>>>Beta v1.6 Feedback<<< (Update RC)

[Urst]

The shell weights' ranges are applying backwards modifiers.
Heavier shells are supposed to increase range by the tool tip but are decreasing range and light shells are increasing range when the tool tip says they should penalize range.

[Panzergraf]

6 hours ago, Urst said:

The shell weights' ranges are applying backwards modifiers.
Heavier shells are supposed to increase range by the tool tip but are decreasing range and light shells are increasing range when the tool tip says they should penalize range.

It's because they also modify muzzle velocity, which range is calculated from.
Light shells would add even more range without the slight range reduction that somewhat counters the range increase from higher muzzle velocity. Inverse for heavier shells.

[DougToss]

Rather than modifiers it might be better if the ballistics system was built from the ground up to account for these things. 

[Urst]

3 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

It's because they also modify muzzle velocity, which range is calculated from.
Light shells would add even more range without the slight range reduction that somewhat counters the range increase from higher muzzle velocity. Inverse for heavier shells.

This gives the player the wrong information. Remove the supposed range modifier from the tool tip if it's to compensate for the stats being excessively complicated in their calculations.

[DougToss]

It's not just that they're complicated, it's that they seem more complicated than a ballistics system that accounted for things instead of modifying them. The same is the true for a variety of ship systems, gunnery etc. but in this case, it seems like a ballistics model that took MV and projectile weight into account from the onset would function better than one that applied modifiers. It seems like there'd be less calculations than a modifier, which causes other modifiers to be recalculated, which causes other modifiers to be recalculated and on and on. 

 

e: To be succinct, I'm not asking for less detail in simulation but rather suggesting that this could be done with less calculation if things were meant to work together rather than being tacked on. 

Edited August 8, 2024 by DougToss

[Doomed]

Ive just started a battle where my ships are completely un responsive to either course changes or targeting orders 

I can use manual rudder but then they just return to their original course.

 

Follow seems to work but as I can't set the course of  any ships its not much use

 

Additionally the ships dont seem to be firing either being struck on ladder aiming and switching AI on makes no difference

 

 

Edited August 8, 2024 by Doomed
typo

[Darth Khyron]

uhm...can someone please tell me how to get "Shared Designs" to work? This is my first try (1920) hard campaign with the latest patch. I thave constructed a lot of ships 1916, 1918, 1920 for all nations. I have selected that shared designs are a MUST for the AI.
However, all I face are torpedo cruisers with 30 torpedo broadsides. Destroyers with 18 torpedo broadsides. Heavy cruisers with 24 torpedo broadsides. Torpedoes, TORPEDOES and many, MANY more TORPEDOES. Battles are dodging the wall of torpedoes that are fired from vessels I can barely see (they blink into existence to fire, than vanish again only for another ship to appear and vanish, completely making a firing solutions impossible. Closing means certain death due to running into the torpedo wall.

Must I construct shared designs for each year?

[HopefullAdmiral0786]

Dear Dev's

A small point, but one that has bugged me for some time, is that the European map is not accurate.

In that, the Austro-Hungarian Empire is too small and Romainia & Serbia are too large.

I have attached a screen shot of what UAD represents as Austro-Hungarian Empire, Romainia and Serbia, compared with an actual historical map (circa 1894).

As one can see, both Romainia and Serbia are larger than they should be and and spread further west (in Romainia's case) and further north (in Serbia's case).

I appreciate it is a minor point for the game, but for a graduate in modern history, it is a bit annoying.

Perhaps this could be addressed in the next patch, if it is not too much hassle?

[justMike247]

8 hours ago, Doomed said:

Ive just started a battle where my ships are completely un responsive to either course changes or targeting orders 

I've encountered this quite a few times, though generally it happens mid-battle. The only effective fix I've found is to put the AI in charge of the ship, very briefly... just long enough to let you see that the effected ship/group is finally responding to something. Once sure they're responding to something, then revert to manual control.

[brothermunro]

8 hours ago, Darth Khyron said:

uhm...can someone please tell me how to get "Shared Designs" to work? This is my first try (1920) hard campaign with the latest patch. I thave constructed a lot of ships 1916, 1918, 1920 for all nations. I have selected that shared designs are a MUST for the AI.
However, all I face are torpedo cruisers with 30 torpedo broadsides. Destroyers with 18 torpedo broadsides. Heavy cruisers with 24 torpedo broadsides. Torpedoes, TORPEDOES and many, MANY more TORPEDOES. Battles are dodging the wall of torpedoes that are fired from vessels I can barely see (they blink into existence to fire, than vanish again only for another ship to appear and vanish, completely making a firing solutions impossible. Closing means certain death due to running into the torpedo wall.

Must I construct shared designs for each year?

The ai will only use a shared design if it has every single component and technology that was used for the shared design. Practically this means it’s quite difficult to get shared designs to show up, although you can load @NathanKell’s tweaks DLL to make them more likely to show up.

[Darth Khyron]

oh...thank you, Brother Munro. That makes Shared Designs somewhat useless, but I understand.

[Nick Thomadis]

(Update 8 - 9/8/2024)
- Fine tuning in gun accuracy.
- Fine tuning in ship maneuverability.
- Disabled AI command button and Ship identification process during combat. Those aspects were rarely used, could be a reason for rare bugs in the campaign and had a cost in performance. Battles will play even smoother now. More specifically for the Ship identification, you  will be able to fully read all enemy info without the previous time delay. The identification was a left-over feature  for a complex intelligence mechanic that was not worth doing for the sake of a better gameplay experience. This change may affect some battle saves,  but we decided to not reset older saves. If you get any issue, please let us know.
- Various fps optimizations. The frame rate should be significantly increased.
- Increased the penalties of blockade slightly.
- Decreased the revolt chance for some Dutch colonies.
- Fixed issue which could create irreparable ports.
- Fixed an exploit that could make Mothballed ships to skip commissioning when adding crew (Needs testing).
- Fixed issue that could disallow using special characters in ship naming.
- Other minor fixes and improvements.

Important
Additional work for adding new hulls, new guns, new models and generally new content in the game has been postponed. All these would delay the patch a lot and could produce issues which could take time to resolve. Therefore the update v1.6 will mainly include the aforementioned and planned fixes, rebalances, optimizations etc. an overall improvement of the game and that would be all. The v1.6 Large Patch is scheduled to be offered next week, after receiving feedback that is stable and good enough for a release.

Please restart Steam to get the update

[StoneofTriumph]

Okay, but what about the overpowered out-of-control fires, though?

[Zuikaku]

Yes, what about massive and over the top fire damage that makes battles completely off?

[roboczar]

Do you mean these kinds of fires 🤔

 

[roboczar]

Just to be clear the above ship killing fire started with a blocked hit on the main deck. It burned through 3" deck armor and a 1" inner citadel. This is the worst I've ever seen and fires like this have been a problem for over a year now

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, roboczar said:

Just to be clear the above ship killing fire started with a blocked hit on the main deck. It burned through 3" deck armor and a 1" inner citadel. This is the worst I've ever seen and fires like this have been a problem for over a year now

Players usually exploited by not adding components that improve damage control, in order to save weight for armor and firepower. If you have a more balanced design it should be able to handle fires. 

[StoneofTriumph]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Players usually exploited by not adding components that improve damage control, in order to save weight for armor and firepower. If you have a more balanced design it should be able to handle fires. 

This is even happening with good damage control and highly-trained crews. Fires that should not be a problem are wrecking ships and crews very quickly and easily.

Edited August 9, 2024 by StoneofTriumph

[Nick Thomadis]

1 minute ago, StoneofTriumph said:

This is even happening with good damage control and highly-trained crews. Fires that should not be a problem are wrecking ships and crews very quickly and easily.

In your image your crew is "Green". This affects damage control, especially at early tech era.

[StoneofTriumph]

1 minute ago, Nick Thomadis said:

In your image your crew is "Green". This affects damage control, especially at early tech era.

This sort of thing happened to me with Veteran crew. A handful of non-penetrating secondary HE hits burned down 40% of a well-equipped dreadnought's crew with ease.

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, StoneofTriumph said:

This sort of thing happened to me with Veteran crew. A handful of non-penetrating secondary HE hits burned down 40% of a well-equipped dreadnought's crew with ease.

Do you have sufficient deck armor? It would help to see your design in constructor.

[PhoenixLP44]

31 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Do you have sufficient deck armor? It would help to see your design in constructor.

I don't think fire is the problem. HE shells are. I have done some tests and HE shells larger 5" are almost always guaranteed to give you partial pens even if you have MAXIMUM belt armour and 32cm of deck armour.

 

My ship with everything set to do as much fire damage and chance as possible

My other battleship with as much armour as possible while maintaining reasonable of combat effectiveness

fire is not the issue HE shells are. I have been firing exclusively with HE shells in this test and these are the results...

Also penetration values are way too high for guns at tier 5. Hell modern APFSDS would be needed to achive this level of penetration. (not saying that it is impossible to have these in 1950 just very unlikely)

[PhoenixLP44]

Also what is going on with engines? Cost and weight seem, to me at least, very arbitrary and unbalanced.

Again here are some screenshots to illustrate what I mean

I would suggest in addition to the type of engine that we replace the speed slider with a horsepower field to type in, or menu. For example: we could have a selection between a 50k, 100k, 150k, 200k, 300k, 400k, 450k, and 500k hp engines. And at that point you might as well gives us nuclear engines. Doesn't fit the time frame entirely but might as well add it because balancing. 

[roboczar]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Players usually exploited by not adding components that improve damage control, in order to save weight for armor and firepower. If you have a more balanced design it should be able to handle fires. 

If this is the solution then you need to add some components that are available in 1890 to do this. This ship has standard bulkheads, a decently armored citadel and a minimum of 3 inches of deck armor, and base damage control is the maximum possible for the time period in question. Here is the actual design, it's very well balanced considering the limitations of the 1890 campaign start:

[Zuikaku]

Oil burned ships still do not offer any crew reduction compared to coal burned ones...