Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/18/2020 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    We are seeing that the game is unbalanced in a dangerous way with only one or very few large and powerful factions, joined by players who prefer the easy mode as opposed to a good game experience for everyone who bought the game. If the imbalance continues to grow, it will soon be necessary to zero the game, because there cannot be combat with a single faction or two allied factions; zeroing the game is not in anyone's interest, on the contrary, every time this has to be done, players will give up because they have to start all over again. On the other hand, no one buys a game to serve as a punching bag. My suggestion is very simple, implement a port maintenance fee that grows the more ports a clan / faction has, to the point of being financially unviable. This will mean that players will have to devise more subtle and complex strategies such as controlling the most profitable geographical passages and routes, instead of pure and simple senseless violence. I hope my suggestion is useful, as I really liked the game, but the way it is, if nothing changes, surely many people will end up losing interest. Best regards Murilo
  2. 5 points
    Campaign, crew, officers are currently higher priority. Multiplayer is on the wishlist. Many players want campaign finished and once its delivered some of them will change the votes to yes to multiplayer. Then we can reopen this discussion.
  3. 4 points
    It’s not broken. It’s working. Kudos for not allowing contracts to be placed on tradable goods. As for the price of upgrades/books/ships: it’s basic economics. Yes prices are inflated, and if you’re not making bank with the current Econ system you’re doing it all wrong. The economy is NOT broken.
  4. 4 points
  5. 3 points
    By that logic, lets put a limit on many players you can kill, how many ships you can build, how many labor contracts you can utilize in a day.. lets put limits on everything. Truth is, if somebody wants to run trade 24/7 yes they will rake in money. Just like somebody who goes and kills people 24/7 will get lots of those rewards. Trading is a requirement to be able to afford to do things in the game. It is not really a zero effort move as already talked about. Resources have to be stalked, fleets prepared, making the trip without getting sunk... I am not sure what nation you are in but there are massive trading losses daily. Many "pvp gods" literally only go for traders all day long.
  6. 3 points
    some ideas? First 1100 hours: a golden Hercules (one time ship* } plus a free ship slot in docks. permanent plus 300.000 reaals on 2500 hours: a free (one time other*) dlc ship + 5000 doubloons plus a free dock space slot( permanent) plus 400.000 reaals on 5000 hours: a free golden 2 rate ship (random) plus a free dock space slot( permanent) plus a naval clock. plus 500.000 reaals on 10.000 hours : a Special Rank and 20.000 doubloons plus a free dock space (permanent) a special flag a golden first rate (random) after 10k nothing more collectable in gift DLC * if you have the dlc ship you get a other one instead .
  7. 3 points
    As pointed out by @Malcolm3 the respawn time depends on the goods. Coconuts are a cheap trading good. But because of of the high availability and short trading routes even with the low cost goods its possible to print money. An other example: Those coconuts/livestock are produced in a shallow water port. So it would only be possible to get 17 per ship out of town (not taking hold opti perk into account). I am working together with a friend but it can even be done with an alt. What I do... I have an outpost at the producing port (shallow). I stockpile goods I have 4 tbrigs I load every tbrig with 17 goods I sail to the shallow water border What my friend does.... Is waiting with 4 indiamans at the shallow water border I give him one by one a stack of 17 goods till his indiamans are full He starts sailing to to 5mins away port that consumes the goods He makes for every item 3.5 times profit We repeat that a few times and done millions without any high risk. Because we are even guarded by our coastal defense. We flooded the marked in the conusming town with our goods but still get 3.5 times the profit
  8. 3 points
    Problems are ... a consuming port that is already stocked high with the same good still pays the price for that good as it would have nothing in stock High stocked goods in a trading port get consumed to fast. An example (without considering alts that would make it even easier). I can buy coconuts in Port A (Those respawn within 30mins) So I can even stockpile them and wait a bit till my hold is full of coconuts and I can do maybe 2 or 3 runs. And because its just a few mins sail between producing and consuming port its a safe sail. Everytime I sell my coconuts to port B I get the same price regardless if i have flooded the market there with coconuts or not. I always get the 3,5 times more than the buy price. And this is just with low profit goods. Suggestion: Pls limit consumption rate of ports. Let trading limit itself. Add diminishing returns back in for selling goods
  9. 3 points
    Battleship/cruiser/destroyer aircraft could and can fill several roles. Scout patrols. The aircraft flies over a certain area, or accompanies a fleet or convoy, to seek enemy ships, aircraft, or submarines. Widely used during the Second World War. The Japanese took to this to an extreme, and famously about their whole scouting force at Midway was made of cruisers' planes. Later in the war, some patrol planes equipped radar. These days, destroyer/cruiser helicopters have dip-sonars and sonar buoys to search for submarines. Spotting. An aircraft can fly towards the enemy and observe shell splashes and impacts. It can then radio back to its parent ship to correct shots. A battleship or cruiser could thus fire accurately to great range. Air spotting was used to a certain extent in surface battles during the Pacific War, but surely not to that theorized in the '30s: This is partially because the infamous battleship "Decisive Battle" just didn't happen, and there were only four big daylight surface actions anyway. But, as has been said, air spotting was and is extremely useful for land attacks. Attack. Cruiser and battleship floatplanes commonly equipped bombs or depth charges. Those with machine guns could also strafe. Mostly this was for attacking submarines: I believe at least one Japanese cruiser/battleship plane was used to attack a carrier at the Battle off Samar. The Americans had plans for battleship torpedoplanes, but this never materialized. Helicopters usually carry homing torpedoes to attack submarines. Air defense. Though a floatplane or helicopter may be of less value against a land-based fighter, those armed with guns or missiles can fight off their own kind and bombers to some degree -- again, see US plans for battleship fighters. Illumination. A floatplane can drop flares to illuminate the enemy. To my knowledge, only the Japanese put this into any naval use, at Savo Island and possibly Sunda Strait and some of the other 1942 actions. Flares were also used by Japanese torpedo planes making night attacks. Compare British pathfinder aircraft with their incendiary bombs. Transportation. Aircraft are good for getting around places. Helicopters can also be useful for landing troops. Search and rescue. A floatplane can land next to downed pilots and overboard sailors, and carry them back to a safe location. Some helicopters can land on water, but most can simply hover and lower down a rope. Both planes and helicopters can deploy liferafts. I have no clue how and if any of these things could (or, more philosophically, should) be in the game, but it's fun to think about.
  10. 3 points
    San Agustin - 9.6 mil in taxes Nouvelle-Orleans - 15.1 mil in taxes Vera Cruz - 11.6 mil in taxes Santiago de Cuba - 9.7 mil in taxes Caracas - 9.7 mil in taxes Considering the taxes are set to 10% (highest) we can see that yesterday players have earned 96 mil + 151 mil + 116 mil + 97 mil + 97 mil = 557,000,000 reals. ONE DAY. Before taxes ofc. Only top 5 ports btw, not including all other ports. I don't do trade runs myself, but from my understanding you just buy stuff from one port at one end of the map and sail it down to another part of the map. PS: WTB Means of Directing Fire for 1mil - LT/TUMBADO I'm poor please help
  11. 2 points
    Although I'm not concerned, I think some players who spent thousands of hours in NA could be recognized with ranks. The XP scale could include "stars" added to the highest rank, each star would be reached at extremely high XP level ! The effect of identifying a player with his rank, seeing stars behind would simply allow the recognition of a veteran level by itself. I have high admiration to these guys who dedicate so many hours of their life for this game as a passion; I truly feel they deserve this recognition merit.
  12. 2 points
    Just throwing a suggestion out there to either add or change an existing patrol zone to cap ship rate at deep water 5th rate so there would be a zone where the classics like belle-poule, essex, trinc, etc. could be relevant. In my experience battles with these ships are exceedingly fun. When you throw them into a zone with the modded out 4th rates they become useless BR sponges (most of the time). This would also help out newer players as it would add another patrol zone that is easily accessible for them to participate in after completing the tutorial.
  13. 2 points
    The obvious DLCs for the 1775-1815 period are (hypothetical titles): Rise of the Raj, the ascendancy of the British East India Company, and a chapter or two in a campaign that needs to be unlocked--by winning the British campaign on the corresponding difficulty or higher first--focusing on the decline and ultimate collapse of the Dutch East India Company Ice and Gunfire, the Danish, Swedish and Russian campaigns, considerably shorter and more compact than the others, mostly in the Baltic but with a chapter or two elsewhere, includes such historical features as being robbed blind of your fleet's heavy units and everything on them and being limited to small-boat attacks on British warships if you play the Danish campaign on Hard and unlock the bonus chapter of "After Copenhagen", with a possibility of saving the last Danish ship of the line at Zealand Point if you are skilled and lucky... The Old Empire, Spanish campaigns, of course! I'm sure there's at least one or two big admirals of this period to follow... The Old Alliance, Portuguese campaigns (following multiple major admirals), because the Portuguese Empire was still considerable even in this time, plus British campaigns around the Iberian Peninsula. Viva La France, Obvious name is obvious. Those are the "LOL SO OBVIOUS" ones. More importantly, the choice of "Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail" as a name gives you a large, LARGE variety of options. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Sail Now, for emphasis... ...I think I've communicated that clearly, so on to the actual point! Post-Napoleonic actions with steam ships existing would be more difficult to model unless we model them as being able to make way (when sails are rolled up) against the wind, so we can probably narrow it down to 1571 (Lepanto) to 1815. IF you want to go for when the British first had their first-rate, second-rate, etc. rating system by gun count, you are looking at 1677 to 1815. Before this however there were many very obvious campaign sets which can be modelled with existing game mechanics. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1500–1799. For naval wars we want the colonial empires, so right off the bat we have... The Armadas: Anglo-Spanish War 1585-1604 (Because it wasn't just the Spanish Armada, but also an English Armada). Be warned that you will have plenty of land actions including swords and pikes. Cuius Regio, Eius Religio: Naval and minor amphibious actions of the Thirty Years' War. The Dutch East Indies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch–Portuguese_War and some later Dutch wars' campaigns in the region. Oliver Cromwell: This is likely to be two or more campaigns, including the English Civil War, the Anglo-Spanish War (1654-1660), an Anglo-Dutch War, etc. Because I can assure you that Netherlanders and even Belgians or Germans would be VERY interested in playing de Ryuter, Tromp, and other comparable great names. The Sun King: Nine Years' War naval campaigns Consanguinity Is Unhealthy: War of the Spanish Succession The Quadruple Alliance: War of the Quadruple Alliance, of course! A Friend In Need: Portuguese Restoration War Ave Maria: War of the Austrian Succession Some terrible joke or other about Oranges: one or more Anglo-Dutch Wars. Rule Britannia: Seven Years' War, the rise of the First British Empire, also known by some as World War Zero but actually World War Negative One. And so on for various other major wars or chains of wars where you can assemble a good campaign or two. Most of the ones before 1677 aren't exactly required, but if World War -1 AKA the Seven Years' War (Napoleonics is World War 0) isn't fertile ground for DLC campaigns, player discontent is likely to get real. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ I should note that even after 1815 there are campaigns which rate attention. For example, do the words "Almirante Cochrane" ring a bell? He served in the RN, the Chilean Navy, the Brazilian Navy, and the Greek Navy. . What do you guys think? Any other suggestions you'd like to bring up?
  14. 2 points
    Hello! As we know, the following chat channels will blink continuously when it has unread messages: 1) Trade 2) Clan 3) Nation 4) Global 5) Help 6) Combat news But the PM chat once you leave to other tabs do not continue to blink when you receive a new message and some player do not check the tab if it is not blinking. This make that some people do not know they have a new reply from the user in PM. My request is a small request and a feature that exist in other chat boxes. Which is to make the Pm chat of the other user blink continuously if there is unread message. If there are players who do not like a blinking, maybe there is option to turn this off somewhere would be nice for them too ^^ Thank you for reading!
  15. 2 points
    Because HAVOC invested vast majority into the bonuses and didn't wanted to do that again? Just a thought
  16. 2 points
    If its to salty, I’m sorry ❤️
  17. 2 points
    Here are some screenshots of my newly designed Petropavlovsk-Class Battlecruiser built by the Soviet Union! It has a maximum speed of 36 knots with a displacement of 47.100 tonnes. 3 Ships of the class are built: Petropavlovsk, Vladivostok and Perm. They are armed with 4x3 330mm, 2x3 152mm, 10x3 102mm, 18x3 76mm and 18 51mm guns, + 10 torpedo tubes for 533mm 53-56V torpedoes. Advanced fire control systems and latest generation radar allow just 2 of these ships to dismantle an US Battle group consisting of modern US Navy light and heavy cruisers, and even a battleship with ease. They are protected with up to 300mm of Krupp IV in the turrets, with a belt of 200mm. The 330mm guns have a maximum range of 27km .
  18. 2 points
    it's supposed to tell us inflation will be crazy again
  19. 2 points
    Not sure if you understood your collocutor. When you start on PvE server, you cannot take your ships or possessions over from PvP server - they stay there and wait for your return. On PvE server you will find only the basic cutter ready for you, and from there your journey starts anew... Zero reals, zero experience. But it won't take you long to advance. Minus the risk of falling into the hands of an enemy. Most people will advise you to start by doing economy missions first, delivering passengers and then cargo (for which you buy or capture a trader brig) for instant cash without investment.
  20. 2 points
    I think this is the result of the game having no defined end-objective and no game cycle reset, we players must make our own 'story'. Reading the salt and the vitriol (even with chat bans in place) it seems clear players get more excited by this type of game play than anything else. Buster
  21. 2 points
    Better to find a way to grant a trait (bonus like a perk) to good players even if they are new to Naval Action. If someone has a very high success rate in hunting traders , he might become WolfOfTheSea, if someone has very high success rate in PvPing he could get trait of Master&Commander, if a trader manage to often evade attacks, he become BlockadeRunner and so on.
  22. 2 points
    By the way, there was a time in NA when the price adjusted dynamically. Back then, you couldn't sell everything at once. With each sale of a subset, the prices for the next quantity decreased. This mechanism also worked when shopping, only that the price increased due to the shortage of goods. Why the Devs removed this good mechanic from the game will probably remain a secret forever.
  23. 2 points
    Issue #3. REDS dictate to Spanish clan FNI who they can be friends with. It´s clear that is not correct. Nobody says us who is the enemy..Autor must ask directly to first hand resources to tell this. Or are you looking for a new Spanish diplomatic stand for your convenience ?
  24. 2 points
    So like you saying that Russia is going to give 55 point ports to their vassals?
  25. 2 points
    The currency is not reals, its playtime. So there is no Inflation. I think the playtime you have to "work" to buy you a copper plating (f.e.) is almost the same. Beside this basic ressources got cheaper in relation to the playtime you need to afford them, and that helps new and poor Players. Dont Listen to this idiotic whiners that only see that the nominal real prices doubled! TRADE IS FINE (But stick to your plans spicing up the trade with special deals that have to be found ... ) And pls hurry with the implemention of small privateer fleets, so small groups and single players can Farm the seasoned woods too ...
  26. 2 points
    Trading over 9.999mil is becoming a normal thing now.
  27. 2 points
    Someone wants to make himself important, or he uses at the same time 3-4 alt chars or it is a bug. With Madagascar Jewels and 1 account, the highest profit margin is around 6 million. 4 Indiamen ( Fleet Control Perk 2) with 160 Madagascar Jewels (I don't know of any more expensive goods) : Buy (North Inlet, 10124 per Jewel x 160) 1619840 Reals Sell today (Soto la Marina, 46402 per Jewel x160) : 7424320 Reals No taxes included. Of course, using alt-chars I can push the win of a run to infinity. Or a great bug....and everyone uses it because they have no punishments to expect. Maybe same procedure as every year. If you want to have a functioning economy somehow, you have to stop using alt-chars. Otherwise, people with enough computing power, a liitle bit of money and enough time will bring any economy to collapse (by the way, this is not a special problem of NA). Another possible solution would be a trading system that confront traders with new challenges every day. If I have to find the cheapest trading routes every day, if I have to reorganize my trading fleets every day, it will surely take away some people's ability to make money in a simple way. Or you learn form Conquerors Blade.... no trade directly between players possible. In other words, kill the economy and the trade. The problem is, you are losing a player segment (the Trader), which is more likely than other players to acquire Alt Chars, which is ultimately income for you.
  28. 2 points
    No, not 25m per run. That might be for the players that have 6 or 10 alts and trade with all of them in convoy at once. But you can make around 1m+ in profit for 20 minutes of sailing with 3 indiaman. But it is possible to make over 100m a week for someone with some alts and enough free time, pretty easy.
  29. 2 points
    free dlc maybe? the problem is - what is the threshhold? 2000-5000? 10000? hours
  30. 2 points
    it will come - better formation controls as well (+ reverse speeds)
  31. 2 points
  32. 2 points
    So kill the enemy fleet.. forts are immobile. EDIT: Have we reached the point where we can ask for changes to the gamemechanics whenever we can't win? Because in that case - my list of changes are long and still running the tap..
  33. 2 points
    If you think that map somehow represents a place where a big naval engagement between capital ships of the dreadnought era would take place at all, then UA:D is not only what you expected WOWS to be but that never was...it's also a lot of things you're not expecting it to be. Realistic, for one ;). Now I don't say this to discourage you or to somehow feel I'm dishing you, which can't be farther from my intention. I'm just pointing out that the kind of gameplay you can expect out of a game which has high regard for historical fidelity and immersion has absolutely nothing to do with that you'd find in an arcade game like WOWS where the only thing "Naval" are the 3D models of the vehicles that fight there. And part of the complete lack of regard for realistic naval engagements WOWS shows, is in where it forces those vehicles to fight, and in the way those vehicles are artificially allowed to move so they CAN fight in the maps they're put into. Plainly stated, a big ship could perfectly take more than half an hour from full stop to full ahead, and several minutes to stop from max speed to a full stop. Ship's turnrate was very slow (compared with the racingboats of WOWS). Risks of running aground were nothing to sneeze at, a grounded ship could get stuck with ease in shallow waters (several battleships were lost that way, becoming stuck on some uncharted shallow rock and then being destroyed by the tides). No battleship captain would ever venture into an area like the one you drew. Not even a lunatic would risk such expensive warships in a place so likely to get his ship nose-in into an island. Nor any cruiser one, now we're at it. And probably destroyer skippers would have a serious stressful time trying too. You've drawn a map for a multiplayer deathmatch-style arcade game. UA:D is nothing of the sorts - it's a very different animal. No big surface fleet would've ventured in an area like the one you depicted. Now don't get discouraged by it: UA:D might not be a fast paced arcade multiplayer deathmatch, but if you like ships (if you REALLY like ships) and if you're interested in how they actually fought (Vs the completely made-up stuff of WOWS), then you'll love it and learn a lot in the process. But if you expect it to be WOWS 2.0...well, that it is not. Like, at all.
  34. 1 point
    One thought: maybe we should increase the risk for the highest profit trade goods: Example: NOW: buy at 10.000 reales, sell 30.000 Future: buy at 40.000 reales, sell at 60.000 Profit is the same (ok some more taxes), but risk is much higher ... Make this only for the high profit routes, so the "small shore Trader" dont get affected ...
  35. 1 point
    The only thing I think that could be considered broken is LGV hold size. It holds the same as a tbrig, but cannot go through shallows and while it is more capable of getting rid of people, an Indiaman does the job even better. Maybe increase the hold size by another 1000?
  36. 1 point
    Because devs wanted people to sail and not sitting in ports and waiting for port raising prices again? Every reducing drop-rate or consumption-rate is only buffing Hardcoreplayers (they have the Alts that will Always sit in harbour and wait for next drop/consumptio).
  37. 1 point
    I surly hope, this is just a placeholder mechanic for now, since these missions actually have a "duration" and as of now it is basically as you say. You do all the navy missions first and then send your ships on the PoI missions. Would be more interesting if you actually had to make decisions here.
  38. 1 point
    I think the constant PBs are draining people. The christmas no PB period was quite enjoyable for just about everybody. They need to redo the frequency of PBs and fix how easily hostility is exploited. Until then, essentially the factions/groups with the most players will always have the edge no matter what anybody does!
  39. 1 point
    I think admin should just nerf the 1% of the players with 20 alts stalking all ports buying up stuff around the clock. Trading isnt broken. PPL exploiting it are however. The majority of players are actually hurting for money, hence why they are complaining of the increasing prices (because we already have reports of certain alts inflating prices and buying everything up in terms of resources and upgrades because this way they get to control the market)
  40. 1 point
    It naturally evolved into 2 big coalitions (not the first and not the last time 😉 ) and its just a matter of time when this will end and nations will start leaving those blocks due to internal disputes and Free-for-All type of RVR will come back.
  41. 1 point
    @Guardian54 I don‘t understand much in terms of the technical requirements, but cool that you already have ideas and examples of other games! @sterner What do you think about the ideas mentioned above?
  42. 1 point
    Game is dying is the best meme as long as NA lives atm
  43. 1 point
    Not because he wasted a little bit of time, but because he paid for a game that provided virtually no initial direction to get started, thus the player did not find purpose within the game and moved on. The only reason I tried again was because I paid full price, but had I gotten it on sale, I probably never would have given it a second thought, which is sad, because I have literally played thousands of hours since, sailing to literally every part of the map, and general thoroughly enjoying myself (even the more frustrating parts like getting pwned off Saint Nicolas 3 times in a row, once in my Mercury, then two more times by the same player in my newly acquired basic cutter I was sailing home in). You can condescend all you want, but it is simply a question of perceived value. If I pay $20 or $40 or $1 for a thing, I have a certain expectation as to what I will get from that thing (quality, service, enjoyment, whatever is appropriate). In terms of a game, if a player pays money and spend 30 minutes or an hour in the game without ever getting any sort of clear indication of how to actually play (not the tutorials which teach mechanics of battle, or the tips which give a broad overview of the game itself) like is found with the mission system (I would contend this is a primary reason missions exist to begin with), then the expectation of enjoyment is likely not met and the player is likely to move on to something else, or possibly ask for a refund (which is happening, apparently). The exams are hard (which is fine), which is another source of initial frustration to a new player, because they have no frame of reference for the appropriateness of that difficulty (they likely view it as another part of the tutorial, which it is not) , and there is no mechanism by which to actually accomplish the missions without going out into OW and capturing a ship, then what is there incentive to stick around? As far as they can tell, they have likely bought an unplayable game (an impression which a lot of the steam reviews will unfortunately reinforce). That said, there are several possible solutions: Make the basic cutter a trade ship. With its prohibition on attacking other players, entering player battles, and limited hold capacity, its usefulness is limited in this regard to anybody but new players. If you wanted to ensure this new classification would not be abused by experienced players, code a rank-dependent smuggler flag that would be permanently turned off once reaching rank 2. The advantage to this proposal is it is a quick and dirty solution that would require minimal development resources. The disadvantage to this proposal is that it doesn't address the underlying lack of initial direction. Make additional in-game tool-tips for new player to give a guided experience during rank 1 play: Direct the player to the tutorials to learn basic battle mechanics (and possible even through the first 3 exams). Upon completion of that task, have them accept a mission to capture an NPC trader in Open World (this would need to be added as a mission type limited to 1 completion only) Then direct them to Open World to capture said trader by highlighting the "leave port" button and the target ship. Once they capture the trader and return to port with it, direct them to accept a passenger delivery mission. Once they complete that mission, the initial tutorial is over, as the player has now been exposed to the basics of the game (aside from crafting). The advantage of this proposal is that it provides a much richer new player experience that will give a basic understanding of combat, Open World, trading, and the mission system. The disadvantage is that it would require significantly more development resources to implement. Do nothing and leave people to fend for themselves
  44. 1 point
    Can't you all just get along, attack poland.
  45. 1 point
    So...clans that don't bow to your magnificence shouldn't be allowed to have ports? I never liked BOCAR, barely got along with DNP, and even DANVE, but unlike whatever clans you include in tag "moderate" they're at least unwilling to surrender their (cannon)balls and beg for scraps from the table of a clan that stole their main crafting port.
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Something strange: We have 300 shells that supposedly weigh 2 t each, so together they should weigh 600 t. But the Ammunition is listed at only 344 t! Even if the ship weights are in long tons rather than metric tons, that only makes a 1.6% difference. Edit: After further investigation, it looks the like the ammunition for a turret weighs the same regardless of how many guns there are, despite there being three times the shells for a triple turret. So at least for a single-gun turret the total of the shell weights is less than the Ammunition weight (which is probably fine if powder etc. weighs extra).
  48. 1 point
    I would look to Operation Albion for ideas about how to develop interesting maps that involve restricted coastal waters. Some elements are crucial, however: shoal waters, mines, and land batteries. Also important to have targeting depend on LOS (or to some degree, line of radar) from firing ship to target, otherwise you will have nonsense like cruising behind land masses while destroyers dart about acting like remote director control towers* (already an issue, but exacerbated when direct approach is blocked). *I am aware of HMS Canopus firing on Von Spee's squadron from behind a hill, but she was grounded and essentially acting as a land battery with arrangements made for remote spotting from direct telephone connection to an observation post.
  49. 1 point
    This is a good list of specifics, and I highlighted the ones I particularly like. My own? Overriding point: Historical Fidelity. Make the game numbers and mechanics present the most accurate portrayal of the weapons and systems etc through the period the game covers. By all means tweak for playability and fun, but NOT to the point it makes hollow any claims to historical accuracy. 1. Armour and damage models. These are HUGELY important. To be blunt, it's great and necessary to get the campaign rolling, but the best campaign in the world isn't going to help if early 1900s era CAs keep blowing up from a 4" bow belt extended penetrations as they do now, for example. Same goes for plunging fire HE v AP. And so on. Not that you and your colleagues don't know this, but you asked what we thought was vital. 2. Address issues of penetration/accuracy. We all saw the huge jumps following the hotfix to v3. We really need to understand where you're intending to land with this. I am finding it hard to relate when I see penetration numbers in game that I know are frankly nonsensical. If they're being done to adjust to a lower base armour level standard (i.e. they reflect penetration of raw iron armour plate), personally I'd prefer they be based on later era numbers many of us know even if that means they appear very low for early tech guns. As an aside, the performance of shells in the battle of Jutland showed the 13.5", and perhaps even the 15" from the Queen Elizabeth class, couldn't reliably pen 9" of armour at 10,000 yards/9.1km, so those numbers being lower that people might expect is fine in my book because it would be accurate. 3. Ability to set different targets for primary and secondary batteries. Also separate ammo control for both. The first was slated for the last one and didn't make it. It's CRITICAL at the tactical level. The ammo choice is important, too, as the AI when set to 'Auto' ammo selection tends to fire AP from secondaries at targets where HE would be by far the better choice due to angling or base armour thickness. In fact the AI's ammo choice ideally would reflect the updating info available from the penetration popup. If I can see the pen/ricochet values mean HE is the better choice, the AI ought to be able to do so. 4. Some means of controlling or STOPPING ENTIRELY the AI changing target selections from what I might want. Nice to have, not crucial, but not unimportant, either. 5. Can you please add the part of the Penetration Details popup that allows us to view our own ships from an enemy's perspective? I know it didn't make it in, and expect you plan to do so, but thought I'd mention it anyway. On a technical note: I use an NVidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB graphics card and I've noticed 'good' graphics settings will cause it to run very hot, even with my custom fan profile. Am wondering about the optimisation of the game, multi-threading and the like. I play other games that don't seem to generate the same heat etc. [Anyone else care to comment on the rigs and any observations about performance, heat and the like?] Keep up the great work and communications. Cheers
  50. 1 point
    If strategic and budgetary limits are placed on the players, both AI and human, I don't see why there wouldn't be natural constraints or at least forced trade-offs.
  • Create New...