Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/20/2021 in all areas

  1. So, right now, barbettes are a component of their own. You place them, and then a turret on them. Simple enought, right? But there are problems with the currente system: 1 - The AI is constantly using wrongly sized barbettes for smaller or bigger turrets for no reason 2 - The barbettes also often dont match similar sized turrets, being a little too thin or too thick for the turret. This has been suggested a while ago, but one potential solution would be to have an option (like a key press) when placing the turret that toggles bettween no (exposed) barbette, superfiring barb
    15 points
  2. I think there are several quality-of-life changes and fixable issues that would make battles more fun. I've seen many suggested. Here's my list. Divisions, AI, and Smoke The player should be able to choose division arrangements and formations before the start of battle. It is irritating when ships are spawned in nonsensical places and weird groups. Damaged ships should not loop to rejoin at the rear of the division. This often leads to chaos and wastes time, requiring the player to remove them from the division. Perhaps they could simply move a bit to the side and slow down fo
    14 points
  3. Admirals, This is not an April's fool joke. We just deployed a new update which improves several features and fixes issues that you requested. Check the info. Restart your game client to start playing! *HotFix v84* (1/4/2021) Optimization in Auto-Design code: Fixed issues that could cause either problematic designs or too much delay while building an AI fleet. “Too many threads” error and game freeze during battle loading should now be completely fixed. Fixed a bug that could cause AI to place guns at fully obstructed sections (e.g. in early battleship’s middle sections
    14 points
  4. I agree, while l don't mind the concept itself if the AI has nothing to choose from or not many good designs to pick and therefore has to make something that is fine in of itself. Regardless i would prefer a system where the player and devs, can make and submit Ship designs and components ranging from misc like fencing, searchlights, crates etc, too casemates (both the hatches and the guns themselves), turrets, guns, hulls, towers, funnels, shafts etc. That way not only do you get the devs, who can just clap out designs quicker as they don't need to fiddle with the AI to make sure it is c
    7 points
  5. This post was so bad, that it brought me out of retirement from using this forum just to say. OP you are either too young or stupid to be on the internet or own a computer. I absolutely can not stand spoiled brats who complain about things they dont understand. Ugh.
    6 points
  6. Great feedback, im sure this will help the devs massively, with your well thought-out and studied criticism, im sure the devs can make the game that much better. Was wondering when threads like these would start popping up.
    6 points
  7. So, to go short, there are, besides many others, 2 problems with the current gun system: 1 Barrel and turret proportions are frequently inconsistent and unrealistic 2 It only allows for most common callibers. Uncommon callibers like 12,6 inch are not available. But as I chatted with @Aphelionmarauder on his UAD server LEND he suggested an idea. What about a slider (or armor options like thing) that allows for custom gun calliber? The system would work like this (also the foundations for a gun designer) Instead of using preset models, the game would automatically ge
    6 points
  8. Hardly surprising given the delineation between 'heavy' and 'light' is solely based on armament and not a reflection of armour, which I know you know but I suppose some might not (although I wonder if that's true on this forum). It's interesting to note that the captain of USS South Dakota made a point in his official report on the combat in which she had her superstructure shot up that the presence and use of the armoured conning tower was vital to the preservation of the bridge/command crew. This was at a time the RN decided to ditch theirs on the grounds their crews didn't use them yet
    6 points
  9. Uh, yeah. That's literally how it works, dude. And how it works historically. The sheer amount of kinetic energy transferred by a 1.5t 15" armour-piercing shell smashing into your ship, even if it doesn't physically penetrate your armour, is still more than enough to knock off your propellers, cave in your hull plating causing rapid flooding, knock your shafts out of alignment with their turbines, knock your shafts clean off their bearings, jam your turret mechanisms, etc. There's a whole host of things that can go wrong. Here's a picture of a 13.5" hit on the German battle
    5 points
  10. Waiting for Core Alpha 1/Alpha 12.
    5 points
  11. Devs just need to forget numbers tweaking for a while and focus on implementing the mechanics. Build up everything the game is meant to have Then tweak it as necessary. Spending worktime on attempts to please ones crying about small things is counterproductive at this stage. Yet this probably will lead to decline in interest and increased disappointment... Well, shouldn't put this tech demo to public access this early i guess. Nothing much to say otherwise. I just hope you will eventually build this up to be something decent, not just cancel the project.
    5 points
  12. Another positive value to procedural generation is that the enemy will build ships appropriate to its research level and budget in the campaign. So, if a nation has Mark 3 12in guns, coal fuel, reinforced bulkheads 1, geared turbines, etc. it can combine these into a design. Player-designed ships would be nice too, but it would be harder to match them to campaign.
    5 points
  13. I really like this new update. Just look at this funny looking tanker
    5 points
  14. here's a bit of an interesting alternate history scenario that came to my head: Search and Destroy It is 1942. following the decisive victory of the allies at midway, the Japanese have requested reinforcements from the Germans in the form of a group of captured French ships that will be used as stopgaps until they can construct new ships. Allied command has asked us to form a task force to intercept these reinforcements before they can be used in any serious capacity. At the center of this task force will be either the aging super-dreadnought Guofan, which will be refitted to suit yo
    5 points
  15. All offsets can be accounted for in fire control system, as all guns are static in relation to other parts of the system. There should be no such thing as separate fire control for separate turrets. That's all.
    4 points
  16. No you are correct and has been brought up before. The difference is no greater than fore and aft guns. This goes back to the main advantage HMS Dreadnaught offered, unified main armament.
    4 points
  17. The USN Mk8 "super heavy" 16" AP round had the following: The Mark 21 Base Detonating Fuze (BDF) had a delay of 0.033 seconds. Fuze activation required a resistance equal to 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor at 0 degrees obliquity or 0.375 inches (1 cm) at 65 degrees obliquity. Source: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php HMS Glorious wasn't sunk by a load of "over pen" 11" rounds. From wiki: Scharnhorst switched her fire to Glorious at 16:32 and scored her first hit six minutes later on her third salvo, at a range of 26,000 yards (24,000 m), when one 28.3-centimet
    4 points
  18. Duplicating hulls is currently causing a serious exception bug and is not advised to use in game as it breaks all sorts of things. Thank you for reporting, we will fix.
    4 points
  19. The formula is: hull weight = maximum displacement * hullWeightRatio * (100% + sum of hull weight modifiers) hullWeightRatio is a number depending on the base hull. Note that different nations usually have different hulls at the same tech level. Hull weight modifiers come from components and techs, with the former generally increasing hull weight and the latter decreasing it. Since these two are multiplied together, a high hullWeightRatio makes hull weight modifiers more impactful. A total of -35% hull weight is available from Hull Strengthening techs, and -7% from
    4 points
  20. Really massive issue I've been having is guns not firing broadsides properly. After testing it seems that the turrets that I place last are the ones affected. Basically those turrets dont fire on half of the broadside shots. There seems to be a bug in how waiting for other barrels is handled. The ship fires a broadside, reloads, and then one or two turrets (depending on number of turrets, personal experience gives 1 broken turret for 3 turret designs and 2 for 4 turret designs) dont fire on the next broadside, because the first 2 turrets do not fully wait for the last turret/s to
    4 points
  21. I am really looking forward to that as I haven’t been playing much lately. Although I still think the game has all the potential in the world. GO DREADNOUGHT GO!! The Eel is back 🥳
    4 points
  22. Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought is still advertised as a game of "what if". Super BB's and techs are as much needed as old pre-dreadnoughts. If they focused early on moderns, superships, 20 inches and quad guns, we can hope they will now fill the gaps in earlier dates. Especially with the first pass on the campaign "soon". Blaming players is a scapegoat. The devs are sole responsible for their actions, their target audience and advertising. It's also their fault if we keep asking for better armor/penetration, better ship designer and all they deliver is bandaids with tweaks we should see on
    4 points
  23. And who is to blame for that but players who kept bragging devs to add some more fantasy superships and superguns they saw in some MMO game with the ships? And now they keep on bragging that they "feel" these superguns and superhulls are not like in their expectations. I'm pretty sure devs will burn more time and energy to please them. That being said, I also blame Nick for yielding to such demands instead on actually focusing on realism and historicall hulls, mechanics and guns. We have enough ship arcades already! I have also supported this project because of it's promised focus on (battle)
    4 points
  24. if the april fools update ever comes. pls gib Matsushima with hour long reload ❤️
    4 points
  25. Complete randomness in ship design is most definitely not needed for "replayability", IMO. Like, for the first batch of BB/BC, the Royal Navy goes the High Seas Fleet approach with an emphasis on armor an compartmentalization at the cost of gun caliber, speed and range. Then Jackie Fisher takes the helm and goes all out on "speed is armor" and build very fast, heavily armed but lightly armored BB and BC. After that, a more balanced approach is settled on and ships that are somewhat in-between are build. I guess what I'm saying is this: Have libraries with ships that adhere to differe
    4 points
  26. Well, as we don't have aviation, and treaties, and economical problems of real history, all that stuff that limited the growth of navies, I do think huge fantasy monster ships not just can, but must be added and also available in campaign. I just also want to see ironclads, actual dreadnoughts, non-battleship vessels, basically everything other than superbattleships, that was mostly neglected in months. Or (joke warning!) rename the game to "Ultimate Admiral: Yamatos!"
    4 points
  27. The new update offers more freedom in ship design and many new ships. Read everything about it in our blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/alpha-11-arrived Your feedback will be much appreciated! *HotFix v82* (10/3/2021) Japanese late tech 4/5-inch guns of large capital ships got their proper model (for making Yamato looking secondaries). Various repairs in Auto-Design. (Addressing some potential overlapping issues between guns and superstructure). Fixed bug that could cause AI to build ships with underwater guns or player to crea
    3 points
  28. Sounds good to me. Just to add, you could adjust the height of the barbette by using crtl + mouse wheel. Would go nicely with this idea.
    3 points
  29. I'll add to that, we still have half the game missing entirely, and major part of the other half being placeholders. It's too early to "balance" anything.
    3 points
  30. Well what can I say my man, most of the people who payed 50 dollars for this pre order are historical or naval enthusiasts, who care more for realism than "fun or engagement". For them (and for me), realism *is* fun and engagement.
    3 points
  31. Well you can't calculate physics in unity, only fake it so rng, co-ordinates and various other calculations are needed to fake the simulation, since you would need a supercomputer to perform real-physical calculations in real-time. All things are either simulated via collision models and rng with some visuals or just numbers only. The game just uses decals to give the impression of a shell going into the ship or making some kind of impact, trying to make this game into simulator is already out of the question especially without a more advanced and static game engine (which unity isn't btw
    3 points
  32. The game has huge issues, but I have serious doubts that not messing with probability to make the player feel better is one of them. As Madham notes, the issue is more likely communicating info better and setting reasonable expectations for a game that covers a huge time period during which there were monumental changes in gunnery.
    3 points
  33. Oh please no, no combined "towers". We need rather opposite, break parts down to the basic single function elements and simply allow us to combine them in whatever configuration we want. More flexibility, not less.
    3 points
  34. I have, since alpha 1 really. Turrets, don't always fire a full salvo even when all turrets have excellent firing angles and are engaging the same ships for more than 5+ mins. At somepoint we could have different firing modes as that should help us and the game lock into that mode of firing, so it should be ranging shots with the turret thats closest the enemy ship. Then whatever type of firing mode the play/AI has chosen to use, until objectives are complete, ships are dead and/or ammo has ran out.
    3 points
  35. Been a bit, dead in here. Ill post a link to miss hitachi while also posting images for those who can't or wont go onto sketchfab. Enjoy! I mostly post on discord as it easier i don't have to go through the tedious process of uploading images one-by-one to a third party website. https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/ijn-hitachi-super-battleship-3b8f070720074ba5ba5dd6d1d5c5e066 Enjoy! 'w'
    3 points
  36. Looks like there were supposed to be submarines for April 1st...or Space Battleship Yamato, lol
    3 points
  37. I really would love to see the real world data/experience on which these decisions are made. What's the obsession with making SMALLER guns better a better? While we're at it, much of the "over-pen" is, frankly, largely bullshit. The ONLY things that ought to matter are: 1. The effective force encountered by the shell as it strikes various things 2. The sensitivity of the fuse compared with the value in 1 i.e. if the fuse requires resistance equivalent to striking 2" of armour at 90 degrees, did the value in one meet this threshold? 3. Time delay of the fuse 4. Str
    3 points
  38. This is something that will be fixed in a next update, among other component inconsistencies.
    3 points
  39. Will there be any april fool's jokes?
    3 points
  40. @Nick Thomadis We're looking for an ironclad guarantee!
    3 points
  41. Let's dive right in: the current system of how artillery - arguably the most important factor in the design, construction, and production of the modern battleship from inception to conclusion - works, sucks. As many people have already noted: - Shell weights are considerably off reasonable spec, let alone historical. - Gun ranges, a pet peeve, are considerably limited for all but the largest calibres. While these are just a few examples - albeit well-known - the inability to choose certain real-life influencing factors considerably limits not only our capacity to create historic
    3 points
  42. 'First Casemates: CSS Virginia' mission should be scrapped or moved higher up the list because as one of the first missions it’s quite hard and can be quite long. Beginners shouldn’t play harder/long missions right of the bat, it could be discouraging. That mission should move way up the list.
    3 points
  43. Getting really Cruiser Matsushima up in here.
    3 points
  44. here's a cool scenario that I thought of that has a lot of different ship options: (WARNING: this is a full fleet engagement, lots of ships, not suitable for lower-end PCs) Counterstrike It is 1946. With the fall of Germany and Japan in the war, the United States and the Soviet Union were left as the dominant superpowers in the postwar world. Soon after, the uneasy alliance fell apart, and both nations prepare for the inevitable clash. Congress has been considering proposals for several next-generation warships. However, they only have the funds to construct one of these designs. The
    3 points
  45. Hello everyone. I know there is an open community scenarios topic but I had a lot of time into this and would be happy to have your feedback directly. Since I don't have much of imagination and found myself wanting to play this game more I decided to searce in Wikipedia for naval battles list and came up with 50 scenarios based on some of them, the ones that looked for me as worth the time or at least doable in this game limit. I couldn't make them realistic or accurate(game limits) but I did digged in all of them and the information that is relevant as input for this gam
    3 points
  46. Japan 51 cm/45 (20.1") "A" Type 98 (?) - NavWeaps The bursting charge of the 20 inch HE shell intended for the A-150 'Super Yamato' would have been 84kg. Not... hundreds of kg. There are actual data and formulae on how much armor is required to defeat an HE shell. Okun Resource - Miscellaneous Naval-Armor-Related Formulae - NavWeaps This formula suggests that a 20 inch nose-fused HE shell could, at most, assuming a point blank impact at 90 degrees at 2300 fps (basically muzzle velocity), blow a 20 inch hole in a 6.8 inch plate of STS homogeneous armor, and that a 8.16 inch
    3 points
  47. Hello, Thanks for the reply. I tried waiting, and it works after about 7 minutes if I don't touch anything. I don't know why only this mission has this problem (so far). Besides this and some AI issues, I'm enjoying the game a lot, thank you. Can't wait for the rest of it.
    2 points
  48. I hope we get this years April fools 'w'
    2 points
  49. Good modern games allow you to set the campaign criteria, all allowances, reloads, limitations and realism level, etc. This enables replayability too, to play the game at multiple levels and in turn giving the game longevity. It’s been posted many times like easy/difficult modes etc. And that ‘accommodation’ nearly always satisfies steam reviews too. Lets see if Dev’s have listen (or already have included such things) when they drop the campaign.
    2 points
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...