Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/28/2020 in Posts

  1. Hello Admirals, We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update. The team’s reorganization is working great and we are very happy with the results. These last 2 months we have touched upon all major aspects of the game with the new lead programmer (from formations to AI to ship designer) - and finally we can say - now the new team is more than ready to continue with the development of the campaign. We plan to add extra resources in November, which will help us to speed up the develo
    24 points
  2. I really hope when this game comes to Steam they figure out how to do modding because I know a lot of people is gonna want to submit hulls, towers, and guns into the game. And hopefully they would take some pressure of the devs for designing ship parts.
    12 points
  3. Constant modifiers in relation to maneuvering are not changing. You will not see a bigger penalty due to speed, for example. Only the aspects that are utilizing target "bearing" and "range rate" will become more dynamic. So, for example, ships that are at large distance and move fast, will create bigger penalties to aim locking due to bearing change caused by degree difference between each aiming shot. Or ships that approach or increase distance with high speed, will cause more penalties to aiming procedure. As for the Destroyers and Torpedo Boats, they will still be as vulnerable as hist
    11 points
  4. I think some people do have some very unrealistic expectations for this game, it's still a very small team after all with limited assets. I'm also of the belief that 100% realism is just not that fun, I remember from my world of tanks days how so many people wished the game would be more realistic. They eventually got their wish when War Thunder ground forces released a lot of them went, wow this sucks, I hate this, I just die in 1 hit. Imho a balance between arcadiness, which this game already has, and realism is the best way to go. With mod support for those who are willing to put the work t
    9 points
  5. Can I put in a vote to have 20in. guns on dreadnaughts? And the ability to put big ol' guns in every open space on deck? Edit: And gold accents, please.
    9 points
  6. @HusariuS@Koogus@Marshall99@IronKaputt@1MajorKoenig@Shiki@Aceituna@Shaftoe@Gangut@Skyguy1944@Airzerg Yes! Some news! Glad too see everything is going well as well. The new french hulls are very welcome indeed, wasn't expecting a patch this big either as well. Can't bloody wait now lol.
    9 points
  7. Come on guys, today it's one month since announcement. Don't you think it might be time to give us some new informations?
    9 points
  8. Ok I really hope when camos are added to the game I hope we can add logos and such on the decks like with Bismarck. Now I know in real life the reason they did this so aircraft won't get confused and attack they're own ships. The Italians are the best example of this they're red and white stripe decks.
    8 points
  9. They got to add a Beam and Length slider because certain like the Tennessee class battleships where bloody THICC and i want to make them.
    8 points
  10. I would love to see an After Action type report after you finish a mission or custom battle.
    8 points
  11. This is a great read and well worth creating a free jstor account if you don't have one. In particular I want to point out this maneuvring board as used by the USN and others: One of these in the corner of the screen would be a far better way of managing formations than the current approach. Simply drag your formation ship icons into the position you want them relative to the lead ship, or choose a preset and instantly see where it will put your ships relative to each other. Battlestations Midway/Pacific used this method and it worked very well indeed.
    8 points
  12. I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.
    7 points
  13. I'm absolutely with you on the rest of this post (and would add the fixed barbette/superstructure hardpoints as my personal bugbear) but just wanted to clarify, didn't they fix the accuracy/speed thing in the last update? It's still not perfect but it was a vast improvement on alpha-7. THIS! Torpedoes are ******* heavy and they're difficult enough to load when they're in the same room, never mind while maneuvring under fire. If this game is going to persist with ahistoric torpedo reloads being the standard for external launchers, please can we split the reloads between launchers
    7 points
  14. Ok so the other day I notice something a little dumb. So I was playing with a replica of Tirpitz and I've almost used all my torpedo's. Near the end at the battle I had six torps left and reload indicator showed my torps are reloaded when I got in position to use to them they didn't launch. At first I thought my torpedo launchers got destroyed but then I realized they fully functional. Then I realized that the game divides the ammo left evenly so 3 for one launcher 3 for the other. The problem with is Tirpitz has quad torpedo launchers so they can't fire 3 torpedo's. I feel like the torpedo la
    7 points
  15. hope we also get quad gun turrets for WW1 designs like battleship Lyon and Normandie
    7 points
  16. Regarding Tsushima-like mission... Maybe it's just my russian blood speaks in me, but I would personally like more to take command of Russian fleet there.. Mainly, because IRL they were underdogs there, and had completely lost the battle, without even causing any significant damage to Japanese ships. So I really want to go against all odds and try if not straightforwardly WIN the battle, but at least inflict as much damage as I can
    7 points
  17. question, can one purpose built BB take on 99 early Bs? in a in the face, close range brawl? why yes. yes it can. and the visuals are glorious. i've never seen so many ammo detonations and turrets in the air at one time, once i dove into the enemy formation most of them ended up firing on each other.
    7 points
  18. The true update was the friends we made along the way.
    7 points
  19. I was hoping for Naval Battle Simulator style global map where we plot our fleet/s courses, set the makeup of those fleets and converge them against the enemy. In this case "how many miles", usage and fuel conveys would be a thing, like suppling fuel to ports to re-supply fleets/ships thereafter (logistics). But no, best guess is it's going to be arbitrary like, more to do with how far away a region you can sent a ship, as described in there regional fleet type system, even possibly how long ships can stay in that region. And as described we are more likely to get only auto-generated miss
    6 points
  20. IdAe TiMe. So when your creating your ship you can pick distance it can travel. Now in the campaign fuel is definitely is going to be a major factor. So my idea is to allow to see how many nautical miles each ship go and the distance it can go is altered by whatever ever specs the player has on it. In the game help menu it said that when your on the map you can pick a place to move your ships. So when complete your ship you get a preview of the world map and it shows how far the ship can travel and speed can it get maximum performance.
    6 points
  21. It's not a simulation because we can actively form a meta to the game. I.e. Designing ships to meet specific circumstances or exploit feature's for our benefit. Sims use real world designs that the player uses in a scenario. I dont know of any "Sims" that allow you to change aspects of the vehicle you are using to fit a certain criteria, sims usually make it so the player uses the vehicle within set parameters to the fullest not designing its own. Also this game literally can not be a sim and has never been advertised as a sim just realistic combat which many games offer their take on. T
    6 points
  22. This right here is what everyone needs to understand. This is a very small team working on something big and fact is what they have so far is amazing considering how small the team is. As for realism, it's good to a degree. Like Bluishdoor76 said War Thunder did it and look what happened. People bloody hated it. So light ships such as DDs and CLs so be tough enough that they can take a few hits such as over-pens but not like how in WOWs they take them and they're completely fine. As for the limitations on ship designs, they have to get rid of that soon. It is literally the biggest thing going
    6 points
  23. What'd be really cool in the future would be being able to select a portion of the ship and manually change the armor thickness, depth of the citadel and "bullet sensitive" components, shape of the citadel protection, etc. I admit a lot of this comes from playing wows, but these (armor designs of ships) were design choices that engineers made way back when, so with the freedom that this game allows, we should see what boundaries of creativity can be hit!
    6 points
  24. Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming. AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled. Second tier I'd add the other core factors of the gunnery model itself (any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF), manoeuvring (ship performance but also formation station keeping) and visibility (how do the devs justify early 1900's ships being able to shoot at ships they can't see simply because another of their ships can? I'd really like to know how tha
    6 points
  25. With the current limitations, It really forces you into the same design a lot. Which is why I wish they would just rid of a lot of this fixed points, or just add more of them for better designs. Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.
    6 points
  26. I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically. takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA
    6 points
  27. I was thinking of stuff more like this............../s
    6 points
  28. I'm going to try to recreate a monster I made in RTW2 with the 20 inch guns. 4x2 front with 4x1 back 20" upgraded Alsace design now that I can. @Cptbarney Or maybe make this...............
    6 points
  29. I hope that the weight increase isn't by too much, as the primary historical advantages of the concentration of the armament was that it didn't weigh as much as something like four or five twin turrets, since one could shorten the length of the armoured citadel drastically.
    6 points
  30. Me waiting for Alpha 9 atm. Forum waiting for Alpha 9:
    6 points
  31. Hello all, You might have already noticed on 22/9/2020 and today, there were 2 small updates, regarding the bug reporter system of the game. We just wanted to inform you that these updates have improved only the bug reporter. The upcoming gameplay updates are still in work but there is significant progress. We will share more news soon. Enjoy the game! The Game-Labs Team
    6 points
  32. Obviously Fuel is going to play a factor in campaign. But how much of a factor can we make it in the design of our ships? @CapnAvont1015 Had a cool Idea so I thought I would make a thread with a couple ideas I had. So obviously at the moment we have a slider bar for ship range. This provides to my understanding just a basic range the a ship type would travel while just taking away from the available tonnage we can work on with the ship. But maybe we can add another feature to the game. My idea would be fuel burn. So a ship could decrease fuel burn by Upgrading funnels
    5 points
  33. Hi, Just got the idea that it woul'd be nice if every ship in campaign had it's own simple log (containing some info on engagenents fought) and a kill list. Like date when the ship was sunk, action in which that happened (and maybe link to specifications of the sunken ship). It woul'd add more flavour to the veteran ships. and also give some perks to it's crew (if certain ship sinks enemy ships exclusevely by torpedoes, then her's crew coul'd be torpedo experts, if the other ship takes severe beating in two or more battle crew of her excells in damage control).
    5 points
  34. Anyways shush. Lets just start the prediction game again, since we don't have anything better to do. I say last week of October as i got clapped in my previous prediction, probs will in this one as well. I also reckon the campaign won't arrive till like march next year maybe april.
    5 points
  35. I'd be absolutely up to contribute. I hope @Nick Thomadis and the rest of the dev team know we're so dedicated/such a pain in the arse (delete as appropriate) because we love this game, love the concept, secretly wish we were working on it too, and want it to be the absolute best it can be. But in the same spirit I'd like the opportunity to put on record what we do like compared to other similar games, and especially (for our older residents) the changes they've made that have really improved the game since early alpha. (In fact, since I've only been here a few months, I'd like to read that to
    5 points
  36. Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close. It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them. As I've said many, many times, I don't expect "realism" because there's no such thing with today's technology. But I won't
    5 points
  37. Maybe for you but IMO I think the main “appeal” here is the 3D assembly. Every game has some form of upgrades in which players adds to their game object. UAD does it in 3D and that’s unique, players get to be modelers at their level. And also that’s why I think Custom Battles will be the best asset (once develop alittle more) because it will utilize Designer Tool to its fullest potential. Along these lines a 'simulator designer tool' simply won’t reach its aptitude, as soon as you designate the game as a simulator is when limitations are applied (and everyone love those!!!), since with a
    5 points
  38. Since this issue seems to be mostly ignored or misunderstood I made a GIF trying to demonstrate this: Target Maneuver penalty % slaved to Rudder's position. [Link - imgur.com] (Original clip created: 26 August 2020. Version # / № might not be correct.) If the resolution is insufficient, give me a holler. This was first reported back in February 2020, ~ 8½ months ago: Another example: Wholeheartedly agree. I've been meaning to contribute such as with the GIF but previous attempts kept giving me this bitter taste in my mouth, thinking: "Meh, what's the
    5 points
  39. This is the strongest argument I've seen in this forum for the removal of limitations, causality, meaning we don't want the same effect every time, very nice.
    5 points
  40. I mean you got to admit, they have some really, really good looking ship models
    5 points
  41. You know? Now that I think about it, an armor rework in the future is necessary. There is still armor places that are still missing it the game such turret side and back armor, funnel armor, conning tower top and side armor. If they add those armor types with the way armor currently is a lot of ships are going to be very heavy like the Yamato and Iowa classes. Secondly I don't like how barbette armor is at the moment. The way barbette armor is now I don't how thick it is, I think barbette armor should be in the category with the other armor types where you can type how thick it is. But what do
    5 points
  42. Well, we have Yamato, Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina, Bismarck, and now Richelieu... that leaves just King George V, Sovetskii Soyuz, and Littorio for our cadre of modern battleships.
    5 points
  43. After reading this I would like to ask. Does that mean that the campaing will be part of the next update (Alpha-10)? Anyway, thanks for finally giving us some informations. As Barney said - I didn't expect such a big update.
    5 points
  44. I want aircraft carriers just so I can make AA ships. I don't know how port defences will work in the campaign but I see myself converting old Pre-Dreadnoughts and eventually early Dreadnoughts into floating fortresses, Keeping their MB but having lots of AA guns and as much armour as possible
    5 points
  45. Seconded. This timeline is vast, and no matter however many ship parts they produce, people will still want more. Allowing easy steam workshop modding (at least from beta onwards) would be much more preferable. In general, I think more assets/models at this time should not be the priority over improvements to the ship designer itself. Of course, I'm thankful for quad turrets, but being able to put them and their barbettes precisely where we want them would be even better.
    5 points
  46. I can't wait for it to be honest. I hope they will say something on Monday.
    5 points
  47. I wish designer to be more like LEGO and less like model kit. Pre-arranged superstructural gun placement is killing me 😒
    5 points
  48. I wish UA:D had the stuff (hulls, components, weight balance) to make this possible:
    5 points
  49. I feel like the devs didn't really know what they are getting into when they launched this project. There are so many intricacies with naval combat of the 20th century that making it into a game would require at least half a decade of hard work on coding and research. Unless the changes to the dev team were really vast i don't see this game becoming a Sunday armirals dream. It is too basic in its current form and some of the features seem hard to change now. Still hoping it will accualy turn out awesome but criticism is the best form of motivation, except money but I already bought the a
    5 points
  • Newsletter

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