>>>Beta v1.1 Feedback<<< [RC 6]

[admiralsnackbar]

5 minutes ago, o Barão said:

o7!

 

Well, your detailed explanation is very interesting, but the important thing here is that we are talking about a hit in the aft section, so we should assume that is an area outside the citadel. So all these values should not be applied.

However, I run another test, now with no armor values. Nothing, only 9 inch belt armor because the game force me to have. And the result for 95% of the time, were only over pens. The only partial pens were in the belt area and in the deck area. So with this I am reaching the conclusion that citadel mechanics in UAD cover the entire hull length. Which is really odd IMO.

This detail got me thinking, since previous tests with armor sections and weight made me to believe that the citadel would only be applied in the main belt section.

So I run another quick test in the dockyard.

Note that I don't have anything. No armor, no citadel, nothing. Only one funnel and one gun. let's change the gun placement to see what happens.

And now the weight increased from 2880 to 3009 tons. With 0 armor, no citadel, nothing, I still got an increase in weight just by moving the gun to the forward section. So there is some values hidden in the code that could explain this. Maybe you can explain this. I simply can't find a reason or an answer to why this works this way.

Well Munro's video had a few issues he brought up. 

One was that 18 inch guns were partial penning his mid belt at point blank range, which I can't explain. 
Another was that 18 inch guns were partially penning his aft section at point blank range. 

If that BB was firing HE, a partial pen on the deck is *very* plausible, you would be looking at an oblique angle of 60-80 degrees, the cosine of that is ~.5-.2, the minimum deck value is 1 which I suspect is getting multiplied to 2.67 due to the effect of armor strength. As nick said it would be skimming across the edge. 

the 31 percent deck hit chance on the ship at that range feels very high, but perhaps that's a function of the shells being insanely slow and heavy? 

 

[ZorinW]

If only we would have an actual armor viewer and armor model like in World of Warships. That would clear certain things up rather nicely.

[AdmiralObvious]

Can I make a suggestion in relation to the resistance mechanic?

The problem. Even with the most recent changes to the way it works, late game, super battleships are still effectively immune to guns and this doesn't make much sense, especially since if history kept going in the way of big gun warfare, we would have potentially seen development of the 18+ inch guns, which were partially for their penetration against other battleships, but also due to their sheer devastating power once they hit something.

The suggestion. Change the guns so that as you develop bigger guns that they start to negate the resistance values of the target ship. Currently, even with full penetration of a 20 inch gun to the core of a turtleback battleship, you're really only ever taking approximately 500 damage, which is still just extremely low considering the impact a shell that big burying itself into your magazines and engine spaces should be.

If you add a logarithmic resistance negation for guns (and to a degree torpedoes) then large guns will have a better place in game compared to the current "meta" of stopping at around 14 inch as the all around best guns to use.

[o Barão]

7 minutes ago, admiralsnackbar said:

the 31 percent deck hit chance on the ship at that range feels very high, but perhaps that's a function of the shells being insanely slow and heavy? 
 

Well they are 18-inch guns with 37km AP range, it seems very odd to get 31%deck hit chance at 2.8 km. But now I am wondering if I increase the barrel length to 20% if I will see a difference.

Yes, a big difference. So is working fine.

[Plazma]

on the occasion. are you working on a torpedo launched in the wrong direction?

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Will be fixed shortly this, needs a new campaign, thanks!

You need to restart steam to get more fixes, as the above. It is an urgent hotfix, not having a changelog.

[AdmiralObvious]

22 minutes ago, AdmiralObvious said:

Can I make a suggestion in relation to the resistance mechanic?

The problem. Even with the most recent changes to the way it works, late game, super battleships are still effectively immune to guns and this doesn't make much sense, especially since if history kept going in the way of big gun warfare, we would have potentially seen development of the 18+ inch guns, which were partially for their penetration against other battleships, but also due to their sheer devastating power once they hit something.

The suggestion. Change the guns so that as you develop bigger guns that they start to negate the resistance values of the target ship. Currently, even with full penetration of a 20 inch gun to the core of a turtleback battleship, you're really only ever taking approximately 500 damage, which is still just extremely low considering the impact a shell that big burying itself into your magazines and engine spaces should be.

If you add a logarithmic resistance negation for guns (and to a degree torpedoes) then large guns will have a better place in game compared to the current "meta" of stopping at around 14 inch as the all around best guns to use.

In addition to this, I feel resistance would make some more sense, if you applied the above, to reducing the fire chance on recieving a hit.

[madham82]

22 minutes ago, AdmiralObvious said:

Can I make a suggestion in relation to the resistance mechanic?

The problem. Even with the most recent changes to the way it works, late game, super battleships are still effectively immune to guns and this doesn't make much sense, especially since if history kept going in the way of big gun warfare, we would have potentially seen development of the 18+ inch guns, which were partially for their penetration against other battleships, but also due to their sheer devastating power once they hit something.

The suggestion. Change the guns so that as you develop bigger guns that they start to negate the resistance values of the target ship. Currently, even with full penetration of a 20 inch gun to the core of a turtleback battleship, you're really only ever taking approximately 500 damage, which is still just extremely low considering the impact a shell that big burying itself into your magazines and engine spaces should be.

If you add a logarithmic resistance negation for guns (and to a degree torpedoes) then large guns will have a better place in game compared to the current "meta" of stopping at around 14 inch as the all around best guns to use.

This should be part of the Shells and some propellant already modify penetration values. So to add to your idea, the shells/propellant themselves should negate the resistance rather than the gun. That would make more sense historically at least. 

[AdmiralObvious]

1 minute ago, madham82 said:

This should be part of the Shells and some propellant already modify penetration values. So to add to your idea, the shells/propellant themselves should negate the resistance rather than the gun. That would make more sense historically at least. 

I knew I was forgetting something. 😅

[madham82]

Has it been reported that ships transiting the edge of the map suddenly use all their fuel? I can't remember the exact island (one in the Marshall or Caroline Islands) then to Kwajalein is like only a couple thousand KMs. But no matter what my ships fuel state or range is, they always arrive "Low".  

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

o7!

Note that I don't have anything. No armor, no citadel, nothing. Only one funnel and one gun. let's change the gun placement to see what happens.

And now the weight increased from 2880 to 3009 tons. With 0 armor, no citadel, nothing, I still got an increase in weight just by moving the gun to the forward section. So there is some values hidden in the code that could explain this. Maybe you can explain this. I simply can't find a reason or an answer to why this works this way.

I cant answer every part of your question... But the ships Mass went up when you moved the gun because you lengthend the Citadel significantly... the Citadel runs from the MAin gun forward across the engine room to the main gun aft.  When you had the turret next to the funnel you had no citadel armor (belt armor) in front of it.  Now you have a lot more belt at 9" to cover.  Weather the tonnage for such a change is correct, I don't know.

[anonusername]

7 hours ago, Sobakaa said:

Looking at all the bugs reported in this thread alone and their severity i must say i don't understand the logic behind pushing for 1.1 patch release. It's not like there's not enough critical, game- or fun-breaking stuff on the devs plate to fix for months.
Is it to get more youtubers to announce  they drop the game and more players to leave negative reviews on steam? None of the core issues like torpedoes, submarines, mines or diplomacy were addressed, yet even more were introduced with land war, oil, minor nations, etc. Not to mention the still bad auto-generation, ai's inability to handle large formations.
Are investors pushing for a new patch every 3 months or something?

I cannot say that 1.10 is where I would like it to be for a release, but it is already a huge improvement over 1.9. I think the 1.10 release will make the stable branch playable again. The devs made a mistake with 1.09, and they are fixing it with 1.10. Once the main release is in a stable state, I hope the devs can take their time with 1.11.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

I cant answer every part of your question... But the ships Mass went up when you moved the gun because you lengthend the Citadel significantly... the Citadel runs from the MAin gun forward across the engine room to the main gun aft.  When you had the turret next to the funnel you had no citadel armor (belt armor) in front of it.  Now you have a lot more belt at 9" to cover.  Weather the tonnage for such a change is correct, I don't know.

But as I mention in my previous post, I don't have a citadel. I don't have any armor, nothing. Only a funnel and a gun.

I repeat the process, but this time I took screenshots from the "weight & costs" panel.

So we can see there is a raise in weight applied to the hull. But why? There is no citadel, there is no armor. So must be some hidden value.

Also interesting to see a small raise in the crew cost. Again, I have no idea why.

[Werwaz]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

*RC6*
- Fixed a hull availability issue for the Italian "Small Semi-Dreadnought".

 

please add it back as a joke

I know it isn't exactly supposed to belong there but it was quite funny to build memeships on the thing. 

at least the spanish armored cruiser 2 is still available for memeing...

[Kane]

Still have wars ending for no reason at all.  I am not asked about it, and I don't even get a notice it happened.
War just ends.

This needs to be fixed yesterday.  It is...extremely aggravating....that this keeps happening just when I'm about to take a big piece away from an enemy (often part of their homeland.)

As Germany I was at over 90% invading both Manchura and Northern China.  Would have taken both on the next turn.
War ends, no warning, no notice, and I get nothing.

Has also happened to me against Italy, and Britain.
Please fix this.

[IshPR7777]

@Nick ThomadisI have a question... Would the other nations like Korea, Arabia, Greece, Ottoman Empire, Scandinavian countries, Persia, Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Brazil become available in the future? Speaking of Chile, Argentina and Brazil, they had history of their South American Naval Arms Race and they do have their own battleships and other projects such as Almirante Latorre Class, Minas Geraes Class, Rio de Janeiro Class, Riachuelo Class and Rivadavia Class

[admiralsnackbar]

19 minutes ago, IsmaelMolina2021 said:

@Nick ThomadisI have a question... Would the other nations like Korea, Arabia, Greece, Ottoman Empire, Scandinavian countries, Persia, Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Brazil become available in the future? Speaking of Chile, Argentina and Brazil, they had history of their South American Naval Arms Race and they do have their own battleships and other projects such as Almirante Latorre Class, Minas Geraes Class, Rio de Janeiro Class, Riachuelo Class and Rivadavia Class

those ships were built for them by the British though. 

[IshPR7777]

2 hours ago, admiralsnackbar said:

those ships were built for them by the British though. 

Yeah, but it's also for Rivadavia Class Battleships was built by USA for Argentina

[neph]

Hi @Nick Thomadisa few quick bug fixes you might want to patch before release:

1. When you lower the belt or deck armor, inner layer armor doesn't update. This lets you have extremely thick inner layers with thin outer layers.

2. When you refit a ship, you can change the beam & draft. This lets you change the displacement during refit.

3. During "Convoy" missions the mission immediately ends after you kill the last warship. So, any enemy transports will live. This player must try to keep an enemy warship alive, just to kill the transports. If enemy transports are still alive, please show the "end battle" button but do not stop the battle.

That's all, thank you!

4. (not a bug, but a suggestion) Perhaps lock armor quality when refitting a ship. I can't think of any vessel that had her entire armor plate replaced. Perhaps lock armor amount (or only let it be changed a little) too.

Edited January 20, 2023 by neph

[Zuikaku]

There are too many things you csn do in refit. Are there any plans to limit this?

[Fangoriously]

I sure would like to be able to naval invade Gibraltar while playing Spain, my country being split in half and the medaterainian being compleatly blocked at both ends by britan sure is an untenable situation. Espesualy when I have enough naval tonage to conque it, or level it, easily. Heck, why isn't my country trying to Take it in a land invasion?

[Lima]

27 minutes ago, neph said:

Hi @Nick Thomadisa few quick bug fixes you might want to patch before release:

1. When you lower the belt or deck armor, inner layer armor doesn't update. This lets you have extremely thick inner layers with thin outer layers.

2. When you refit a ship, you can change the beam & draft. This lets you change the displacement during refit.

That's all, thank you!

3. (not a bug, but a suggestion) Perhaps lock armor quality when refitting a ship. I can't think of any vessel that had her entire armor plate replaced. Perhaps lock armor amount (or only let it be changed a little) too.

1. I am constantly consciously lowering these values...
2. and 3. It's possible, but it should be insanely expensive.

[neph]

2 minutes ago, Lima said:

1. I am constantly consciously lowering these values...
2. and 3. It's possible, but it should be insanely expensive.

& take a long time!

[The PC Collector]

Okay. I think economy needs a serious overhaul before this is ready for release. Playing as Spain in 1890, I'm started with around 7 billion GDP. in 1922 and after taking most of france, a part of the USA atlantic coast, Panama, Puerto Rico, all the Black Sea but Georgia and the south of Italy, among other territories, my GDP sits at a laugable 10 billion. Whereas AH, without doing nothing, sits almost as high as the US at 35 billion. I think something is not adding up right here.

[The PC Collector]

13 minutes ago, Lima said:

It's possible, but it should be insanely expensive.

I disagree. Refits are already stupidly capped to cap them more. There have been ships which were almos completely rebuilt upon refit, yet here we can't do so because the stupid "Too far from original place"