Search the Community

Why must the game end after 60 years of gameplay, really really annoying. Cant see any reason for it?

Now that the first beta version of 1.09 is out I decided to take a look at the game again after mostly ignoring it for a couple of months. Although the game becomes ever more feature rich I believe that some aspects of it are still very shallow and one of the most shallow features imo is task force creation, their purpose and management. IMO the biggest question that would be great for the designers to answer: what is the objective/purpose of task forces in UAD? Currently, task forces are nothing more than a group/assembly of ships that have (in most cases) departed from a single naval base and sent to a sea region on the map. There, these "task forces" sit around and generate missions within that sea region. These auto-generated missions can be somewhat scewed by the way the task force is comprised and the abilities/features of the ships within the task force. For example, a task force with fast ships that support a long range have a benefit of triggering more favourable missions. Furthermore, with the introduction of the recon system, having high value recon ships (e.g. fast, small/stealthy ships) also impacts the ability of a task force to trigger more favourable engagements. Also, task forces can be given a mission, which is currently (1.09) limited to: sea control, protect and invade and according to the in-game help feature a control zone which prevents hostile ships from passing through unchallenged. The task forces will be supplied from your naval bases with ammo and fuel in an abstracted manner by the game so that it removes micromanagement. To me this approach that UAD feels very conflicted/confusing. I can fully understand their design choice from simplifying game design, but task forces are (as of now) a mix of the IRL patrol groups, fleets and task forces. I feel that the current UAD task forces should allow for much more detail in its organisation and objective. To my knowledge the devs are moving towards a more point based system in which the number and type of ships comprising the task force, will be impacted by your techology/research. More advanced tech will give you more points, hence allow you to create more complex/larger task forces. I would not be suprised if admirals (as in game characters) were to lead these formations at some point when implemented. It would be helpful if we were able to also choose a formation for the task force (even a list of preset ones would already be great) so that this helps us and the AI in organising the ships during battle. I hope that my rambling makes sense, please feel free to discuss.

When I make a taskforce and select invade instead of just making the ships more aggressive I would like the game to ask which enemy port I want to attack. Then the taskforce should sail to that port and fight the ships stationed there and any ships in the area. There could also be a modifier for coastal defence/port canons so that the after you beat the defending fleet the attacks success or failure, amount of damage done to port (reduced tonnage), and amount of damage done to attacking taskforce is determined by size of port vs. power of attacking taskforce. If a port is totally destroyed it should become an occupied territory that the host nation cannot use for rest of the war unless they counter attack with their own taskforce and retake the port.

Hi Devs and fellow captains, Earlier today I had my hands leaning over my keyboard in the number pad area. I'm not entirely sure what I pressed but all attempts to replicate the visual effect did not work. Please see the attached screenshot of my game: (Please note, this isn't so much a bug as it is more of a novelty feature, but I'm having trouble getting it to work again). Notice the black lines above and below the screen? These were somehow toggled and it made the ship's details a little blurry as if the screen had FOV and added a lot more glow to my sails. (Note: I was playing in windowed mode, but even then - this has never happened before) This is what my game looks like normally: (no black lines or added cinematic effects) I have tried pressing all of the key commands listed in the options section to no avail. I assumed it was a HD shot (F9) but that didn't work either. The effect lasted in OW and in battles right up until I exited the game, but did not stay after I restarted it (after the server maintenance). It was not an affect of my screen capture technology (as I just use steam) and was not visible on my desktop screen either which rules out the monitor. **Devs: Is this a new 'cinematic' feature you intend to implement? If so it looks great. I'll leave you with the final product of me switching off the HUD: Any thoughts, suggestions or ideas as to what it is? Regards, Andrei

Have been replaying those missions that relies heavily on the use of torpedoes. Noticed one thing. If you hand over the control of your fleet to AI or group sevral ships up as a flotilla it usually works pretty decent for gunnery-focused warships in regards of maneuver and positioning, I'll give it that. That's much less the case for torpedo-focus warship types though, such as TB, DD or CL. They still try to behave as a gunship and rush to the face of the enemy regardless of their current torpedo tube reload status. Also they just sail in small circles near the enemy around themselves after dropping off their torpedo payload, which looks pretty stupid. Is it possible to have an adaptive AI system that, depending on the how important torpedoes are on the current ship type, uses different behavior and methods of approach against enemy fleet? For example, when facing enemy capital ship in a flotilla, if total torpedo weight is above x% of the displacement, after dropping all torpedoes in one broadside, the flagships automatically turns back to the last place of the flotilla(like how flagship behaves after taking substantial damage), and when (control given to AI) all of the ships in the flotilla had their (single broadside) torpedoes dropped, the entire flotilla tries to disengage, wait for torpedo reload, then reengage in the same manner. In my opinion this is a more reasonable manner of behavior for those screen ships which feature torpedo as their main armament.

Is/should this game focus more on fleet tactics or controlling an individual ship? I feel that certain aspects of the game, like micro maneuvering your controlled ship, is too much hands on control if this game tries to be a tactical fleet engagement game. I say this because I saw the developers reply to an earlier post that to avoid getting hit you should micro your manoeuvres. Imo this is something an "admiral" should not be concerned with except for the big fleet manoeuvres. Therefore, I would like to pose the question: what is the game trying to be more? A tactical fleet battle game or controlling single ships?

Hello everyone. As far as I have seen this game has great potential. That you can play with any of the mayor nations is great, but I think that would be great to be able play also with minor nations. Of course there are limitants to do this: only the minor nations with access to the seas would be playable, for understandable reasons. In the naval academy mode I believe would be extremely easy to implement; it would simply another nation to play with/against. Is on the campain where I thik really gets interesting:due to this nations be not as rich, powerful or tecnological advance that any of the mayors, the gameplay of then could be of building smaller fleets, due to a lack of funds, and probably not as advance ships. They could interact with the mayors in a way, perhaps even they could become mayor powers themselves. Of couse this thing could be add later. Overrall I believe it would make a great adition.

Huhu es gibt ja mehrere Linienschiffe von der Victory weis ich das sie glaub das sie die wendigste unter den grossen Pötten ist. Meine Frage ist da ich selber noch kein solches Schiff gefahren bin, wie ist eure Erfahrung damit, welche vor und nachteile haben all die Linienschiffen, was gefällt euch bei den Schiffen besonders gut und was absolut gar nicht. Ich bin dankbar für jede lehrreiche Antwort oder Meinung. Mfg. Sayuri

How bout some consistency from our DEVS @admin you have said before that storm battles were taken out of the game because they were a pain in the butt to fight in. Why then do we have storms in the open world? You contradict yourself. solution: either put storms battles back in the game. (fun and engaging content) or take the storms out of the world. (make the game/open world even more bland.)

Plenty of games have this TIPS as one liners in the loading screens. Would be nice to see them in game also. Given it is just an idea we all can build into it, no ? And see where it leads. So let's do very concise one liners that can also be nice tips for newcomers and vets alike, no matter how basic they are. I will post a few examples: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ "You can hide all the chat windows, while sailing, by pressing the T key" --- "Reinforcement Zones allow to call AI support when attacked by enemies. Not when they invade your battles." --- "Reinforcement AI are support for the players. They are not replacements of the players." _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 'Trade ships can enter enemy ports' --- 'The wind will periodically change direction, in battle.' --- 'A battle stays open for 3 minutes if it is out of the reinforcement zone. Beware any player can join within this period. ' --- 'Expect sailing in a sailing game' --- Double tapping a rudder order ( A and D keys ) will hold it hard over until cancelled. ---

Do we have, ingame, GameLabs employees pretending to be players? What exacly its their purpouse? I strongly belive that we have!

@adminSimple sound signals is all we need. Realistic way to notify Captains of their surroundings. New Day - 2 Bell rings Enemy player is attacking - Drums (Call to Arms) You are attacking - Men shouting and whistling, drums and swords clanking. Port Spotted - Long bosun's whistle Land Spotted - Land Ho! with a bosun's whistle sound. (Disabled at night) Enemy Player Spotted - Sail Ho! with a bosun's whistle sound. (Disabled at Night) Leaving Safe Zone - Trumpet sound + Arms clanking and stomping sound. Entering Safe Zone - Harp instrument sound. Storm - 3 bell rings + 3 bell rings, repeated one more time after 1 minute (3+3+3) if you are entering the storm. *'Enemy spotted' does not indicate where the player is. All it does is just triggers spotting radius for the sound. Player then must be on alert and search for that player. One sound for multiple targets. *'Land Ho!' - charged only when there is no land in sight for over 1 minute in 360 radius. Once land is visible on the horizon it will get triggered. *'Port spotted' sound - only triggered when port name appears. A large invisible circle reaching out to the end of view distance on the horizon is a main sound trigger, but during storms such circle must be smaller. All spotting sounds are disabled during the night.

Everyone should be able to play on its own since he paid for this game (it's not a free to play kind of, remember?). The prices of the in-game items are insanely high and require a ton of grind to acquire. Also, you have to fix the ships' durability because it's no fun to try HOURS AND HOURS to buy or craft one and then lose it in a matter of minutes.

On the 26 April 2016 I wrote the following: 'At the level of Capitaine de Corvette on a Cerberus the game is wonderful at the moment both as a team game (using ts3) and as a me vs the AI game.' At this time, the number of players was in excess of 1,500. This is about where--give or take a month or two--the game was a playable plaeasure. This is the game for which I paid €36.99 and so many others did, too. Are we to be abandoned? For what reasons? Is it ethical? Could we go back to the past and forget everything that has destroyed the game and made it 'fun' for only about fifty players? Continuing with a path that is wrong won't get you any prizes. Please, consider.

Gentlemen, I consider myself to be better than average at the game. On Brigadier General difficulty I have played through the Union campaign without losing a single battle. On the Confederate side, I've played as far as Chancellorsville (haven't had time to play further) and not lost a battle there. So I decided I wanted to try Major General difficulty. Now, I cannot beat the very first mission! Despite inflicting considerably more casualties, I was not able to take Phillipi the first attempt and in the second attempt, while I got troops across the river I was annihilated shortly thereafter. Being outnumbered initially is bad enough, but there are reinforcements that show up (that I don't recall arriving on BG level), to say nothing of trying to withstand the counter attack in phase 2 if I ever made it that far. What am I doing wrong? My normal strategy is to put a skirmisher on the heights as soon as the battle begins while taking my brigade and other skirmisher into the woods on the right to drive those rebels away. Once the reinforcements show up I would swing around to cut off the retreat of the rebel skirmishers on the heights, then swing north to surround and capture the rebel brigade holding the town closest to my troops. Then, with infantry and artillery wear down the enemy forces holding the bridges with my troops in cover and once they run rush across the bridges to drive the rebels out of Philippi proper. None of that works now. The initial rebel skirmishers run as soon as my other troops show up, and once a volley or two is fired at the rebels in the closer town they too retreat. Once I was finally able to soften up the rebels holding the bridges, just as I cross (and with my brigades now at like 1/2 strength, despite using cover) I am immediately counter attacked by fresh rebel brigades. Here is my final screenshot: https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/854972554290936591/ED592132D233E229F6117CA798264FABDBD2B84A/ Any advice? Like I said, I thought I was pretty good, but I now know how McClellan felt when he thought he was up against 200,000 Confederates.

First off, I want to say to Nick and his team what an amazing job they have done and how magnificent this game is. When I was young I played Robert E. Lee: Civil War General and Civil War Generals 2 and found in many ways this game is a spiritual successor, but superior in almost every meaningful way. Now that the game has been released, I wanted to make some suggestions for what I think would be improvements - some quality of life, some additional features, and some to set the groundwork for more replayability. When beginning your game, after making the choices to define your starting stats, have a final choice after which side where you choose your portrait from a selection. I really don't like being forced into the same portrait each side, each time. Please allow us to change it. Provide some mechanism for division commanders to be visible on the battlefield. I am not talking about another headquarters unit, because that will lead to more micromanagement in later battles, but perhaps something akin to what CWG and CWG2 did with a gold star on the brigade that had the division commander attached. Putting another star on the brigades in UG:CW is not the answer because it will confuse with veterancy stars, but a flag or a banner would work, and clicking on that unit would give the division commander in addition to the brigade commander. It would also be good for that brigade to almost act like a mini-HQ unit and give a small bonus to nearby brigades that are only of the same division. This suggestion also relates with item 6 below. Greater flexibility in custom missions. Allow custom placement of troops before the battle to increase the "what if" factor, allow custom generals to be added (custom names, etc). This is a hard one, I think: the maps you have are beautiful and due to being hand drawn were no doubt labor intensive. However, creating and releasing some maps for alternate areas which were only the site of small battles, or where a battle might have happened but didn't, etc to allow for use a more custom missions. Special traits that apply to historical generals. Don't get me wrong, I like having the ability to use the prestige purchasing to have generals like Reynolds, Hancock, Sedgewick, etc in my army but apart from the historical value they are no different than a general you can buy from the barracks and to be honest, by mid game I am using my prestige for resources and even then only sparingly, to keep it up for the morale bonus. There should be a benefit to employing historical generals - especially the good ones - such as custom traits that make their use very desirable. The ability to rename divisions. While the Union relied on numbered divisions at least in part, the Confederacy named their divisions the same way brigades tend to be, by naming them after the commander. So, I think on the battlefield map it would be a nice touch to have a show the division name under the brigade name. So, under "Armistead" it might say "Pickett's Division". Thank you!

Hello, i am a member from the German Clan DKF on PvP EU Vereinigde Provincien. Our Clan-Leader/Creator is offline since 26 days because he is in Hospital and none of the left Members can contact him. As most players stopped playing the game we also dont have any active officer and are stuck in rebuilding the Clan. We dont know when or if our Clan-Leader comes back to the game. Is it possible for you to promote me or Horrido28 from DKF to the Clan-Leader until he comes back? Actually we cant build the warehouse, cant invite players (only if we get one of the former officers to an invite,which is also difficult) and are struggeling with keeping players in the clan. regards Enemy

Every time I get alongside a ship and X to salvage I keep getting interrupted. The ships hold contents show briefly and then disappear. Sometimes after repeated attempts I may manage to salvage some items. Sometimes not. I will try and F11 but its not easy because it always happens in a battle situation.

Why do the forts not shoot in port battles to fully cover cap circles? In most port battles the circles are hardly covered, why is this the case? It does not make sense that the cap circles are outside of the forts' defensive zone of control. You build forts to defend important things. not the fish in the sea.

Hello, after some time i came back to NA. Getting back into the game i found the Fleet-System really complicated focused on the Management of it. Is it possible to have an combined Hold for all of your ships? Actually you can only acces the one from the main ship. my situation was or is (to explain it) . After the wipe no money but severall ships without guns so its basic cutter action. Basic ships cant be sent to the fleet so if i try to make money with trading i can put unarmed regular ships to the fleet for my trader or use BC with trader in the fleet. in the harbour everything is ok but on open water you have no access to your fleets ship hold. even i had a trader i couldnt pick up material from a shipwreck and had no outpost there due to the distance to my countrys ports. when you board npc traders or get materials from sealed bottles you often cant take it with you due to the lack of hold from your main ship while having an empty trader-ship in your fleet. so why not combine the hold of your fleet? those ships are with you and in battle you can give them orders so why not in other situations? also you only can split the fleet in an outpost which is ok but you should be able to pick or switch your main ship on open water when your hold is not combined . maybe with yawl you can buy or as a perk for your ship. at least this would alllow you to use ships of your fleet for specific missions or situations. hopefully i could explain my point of view. open for discussion. regards

This game is getting better and better with every patch but i do find a few things really annoying. The first being the time limit and the required 20 minutes holding of an objective to have it captured. I just rage quited the battle of Cold Harbour when i playing as the Confedarates lost the entire battle because i didn't cap the objetive in time i.e. the timer ended LITERALLY A SINGLE MINUTE before i "captured" the little forest on the top of the map during the left flank phase, and this was caused by a 2800 strong Union brigade that charged my ranks and i was unable to rout them before they managed to occupy the point again (i did have 2 brigades defending it but i was outnumbered). There should always be a option to prolong a battle for an extra 30 minutes because i don't think that in real life there was a single instance where generals would retreat their forces at exactly 14:00 or 15:00 if there was a chance for a huge breakthrough or victory. Reputation is a feature i really do like, it rewards you for winning battles by increasing your troops morale and giving you extra manpower or guns if they are urgently needed but i don't see why it is caped at all. The "logic" behind this implies that you can win every single minor and major engagment of the Civil War killing hundreds of thousand of enemies and destroying hundreds of guns but if you loose 2 battles like Chicamauga and Cold Harbour you lost the entire war. There shouldn't be a reputation cap but the morale bonus can stay at +15 so that it doesn't get overpowered. Double standards i also find really annoying, but i dont know how prominent they are because i only noticed it once. Because i play two campaings the main one being with the Confederates and my "side" one with the Union, i play the battle of Chicamauga as the Confedarates first and managed to control all objective 1h before the timer ran out, and the game normally proceded to the next phase. So when i replayed the battle with the Union i didn't want to waste my elite 1 Division of the First Corps defending the two river passages on the left of the first phase. Resulting in the Confederates capturing them and i instantly lost that battle. There shouldn't be any double standards because it gives the AI an unfair advantage.

Ahoy! fellow captains ! Here are a few propositions for Exploration : First of all, a new XP with new progression called "explorer XP" to get new rank or "explorer level" like the current level and grade but for exploration. - New exploration mission from admiralty according to player explorer level - Prepare food supply depending exploration duration (there is a minimum required according to the rank of the mission). - Hire specific crew (scientist, doctor and cook) (there is a minimum required according to the rank of the mission). - Expedition will be more easy and profitable if you create a group with different ship (trader ship to bringing back ressources and holding food + combat ship for protection, shallow ship for shallow area) - The expedition is shared with the members of the group even if they don't have the required explorer level. They can't take a big exploration from admiralty but they can help a good explorer. - Sails to mission point on map, (like current mission but with new symbol). - Travel map is loaded instead of loading screen for more immersion. (animated dotted line) - Player enter in instanciate zone, the map is partially hidden at the biginning and will be discovered during your navigation (fog of war). - Player can stay in this instanciate zone as long as he has food supply on board. Food decrease during the exploration. (The food is shared with group member) - During his exploration, player can found some area (town, reef, ark, waterfall, lighthouse, etc. on the coast or on river). (there is a circle surrounding this point of interest) - He can stay in this circle during some seconds (circle loading) to trigger a discovery. - Discovery is like a loot after a fight. There are diffents discovery type and it's partially random. - Historical artefact (can be sold for lot of gold) - Rare material (for crafter) - Pets (collection card, can be sold) - AI Pirates can attack you during your expedition (so you probably need a protection ship, trader ship alone is risky) - Exploration is ending when player has no more food on board or if he decides to leave the instanciate zone or if pirate beat him) - He gain explorer XP and gold according to its discoveries, the purcentage of map discovered, and fight won. To sum up : - New XP with new progression, explorer levels. Sailing through the carribean gives explorer XP instead of normal XP - Exploration mission need preparation (food, crew, and group) - Instanciate map can be made by procedural generation or not. - New environment with new fauna and flora (ice, sand, cliff, jungle) and building. Caribbean is beautiful but new lands will be great and contemplative for PVE player. - New group gameplay (some can fight and protect his friend, other can explore reef and store discoveries, and another with shallow ship can explore inaccessible zone) - New items : - Historical artefact (can be sold for lot of gold) - Pet collection with common, uncommun and rare animals to add a collection dimension (no balance needed, pvp is not impacted) - Rare material could be found (trader ship required to bring back all the materials) This material can be used by crafter to craft exceptionnal ship (maybe for 1st, 2nd and 3th rates ships to reduce their number and make them more rare and exceptional) or new customization stuff (paint, stern, figurehead) We can imagine exploration event with big national fleet required. As soon as a national exploration fleet enter in the exploration instance. The instance is closed for other nation. Exploration instance are rare and discovery can be extremely interesting. Exploration event could give a national bonus for a period ? (not sure ;)) Moreover, other nation can create an interception fleet to fight returning expedition. It could be a new PVP area with lot of interaction, lot of different ships not like Port battle. If you have idea for the explorer title/grade/rank ! I'm waiting your feedback !

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster etc etc Just played the First day of the Battle of Chancellorsville as the CSA and secured all objectives on Day 1. As the timer for the day ran out the fight continued as the contested timer ran down for Chancellor's Farm. Immediately the timer hit zero the dreaded notification popped up: "Advancing to the Next Day." I understood from the recent patch notes that the bug that prevented a victory here on Day 1 had been fixed. This appears not to be the case. Has anybody else had this problem? Thanks. (NB Devs I absolutely adore this game, I have put a few (hundered) hours into it since Tim Stone at RPS brought it to my attention. Thankyou.)

I suggested this in a different thread and section and it was recommended by some that I bring it here: A port reset should happen on a time schedule almost like a sports season. If the Devs implement an admiralty points system, all admiralty points earned by a nation during a "season" could then be totaled to determine the season's "winner". Everything a player does that is productive should earn at least some of those points. That way traders, crafters, port battlers, PVE-ers, and PVP-ers will all have some role to play in a nation's victory or defeat. Individual prizes could be awarded to stand out players. Infractions and national players who are convicted in tribunal could result in a loss of some admiralty points as well.

Am I missing an obvious clock on my screen? How does one tell the server time? Is it Zulu GMT? I'm having trouble figuring out how late I have to stay up to get in on a PVP.