Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/18/2021 in Posts

  1. Hello again Admirals, Since our last post regarding the upcoming big update we have made significant progress not only on finalizing the first campaign version but also on adding new and very important features. Besides the many new hulls for Italy and other nations, we added a brand new hull model based on the Russian Battleship project “Sovetsky Soyuz” and several new ship variations for the Russian Navy. We added even more depth in the armor zone system by making the belt, deck and gun armoring layers more detailed, giving you much more design freedom. The most important new
    32 points
  2. Greetings Admirals, The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to release not together with the campaign since it has many new features which owe to be tested solely. Please read everything about it in our blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/core-patch-0-5-released Your feedback will be much appreciated, as always! Note: There is a known bug of freeze if you click mouse button while waiting to load a battle. If you choose to
    22 points
  3. Hello all, We were ready to release, as we fixed and optimized all majors aspects, but we found a potential crash problem that could be caused if you clicked mouse button while waiting for AI fleet design in the loading window. We cannot release without this bug fixed, so please wait until tomorrow. PS. We are sorry for the anxiety and anticipation caused so far, but we want you to play the game with the best quality and stability possible.
    21 points
  4. The patch is in closed testing procedure. If all is good, we will release on Monday. Everyone, have a great weekend!
    17 points
  5. I understand games development can be fickle or run into problems unexpectedly. However, even a few screenshots wouldn't hurt now and then. I know i'm repeating myself, but i seriously dislike the valve treatment. I mean i get far more invested and interested when i see regular and consistent updates. Than long gaps with nothing.
    15 points
  6. oi lads, an update! @Stormnet @HusariuS @Marshall99 @Bluishdoor76 @IronKaputt @TotalRampage @Koogus @1MajorKoenig @ThatZenoGuy @Skeksis @CapnAvont1015 @Zuikaku @Airzerg @SonicB @Speglord @Commander-Alexander-Reed @Steeltrap @Hangar18 @Jatzi @Danvanthevacuumman @Gangut And god knows who else i missed oh hold on. @Aceituna Forgive me as it's 27oC where i am. @Tousansons soz lol. @Dracohere it is lol. Very noice too see this btw.
    14 points
  7. Ok, I have been a silent reader now since 2019, when I first bought the game. Seriously devs, what the hello kitty is going on. Where the hell is the patch/infos about it or the general state of the game. People are getting REALLY tired of your shit.
    13 points
  8. The lack of communication from the developers here really concerns me, and is NOT healthy for the community going forward. Literally everyone here is going crazy out of boredom and excitement for this patch. Any other company I've seen at least shows a few images of what's to come or a teaser, but here, I see absolutely nothing. Very, VERY concerning. Why aren't the developers listening?
    12 points
  9. The year is 2036. Hot, clammy winds blow over the sprawling marshes under which lay what some used to call 'Europe'. The sun is hidden, barely visible behind a thick and dense smog, but the horizon is illuminated by the eternally raging wildfires that roll in waves through the ruins of the continent. The stalker is short, his frame little more than a skeleton; scarce protein is found since the Hyperdroughts of '32 and '34. He looks around nervously before lifting a hatch, previously hidden under some dirt, and slinks into his burrow. He puts down the rusted harpoon in one corner, his cat
    11 points
  10. I'm not really sure what we even do at this point. Posting here kinda feels like screaming into the void, with the only response being other players, just as worried and confused. This patch better be worth it, because holy **** we can't keep doing this **** every time
    11 points
  11. It's still not supposed to be a WW2 simulator, even though devs themselves seem to forgot it. It's 1890 to 1940, not 1940 to 2000. Until they change this of course.
    11 points
  12. It's quite alright that in the end game there are 34 different battleship hulls consisting of super battleships, modern battleships and modernized dreadnoughts available to the player across all nations, yet at the peak of the pre-dreadnought era there are 16 total. That's fine, really. This doesn't take into consideration the amount of unique hulls per the three main battleship "styles" so to speak. Which I will say are roughly the same with apx 8 unique pre-dreadnoughts, 9 unique dreadnoughts, and 10 unique "post" dreadnoughts. With each group having an additional 2 to 4 variants of exi
    11 points
  13. I would like to be able to refit old ships, regardless of age. I have a sort of plan for turning old Pre-Dreads and old Dreads into slow(er), heavily armoured floating forts. Especially when/if aircraft are added in, turning them into essentially AA self-propelled barges with a decent anti-surface capability (keeping the main battery, or at least some of it).
    10 points
  14. The problem is the AI does not work. It's not that it's working with flaws. It isn't. And when it does, it works as well as coding FPS AI to "If (player_detected == 1 && time == 100ms) { HeadShotPlayer (1); }". How many times does it has to be said that the AI fails to give the player any challenge that resemble reality OR fairness (because reality of combat isn't very fair). Every time I boot up the game, all of my interesting designs i.e designs that have flaws like IRL I would face the challenge of getting the AI to design something that isn't YAMATO or TILLMAN or something that
    10 points
  15. They should look at costs, as i assume that was the more defining reason half the time than weight alone. Also hope they add mod support so we can correct mistakes and add things we want too. (Plus it will skyrocket the games longevity for a good while too).
    10 points
  16. Hello all, A hotfix has just been uploaded which includes the following: *Hotfix v88* (17/9/2021 UPDATE) - Fixed major bug of gun armor resetting for saved designs, when trying to apply new gun armor settings. - Fixed major bug of armor penetration, incorrectly evaluating the armor thickness of guns and causing too many detonations and flash fires. - Fixed issue with part selection in ship design, that could become overly big and inaccurate. - Fixed bug that caused keyboard edit of gun armor to use only inches measurement. - Fixed bugs of Auto-Design which could cause build
    9 points
  17. 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
    9 points
  18. What frustrates me most is the fact that this can be remedied so simply and for so little time. Take five minute each month to write a little status update for the community, 99% of people are satisfied to know that at the end of the month they'll get to know how stuff is going. At most from time to time get a little Q&A going so people can reasonably ask why game plans didn't pan out and how it looks for the future.
    9 points
  19. Hello Admirals, We would like to share the latest information about the upcoming “Core Patch 1: Mission Mechanics Test” which will include the first playable version of the Campaign, in a very limited state. Among the various improvements you have requested, there is also a whole new Hull line for the Italian Navy, while all playable nations receive the capability to build their own super battleships (Britain, Austro-Hungary, China and Spain now have a special super battleship hull). Please read what is going to be added in the confirmed changelog below. More features can be a
    9 points
  20. Yes, or even more. But the fact that they just can't type few sentences about what is going on is very frustrating.
    9 points
  21. I am sorry, but I disagree. The end game is the goal, yep, but you have to start the game with late ironclads/pre dreadnoughts. And the cost are different in each nation. For example the USA and Great Britain have more money than Austro-Hungary, Italy etc. And this is why it is so important to have variety in the early game becuse if I choose to play with Austro-Hungary, then I won't have a lot of money and I have to choose the hulls wisely. Adding more obsolete hulls into the game will make the decision easier because I can make cheaper ships, but more of them. And I will have the option (bec
    9 points
  22. This is why I said a LONG time ago by far the better design would be have the system itself generate hulls but the player be allowed to amend beam/length ratio, required speed and so on. As it is, the game is single stage dependent for every single example of its most basic component, namely the base hull. If that sounds fine to some people, ask yourself what happens when the dev team move on to something else and no longer produce more hulls. Also have to wonder why on earth it's set up so producing hulls is seemingly such a substantial piece of work. I work as a contracte
    9 points
  23. I still maintain that it is better to have the AI build from a bank of user and dev made designs (perhaps track their win rates) and remove their ability to design for themselves. That will solve all of the issues overnight with the unrealistic and limited ship designer, but some people are too enamored by sunk cost.
    9 points
  24. Oh come on, you personally convinced me that we have to revert this change in the upcoming hotfix
    8 points
  25. The update has just been released! You can share your feedback here:
    8 points
  26. I'll be honest, if it doesn't come out today, I'm gonna be extremely disappointed. It's clear that they meant today by their previous statement. If they do delay it again, it's clear they're incompetent in their abilities to give out release dates and be honest with the community. Better to cover your backs than give out false promises.
    8 points
  27. Again Thanks very much, it is exactly the communication we need. Look forward to tomorrow!
    8 points
  28. We were demanding more communication and precision. This is exactly that! Thanks very much for keeping us inform. This is exactly the kind of communication we need! To know what is going ! Again thanks very much!
    8 points
  29. Nobody's mad that they're finally communicating. That's objectively a good thing. Personally, I'm mad at myself more than anything, because I let myself get hyped up like an idiot. I've been frantically refreshing this board all week. When patch day finally rolled around, I spent the entire day at work positively itching to come home and play my favourite game's new patch. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's literally been on my mind all week, only to see it postponed at the absolute last minute. Once again they're over-promising and under-delivering. It's nothing out of the ordin
    8 points
  30. I woulda thought they'd release it this weekend since it'd be labor day weekend... I know we want them to take their time and deliver a good product, but 3 months without updates is a lotta time also no weight increases
    8 points
  31. Hello Admirals! I've returned from the land where the last dreadnought is located. I see the patch is still not out but I'm not worried. Let's just hope the Devs put much work into it to make worth while. By the way this picture is how I see the A.I in this game. Funny and retarded.
    8 points
  32. I'm not taking a position on "old" vs "new" other than to observe there appear to be constant new versions of later tech ships and virtually none of earlier ones, at least that was the case when I used to bother checking, lol. I AM worried by the whole bottleneck aspect of putting hulls into the game. Beyond technical and design questions, my other point of interest is the decisions that result in a hull being one thing or another are absolutely crucial to what I would have thought the general idea of the game might want to be. There are, after all, reasons ships look as they do
    8 points
  33. And most of the “new hulls” are just resized versions of existing ones just with different components, not helping to diversify the game at all.
    8 points
  34. What players say: "we want old boats, new towers, retrofits, new features, fixes of old features, XYZ, ABC, 123, and some coffee" What devs read: "we want more super battleships"
    8 points
  35. If CVs then SSs, and MTBs and especially AMCs. I personally don't want carriers because I can't imagine any way to implement them without having a cascade effect of having to implement various aircraft mechanics and would want to at least influence aircraft design. Once I was hard no aganist CVs, these days I'm mostly meh towards them. Its a no, but a I don't really care anymore no. I'd really rather have 1860s+ warships. Ironclads, center battery ships, turret ships, rams, and really, submarines and auxiliary cruisers above anything else. As it stands the super
    8 points
  36. Yes, this game needs more old hulls. Because when the campaign will arrive the early game will be boring and repetitive. We have huge variety at the endgame, but in the early game there are only few old hulls. And starting the game with few hulls is not okey. I want to design my fleet as compact as possible at the beginning, so I can save money for later, for better designs. They should give us some ironclad hulls for coastal defense and more armoured/protected cruiser hulls. Also more torpedo boat hulls would be appreciated. Smaller torpedo boats, so we can use them to defend the harbours (ch
    8 points
  37. As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem. And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical. Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they
    8 points
  38. Also thank you for the more detailed and transparent look into what is going on in the process. This keeps the players/customers informed and feeling engaged!
    7 points
  39. Who's excited for tomorrow? I am!
    7 points
  40. I strongly disagree. Now just to be upfront I have been defending the devs delays and such multiple times mostly on the steam forum. I have worked IT and software dev all my adult life. The delays are understandable especially with covid. That being said the communication is some of the worst I have ever seen. Long term goals being missed is understandable. There are weeks or months between them and things can happen, these things can get compounded by other things which causes other problems that snowball. That being said when you give a timeline for the same week, there are very few
    7 points
  41. The reason the RTW comparisons exist is because if you go back and read the original blog posts about the intended game mechanics it's basically RTW with 3d graphics. Not a bad thing. But the fact is RTW is it's direct competitor. The original stuff about the game presented it not like Age of Sail but like RTW. Which makes them competitors. They've said nothing to change that assumption, I think the intention has changed, but they've said nothing to that affect. And so the RTW comparisons will continue until we have reason to think they no longer should be compared. Frankly, if they gave us Ag
    7 points
  42. Excellent. Crew mechanics and custom battles saves are cool. Now I won't waste time with designing my most effective ships again and again, and I will have time to experiment with new things. After these modern hulls I hope that now they will focus on older hulls, because as I previously said, we don't have the variety in early and mid game.
    7 points
  43. The campaign will begin in 1890, hopefully sooner like -1880, so if there is some hulls do add, it is from this time periode. The focus should be the Dreadnought area instead of the super-battleship. In any campaign, maybe the goal will be to have the 1st super/mega battleship. BUT most of our time and the real planning will be with those pre-dreadnought and dreadnought.
    7 points
  44. With respect, I don't. It's nice to have some new hulls I suppose, but they should really focus on pre-dreadnoughts now imo, with maybe some late WWI/interwar designs thrown in. What's the point of putting the start date at 1890 if there are literally only 3 or 4 pre-dreadnought hulls in the entire game?
    7 points
  45. 6 points
  46. I think the designer is indeed the biggest issues with the most work needed still. Campaign is important to create a setting to use these ships but being able to construct them properly is the main selling point for me. I wrote up a summary of what I would like to see a while ago but I am not sure if the devs agree with me on this (although length to beam ratio was announced a while ago - haven’t seen any word on it yet though)
    6 points
  47. Well I mean, saves in custom battles, shell/fuze propellant split, more in depth belt and armour layouts including turret side & top differentiation, crew implementation being moved from core patch 3 to core patch 0.5, these are all things we have been requesting that probably weren't on their original to-do list. This proves to me two things. A: they still listen intently to the community, and are willing to accept severe delays to implement our suggestions, even if the communication rate is a bit questionable. B: we might have been a bit too harsh on poor old @Nick Thomadis in t
    6 points
  48. Okay, time for me to ramble about Imperial Russian Warships and to clear up some misconceptions, bias and phobia. No, Russia for the most part did not build quality warships in any way shape or form. This is not bias, this is fact. The simple reason, with out getting overly long winded is that Imperial Russia just didn't have the infrastructure or industry and really wasn't "modren enough" to build these warships and on top of that the Russian Navy has always placed second in priority to the Russian Army given Russia's limited access to the ocean. Fact is, for the most part, most of
    6 points
  49. best way to deal with irrational russophobes is not respond to them. time to post fish again I s'pose!
    6 points
  • Newsletter

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