Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/28/2021 in all areas

  1. Hello again Admirals, Since our last post regarding the upcoming big update we have made significant progress not only on finalizing the first campaign version but also on adding new and very important features. Besides the many new hulls for Italy and other nations, we added a brand new hull model based on the Russian Battleship project “Sovetsky Soyuz” and several new ship variations for the Russian Navy. We added even more depth in the armor zone system by making the belt, deck and gun armoring layers more detailed, giving you much more design freedom. The most important new
    32 points
  2. Greetings Admirals, The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to release not together with the campaign since it has many new features which owe to be tested solely. Please read everything about it in our blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/core-patch-0-5-released Your feedback will be much appreciated, as always! FIXED 20/9/2021 =Note: There is a known bug of freeze if you click mouse button while waiting to load a battle.
    25 points
  3. Hello all, We were ready to release, as we fixed and optimized all majors aspects, but we found a potential crash problem that could be caused if you clicked mouse button while waiting for AI fleet design in the loading window. We cannot release without this bug fixed, so please wait until tomorrow. PS. We are sorry for the anxiety and anticipation caused so far, but we want you to play the game with the best quality and stability possible.
    21 points
  4. The patch is in closed testing procedure. If all is good, we will release on Monday. Everyone, have a great weekend!
    17 points
  5. oi lads, an update! @Stormnet @HusariuS @Marshall99 @Bluishdoor76 @IronKaputt @TotalRampage @Koogus @1MajorKoenig @ThatZenoGuy @Skeksis @CapnAvont1015 @Zuikaku @Airzerg @SonicB @Speglord @Commander-Alexander-Reed @Steeltrap @Hangar18 @Jatzi @Danvanthevacuumman @Gangut And god knows who else i missed oh hold on. @Aceituna Forgive me as it's 27oC where i am. @Tousansons soz lol. @Dracohere it is lol. Very noice too see this btw.
    14 points
  6. Ok, I have been a silent reader now since 2019, when I first bought the game. Seriously devs, what the hello kitty is going on. Where the hell is the patch/infos about it or the general state of the game. People are getting REALLY tired of your shit.
    13 points
  7. Hello all, A hotfix has just been uploaded which includes the following: *Hotfix v88* (17/9/2021 UPDATE) - Fixed major bug of gun armor resetting for saved designs, when trying to apply new gun armor settings. - Fixed major bug of armor penetration, incorrectly evaluating the armor thickness of guns and causing too many detonations and flash fires. - Fixed issue with part selection in ship design, that could become overly big and inaccurate. - Fixed bug that caused keyboard edit of gun armor to use only inches measurement. - Fixed bugs of Auto-Design which could cause build
    12 points
  8. The lack of communication from the developers here really concerns me, and is NOT healthy for the community going forward. Literally everyone here is going crazy out of boredom and excitement for this patch. Any other company I've seen at least shows a few images of what's to come or a teaser, but here, I see absolutely nothing. Very, VERY concerning. Why aren't the developers listening?
    12 points
  9. The year is 2036. Hot, clammy winds blow over the sprawling marshes under which lay what some used to call 'Europe'. The sun is hidden, barely visible behind a thick and dense smog, but the horizon is illuminated by the eternally raging wildfires that roll in waves through the ruins of the continent. The stalker is short, his frame little more than a skeleton; scarce protein is found since the Hyperdroughts of '32 and '34. He looks around nervously before lifting a hatch, previously hidden under some dirt, and slinks into his burrow. He puts down the rusted harpoon in one corner, his cat
    11 points
  10. I'm not really sure what we even do at this point. Posting here kinda feels like screaming into the void, with the only response being other players, just as worried and confused. This patch better be worth it, because holy **** we can't keep doing this **** every time
    11 points
  11. It's still not supposed to be a WW2 simulator, even though devs themselves seem to forgot it. It's 1890 to 1940, not 1940 to 2000. Until they change this of course.
    11 points
  12. New hotfix has just become available, admirals! The freeze issue while loading should be gone now. *Hotfix v89* (20/9/2021 UPDATE) - Fixed various bugs of auto-design, which were also responsible for freezes while loading battles. - Fixed gun collider issues. You should be able to mount guns with more flexibility, especially in towers. - Fixed bug in gun selection when it was placed on a tower. - Fixes on other minors you reported.
    9 points
  13. Thanks for noting. This was an "ancient" issue and it will be fixed. Saves are stored in "AppData" folder of Windows e.g. C:\Users\YOURUSERNAME\AppData\LocalLow\Game Labs\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts Crew losses are supposed to simulate realistic conditions. Despite players wanting crew to die by the hundreds, in history ships were not having extreme losses, unless they were sunk or detonated. You can read about the casualties of Derfflinger and Seydlitz in the Battle of Jutland for the matter. We try to properly simulate the conditions of crew casualties caused by direct
    9 points
  14. Oh come on, you personally convinced me that we have to revert this change in the upcoming hotfix
    9 points
  15. What frustrates me most is the fact that this can be remedied so simply and for so little time. Take five minute each month to write a little status update for the community, 99% of people are satisfied to know that at the end of the month they'll get to know how stuff is going. At most from time to time get a little Q&A going so people can reasonably ask why game plans didn't pan out and how it looks for the future.
    9 points
  16. Yes, or even more. But the fact that they just can't type few sentences about what is going on is very frustrating.
    9 points
  17. Let me just add to this. I'm seeing some arguments in this thread that (x autodesign complaint) is acceptable because a small minority of IRL vessels--let's say 10%-- were actually built that way. Never mind that most of them were not considered successful; the problem right now is that these should be statistical outliers in the designs we're seeing, but they're not. If anything, I see 90% fruity weird layouts of some sort, and 10% designs that are actually typical of the period. This is because there is no historical probability weighting (representing centuries of actual ship design e
    8 points
  18. I think having AI design templates that scale displacement/protection/firepower but retain templates for layout might be the best path going forward. Getting AI to design ships from scratch does not seem to be working, but if the AI has a design that includes all of the essential systems, ratio of secondary to primary armament, appropriate armour thickness relative its gun power and speed, etc. then it would be much easier to have the decision left up to it to be which template turret layout, or if it should take 11, 12, or 13in guns etc. If the AI is picking from designs A-H above,
    8 points
  19. The update has just been released! You can share your feedback here:
    8 points
  20. I'll be honest, if it doesn't come out today, I'm gonna be extremely disappointed. It's clear that they meant today by their previous statement. If they do delay it again, it's clear they're incompetent in their abilities to give out release dates and be honest with the community. Better to cover your backs than give out false promises.
    8 points
  21. Again Thanks very much, it is exactly the communication we need. Look forward to tomorrow!
    8 points
  22. We were demanding more communication and precision. This is exactly that! Thanks very much for keeping us inform. This is exactly the kind of communication we need! To know what is going ! Again thanks very much!
    8 points
  23. Nobody's mad that they're finally communicating. That's objectively a good thing. Personally, I'm mad at myself more than anything, because I let myself get hyped up like an idiot. I've been frantically refreshing this board all week. When patch day finally rolled around, I spent the entire day at work positively itching to come home and play my favourite game's new patch. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's literally been on my mind all week, only to see it postponed at the absolute last minute. Once again they're over-promising and under-delivering. It's nothing out of the ordin
    8 points
  24. I woulda thought they'd release it this weekend since it'd be labor day weekend... I know we want them to take their time and deliver a good product, but 3 months without updates is a lotta time also no weight increases
    8 points
  25. Hello Admirals! I've returned from the land where the last dreadnought is located. I see the patch is still not out but I'm not worried. Let's just hope the Devs put much work into it to make worth while. By the way this picture is how I see the A.I in this game. Funny and retarded.
    8 points
  26. I'm not taking a position on "old" vs "new" other than to observe there appear to be constant new versions of later tech ships and virtually none of earlier ones, at least that was the case when I used to bother checking, lol. I AM worried by the whole bottleneck aspect of putting hulls into the game. Beyond technical and design questions, my other point of interest is the decisions that result in a hull being one thing or another are absolutely crucial to what I would have thought the general idea of the game might want to be. There are, after all, reasons ships look as they do
    8 points
  27. Here's the thing: with a design bank, plus the AI adding variation but within set constraints and modular templates, devs can give us a ship designer that does not constain us to oblivion. Actual freedom to experiment with the limits of what is possible. Right now, none of that is possible because of arbitrary limits on flexibility and freedom made to coddle and handhold the AI. You can't, however, mod a fundamentally flawed ship designer. You know, the core of the game. The minimum viable product. As long as the devs keep using the AI's high degree of freedom as an exc
    7 points
  28. @DougToss @SonicB At least there are still people who do not want this game to turn into a clown fiesta. Maybe there's hope that the end of the project if devs listen to the right people. What I want from the game is this: a robust ship designer where you can build anything you want. You want meme ships? Go for it. You want to recreate ships that served during 1880s to 1945? Sure. You want to create your own naval doctrine and reflect that through your design? Mahan, get tf outta the way. In order to have this game, the devs need to stop adding more 50-60k ton hulls. In fact, this curr
    7 points
  29. We can make this as a future feature.
    7 points
  30. Also thank you for the more detailed and transparent look into what is going on in the process. This keeps the players/customers informed and feeling engaged!
    7 points
  31. Who's excited for tomorrow? I am!
    7 points
  32. I strongly disagree. Now just to be upfront I have been defending the devs delays and such multiple times mostly on the steam forum. I have worked IT and software dev all my adult life. The delays are understandable especially with covid. That being said the communication is some of the worst I have ever seen. Long term goals being missed is understandable. There are weeks or months between them and things can happen, these things can get compounded by other things which causes other problems that snowball. That being said when you give a timeline for the same week, there are very few
    7 points
  33. The reason the RTW comparisons exist is because if you go back and read the original blog posts about the intended game mechanics it's basically RTW with 3d graphics. Not a bad thing. But the fact is RTW is it's direct competitor. The original stuff about the game presented it not like Age of Sail but like RTW. Which makes them competitors. They've said nothing to change that assumption, I think the intention has changed, but they've said nothing to that affect. And so the RTW comparisons will continue until we have reason to think they no longer should be compared. Frankly, if they gave us Ag
    7 points
  34. Excellent. Crew mechanics and custom battles saves are cool. Now I won't waste time with designing my most effective ships again and again, and I will have time to experiment with new things. After these modern hulls I hope that now they will focus on older hulls, because as I previously said, we don't have the variety in early and mid game.
    7 points
  35. The campaign will begin in 1890, hopefully sooner like -1880, so if there is some hulls do add, it is from this time periode. The focus should be the Dreadnought area instead of the super-battleship. In any campaign, maybe the goal will be to have the 1st super/mega battleship. BUT most of our time and the real planning will be with those pre-dreadnought and dreadnought.
    7 points
  36. Also we need a proper weather system and different sea states as its pretty difficult if not impossible to tell just by looking how calm the sea is half the time. So a dynamic weather system is a must.
    6 points
  37. I just wanted to say, @Nick Thomadis I genuinely appreciate this, and would like to see this attitude going forwards. It makes an Old Grog happy to see that you are adhering to simulating real results, and hope that carries over into buoyancy etc.
    6 points
  38. I think the designer is indeed the biggest issues with the most work needed still. Campaign is important to create a setting to use these ships but being able to construct them properly is the main selling point for me. I wrote up a summary of what I would like to see a while ago but I am not sure if the devs agree with me on this (although length to beam ratio was announced a while ago - haven’t seen any word on it yet though)
    6 points
  39. YES! I suggested this a little while ago. We need a community manager! It's nice that they've finally said something, and that the patch is almost here, but what about next time? This is going to keep happening, and the community are going to get pissed off yet again. I love this game, but if the devs keep this up I might just forget about it all together. I can only protest for so long.
    6 points
  40. Well I mean, saves in custom battles, shell/fuze propellant split, more in depth belt and armour layouts including turret side & top differentiation, crew implementation being moved from core patch 3 to core patch 0.5, these are all things we have been requesting that probably weren't on their original to-do list. This proves to me two things. A: they still listen intently to the community, and are willing to accept severe delays to implement our suggestions, even if the communication rate is a bit questionable. B: we might have been a bit too harsh on poor old @Nick Thomadis in t
    6 points
  41. Core finnaly coming?! HOOORAY. Finnaly I dont have to spend 70% of battles rebuilding my ships. And thank ya @Cptbarney for the ping
    6 points
  42. Devs busy porting game over to mobile.
    6 points
  43. Anywhere from 2 weeks to 10 years.
    6 points
  44. Okay, time for me to ramble about Imperial Russian Warships and to clear up some misconceptions, bias and phobia. No, Russia for the most part did not build quality warships in any way shape or form. This is not bias, this is fact. The simple reason, with out getting overly long winded is that Imperial Russia just didn't have the infrastructure or industry and really wasn't "modren enough" to build these warships and on top of that the Russian Navy has always placed second in priority to the Russian Army given Russia's limited access to the ocean. Fact is, for the most part, most of
    6 points
  45. best way to deal with irrational russophobes is not respond to them. time to post fish again I s'pose!
    6 points
  46. This statement is still true. But sometimes he makes me sad on mondays.
    6 points
  47. Ok just been looking into the smoke interference mechanics and they look completely backwards to me. So currently smoke interference is based solely on the funnels, which makes no sense since funnels don't generate smoke, the engine does. For example if I have 2 funnels on my ship (100% engine effectiveness) and I add a 3rd redundant funnel in case of damage, instead of reducing the smoke interference as you might expect, it increases it by 50%. What I'd suggest is this. Remove the smoke interference stat from funnels. Instead directly calculate it from the engine hp * a multiplier
    5 points
  48. I think we need to stop with the RTW2 comparisons. Rule the Waves is an old-school turn-based strategy sim played almost entirely through text. Dreadnoughts is a real-time 3D quasi-simulator drawing inspiration from fking Kerbal Space Program. They're not automatically competitors just because you happen to play both games - get over yourselves. They're not even remotely the same game and occupy completely different niches in the market. Everyone's speculating about what the campaign will or won't be, and are seemingly deciding their opinions about it before the first playable a
    5 points
  • Newsletter

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