagements.
So surface VS surface meetings first, then sub VS surface TF, then sub VS transports, and then maybe sub VS sub last if there's nothing else there.
 

[Zuikaku]

Yes, there were sub vs. sub battles from the WW1 on .

[Markus1985]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Players should accept that ships cannot have, in most cases, zero weight offset and minimal pitch/roll. The reason that some Destroyers have large fore weight offset is because the forecastle has objects on a higher Y, and this is measured.  Ships with high forecastle have usually a larger fore weight, but also may benefit from better sea keeping due to their special hull stats. Historically, ships of world war I and world war II were not, by any means, perfectly balanced and perfectly stable gun platforms that players desire to have as an effect for their ships. 

I was starting to expect that this was your idea for the difficulties of balancing ships. I can accept this to a certain degree, especially at the beginning of the campaign when metal ship building was in its infantsy. 

That being said I have a hard time buying that the designers of the past would design and build a ship knowing that there was a risk of large imbalance when you can now clearly see how well balanced it is or isn't (since there are now numbers showing you exactly how balanced the ship design is or isn't when you design it in the ship yard). 

May I suggest that you move this risk of imbalance to the overall risk of flaws attributed to the built ship instead? So that you can try to balance your ship as close to minimal off set as possible, but depending on the year, research and development of ship design and building, there is still the high risk that the ship end up imbalanced when it's completed. 

Perhaps the imbalance would also make it more difficult to make to drastic refits too? 

I would have an easier time accepting these kinds of weight off sets, that appear due to difficulties building the ship, rather than me as a designer being unable to balance it properly at the drawing board. 

Edited August 30 by Markus1985

[Abuse_Claws]

11 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In the end, what we should really do would be to disallow so much freedom on placing funnels

Eeh, but that's kind of the selling point, no? That we can build our own ships, no matter how stupid they look. I think genuinely some of the best moments in UAD were when I managed to make silly/ugly design ideas work mechanics-wise

Like "ight, the funnel is the furthest back object on the deck, there are 4 main caliber turrets facing forward (center, barbette and sides), behold the hideous glory of my creation that is somehow actually decently effective"

Also, I would like to reiterate one of my past suggestions: can you add a "balancing ballast" component, that would allow to remedy some of the offset at the expense of extra mass and floatability loss? That would make some really ridiculous-looking ships possible (which is a win in my book), while also giving the players an option to make normal-looking ships with fw-offset hulls actually balanced at the expense of some space and floatability

[Warspite96]

Forgive me, but I don't understand how limiting freedom of choice in the ship designer because players are trying to circumvent the fore weight offset issue......will solve the issue of every ship having way too much fore weight offset?

I've just returned to the game after a long absence, I was quite confused why my visibly rear-biased ships had a fore weight offset of 20-30% even with basic equipment installed, but now I have my answer I guess?