>>>v1.6.0.7+ Feedback<<<(Latest version: v1.6.1.5 Optx4)

[Северная]

4 hours ago, Северная said:

One thing I tend to agree with Nick on is his insistence on actually making things challenging for the player.  There are things that are very frustrating in UAD at the moment, but it is generally not because they’re difficult, it’s because they’re frustrating or tedious.  On the other hand, the amount of times someone shares the end of their campaign and they’ve only lost a dozen ships in 75 years confirms to me that generally this game is still too easy for the player, but it is easy mostly because the AI ships are inferior and humans are superior in battle.  The frustration comes I think with game mechanics intending to limit the player economy that we have no explanation or documentation about that don’t work intuitively either.  Like I still have no idea how research priorities work given Nick’s previous comments about you need to use them to get ahead, when I thought this whole time they were a net negative to use them.

And to be clear, the main reason I dislike the constant war is not because it is difficult, it actually makes the game easier and less fun because you watch the AI’s GDP just go backwards in 20 years and struggle to build BB and it feels very boring and monotonous and like you have very little control over what’s going on in a madhouse of schizophrenic AI.  I haven’t played the latest updates to see if the recent tension changes mitigate this or not.

[Dave P.]

1 hour ago, Warspite96 said:

As I highlighted over a year ago, please get rid of the "Destroyer Attack" Ambush missions, or edit the Withdraw button so that it actually lets you withdraw. They are not historically accurate for a start, but no sane naval commander would intentionally use destroyers to attack a battleship in broad daylight, especially in later time periods when battleships can obliterate your destroyers well before they even get in torp range. All these missions are is the AI's chance to get some free kills on very expensive late game destroyers.

Don't tell the RN 4th Destroyer Flotilla that...

But seriously, I agree completely - I've found that "autoresolve" usually is a lot less painful than whatever happens in a live combat. (Well, unless I know my DDs are fast and can just run away.)

[Aldaris]

2 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

As I highlighted over a year ago, please get rid of the "Destroyer Attack" Ambush missions, or edit the Withdraw button so that it actually lets you withdraw. They are not historically accurate for a start, but no sane naval commander would intentionally use destroyers to attack a battleship in broad daylight, especially in later time periods when battleships can obliterate your destroyers well before they even get in torp range. All these missions are is the AI's chance to get some free kills on very expensive late game destroyers. 

The worse thing about them is that they seem scripted to not let you withdraw, so you are forced to fight the enemy battleship. Sometimes if you are extremely unlucky, the game will put 4-5 of your DDs against a battleship PLUS escorts, making it practically impossible for you to win these missions unless you have some super destroyers.

I can usually set my destroyers to withdraw right at the start, resulting in a draw - but that's not a satisfactory solution to the problem. I very much agree I should be able to withdraw. Had one of those missions recently in the early 1900s - an old battleship of 18 knots or so vs. my 2 destroyers of 33 knots, and I was unable to withdraw. How's that work exactly? How would that BB force an engagement against a force nearly twice as fast?

[Captain Vlad]

4 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

As I highlighted over a year ago, please get rid of the "Destroyer Attack" Ambush missions, or edit the Withdraw button so that it actually lets you withdraw. 

I could be mistaken, but aren't ambush missions optional?  As in, you don't actually have to click 'fight' to proceed to combat and can ignore it?  I had one today I didn't like the look of, odds wise, and just didn't do it.  Is that not the case with those labeled "destroyer attack?" I don't remember having one of those for awhile.

I actually have no problem with these missions, though I would really like a weather/time report before I accept one.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Captain Vlad

[MDHansen]

@Nick Thomadis

I have questions.
1. Will a land invasion to the same region as a naval invasion help eachother, or are they two completely seperate battles with no influence of one another?

2.1. Is it possible to give nations a point-based preferance to where they, and who they, wage wars against? Say A-H might not be that interested, in general, to wage a war against China or Japan, so once the tension gets high enough, there would be a set multiplier to their choice to actually start a war against beforementioned countries
2.2. Once certain nations share ports in same regions, the multiplier could be ignored.

I think this, or something similar, potentially, could decrease the snowball effect one gets through the game

Edited November 15, 2024 by MDHansen
added another question

[o Barão]

10 hours ago, Captain Vlad said:

I could be mistaken, but aren't ambush missions optional?

They are not supposed to be.

[Nick Thomadis]

17 hours ago, Warspite96 said:

As I highlighted over a year ago, please get rid of the "Destroyer Attack" Ambush missions, or edit the Withdraw button so that it actually lets you withdraw. They are not historically accurate for a start, but no sane naval commander would intentionally use destroyers to attack a battleship in broad daylight, especially in later time periods when battleships can obliterate your destroyers well before they even get in torp range. All these missions are is the AI's chance to get some free kills on very expensive late game destroyers. 

The worse thing about them is that they seem scripted to not let you withdraw, so you are forced to fight the enemy battleship. Sometimes if you are extremely unlucky, the game will put 4-5 of your DDs against a battleship PLUS escorts, making it practically impossible for you to win these missions unless you have some super destroyers.

They are optional missions, no need to have a withdraw button, if you can just ignore those missions. 

[Nick Thomadis]

3 hours ago, MDHansen said:

@Nick Thomadis

I have questions.
1. Will a land invasion to the same region as a naval invasion help eachother, or are they two completely seperate battles with no influence of one another?

2.1. Is it possible to give nations a point-based preferance to where they, and who they, wage wars against? Say A-H might not be that interested, in general, to wage a war against China or Japan, so once the tension gets high enough, there would be a set multiplier to their choice to actually start a war against beforementioned countries
2.2. Once certain nations share ports in same regions, the multiplier could be ignored.

I think this, or something similar, potentially, could decrease the snowball effect one gets through the game

1. They help each other if they are coming from the same nation, since they cause casualties to the defenders. If the attacks are not coming from the same nation, then the first who conquers, wins the province. There is also special event explaining that.
2.1 More complex campaign aspects are not expected.
2.2 Replied above.

[Peksern]

32 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

2.1 More complex campaign aspects are not expected.

So there is also no chance for manual port size management?

Edited November 15, 2024 by Peksern

[Zuikaku]

So, Japanese player can never expand Truk to be a serious naval base.

[Panzergraf]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

They are optional missions, no need to have a withdraw button, if you can just ignore those missions. 

Maybe the UI should make this clearer, it took me a long time to figure out I just didn't have to do those missions.

It would be nice if there was a way to decline them and make the mission dialogue box go away too. As long as it is active, the ships involved are considered "In Battle" and can't be moved. Somewhat annoying when a player has just built a new batch of destroyers, they instantly get drawn into an ambush mission before the player has the chance to send them out to join the task forces they're needed in.

[o Barão]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

They are optional missions,...

So what means "key" in the missions?

ambush_taskforce1,TaskForce,$BattleType_AttackerTitle_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_AttackerText_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_DefenderTitle_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_DefenderText_ambush_taskforce1,21600,100,1.6,0.4,,,,TRUE,0,35,0,25,3,"dd, tb",,"bb, bc",,6,-1,1,2,0,0,0,0,12000,20000,30000,45000,1,sink,sink,,,,"key,  task_force",1,,85,425,1.6,1

[MDHansen]

"Key" should mean, as you probably suspect, its a battle at the start of a turn you have to do, and you are locked out of the ui until you finish it.

I also thought these missiontypes was free to skip if you want..

I have removed key from all battles and no one is obligatory to do. I have however given a vp penalty for skipping. (Im a masochist)

I do this so I have access to the ui before doing the battles.

Edited November 15, 2024 by MDHansen

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, MDHansen said:

"Key" should mean its a battle at the start of a turn you have to do, and you are locked out of the ui until you finish it. I have removed key from all battles and no one is obligatory to do. I have however given a vp penalty for skipping. (Im a masochist)

I do this so I have access to the ui before doing the battles

I thought the same, but according to Nick, ambush battles are optional. Now I am lost.

[Aendos]

You think it's safe to auto resolve my 4 billion dollar BBs with $150m DD escorts against ancient 200-300M BBs but no. They took me down for about 300k VPs.  
 

in all likelihood if I played this battle out they would not have scored a hit on me before my radar equipped ships sunk all of them. I'm guessing this has something to do with them carrying little armor compared to the enemy?

[Peksern]

21 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I thought the same, but according to Nick, ambush battles are optional. Now I am lost.

I think that there is a difference between "attacker" and "defender". 

You can't ignore defend missions, cause that mean the enemy found you. If the withdraw is failing, you are forced to fight this battle. This is not in your turn, but in the enemies turn, therefore you can't ignore it. Wether it's an ambush or not. If the enemy engages your fleet, you can't decide that he is not attacking.

When it's you turn and you have full control, then you might choose if you want to do a meeting, battle, ambush what so ever. Imagine like your fleet spotted the enemy, but you decide to not give them an order to attack.
 

At least this is how I understood and observed. 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Peksern

[Nick Thomadis]

40 minutes ago, o Barão said:

So what means "key" in the missions?

ambush_taskforce1,TaskForce,$BattleType_AttackerTitle_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_AttackerText_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_DefenderTitle_ambush_taskforce1,$BattleType_DefenderText_ambush_taskforce1,21600,100,1.6,0.4,,,,TRUE,0,35,0,25,3,"dd, tb",,"bb, bc",,6,-1,1,2,0,0,0,0,12000,20000,30000,45000,1,sink,sink,,,,"key,  task_force",1,,85,425,1.6,1

This is a disabled mission. The player meant the optional ambush missions.

This mission would trigger ambush missions from a port vs a nearby task force. I am not sure if it can work by simply enabling, just for info. But now ambush_taskforce1 and ambush_taskforce2 just do not work. Check the column "Disabled' which has 1 as setting.

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This is a disabled mission. The player meant the optional ambush missions.

This mission would trigger ambush missions from a port vs a nearby task force. I am not sure if it can work by simply enabling, just for info. But now ambush_taskforce1 and ambush_taskforce2 just do not work. Check the column "Disabled' which has 1 as setting.

Thank you! 👍

[Северная]

4 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

So, Japanese player can never expand Truk to be a serious naval base.

Yeah 😔

I wish they would add the ability to manually upgrade ports - something you could even spend prestige on maybe, if not cash.

Not just because places like Truk or Pearl Harbor never grow into important bases, but @Nick Thomadis mentioned that you need ships larger than destroyers to counter enemy raids on your shipping, but so many ports in an area aren’t going to fit ships larger than destroyers.  Like if his explanation on transport losses is true, and obviously it is true if he is saying it, then the player needs the ability to create real naval bases just like navies did in real life, for much the same reason.  If we need cruisers to counter enemy cruiser presence to prevent transport losses, then let us invest our money into places to keep them.

[HMS Implosive]

45 minutes ago, Северная said:

Yeah 😔

I wish they would add the ability to manually upgrade ports - something you could even spend prestige on maybe, if not cash.

Not just because places like Truk or Pearl Harbor never grow into important bases, but @Nick Thomadis mentioned that you need ships larger than destroyers to counter enemy raids on your shipping, but so many ports in an area aren’t going to fit ships larger than destroyers.  Like if his explanation on transport losses is true, and obviously it is true if he is saying it, then the player needs the ability to create real naval bases just like navies did in real life, for much the same reason.  If we need cruisers to counter enemy cruiser presence to prevent transport losses, then let us invest our money into places to keep them.

Agreed

Still, if that is too difficolt a thing to implement, maybe devs could give the famous naval bases such as said Pearl Harbour or Truk artificial boost to their tonnage growth over time. They would start small as historically, but they would grow faster than average bases. At least we would then have large enough ports in these regions, even if we can not micro manage our naval base development ourselves.

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded optimizedx6 version including the following:
- Transport capacity losses are now having improved mechanics, properly dissipating their effect. Furthermore the transport losses affect less the transport capacity percentage. Raiding of transports should still be a severe blow to the enemy but more manageable.
- Improved torpedo friendly fire to not trigger when the target is too close. This will address the problem of torpedoes not firing when you encircle an opponent. Torpedo friendly fire should be also overall more effective.
- Fixed some bugs of the save system which could cause components to reset for ships or some ships to become ineffectively cleaned up from memory.
- Fixed expenses in finances UI not showing all the info.
- Fixed rare issue which could cause NAN calculation in GDP and this could affect all things in the game, even showing max integer number as losses in battles.
- Minor increase in population growth to compensate for the losses of land battles.
- Battle fps optimizations.
- Further fine tuning in tension, for a more mild transition to war. Allies should also have a stronger will to enter war and help another ally.
- More fixes for map borders thanks to the help of modder "the Baron" (o Barão).
- Other minor improvements.
You have to restart Steam to get this update fast

[Urst]

3 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Uploaded optimizedx6 version including the following:
- Transport capacity losses are now having improved mechanics, properly dissipating their effect. Furthermore the transport losses affect less the transport capacity percentage. Raiding of transports should still be a severe blow to the enemy but more manageable.
- Improved torpedo friendly fire to not trigger when the target is too close. This will address the problem of torpedoes not firing when you encircle an opponent. Torpedo friendly fire should be also overall more effective.
- Fixed some bugs of the save system which could cause components to reset for ships or some ships to become ineffectively cleaned up from memory.
- Fixed expenses in finances UI not showing all the info.
- Fixed rare issue which could cause NAN calculation in GDP and this could affect all things in the game, even showing max integer number as losses in battles.
- Minor increase in population growth to compensate for the losses of land battles.
- Battle fps optimizations.
- Further fine tuning in tension, for a more mild transition to war. Allies should also have a stronger will to enter war and help another ally.
- More fixes for map borders thanks to the help of modder "the Baron" (o Barão).
- Other minor improvements.
You have to restart Steam to get this update fast

The adjustment to research costs is obscene. 2.2 billion is excessive for max research. I control all of China, the wealthy parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and ALL of China, as well as half of korea, and I can't afford jack or shit.
Specifically: the costs aren't lining up. If I set research to 0, I have +2,304,793,000. If I set it to maximum (says it costs 2,256,659,000) I get -2,208,525,000. I SHOULD still have a positive income. It costs nearly twice as much as it says it costs.

Edited November 16, 2024 by Urst

[LaughingSam]

The listed expenses do not add up correctly.  Transport construction costs remain absurdly high, regardless of losses.

[HaMaT]

On 11/14/2024 at 10:22 PM, Warspite96 said:

They are not historically accurate for a start, but no sane naval commander would intentionally use destroyers to attack a battleship in broad daylight, especially in later time periods when battleships can obliterate your destroyers well before they even get in torp range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar#Taffy_3_comes_under_attack

[Nick Thomadis]

Uploaded hotfix repaired version:
- Expenses temporary issue resolved. Issues was caused from the previous update, but it was quickly addressed. Also province income has been increased slightly to compensate for the expenses calculations that are now including everything (previously some data was not used consistently).
You have to restart Steam to get this update fast