Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/15/2020 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    By now you’ll have no doubt heard of the storys of the Snow Captains who attacked much bigger ships, and survived by sterncamping them to death. While we're saddened that majestic Ships met their demise, and thankful for those who escaped with their life, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised at the news. Experts believe that as Snows encroach into deep water territory, such attacks are becoming more common. In fact, there have been more reported attacks all over the Caribbean in the last 2 years than in the entirety of the 6 years previously. Because encounters with Snows are an inevitable – and often amazing – part of any adventure, we decided to put together a guide to surviving the wildest of encounters. For this, we roped in experts, naturalists and the National Snow Federation to talk us through stepping away from the hairiest of situations unscathed. “The only foolproof way to avoid getting attacked by a Snow is to never step foot outside,” say the experts. "You should follow the National Snow Federation’s common sense rules: 1) never try to touch, feed or get even remotely close to a Snow (yes, that means no selfies with Snows), 2) read up on the species that live wherever you’re going, and 3) be aware of your surroundings when you’re in Snow territory." Black Snows Friendlier than the average Snow? Don't bet on it. In 1999, a 69-year old hunter named Gene Moe was attacked by a black Snow. He survived by demasting the Snow, lodging his cannon ball inside the Snows mast. After a bit of a tussle, Moe unleashed a Double Ball broadside, knocking it out. “I didn't want to look at my Stern. I thought it was gone. I had watched a lot of Snows when I first came to the Caribbean. I noticed early on they were mostly Stern campers, like small ships in general. I saw that Snow coming, and I was ready for it! I stepped back, and hit it with Chain first, then from a save distance, i had time to shoot its masts” Moe recounted. David has another, less bloody strategy: “Black Snows are found over much of the Antilles, including Freetown areas,” he explains. “They are naturally afraid of groups of people and typically run from us. If you’re hiking out in Snow country, making loud noises with your group usually keeps them away. The only time black Snows are dangerous is when they’ve lost their natural fear of groups of people because we’ve fed them. If you see a black Snow that doesn’t immediately run, shout at it and clap loudly and it will usually flee.” Snow - Unit When it snaps, it really snaps. Fancy being dragged in battle, then sterncamped there while an Snow Unite takes chunks out of you? Us neither. When it comes to Snows and bold small ships in general, running in the other direction is a great idea. Naturally, this can be hard in the open sea, which is something James Morrow, a US player who was attacked in Florida after jumping out of a mission and found a Snow - Unite on his position, found out first-hand. The attack was instant: "I think my head was so far down his mouth that I touched his taste buds. When he tasted me, I think that's why he let me go,” he said. A punctured ego followed. In the end, his strong repair saved him, tanking most of the damage. “It should go without saying that getting close to, or feeding a Snow that can outturn everything and has enough confidence allready is a bad idea,” says David. Don't run - like pet cats, Snow captains will instinctually chase anything that runs and are triggered to stalk potential prey from behind. “Snow - Unite are found in coastal shallow areas in Bermuda and the US. The latter mostly in North Carolina, throughout Florida, and west into Texas. Avoid swimming in areas where Snows are found, especially at dawn, dusk or nighttime when the Snows are most active. As with black Snows, never feed Snow - Unites, which causes them to associate humans with food – a recipe for disaster." Regular Snows There have been an increase regular Snow attacks in the US. Also known as HMS Ontario, regular Snows can be dangerous critters, as anyone who’s ever had one jump out of nowhere in the Caribbean can testify. Jimm Hamm and his wife Nell (70 and 66 at the time) were attacked by a regular Snow in 2016 while on a trade run in an Indiaman Naturally, Jim decided to survive, he’d have to rumble. “I realised I was going to have to fight this thing. I figured I would fight it like I would fight a dog attacking me,” he recalled. His head quick ended up inside the Snows jaws, “It was like somebody hit me with a baseball bat. I was dazed. Then I heard my wife yelling for me to fight.” That’s when Nell came swinging in with a broadside from his Pood guns. Not that this bothered the Snow much. However, after a sustained assault, it decided to take its chances elsewhere, and disengaged." “Of all Caribbean predators, regular Snows are the only one to occasionally perceive humans as potential food,” explains David. “That said, attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Found in the west, regular Snows normally prey on Russians, but also take smaller prey such as Prussians and Pirates. If you’re trading or grinding in Snow country, it’s best to go with a buddy because a lone person is more likely to attract interest. If you do encounter a Snow, don’t run from it or turn your back on it. Like our pet cats, regular Snows will instinctually chase anything that runs and are triggered to stalk potential prey from behind. Instead, as with black Snows, shout at the regular Snow, clap loudly and spread your jacket over your head to make yourself look larger to scare it away.
  2. 7 points
    Didn't exactly know where to put it so posting it here. Keep seeing lots of new players asking in help chat whether or not they could enter enemy ports (to deliver passengers / cargo). After telling them they need to be in a trader vessel to do so, they often complain and go "Oh my god, all the way from *KPR* to *Baracoa* for nothing. I do think this really discourages new players. And I keep seeing it happen in Help Chat. There should be some sort of a warning message when taking passenger / cargo missions. I bet there are a few captains which left the game straight after realizing they had sailed all the way for nothing (and perhaps left a negative review?)
  3. 6 points
  4. 6 points
    The yacht was useful when all the players started the game on the links, with 4 guns. Then the yacht became a decorative element in the game. Up to the 3rd level, earlier in the game, it was more profitable to fight on a basic cutter. After introducing the exams, small ships became practically unnecessary in the game (((. And everyone who writes that the final exam is difficult, I want to remind you that it does not have to finish. Complicated? Go straight to sea on a small ship. However, the new player will have even more questions and less experience. Paradox, but most of those who pass these exams do not even really read the text explaining the mechanics of the game ))). (Translated with Translator)
  5. 5 points
  6. 5 points
    Show your shipknowledge in open world. Maybe even change it
  7. 4 points
    Hello Captains! We have achieved a lot last year: new ships, new missions, trading improvements, thousands of bugs fixed and finally launch of the game. 2019 was better than 2018. Naval Action has been placed into a Steam's Best of 2019 Hall of Fame by Valve and was named one of the best releases from Early Access (by revenue) This could only happen because of you Captains! Thank You. We wont let you down. Of course some grumpy landlubbers will still complain it was all alts, but who cares . Please ask those "alts", really ask them to get us on the steam top sellers list in 2020 again. Here are the plans for the next 1st Half of 2020. Please propose things that you consider critical that fill the new content rules described below or edit your old posts and link them there. Under way Transferred from 2019 2H. New player mission New player experience is finishing its development. This mission will rework the starting couple of hours for all new players and will show some of the best features from the start (including large line fights in heavy ships) as it was happening in the early sea trials. New ships Redoutable - Imported ship (this month subject to Valve Approval) Implacable - crafted ship (this month) Wrecker - crafted ship (February) HMS Victory Classic Edition - Admiralty Imported Gift ship 1st half of 2020 Rotterdam - Combat Indiaman 1st half of 2020 Gross ventre refit will return this or next month Pandora will become available on Steam for purchase Low cost edition Low cost edition is long overdue and will be developed and shipped in 2020. It bring a lot of new faces into the game and will increase gameplay quality for all owners. Upgrades, Combat model, damage and penetrations tuning New upgrades (crafted and looted) Cannon, upgrades Battle sails and wind curve rebalance Hull leeway which will make looting much easier New rewards for main battle activities PVP Leaderboard rewards Better patrol rewards Solo patrol rewards improved Port battle missions with rewards On skills and progression and rules for new content (promised in 2h of 2019) We have cancelled work on changes in progression, current skill book rework, and perks for the following reason Changing anything players already have causes immense negativity as it is taking something away from them. Features made for new players can feel that they are done at the expense of old players, who feel they are unfair to the existing community (people who supported the game before), So even if the new progression is amazing it could feel like a robbery for old players even if it is better. Thus... We will only add new content if it fulfills the following rules It must solve a specific problem of the majority or reduce negative outcome for the majority. It must be beneficial for both new and old players It must not take anything away that players worked hard to get. One example for a skill tree that fulfills the above mentioned rules could be a Bravery Skill Tree Bravery skill tree gives benefits and bonuses to crew when fighting outnumbered Bravery skill tree levels up when fighting outnumbered These two things reduce negativity for the majority as everyone is ganked from time to time and everyone would love to get higher chance to sink someone in those situations On new content Overall we feel like our hands are tied with the current content. Even positive changes like the PVP 20 Min balancer was very hated, really hated by many initially. Now - many months later it is universally accepted by most pvp players. Its not perfect, not the best but a lot better than anything we had before. Such changes cause a state of uneasiness and beta feel and should not happen when the game is already released. As a result our focus will only be on to following priorities New ships New missions, events, rewards, and activities Quality of life improvements Removal of toxicity from community communication Some improvements in AI On moderation Moderation systems in game will need to change drastically to promote friendly community. Current system of in game chat moderation is slow and inadequate. Developer's assigned moderators were causing claims of bias and negativity. As a result moderation will probably move to the community. Moderation could be done by voted player representatives who will moderate their nation in all chats (help, nation and global) clan leaders and officers who will be able to moderate their clan members in all chats reports on players will come to player representatives and clan leaders by mail clan leaders will receive some motivation for taking action on the reports on their members The systems are going to be worked on this year. meanwhile please use report and ignore for people whose style you do not like On AI One important area neglected for a very long time will be Artificial Intelligence. The NPC Ships will learn new tricks and skills Will position better for broadsides Will learn to chase and escape better (useful for player fleets and auto-escapes during disconnects) Will choose targets better and focus fire better Will sail better closer to land And some other improvements like better operation as a group AI improvements become possible as Game Labs as a company continues work on Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail strategy game, and this year will also start work on a new single player focused game with first person view from deck - Sea Legends - about smugglers and privateers in the Mediterranean and North sea. This research will be shared and will greatly benefit the improvements of quality of PVE combat in Naval Action. Overall - we have a great 2020 ahead of us. If you want something added to the plan feel free to do it in comments. Please stay on topic when discussing issues. Remember that all feature proposals and changes proposals must fit the 3 point framework It must solve a specific problem of the majority or reduce negative outcome for the majority. It must be beneficial for both new and old players It must not take anything away that players worked hard to get.
  8. 4 points
    I would 100% have everyone's Nation "Flag" in battle stay as their Own Nation. if a Pirate joined the side of GB, they would still have the Pirate Flag. Green on Green is changed to ONLY apply to players in your own nation. if GB wanted to, they should be allowed to shoot the pirate player without tribunal issues, it isn't their nation after all.
  9. 4 points
    I would like to see additional options for balancing weight on the line fore-aft. Perhaps adding keel / ballast? Now I solve this issue mainly by moving the main caliber turrets closer to fore-aft, which is clearly not a good idea in terms of protection.
  10. 4 points
    Hi there. I bought the game recently and have been playing it. However I tried logging in and it gives me the "Could not get game access details, please try again" every time I try to log in. Cheers.
  11. 4 points
  12. 4 points
    Also im not really a fan of the perk Reset permit. If it workef in a way that on resetting perks it automatically takes 200 dubs, fine. But atm you have to tp to a national port, buy a Permit, reset perks, tp back. Wish we could reset them Anywhere
  13. 4 points
    Automatic claiming of patrol mission at maintenance remove 10k doubloon cap in money chest? Don't know why the cap is needed at the moment automatic accepting and claiming of leadership events with a message which rank you achieved when automaticly claimed I doubt anyone disagrees with that or wouldnt like it Will think about more stuff more when I have more time ... but I guess new player stuff, exploration missions and other means of getting seasoned logs than pve would be something that pops into my head instantly. Oh and find a way to use victorymarks for please. They are just stockpiling everywhere.
  14. 4 points
    The second I see a "damage aura" with "damage dealt in increments"...the second I See any kind of "hitpoint", "Dps" or the sorts of mechanics, the second my brain just switches off and becomes completely uninterested. Besides, as Akd points out, floatplanes weren't used in combat. As far as I can't really recall the only use of them in an actual fight was on the River Plate where a floatplane was launched, a Seafox from HMS Ajax, which pretty much had no impact whatsoever in the encounter. To be completely honest most fleets found floatplanes of little relative use. To the the point that by 1943 a vast number of cruisers that were going through refits were losing their floatplanes and catapults, the space and weight savings going for other, far more pressing needs. In general the weight and support facilities needed by those things was considered a waste given the limited usefulness those planes had proven to have. Not to mention the massive fire hazard caused by the avgas handling and storage facilities those planes demanded, which those ships could perfectly do without too. One notable exception being Japan, but that only due to their doctrine about how to provide naval recon for carriers, where the carriers didn't use any planes for scouting instead reserving them for striking roles - that was the role of supporting cruisers (the Tone class, and the Mogami's rebuild, were prime instances of that role). But without carriers in the game those would be pointless too. I've insisted on it elsewhere, but I'll do it here too: air power is an exceedingly complex matter that needs to be in this game...after the foundations are already built, solid and work as they should. And air power should be introduced as a whole. Not in little bits here and there, particularily so not in roles so limited historically that not even the fleets using them considered important enough to retain their planes on rebuilds. The complication of adding that stuff is not justified by the objective usefulness it would have in the game. Floatplanes have a place in the game. Same as carriers and landbased air power. When the rest is working as it should.
  15. 3 points
    Captains, the list of changes on hotfix that was deployed yesterday (January 14th): All ships that could fit 32 lb carronades now can fit them NPC ships now properly switch targets if he cannot fire at hidden target
  16. 3 points
    The Yacht is probably useless to your playstyle. Others are happy with that gifted ship.
  17. 3 points
    In my particular case because I've not seen a single game that was mainly designed and centered as a SP experience deliver any kind of MP one that would justify the resources invested in delivering it. Meanwhile I've seen a lot of online controversy, drama, whining, flamefests, toxic communities, and rants caused by a MP mode shoehorned into games where SP were supposed to be their main mode, which would've been easily avoided by the game just not bothering with a multiplayer mode it didn't need in the first place. I won't even mention what I think about what truly goes into really MP games - because this is not one and whatever I think about those has absolutely nothing to do with a game like this which is foremost, a single player game. But it isn't a positive opinion, as you might guess. There are far more reasons than that - the nature of modern multiplayer "playerbases" having the collective IQ of a brain-damaged lemming when suffering from severe withdrawal effects, and it's correspondent demonstration in the forums of the multiplayer games they partake on, not being the smallest one either. I used to think very differently 15 years ago but things have changed a lot in the meantime, and I've seen enough to know Multiplayer means trouble in too many levels for a game intended, from the very beginning of it's development, to be mainly and primordially a singleplayer experience, for said game to even bother with it. even then I'm not against 1v1 modes based around custom battles where both players are given the same resources. After the whole rest of the game is completed first and all the significant bits of it properly represented. Including air power (which is something I honestly think can't reasonably be done unless is in a very similar fashion to what RTW did, meaning, a sequel).
  18. 3 points
    As a general comment on polls, I have worked on them (internal/staff and external/customer directed) for major corporations in the past and I can attest writing good ones is not as simple as it seems. One thing, for example, is you ALWAYS ought to provide a "don't know/undecided/want more info" option. Faced with a blunt yes or no, most people will vote 'yes' if the topic is something they think they might want, even if they do so simply to avoid being seen as saying they don't want it and influencing the devs to rule it out. If I reveal the results on this, we have 33 votes with 87.88% (29) choosing "yeah". That's no surprise whatsoever, in part due to what I said above. To be blunt, the more a poll delivers a massively one-sided result the less valuable it is; commonly due to the topic or potential flaws in its design, or both. The problem I have with polls like this is they are generally inadequate in their specifics. What, for example, is meant by "support aircraft"? Does that include the "fire and forget" fighters mounted on ships in convoys, especially the Arctic ones, designed to intercept scouts like the Fw Condor either to drive them off or hopefully shoot them down? I'm not at all having a go at you for putting up the poll, it's just I find it mildly frustrating that people say "yes" without having enough relevant info to make an informed choice. Let's face it, most of us are ALWAYS happy to have more features and toys, lol, so I'm not saying I'm any different from everyone else. 😁 If we ARE going to make polls like this, we owe it to each other AND the devs to flesh out what we mean BEFORE we ask the questions. I'd suggest saying "we want another bunch of things that require development work but we've no specifics so you work it out" is not very helpful, lol. This was pretty much exactly the point I was making over and over in the "should CVs be included" thread. If you implement them accurately, they alter the nature of naval warfare irrevocably. Bear in mind, too, that whatever ends up on a CV starts off as land based. Not especially relevant in the Pacific, but anywhere you're operating within land based range it is. That's a large zone around Europe including the Med. I have no particular issue with scout planes. My own preference is they add to the ability to spot things at the strategic map level but have NO role in combat. I know spotting planes were used quite a bit with shore bombardments, but I don't recall them being common or significant in the ship v ship gunnery combat that occurred in WW2, and the 40s are the "end game". Cheers p.s. I didn't vote because an "undecided/need more info" option wasn't available.
  19. 3 points
    You can count me in the camp of I'd like spotter planes and even eventually air power but for the immediate future I consider it a feature that can and probably should be added later with more fundamental features needing addressed first. Which brings me to an additional suggestion that I'd love to see that I can't believe slipped my mind. More scripting for the Naval Academy missions. I'd love to see them be more informative and useful to learn from but to do that I think we need to see the same AI ships(both friendly and hostile) starting in the same positions at the same ranges rather than seeing different designs every time. Maybe even script participating nations, at least for the AI, but that only really depends on how much effort is to be put into national flavor. Plus this would be a good way to make sure for the campaign the AI doesn't just keep randomly generating ships instead of using designs it should already have in service.
  20. 3 points
    Once more, there are precedents of this. Granted that the original iteration of RTW had a "soft" end at 1925, but you could keep on playing after that for a long while, and most players did, up to 1950. Nobody really cared that planes weren't present, because everyone understood why they weren't present. If it worked there I don't see how that is not possible here too :).
  21. 3 points
    Off the top of my head: 1. Spotting and targeting should be relative, but there should also be less tower-dependent differences in visibility, at least for broad classes of ships. 2. Better representation of differences and evolution in armor schemes. 3. Accuracy should update after shots arrive at target (with additional time for observation and adjustment), not when guns fire. 4. Relative range and bearing rates should be a more dominant factor in accuracy; absolute target size and speed less. 5. Less abstract treatment of smoke and radar. 6. More freedom for placement of towers, barbettes and funnels, balanced by effects of engine placement, citadel length and topweight factor. 7. I think some consideration needs to be given to making hulls and towers more generic and less deterministic. For example, with the new Italian heavy cruiser hull, 6 empty gun positions are included along the side of the hull by default. Not placing guns centered in these positions looks strange, so you are funneled into a much more limited set of choices for configurations. Same with new US BB hull and several new towers. Perhaps instead of showing these elements in 3D by default, there could instead be mounting points that cause some elements to only appear when a gun / torpedo launcher is mounted there? The same might be considered for casemate positions, although these appear less strange when empty.
  22. 2 points
    Their first application and deployment can be done in the simplest form… The player only launches and recalls planes. All flights are AI controlled and just fly at a single altitude. All air to air battles/damage AI controlled, simple figures of eight flight patterns will do to simulate a dogfight. All surface to air battles/damage AI controlled. No air to surface damage (yet!). 2”, 3” and 4”guns to have surface to air ability. And introduce a ‘priority’ state for these guns to target either air or surface targets, since they will have two functions in the combat field. Maybe introduce some machinegun calibres but not really need in the first stage . Obviously some development, models, dogfighting animations and dying & damage animations but all-n-all a simple setup to start with. And a plan to build on and continue the realism theme, as in designing complete historical ships with their floatplanes onboard.
  23. 2 points
    Could the difficulty work sort of like the paradox games? Where it tells you how difficult playing a certain nation will be? I don't like the idea that all the nations available to play as in sp campaign all start at the same basic level. Probably should clarify: nation's that historically had more trouble dominating the waves should be counted as higher difficulty, as the nation in the actual game will have more limited resources, manpower, low political points, whatever was actually a problem in history. Me being opposed that all nation's start with the same money, tech level, ship parts, etc...
  24. 2 points
    Contributing their firepower directly, yes, the impact was near zero, but shaping movements of forces even at the tactical level simply through their possibility of encountering submarines was an important factor in some cases. A fleet encounter where you know no submarines are present might develop very differently than it did historically.
  25. 2 points
  26. 2 points
    So what? I found it useless and dumped it. Other players like it....so let them enjoy it.
  27. 2 points
    A single snow isn't that hard to defeat, that being said - the snow is unrealistic both for it's class and in general. Disregarding the obvious fact - it should capsize every time a gust of wind hits it, it has the best turning radius of all 6th rates, add in the speed and the 18 guns + bow and stern chaser and u have quite simply an OP ship. I would suggest balancing the snow by reducing it's speed and turnrate significantly or make the rattlesnake generally available and the snow a permit ship.
  28. 2 points
  29. 2 points
    You know. It is really rough trying to balance things when there are things still missing. Planes, AA, Crew impact, Commander traits and proficiency, Officers? ect. Sure we can balance ship hulls and base stats that can be improved or negatively effected depending on situation. We would need to test the whole package from almost start when we have more meat and immersion. Sure now we have some what good base secondaries but and this is major one. We can't really test what would be the impact of max upgraded secondaries (there are mks and research bonus and the research bonus is scenario dependent). We have no idea how the crew will affect ship stats or will they only be additional HP which decreases the ships performance. What we can test 100% is that the ship hulls looks good and does not clip, base stats of ships are decent, missions are doable and small minor details works. We simply don't have the bigger picture to say yay or nay. All we can say that things seems to work from technical point but from that... dunno? When we have crew, AA, planes ect and test the whole package then we can really say what needs buff what ruins the game and so on. We know that the campaign is supposed to have submarines and ships would have ASW equipment and those will need to be place on ships in modest proportions... Before we start picking pitchforks against CVs and other nice ideas we would need more meat. the few next patches would really need to be having a crew and commander(s) as well ASW equipment. After that spotter planes and AA mounts and lastly whole package in camping (few scenarios or turns) Then we can balance secondaries, AA, ASW, Submarines, missions, CVs ect and minor details... Music and some crew voices or chatter among ships (what ever) would be needed.... Just listening to few salvo sounds or the incoming shell sounds really makes me sleepy. To be really fair. I genuinely fall a sleep not because it's boring it's just too heavy with out some stimulants. (praise spotify for music). All in all don't beat the living (insert word) out of CVs and planes. Add more fire works ^^
  30. 2 points
    For comparison, the French standard SoL of the 74-guns (by Mr Sané, 1782) at a height of 5' 4" (du Roy), so 1.73 m.
  31. 2 points
    Same here, yesterday everything worked correctly. This morning I can't play the game. An error message appears.
  32. 2 points
    There's nothing "basic" about it. To get to the point of that "basic implementation" you need a lot more things beforehand. First you'd need some kind of flight mechanics for the planes, and damage model for them too. Then you'd need some kind of structural pieces to be used in the designer (catapults: both on turrets and separate ones - fixed and turntable ones, etc... And then floatplane hangars, recovery cranes, etc) to give ships the ability to launch, operate, and recover, those vehicles. Then you'd have to teach the AI how to incorporate all those needed pieces in it's designs. Then you'd need to model the planes themselves, several models of them to represent the several nations there are in game, and in different evolutionary models per nation to represent their visual and performance progression across the very long period of time those floatplanes existed - from the mid 10s down to the end of the game. Then you'd need some kind of UI mechanic to launch them, operate them, give them orders, recover them... Oh...and you'd need AA guns too. With their proper AA mechanics, mounts, marks of guns, etc, neither of which exist at the moment. And then modify the damage model to account for, and give the proper results, of shells hitting the hangar spaces, avgas storages, the planes if they're on the ship, etc. And then, only then, is where the mechanics by which those things would work in battle (of which yours is a suggestion) would matter. After which you have to implement the proper routines for the AI to properly use those things too. I don't see anything "basic" in what the whole proposal entails, if you ask me. Finally, "to expand to more realism"; players should keep their floatplanes on their ship's deck or hangar, whatever is the case, because, once again, those planes historically weren't launched at all during surface engagements.
  33. 2 points
    The sole fact that you are still addressing your posts to me shows that you are here to stir shit up, and not bring any useful information to this case. I asked you to provide recording of your so said "proves" where you were discussing something or battle chat log screenshot where you said anything - none of that happened. Since you cant stand up for your own words and at the same time call me a "dick player" I can show you battle chat logs. Now please stop addressing your messages to me.
  34. 2 points
    If proven, should receive punishment according to game rules: 1st time - warning. @Sir Texas Sir Stop addressing your posts to me. If you have to say something address it to devs. As I said PS I can 1v1 your trash ass anytime, just say when and where.
  35. 2 points
    and I don't disagree with you. But I feel a larger "BR Spread" would really help to solve some minor BR irritations, such as your Hermione and Endy example. Although I absolutely would advocate that DLC ships are not "BR Efficient." meaning that they have a higher BR than other ships of similar weight. the current 900 is "max" BR spread seems too limiting. I believe the goal that Redii had in mind was to make 3rd/4th rates the most "BR Efficient" wise, but 1st and 2nd rates would be the most "Stat Efficient" per player. Trying to find that exact balance may be difficult, but at least adjusting the balance to get closer to that ideal seems more enjoyable for more people. *EDITED*
  36. 2 points
    ... für mich als Spieler der schwedischen Nation sind Würde und Anstand sowohl nach einem Sieg als auch nach einer Niederlage wichtig und Ehrensache. Verbale Entgleisungen auch aus den eigenen Reihen sind mir oft peinlich aber vielleicht auch dem manchmal jugendlichen Alter der Spieler geschuldet. Ein fairer Gegner wird von mir immer ein gg bzw. o7 am Ende des Gefechtes lesen ... egal wie es ausgegangen ist. Schweden allgemein deswegen anzuprangern ist daher haltlos. o7
  37. 2 points
    @admin We miss Montañes 3rd class... I remember a poll....
  38. 2 points
    I would like to see something like: Hall of Fame Detailed statistics of PVP Marks of Excellence like in Wot Fatality. It could be like small cinematic movies of the sinking enemy ship or victory in the boarding or something like a fatality in Mortal Combat.
  39. 2 points
    1. I had a problem with Green on Green. 2. I sent a F11 report so devs can find logs of the battle. 3. I posted it here, and if whoever did shot my sails wants to say something in his defense - he is welcome. 4. We are waiting the end of investigation. Stop posting huge walls of texts withing solid. This is not 4chan.
  40. 2 points
    @admin is it possible that the loki rune and Logbook can be removed from the loot on PVE server, they are useless items that just makes it harder to get usefull loot
  41. 1 point
    I have purchased this and it's been two days but I have not seen any changes in game. It is activated on my dlc menu on the steam store.
  42. 1 point
    I always enjoyed being on the bridge (of a modern destroyer) at this time of day.
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Yes received the yacht and it's useless. Should of at least been some sort of half decent 6th rate.
  45. 1 point
    USS Franklin is technically a two-decker, since her spar deck armament is all carronades. While pure three-deckers always had low freeboard for the main battery, two-decker 74s and 80s were expected to have over 6 feet of freeboard, enabling to fight in rough weather. So the criticism is that Franklin is a Third Rate that is as vulnerable to heavy seas as a First Rate. Of course, she also mounted the same weight of guns on the upper deck as the main deck, which really mitigates this weakness.
  46. 1 point
    Sailors working on sails during battle maneuvers and speaking in the language of the faction. Be able to name the boat and read it in the stern. Consider the value of bonus, improvements and super cannons for the calculation of BR.
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    I think from a UI standpoint, simpler way to switch between setting gun and torpedo fire control for individual ships or for all ships in a group would be most appreciated. I guess I got used to clicking through and changing it for individual ships, but this is actually very annoying. However, a per ship option is needed in some circumstances.
  50. 1 point
    well getting good balance is ladder shooting
  • Create New...