UnleashtheKraken

While this might be true, I find it unacceptable that basic gameplay flaws should be left uncorrected in a released game. It should not be left to players to do unpaid labor to fix a game. While their efforts are very much appreciated to provide features that are NOT PART OF CORE GAMEPLAY, the devs are not providing a functional feature. And there are many other missing final features. It is not acceptable to most reasonable people to sell an incomplete, broken product and expect others to make the product usable by unpaid labor.

Perfectly said. There are tons of hulls that could use addition, a greater variety of towers and smokestacks. I deeply dislike 'double smokestacks' because they get treated as one hit location, so there's almost never a reason to use them if you value mobility - better to design around two separate single modules. Long standing bugs to smash. I still hope for coastlines, islands, large rivers. On a UI front, the ability to tell a division to STOP CHANGING TARGETS. I told you to shoot that close battleship, stop switching to a destroyer that is 15 klicks off. I still hope that the bug I've reported, and others have added info to, gets dev attention, for weird accuracy when ships cross the firing line of attacks against a different ship. I'd like to see a summation of tension changes caused by navies. The current screen requiring scrolling and totting up a lot of different changes is useful, but very cumbersome.

So as far as I can tell, armor pen calculation is done at the moment of impact. So a ship maneuvering to present stronger 'angles' can help. But maneuvering won't help chance to be hit in the first place if the shot is already a calculated hit.

Regarding shells 'bending in flight' - as far as I can tell, hits are calculated at the moment of firing. The graphic of each shell moving through the air has no impact on hits or misses.. that's why hard maneuvers to take a ship out of the predicted firing pattern don't work so well. this is not 'bullet impact calculation'. That's why shells seem to track targets.

There are so far, two new american dreads, and 'compact n3 to build nelson'. A bunch of new turret models. More hulls to come. Edit, just opened the latest update (I need a job). New shipbuilding parts. Haven't seen them yet. I'm looking forward to seeing more of the default 'light cruiser towers' that show up in every nation get replaced with more realistic and hell, some hypothetical designs. Keep it reals, please, less quad 20inch turrets, more 'this was actually something that could have been done, but wasn't, and would fill a niche'. I like when there are different towers and this one is better at ranged fire, that one is better at damage control and spotting, etc, for the same ship class. So you can have ships actually intended for different roles. Even better would be to have the stats separated from the towers, so you pick tower models, and there's space for, let's say, fire control, spotting, damage control, etc. But there's tradeoffs, you take more fire control but that leaves less space for other modules. Bigger ships have more space so battleships with their thousands of crew in their final form really can take on multiple roles, where a destroyer is always going to be focused one way or another.

Firstly, recovery has been rough but progressing. I can mostly walk again. On the other hand, the world sucks worse and worse. So, meh. I took a break from the game, and this thread. The last week I've been back to playing. The bug still exists. I tried asking for help, pleading, yelling. nothing works. At this point...nevermind. As to the bug - it has nothing to do with fire control, close grouping, nor any other behavior. It's all to do with game math logic, as best I can determine. Firstly, all shots are pre calculated as 'hit/miss' the moment they are fired, not at the end of their trajectory. At very long ranges (20+ km), you can even see shots 'bend' in the air if it's a precalc hit against a turning, maneuvering target. The missed shots are at that point visual noise - if the game has calculated the shot is a miss, it will not hit another ship. There IS a chance for a secondary target to be hit by one of these other shells, but again, that is precalced in advance, if the secondary target is within the potential 'footprint' of the guns firing. The bug occurs as follows: Shooter (A) fires at target (B). Interloper (C) intersects the ideal trajectory of the shell from gun barrel of A to target B. When C intersects that trajectory, accuracy of fire becomes 100% for every shot that is intercepted in trajectory (not just firing line, picture the arc of a shot through the air), but is still affected by armor, pen chance, etc. I'm glad of the support. I do hope this gets picked up by the devs and fixed. It's time and past. Getting attention to this bug has become my millstone, and my neck is tired. 😕 Edit: Drinking game, take a shot every time I use 'firstly'. More important edit: This firing line bug also affects 'interlopers' that are AFTER the target, but still on the firing line, and at that point the arc of falling ideal shot no longer matters. So if A shoots at B, and C is further away but on the firing line from A to B, it will be hit, and at longer ranges. So if shooting at targets in line formation, crossing the T can become lethal beyond the tactics- shoot a ship in mid-formation, rather than the front, to have shots land both up the line and down, with near 100% accuracy.

I also would like to know. Right now i've given up and I just stack up main belt and center deck armor. Armoring turrets doesn't seem to matter. Turret position doesn't matter. Balancing the ship does matter, and increasing speed worsens the stability. This game often feels like a very unrealistic ship builder with somewhat decent combat mechanics. The way turret marks (I'm going a bit off topic) are size by size, rather than an overall mark increase that takes longer to research but applies to all researched sizes, seems really unrealistic. Many of the decisions of this game could use reworking, smoothing, and advancing. I've given up pushing the bug that I and several others found and reported. No reply, no 'we're working on it', not even a sign of developer notice. I'm still playing but no longer enthused about this dev team, to the point that I'm not buying any further games from them without first doing some serious scrutiny.

Reading this thread just reinforced how much I don't like the dev's vision of not having political say in the running of finance, invasions, or other guidance of the nation/empire. It is extremely frustrating to be placed at the hands of an AI that acts as a black box, with terrible decision making (I will NOT invade this country I am at war with, despite surrounding it with 3 nations that cumulatively have six times the army power, and that nation repeatedly launching failed invasions of my countries), and popup messages that you have to remember 10 turns down the line. Mouse hovering gives barely any info. I need 25K tons for a popup conquest. I move a fleet there, the fleet is 175K tons, outmassing 7:1, and I see 65% chance of victory because a decade ago I did sell this territory some obsolete destroyers, which are now easy fodder for the invasion fleet nearby. Can I launch my own mission to destroy that naval power? Oh no, I have no control of that. Despite being an admiral and planning/launching battles being what I should be doing. This game rips so much control away from the player. It's like a sim game with most of the strategy torn away, leaving task force positioning and in-game control of heading/speed. And do not get me started on telling a group of ships to fire at a target I select, only to have that group immediately switch to a different target. So I select and retarget my selection, and again the AI decides to have my battleships shoot their main guns at a destroyer that's further away than the enemy battleship I'm trying to sink. The faith in AI control the devs seem to have is misplaced. If there were a mod that let me take control of political decisions, and see tensions as more than a once-in-a-while popup, I'd grab that in a heartbeat.

Also on earlier techs, center deck armor can really help control pitch and roll, unrealistically heavy center deck can actually help with gunnery so that as the AI tries to close to 'kill' range, my guns are destroying them before they can get in range.

As far as I know, it's not listed as a fix for 1.4 either. There are great things about UA:D, and there are things that make me despair. I want to open a port on the map, and build ships from there, instead of build ship, go to fleet list, assign port from a scrolling, small list. Especially destroyers, I actually have trouble sometimes, finding the right port. That's just one example. I think the game desperately needs QoL passes. I think they'd be well worth it, and this bug with intercessing accuracy actively affects how I handle ship maneuvers. I daren't cross ships close by, or the AI will likely deeply damage, or sink, the one they're not even aiming at.

BUMP.

In my semi--informed opinion, what you're (we're) waiting on is game engine optimization. I've seen games with more factions and a deeper political system wizz by. This is not a beta game, no matter what the devs call it. It is not feature complete, let alone feature-fleshed out and deepened. Right now half the features you could automate and never notice a difference. I look forward to further development and refinement.

Yes, I watched that. 'We will see what we can do about it in the next updates.' I'm not holding my breath, that's too damned weasel-wordy. A popular player request? There's already SOME system for pre-battle deployment being handled by game logic. This doesn't seem like it's a huge ask and with a 'popular player request' one would really think an answer more like, 'We have heard the community and will add it to our plans for upcoming patches'. I'm frankly shocked that the devs didn't already have some plan for this. This seems very out of touch and speaks to the 'player hands off' to a lot of aspects of this game, of which I personally am not a fan. The only thing saving the game is the real time battles, commanding multi-unit fleets. The moment a naval ship design/ship combat game that is more player friendly (I do not mean hand-holdy or casual) comes along, I might be dropping this. The ship designer is very limited and weirdly arbitrary, secondaries seem stupidly effective against large ships. And the complete lack of multiplayer in a game that is BEGGING for multiplayer is frankly a massive disappointment. Co-op modes, and team PvP using some sort of points system, could be amazing. I'm willing to bet they could triple sales or even more if the game had multiplayer. I have several friends who expressed interest until I told them 'single player only, just AI opponents' and they were like 'I was interested but hard nope without multi'. Right now this (definitely not a beta lmao) game has weird design focus and priorities, but sometimes that can come out great. I'm just feeling hope fade.

Well, yes, but the request and idea are valid and, honestly, I'm not sure why pre-battle player set deployment is not ALREADY a part of the game. This would be a serious improvement. There's a lot of 'player hands off' decisions about this game that are frustrating. It's not immersive, it's just '*EYEROLL* here I go having to undo the tangle the computer has put my fleet into for the hundredth time. Why in hell do I have 4 destroyers in one division and then 1 on it's own following, or screening. At the VERY least I want to determine how many ships are in each division, what role they're fulfilling. Setting the position, division composition, and role of my fleet pre-battle would be the ideal.

I checked to see that it worked, but given how many times I've had to restart the campaign (I know it's a work in progress, I'm not complaining about that), I stopped naming unless I deeply dislike the name. When the game is done with adding completely new features and forcing new campaign starts, then yes, I plan to start naming my ships. Favorites of mine, from Total War: Napoleon for example, I played a very long campaign as the UK. My armed merchants were precious stones or birds. 5th rates, which I used extensively in anti-piracy in Empire, were Swift, Chase, Rapid, or Cheetah, or anything suggesting speed. 1st rates were Magnificent, Splendid, (King Name and Number Goes Here), of course I had a Victory. So generally themes. I also share the problem of a poster from above (looks... @HistoricalAccuracyMan ) wherein I don't know enough foreign languages to come up with names. So detailed lists of ship nmes are very helpful. Speaking of, an idea for the game - lists of ship names, both historical and fictional, grouped by class, and selectable by dropdown.