Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/01/2020 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    If you, players, like them of course they can stay 🙂
  2. 6 points
    10th issue now available https://pdfhost.io/v/9e0hwAGpW_Gazette10finalpdf.pdf
  3. 5 points
    Please let these new ships stay in the game permanently! Don't remove them after 1st April passes.
  4. 5 points
    its coming - long overdue. Next patch it will happen. The only thing delaying this is the indecision on the attack. We think they should attack players but only in patrol zones.
  5. 5 points
    Frankly I was drawn to this game because of pre-dreadnoughts, this underrepresented era of naval steampunk awesomeness, which seemed to be "the thing" about this game, but it turned soon more towards WW2 stuff...Am I the only weirdo who is more hyped about some late 1800's beauty than Yamato?
  6. 4 points
  7. 3 points
    We have just updated the game offering various small hotfixes for the main game, and in addition we present two special missions that include two of the earliest and most famous ironclads, the "USS Monitor" and "CSS Virginia". Read the details in our blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/1st-april-update-battle-of-the-ironclads
  8. 3 points
    Hello Admirals! After this epic ironclad update I hope that other ships will come also. First of all, I want to say, that this is not priority, absolutely not priority thing. There are much more important things, but in my opinion later these old ships should be in the game. For example, the Austro-Hungarian Navy had a monitor called SMS Leitha (1871). She was very modern monitor at her time. You can also visit Her in Budapest. For the Royal Navy the HMS Inflexible would be a cool starter ship (HMS Warrior would be cool too), becase she was constructed at 1876. (But on the other hand there is a huge problem implementing these ships into the game: most ironclads have masts, it can be difficult to model these) So I think implementing ironclads into the game would be fun, but, not only fun. There aren't a lot of games out there in the market where you can play with ironclas and pre-dreadnoughts. So in my opinion, implementing these ironclads, and pre-dreadnoughts into the game will boost the potential, and also great for marketing. Secondly, these early ships would be great for coastal defense. Why? Constructing monitors are cheaper, faster. They have low freeboard, so hitting them is not that easy. Good concealment. What do you think about these points Admirals?
  9. 3 points
    Great River PB. Lost by points
  10. 3 points
    While Ironclads we've got are pretty epic, this short 1st April video caught my attention. The famous fictional cruiser HMS Thunderchild from H. G. Wells's "War of the worlds". So, I wonder, perhaps next April fools update would allow us to build this fantastic ship? Lol.
  11. 3 points
    Look to give rewards for those catching all types of fish and visiting every port as a special reward.
  12. 3 points
  13. 3 points
    Yay we can keep em ladz! Also we could have coastal ships too, slow but with fat guns.
  14. 3 points
    @Nick Thomadis I hate to be overly nitpicky, but some of the scaled-up / scaled-down towers and turrets are really bothering me - obviously, many of them are temporary placeholders while more models are created, but I hope that we won't see the giant-sized cruiser tower on 30's-40's Italian battleships in the release. Someone else already covered some of the secondary gun glitches on the American modern towers, but another one I've been fighting with is the falsely-detected overlaps on the British 'Hood' style towers. Somewhat minor, but you know the "devil's in the details" etc, etc. Amidst these complaints, I'd like to say how much I am loving this game, and how impressed I am with what you guys have presented so far. Alpha-5 has absolutely delivered what I hoped, and I am already looking forward to the next patch!
  15. 3 points
    I seriously doubt, simply adding a few new already existing features into an already existing feature will take that much time ingeneral. If you think the campaign will come out in the next patch then i would think again since they will obviously want to get some features nailed down and also added in before committing to it. We can already design ships in custom battles, saving ships won't exactly take 5months to implement and also the ability to design multiple ships should come before the campaign since you know thats what you will be doing in the first place. It makes no sense to test the features out in the campaign first when you can simply put them into pre-existing templates and improve them before the big show. Considering the devs made far bigger changes before with little issues in time.
  16. 3 points
    i am hyped about each equally, they all served their navies in the respective times well and we should look forward to them all.
  17. 2 points
    If you are not adding PvP, please let us at least edit the enemy ship(s) I want to let my viewers builds fight each other in AI-Mode to supplement for PvP for now.
  18. 2 points
    Completed both missions already and I loved them. Would be nice to see some of Popovs round ships added in, especially in the custom battle mode.
  19. 2 points
    I would like to see miss cerberus or.. HMS devestation. Plus i would like to see HMS collingwood first of the admiral class dreads.
  20. 2 points
    Nice boys so we can start back from 1875? k? gud. More old style ships for us to play around. Also it kinda makes sense anyways to be able to play with the very first ironclads and experience the evolution of ship design from that period (it also means mega campaigns from the sail game would be possible as well).
  21. 2 points
    No, no more clan stuff. The game is already way to focused on clans, with too much clan only things.
  22. 2 points
    KEEP THEM! They are awesome
  23. 2 points
  24. 2 points
    I do agree. All those types of fish only to be converted into provisions, what a waste. A game set in a century of cartography and exploration that misses the chance of having another activity ingame, what a pitty.
  25. 2 points
    Greetings Captains, thank you for the reports, it is under investigation. Once investigated, appropriative actions will be taken. Update: Issue investigated. Measures taken
  26. 2 points
    I have a record of being a wet blanket when it comes to "new feature proposals" in proportion to my perception of how time consuming that "small, necessary" proposal is, because I agree the campaign is priority. However, in this case, it seems that no new components have to be made, more just hooking a few existing components up and removing some blockages. It just doesn't seem like that much of a diversion. Of course, I could be wrong.
  27. 2 points
    You could create 2 balanced ships and see how they do against each other. Or get a proper challenge like a another 18" armed super battleship. Not a 15" armed ship. You would also have a better idea how powerful your ships are if you compare it against your own. It would also let you have a kind of multiplayer. Where it could be my ship vs your ship.
  28. 2 points
    Игра уже несколько лет страдает от маринада, в POTBS было так же, но разработчики сделали возможность выйти из боя если враг не нанес 500 дамага, почему бы не сделать также? Хорошо, что у меня есть твинки и я могу крафтить и возить грузы, но если представить, что игрок тратит по несколько часов в неделю на маринад, то конечно игра в такие моменты начинает раздражать. P.S. Нельзя наказать игроков, за то что можно делать в игре, нужно решать проблему в механике. Мне дали предупреждение в игре, за то что я прожал сурендер) это уже пипец)
  29. 2 points
    Holy fisssshfins! This is awesome! I am genuinely surprised and pleasantly delighted at this little update! Time to build me an USS Onondaga!
  30. 2 points
    Another thread derailed into Sweden vs Denmark, hello kittyin hell.
  31. 2 points
    That's you. For the rest of us I can see several reasons. First, if you "max out" your design against an opponent of equal tech, your ship will almost certainly be better than the AI ship, so making it yourself can be a greater challenge. That's recognized and that's a reason why so many Naval Academy scenarios give the AI a substantial tech advantage. Second, if you play to win, AI ships restrict your choices. Sometimes you want to build a smaller ship say to practise being economical. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't read the air and builds a 100,000 ton super battleship, and you don't even know about it until you play. So you are forced to make the biggest ship you can just in case (and money is no object, either). Now of course the enemy just so happens to build a small ship and you kill it extremely easily... Third, from a realism standpoint, it is not that often that people design their ships with so little information (none beyond tech year) as to what their opponent is building. Usually you'll have an inkling of what's on the enemy plate even if you don't know the details. Fourth is of course historical battles. We can at least try to get close in terms of capabilities if perhaps not the listed displacement.
  32. 2 points
    у меня есть много стримов и записей с грифингом или действиями похожих на них. Я могу создавать каждый день по несколько топиков на эту тему. Но не делаю это, так как уважаю время модераторов и разработчиков. Но если я имею все доказательства - я делаю это. Так как люди подобные вам портят игру. Вы портите мне стримы. Вы портите впечатления от игры. Такие действия должны нести ответственность, дабы предотвратить последующие подобные действия. ------------------------- I have a lot of streams and records with a griefing or actions similar to them. I can create several topics on this topic every day. But I do not do this, because I respect the time of moderators and developers. But if I have all the evidence, I do it. Since people like you ruin the game. You spoil my streams. You spoil the game experience. Such actions should be held accountable in order to prevent subsequent such actions.
  33. 2 points
    We will certainly try to include some ships to cover the early campaign period.
  34. 2 points
    Cries in La Gloire and HMS Warrior On a serious note, will the game be expanding to cover 1860-1890? That would be amazing!
  35. 2 points
    @Ink @Liam790 @Tac абсолютно не важно сколько нас держали в бою. Есть факт грифинга. Потдвержденный видео и скриншотами игрового чата. В котором 2 раза четко говорится о том, что нас будут держать в бою что бы мы пожалели о том что пришли. Это мои 5 10 15 20 30, не важно, минут моей жизни. Вы портите мою игру что запрещено правилами стима. Остальное не важно. Меня абсолютно не волнует действия Путина или любая другая ситуация от любого другого человека. ---------- it doesn’t matter how many of us were kept in battle. There is a fact of grifting. Confirmed video and game chat screenshots. In which 2 times it is clearly stated that we will be kept in battle so that we regret that we came. These are my 5 10 15 20 30, it doesn’t matter, minutes of my life. You spoil my game that is prohibited by the rules of Steam. Nothing else matters. I absolutely do not care about Putin’s actions or any other situation from any other person.
  36. 2 points
    Since a lot of people have more reading time than usual right now, Osprey is giving away 5 free eBooks a week for the next 4 weeks, although this is week 2, sorry I noticed late. Anyhow, this week comes with US Heavy Crusiers 1943-1975 that some of you might find interesting even if out of the period of the game...https://ospreypublishing.com/blog/Free_eBooks_week_2/
  37. 1 point
    I agree. This is my most wanted feature to be able to make my own custom enemies to fight.
  38. 1 point
    A long time ago there was a problem with finding your position on the map, especially during the long voyages in open sea without seeing any landmarks. That problem was solved by using F11 coordinates and third party services (usually the excellent na-map.netlify.com by @Felix Victor). Also that facilitated relaying your precise position (or enemy position) to your friends, using the same method (even in battle you could press F11 and get the coordinates). But then Devs changed the game by introducing GPS-like Sextant perk and removing coordinated from F11 bug reporting interface. Since that players don't have problems with finding your position on the map (even in low visibility) providing they spent points for Sextant Perk, but instead it became much more harder to inform other people of your whereabouts. That problem is even more hard, not only because you can't now get your position during the battle, but also because there are not so many names and other marks on the main map, from which you could take bearing (especially with some places far from ports or when there are too many islands around). As a result even with battle opened due to BR difference you might not be able to get help because your friends can't find the battle. The problem described here can be solved either by players themselves, either by the devs: 1. Players can take some static map and simple put names to important landmarks (mountains for examle), capes, points, bights and bays, shallows, reefs, cays etc. Just like I did as example with Bay of Honduras using Shrouded Recluse's Map and various contemporary and modern maps. However there are some problems with that method: It's sometimes quite hard work to find right names for right places and put them on the map (it took me 2 days for mapping the Honduras Bay) Ingame map is a bit different from real map - for example, looking at the Honduras Bay there is no Bensalem island, and Turneffe Island is actually duplicated You still will need 3rd party things (printed map or digital map opened in another screen) 2. Devs can uprade ingame map introducing 2-layer map. First layer is standard currently used not very detailed map - it is visible to all. Second layer is much more detailed nautical map with all features named, with contour lines and even proper depth sounding marks (sometimes), with some designated lanmarks (including forts) etc. Just like real nautical map of Age of Sail. To see that second layer players have to sail through the map opening it just like lifting Fog of War in some games - the area opened is defined by visibility range (already calculated by the game). As a result players will get real motivation to explore the map by sailing to the various places. Also, there are some other possibilities to improve the game with this new feature: If Devs decide to add some hidden coves, careening places etc, as it was suggested many times before, they can add them only to that 2nd layer, also raising the motivation to explore the Caribbean. Introducing of new type of Loot or Admiralty store items - maps. You could loot the map (usable item) from enemy or buy it in Admiralty for CM and, after using it, open random or certain portion of detailed map. Adding the long time ago requested possibility to put some notes on the map by player. And here players could help by mapping the map themselves first, so developers can then add their names and create suggested 2-layers map system much more easier and faster.
  39. 1 point
    Toby is now working from home...
  40. 1 point
    Fully support this. Have suggested the second part myself, too. Things like these titles would be easy to implement and increase the long time motivation a lot. Particularly if these titles are visible to other players. A little vanity goes a long way in MMO's :)
  41. 1 point
    First, let me say I would much prefer a subscription model with no DLCs a more intricate economy, crafting, political, and society aspects to the game. Combine Civilization and Naval Action one might say. But... As long as competitive ships are available by methods other than DLC (which as a whole I think they are) I don’t think there’s been a lack of integrity. It’s currently a financial model I don’t prefer, but it’s not breaking the game. Yet.
  42. 1 point
    Oh greg boy. The danes don't need anything, but our dlc ships. Look at what we sail. But BSTD and the Russian took to heart to help those few danes, that don't have crafting alts by the Swedish, British and Russians. So a Russia Nation that care abouth the wellfare of a small nation. Who had ever see that comming. And it is not a 1 april joke.
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Well that was quite a rumble, I decided to pause the build of an Onodaga upon realizing I only needed one main turret, so reveling in that fact (having wanted monitor warships for quite some time, albeit not expecting the OG monitors) I went with and oldy but goody and built a standard monitor. And boy did she take a pounding, yet despite the pockmarked surface actually managed to comfortably dispatch the, uh, spanish? ironclad once safely steaming into spitting distance and landing some 12 inch hits below the water line. The enemy seemed to expel a lot of fire power on the wheel house, does the AI target specific modules?
  45. 1 point
    IMO i would love to try this ingame if it was for one weekend to test it, @admin would this be possible if u open testbed? and apply a survey afterwards of the experience players had
  46. 1 point
    Greetings Admiral, CVs and Planes are a complex feature and will only be considered after base campaign is delivered to users and plays well
  47. 1 point
    They should just let us edit all the ships in Custom Battle and be done with it. I must admit I cannot see what the difficulty is. And let us save designs. As for the problem of equipment availability by year, here's my proposed solution - Let Us. If we want 1 or 2 1940 ships in what is otherwise a 1925 battle, we should just be allowed to do so. Let us be responsible for such things.
  48. 1 point
    Admirals, As soon as the exact date on Steam Early Access release is clear we will let you know
  49. 1 point
    I wish we could just get rid of the port bonus system. Far more trouble than it's worth. It seems we have one of these posts every week.
  50. 1 point
    trying to do some test on the new hulls; some bugs or samewhat bad design and bad ancorage point dislacement french super bb italian modernized bb this is what i found right now
  • Create New...