Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/06/2020 in all areas

  1. 6 points
  2. 3 points
  3. 3 points
    Under investigation. Once investigated, appropriative actions will be taken
  4. 2 points
    @GrubbyZebra yep, Basic Cutter going into rank 7 mission. @Ink installing the 2013 redistributable did the trick - both mission instances and chat work now, thanks a lot!! Marking it as solved. Thanks to @Hands and @GrubbyZebra for the recommendations and sanity checks as well, they were useful nevertheless. @Ink, I would recommend to bundle the necessary redistributables (I have seen other games do it and it is quite convenient) with the installation or at least display a message on the game's start the way it is done with the 2017 redistributable. That might save other players confusion and frustration. In any case, thanks again for the quick replies and resolution.
  5. 1 point
    Could someone translate OP pls? All I can read is "salt salt cry cry salt cry cry salt salt cry"
  6. 1 point
    A few weeks ago I had the same problems. In my case, it was the Kaspersky firewall. Even after extended shares in the firewall I could not fix the problem. Only after uninstalling Kaspersky could I make battles again.
  7. 1 point
    In next update, new destroyer hulls will be added.
  8. 1 point
    Greetings Admiral! Xsolla team aware on the issue and they are fixing it at the moment. Thank you for the report
  9. 1 point
    I have fished alot . Mainly to create Provisions for our shipwrights. The Sealed Bottles were a pleasant surprise that raised a smile. Often there is not much reward in the shipwreck, but getting a bottle can be like sunshine. The prize in the Kinder-egg. It's sad to think some players hate this action if it's near a port. Perhaps an enemy AFK fishing could be viewed as an opportunity. It's not too hard to rush in and rage board when a player is AFK. I once lost a ship at the dock in Pedro Cay, in the time it took to make a hot drink. The raider explained that had been easy to capture and sink me. Check out this protected bay and its four forts. I've heard players planning group raids to harvest AFK fishermen deep inside enemy territory. That could be a risky and fun adventure on the WAR server. I don't think ruining AFK fishing for bottles will improve the game.
  10. 1 point
    I was beginning to develop an alternative to calculating and waging hostility missions but stopped. I do not really feel encouraged to continue suggesting things here as my suggestion threads frankly do not find the attention they deserve. People like better gossip topics with the usual suspects parading in them.
  11. 1 point
    Greetings! In Naval Academy missions you can click on a "+ New Design" and design your ship The design will be saved even if you exit the game. Right now the feature to save your ship is a very basic one and we plan to improve it.
  12. 1 point
    This player Cpt Bearded deer has been getting a lot of kills at the same place. thats 11 PvP kills??
  13. 1 point
    make that 4 kills 5 minutes apart
  14. 1 point
    Time stamps look suspicious, evenly spaced at 5 minutes. 3 kills right in a row.
  15. 1 point
    Some theories I have on them: 1. The reduced weight for Operational Range, Fuel, etc. is the way the devs have chosen to model their reduced fuel consumption - in that they actually consume the same amount of fuel, but the diesel fuel simply weighs less and affects your stability to a lesser degree. Not the most accurate way to model it, but it works. 2. In the current build of the game, fuel consumption isn't modeled at all - both in the Naval Academy and Custom Battles. I'm positive they'll have a much greater effect in the campaign, where the reduced fuel consumption relative to turbines will offset their added weight. 3. Diesels definitely aren't lighter than turbines. Cheaper, less complex, and easier on fuel - absolutely. But lighter? Definitely not. I'm a naval Marine Engineer IRL and one of our gas turbines only weighs about 2/3rds as much as our propulsion diesel - which we can see is modeled accurately in the game. Diesels also produce significantly less power than a turbine (the price you pay for the fuel economy and simplicity), meaning you need a lot more engine to pull the same amount of power out of them that you'd get with a much smaller turbine. I wish UA:D would let us build ships with hybrid propulsion, such as CODOG/COSOD setups where the ship has diesel engines for cruising and turbines for action. Regardless, hope this clarifies something. They still need some work, but they're not completely useless - I'm sure they'll be monsters in the campaign, which is why they're your last unlock.
  16. 1 point
    Reworked it. :)
  17. 1 point
    my friends waited outisde and this is the result of their gank.
  18. 1 point
    The depth mode just makes the shallows more visible to the player.
  19. 1 point
    Whats really unfair is the combination of extreme grind (s woods) with extreme rng (ship crafting) it's real fun to first grind weeks for the s woods and than craft an s wood 3/5 no trim. I don't mind some grind...as long as I know what I am grinding for ...but grinding to pay a lottery ticket ???
  20. 1 point
    Problem solved by "reset" on the fps boost and "enable decorators" in gfx settings (I a m playing on a laptop and always try to reduce the load while keeping gfx accepzable)
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
    Captain, according to the logs there were mutual friendly fire (green on green). Mutual friendly fire should be handled by captains themselves. Not tribunal worthy
  23. 1 point
    the Spanish MontaƱes class was something the developers promised a couple of years ago, the ship Santa Ana is also mentioned. I wonder if the developments have already erased the idea of introducing a new Spanish ship montaƱes class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1794
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Captain, by the time of the post servers didn't experience issues, it must be a temporary connection issues on players side
  26. 1 point
    That is the good thing about computer industries, if your machine can handle it and most folks that work in such have good computers at home, they can do a lot of work remotely and just save it to the companies cloud to share the work with others. As with the fellow players, all be safe until we are through all this mess which is going to take a while it seems.
  27. 1 point
    Greetings, There will be delays of course, but we do not expect them to be extremely long, as we have already been working remote before.
  28. 1 point
    This is our job Give them ideas and feedback. And I love doing this and I love this community a lot White fleet camos are beautiful. Maybe they are one of my favourits. I am thinking about reshearch facilities. So basicaly, when you start the game, you have basic naval base, and you can upgrade it, so it can build ships faster. Better logistics, transportation of goods. And then you have the research building, where your scientists, engineers are working on bigger guns, turret tech, etc. So if you upgrade these buildings you will research things faster, building things faster. And also you can detect incoming attacks when you unlock radar. These are just ideas.
  29. 1 point
    The whole shell/explosive thing is propellant, bursting charge, fuse and shell construction merged in a way that's not entirely satisfactory IMO, although to be fair it's not the worst compromise between too simple and too complex. When it comes to defeating armour, however, by far the most important factors are shell design and construction (insert obligatory comment about early Royal Navy WWI AP rounds and Jutland vs subsequent study leading to the far more capable Green Boy shell design), probably followed by fuse design. RN had a problem with shells that bounced or shattered along with bursting charge problems in WWI. Interestingly, the Germans had some problems with duds in WW2 (Prince of Wales was found to have a 15" shell with its fuse in tact and nose cap removed rolling around in her hull from a below waterline penetration; they cut a hole in the hull UNDER it and lowered it out...nervous business I bet LOL). Not sure if it'd be better to split things along shell design, explosive/propellant and fuse design rather than a simple "propellant/explosive governs EVERYTHING", although it certainly would be more accurate to do so. Would give a little more flexibility in design for the player, as you might want to push one factor ahead of the others for experimentation reasons. An example of that might be the bursting charge the Japanese were using at Tsushima that proved to be more powerful than the Russian's more standard one and also particularly good at fire starting (which, interestingly, one might argue resulted in the Brits drawing incorrect conclusions about that battle and thus directly leads to their poor shells at Jutland, but that's a whole debate in itself). When it comes to shell type, I'd expect the ammo load out and thus use to alter significantly over the time period of the game. We know this happened within WW1, with a typical shell load out for heavy guns in the RN shifting from quite a lot of HE to barely any from 1914 to 1916 and then to 1918. In more 'modern' times, as shown in WW2, a ship with 8" or greater main guns ought not fire HE at enemy ships of similar class or heavier, at least not while we're limited to HE or AP. Adm Jellicoe was very clear in his instructions on gunnery pre-Jutland that he expected hits from ranges beyond 10,000yds/9.1km to be with HE that would cause potential havoc on unarmoured upper works, but the serious damage would be done with AP at 10kyd or closer. Prinze Eugen used 'AP' at both Hood and Prince of Wales, and managed to score some hits that caused damage; in Hood's case caused the secondary ready ammo locker explosion and fire, in PoW's a penetration through what the game would call 'stern belt extended' (although technically she had 'all or nothing') that caused flooding. Were the game to start to allow splitting of shell, fuse and explosives/propellants as mentioned in 1, above, then we could see things such as SAP equivalents, where shorter fused AP is sort of a compromise between 'standard' AP and 'high capacity/HE'; it wouldn't get the mass of through-and-through (over-pen) we see against lightly armoured targets, yet also won't be defeated/mitigated by light armour the way HE ought to be. Regardless, the problems we know about now include: - incomplete armour/compartment schemes. No effective citadel which is a real problem for bow/stern hits. In fact the citadel choices as they are act as an armour modifier plus other things such as reduced damage chances to engines and the like. Not a huge fan of that concept, but I suppose it's one way to do it. I'd prefer something like a more detailed, ACTUAL placement of all the vital bits as was evident in games like "Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic: 1939-1943" (released in 1990, and I played it back then). Trouble with that is it requires a lot more compartments and different numbers of same across multiple decks. I still think it was the best of the damage models for ships I've ever seen, however. - grossly simplified damage control. Maximum bulkheads + various other damage mitigation choices (double/triple hull and so on) = zombie apocalypse ships. Don't even bother shooting them if there's anything else. There's no apparent difference in terms of damage control capacity between a BB and a TR, and in fact a TR with max bulkheads can in some ways be considerably harder to sink than a min bulkhead pre-dread BB (I use the Armed Convoy mission a lot for testing each new version). - excessive importance of 'angling' because, in part, the highly inflated hit rates make damage mitigation necessary if combat is to last longer than 10 minutes. I REALLY dislike this because it turns things 180 degrees from what we ought to see, namely the priority being presenting ALL your firepower to your enemy and being as steady a gun platform as possible assuming of course you're fighting a similar class ship or aren't trying to close range (as per opening of Battle of Denmark Strait, or the Surigao Strait massacre, both of which saw one side approaching bow-on for good reasons). - simplistic penetration model for HE in particular (supposedly a flat 33% of AP according to the previously data-mined damage model thread). It can lead to some silly things, like 6" HE rounds scoring over-pen against the mid-belt zone of a TR class whereas surely it would explode within it IF it didn't simply explode upon striking. - poor modelling of multiple decks, splinter/blast mitigation, etc. Probably why, when also added to the one above, we see MASSIVE plunging fire damage on seemingly properly armoured BBs when AP rounds that hit 30 seconds earlier simply bounced off/ricochet. - destroyed compartments become damage black holes. Hence the 'firing from astern' problem. I could go on, and it sounds like I've lots of complaints, but really that's not my point at all. As I've said, it's Alpha so there is plenty of time for these to be addressed. Just as we ought not be too critical or worried given it's still relatively early days in Alpha, however, I think we also ought bot be assessing the state of things too POSITIVELY according to what we see now. For all the reasons I put above, trying to form an opinion of any real value either way strikes me as impossible. Yes, we can say what we like or don't like, but really I sincerely hope Nick and others are not deviating from that plan (unless in minimal specifics that won't change the final versions) to make us happy. I expect them to be working along a very clearly articulated plan of building the necessary components that, once all put together, will provide a good approximation of 'reality'. Once they tell us they are getting close to THAT, including crew effects on damage control for example, then we will see how well their model choices have worked. Cheers
  30. 1 point
    This has been an issue for as long as I've played. I've commented many times on how plunging HE is absurdly powerful, entirely at odds with what ought to be the case. BBs didn't fire HE at other BBs, hell they hardly carried any as part of their normal ammo load. I posted somewhere regarding this an example of how the typical ammo load for the RN's 13.5" gun, a very widely used heavy gun for the RN in WW1, changed from the start to the end of the war. If BBs carried very few HE shells, yet the game makes HE the better choice in many circumstances, that indicates the game clearly has more work to do. But that's what's expected in Alpha testing. There are a LOT of things about the armour/damage/repair systems in the game at the moment that are clearly not right, so we're just going to have to wait for them to be addressed.
  31. 1 point
    I think someone somewhere is expecting damage to be on a linear scale proportioned to shell size.
  32. 1 point
    Overall Four-gun turrets would be a great addition to the game.
  33. 1 point
    I wouldn't waiting a few more alphas for the models and the game itself to be fleshed out better, as time goes on they can add even more details, such as catapults, rails, chains, anchors, little groves and bumps, windows, radar and other things. But i love to see some of my designs in game printed off. lol could even start a boardgame with them. 'w'
  34. 1 point
    Has any though been given to providing access to the models for 3D printing? The ability to print all of the parts etc. for your HMS Perfection battle cruiser would be pretty cool. (Not to mention the miniature gaming cross overs!!) This came to mind when creating a set of 'ship tour' screen shots. I got a view point on the deck behind 4" secondaries and noticed the gun models actually were complete with breaches behind their amoured turret face. Awesome!
  35. 1 point
    If you mean as a liability, I totally agree. However, I don't know of any situation where a munitions ship resupplied during battle. That'd be insanely risky.
  36. 1 point
    At the moment, I wish I had ammo cargo ship in the battle itself. I know its silly, but it would be very helpful.
  37. 1 point
    I found the pre-dreadnought conflict mission the most fun by far and would love to see more missions along those lines, and, in general, I enjoyed earlier tech a lot more than later tech The limited abilities of ships really mean that you have to make the most out of every ship in your feel so it's a lot more about planning, positioning and picking the right targets while the later missions really just come down to sniping the enemy from 25km away with laser accurate 18" guns.
  38. 1 point
    There comes a point when a single game has so much DLC for it that it becomes a red flag for any casual gamers who are looking at the game for the first time, and I think NA had already crossed that point long ago. It's getting ridiculous at this point. If you guys want more money, that's completely understandable, but you're focusing in the wrong areas. What you should have done was attempt some form of marketing to actually advertise the game before the official launch, but I didn't see a shred of it for this game. I was surprised to not see any new trailers or even see NA reappear on the front page of steam. Because of that, it's no wonder why a vast majority of pc gamers have never even heard of NA. Instead you just keep making overpriced DLC for the game's very small community while simultaneously changing the game in such a way to encourage people to purchase this DLC, but with that I think you're pretty lucky that NA has such a small community. I've seen more popular games do similar acts and it's sometimes enough to destroy its reputation. So, very few know of Naval Action, even fewer have played it, and yet this is the kind of content that is added to the game after so long? I don't think you guys know what you want your game to be, and I don't think you know what your loyal community wants. Many of us have stuck around for years with thousands of hours spent playing the game. After doing the math, I have spent roughly 1.75% of my entire life playing NA. That kind of dedication to a single video game is actually really stupid, but it shows just how much some people really enjoyed NA. With that in mind, I think we deserve better than the option to add a very small addition to the game in order to simply make the ludicrous grind easier which costs the same as the base game itself. Please get your priorities right and make a game that's more fun than it is a chore. Only after you fix the game would I even contemplate these very questionable purchases.
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    Hi. I agree with Enrique - I reckon a smaller icon would be much better. But thanks so much for this tool - it's brilliant!
  41. 1 point
    Great job again vedmed Next to do, change the ship icon just by an X and will be perfect
  42. 0 points
    Asian player base is dead because of maintenance. I myself one of the last aussie playing am now going to walk away. good luck to all I might check in and see if this stupid maintenance get changed but until it does players will not return from our time zone.
  • Newsletter

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