Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/17/2021 in Posts

  1. Hello admirals, Despite the difficulties of 2020, which have affected everyone’s life as well as the game’s development, we continued to provide several updates and significantly improved the game. We deeply hope that Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has already become a game that you enjoy and thank you for your ongoing and precious feedback that we so much appreciate. We want to assure you that we acknowledge all your concerns and suggestions and today we would like to inform you about what are our definite plans for the next patches that are going to be delivered within 2021. W
    32 points
  2. @1MajorKoenig, @Marshall99, @HusariuS, @BobRoss0902, @Steeltrap, @coalminer, @Koogus, @Bluishdoor76, @Airzerg, @IronKaputt, @Gangut, @Tycondero, @Danvanthevacuumman And sorry to those i missed. Very nice, indeed mister nick. Can't wait too be fair.
    10 points
  3. i will be first one to ask What about ship designer?
    9 points
  4. I am really happy to read this - it is a very good idea to improve this very core aspect of the game in my opinion. Can you already shed some light on what the general scope/direction here will be? Are you aiming for “just” polishing the current version of the designer and add parts or are we talking about expanding, changing and overall improving the ship designer to become more of a flexible and powerful asset?
    8 points
  5. Will we see any major changes to the ship designer at all? At the moment it is very restrictive, and would like too see more placement options and maybe the ability to swap out sections of parts for other sections, like the tower being split into 3-4 parts, Tower, Rigging pole, Barbettes, other.
    8 points
  6. We will tell more details as soon as they are defined permanently. Currently we revamp most things about the campaign, replacing everything working previously in barebones mode.
    8 points
  7. Saving designs in custom battles, so the games replayability shoots up.
    7 points
  8. No offense to you my guy but I sincerely hope they don't listen to this at all. It's bad, like really bad
    6 points
  9. Finally! A naval game that is not focused on Japan and America as the first playable Nations.
    6 points
  10. Coming from RTW 2 this game is very limited, however most of these problems could be resolved by an overhaul of the ship designer. As of right now some hulls are objectively better than others such as how one of the pre-dreadnought hulls can hold 3 (main) guns instead of two. Now this would not be a problem if it was like RTW 2 where you actually can build a ship of similar style if you so choose, but in UA;D since the hulls are locked to certian countries this means that say as Japan, you could not build a 3 turreted Pre-Dreadnought even if you wanted to. I'm not saying that it should all be
    6 points
  11. @Nick Thomadis Oh yeah nick, are you allowed to tell us what time period the campaign is set in? So for example between 1890-1915 or the full 50-60 years.
    4 points
  12. Looking forward to the upcoming campaign and experimenting with some truly weird naval doctrines.
    4 points
  13. Well, it's beautiful to hear at least some news about the campaing although to me it resembles the news we received last summer (about campaing until December) so I am not that hyped anymore.
    4 points
  14. I've recommended it to one friend of mine on the understanding that it's most decidedly a WIP (he was a game dev, so knows the score.) Whether I recommend it in beta and beyond to the many other friends I know from naval history and wargaming circles depends on three things: Remaining 'gamey' elements (cloaking smoke, torpedo spam and other such fixes to the meta rather than the underlying issues) are reformed. The designer improves to the point where you don't feel held back by arbitrary restrictions. Modding is officially supported or at least easy to accomplish, acknowl
    4 points
  15. I am all for more variety in the designer I am all for more freedom in placing parts I am against „all-equal“ and want nation specifics I am very much against „same ship Syndrom“ I want this Game to be awesome I feel that this game needs a great designer with a lot of freedom and a good dynamic campaign to use the designer meaningful
    4 points
  16. ye something to tie us over until the campaigns release essentially.
    4 points
  17. Me personally, I'd honestly like more nation specific parts being added. The current pool of parts is still very lackluster and generic. This wouldn't fix the many issues the builder has but I'd like to have more Nation specific variety rather then the generic parts.
    4 points
  18. Id' say wait, because currently, above mentioned limitless design possibility is a lie.
    4 points
  19. Hi all! After leaving my feedback regarding the Ship Designer - in my opinion the most interesting and unique selling proposition of the game - in multiple threads I decided to write up a summary of what I would like to see. The whole thing is aiming to improve flexibility and create more interesting (and less repetitive 😞 ) Designs! As a Start I would expand on what we can do on the Hull! These steps are marked as H1 to H11: H1. Hull Selection Fewer hulls needed as the hull itself becomes part of the design process. Example: tumblehome, pre-dreadnought, dreadno
    3 points
  20. 😤😤😤 This is the best thing that happened to me this year!
    3 points
  21. We need a division maker pre-battle and also able to give orders pre-battle too with a 3d or 2d top down view of the battle screen and then once ships are assigned their roles and ranks (flag ship for example) then the player can hit play/continue/begin/battle etc.
    3 points
  22. 3 points
  23. I hope captain/commander names or portraits can be display in the battle instance, to provide a connection from the crew/captain/commander interface to the battle. Playing a game recently with companions, it has that correspondence. UAD can do it with captains or division commanders, names/portraits (maybe voiceovers) would create the same atmosphere. To expand on this, when the division lead changes a message could be displayed e.g. “Commander Beatty has taken command of division 1”. There could be quite a few battle related commander messages, maybe campaign messaging too.
    3 points
  24. So, I think the limitations of the ship editor are pretty obvious. 1MajorKoenig has a very extensive post on that subject elsewhere so I'll not rehash it here other than to say, if you allow sufficient freedom in the designer to make ships that fulfill roles that the user decides on rather than sticking rigidly to roles dictated by the game designers then you naturally eliminate a lot of the "everything is the same" issue. As far as nation specifics go, I think this would be better handled as a set of technology advantages rather than a special "thing" that I can have and no one e
    3 points
  25. Welcome to the club of designer dissapointment, take your tea and feel comfy.
    3 points
  26. Further development of the ORP Henryk Pobożny. Looking better as time goes on too be fair. Enjoy! Also she has 360mm Main guns, don't ask why they are that caliber just picked it randomly lol.
    3 points
  27. Would it be possible to get an radar type overview of the ships positions? Feel like that would help a lot for general awareness.
    3 points
  28. @Nick Thomadis Hi Nick - it’s been more than half a year since I put in this question. While I was hoping for substantial expansions to the ship designer the lack of reaction there got me thinking how far you are trying to expand this core feature in the foreseeable future. Regardless - can you at least add Derfflinger, Mackensen and Ersatz Yorck Parts (hulls, superstructure, funnels and guns)? That would give us at least a way to build different ships around these amazing designs ?
    3 points
  29. Well, on these forums you will kind of get an yes answer to your question regardless - since we all are here because we are very much interested in this game and want to see it succeed. But honestly, it depends on what kind of games you like and what kind of games you will be interested in when it finally comes out. I mean if you have watched Stealth17 or History Guy Gaming youtube videos (there are several, just these are the ones I check now and then because their voices are not overly irritating), there is very little of gameplay you have not seen. It is an alpha version after all.
    3 points
  30. Ok, i named realistic expectations, so here are the wishes / suggestions - All (or at least main) guns of same caliber to be considered as a single group and to receive shared aiming data. - Repair that old bug or whatever it is, when not all guns fire in each salvo even when they should. - For guns to stop shooting literally backwards if RNG said so. I'm fine with it to be RNG based, just tweak the visuals so misses are not THAT stupid looking. - Consistent tech in autodesigned fleets: to counter issues mentioned above. In simple terms, program should pick a set of tec
    3 points
  31. Drach did a couple UA:D videos early last year around Alpha-5, most of which (iirc) consisted of "can we recreate (x) historical ship? Not really, no." He's one of my favourite youtube historians, so perhaps it would be good to get him back again once the ship designer has been significantly improved. Give the update a bit of public fanfare.
    2 points
  32. Thank you! Thankyouthankyouthankyou 😍 I look forward to seeing more detail about the designer improvements once your new programmer has got settled in, but for now this news is very good news.
    2 points
  33. This is amazing! An excellent plan and a good way up slize the work! North Sea Campaign - I LOVE it!! And that is even more amazing!!!! Wooohoooo can’t wait!
    2 points
  34. How cool it would be if visible models of ships corresponded to their current identification status starting with vaguely ship shaped brick and slowly refining over time with some generalised elements, until popping in with full detail. But eh. No rush, let's wait till most critical parts are done before pestering the devs with all these small wishes.
    2 points
  35. I found this very old post but I like the ambitions described here
    2 points
  36. For the modern and super IJN BB hulls you can't fit the large funnel on any of the superstructures, can't put it anywhere on the ship.
    2 points
  37. i tried to replicate the french cruiser Algeirs from 1931 ingame and i got a lot more armored equivalent for same tonnage and equipment.From my experience so far it does seem that armor is a little too light and you can get away with putting stuff like 200mm of extended deck armor.
    2 points
  38. Yep, missed this. A map / plotting table mode would be helpful. it could partially or fully replace the freecam for that "realism" feel as well. May be optional.
    2 points
  39. Algerie is also the example I used a ways back when I said armour was embarrassingly light. RL Algerie's belt armour alone (not deck or turrets) is 1,500 tons. The same belt in game was something like 450. This along with engines also being too light is the main reason all the AI ships are speed demons with insane armaments. I once saw an 11,500 ton cruisers with 15 203mm guns and a 367mm belt. That sort of belt would weight more than half the ship's entire weight in real life.
    2 points
  40. what about your 116000 shp vs 84000 of real Algérie? Maybe it's engines are too light? (hello 32-knot dreadnoughts from 1920) and many other things as well... well thing is, every real ship could be vastly different than other ships of same era, it's not like everyone used exactly same engines, guns, armor, etc. It is impossible to generalize that tech in a way that will fit every single individual ship ever built. If it fits some, it will be off for others.
    2 points
  41. For the love of everything holy please let me design all the ships in my custom battles. I beg you. The speeds and armament are all over the map. I built Iowa Class replicas at 33 knots. Game generates 34 knot heavy cruisers, 24 knot light cruisers and 27 knot destroyers. I have had heavy cruisers generate with no secondary guns. Any sort of nonsense you could imagine. Oh every ship in the fleet has a different propulsion technology and different torpedoes. So that’s fun for my OCD.
    2 points
  42. I present to you the mighty HMS Inflexible, the latest capital ship of His Majesty's navy! Featuring twelve (yes, twelve!) 14" guns in three quadruple turrets, in 1923, and absolutely nothing in the way of armour, internal subdivision, or secondary armament, these blisteringly-fast battlecruisers will surely show the Boche what's what in the name of the King. Britannia rules the waves! As predicted, they had absolutely no armour, piss-poor module selection, and minimum bulkheads. All four were sunk within the opening stages of the match, and the newly-broken formation system prevented my
    2 points
  43. Adding to all the above: a fix for the AI auto-designer that this time actually fixes things. Dropped this in the clowncar thread but it's worth posting here just to count the sins: Oversized destroyer tower: check Shrunken 1920s battlecruiser hull: check One (1) main gun on a pointless barbette: check Unused rear deck big enough to land a plane on: check (feature or bug? you decide) Is clearly a tugboat cosplaying as a light cruiser. An attempt was made.
    2 points
  44. Admiral, glad the workaround helped! The problem may start to happen once you update CItrix software, etc. This workaround should help you to keep installed and using both Citrix and the game (not simultaneously though)
    1 point
  45. Sidenote: In real life maintaining that archaic crap is almost impossible unless you have access to know-how from your grandfathers time. Cheaper certainly it isn't. Not to mention supporting infrastructures which no longer may be there. Speaking from bitter experience here. More related to the thread, Liberty ships in WW2 initially were built with triple expansion engine too, so certainly the know-how and tech were available but in military use USS Texas launched in 1912 and commissioned in 1914 was one of the last battleships using triple expansion engine (certainly last USA battle
    1 point
  46. People, don't agree for half-measures. Please. There should not be "superstructures with more funnel slots" or "with built in barbettes". There should be barbettes and funnels in whatever positions we need them, and then superstructures filling in whatever space they can fit around that, encompassing those primary components. It all is there in numbers, just compare one to another.
    1 point
  47. Game has come quite some distance, from the first post. Be interesting too see how it develops in the next year.
    1 point
  48. Hello again all, I would like to mention the progress we have so far with Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. The game is mostly finalized in its innovative ship design mechanics and more features will make it deeper the coming months. The Ship Designer will allow players to construct and customize their own ships and will influence greatly the outcome of battles. During the campaign you will feel the tension of the Naval Arms race in a continuous struggle to construct the most powerful ships against major nations. The combat model is about 60% ready and needs more technology effects to becom
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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