Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/14/2020 in all areas

  1. 24 points
    Admirals, We would like to share with you the plans on the Steam release for UA: Dreadnoughts. Game launch The game will launch in Steam Early Access after Steam Summer Sale. Valve does not recommend launching during the Summer sale and we had to move the date from mid-summer to end July August. Estimated date 10th of August, the date depends on the Valve’s final approval of the store. But we are trying to push for an earlier date. Price for Early Access Edition – 35 USD (with Steam regional pricing differences). Steam keys for Limited and Standard edition buyers We are requesting keys from valve next week and will send them using the email you used to purchase the game through Xsolla. We will add an update to the forum, game launcher and Steam page when the keys will be sent out. The keys we are sending will allow you to play the game once it launches on Steam (on release date). We tried to get the keys with the ability to access the game earlier than launch date, but unfortunately Valve no longer allows developers to let access to the game before launch due to abuse by some developers. Xsolla availability Once we start sending out Steam keys to all editions, the Xsolla store will close. Game will be available to buy again when it launches on Steam Early Access. Campaign We estimate that we need at least 5-6 months to create the first playable version of Campaign. This time might change. Despite the unexpected difficulties that the pandemic caused in the world, affecting the development of the project, we will follow through all the development goals. Timing could be affected by the world situation, but the development goals themselves will not change. We will update the community on the progress by posting the internal campaign patch notes at least once every month. The only development focus after Steam keys’ delivery will be the campaign. We will, of course, occasionally switch to critical bugs or minor features, but campaign is and will be the only main priority: Stages of campaign development: Two nations first Crew and Officers progression Technology development and connection to Crew & Officer progression Event and battle systems Campaign AI Political systems, wars and alliances Beta version of the campaign, as mentioned above, will be available 5-6 months (or more) after Steam Early Access launch, as a beta branch. Full version of the campaign will be available on full release of the game (not the Early Access version). Custom battles and saves We know saves in custom battles is one of the most requested features. Campaign saves systems, once implemented, will hopefully help to add saves to custom battles sooner, we will let you know more about this when we have more information. Again thank you very much for the support, feedback and encouragement. The Game-Labs Team
  2. 24 points
  3. 24 points
    Patch is being deployed today 18th June Conquest changes War server Several Test chests will be given to all players until Monday to test Conquest flag. Conquest flag flow Use the flag Exit port and sail to the destination Place the flag near the enemy port (4000 m) - size of the circle is indicated on the picture Flag carrier will be sent to the instance Instance entry rules will be the same as port battle (allies only) Reinforcements will be positional Attackers enter near the flag carrier Defender will enter outside of the 800m radius from the flag carrier Conquest flag will be bind on receive (if you get the flag only you can use it) Flag wont work if player changes nation Testing stage will be different in this way. Port battle wont be organized up after flag placement - feel free to place flags on ports without fear of setting up the port battle this can cause abnormal number of messages for clan owners but its ok. Amount of ports that you can stat hostility has been increased from 2 nearest to 10 nearest - for testing Flag placement quest was added temporarily to motivate placement of flags. PVP Hunters are encouraged to sink conquest flag carriers and generally interfere with flag placement. We might give something mildly interesting to those who sink the most. The test will run till next week. Next week port battles will be switched ON Port battles on Peace server Port battles return to Peace server Raiders start attacking ports again. Missions can now only be taken in the port battle time slot Timber. New timber stats have been added In general the changes can be characterized as following. Every timber will have main strength point and secondary strength points. Every timber will have a strong weakness (some stronger or weaker) Oaks - HP and Structure HP (hull), secondary - resistance. Teaks - hardness and resistance, secondary - hp Firs - speed and acceleration, secondary - splinter damage Other - specialized woods, giving strong bonuses in one area. We tried to keep old popular (meta) woods around the same levels they were before. Please provide feedback on the philosophy and provide feedback on changes or mistakes you spot. Table: link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mM1LEvwbt1tXOudiDUpTsT97wum_DvZDEs-S1YrkVBw (for some reason this link does not show in new microsoft browsers) Shipbuilding Doubloons have been removed from crafting. "Real" cost to build has been added to crafting. Blueprints have been rebalanced mainly in the area of distribution of timber between frame and planking (trim). Combat balancing Overall acceleration was slowed by 20% across all vessels. Deceleration has been left untouched. ps The current difference with acceleration (after patch) with old sea trials is 200% (current ships accelerate 200% faster), we dont want to drop it as fast but in general we believe current acceleration is too high which allows easy stern camping without planning. Slower acceleration will force planning and will make sterncamping a maneuver you must plan ahead. We still believe acceleration is too high. Caps have been increased for speed, reloads, thickness, and HP. But not by much. Captains, if you face "Please wait for some time and use event again" error when trying to deploy a flag, please wait for a 5-10 seconds and try again. We are aware of the issue and it will be fixed as soon as possible Captains, due to fake flag protection clans cannot do flags missions in parallel on the same port but you can deploy flags on different ports Hotfix deployed 19th June Fixed the problem where you see the message "Please wait for some time and use event again" Added a message for the flag carrier in instance : Stay alive until battle is over Slight fixes for the attack circle size Added more doubloons for specialized fleets: home defense fleet, small fleet, elite ships and raiders Fixed bugs in blueprints of some vessels Added small doubloon carry for NPC ship ranks Additional test chest will be given to everyone to give a chance to finish a quest. IF YOU WANT A FLAG PLACEMENT REWARD!: TAKE A QUEST FIRST BEFORE PLACING THEM
  4. 21 points
  5. 18 points
    Ok i would just like to say this has come from seeing general discussions throughout my time in Naval Action and how the current game is right now....... This would be a massive change with how the current game is and whats going on right now, so here it is. I believe that crafting ports should be at the nations Capital with all resources needed also being available to build within that same port. Therefore making it so much easier with outposts. My reasons - 1. In my opinion RvR is very inactive due to people being terrified of losing there crafting port, no one wants to fight Russia right now basically because they are literally 2/4 ports away from every nations crafting port (this isn't a dig at Russia). yes i understand hostility has changed, but i feel this is one of the main reason. If people only have ships to lose in port battles and not there entire crafting port i feel RvR/WARS will happen more often. 2. Nations being controlled by clans, this is something we here alot currently within the pirate nation. If you dont get on with the port owning clan of the crafting port they take your clan off the friendly list and now your level 3 shipyard is worthless, and as i've heard, people then quit the game, which isnt what we want. 3. You could literally have two nations agree on a war, winner being the nation who one ports the other nation, maybe even a reward system. With the crafting port being in the capital people will then ask, whats the point in going for other ports??? This is where we need to spread out the resources needed for upgrades alot better then whats currently implemented, along with these new woods. We shouldn't have ports with more then one resource for upgrades in a port, or woods in the same port. For example, New Orleans - White oak and french sail cloth, Port Au Prince has 2 resource upgrades and im sure there's more, i also want to state these new woods shouldn't be in non capturable ports, these was stated a long time ago and change when the US nation had 4 white oak ports which got removed. Also resources for upgrades shouldn't be in non capturable ports. Basically spread the new woods and resource upgrades out better between all the ports we have, there's so many useless ports. We currently have a clan leaderboard which with this new crafting port system can be used to divide out the taxes the capital port makes, whether it being the top clan on the leaderboard getting the port taxes or top 3, im sure this is something that can be discussed. Simply having the crafting port at the capital port clan friendlist can solo be used for Port Battles, not impacting crafting. I understand people will now say, Russia, Prussia, China and Poland dont have capital ports - New Orleans, Vera Cruz, Belize, Trinidad would be my suggestions for capitals. Also all investments for shipyards would be giving back to players/clan in the redeemable section I'm sure there will be plenty of opinions on this, but from what i've seen people are already scared to lose ships, even with the DLC'S now in the game making it so much easier to get ships, and with the loss of crafting ports i really dont ever see people fully committing to RvR due to the risk of losing there crafting port/ports. Finally i know this would be a completely different step for the game but in the long run i could see this having a great impact.
  6. 18 points
    @Steeltrap and @Accipiter covered most of the bases. I have also posted pretty extensively on this and can link to past posts if required. The problems with gunnery are many, but taking a second to speak about range rate. 1 mil represents 1 meter at 1 km, what this means basically, is that a fast moving target moving at a distance actually passes through your line of sight very slowly. Think of watching a flyby at an airshow where the planes woosh through your field of vision compared to watching airliners in the distance. The airliners are moving faster than the prop stunt planes, but because they are further away, seem to move slowly. This means that at combat ranges, it is easy to traverse most naval mounts quickly enough to remain on target. I have hand traversed 155mm artillery pieces during anti-tank drills and remained on targets moving 50kmph. There is no reason to believe that it would be much harder to keep a 6" naval gun on a target moving at 26kn, in fact they were better designed and suited for that role. Okay, now that we've established that the mount itself can keep up, what about hitting the target? Well the math to hit a target at 2.5 knots and one at 25 knots is the same. Moving faster does not change any of the calculations, and naval shells are faster than ships. Only changing speed, would matter. Range rate is the change in range caused by variation in speed and direction. That does actually make hitting a target much more difficult. Speed represents to potential to rapidly alter the range rate, but unless manoeuvring, does not do so. To stick with the airshow metaphor, if the fastest, most manoeuvrable plane is flying straight and level, you can still predict where it is going to be, as easily as a FedEx cargo plane. It has the potential to move rapidly in new directions or speed, but unless doing so it is not any different. Finally, @Steeltrap touched on the many issues with propellent fires. There is a lot to do here, but I've done a lot of the reading and am willing to explain in as much detail as is required. Beyond what Steeltrap mentioned, there were many times where a given calibre did exist in both quick firing and screw-breach, that is to say bagged propellent, guns. Clad in Iron takes this into account. The shell handling procedure, ammunition storage and rate of fire for these guns could be different, but mostly the bagged charges themselves represent the biggest risk. Cooking off ammo is a complicated process, but propellent can be scary. Even in the field artillery, handling propellent is serious business compared to shells which can be tossed off trucks, and the temperature of which is not constantly monitored like a colicky baby. If I could make one addition, without an armour viewer, it is impossible to know what the protection of a protected cruiser actually is. Because of how the protection was from a deck, not a belt, it's important to see that in the game to know where my armour values are going to. The interior armour arrangements of ships are pretty complicated, but this is a dedicated community and I'm sure directed to do something like "find cross sections of various armour schemes" could and would do so. This is an armored cruiser by contrast. Obviously 3D representations of the same are more complicated, but we could probably get to work researching layouts, no problem. As you can see, the gun shields were considered part of what made a protected cruiser protected, compared to other vessels of the era. That leads me into a note about guns and gunshields. Right now, naval guns are depicted by calibre, or if they are casemated. Guns up to 5" are shielded mounts even at 0" armour thickness, and guns over 6" are depicted in armoured turrets. I would prefer a 3D version of what RTW does. 0 inches of armour, irrespective of calibre are unprotected mounts. Any amount greater than 0, up to 2 inches is a splinter-proof shield. (How proof would depend on thickness) Over 2 inches is a turret. This would help understand protection, especially when using smaller guns as primary armament, as in torpedo boats, destroyers and protected cruisers. It also helps in early periods, where it would be possible to see large guns with only shields. I'm thinking of protected cruisers, which can mount guns of 7", but can't armour them. In game, they are depicted as armoured, fully-enclosed turrets. Having them as bare guns or shielded mounts I think would be beneficial. Additionally, opening up calibres a little. A 1895 protected cruiser can mount 2" and 3" guns in casemates, but not single mounts on the deck. I'd like if either primary armament was expanded to encapsulate all calibres from smallest to largest, or if secondaries were available in the same calibre as casemated guns. In either case, there is no reason why 3" guns could be mounted on casemates but not on deck. I realize that this is because a distinction has been made between primary, secondary and casemated armament, I'm simply arguing that either a uniform armament where main guns were carried in casemates and deck mounted was possible, or that 2" anti-torpedo boat guns were carried on smaller vessels and it would be nice to have them on light mounts, rather than exclusively in casemates. e: related to what @Cptbarney and @Steeltrap were saying, ships fight to the death, well beyond the point of being combat ineffective or even lost. Ships on fire bow to stern should not be firing their guns until each mount sinks under the waves. This is especially true for merchants. It should not be hard to get a merchantman to abandon ship, and that's totally besides how resilient to damage they are due to the bulkheads. If I were a merchant sailor, I'm heading for the lifeboat once my ship is under sustained, effective fire. Reading historical accounts of commerce raids, that was pretty universally the case. In the case of warships, not many crews fight to the last man. If they do, as with the case of Hood and others that exploded or rapidly sank or capsized, it was not by choice. ee: I do. Without a doubt and without equivocation. First, that's what time acceleration is for. The second problem, you touched on: every single other part of the game has to be entirely redesigned, and based on fantasy numbers if that changes. Ships were designed based on what they needed to be protected against. If ships were more accurate, every single element of design changes, full stop. Even torpedo boats would need to be heavily armored in a universe where they were more likely to be hit getting into torpedo range. The hit rate has to be historically low, because mobility, firepower and protection are all interconnected. All historical research and references go out the window if that wanders, all principles of ship design change, everything changes. What is the purpose of a protected cruiser if ships hit harder and more frequently than in reality? None. What is the purpose of a destroyer if the secondary armament of capital ships is sufficient to screen themselves? None. What is the purpose of a light cruiser if destroyers have to be heavily armoured and therefore have larger displacements and firepower? None. What is the purpose of an armoured cruiser if even light cruisers must be heavily armoured and similarly mount larger guns? None. It cascades until there is no role for any warship other than massive capital ships armed and protected against the largest guns possible.
  7. 17 points
    I am hello kittying speechless. You removed the raids cause nobody liked the useless PVE, the only good thing about them is that they were ONLY for the three biggest nations. Now, you added them back. Not only giving us MORE forced PVE that we don't want, after two patches in a row where you added necessity to do HDF to improve a port and to do a single port battle. You even added them and ANY NATION can get them. Russia that basically has half the playerbase got no raids, while Denmark which is a little nation got one. I constantly ask for incentives to join small nations, you just gave one more reason for casual players to join Russia. I don't know what to say actually... thanks for providing us more reasons to quit the game. Now we all have proof. You want to kill it. All times we ask for things and you say "Not gonna be added if it's not voted in the right section by most players". Now you keep adding stuff we don't clearly want and it's just annoying your playerbase. What do you think you'll achieve by telling your raiders to attack ports in two random regions? The only one I can think of is lowering the server population even more. Thanks.
  8. 16 points
    Captains Conquest return plans can be made public now. Thank you very much for patience. Conquest flag has been implemented and tested internally. But we need to test it in public. To avoid any issues with loss of ports due to potential flag bugs conquest will return in stages Stage 1. 17-18th June (ETA) Flag planting (setting) will be available Flag will be issued to every captain in the re-deemables Flag WILL NOT result in port battle set up (you can place the flag but port battle will not happen) 2 Quests with rewards will be added to motivate testing the flags. Flag planting quest Flag destruction quest Stage 2. 24th June: Full PB return + unsupported port battle transport Port battles will be switched on Port battle transport item will be given out to clan officers on the server Stage 3. 1st July Full conquest recovery with port battle transport Port battle transport will become fully supported Trincomalee timeline announcement will be done separately today.
  9. 16 points
    I will add something that's probably not necessary but can't hurt. While some of our criticisms in this thread to date might be seen as somewhat pointed, I think it's entirely due to the fact we very much love the concept of the game and how it's been developing. I suspect it's true of all of us that frustration at what we see as really significant mechanics NOT improving while lesser things get added or changed is a reflection of our desire to see the game succeed. Flash fires (that often aren't) are an example of adding a historically accurate phenomenon (i.e. they did happen, rather famously) albeit in a way that ISN'T accurate while NOT addressing far, far more significant aspects of the core mechanics as several of us have mentioned. A little communication about these core mechanics, such as a damage model that doesn't allow your main gun magazine to explode yet the ship remain afloat, let alone continue to use guns that logically would be fed by that magazine, would be very welcome. We've been discussing them for months. We've had several updates. Yet we don't see much/any signs of these crucial things being developed at all. We will test what we're given. This community, however, can deliver a LOT more beyond acting as "monkey grinders producing data". A little explanation about intended final designs, or WHY whatever latest thing has been implemented etc, would be extremely useful IMO plus allow you devs to get some potentially valuable feedback. When lots of the community is happy to go and do fact based research so as to make informed commentary on how any given mechanic is intended to work v the stated goal of "realism", it's a little puzzling as to why that's not utilised more via specific, expansive discussion. As an example, suppose we'd been told you wanted to implement "flash fires" as a possibility, as per the Jutland BC losses and HMS Hood, and been asked "what factors ought to be relevant to the likelihood of it occurring?". I suggest you'd have had the relevant criteria about type of gun mount and type of ammunition BEFORE implementing anything, so we'd not see flash fires rampaging throughout ships that don't have separate propellant stores. We'd also likely have said there ought probably be a difference between a propellant magazine ignition caused through an uncontrolled fire (which I'd suggest ISN'T a "flash fire") and one caused through the penetration of a turret (which clearly is per Jutland). In fact I know you'd have been told this, as I and others provided precisely that feedback as soon as we had access to the new mechanics. I can't see why that would not be valuable for the team in terms of "getting it right first time" AND for the community feel they're being directly useful in helping develop the game efficiently and true to the stated goal of "realism". If there's a disagreement as to the accuracy of what the community provides, or some design decision you make that "bends reality", then all that can be discussed/explained. This community can be great advocates for the game and the dev team. The greater the quality of the interactions we have, the more we understand and inevitably have greater confidence and depth of knowledge of the skill and thinking of the team, the more we can be convincing in our support. It's one thing to say "it's great, the team's great, everything's great" and another to say "it's great BECAUSE..." Being able to back up enthusiastic support for the game with specific examples as to WHY we all think it's great is far more persuasive. I've already made complimentary statements about the game and dev team to others and would love to have even more reasons to do so. Resources and time will always be constraints. All the more reason to consider if you can GAIN efficiency through using the community as I've suggested, I'd have thought. Anything I've put here is always with that understanding, and is simply intended to provide ideas as to how WE might help YOU produce the "best" game of this type you can as efficiently as possible. Of course it's entirely up to the dev team and always will be. Cheers
  10. 15 points
    This is not a suggestion for a new mechanic, but rather an argument to revive and improve an existing one. The mood in my circles about the freshest changes to the game is generally positive. The new woods introduced seem to have an idea behind them. They need further adjustment and balancing, but that’s already been promised is coming. And the decrease to acceleration is something the game experience may really profit from when it is further adjusted as indicated. The thing that isn’t really working however, is the distribution of the new woods. The way they are distributed serves only to advantage those few players who have alts in all other nations, and are rich enough to be able to buy the best woods at any cost. Some spawn locations are captureable, but they are also extremely close to the home waters and Home Defence Fleets of a nation, and also happen to be in ports that are already developed crafting ports. Meaning they are either practically uncaptureable and therefore may as well have been placed in a capital, or they serve as a rag placed in front of a nation’s crafting port making it more likely some other nation will attack the port, something they might not have been willing to before, effectively destroying the target nation and driving droves of players away from the game. Now...we have a mechanic for distributing rare woods already in the game, which has been effectively unused and neglected since release. The Clan Missions mechanic, whereby you extract X amount of logs from a forest for typically 2X amount of doubloons out of a forest that starts at 1 000 000 logs was an interesting idea meant to incite fighting over the ports where the resource would spawn. Before release it was effectively replaced as the system to distribute woods by farms that we could invest and plant ourselves and with unlimited resources. Which had the advantage of shortening hauling distances, give players back control of the supply and also avoid the situation where some nations would be randomly gifted access to woods with more favourable RvR-characteristics than others, while risking some nations might have to live with oak/oak warships. However clan-missions were never removed from the game. They spawned around the map at release. There are white oak forests, live oak, bermuda cedar, etc. as clan missions in various locations on the map. Yet no wars have been fought over access to these forests. And to my knowledge none of these forests have been depleted and respawned since release. Some forests were almost halfway depleted at the beginning right after release, when labour hours for resource extraction were sparse and doubloons were plenty. Since then they have not been touched, and I’ve come across forests where only one clan mission has been completed. Some of these forests have changed hands since release, yet I doubt the conquering nation paid any mind to it. My proposal: Is to remove the clan missions we have on the map today, slightly adjust the numbers in terms of output, cost and total amount, and reimplement the mechanic, but for distribution of the new woods. Remove the current clanmissions for Live oak, White oak, Bermuda Cedar, etc. Make new clan missions for Malabar Teak, African Teak, Riga Fir, Greenheart etc. These clan missions should see some changes from previoulsy. The size of the forest should no longer be 1 000 000 logs. Make it perhaps 25 000 logs per forest. Enough that more than just a couple of people can extract some, but a small enough forest that it will be quickly depleted and respawn in another location. Make it so that each extraction is 2500 logs at a time, about almost enough for 2 lineships. The total forest size should be small enough that the forests are depleted and respawn in a different location at least about every week, provided that the woods are actually desirable for players to acquire. Yet large enough that it is not just the first player who comes across the forest that gets to extract some. There could even be a mechanic that these forests are redistributed on the map once every week, regardless of if they are depleted by then or not. The forests could be distributed one out of two ways across the map. Either they have an equal chance each time to spawn in any of the almost 400 captureable ports on the map. The consequence of this is that the more ports a nation, clan or clan-alliance owns, the greater the chance each time that a forest will spawn in one of their ports. If you own half the map, you have a pretty good chance at any given time to have each and every one of the desireable woods spawn in one of your nation’s ports. Smaller nations would see forests spawn in their ports maybe once for every 3-4 times it spawns in a particular larger nation. Alternatively there could be a two-step lottery. Where in the first step for each forest it is randomly decided which nation a forest will spawn in, and secondly after that there is a random decision which of that nation’s ports the forest would spawn in. Smaller nations would have just as good a chance to spawn a desireable forest as larger nations, and moreover, large nations would often find that although woods spawned in their ports, the location of where they spawned could be on the other side of the map in their far-away colonies, requiring a long haul to get it back to where it is needed after extraction. In some small way this could serve as a slight rebalancer of nation. I’m not sure how much it should cost to extract woods from a forest, but particularly rare and desireable woods could have an exorbitant price in doubloons. Requiring for instance 10 doubloons per log, costing us 25 000 doubloons to extract 2 500 logs. And each player being able to extract only one batch of logs per 24 hours. If the forests deplete often/weekly, then within just a few weeks each of the woods would have typically spawned at least once in each of the nations ports, distributing the woods somewhat evenly and fairly between the nations, without flooding the market with logs that are meant to be rare and expensive. The old, «normal» woods that we ourselves produce in our ports would still be the go-to for most builders, but once and again there would be a chance for each player to extract enough of a special wood that he seeks that he could build a ship out of it. Or two. This is how clan missions look today: This forest has been in place since release, not moved at all. Only 2 clan delivery missions have been completed, taking a total of 10 000 logs out of a forest of 1 000 000. This forest will never move, and no other nation will get access to this particular forest. Here's how it could look for the new woods: 25 000 logs in the forest. 2 500 logs delivery. The price in doubloons is adjustable. The forests could despawn every week forcibly, or just wait for the 25 000 logs to deplete, which should go quick as soon as the location of the forest is discovered. Apart from a viable distribution system for logs, this suggested system of distribution has two further advantages. It encourages exploration playstyles, as players sail around their nations ports looking for freshly spawned forests to be the first to get their hand on the new logs. And secondly, it gives immense added value to doubloons as a PvP-reward. PvP-players can exchange their doubloons for logs, and hand them to crafters who turn the logs of their choice into ships.
  11. 15 points
    i'll join my voice here since it's as good a time as any: i've been following this game's pre-alpha progress since nearly week 1, and played every patch, and frankly, i'm starting to get worried with the direction this game is going. it's what i call the "War Thunder Syndrome": every patch, the devs add more shiny toys (hulls) and a few fancy new effects/extra mechanics (like flash fire lately), but none of it really matters because deep down the more crucial key mechanics of the game are broken and nothing is ever done about it, even when improvement whould be easy... here is my personnal list of TOP PRIORITY things that need to be improved, Everything else, new hulls, fancy new additional mechanics, even singleplayer testing, should be second priority to these: No1: ships become impenetrable when facing bow/stern to incoming fire. this is due to a combination of 2 things: first, due to transeverse (AKA: front and back) belt armor of the ships not being properly modelled, every hit from the bow or stern is counted as a sidehit to the belt at an extreme angle and always bounce. secondly, due to how the compartimentalized damage model work, when facing bow or stern, your bow and stern compartiments will all turn red from damage, but after that has happened, they will act as an invulnerable shield for all the compartiments behind them, catching and detonating every single incoming shell, preventing any further damage to the ship. this is because shells overpenetrating troug a red (destroyed) compartiment to arm and explod further inside the ship is not properly modelled either. No2: accuracy calculations are Bogus. i've lost rack of how many times i've seen pre dreads BB's broadsiding each other from within 2km literally like Galleons from the age of sail and still have less than 10% chance to hit at that range... literally today on the present patch, i've had secondary guns with only about 15% chance to hit a DD sailing in straight line from less than 1km away, using stereo 5 and fire control radar 2 rangefinder and high mark guns... i've also seen so often older BB's using worse rangefinders than me, older mark guns and no radar get 2X or more accuracy on me than i have shooting at them, even though i have better rangefinder, guns and radar, and we are both sailing in straight line at the same speed... excuse me, HOW?! things like these should NEVER happen! also, as other have correctly pointed out, speed debuff to accuracy should be removed altogether, end of story. raw speed alone makes Zero difference to difficulty to hit if you're sailing in straight line. only variations of speed and course should degrade accuracy of incoming fire, for a time. to be clear, i'm not nessesarily asking for, nor do i want, an across-the-board increase in accuracy. what i'm asking is for things to make sence and be consistent and be logical. 9/10 chances to miss the broadside of warship (even a DD is big!) at 1km away is not logical, i mean at that range it's basically point-and-shoot direct fire, there isn't even any need for balistics calculations from so close! having worse fire control systems than the enemy in every way yet having more chances to hit him than he has to hit you when both sailing in straight line is not logical. ect ect... No3: Bulkheads are OP. already been well explained by Steeltrap so i won't go into too much details myself. basically agree with everything he said. currently ALWAYS going for Max bulkhead+Max bulkead armor on every ship you make, no matter what, always, is a no brainer choice. you need them much more than armor, or torpedo protection. also, main magazine detonations should be 100% instakill everytime. yet almost everytime in game i see the ship survive it and still continue to fight well. i can't think of any warship in all history within the game's time period, that did not sink after having one of its main magazines detonated. also also, Flash Fire feels a bit like a Bogus mechanic to me that is kind of redundant with magazine detonation... imo the 2 could be lumped together for simplicity's sake maybe? (whereas Flash fire is just a detonation of turet or barbette that did not propagate to main magazine)? if it isn't really obvious to me, a relatively knowledgeable naval enthusiast, what this flash fire thing is supposed to represent that is fundamentally different from ammo detonation, i can guarentee you most players are gonna be confused by it at release. also also also, there have been rumors for a while now that if you put a main battery turret outside of the ships central 3 compartiments (where the game counts the main belt to be), then the magazines for that turret (which are in the compartiments under it) do NOT count as being protected by the main belt... can you confirm if this is true or not? because if this is true, this is a Colossal oversight in the damage model and this needs to be fixed ASAP. this is a little connected to my comment in No1: where i say transverse belt armor (which is the one normally protecting these forwards and afterwards magazines) needs to be modelled properly in the game. No4: Maneuvering AI just can't hold formations, just sail in circles, or sometimes even come to a complete stop while being shot at. the game really need better pathfinding and formation keeping. come on! BattleStations: Midway/Pacific's AI was great at keeping formations for the most part and those games are from the early 2000's... surely it can't be that hard! on that note, we really need more formation options than just line ahead/abreast too. there is an easy way to do it as well: i'll just leave here an old comment i made on this in another thread long ago: --- i remember Battlestations: Midway and Battlestations: Pacific, there was a mix of very good and very bad things about those games but one of the things they did superbly well well was ship formations: basically in those games, when you had ships grouped together in a formation, you just had to hit a buton to enter the fromation menu, and in there, you had an overhead view of the formation centered on the commanding ship, then you could select and drag every ship in the group to whatever position you want it to have relative to the commanding ship, and when you're done setting every ship in the formation to where you want, you hit ok. from now on the AI will always try to keep the ship in that position relative to the commanding ship, adjusting speed and turning as nessesary, you just give move orders to the commanding ship to move the entire formation. it was intuitive, quick and simple and it worked perfectly well. EVERY single game that does ship combat should use the same system for formation imo. whould very much like to see this emulated in this game. was kind of hard to find good pictures of it but i got one, it looked like this: the commanding ship is in white, the yellow ship is the one currently selected, of which you are setting his position in the formation (the transparent outline shows where the ship is right now, the arrow where he is gonna go when you hit OK) ----- that's about all i can think off for now. i really hope something is done to adress those issues before release (or at the very least, someday). with that said, i know it's a small team and i'm still grateful for the hardwork up untill now, i hope the game continue to improve in the future (while i sound harsh, it still did noticabely improve in many aspects since this alpha begun).
  12. 13 points
    Britain research
  13. 13 points
    Admirals, After our information about Steam Release and Campaign (Please Read) we would like to share with you what comes next as a hotfix update: *Hotfix v75* (25/6/2020) ========= BALANCES Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs. Note: This change might make some of your old designs overweight, but you should be able to repair them by lowering speed, armor or other settings. Ship design tonnage step reduced from 100 to 50 tons (provides more design flexibility, especially for smaller ships plus makes Auto-Design to be more effective). Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively. When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets. Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved. Destroyers need to operate at safer ranges but will still be dangerous and useful. Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical. Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting. Torpedo reload time increased +25%. Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable). Improved the Hull form statistics of the modern Russian destroyers to aid them achieving higher speeds. The Destroyer leader hull shape has improved. Increased detection bonus of Sonar, so that it can trace electric torpedoes or other stealthy types, more effectively. Cost of Sonar has been increased. Fine tunings in base ship maneuvering characteristics (addressing issues that could cause slow ships to stall and become very unwieldy). MISSIONS Increased time and reduced AI techs for mission: "Battleship vs Torpedo Boats". Added two Destroyer escorts and increased distance of AI reinforcements in mission: "The US Super Battleship". Tech level of AI opponent reduced. Now you need to destroy only 3 Battleships (instead of 4). Expanded time limit for mission: "Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats". Changed objectives of "Contest in the Black Sea" so now you need to sink 60% of enemies (instead of sinking the Battleship and Battlecruiser which was very difficult). Changed objective of mission: "The Modern Battleship" so that to win you need to sink 70% of enemies, instead of 100%. In mission "Destroy a Full Fleet" the enemy AI fleet has now less advanced tech level. Objective has changed so that now you need to sink half of enemy fleet but also protect half of your own fleet (instead of sinking 70% of enemy ships). Increased time and funds for mission: "Undefended Convoy". Other minor fund changes to some missions. MINOR FIXES Fixed secondary cage mast not having adequate placeholder to fit in a USA battleship of 1899. Fixed issue of French “Semi-Armored Cruiser” of the 1890s that did not allow 2-inches guns to fit in casemates while no larger guns fitted. The hotfix will be available next week. We wish you a great weekend! The Game-Labs Team
  14. 13 points
    There will be a timber update this week The philosophy will remain Oaks - HP Teaks - Resistance Firs/Cedars - Speed Other - Specialized with unique qualities. Other woods will lose some of the qualities that were abnormally high. Locust is one of them. They will remain stronger/strongest in 1 parameter but will not be universally balanced/strong.
  15. 13 points
    Why do division captains not take evasive action on their own discretion when they come under a torpedo attack? I have seen countless times that subordinate (division) captains mindlessly continue their path even if torpedoes are sighted. I can understand that they have to follow the orders set by the division's lead ship, but some sort of own discretion would be great if they come under torpedo attack. It is for example quite annoying that I manage to dodge some torpedoes with the lead ship only to see that the ship following gets torped. Imo, in this game you are the admiral, not a captain. The priority of the captain is the well being of the ship, whereas the admiral's priority is to set out and complete tactical or strategic orders. Therefore the captains of all the ships in the game should always be able to temporarily act on their own discretion if an immediate danger to ship is detected. We already have collision avoidance, which is done on a ship to ship basis. Here the captain (AI) does take action. Also, if the lead ship of a division is hit severely it will also automatically swap places the ship next in line of the division. Would it be possible for the devs to perhaps add a bit more freedom to operate when a subordinate ship (maybe even lead/flag ship) comes under direct threat, such as during a torpedo attack. Just like with swapping places when the lead ship is too severely damaged, the ship that would conduct evasive manouvres would at the end fall back to the line formation. Just like in the Ultimate General series I feel that this micromanage avoidance fits the idea of a more tactical/strategic game well. At least I rather praise the Ultimate General series for offering a more tactical/strategic battle rather than a micromanage one as found in too many games anyway. I hope Ultimate Admiral can inherit these aspects as well.
  16. 12 points
    This coming from the Department that does nothing but drastic decisions. I do not even care anymore what you do with woods just pick a stat and leave it alone ffs. We are getting tired of this game being treated as if it is still in BETA development. There is no reason why a game that is released shuld have massive changes made to it. That is what Alpha and Beta are for. When you release that is it except for slight tweaks. When are these DEVS gonna stop radically changing this game every other week. There is no reason for this constant changing of stuff. Bring back a test server so you can get things right before loading them into the game and messing up everyone's experience. Once a change has been decided as good in the test server then load it into the real game. This way you can see what effects are and get the appropriate feedback without massively disrupting everyone's game play with fixes that actually break things.
  17. 12 points
    Well considering the fact it's our job to provide feedback, i dont see how thats crying about it. Especially when most of that feedback has been massively in-depth as well. And no it won't be three factions as that makes no sense all the factions you play with atm, will be in the campaign at some point. This game has a lot of potential, and with a small dev team this will take sometime to do and get there, but i hope that they do add some of the functions players have been asking for. I mean if they were to make custom battles and the designer more intuitive, that would at least tie peeps over till the first campaign release.
  18. 12 points
    Dear Sailors and Sailoresses all around the globe, What used to be only for some selected dedicated secret few is now open to all Nations: The one and only Naval Fighting Academy: Barretts Privateers Since 2015 a dedicated group of veterans has been teaching people the Art of Naval warfare. We've now officially created a Naval Fighting Academy meant to teach sailors from all Nations the art of strategic naval combat. The teachers are Veterans from all Nations including true legends like Mr.Doran and many more! We have specialists for every trade like shallow water specialists for combat in snows and fore and aft riggers aswell as SoL professionals and seasoned Portbattle commanders. If there is someone who just keeps sinking you its very likely to be one of our students. Amongst them are also some of your favourite youtubers. Ever wondered how to win fights against uneven odds? No problem, we can help you neglect their numbers advantage. Ever had trouble with Sterncampers? We can show you how to deal with them. Ever thought about how to wreck a top player? We teach you the tactics we hate the most. Got problems with people who have better ships and better mods and books? That won't stop you from sinking them anymore. This is how it works: Contact me, Puchu either here in the Forums or via PM ingame. Schedule a time and ship in which you want to fight. We will organise the perfect Naval Veteran for your questions to teach you exactly what you need. We are doing a first round of teachings open to the public: Fights: 1 Fight Feedback: Clear pro feedback during or after combat. Ships: Trincomalee 1vs1 Location: La Tortue Setup: Bring whatever setup you want. Investment: 250k Reals Battle Type: No Kill-Duel. We want to teach you, not rob you of your best ships. Boarding: No Rage-Boarding with equal crew. PS: Teachers: Since we are expanding, we are still searching for seasoned warriors who are willing to pass on their knowledge. To be part of this team you need to pass a test in a duel vs one of our main teachers, to show your tactical genius. It doesn't mean you have to win the duel, and if you win, it doesnt mean you will be accepted. We are looking for true skill and ability to teach. Together we can make NA a better, place with more skillful combat for all of us. Looking forward to your applications: Yours' Puchu By royal decree:Head of Barretts Privateers - The Naval Fighting Academy
  19. 12 points
    In my opinion... timbers should randomly spawn on the map and schould stay at a location for a short amout of rl days before chaniging location (it could give regions where specific woods would spawn more often so people have a rough idea where to look for those woods) maybe let tradeships drop hints where to find those woods ( a trading shiplog where xy woods was last seen) no api loaction data for this woods pls They should be considered as crafting good and no contracts should be allowed no spawning of those woods within a HDF area (or close to one) What I like: woods now have pro and cons old woods are somewhat kept (make players happy)
  20. 12 points
    Крч любительский перевод патча. Поправьте если накосячил. Спс)0))0 ИЗМЕНЕНИЯ В RVR: Несколько тестовых сундуков будут выданы всем игрокам до понедельника, чтобы проверить флаги. Процесс использования флага: 1) Используйте флаг 2) Выйдете из порта и прибудьте к месту назначения 3) Поставьте флаг возле вражеского порта (4000 м) - размер круга указан на картинке 4) Флаг будет отправлен в открытый бой 5) Правила входа в бой будут такими же, как в битве за порт (только для союзников) 6) Подкрепления будут позиционными - Нападающие входят возле флагоносца - Защитники входят в радиусе от 800м от флагоносца 7) Флаг привязывается к игроку при получении (если вы получили флаг, только вы сможете использовать его) 8 ) Флаг перестает работать, если игрок меняет нацию Тестирование флага будет идти следующим образом: 1) Битва за порт не будет организована после размещения флагов - не бойтесь размещать флаги на городах. 2) Количество портов, в которых вы можете набить хостилити, было увеличено с 2 ближайших до 10 ближайших - ТОЛЬКО ДЛЯ ТЕСТА. 3) Квест по размещению флагов был временно добавлен для мотивации их использования PvP игрокам рекомендуется топить флагоносцев и мешать их размещению. Разработчики предоставят, что-то интересное тем кто утопит большое количество флагов. Тест продлится до следующей недели. На следующей неделе портовые сражения будут включены PVE Портовые сражения возвращаются на PVE Рейдеры снова начинают атаковать порты. ДЕРЕВО Добавлены новые характеристики древесины В целом изменения можно охарактеризовать следующим образом. Каждая древесина будет иметь основные и второстепенные точки прочности. Каждый вид будет именить и сильные и слабые стороны. OAK - ХП и ХП структуры, вторичные - резисты (огонь, экипаж и т.п.) TEAK - твердость и резисты, вторичный - ХП FIR - скорость и ускорение, вторичные - повреждение осколками Другие - специализированные леса, дающие сильные бонусы в одной области. Старая древесина должна была остаться без особых изменений на том же уровне, что и раньше https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mM1LEvwbt1tXOudiDUpTsT97wum_DvZDEs-S1YrkVBw СУДОСТРОЕНИЕ Дублоны были удалены из крафта. Стоимость строительства в реалах была добавлена к крафту. Чертежи были перебалансированы в основном в области распределения древесины между основой и обшивкой БАЛАНС БОЕВОЙ СИСТЕМЫ Общее ускорение было замедлено на 20% на всех судах. Замедление осталось нетронутым. Текущая разница с ускорением (после патча) с первыми патчами NA составляет 200% (т.е. текущие корабли ускоряются на 200% быстрее), разработчики хотят снижать ускорение постепенно и в целом считают, что текущее ускорение слишком велико, что позволяет легко и просто выполнять рейки без тонкого расчёта. Более медленное ускорение заставит делать тонкий расчёт перед маневром. Капы ттх кораблей были слегка увеличены Так же изменения в патчах, новости и т.п. про NA можете найти по этим ссылкам: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChql7qZzGgUHhinDUNlQAMw/community https://vk.com/naval.action.world 😀
  21. 11 points
  22. 11 points
    We are talking about comms here. So what exactly is being worked on is beside the point (plenty of topics about that). To me communication cycle looks like this: 1. Many threads on various topics are going with minimal participation from the team 2. An update is announced stating the changes (without much specificity) 3. Go to step 1. Very rarely (like that steam release announcement) there is some form of look into the future. There is no roadmap. There is basically no info about what will be in the next update beforehand. Community has no idea what feedback is taken into account and get frustrated when the same issues that were mentioned in alpha 2 are still present and they are left guessing. I'll give 1 hypothetical example of a possible issue, team's thought on it, team's response and how it might be handled better: issue: Bulkhead's damage model is broken thought: Will require a sizable refactor followed up but complete re-balance of HP, Gunnery and Artillery response: total silence proposed response: We acknowledge there seems to be a problem there. This is something we might look into in the future, but currently our efforts are concentrated on other areas.
  23. 11 points
    May 2020 Number of accounts on War Server 43198 (+ 4564) Number of all ships created Ports where ships crafted Ports where 1-3 rates crafted
  24. 11 points
    I do... Designing ships is fun, but its the campaign that actually puts meaning to that... You can't just retry that battle with different design, you are stuck with what you thought will work 3 years ago making each decision matter. Not to mention all other features making each playthrough a unique experience. Saying that, i do believe core issues needs addressing in the meantime (bulkheads, armor, accuracy penalties, etc.)
  25. 11 points
  26. 11 points
    Not speaking to anyone in particular... Is there a reason that your ships are obsolete but your enemy magically is not in the same situation? Obsolete vs Obsolete might make for some pretty good battles. In fact, if you try, you might even forget your ship is obsolete.
  27. 11 points
    YES.. here is a comparison. 200% acceleration makes a huge difference. Lose energy in a unnecessary turn and it will take you 1.5 mins to regain speed. Which means other things start to matter (not only speed) For example: fast bellonas (historically) will no longer be able to actively pursue frigates in turning fights (they will lose energy and accelerate slower)
  28. 11 points
    Smoke screens have no effect on anything not IN them. You can fire THROUGH them to ships behind without penalty at all. Plus smoke screens ought not be of any use to the ship laying them UNLESS the wind direction plus the bearing to the enemy means the trailing smoke moves to obscure them. Travelling semi-cloaking devices? Please. The vision system is also somewhat like WoWS with its "Borg sighting", where one ship can spot and everything else can engage even if they can't see the target directly according to their tower bonuses and the target's signature. Two more things to put on the list.
  29. 11 points
    see - you get the point Why should i waste time on reading reports that show chat content from ass holes (and ruin my mood and positive attitude, losing faith in humanity) when instead i can bring beautiful amazing vessels that never sailed for 300 years and now can sail THANKS to our DLC patrons? Chats are getting cut sorry guys. your witty post has only confirmed my point = majority only see chat it as a sarcastic tool to belittle the opponent , or gang up together to belittle an opponent. No chat = no problem.
  30. 11 points
    GUNNERY FACTOR: "Target Manoeuvre" EXAMPLE: DISCUSSION: This is taken from a target travelling at less than 1 knot (hence the title of my screen snip, lol). 1 knot = 1.852km/h, or (1852/3600 = ) 0.51m/s. For a shell flight travel time of 20 seconds, say, the target is going to travel 10.2m. I suggest it's nonsensical for it to be able to apply a penalty through "manoeuvre" that is GREATER than the bonus its slow speed gives to anything shooting at it. This is part of the broader "range rate" discussion I expect to see, which is to say it's the degree to which you alter your position compared with your enemy's prediction of where you'll be as they fire that is really the important point. It's also why "Target Speed" is equally a poor factor on its own. I think that both this AND "Target High/Low Speed" are poor factors and ought to be replaced with something that is a better simulation of true gunnery, specifically range rate. I understand this will have a cascade effect through the model, but I don't see how the current state of affairs is defensible other than "it's easier to programme". SUGGESTION: Remove Target Manoeuvre and build a proper factor that looks at "range rate" (where range rate is "the rate at which the distance from the measuring equipment to the target or signal source that is being tracked is changing with respect to time"). Will probably cause a greater examination of the gunnery model in total, but I happen to think that's a good thing.
  31. 10 points
    Welcome to the Caribbean expansion is almost finished. Here are the last touches that needs to be done before we move to Crew skills and Karma system 1) Finalize woods 2) Cannon re-balance 3) Ship thickness balance - ship thickness will be reworked 4) Patrol zone improvement (attack by lineships in frigate zones will be locked)
  32. 10 points
    i would like for unused casemates to be plated over, rather then leave gaping holes all over the hull and superstructure. Like this, for example, on USS Nevada.
  33. 10 points
    Hi @admin would you mind expanding on the reasons for bringing back AI port battles? I believe you've said here community decision and popularity will influence future patch changes. I think the opinion of the community on AI PBs on the War server is an overwhelming "F*CK NO". So why are they back?
  34. 10 points
    Port bonuses was a mistake. Fine Woods 2.0 and 3.0 was another mistake. These new enhanced port bonuse are perhaps the biggest mistake of them all. The fact that a new player who is working on crafting and building ships can only craft basic non-port bonus ships in a capital port amazes me. For that player to craft anything on par or better than what he could redeem with a DLC he/she would need to join a clan or get on a friendslist. This is a mindbogglingly poor decision and probably one of the reasons why new player retention is abysmal. All apsects of crafting are tied to RVR in this game and yet the price of admission is so high to enter RVR that one needs to be in a zerg to do it. The dwindling player population is a result of the sheer amount of time needed prep the logistics of RVR is crazy and the winner take all design of the game also means that a clan/nation can lose weeks of work in the span of a day or 2. The goal of RVR should be to take ports. Not remove a nation's ability to compete in port battles entirely Being in an "imposible" nation means nothing now if all the other ones are required to craft and build up player owned ports too. Just seems absurd. Once we saw what the new changes were going to be a couple weeks ago I think we just collectively as a clan said screw it. NA is fun, but the juice just ain't worth the squeeze right now.
  35. 10 points
    We are working in timber changes and plan to deploy them soon. Here are the principles again that will help you provide feedback and criticism on achieving the goals We want to bring somewhat realistic wood types to the game that bring variety and dont cast the players into 2 types of woods We want players to feel the difference - real difference when sailing the ship made from particular timber. We want players to have clear choice when picking wood for a particular combat role Current test shown that there is too much thickness across the board and overall thickness will be lowered. Heavy ship battles are really slower now and its not good. All planking and frame thickness will be lowered Three types of woods that were not used will fill the certain roles Locust - will similar to live oak but with more HP but less thickness for hull, but slightly more for masts Sabicu - will be similar to white oak but more HP and less thickness for hull, but slightly more for masts Mahogany - will be similar to Teak but with less thickness but more splinter damage resistance Rare woods will be better than seasoned balanced wood alternatives but will be extremely rare and expensive. Overall all woods will be able to separate into 3 categories Hardwoods - HP Hardwoods - Resistance Softwoods - Speed with variety of other factors To avoid the back and forth the patch will only deploy after full review - The final stat proposal will be posted when ready.
  36. 10 points
    In my opinion, great update RvR-wise (we will see if majority likes it these days though). But if you really want to make RvR great again, please introduce incentives for people to join the smaller nations... currently everyone joins Russia as it's CONVENIENT, and also they're the only ones that have a port (or actually, not one, but THREE) with Hull 4 Sailing 4 Crew 4 Gunnery 4, which requires a lot of players to grind... We need incentives to join small nations, not incentives to join the big ones. What incentives? I don't frankly know... but you need to acknowledge this is a problem and has to be fixed as soon as possible. P.S. having the PB transport item cost 50k+ doubs is another way to favour the rich clans (casually, mostly in Russia and Sweden) to use the item, while others can't simply afford it. How about you put the item for a cheaper price, the smaller the nation is? Shouldn't be exploitable if not tradable, yet makes it easier for little nations that, currently, struggle.
  37. 10 points
  38. 10 points
    Arguing about balance hurts your professional development as a player. https://illiteracyhasdownsides.com/2020/01/18/opinion-arguing-about-balance-is-unhelpful-for-personal-development/ (Post from some starcraft 2 pro) PS That's why many naval action pros don't argue about balance and just use the best unbalanced things to enjoy smashing their opponents (who sink holding a calculator)
  39. 9 points
    Remedios vuelve a ser Español. Cosa buena, dado que mucha gente tenia ahí sus astilleros. Solo nos resta mirar hacia adelante y no remover cosas del pasado. Si las condiciones antes de la "toma" de Remedios en España eran jodidas ahora con un puerto totalmente masacrado serán peores y solo podemos mejorar porque más bajo no podemos caer. Para poder avanzar es preciso dejarse de medir los egos. Bajo mi punto de vista, en la facción somos tan pocos, que no tiene ningún sentido la cantidad de clanes actual. Está claro que los almacenes son importantes y cada cual (grupo) quiere el suyo, su gestión y que nadie meta mano a la "caja", pero debemos de empezar a pensar que estamos todos en el mismo barco o sinceramente nos quedaremos sin jugadores. No se la solución pero podríamos empezar por organizar el TS y quitar los 2000 salas que solo hacen separar a la gente e intentar jugar todos juntos sin mirar el tag de nuestros nombres. Saludos.
  40. 9 points
    Dont keep neglected ports in your portfolio. If Raiders see a neglected port they take it back. You have a counter - invest. If you invest more than others your port is safe. I know some don't like it. But i don't like lazy port owners too. Dont capture the port if you dont want to invest in it. Leave it to other nations.
  41. 9 points
    If people are crying over and over again for the same stuff during the development of a game. It's probably because this "stuff" is not there or doesn't work. A better armor model is basically something some of these "crying guys" are asking for since.. Well, the moment they realized it wasn't there. Armor model is needed in UA:D if we want a semblance of realism. Even if I wasn't always happy about the way this feedback was delivered, you can't say it was just pages of "cry". A critic is still a feedback, it's even more valid if it is backed with evidence in game, like it generaly was.
  42. 9 points
    Nope. Campaign isn't feature. This is the main game mode. Yes, I stopped playing for this reason. Some mission I didn’t even run once. I mean, I'm not a big fan "Here we go again". If I were, I was probably playing a skyrmish until I died of old age. However, I would like to test the real changes in the gameplay. For example: - obvious problem is the armor model. Armor scheme...well, it does not exist. You can select any sort of scheme, but it does not affect the actual placement of the armor. For example, you can choose AoN, but still have lot armor in extended deck/belt, what is the opposite of an AoN idea. But that is not the main problem. Main problem it's that you can put armor on every inch of your ship. Just compare the two pictures below. Yes, even one of the most advanced battleships has turned into “deaf, blind and impotent” mainly from the fire of 8 and 6 inch cruiser shells. And in the game ... well, yes, these 9 inch cruisers just sheeps in slaughter. Although flooding and flash fire helps with shell invulnerability, but the problem "armor bricks" still there.And this is just one of the problems that affects all game aspects .
  43. 9 points
  44. 9 points
    Hi Nick, Thanks for the notes. Am seeking clarification of some points, plus providing some feedback as part of same. Look forward to hearing from you when you have the time. Cheers I for one HATE how the AI does this even now. I see it make significantly less than ideal choices and it annoys me substantially. Making it do it even MORE often is, in my experience, a RETROGRADE step, not a plus. Am I, for example, constantly going to struggle with the AI wanting to override MY fleet/division fire control orders? Just because something is closer doesn't make it the GREATER threat, and fire control decisions ought to be decided on the basis of THREAT, NOT PROXIMITY. Leaving aside the issue of proximity does not automatically mean greatest threat, how is the AI overriding my orders consistent with ME being the Senior Officer of whatever forces are in battle? That's a significant premise of the game, isn't it? I fail to understand the logic behind this. If a shell is going to ricochet, surely it's going to do so when the armour is thickest and at an angle? The problem as I see it is when shells ricochet from things they ought not, not when they ricochet from "strong armour". Again, either the description is unintentionally imprecise, or I fail to grasp the logic driving this. Don't you simply have a formula for determining if a shell is/is not effective against armour? Might a more accurate description of the change be: Partial penetration occurs when shell penetration is within x-value of effective armour. This value is being increased, so you ought to expect to see more partial penetrations, even potentially on thick armour IF the shell striking it is within that x-value. In the absence of important specifics in the announcement of this change, it sounds like there will be more partial penetrations "for reasons". What they are, we don't know. What difference they'll make, we also don't know. WHY the change is being made at all, we don't know. How any of it relates to realism we certainly have no clue at all. It might seem that I'm being overly picky, but the fact is the ways in which these things are introduced/explained matter. Are you addressing root causes here, or chasing results without any particular reference to any specific factors that currently are frankly rather poorly implemented? Take two of the most repeatedly complained of issues, namely the HUGE penalties for "target speed" and "target manoeuvres". Are these being addressed? Are there PLANS to address the gunnery comprehensively at SOME point, or will we continue to see band-aids over band-aids because the genuine root causes, such as speed and manoeuvres adding potentially huge penalties when REALISM ought to demand a system that reflects DEVIATION from the expected position of the target ship according to the gunnery solution at the time the shells were fired, are NOT being addressed? Do you consider the current model to be good enough, and that's not going to change until after the Steam launch, for example? I for one would LOVE to know the answer to THAT. If their impact is to be more critical, what exactly are the means by which we (and the AI) can prevent them? Is it more or less "shove in MAX bulkheads, armoured bulkheads, and otherwise armour the hell out of your turrets and you're sweet"? If that's the case, is anything being done to encourage the AI to do this? Feels like we're cheating if WE know this answer and the AI doesn't, because it doesn't matter to me if the AI piles more/larger guns etc on their ships yet they continue to burn and pop all over the place due to a failure to grasp those essential truths of the damage/damage control models. Aren't these historically known factors? Why not simply USE THOSE as the base instead of making up numbers and then trying different sets of numbers now and again? If using historically valid numbers creates problems, the next step in my opinion ought to be to move to the next element along the total processes that relate to torpedo use in the game and address it. And the next, and the next, until you've done them all. My own professional experience has taught me changing bits and pieces here and there is a recipe for an increasingly unstable system, and that's a FAR GREATER nightmare to deal with that getting the fundamentals correct. Might this be viewed as "Engine sections that are fully flooded/damaged are not repairable"? While it's clear a fully flooded section cannot be repaired, and thus a section that is partly flooded can be, it's NOT clear if a partly damaged section can be repaired but a fully damaged cannot.
  45. 9 points
    What I like: Nothing Remove them, there's simply no need for them. The more woods you bring in, the more unbalanced the game has become.
  46. 9 points
    Death finally comes for him after a total of 60 hits...60! I mean I get it is a 100K monster with the best anti-torp protection, but no this is pure fantasy. What if it had Maximum bulkheads? But just when you think torpedoes are underpowered, I turn my sights on the BC. He is of course doing what all 39kt, 35K ton, heavily armed AI BCs do, sailing in circles like those jerks on jet-skis do, laughing because no gun can hit him. Well my first DD salvo only just catches him with 2 or 3 hits, but that is enough to slow the jet-ski to fishing boat speeds. Continuing with his circles, he is easy to line up for the next salvo. Death was assured, but 2 of the 3 hits from this salvo started a flash fire and incinerated him before any more hits found the mark. He lacked any protection at all, and it was obvious even the impervious speedboat BC can’t survive a match with 1 of these DDs, much less a squadron. Obviously, we have issues. Ability to mount ridiculous numbers of torpedoes (in terms of tubes and reloads) on even small ships like DD/TBs. A ludicrously balanced speed penalty that makes anything going 35kts or more effectively invulnerable to gun fire, no matter the size and actual maneuverability. Beyond reality torpedo protection at high levels. Magical flood recovery that can’t be explained by number of bulkheads setting. Honestly, number 2 has to be fixed. It creates a huge exploit that has no basis in reality and so enables designs like mine to be hugely effective. Number 1 could be balanced by fixing number 2, if ships carrying vast amounts of torpedoes were more like a ship carrying nitroglycerin into combat. Number 3 is definitely a balance issue that can be fixed easily. Number 4 is a bug, no way around it. I’ll leave it you guys, thoughts, questions, comments?
  47. 9 points
    There will be nowhere to run next week. Circle of death will stop players from running. Right now we just want flags to be placed en masse to see the stability and exceptions for the feature.
  48. 9 points
    We are already very bold. We provide a game with features never seen before and we strive for realism and historical accuracy. But we do not want players to have torpedo boats that accidentally fire their single torpedo and then quit the battle because it missed. We do not also want torpedo boats to be a minimal threat. Already reloads take a good amount of time to reload according to tubes and I remind that most games of the genre, have unlimited ammo... It is really a minor issue that can become optimized during the campaign development.
  49. 9 points
    You should make a guide - we are still bombarded by hatemail that its very hard to make money in the game. And poor rookies are only sailing cutters with 2 reals in the pocket.
  50. 9 points
    Thankfully Means game is always evolving. As one of my teachers would say - there's twenty editions of a game because the game is never finished.
  • Newsletter

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