Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/16/2021 in all areas

  1. 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
    3 points
  2. Over and over again it seems like the insistence on AI designed warships is sabotaging everything else.
    3 points
  3. I assume that you'd get back pressure from the funnel which would cause the engine to lose efficiency, so was going on the assumption at 100% efficiency was at the point the smoke was at maximum thickness for the engines working at 100%, as below that you'd still be producing less smoke anyway as the engine is restricted by air-flow. So it makes sense that any extra capacity after that is mainly for thinning the smoke. Can't see this would be a big change to implement either.
    2 points
  4. Yeah I have mentioned it a few times currrently you can build ships with no turret armour and as in battle whatever you set it, to it will reset to defaults and it can also happen in ship designer too I think there is some issue with the designs not saving turret armour as its the only way I can see them getting lost all the time.
    2 points
  5. I'm becoming increasingly convinced it's a straight pipeline from listening to Drachinifel's 6hr drydocks while falling asleep to spending 50 bucks on UAD. At least, I hope it's not just me.
    2 points
  6. armor turret isn't applied/saved correctly, and seem not to get the bonus from armor quality either
    2 points
  7. As you probably all know by now, Core Patch 0.5 dropped today. Overall, the opinion has been positive, but I personally hate this update. There's nothing wrong with it per se, and I like the features that it added, however it's the features that were removed that hurt me so much. For the longest time, I had been doing some experiments with the French Experimental Battlecruiser II hull to try to create my ideal ship: a fast, durable, and versatile platform that can kill cruisers like a battlecruiser should and compete toe to toe with battleships. This gave me the K-type Battlecruisers, a
    1 point
  8. Wow, man! Much appreciated, really. It works. It really works. Thank you for your help, really. Now, if we could get the armor weights to be somewhat lower and the ability to mount secondary gun on German hulls flanks, we are game
    1 point
  9. USS Monitor mission is pretty much impossible, because even with maximum turret armour, the main guns get destroyed every time.
    1 point
  10. So crew is finally here and it's cool. It's nice to see hits take out some crew members. But I have issues with it. I know it's the first version, I'm aware of that. And I know the focus isn't going to be in making it all that complex right now. I'm fully aware of all of that. But I want to take about where I think it should go from here after playing a bit. Just a bit, few hours so this stuff might change once I play more. The biggest thing to me is the attritional nature of the crew losses. You lose a guy here, another two over there. All throughout the battle. But it just doesn't make
    1 point
  11. Strongly doubt many folks are milling about on the deck of a superdreadnought under 15' fire & returning the same!
    1 point
  12. Access between game modules are hampered,as I tracked a lot of endless mutex handles gettin no response. After 5hours++ I got the bugger to fly proper! I tried a TON of crap, but try this first Darth, as Im not totally sure which of my attempts finally hit the spot. -- Make a path to gamedir in System Properties / Environment Variables / System Variables Open C:\Windows\System32\SystemPropertiesAdvanced.exe or -- Press Windowsbutton+R -- -- CopyPaste or type SystemPropertiesAdvanced.exe in the window, press ok or enter -- Select 3rd pane or advanced, then Enviro
    1 point
  13. I've seen this reported a few times but haven't managed to recreate or find a cause. Will take a look at the battles mentioned. This sounds like a known issue where sometimes when you give an attack order that forces the artillery to move forward they get stuck. I tend to try to avoid issuing orders like this and will usually give new orders or keep a close eye on them if the moving to target notification appears. Not sure what causes this unfortunately. Yes, accuracy affects all 3 shot types as opposed to only the specific ones. Accuracy should really just be called a
    1 point
  14. No preset perks are used at this time. Named skirmisher units(anything other than skirmisher) do receive a boost to their weapons quality, so they probably equipped with something decent.
    1 point
  15. Hi Nick, first off what an amazing job you people have done with this update! Like seriously wow, beyond my wildest expectations!! Second, I can confirm that this issue is prevalent across various hulls. I have so far seen it replicated on all British BB hulls from modern I and upwards across 1930 and forwards, in some cases while loading saves, in other cases simply from hitting "launch" and finding your BB now has default turret values instead of the ones you specified, even in isolated instances where only a single ship was used (to minimize complexity for the game). Also noted these
    1 point
  16. Ah yes. "Fun". Or as a Dwarf Fortress player might say, !!!FUN!!!.
    1 point
  17. Right from the horse's mouth of official US ordnance documents: https://bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP 1664, US Explosive Ordnance, Volume 1.pdf#page=37 Usage continues for all naval shells down the line. 5"/54, 6"/47, 8"/55, both standard and superheavy shells for that, etc. According to Navweaps.com it was used in an upgraded, higher-density packing with superior sealing methods in later iterations.
    1 point
  18. Hello, I have replied elsewhere for the same subject and quote here: Ship casualties are already localized. If you hit a secondary gun, crew of the secondary guns die. Flooding, fire, ramming, everything causes crew losses. But you should not see ship crew dying by the hundreds in every situation. Crew Quarters play a major role on ship efficiency, because if you have the minimum setting, there are typically no crew reserves and every crew casualty matters and reduces the respective Station efficiency.
    1 point
  19. 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
    1 point
  20. So, now we have apx 68 dreadnought, super, modern and experimental battleship hulls, and only 16 pre-dreadnought hulls. @Nick Thomadisdo you ever plan on fleshing out the pre-dreadnought fleet with an equal amount of hulls? Any other pre-dreadnought hulls planned? Or are you content with the content you've got?
    1 point
  21. crew damage should scale better with penetration, this destroyer, all on fire after a "flash fire x5", has more of 40% crew being perfectly fine, with 87% of the people manning the main guns being a-ok in general it feels like damage control operations should drain more crew, especially in the earlier years; fires and flooding aren't that dangerous right now, I think I only ever saw crew disappear after direct damage, but they should be lost both as fire&flood spread and as damage parties venture in the hazardous area to fix them.
    1 point
  22. Oh come on, you personally convinced me that we have to revert this change in the upcoming hotfix
    1 point
  23. Let's dive right in: this game could have been great. It could still be great. It would be even better if the development team actively communicated—or at the very least, hired someone to communicate—as they gave out in the past, but that's neither here nor there. We're not here to beat a thoroughly dead horse. Instead, I'm here to present some (relatively) minor quality-of-life improvements that I've compiled from my experiences playing this game: things I wasn't quite satisfied with, or thought could be done better. This is an alpha, after all, and we're here to test and provide feedback. He
    1 point
  24. I only quoted this, pretty much just so you get a notification. I may be misreading but it looks to me like you got actually angry at my posts. Sorry I caused irritation, that was definitely not the intent. Ultimately as long as you enjoy the game that's the only thing that matters. I don't think continuing this thread is going to do anyone any good so I'm not going to respond to anything else. Feel free to take that as I can't or you win or whatever. Like I said I don't think it's a good idea to continue. Though I would suggest in future not insulting people you are (presumably) try
    1 point
  25. Seconded! It's also very frustrating to have centreline and wing turrets (as in early dreadnought-type battleships and battlecruisers) ranging and firing separately, when the whole point of a unified main battery was to simplify targeting. The ROF and accuracy differences between different turret types would have to be removed, but these are pretty arcadey and ahistorical anyway. Triple and quad turrets should have a weight, cost, reliability, and possibly barbette size penalty as suggested above, not some random nerf to the individual performance of the guns.
    1 point
  26. Academy missions should have been based around good tactics and design. Not slam your head until you get lucky. Most issues here is when the game simply asks the player to do miracles. Many missions are essentially, you get either underpowered or few ships and are told to go sink that huge enemy fleet with a few super BBs. Not only that, enemy ships sometimes apear to have unfair multiplier advantages related to spotting and displacement. They might spot you from very far away while you cant even see them from 5km, make super ships impossible for their displacement, etc. I chall
    1 point
  27. Let's dive right in: the current system of how artillery - arguably the most important factor in the design, construction, and production of the modern battleship from inception to conclusion - works, sucks. As many people have already noted: - Shell weights are considerably off reasonable spec, let alone historical. - Gun ranges, a pet peeve, are considerably limited for all but the largest calibres. While these are just a few examples - albeit well-known - the inability to choose certain real-life influencing factors considerably limits not only our capacity to create historic
    1 point
  28. Make navy guns and bloomfield guns craftable. Because of seasoned woods and now the upcoming new woods ships are gaining a lot more armor so it would be nice to also gain some higher firepower. But those special guns are currently far too expensive and too rare. They could be difficult to craft but just as long as there are more ways to obtain them.
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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