Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/15/2020 in all areas

  1. 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
    27 points
  2. Hello all, We would like to share an update regarding the upcoming patch. We wanted to release it this week but we found two major issues from the old implementation, so we had to refactor all movement code. The most major issue was that the previous version could not support any negative speed at all. The old method of implementation was interfering with our planned progress on ship movement, so more changes were needed. The new movement system will be provided some time next week or in a week with additional improvements, better code, less bugs, and will be more enjoyable as a
    15 points
  3. Hello Admirals, First of all, we wish you a great time with your family and friends during these festive days. Today we are happy to announce our new update which offers crucial improvements on battle gameplay, especially regarding the formations and evasion system. In this patch we also introduce the ability to use the reverse engines of ships, an action that is very useful for evading torpedoes and maintaining formations. Various other improvements have been worked on, based on your recent feedback. You can read more information in our official blog or below: =========
    14 points
  4. That's what frustrates me. The ship designer is literally a core function of the game, as well as its main selling point. It's sad to see it unnecessarily crippled with no promise of a fix, while minor things like reversing - which I've never felt I needed - are prioritised in patches. It's why I've largely given up playing.
    14 points
  5. I always love the new updates, but in my opinion the most important thing that the devs must implement into the game, that getting rid of the fixed points. Without this feature the game will be always repetitive. We can't create historycal ships, witch is obviously a very important thing to do. Secondly, armour viewer. If I design a ship, I want to know where I have to place more armour in the designer, where is the citadel, is it under water, waterline above waterline. This is also very important. I want to see the deck, the citadel deck, upper deck etc... I know that the campaign is the
    13 points
  6. Patch is getting released today. Hold on admirals!
    12 points
  7. Considering that half of my posts on here these days are complaining about the stupidity of fixed barbette/tower points when we already have free turret shift-placement, and how it needlessly handicaps so many designs... I would really hope that it's been read at least once. But the best we get is 'we'll add more points, on some hulls' and the excuse that certain placements would be historically unrealistic (which I've had to disprove multiple times) when literally 95% of the time all we're trying to do is make designs that look more realistic. If the AI can't cope with a proper designer
    12 points
  8. We thank you very much and ensure you and everybody in this forum, that we deeply appreciate and acknowledge all the feedback as well as any constructive criticism from the players. We may not respond to everyone, but everything discussed is noticed and evaluated for improving further the game.
    10 points
  9. It doesn’t sound like super difficult to fix honestly. If they would allow placement of machinery which could simply be represented as a volume based on the calculated speed -> power output + chosen machinery type the rest would logically follow. Funnels could be placed anywhere on the set machinery spaces, barbettes could placed anywhere outside the machinery spaces (and not directly on the bow and stern where space is too limited). Heck it the AI doesn’t get it to deal with such simply mechanics the devs can implement some hard points in the background just for the A
    10 points
  10. Thanks for the update, this is what we guys would like too see more as it gives us a better understanding overall. Now we know why its being delayed rather than speculating and getting very angy. If it means making the patch better, i have no problems with it and i guess it makes it easier for you guys if your code is easier to edit/follow etc (i know little about code). But thanks anyways. ID rather we get to know what you guys are doing (not everyday once a week is fine or twice whatever fits you) and what problems you run into if any than be left in the dark. Regardless take
    10 points
  11. [EDIT: Note to anyone reading, I wrote this before reading Coalminer's post above. Apologies for repeating much the same issues with slightly different flavour] Why should such gunfire be significant AT ALL, let alone MORE so? If you're doing it "for balance", might I suggest you STOP doing that? War ISN'T balanced. The idea is to crush your enemy utterly without taking a scratch. If you can get them to surrender without firing a shot, better still. If you are stupid enough to pit ANY sort of surface ship that ISN'T a BB class against another BB, guess what? Unless the circ
    10 points
  12. Starting this to get suggestions about the spotting distance problem raised by @Jatzi and myself in @1MajorKoenig's excellent Ship Designer suggestion thread. Right now the spotting distance is far too low. As I said in the earlier thread: in WW1 a lot of battles and strategy hinged on comparative ranges - staying out of range of your opponent while continuing to fire, or otherwise trying to close the distance to bring a more numerous but smaller calibre battery into action. This was important precisely because both ships could usually see each other outside the effective range of their wea
    8 points
  13. Valid question. @Nick Thomadis - are you able and allowed to give us your view on the ship designer and what you plan to achieve or even what direction you have in mind?
    8 points
  14. Thanks for putting this all together and in order. Perhaps this will be noticed and taken into account? Just looked over my own posts on this question and they're such a mess. Can't resist adding another wall of text here x) Some additions / corrections to this, maybe a bit excessive at times, you've been warned. H4. Freeboard - not a slider but a set of fixed options, for ease of player understanding and dev implementation. Yes i'm clearly inspired by some other game. Options would be: high freeboard, medium/normal freeboard, low freeboard and monitor type. With each having so
    8 points
  15. This surely happens to all players that begun playing missions in older patches. We are not going to take that away We implemented Smoke Screen to work in a radius (it has area of effect). You can check nearby ships that they gain smoke coverage by their shooting stats. Smoke screen is a feature that would need later an improvement, to work directionally and hide ships that are behind but it is of low priority. Making it very much more complex would certainly decrease game performance as a battle in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts can contain a lot of ships and a very detailed LOS for
    8 points
  16. The cloaking device mechanic frankly shouldn't belong in a game of this complexity. It feels pretty arcadey, and as said above, it unbalances the rest of the torpedo mechanic. If it's to be included at all, I would love it to be done properly, with persistent smoke that can be toggled on and off freely, that gradually degrades from time and wind conditions, that can easily hide other ships, not the screening ship, and that can cause loss of sight as well as decreased accuracy. And for good measure, do the same to a lesser extent for gun and funnel smoke, especially in the coal-fired era.
    8 points
  17. we just have to keep winging about making all things be able to be shift placed like turrets are right now. and if ai has problems with it then just limit the ai. but let players build cool stuff.
    8 points
  18. My current interim suggestion to make this playable is just raising the base spotting range by 50% and doubling the effect of weather conditions on spotting. A better overhaul of spotting and targeting mechanics would make a distinction between spotting range and targeting range. Both should be separate stats: Spotting range would be much larger, universal across the fleet and therefore displayed to the player without confusion - the equivalent of running up the 'enemy in sight' signal. Targeting range should be an individual stat for each ship, dependent on damage and weather c
    7 points
  19. Unfortunately none of this will happen. Both of those lists of ideas would greatly improve the game and wouldnt be that hard to understand for new players if there are proper tooltips. But I have a feeling the devs are mostly done with the ship designer beyond reworking armor a little. They'll shoot both lists down with the "it'd be too complex for the AI/new player" argument. Both are false as you can have a more restricted system for the AI, plus templates can be a thing for it to use. And legit this stuff isn't that hard to understand for new players. I like the first list better, for the d
    7 points
  20. It seems destroyers has once again swung in the other direction of absurd durability... again. For some reason HE shells are not detonating against destroyers and instead just reads me a bunch of over-pens. I understand the issue of DDs being too fragile but their ability to activate romulan cloaking devices (smokes) and are only spotted when they are in torpedo range means this fragility was justifiable. To demonstrate here is the damage log against an enemy destroyer. 10 HE hits on a destroyer from 6" and 14" gunfire should've left nothing bu
    7 points
  21. Now it works according to ship class or position in the division (division leaders have priority). Later, as a functionality, it will be also related with the rank of ship captains.
    7 points
  22. what machinery are we even talkimg about? Last I checked there was no machinery category in the designer. there is no "look under the deck feature" the mythical machinery space does not exist. just allow us to place everything how we want to and assume thah engine space is always under the superstructure. ok screw free placement, maybe it is too hard on the tech (tho it works with turets and back in alpha 6 you could even rotate funnels which I want to do again) Just make the hardpoints for everything on the entire length of the ship, screw your magic machinery space we cant even see. it's lim
    7 points
  23. I think the modern Japanese battlecruiser hull is really stupid because you can only place the superstructure and the turret barrettes really far to the foreship. Besides looking really stupid, it also looks really unmodern, because modern ships would have longer bows that keep sea water away from the turrets. Below is how I think it should look like. The currently restricted place should be where the superstructure should be possible to place, and the three placement spots for the superstructure would be the placement spots for the front barbettes.
    7 points
  24. Making terrain just a "distant" thing is basicly making the game pointless. While I agree that "tonks on wasser tha game" is stupid, we cant forget actions like the channel dash. Also, atracking the enemy in port while there is no port would be kinda strange, and surprise attacks in port were a thing as well, just look at pearl harbor. Also, they already have the tech to make landmasses in the form of ultimate admiral age of sail. There are precisely 0 reasons why landmassea should not be a thing.
    7 points
  25. Agree with Marshall99. Of course making a game or any other piece of software can be a challenge. Reefkip is stating the obvious. And we can easily deduct from the complete absence of progress this year and the replacement of the key programmer that something went pretty horribly wrong. Watch the trailer for the ship designer and see what is in the alpha-prototype in game - it’s a huge gap between those two. Either the ambitions have been unrealistic from the get go or the project went the wrong way at some point. Now as Reef started the speculation - it can
    6 points
  26. Therein lies the central problem many have commented on, lack of communication. They seem to not want to tell us what "will not" change and just leave it with a vague statement of "we are looking into it". I'm not saying they should tell us everything. However, if the community keeps asking for X, and it is simply not possible or the direction they want to take...say so. That way people won't spend loads of time writing/debating threads like this, only to never see any of it come into being. I for one would love to hear them ask more closed ended questions about fix/changes instead of "w
    6 points
  27. I absolutely agree with you! We need major changes in the designer.
    6 points
  28. Just my current personal wish list of gun turrets that I really wish were added to the game, would love to see what other people's turrets list is. Will start with Germany first: 283mm sk c/34 and c/28 30.5 cm SK L/50 France: 340mm/45 Modèle 1912 and its Quadruple variant that would been mounted in battleships Lyon and Normandie 330mm/50 Modèle 1931 130 mm Modèle 1932 quadruple and dual barrel Italy: Cannone da 381/50 Ansaldo M1934 152 mm/55 Models 1934 and 36 305 mm/46 Model 1909 Japan:
    6 points
  29. Well I would like to see more 1880-1900 gun turrets. I brought you some pictures, so you can see what I am thinking about And finally, the "open" turrets or barbettes. I think these ones would be easy to implement. In the armour management you could set the turret armour to 0 mm, so it will show only the guns, without the armour.
    6 points
  30. I have been playing for one day now, and I am very impressed with this game. There's a few things I would definitely like to see improved/implemented. 1. I would like to be able to create multiple different ships in a fleet, instead of just a single vessel/class. Also building the enemy fleets. (Unless I just have not figured out this feature yet). 2. I would like to be able to save ship designs, so I don't have to rebuild them constantly. 3. It would be nice to have historical pre-built ships that can be used for recreating naval battles. 4. More damage and sinking animati
    6 points
  31. 6 points
  32. Technically thats actually correct, BC's should have around supercruiser heavy cruiser armour if not a bit more with the guns of a BB and the speed of heavy or light cruiser. Although i'd rather not have a BC with the armour of a light cruiser even if it means it can reach 45+ knots.
    6 points
  33. @Rob Onze i'm sorry but this is not World of Warships, please don't give them ill ideas...
    6 points
  34. 1. Pavillon de Saint-Malo. Port de corsaires 2. Pavillon de la Martinique 3. Pavillon de Marine 4. Pavillon de l’Arsenal de Rochefort 5. Pavillon de commodore 6. Pavillon de Louis XIV 7. Pavillon des Bourbons 8. Louisiane française 9. Saint-Pierre-Et-Miquelon 10. Québec La France mérite de nouveaux pavillons ! France deserves new flags !
    5 points
  35. I mean a lot of the changes discussed here are reasonable. The ability to set the belt length was stated as unreasonable? How so? No one here is talking like deciding the length down to the last inch. Short, long, normal, high, low, flat, angled. That's simple stuff. A graphic representation of the armor layout would be very appreciated, something like WoWs and Warthunder's xray modes would be cool but anything at this point. RTW 2 does that sorta stuff for the belt; the exact same stuff. Normal, limited, extended are options for it as are inclined vs not inclined. Simple toggles in drop down
    5 points
  36. I woul'd like to propose some ideas regarding crew mechanics. I suggest crew to be divided into few subcategories: machinery crew, stokers, damage control crew, tower crew, weapons crew. Each time ship is hit the game takes account on which compartment is hit and depending on damage inflicted crew can take losses. So, when boilers are hit by overpen hit, there is slight chance that stokers will took some light losses. If we have penetrating exploding hit, losses can be quite high. Similar is with other compartments through the ship. This way we can have main turrets mainly intact but
    5 points
  37. It would be nice if we could have smoke coming from the horizon and also as the ships get nearer the models start to render from maybe a very generic model that could be anything to whatever it actually is. I also think they should have some kind of empty object at the top of masts and some kind of band or line that sort of searches around the ship in a circular fashion, but maybe it isn't always so predictable, as you might get human errors for thinking they saw something, but it was nothing etc. Also the ships could then train their guns in the general direction as well, they think the
    5 points
  38. Relatedly, it would be great if ships with wing and centreline turrets of the same calibre should have those counted as one battery for the sake of accuracy. A game called 'Dreadnoughts' should aim to accurately represent HMS Dreadnought.
    5 points
  39. Agree that the designer is the central selling point. Without it the decades old “Jutland” is probably not worse. At least it has reasonable mechanics and a very good campaign. Making your own ships though will bring this game into a different league! Yes I think I also remember that devs wanted to improve the designer. It would be fantastic if they’d let us know what their current view on possible scope is! I mean - certainly the list of improvements can be brought into priority sequence
    5 points
  40. While building the next big battleship is interesting, after awhile and after fighting many big gun battleship and cruiser battles, 1900 to about 1920+, I have to say that there is a desire to build the next generation of warship, i.e. carriers, it seems natural to do so, to move beyond battleships. So I wonder how is UAD going to keep its battleships battle fresh from 1890 all the way through to 1940+? As for 20' guns, the bigger the better, a bigger bang so to speak, the end game big bang!, well the fact is RTW2 already has them and it's not such a big bang after all, so it's unlikely to be
    5 points
  41. This bothers me a huge amount, especially in early/mid time period. In WW1 a lot of battles and strategy hinged on comparative ranges - staying out of range of your opponent while continuing to fire, or otherwise trying to close the distance to bring a more numerous but smaller calibre battery into action. This was important precisely because both ships could usually see each other outside the effective range of their weapons. The default in this game right now is that before radar, even large ships usually 'pop up' within range of heavy secondary or lighter main battery weapons. It's compl
    5 points
  42. For machinery we can have an internal section so sort of x-ray mode would be nice. For the armour belt, the reason why it should be split into multiple pieces is because it was uniform and some ships had some weird belts and also icebreakers (Teehee, peegee reference). It could be simple as well and divided into, Main belt, Upper belt (or deck belt), lower belt/torp belt, icebreaker, bum belt (lol) and also internal armour (like turtlebacks for example). It would help the game simulate hits better too be fair and with internal components should allow for more accurate results rather than
    5 points
  43. Happy New Year to everyone! I hope we will have better year.
    5 points
  44. Seems like collision avoidance swing rocked to the other limit, again. Now allied ships ram each other all the time, even when they have no reasons to be on collision course. How torpedo avoidance works i don't know yet, so cannot rightfully complain about ships sometimes not seeing torpedoes at all, but sometimes avoiding them (sometimes, by driving into the most dense swarm x) Another *annoying* thing is ships sent to scout or screen still prefer to be on the opposite side of the battle line than where they should be, aka enemy.
    5 points
  45. Name's Dan, USN retired and a long time player of the old Fighting Steel game though bug'd and primitive it was. Just got UAD from my younger brother for Christmas and tongue drop to the floor I am loving the hell out of it! Best thing? Did not take very long to get the hang of the controls, thank you Wowzery for all those Bitchute videos you make and for the designers. I resisted for a long time getting into World of Warships because I just found it too "video-gamish" but UAD? Awesome! I hope the design team gets all the success and awards for this awesome sim. Well done. Dan R
    5 points
  46. Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I argue that if we could actually build our ships, instead of modifying them, it wouldn't be a problem. I suspect there is more going on, possibly with tech, than the Devs are willing to admit. The project is walking on eggshells. Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and sh
    5 points
  47. Merry Christmas ladz. 'w'/
    5 points
  48. I'd really like to see a whole lot of open barbettes and armored gun houses for main battery guns for 1880s through 1900. I'll post pics later.
    5 points
  49. We also need, more communication from the devs as well. Being silent all the time and being vague consistently isnt good really. Especially since, people on steam and discord plus here are getting increasingly annoyed by it. Roadmaps, weekly posts anything is better than what we get now, and they should communicate more on steam. Communication is important even more so in our current era so they really need to shift when it comes to this. I get they don't want to say something and people hold them to account for it (and i do understand that by the way). But push comes to shove i'd ra
    5 points
  • Newsletter

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