Search the Community

What do people think about being able to "suggest" an attack by the army to coordinate the war effort more closely between military branches? It would cost naval prestige to simulate approaching the army in a way that may show a lack of capability to act/win the war by itself and it would be chancebased on whether or not the army agrees. The cost could be based on scaling factors or a flat number, but if you want it to be scaled, you could base it off the defending province's value, population or army size. The chance of success increasing could be tied to a higher navy and army power projection. It would give a new use for naval prestige which I've found usually gets piled up for the player quite heavily. The player doesn't get any say where the army attacks from, or how many men they send. Only which province is of strategic value (think oil needed for the naval war). This keeps in line with the player only really controlling the admiralty and wouldn't go against current game mechanics at all, considering the player can already coordinate with the army in terms of naval landings.

This message will be copied over from where I originally wrote it on Steam, with an addition to the intro. I did more research into Game-Labs to ensure I had my understanding correct. First off, a huge thankyou, and salute to Thomadis (who's work I have adored since DarthMod) and the whole team at Game-Labs for both your previous titles and this excellent title. I have purchased and played all your games, and exhaustively played all of them except Age of Sail. I truly appreciate the passion and dedication you have in delivering amazing War Game experiences that are unrivaled and in a league of their own when it comes to immersion and realism in putting one in the shoes of a tactician of each respective era. I look forward to all your future work and have through word of mouth shared my love of your games to many of my friends! Copying my list from Steam seems to have changed the colors, and I apologize as I haven't figured out how to easily format it to appear normal. First off, I would like to thank the man (I believe that this series of games was created by the person who first made the DarthMod mods for Total War, then Ultimate General and now this?) and team behind this game. It is fantastic. I will be leaving a full review to inform the community of what it has to offer, and my praises are quite high. With that said, while playing I compiled a list of the biggest issues I personally had with it, but ones I feel apply to all who play and can be at least relatively easily fixed. If you're reading this and are on the fence about buying this game, please disregard my critiques, and instead go read my review on the page, or just know that despite these flaws, it is still an immaculate gem of a game that is well deserving of your purchase, even at full price. This list is non-exhaustive, as while I was in the process of compiling it, I lost the original copy, then quickly re-created this one, and still planned and plan on expanding it. These issues were for the Late October-Early November build. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Automatic Pause, or at least switch to X1 time, and potentially an Audio Alert when enemy torpedo is spotted. Some battles last almost 6 hours with lines that get spread out hundreds of kilometers, and being able to watch each group at the same time without this option is painfully tedious especially when said ship SPOTS the torpedo but does not actually actively evade it. Add a Green Icon to indicate friendly torpedoes, when actively spotted by allied ships Enemy taskforces for missions presented in a range of 1-3CA? 3-5CL? Etc, based on recon score, which would add much more intrigue and realism to the first encounters, as well as which ship you might be facing in battle. This would also increase the need for recon score in taskforces. Currently, it feels like the mystery and mythos of the first encounter and spotting silhouettes through the fog is dispelled simply by knowing too much about the opposing task force at start of the battle. Ability to set up task force formation before battle starts, or at least weight the groups given at start of battle to be in battle lines grouped by same max speed/tonnage. I appreciate a well screened task force being given to me already, but the groups are in shambles and even then I don't fight conventionally & tailor my screening tactics to exactly my unique ships and taskforce abilities. Switching to reverse not immediately breaking engines while paused, so if pressed by mistake while paused, can un-reverse and not have broken engines. Especially as a new player, this was incredibly frustrating. It usually happened not during battle, but right at the end of my already painstaking re-organization of task forces where I accidentally clicked the wrong button as my focus began to waver. Passive “Shore Bombardment” bonus from Capital ships for major offensives in coastal provinces, relative to number of big guns & caliber. Small bonus, but still there. Countries dissolving/collapsing while at war when down 1 million points in a war not getting out “scott free” as if your country takes no war goals, and allow a country that was utterly defeated to reform/be split to a million pieces. Currently, it punishes the player for winning. Default “triple click” for non-lead ship in formation to split the ship from its battle line, for emergency maneuvering. Like a setting you can turn on or off where triple right click default splits that ship out of the line, this would allow for faster torpedo dodging or emergency retreat after getting slammed or being bracketed. Major decisions having an optional confirmation window, that can be disabled, so you don’t double click (due to lag/delay in input) and end up giving 1 billion dollars to an enemy nation you were about to declare war on. Ability to either disable number keys from switching ship hulls, or even more ideally being able to use the undo button to restore a ship design of a different class, so one doesn’t lose their entire ship design by one single button miscue. Ability to spend excess Naval Prestige, some potential ways to spend it might be granting vessels with combat experience/experienced crews medals, increasing Naval Funding % directly (in exchange for -GDP or vise-versa, ability to suggest an invasion of a smaller country, etc. Political options for minor countries, even if only related to breaking alliances, or offering old ships for sale to current allies. Ships avoiding firing when high probability to hit allied vessel, whether with torpedoes or with guns, unless in the “Aggressive” firing modes. (this mainly is to help AI, as I watched an Austro-Hungarian Battleship 1 shot another one as they were rubbing against each other. It took me like 45 seconds to figure it out cause I was like “I don’t have any 14.3 inch guns in this task force, what the hell hit them???”) Improvements to clumping A.I. in general, too many vessels are easily sunk as 2-3 enemy ships become stuck on top of each other and take collateral damage. A better diplomacy system for allies engaging in warfare. Perhaps an event to be called to war, that might include gaining some naval funding upon acceptance if you and ally are outmatched versus enemy Navy. Ability for minor powers to replace fallen major powers as ship producing countries, if GDP and ports are of proper level. Diplomatic event to sell or buy naval technology from Allied countries. Ability to capture (or at least get scrap value) for ships that surrender due to high casualties with minimal damage. Multiple times I’ve had enemy battle ships surrender when at 80%+ Structural and Float condition due to intense fire and small caliber guns causing kills. Perhaps require a “skeleton crew” to be added from your existing crews to capture the Prize Vessel until the task force which captures said vessel reaches port. A similar system existed in the previous game I believe?' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will re-post a similar message on your forums, as I truly love this game and hope to see it reach its highest potential and be as successful as possible, and I think these changes will be steps in that direction! I greatly Appreciate your game, & look forward to the completed builds and the full vision coming to fruition! I plan on finishing my first campaign as the Good Ole' US of A, and will expand this list. If it is replied to by someone on your team, I will expand the list here. If not, I will create a new post! Now, however, it is time to Raise Anchor & Set engines to Ahead Full! Thanks Again, -AdmiralMandalore

At first, it is a nice game and i will play it for many houres more and hope that patch 1.09 is coming soon you all make great work 👍 i have some wishes for future updates: -better visibale torpedoes (In big battles is the shown "!" for a few secounds on a torpedo not enough to see all torpedos. If you change the course of your ships to dodge torpedos, you will overlook some other torpedos) - i want a auto dodge torpedos for single ships (if they are not in a division) becourse i dont like the divisions they are stupid by dodging other ships and you can not quickly/easy remove damaged ships. so i controlle every ship by my self and sometime i overlook some torpedos - i wish me that i can change the game speed manually to "x10" and "x30" not only to "x5" if you are in battle (sometime heavy damage ships are try to escape and you have a heavy damage ship too and try to stop his escape, but you are a only little bit fast and it take many minuts in real time to get the ohter ship) - i want to select different AP and HE ammo for secoundary guns and main guns seperatley, not just for both together - i usually let you ships choose their destination automatically, but sometime i need to select targets manually. I want a button that switch back to "choose you destination automatically", becourse sometime the manually select target are try to escape and are to far away for good hit chance, but at the moment the only way to switch back to "choose you destination automatically" is to sink the select target or loose the vision on it -i wish i can save shipdesings from "Custom Battle" and can load it in my campain (if i have the needed technology) -i want to build different typs of the same shipstyp for "Custom Battle" not just one per type of ship. for exampel, at the moment i can only build one BB typ and can send them to battle, but i want two different BB typs in the same battle -if a fleet have a battle they all will return to the homeport. please let the user choose if a fleet or individual ships should return to port Thats all what i remember at the moment. if i have more i will post it under this post here. Thanks for reading and i hope you understand my bad english Heinz_Dieter

So far, I'm enjoying the game a lot - despite the inevitable beta-testing jank, I do feel that it has a huge amount of potential, and the gameplay can be addictive as anything for my hyperfixating self. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions. I'll rank them in order from most pressing to least pressing. Post-1920 Light cruiser and destroyer towers I love the ship design for this game so far. Different nations have distinct style of construction that inform gameplay significantly, and generate unique aesthetics across the fleet. It's one of the best part of the game, in my opinion. Ignore this comment when it comes to light cruisers and destroyers. Barring a handful of nations, none of which are yet implemented in the campaign, every damn light cruiser gets the same set of towers. It's more than an aesthetic difference - the shape, size, and attachment points of a ship's towers are really important for defining what you can feasibly fit onto it. When you have the same sets of towers, you end up making the same light cruisers, spread across every nation. Destroyers run into much the same problem, though it's admittedly a little better because of differences in hull shapes. This, currently, is probably the biggest issue for gameplay that I experience regularly - light cruisers are probably the most interesting variable part of the OOB, and they'd be a lot more fun both in the campaign and in custom battles with more variability at the fingertips of the player. AI designs are still ridiculous A large part of the enjoyment this game offers is through immersion, and it's admirable how well it can pull that off when things go right. However, there is nothing that can crash that immersion quite as efficiently as scrolling over the horizon and seeing the Frankenstein's monsters the AI pulls out of the hat. Performance-wise, they're pretty variable - some AI ships can be pretty lethal, while others, like an Austria-Hungarian BC armed with 9.1" guns I recently ran into, are about as dangerous as a wet piece of cardboard. Taken as overall, though, I think making campaign designs AI-only is a disservice. The solution I'd suggest would be to create a Steam-enabled resource in which players could submit more balanced ship designs, which could then be reviewed a bit and composed into folders from which the AI could draw to put interesting designs on the playing field to challenge the player more thoroughly. It could possibly also be organised into subsets for each kind of ships - ~20" maximum BBs, ~18" super battleships, more balanced ~16" designs for battleships, ~11" supercruisers, ~9" large cruisers, and ~8" heavy cruisers for heavy cruisers, as an example, to provide a bit of structure, and variability for how the AI responds. I wouldn't want to have the AI replaced, mind you - this would just be an option you can choose instead of the AI, which, I imagine, will become progressively better at building balanced ships as development continues. However, I don't know much of the coding for the game, so this might not be possible - just a suggestion, really. Torpedo spam isn't just a problem, it's a nightmare On the topic of AI building, a persistent issue I've run into with the AI is that everything up to 20k tonne super cruisers arrives with half their weight made up of torpedos. While it does make some sense to have specific styles be torpedo-heavy (the IJN particularly was famous for that), having every damn sub-capital flood the battlefield with 20-track torpedo broadsides can be incredibly annoying. It often makes the ships themselves very weak otherwise - a destroyer with a single 4" gun and 20 torpedos can only really do one thing well. Transports get away scot free In a convoy escort battle, sinking the escorts means the battle ends with the transports getting away, meaning you either need to ignore the escorts entirely and send a 40kn monstrosity to go grab the convoy, or string along a half-dead cruiser until you can get the convoy dead. Killing the escorts should mean you automatically kill the transports - either that, or don't end the battle and give me the satisfaction of massacring the poor, defenceless transports. Maybe I'm a bad person. Fore-aft balancing can be a pain Now, this one isn't quite as pressing for gameplay, but it's something that can sometimes irritate me when creating a ship. It's not terribly difficult to balance a ship down to <1% fore or aft offset. However, getting it down to 0 is genuinely painful. I'd propose the option to (heh) offset this by adding ballast on the fore or aft, possibly with a minor weight and/or pitch penalty. This isn't super pressing though - maybe it's just a skill issue on my part. The system of parts clicking onto points on the hull poses an aneurysm risk The number of times I've sat and had my eyes nearly pop out of my head with irritation because a barbette or secondary tower clicks onto the hull a metre or two away from where I want it has probably had serious health repercussions for me by this point. I don't necessarily want to change the system entirely, because it's very useful, but a bit more granularity in where one can place the parts onto the hull would do wonders for my mental and physical health - forgiving systems save lives. The campaign map system is, err, hmmm This one's very low on the priority list because the current campaign system is clearly a beta version intended to allow players to get a small amount of campaigning to spice up gameplay, not to get a final system. However, it's pretty jank as is - there's little ability to duplicate actual strategy beyond putting fleets in a general area and hoping they do the job you want them to. My ideal system would be to get it to something like Rule the Waves 2, where you continuously control the locations and actions of various forces, but that's perhaps not achievable - a more arcadey system would still be great fun, but please, a little more actual campaigning. Also, in the far future, being able to do stuff like bombarding ports would be a welcome addition. On a general note though, this game is incredibly promising, and I'm going to follow it very closely - hopefully by playing it as much as possible. Keep up the good work!

Welcome back. First i want to thank the ppl who read and liked my posts for their moral support.😃 Second i want to create a collection thread for all our feedback to give us and the devs an easy overview about what are the hot topics around the game. My idea was as follows: I will shorten down my feedback points to a few words, maximum a sentence. the goal is that one Talking Point does not take up more than one line of text. When i created my original post, i was aware that it was to much of a wall of text to be properly readable. thx again for those who still did it Edit 19.01.2022: since there is already a "Big List" of feedback for the ship designer itself, i will cut on my points that were already made in the past and link the feedback list for the shipdesigner under the segment "Shipdesigner". I wonder though, why are there no own threads for the other gameplay parts of the game like the battles or for the recently added campaign? I think, that overviews and summaries of frequently disussed feedback topics are nessarry to keep track of things, but it seems, that apart from a few ppl beeing concerned with the ship designer thats not the case for many other ppl? What i wonder the most is, that the devs themselves havent installed such threads, since they would profit the most from a time efficient scanning of an overview list of all the feedback to a certain topic (or the whole game). Maybe we should split up the feedback gathered here on multiple threads too? Anyone else can post feedback in this thread my original list does not cover and i will implement them in the first post of this thread. The last Step would be to create a permanent poll about all Talking Points wich shall indicate, wich topics are the hottest, the ones that the player base are most concerned with. Im looking forward to ur participation and ur feedback on my proposal. Make Ultimate Admiral great Again... or... for the first time! 😜 I also propose to create pinned threads for certain topics like ... Torpedoes! to gather and focus all our feedback and opinions there giving us and the devs a better grip on the pressing issues. End of Introduction. More Detailed Feedback / thoughts to my points can be found here: Feedback-List. Beeing updated with your Posts in this thread. Graphics - Increase ship size / object size in relation to the players perspective to match realworld size scaling ( no toys in giant bath tubes anymore pls) Ship Designer an already big list of ship designer feedback can be found here: - Pls Remove any Requirements regarding Hulls / Roles about Towers/Armament etc. to allow complete freedom for the players design choices / ideas - pls remove obstructions for placing superfiring barbettes on certain hulls / positions etc. - in general pls remove as much restrictions as possible to give them players teh freedom to express their design ideas - Pls switch out the displacement slider by sliders for the key dimensions of a ship (length, width. height) - Pls make Towers / Superstructure sie and weight scale with the Size and weight of a Hull - Pls give equipment absolute weight and cost values instead of relative ones bound to the Tower stats - Pls introduce real / possible ahistoric engines instead of just engine types. That creates more Research possiblities and provides more educational content. - if u decide to stick to the current layout, pls fix up the values of the engine typs, cause they are not quiet right atm (18.01.2022, patch 1.03) - Pls overwork Funnel Capacities. The Capacity per Weight of a Funnel should always increase with the size of a Funnel, not decrease or suddenly jump up high - Pls Correct the Barbette tooltip and add either add "superfiring" to the barbette section or switch out barbette with superfiring position/mount - Pls fix weight and weight of armour of casemate / underwater torpedo-systems. atm they are to heavy( 18.01.2022, patch 1.03) Battles - (BUG) ships ignore movement orders when to close to each other resulting in collision instead of preventing it - pls give the player the full control over speeding up time over all battle distances (maybe except for x30 since that maybe unbearable for most machines / game engine) - bigger ships should have also a horizontal bulkhead sceme (otherwise listing to sides wont make much sense in the game) - pls correct the tooltip/ loading screen tip about flooding - pls overhaul / overwork flooding so it actually matches realworld experiences and therefore the players(or just mine??) expectations - shooting / targeting should be affected by listing of the ship. a gun thats pointing into the ocean or up high should not be able to land hits on its target in usual combat situations - pls introduce abandoning ships / ships going silent, when for example beeing on fire over the whole lenght of the ship etc. - pls introduce taking ships as prize / the need of towing them to port incase of severe dmg/ engines out - maybe introduce the rescuing of humans from sinking ships if the ship leaves any survivors - AI is still incompetent at calculating fleet strength and situational awareness leading to easy and huge victories in battles making campaigns extremely short due to VPs - pls let torpedos be fired freely / at will at any range and angle to allow for a correct use of that weapons system and the creating of proper torpedo fans over all ranges - pls fix torpedo-ranges. The Torpedo-Range determines its maximum travel distance due to fuel/air(gas mixture)/power storage and not an aiming range - pls also fix torpedo ranges regarding their propulsion system and speed - pls overwork torpedodmg and the dmg calculation of said dmg regarding the existence of torpedoprotection and the kind of T-Protection - pls make ships automatically dodge / attempt to dodge torpedoes - and or constantly highlight spotted torpedoes so the player busy commanding multiple ships doesnt miss those and can actually react without pausing the game every 10 secs - pls fix the detach / attach behavior when multiple ships are select ( detach shall always mean and result in detachment, not random attachment) - pls add a shortcut for "select all ships by type" - pls add control groups (CTRL+Number) asap - pls reduce the amount of information about enemy ships and their status regarding ammo/ reload / dmg etc. that is available to the player. Especially the information bout torpedo reloading leads to the possible abuse of "detecting" torpedoes without beeing able to do so - Ammunition explosions shall increase in dmg potential so that actually the magazine explosion of a main turret rips apart a ship and becomes the significant and terrible even that it is in reality - pls give indication of the reload of the indiviudal turrets / torpedo racks - pls show the penetrating capability of HE-Grenades instead of just saying "Minimum-penetration" - pls clearify what kind of HE-Grenades are fired. Atm they seem to be Bottom-fused, to make sure they explode after a penetration/ partial pen. if thats so, they should also richochet on high angles instead of exploding on hit like a head fused grenade would do almost regardless of the impact angle - edit(always forget that): ships high/slow speed should be depending on actual speed in knots instead of the Throttle/ Lever Position of the targeted ship. A ship with a constructional top speed of 17 knots is not moving at high speeds ... 😕 - edit: CPU target priority should be overhauled. Instead of trying to attack / sink a dmg ship of the player it should focus on the ships closest to its own ships aka best hit chance and than wich poses the highest threat, than wich is easierst / fastes to kill. Battle / Designer - pls introduce projectiles as ingame objects and make them really penetrate and dmg internals instead of calculating that in excel tables - pls introduce all major components of a battleship as objects in a game so they can actually be hit / dmg after a penetration / by fire / flooding - maybe introduce the distinction between bottom and head fused grenades to give player the choice of maximixing dmg after a penetration with less penetration power or with explosion on hit capabilities to inflict atleast a bit dmg instead of none due to richochet / non pen. Campaign - pls remove the display of all enemy ships participating in a battle before that battle and before them beeing identified - pls reduces the amount of missions / battles taking place and / or switch from monthly to 3 monthly turns ( so we can actually research, create new designs and build those too) - pls overhaull the distribution of VPs according to the actual overall fleet size, funds and building capacity of a Nation / State - pls add goals to campaigns and those shall affect the effort a Nation / State is willing to make and how much losses to take - creating flotillas / groups of ships and setting them up for regions / mission types has to be a thing - pls give Mothballing its own button instead of hiding it behind the "set the crew" function - Increase shipyard building speed according to other changes u make to the campaign so building bigger warships later one actually becomes a thing - why does peace time in a campaign does not exist from the beginning? - BUG? the game peaces me out after turning done the ask for peace several times. Is that intentional? - Give more informations in the Campaign screen about what is going on; - how much transports are 100% ? - permanently display the tonnages and power projection of the own and the enemies fleets and not only when a blocade is taking place - Make Naval Intelligence a thing so we have atleast a rough estimate of how effective ecomonic warfare is or what the capabilities of the enemies are - there needs to be a tab where information bout identified / known enemy ships is stored - Research should be diviced stronger in sections and each section should have its focus points - Seperate between private Research and State Research - BUG ? why are ships moved to random harbours in the baltic Sea ( furthest away from the enemy? ) turn that off pls. - pls add the feature to slow down / speed up / hault repairs to control the repair costs / process - ships beeing repaired shall not take part in operations unless the CPU / Player dliberatly decides to do so - damaged and ships in repair shall not add to the power projection / Blocade tonnage or, if they do, only to a certain degree that needs to be determined - pls vastly increase the size of the eventlog and allow the player top back track it ( store the info in its own tab for example) - pls overwork the tooltip for ships within the designer and campaign screens so all the campaign and combat important information are shown (e.g. RANGE! TURNING CIRLCE, E.EFF,..) - the most vital campaign informations shall be displayed on all campaign tabs all the time - Why is economic growth not a thing yet? (18.01.2022 patch 1.03) - the economic effect of a blocade musst be delayed and musst build up over time - make repairing transports a thing so dmg them in a battle has an effect Battle / Campaign - when a ship was identified in a battle, in shall be identified quicker in future battles. Best Regards, Kraut

Since my feedback consists of so much words i have to split it up into multiple posts, otherwise it becomes laggy. And wth is wrong with those high security password demands for a simple forum? 😅 First part(out of three): Here it comes first i wanted to express my concerns of game-labs having many projects at the same time in development. Although i can understand the urge to develop ones own ideas as soon as possible(and/ or getting paid for said development) a "step by step" approach might have been more rewarding for the developers and especially the customers. I mean, the first video on the channel(Stealth17Gaming, in case u want to give that man a cookie) that got me interested in the game is from October 2019.. thats over 2 years ago by now. And Looking into that Video atm ....there has not much changed.. on the surface... yet. shortest first: "graphics": - the style is okay. its not like i would like it to be, but its bearable enough to enjoy the gameplay. What i really dont like is the scaling / size of the objects though. Pls increase the size of the ships to their actual one. When im creating a almost 300 meter long battleship i wanna see and "feel" that when zooming into it in the designer and during the battles. Atm the things look and feel like toys in an endless bathtube.... Designer: A Designer of anything, in this case, warships, is a place where ppl can/want to express there creativity, ideas, thoughts, or just rebuild historic ships/ designs they like. Although its not a bad designer at all, its lacking for both targets, historical rebuilding or the full unleash of ones own phantasy. And the following points are my thoughts of why thats the case: - "Hull/ Type Requirements" : I dont understand the Design-Decision by the devs to limit the players design choices by making requirements for each ship type / hull as so much main gunz/ torpedo-tubes etc. Why would u do that? If somebody doesnt want to build a historical or even functional ship, why not just let him? Everyone that wants to buil historical ,will meet the requirements anyway. But why restrict the design choices of a player? in a Game wich core gameplay is 50% desinging ships? - "Displacement": in its current status Displacement rules for the lenght and width of a ship. Although it is true, that there where often Displacement Targets/ Tresholds that were aimed at or needed to be met, its umcomfortable to use. I strongly recommend / ask the devs to replace the displacement slider with sliders for Length, width and other measures of the ships hull to give the player more control over their design ideas. - "Towers / Superstructure": the size of the superstructure does not scale with the hull size and thats... ... unclever. Together with the Jumps in Length from the Displacement Slider it makes it hard to realize certain designs and i dont see any reason why the superstructure should not scale with the size of the hull. The superstructure is build to give a ship certain capabilities, to actually make a functional or advanced warhship out of a hull with gunz. Its a tool, not the goal, so it has to adapt to the ultimate circumstances like the dimensions of the hull. and not the other way around. And some Towers seem way to heavy for what they deliver. the 1890 CA for example suffers extremly from those overly heavy Towers. - "Tower Equipment: i get the idea behind the added weights and costs as means of balancing. But even for a game that looks atm like its not intending to be a simulation it seems like a bad joke to me, that radio Equipment and the rest increase weight and costs of Towers relativly. Like.. wtf? THe weight of the advanced Towers is in the thousands of ts. And i shall believe, that a Radio-Equipment costs me 20% of 6000ts ?? that would be a Radion of 1200 ts that come on top of the superstructure. The Weight of Radio equipment ist based on the needs for Range and signal quality, not based on how much metal on the ship already exists... Same applies to the Radar, Sonar and Rangefinders. I strongly vote for giving the Tower Equipment absolute weight and cost. - "Engines/ Propulsion: Engines and the rest of the Propulsion section should be own entities like gun(turrets) with their own specifications like dimensions, Power, weight / effciency instead of some artificial percentages for an unknown base value. That would also offer great oppurtinites for Research. ANd for the Player to actually learn something about technic and technology instead of just min/maxing artificial numbers and percentages. - Protection: The Whole Protection should be like adjustable like the generic belt/deck and turret armour already is. For Example Citadelle or Barbette Armour. It makes no sense to display those vital armour schemes of Warships just as min/max option to reduce the probalitites of certain events. Either the Barbette Armour or the Citadelle are thick and strong enough to withstand penetration. Or they are not. The Chance of a catastrophic even after an penetration of these vital Armour schemes is only depending on what is stored behind them, how much of it and of what kind is the penetrating object and what dmg causes it to the armour (secondary effects like spalling) and will the explosion of the object occur and if it occurs, does it cause secondary explosions (ammunition) That applies to all Protection Systems. The only exceptions maybe Bulkheads and Anti-Flooding. It may not be nessarry for a satisfiying design and gameplay experience to care bout the thickness of Bulkheads and their doors. Anti-Flooding seems to be redundant here since the sectioning of a ships hull via bulkheads is already the counter-measure to flooding ( and spreading of fire), so an additional-anti-flooding makes not much sense to me atm. but im not a pro in ship-design, so there are maybe important systems additionl to bulkheading a ship that im not aware of yet. Funnel Capacity: Funnels for smaller ships are often worse than their counterparts for the big girls. An exception to that are those for Destroyers/ Torpedoboats. But especially in the low tech era its very easy to get a highly efficient propulsed BB compared to a CL or even worse, a CA. I mean, maybe one would now argue bout how scalability makes bigger propulsions more efficient, but why are so many, not all, but a lot of funnelz less effcient the bigger they get. Here id say a Bigger Funnel with a greater Diameter is moar efficient percentages t then a smaller funnel of the same kind because of a minimum treshold of metal needed to create the funnel. and the percentage of that minimum treshold should decrease when increasing the funnelz size, therefore making it more weight efficient, not less. And comming back to the Comparision between BB and the smaller Crafts. We shall not forget that a BB needs a much bigger Engine for the same Speed/Range than the smaller ones, so even with scalability on its side a CL should be faster when the efficency of the propulsion systems is the same. Barbettes: Although barbette Armour is rightly so activated by placing a turret on a hull, the explanation shown in the tooltip is not correct. A Barbette is not only a socket to bring a turret into a superfiring position, its the general housing of a turret. Casemates and torpedo launchers: Why are casemate gunz and underwater torpedo launchers so much heavier than their decked counterparts although there armour is either shit or nonexistent? Setting Armour to the same level a casemate gun is significantly heavier despite beeing displayed as the smaller and shorter barreled object. Final thoughts on the designer: Atm it feels to reduced in complexity. The urge to call it "mobile gamish" came suddenly to my mind. And i think for a game called "Ultimate Admiral" and with a price tag of 35 euros for an unfinished early access game sets the bar much higher than that. As u probably all aware of, that type of game is rather a niche, hence the relativly higher price tag for what is offered or will be offered once its finished. But my Point is not so much that its a niche game, but more that its gameplay mechanics are limited. Its a (atm rudimentary) designer and a battle game. The campaign atm is not much more than a somewhat random succession of "naval-academy" battles. So id wish for those few gameplay mechanics to be as good as possible. The designer should be dope. And the battles too. The campaign was just recently installed and is far from finished, so i wont judge its state yet. But the designer and the battles are sticking around for a very long time now judging from utube videos. End of Part One.

I saw somewhere a request for how to build a campaign and I thought I'd try my best to come up with one suggestion. I searched for the correct place for the post - but hopefully a moderator will move it if necesary. I would like the option to run a single semi-historical campaign spanning through the time periods of the game. I know other people want more options/freedom but I think it's a choice and the campaign need to be structured accordingly and so I hope my suggestion makes sense for what I would like to see. I suggest the campaign will be built after a master semi-historical timeline with historical navy conflicts fitting the timelines of the game. The suggestion limits a players sandbox, but makes it easier to balance and secure the player experience while still having the option to be rather flexible. This is a very good way to make sure a campaign will be able to follow a somewhat accurate picture of history, but at the same time prevents a lot of random or chaotic campaigns some other players might like. If necesary it's possible to script necesary peace deals or conflicts when historical situations are difficult to find. The player should select 1 player nation from a handfull of great naval nations - some of them perhaps limited in their starting period if necesary. Minor nations will play a part but not as a main nation. To narrate the experience I find it usefull for you as an admiral to not be the commander of your nation but a subject of a government, but also an important advisor allowing you to take some decissions, but also be forced along the timeline for participation in further conflict. The player will start in the timeline he/she decides and as time progress will either be involved in conflict with his own nation - or as an "advisor" on behalf of other major or minor nations. This makes sure that no matter your choice of nation you will be able to participate. Basically splitting the campaign up into several small mini campaigns linked together. As an example starting as germany you could fight your own wars in the proper timelines and at other times you could "Supervise" and play as minor nations or other major nations. Perhaps even be able to supervise in 3 different levels: a) entire command basically taking over as it was your own nation (but returning to your own nation later) b) Help designing ships - perhaps using tech from both nations but not playing the battles c) Just give them tech and money (maybe earn some foreign ship designs) but let them handle themselves This means France should be able to play even in the part of time where they are occupied or in peace either from foreign ports or supervising some or part of the british, us or chinese fleet. And in the times of european peace participate in conflict in other parts of the world... This also - depending on the conflicts in which you are an advisor - could give you faster research in some areas, better own economy and the ability to build some ship hulls from other nations? Would also be cool to play as England but advising either Russia or Japan in that conflict and both being able to build your own designs and bring home some of the foreign designs when moving on... Maybe some nations should have more options for who to support and others be restricted. Apart from this raw sketch I have a few issues witht eh current mini campaign: Its over way too fast To get more variation perhaps the enemy AI should develope more than 1 design for each shiptype at a time. The transport slider makes very little sense Torpedos are king in the early campaign timeline - You can build a lot of torpedo boats and even though you get blockaded without bigger ships you will turn around pretty fast. I would advise looking into either shorter range (600m), duds and/or make the torpedoes more inaccurate... The map and port system I think is pretty cool. Ships should be organised into fleets/armadas - ships not in fleets should be in a reserve pool. Fleets/armadas should have a restricted tonnage or number decided by the admiralty or nation leadership which could be modified during the game Ships should be sailed to and operate from a port You need to have better control of your fleets behavior like being able to set allowed range from port, behavior and tasks like Coastal patrol, Coastal defense, Convoy guard, Raiding, Combat patrol, Harbor/fleet assault. Maybe even have a fleet operate in a specific area. More than 1 fleet could engage at a time, but if you have a fleet with plenty screening ships it should be difficult to catch that battleship alone. You should look into the balance when talking ships and economy. Players should not spam large ships (perhaps from restrictions made by his national leadership?) - at the same time its also important that a player is not always able to sink large enemy ships at will but maybe thats an AI problem? PinkyDK

So some thoughts: 1. The spotting actually seems a tad better. I can see vessels at a little bit longer ranges 2. Part of this appears to be improvements in starting positions since we aren't always too far 3. The AI fights more aggressively and does a better job of both attacking enemy/covering their own merchant ships 4. However it still moves away often - likely because it is trying to find the optimum range at which to engage you 5. This is infinitely preferable though to endlessly sailing around at 10x speed chasing smoke 6. No one ever says it but the music is wonderful in this game and fits well - more would always be appreciated though (don't neglect sound design!) 7. Since the Steam price is $31.49, what will us owners of the Xsolla Limited Edition for $59.99 receive?

Ok just been looking into the smoke interference mechanics and they look completely backwards to me. So currently smoke interference is based solely on the funnels, which makes no sense since funnels don't generate smoke, the engine does. For example if I have 2 funnels on my ship (100% engine effectiveness) and I add a 3rd redundant funnel in case of damage, instead of reducing the smoke interference as you might expect, it increases it by 50%. What I'd suggest is this. Remove the smoke interference stat from funnels. Instead directly calculate it from the engine hp * a multiplier from techs (same multiplier used for funnel capacity required). Then once engine efficiency reaches 100%, any spare capacity from funnels instead go to reducing smoke interference, modified by a funnel modifier which could either be specific to each funnel (taller funnels been better for this) or just a number across all funnels. So your calculations would look like this (Numbers pulled from between arse cheeks ) 250,000 (engine hp) * 0.01 (tech modifier) = 250 smoke interference 250,000 (engine hp) * 0.01 (tech modifier) = 250 funnel capacity required (base for these would always be equal as its basically the amount of smoke been generated) So you had 2 funnels with 150 capacity each and you get: 250 - 300 = 0 (50 remainder) 250 - (50 remainder * 0.5 (Funnel Modifier)) = 225 smoke interference So now if my towers weren't enough to compensate for that, instead of the only option been to remove funnels and slow the ship down to compensate, I can add more funnels (taking valuable centreline space + tonnage) So with a 3rd funnel all with 150 capacity: 250 - 450 = 0 (200 remainder) 250 - (200 remainder * 0.5 (Funnel Modifier)) = 150 smoke interference Means we can actually build larger faster ships which aren't surrounded in such a cloud of their own smoke that they can actually hit stuff Also makes the more smokey, non-diesel engines still an option after diesel comes in since this will be a major limiting factor in attempting to build any multi-funnel ships.

Hey there! I love what you have done so far and since it is your creation and your creative vision, I hesitate to critique it. Please see this piece as just a personal wish list / feedback on my part and in no way meant to be harmful, insulting or in bad faith. Furthermore, English is not my first language and my proficiency in it is far from perfect, so I beg for leniency if something might be formulated in a wired way. The shorts: 1. I wish that there was a borderless window option. 2. It would be very convenient to be able to double click on the “Enemy smoke spotted…” message and jump the camera to the location. 3. Maybe it would be a good idea to implement warnings for “pitch” and “roll” of a design, like with fore/aft. 4. Would it be possible to mark the changes in hull size with some kind of bar or line on the tonnage slider? 5. It would be nice, if one could type in the tonnage, speed etc. as one is able to with armor thickness. 6. A clarification for win conditions on the naval academy would be great. Sometimes they are “AND” and other types” OR”. 7. A statistical summary after battles would be wonderful. Like which ship sunk which and which type of armament of which ship did damage, fire etc. More general ones: Please allow for more player choice Limiting player choice is frustrating, at least to me. Of cause I see the merits of blocking out future tech and hulls, but as player I feel I should be able to use obsolescent technologies. As the player I wish I was able to use for example coal fired engines, Lyddite I and outdated hulls are armor to simulate refits and modernized old warships. Maybe even, if possible, outdated armament. Blocking out future technology and hulls, why would you do this as a developer? It’s an honest question of mine and not meant in a divisive way. I saw there was an option to use a developer mode in the past, would it be possible to bring that back? That is it for now and thank you for reading! thewolfpack

Hey there! I have beaten all the Naval Academy mission in current alpha (10 v79) has to offer, most of them multiple times and with different bonus options and builds. Furthermore I have played countless custom battles. I feel confident to provide feedback backed up by experience. How can I provide meaningful feedback and in what kind for feedback are the developers interested in? Sorry if this is answered somewhere else and I was unable to find it. One small thing: Had zero crashes or graphical glitches – very impressive! Thank you very much!

A list of suggestions to better the game and for variety. The Guns - I would personally like to see more unique turret designs for nationality as i see nearly every nation has the same 18" guns and alot have the same 4" to 8" guns. also it doesnt make sense that japanese and french have the same designs as they are quite different in reality im sure that is a goal but it really is quite important because its almost like building the same ship everytime The Guns Again - The addition of Quadruple Turrets into the game is kind of important as they are present on ships in history especially in french as well as the UK that should be an option to be added Hull and Superstructure - More variety in those areas would be nice as alot of the dreadnoughts have literally identical superstructure and hull no matter the nation also for cruisers they all have like the exact same superstructure in 1940 Aircraft Carriers - I think that that would be very interesting to be added into the game. although large it really changes alot of mechanics and more customization. like adding AA to ships and building carriers would be very cool i think that would be a very nice addition to the game and would add mroe "flavour" Cheats - For Custom Battles i think there should be an option to just build the most outrageous ship and that would be interesting. what i mean is no displacement total or literally just game breaking things like making a 10000 ton destroyer Diversity - Honestly Just Making The Ships more diverse for each nation really changes alot and makes the game more enjoyable Thanks!

I feel a little presumptuous being so new around here, but since my son bought me this game I play it an awful lot (as well as a bunch of other combat sims) and put together a laundry list of items that I thought would be nice to see in future versions. I haven’t spent enough time in the forum yet to know if any of these have already been covered, so I apologize in advance if I’m going over old ground but I LOVE THIS GAME and want to help it really succeed. -saving ship designs. Perhaps even a format for sharing them? -battle playback. Sometimes action is so fast and furious that I can’t keep up with the data reports coming in. What caused my ship to just detonate?, etc.. Also extremely useful for those of us who like to make media with this fantastic looking game. -a library of pre-built historical ships (Hood, Bismarck, Mikasa, Oslyabya, Potemkin, Olympia, Maine, et al.) -a library of notable battles, you can choose a side and your ship and/or fleet is ready to go. Manila Bay, Tsushima, Jutland, Denmark Strait, Leyte Gulf…. -an ‘offset’ option for fine tuning placement of parts once mounted for better ship balance and fit. -a color picker for hull and parts. How else to build the Great White Fleet? The Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron? -unlocking all hulls is great, but what about towers? Sometimes you need a cage mast on a 130,000 ton hull. I’m also often wishing there were more mounting options for these and barbettes. -’advanced’ level ship of design where major internal components could be arranged, magazines, machinery, boilers, coal/fuel bunkers, to better stabilize your ship. I guess that is implied by placement of funnels, turrets etc., but might be nice to be able to slide things around a bit below decks. Also would be nice to clearly visually show where armor belts and extensions are located and x-ray view of your ship, a la WarThunder, maybe even adjust placement of them to better protect your vitals or save some weight. -being able to to pick the time/weather at the start of a battle. Also, night actions with searchlights? -pre-battle arrangement of fleet. I now make it a practice to start my fleet actions at near maximum range, just to give my ships time to get into a formation of my choosing rather than random. Would be great if there was a screen where I could quickly set my formations and divisions up before spawning, so they were ready for action right away. -actual smoke on the northern horizon? Helpful in anticipating direction/speed of enemy fleet movement. -key bindings for game speed? Or for everything else for that matter. I use ctrl-alt-shift-z ALL the time… would be nice to be able to just assign it to a single key. -I love that the ricochet shells are so nicely animated, but it’s weird that they don’t splash when they hit the sea. In general the water looks terrific, but the splashes are sort of ‘thin’ and the particles extra large. I am not a programmer so I don’t know if this is a limitation of unity, but secondary splashes and more damaged debris flying off from major hits would be nice to see. Knocked over masts and spars, wrecked superstructure and turrets, holes in funnels, smashed lifeboats all could enhance the visual experience. -no matter how many bulkheads I put in my vessels, they have the same number of lines in the damage graphic. I love the way the graphics are not generic and show your (or targets’) exact ship, so I thought this would be a nice but not too difficult addition. -incoming shellfire sounds seem also ‘thin’. I keep expecting to hear the whooshing oncoming freight train roar of large shells overhead. -would be great if flooding damage affected ship stability and vessels would roll over and sink upside down (with still spinning propellers) due to becoming unbalanced. -Amphibious operations and land battles. I play a lot of Napoleon TW with The Great War mod, but it's getting a bit long in the tooth. And no way to simulate Russo-Japanese War. So a component (or separate game?) covering late 19th and early 20th Century ground operations would be just fantastic. Hell I'd pay a lot for just a Port Arthur sim. Naval bombardment, fortress construction, mining, tunneling... -spotting aircraft that could increase long range accuracy. -AIRSHIPS!!! (armed with bombs or for spotting)-maybe that one should be a different game… Anyway, thank you devs for this much needed sim!!

Hello, would be good to have a start up layout to well place your ships before the battle has begun for example like how total war has done it before a battle what do you think? It can add strategy, and planning.

It would be nice if we could create our own customised battles. For instance, to be able to select our ship type, nation, number/type of opponents, and perhaps weather as well. Then there would be unlimited options to test ships and practice.

Not what I thought it was going to be, at all. Completely mislead by the Steam page. Rating: 2/10 -Missions constantly crash to desktop, the first 5 and last 5 worked fine, everything in between had quite a few problems and no reason stating why. -The ship building is nothing like it was shown on the Steam page. -On the Steam page it stated: [Below] Now the game went from $25 to $35 despite what it stated on the Steam page. Fantastic. -The graphics are mediocre, extracted directly from a 2002 PS2 game. -Buggy, laggy, optimized, completely unplayable for the most part. -Demanded a refund and got no message pack for 19 days now, terrible customer support can't even shoot me an email even though both on the phone and in live chat they said they would. Going to give Paypal a call and demand my money back, this is a complete rip-off for $50. What an absolute scam. -Not to mention the forums are completely censored, everything has to be "approved". Can't even post freely so how am I supposed to give "feedback" when anything not supporting the devs is censored.

Notice the speed. No Mods and No Knowledge used, ship is Teak/White Oak. More stats: 30° upwind: 5knts 90° 10.2 knts 50-55° downwind: 13.4 knts 45° downwind: 13.2 knts 30° downwind: 11.9 knts When you sail 13.4 knts and start turning, you are almost right away at 11 knts and Diana gets no speed while turning. @admin so the port stats or the battle speed is wrong.

@admin I would love to hear your thoughts on this as well as all the other players as I have had a number of players agree on these changes. These are mainly Economic "Start-up" changes that I think would greatly enhance new player game play without the daunting task of feeling like they can't do anything and can't progress. So right now I am hearing the difficulty for some players to make money, and I am also hearing (myself included) of some players making a plan and then able to use trading goods to make fast, quick profits. The bigger problem is that some goods are gone, some have already overwhelmed the capital consumption markets, but that is a different thread. This thread is about the difficulty of starting up AND feedback to make some ships easier to make, while still keeping the spirit of the Admin's wishes to make 4th rates and lineships difficult and expensive to produce. 1. I think generally across the board all buildings "extraction" costs should go down. What I mean is the gold cost to extract the resources should be lowered. While I understand the admins don't want us printing money via resources, it currently prohibits pretty much everyone in starting well...anything. If I had to pick a number to lower everything, I would say all building resource extraction costs should be lowered by 15-25%. I should make it CLEAR that IF @admin you feel these are good changes, this needs to happen first before anything else. 2. I believe 6th rates should be cheaper to produce. I know they are already cheap but I feel 7th AND 6th rates should be the "dirt cheap" and easy to replace. Cannons I think are fine on them and don't cost too much. losing a 6th rate is lost money BUT it shouldn't hurt the bank, it should have the player need to take just a little amount of time to replace. the player shouldn't feel like he's back to square one losing any of these ships. 3. I believe the lighter 5th rates should be slightly less expensive to produce, mainly the cerberus, surprise, and reno. I think they are in a good position, I just feel a slight material reduction is needed. I believe the 1st point of cheaper resources extracting from buildings should help with this though. 4. mid to high end 5th rates are in a good position, no change is needed. 5. 4th rates are in a good position I think, maybe slightly more expensive but ONLY if you make resource extraction cheaper. 6. the Admin wants lineships to cost in the millions, I think that's fine. If resource extraction becomes cheaper, then more mats should be required in lineships to compensate. I envision a Cost CURVE instead of a linear increase. Numbers can be discussed as I certainly don't have the right number but I think it's absolutely needed that this "Start-up" econ gets addressed. Please add your feedback. again I want this to be only about start-up econ, whether we should start with some gold or not, and general resource and crafting issues.

I saw the FB ad this morning at 7:30am. I bought the game fifteen minutes later and went to work. I came home at lunch and played thirty minutes of Shiloh after it downloaded via Steam. Just some quick feedback and suggestions since this is in Early Access: - Pathfinding seems linear with no waypoints, or drawing lines of advance as per UGG for the iPad. Maybe I'm missing something since I did not do the tutorial. It seems like an obvious feature that will have to be shored up. - Could use some names of generals for the Corps commanders. - A general reserve system would be great for the larger battles with individual phases. If you are having trouble breaking a position before the mission time ends, perhaps you can draw on a general reserve available for the whole battle... such as a division, artillery, supply, etc. Use of that reserve would place it on the field and it cannot be drawn upon in other sections of the battle. - Topographic contour lines would be useful. Again I did not do the tutorial so they may already be there. - Its difficult to tell if capturing enemy camps actually yields supply. It would be nice if other sources of supply could be from captured troops. I did not that Cleburne (at Shiloh) ran out of ammunition. I charged him and he had a restoration of small supply after he beat off the enemy brigade, so this system may already be in place. - I like the idea of capturing certain markers on the battlefield yields benefits such as supply, or superior observation. I hope the game expounds on this. - Moving infantry by roads should convey faster movement benefits if this is already not built into the engine. - Sound has excellent depth, but I would mind hearing more infantry "clatter." I have mistaken musketry fire for cannon fire because of the oddly deep musketry sound. The sound of charging doesn't sound terribly climactic or chaotic. Where's the warbling "halloo!" of the rebel yell? - Expansion packs, expansion packs. I'll buy them all if they give me campaigns in Missouri, New Mexico, the Teche... - Just cosmetic, but I'd rather see deaths say "casualties." - MORE fog of war!! Intense musketry created lots of smoke to the point where all a regiment can really see is the enemy in front at best, and sometimes none at all except the muzzle flashes of the opposing side. So if a unit is engaged in fire, they should have limited visibility of any other opponents working their flanks or held in reserve behind the firing line. I tend to think of the Wargame series (Red Dragon) where fog of war and recon make all the difference in that game. There you can simulate "command push" to gain decisive breakthrough pressure on the enemy. This would be accomplished by having reserves "hidden" by the FOW behind the frontline regiments. Or you can "recon pull" to expose and exploit weak points in the enemy line by cavalry and skirmishers. - An option to hide or "estimate" the number of enemy troops in a regiment. Again, more fog of war. - Order delays. Again more fog of war. The scourge of war system utilizes this to great effect. I can give more feedback later as I get into the campaign.

Hi guys, i want to know if there's someone who plays the game on a GeForce 920M 2GB for laptop, i have a Core I5 5200U 2,70Ghz, 8GB of RAM, and a Geforce 920M, using a Windows 10 64 bit. i want to know if there's fps drops during big fleets battles using this computer, if there's anyone who plays on a similar pc, please tell me. Forgive me if there's any mistake with my english, i'm brazilian.

I do not know if this is the right place for me to give you guys some feedback. But just in case it isnt please informk me. But ill type this anyway. So for this id also like to say that i very much like the game but im only gonna touch on some things i think needs to be improved on. First of all i think that trading should reward you with XP, A lot of time goes in sailing to locations and even in logical and realistic worlds you could learn how to become a good trader. So its only logical that a player would be rewarded by trading trough money and XP. Though i understand that that migth not be alrigth, but then make a different XP and leveling system for trading alone so you can grow in it and make trading more rewarding. Second i think that there NEEDS to be a toturial. I know the game is in really early stages. But no one has any clue what to do and why they need to do what they do. I personally am a smart person and it took me 2 hours to understand everything. But i think a small toturial for new players is really welcome. Third is something i get a little frustrated by. The shallow's or sandbanks. And i know these were reall things back then. And i dont mind them exsisting. But then AT LEAST allow us to sea them. See that the water is not so deep here and respond to it. Beceause most of the time i have the feeling its super deep water and i can just sail here at eas but before i know it im stuck by a shallow that i didnt see at a place that wasnt logic to me. Fourth is the faction system. Beceause its very hard to know who your faction is in war with and what the statuses are. You migth need to create a faction screen of all the wars going and the conquests that are in progres. This would help decide where traders are to go and not to go. And fifth, Well this migth be only for me. But i see a lot of trees in water. Or they are floating. Again this is early in the game, but i think you should try and improve on this since it looks iffy tongue-emoticon. Besides that i love your game and im only writing this to help you guys improve on the game so it will be even better. I hope for a respond and ill sea () you on the waters. smile-emoticon Carloguy

I do not know if this is the right place for me to give you guys some feedback. But just in case it isnt please inform me. But ill type this anyway. So for this id also like to say that i very much like the game but im only gonna touch on some things i think needs to be improved on. First of all i think that trading should reward you with XP, A lot of time goes in sailing to locations and even in logical and realistic worlds you could learn how to become a good trader. So its only logical that a player would be rewarded by trading trough money and XP. Though i understand that that migth not be alrigth, but then make a different XP and leveling system for trading alone so you can grow in it and make trading more rewarding. Second i think that there NEEDS to be a toturial. I know the game is in really early stages. But no one has any clue what to do and why they need to do what they do. I personally am a smart person and it took me 2 hours to understand everything. But i think a small toturial for new players is really welcome. Third is something i get a little frustrated by. The shallow's or sandbanks. And i know these were reall things back then. And i dont mind them exsisting. But then AT LEAST allow us to sea them. See that the water is not so deep here and respond to it. Beceause most of the time i have the feeling its super deep water and i can just sail here at eas but before i know it im stuck by a shallow that i didnt see at a place that wasnt logic to me. Fourth is the faction system. Beceause its very hard to know who your faction is in war with and what the statuses are. You migth need to create a faction screen of all the wars going and the conquests that are in progres. This would help decide where traders are to go and not to go. And fifth, Well this migth be only for me. But i see a lot of trees in water. Or they are floating. Again this is early in the game, but i think you should try and improve on this since it looks iffy . Besides that i love your game and im only writing this to help you guys improve on the game so it will be even better. I hope for a respond and ill sea () you on the waters. Carloguy

I purchased this game on advice from a friend on or around July 4 and below I articulate some thoughts and feedback developers and testers may find beneficial (or not). I have run through seven or eight 3-day contests. Posts like these tend to be lengthy and might unintentionally take on a critical tone so let me begin by saying that I am very impressed with the game and this forum community. Thank you very much for making this game. The map especially is beautifully detailed and terrain mechanics appear to be really good. It is a great game. Also let me say that I have read many posts here and I wish to say 'thank you' to the many of you who are veterans of the armed services. ---- Let us discuss artillery first: - Reload time is a confusing mechanic . I am unsure why cannon does not discharge upon reaching 100% reload. If the intent is to be realistic in the sense that battery operators must needs clear to a safe distance before discharging ,then I agree that should be involved, however that action should be rolled into the reload time to reach 100% . The reason I mention this seemingly minor item is because many people appear to not trust whether artillery is discharging . The time it is 'stuck" at 100% before discharge is at best annoying, at worst could be a contributing factor to this confusion. - Line of sight for artillery is not so confusing as I believe some represent it to be. I think it is more a function of operator errors in identifying line of sight modifiers like buildings and terrain. I am impressed with the line of sight in the game. Suggestion for other players: Click on the unit you wish to attack and your arty will find its way. LoS was frustrating initially however after a week and a half I think it is quite good and works well. --- Next, the initial confrontation. - There are many posts about the opening scenario delivering a wide variety of opinions and suggestions. Here is mine: Limit the range in which skirmishers are allowed to operate. It seems skirmishers are hugely OP in this opening scrap. Their ability to camp in the southwest, praying on CSA batteries, seems to imbalance the match right from the start. --- Skirmishers - In fact if possible I would remove skirmishers from the game entirely. Skirmishers are part of an infantry brigade not a unit unto themselves. They should be tethered to a parent unit, whether it be the cavalry regiment or brigade, the infantry regiment or brigade, or their commanding officer. --- \ Breastworks & Rifle pits at the cost of condition % - This suggestion posits that, unlike SMG where regiments would build works on their own, the player has the option to instruct brigades to deploy forward rifle pits and/or earthworks. Today, the game does a fair job of approximately placing units where they were last left on the field. In instances where this occurs overnight, surely some kind of works should have been developed. Make it so that player can execute this as a command at the cost of recovering condition %. Also as the battle rages in daylight, again I believe works are viable, and should be built with a corresponding trade-off in recovering condition %. --- Is the game is too easy? - Now, this forum has many intellectual and experienced people on it which is likely not representative of the broader gaming populous however, the true mark of a good game is that even the best players cannot win every time on the top difficulty. Is that the case here? - To be clear on this point I play random every time so I do not know how many times (or if at all) I have played against the top difficulty. --- Fog of War - Fog of war is a little different from line of sight. It seems I can still "see" brigades outside of my line of sight. When I scout this area with a general, will I find a brigade there? If the answer is 'sometimes' I am fine with the mechanic the way it is today. if the answer is 'yes', it must needs be changed. --- Start the battle elsewhere - Provide an option not just for one-off skirmishes, but entire campaigns that start elsewhere on the battlefield. Is this possible? Would it reduce AI predictability? --- Commanders - I got used to the difficulty in identifying Corps commanders and solved for it by assigning them as a group number. However I think it should be easier to identify them by using a mechanic similar to that one witnesses when a unit is losing morale and condition (begins to flash). Have 'em flash a different color or something, and/or have it go from left to right instead of right to left, or whatever. Many good suggestions on the forum. --- Cavalry - Many instances where I have encountered new enemy cavalry or provided some of my own. I am not sure what to say about these units. It looks like a disorganized mess of Dorthraki. Just too many horses! --- Topography - I think it is very close. More shadowing / brightness might help better distinguish low ground from high; adding more elevation figures will certainly help. --- That's all for now again thank you developers and forum community for the opportunity for early access to the game and the opportunity to learn from and interact with you. I look forward to multiplayer when I destroy you all.

Hi all, the early access stage of the game already is lots of fun. It's streamlined yet game-play and capable AI are enjoyable while giving you a feeling of authenticity. I dare say with this combination of features the game is rather unique. As a feedback there are two things I noticed about which I'm not sure weather they have been stated here already: On the map some buildings are "bending" when the camera is moved, apparently to simulate a 3D effect. But the buildings are bending in the direction of the camera position instead of bending away from it. This feels a bit odd and seems to be the opposite from reality. Is this just my impression? Sometimes it's very difficult to easily identify peer units or generals on the field, especially in intense gaming moments. If this is not already on the known issue list under OOB, it would be a nice addition to be able to identify peers and generals in an easy way. When coming from other games like Scourge of War such a feature is sorely missed.