Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/27/2020 in all areas

  1. 18 points
    Ok i would just like to say this has come from seeing general discussions throughout my time in Naval Action and how the current game is right now....... This would be a massive change with how the current game is and whats going on right now, so here it is. I believe that crafting ports should be at the nations Capital with all resources needed also being available to build within that same port. Therefore making it so much easier with outposts. My reasons - 1. In my opinion RvR is very inactive due to people being terrified of losing there crafting port, no one wants to fight Russia right now basically because they are literally 2/4 ports away from every nations crafting port (this isn't a dig at Russia). yes i understand hostility has changed, but i feel this is one of the main reason. If people only have ships to lose in port battles and not there entire crafting port i feel RvR/WARS will happen more often. 2. Nations being controlled by clans, this is something we here alot currently within the pirate nation. If you dont get on with the port owning clan of the crafting port they take your clan off the friendly list and now your level 3 shipyard is worthless, and as i've heard, people then quit the game, which isnt what we want. 3. You could literally have two nations agree on a war, winner being the nation who one ports the other nation, maybe even a reward system. With the crafting port being in the capital people will then ask, whats the point in going for other ports??? This is where we need to spread out the resources needed for upgrades alot better then whats currently implemented, along with these new woods. We shouldn't have ports with more then one resource for upgrades in a port, or woods in the same port. For example, New Orleans - White oak and french sail cloth, Port Au Prince has 2 resource upgrades and im sure there's more, i also want to state these new woods shouldn't be in non capturable ports, these was stated a long time ago and change when the US nation had 4 white oak ports which got removed. Also resources for upgrades shouldn't be in non capturable ports. Basically spread the new woods and resource upgrades out better between all the ports we have, there's so many useless ports. We currently have a clan leaderboard which with this new crafting port system can be used to divide out the taxes the capital port makes, whether it being the top clan on the leaderboard getting the port taxes or top 3, im sure this is something that can be discussed. Simply having the crafting port at the capital port clan friendlist can solo be used for Port Battles, not impacting crafting. I understand people will now say, Russia, Prussia, China and Poland dont have capital ports - New Orleans, Vera Cruz, Belize, Trinidad would be my suggestions for capitals. Also all investments for shipyards would be giving back to players/clan in the redeemable section I'm sure there will be plenty of opinions on this, but from what i've seen people are already scared to lose ships, even with the DLC'S now in the game making it so much easier to get ships, and with the loss of crafting ports i really dont ever see people fully committing to RvR due to the risk of losing there crafting port/ports. Finally i know this would be a completely different step for the game but in the long run i could see this having a great impact.
  2. 15 points
    I am hello kittying speechless. You removed the raids cause nobody liked the useless PVE, the only good thing about them is that they were ONLY for the three biggest nations. Now, you added them back. Not only giving us MORE forced PVE that we don't want, after two patches in a row where you added necessity to do HDF to improve a port and to do a single port battle. You even added them and ANY NATION can get them. Russia that basically has half the playerbase got no raids, while Denmark which is a little nation got one. I constantly ask for incentives to join small nations, you just gave one more reason for casual players to join Russia. I don't know what to say actually... thanks for providing us more reasons to quit the game. Now we all have proof. You want to kill it. All times we ask for things and you say "Not gonna be added if it's not voted in the right section by most players". Now you keep adding stuff we don't clearly want and it's just annoying your playerbase. What do you think you'll achieve by telling your raiders to attack ports in two random regions? The only one I can think of is lowering the server population even more. Thanks.
  3. 10 points
  4. 10 points
    Port bonuses was a mistake. Fine Woods 2.0 and 3.0 was another mistake. These new enhanced port bonuse are perhaps the biggest mistake of them all. The fact that a new player who is working on crafting and building ships can only craft basic non-port bonus ships in a capital port amazes me. For that player to craft anything on par or better than what he could redeem with a DLC he/she would need to join a clan or get on a friendslist. This is a mindbogglingly poor decision and probably one of the reasons why new player retention is abysmal. All apsects of crafting are tied to RVR in this game and yet the price of admission is so high to enter RVR that one needs to be in a zerg to do it. The dwindling player population is a result of the sheer amount of time needed prep the logistics of RVR is crazy and the winner take all design of the game also means that a clan/nation can lose weeks of work in the span of a day or 2. The goal of RVR should be to take ports. Not remove a nation's ability to compete in port battles entirely Being in an "imposible" nation means nothing now if all the other ones are required to craft and build up player owned ports too. Just seems absurd. Once we saw what the new changes were going to be a couple weeks ago I think we just collectively as a clan said screw it. NA is fun, but the juice just ain't worth the squeeze right now.
  5. 9 points
    Hello, on many occasions I have made public in the forum my call to develop another Spanish ship, I will not spam the forum, but if I would like to tell you that the Spanish community is large and we agree that it would be good for the game to develop a ship Spanish that fills the gaps between rank 5 (Diana) and rank 1 (Santisima trinidad), for example the ship san juan nepomuceno or the montañes, or the glorioso. there are many examples and with pleasure in the naval museum of madrid they would help you. My intention is not to create controversy, but rather to express my opinion about the possible future ships that may arrive at the game San Juan Nepomuceno : 74 guns participated in the battle of Trafalgar. Wood, metal and string (length, 408 cm; strut, 178 cm; sleeve, 126 cm). Anonymous author (S.XVIII); presented in the stands, ready for launch; full starboard side, the port side enrod; totally treeless. The San Juan Nepomuceno ship, with two bridges and 74 guns, was built in Guarnizo in 1766 for a seat signed with Manuel de Zubiría and a project by Francisco Gautier. From its location, the Navy was assigned to the squadron stationed in Ferrol. Integrated in the squad of General José de Córdoba, who fought the battle of San Vicente, he did not participate in the action (1797). He was in Brest with Mazarredo's squad (1799-1802). Commanded by the Brigadier of the Royal Navy, Cosme Damián Churruca, he fought prominently in Trafalgar, being captured by the British, after his commander died, and the crew, 100 dead and 150 wounded (October 21, 1805). He served in the English Navy under the name San Juan; in 1808 it was used for the reception of authorities, and in 1818 it was sold. https://armada.defensa.gob.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/conocenoshistoria/prefLang-es/02batallascelebres--02combatenavales--02buques--02buque2-es Santa Ana 112 guns The Santa Ana Ship was built in El Ferrol in 1784, with plans by José Romero and Fernández de Landa. At the command of the captain of the Gardoqui ship, with the insignia of the lieutenant general of the army Ignacio M. de Alava, he had an outstanding participation in the Combat of Trafalgar (October 21, 1805), fighting fiercely with the English ship Royal Sovereign, insignia Admiral Collingwood; Both ships were destroyed, the Spanish with 97 deaths and 141 wounded, including the general and the commander. In 1808 he attended the combat and surrender of Admiral Rosily's French squad in Cádiz. In November 1810 he moved to Havana, in whose arsenal he collapsed in 1816 for lack of a hull. Montañes 74 guns 74-gun ship. Built in El Ferrol and launched in 1794. He formed in the Spanish-French Combined Squadron of Admiral Villeneuve, commanded by C.N. Alsedo, taking part in the action of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805, with the British Admiral Sir H. Nelson. Lost by storm in the bay of Cádiz in March 1810, sent by D.J. from Quevedo.
  6. 9 points
    Hi @admin would you mind expanding on the reasons for bringing back AI port battles? I believe you've said here community decision and popularity will influence future patch changes. I think the opinion of the community on AI PBs on the War server is an overwhelming "F*CK NO". So why are they back?
  7. 9 points
    Nope. Campaign isn't feature. This is the main game mode. Yes, I stopped playing for this reason. Some mission I didn’t even run once. I mean, I'm not a big fan "Here we go again". If I were, I was probably playing a skyrmish until I died of old age. However, I would like to test the real changes in the gameplay. For example: - obvious problem is the armor model. Armor scheme...well, it does not exist. You can select any sort of scheme, but it does not affect the actual placement of the armor. For example, you can choose AoN, but still have lot armor in extended deck/belt, what is the opposite of an AoN idea. But that is not the main problem. Main problem it's that you can put armor on every inch of your ship. Just compare the two pictures below. Yes, even one of the most advanced battleships has turned into “deaf, blind and impotent” mainly from the fire of 8 and 6 inch cruiser shells. And in the game ... well, yes, these 9 inch cruisers just sheeps in slaughter. Although flooding and flash fire helps with shell invulnerability, but the problem "armor bricks" still there.And this is just one of the problems that affects all game aspects .
  8. 8 points
    We are talking about comms here. So what exactly is being worked on is beside the point (plenty of topics about that). To me communication cycle looks like this: 1. Many threads on various topics are going with minimal participation from the team 2. An update is announced stating the changes (without much specificity) 3. Go to step 1. Very rarely (like that steam release announcement) there is some form of look into the future. There is no roadmap. There is basically no info about what will be in the next update beforehand. Community has no idea what feedback is taken into account and get frustrated when the same issues that were mentioned in alpha 2 are still present and they are left guessing. I'll give 1 hypothetical example of a possible issue, team's thought on it, team's response and how it might be handled better: issue: Bulkhead's damage model is broken thought: Will require a sizable refactor followed up but complete re-balance of HP, Gunnery and Artillery response: total silence proposed response: We acknowledge there seems to be a problem there. This is something we might look into in the future, but currently our efforts are concentrated on other areas.
  9. 8 points
    Ever since release I've been entertaining the idea of a large scale battle involving only gunboats. The theory being that a battle of 25 vs 25 gunboats would be the cause of significant hilarity and an interesting display. 50 gunboats going at each other would be a sight to behold. However the planned introduction of a karma-mechanic could put any ability to arrange such an event in jeopardy in the future, thus I have decided to try to put this idea into the world sooner rather than later. So how to do this? First I want to see if there is enough interest in this proposition. So leave a comment here or let me know if you’d like to show up for such an event. I’ve already broached this subject, with generally positive feedback, with some British captains, but I think that to truly make this the magnificent encounter it could be, we will need captains from all nations to join. A battle would be started between two nations and then captains from other nations jump in on each side till they are filled. To make this somewhat manageable at least a core of captains should be on Teamspeak or Discord together to make sure everything is orderly to begin with. After we hit go in the battle though, all bets are off as far as order goes. For communication before and during the event we can use the REDS Teamspeak, which I manage: fleet.red I’ve been contemplating making it a free-for-all event where we all agree to ignore green/red and everybody fires on everybody. But for now, let’s make it two teams fighting each other, and if it’s a success we can try it the other way next time. How do we find ships? By now every clan and player on the server should be sitting on a stockpile of Gunboat Notes, but if somebody doesn’t and they still want to join, I know that at least my REDS-clan has collected hundreds of Gunboat Notes since release, so getting hold of a ship should not be an issue. When do we do this? Monday 6th of July. Let’s say approximately 20.00 server time, but I can be convinced to change the time. I wanted to do this on a date with some significance, and July 6th is the date in 1812 of the Battle of Lyngør which is considered to mark the end of what is called the «Gunboat War» or «Kanonbåtkrigen» between Denmark-Norway and Great Britain. A war that got its name from the cheap and easy to construct and man gunboats that the Danish-Norwegian Navy used to protect its coastline after the destruction of the Danish fleet of Warships in the Second Battle of Copenhagen. Where to do this? July 6th also happens to be a day that will have Nassau Shallow Patrol Zone. So I’d say we do the battle in the Patrol Zone. We all meet at Shroud Cay and then go to find a suitable spot near the edge of the zone where the battle can be initiated.
  10. 7 points
    We need to wash out poor ports that are neglected by clans to give other nations a chance to take them for themselves from neutrals. Previous raider attack to richest ports was a fake feature because nobody would attack Nassau if Russia lost it because of potential consequences. But undeveloped (least developed) ports - nobody care about them, so smaller nations will have a chance to take them from neutrals if they are not defended.
  11. 7 points
    If people are crying over and over again for the same stuff during the development of a game. It's probably because this "stuff" is not there or doesn't work. A better armor model is basically something some of these "crying guys" are asking for since.. Well, the moment they realized it wasn't there. Armor model is needed in UA:D if we want a semblance of realism. Even if I wasn't always happy about the way this feedback was delivered, you can't say it was just pages of "cry". A critic is still a feedback, it's even more valid if it is backed with evidence in game, like it generaly was.
  12. 6 points
    will there be some days where you don't turn stuff upside-down? It's not alpha-testing anymore, is it?
  13. 6 points
    61 flag dropped since the patch. Perhaps players cant decide if RVR is better than peace and strong ships.
  14. 6 points
    If the devs don't fix some of these glaring issues before Steam release they will be in for a very rude reception, and this game deserves better.
  15. 6 points
    from my experience 80% of the time the loki drop you in an already sinking ship or vs a 1st rate while in a snow, it's only fun when facing same size ships.
  16. 5 points
    A major major issue I see with this game that I think campaign will exasperate, is a lack of a task force system. The whole "screening" system this game has will absolutely fall apart if you need to manage more than one task force. For example in another game Victory At Sea Pacific, in a battle, I sent out my battleship forces while the enemy carriers were doing an air raid on midway, in hopes of catching them off guard, however to deal with the secondary reinforcing squad the enemy deployed, I sent out my cruisers to deal with them, and had my destroyers doing escort duty for my carriers. I would not be able to do this sort of combat in the current state that UA:D is in. Well I could but it would be the biggest clusterf*ck (plz allow cussing on the platform, I am nothing without my cuss words) you've ever seen, as the battle I'm talking about had about 10 capital ships, and about 30-40 destroyers, cruisers, etc... Involved, and that would simply be impossible to manage without a more nuanced formation system. So a high priority on the devs list should be a task force system where you can effectively divide and easily manage your forces, any naval simulator worth it's salt has such a system. Even something as arcady as Battlestations Pacific had one of the best formation systems I had seen, where you got to decide in a special menu exactly what ships went where in the formation with the flagship always in centre, and the enemy AI would pick from a variety of pre-set formations. So a task force system would be imperative no matter how basic, along with a better formations menu as one supersized battle line will simply make it about who has the most capital ships rather than a more nuanced formation system.
  17. 5 points
    Flag conquest (HDF hunting) is quite boring and time consuming (I mean PVP time consuming) if you add the time to motivate a team, wait for all joining the same starting port, fixing concerns about players short of repairs, going to an enemy capital, waiting or finding a HDF, making the battle, redo because you got no flag the first time, and back to port. Three hours or more. Lucky you if your fleet, damaged and out of repairs, is not intercepted back by enemy players who will take your rewards.
  18. 5 points
    In the course of the past two days, rumours have spread in the Caribbean of sightings of a large treasure fleet or convoy journeying from one edge of the map to another. Here's some footage of the huge fleet along its journey:
  19. 5 points
    Another day, another elite NPC tagged, another idiot that Lokis into to grief and troll. Please remove the Loki runes since all that people use them for is for trolling and griefting, while maybe 10% of people actually use them for what they were meant for. Until they can be patched in a way that prevents griefing please remove them from the server. All they do is ruin the experience of the game while making one stupid troll happy.
  20. 5 points
    Recently came back to play this game and found several new hulls, so I built some new ships. German Empire : Battleship "Valhalla" French Empire : Battleship "Queen Marie" United Kingdom : Battleship "Avalon" United Kingdom : Battlecruiser "Evergarden" Austro-Hungarian Empire : Battleship "Fafnir" Chinese Empire : Battleship "QingLong" Keep waiting for camouflage.
  21. 5 points
    We are no different to investors because we are, in fact, investors. Literally.
  22. 5 points
    alts in the same nation are just another player
  23. 4 points
    There is a deep misrepresentation of the effect torpedoes had on tactics in the game because it is entirely focused on spotting torpedoes and then reacting to the torpedo itself. This means that if it is spotted early (and the game gives very generous, even near fantastical [sonar], means of spotting torpedoes), the torpedo will miss and the destroyer will be ineffective. If you are attacking the AI and torpedoes are not spotted early enough to dodge individually, the AI will be hit. The AI won't take proactive action to prevent that from happening if it doesn't see torpedoes. (There is of course a huge imbalance here between player and AI, as the player is given multiple "meta" means to know if and when torpedoes have been launched, but the AI must spot the torpedoes themselves in the water.) That is generally not what happened in fleet battles. Maneuver and tactics were shaped more by the threat of torpedoes that would probably not be seen or not seen early enough for a battle line to maneuver against. If a destroyer division maneuvered to make a torpedo attack, an opposing fleet had to react, even if that meant spoiling its gunnery against an opposing fleet. This meant that battles could be shaped by torpedo vessels even if they average torpedo vessel alone was highly unlikely to ever score a hit with a torpedo. Individual vessels could be "ineffective" while still collectively shaping a battle. RTW2 reflects this reality much better. You have to react to the apparent intent to attack with torpedoes as you are not given any indication whether they have been launched or not. The AI player likewise has to react to the threat of your torpedo vessels and has informational parity (although it is obviously far less capable of micromanaging attack and defense than the player).
  24. 4 points
    Please can you stop buffinf the home defense fleets and perhaps nerf them? The 1st rates are sailing faster backwards then our seasoned first rates, they have ridiculous penetration, fire rate and HP, i understand they need to be stronger than standard AI however you have made them a requirement for RvR due to flag drop and added a further 2 santisima's. It seems with 10 players we have to rotate over 300 hull repairs each for 1 HDF. This is far too much, if you need them to be fast then fine, but then nerf some firepower or drop it back to 11 ships. I have seen a huge lack of portbattles since you implemented flags because players dont wana fight a war and have to grind 3 - 4 HDF's every day. up until now pve has been optional as pvp rewards can be as rewarding and allow players to do pvp without so much pve this has now changed. If pve must now be mandatory please can you ease the difficulty slightly on HDF's, we are still able to complete them but its extremely expensive and exhausting and is turning players away from the game, especially as we have to farm over 1500 wooden chests for port investment. i request you nerf HDF's and ease the requirements on port investments maybe even by 30%? you will still achieve what you wanted only it will be less grindy and people will actually be able to see progress.
  25. 4 points
    @admin Your desire to give ports to smaller nations is commendable, in fact the game absolutely needs mechanics that balance the strength of nations. But you don't listen to your players, I don't like rediii but his proposal on corruption was liked by many, as well as mine on the civil war, but no we have to go back to the PBs against the AIs that nobody likes! Frankly, I don't understand what players' ideas are for if you're not interested. However your game, your choices and your consequences, but don't complain if the reviews suck.
  26. 4 points
    Also the front lines system prevented some nations from attacking nassau. As the front lines system will prevent nations from taking some of these lesser ports that you're talking about. AI raiders will need to adhere to the front lines system for this to be effective. Losing a random port in the gulf will mean nothing if no one can actually take it. This is assuming AI will ignore front lines of course. To use the AI battle at Santanillas for example. Why would sweden bother? No one else could pull the port. https://gyazo.com/8fc5d84661c0e3a37554a9967ed8aa6a Personally I think a smarter soluation would be to attack ports haven't changed hands in a long time. Would allow dead/inactive clans to drop ports.
  27. 4 points
    June 2020 Crafted Ships grouping by Frame and Planking (top 3 options by each ship)
  28. 4 points
    Good question This is a leaderboard for those who placed more than 40 conquest flags Silver Trail - The Admiralty - Clerk - Anolytic - Aquillas - These captains have received a unique reward as well.
  29. 4 points
    June 2020 Number of accounts on War Server 45785 (+ 2587) Number of all ships created Ports where ships crafted Ports where 1-3 rates crafted
  30. 4 points
    Personally I dislike the entire clan > nation themed crafting and port ownership type of model the game uses. We need either a full clan based system (no nations) or a complete nation oriented one. Not this hybrid of both where it seems we get all the downsides and none of the upsides. The doubling down on crafting ports in the most recent patch means there won't be a resolution for you in the near future. Also the notion of pirates owning crafting ports and being involved in RVR seems bonkers to me....but that's a different discussion that's lonnnnnng overdue I think. However it's very much well known how disliked you are in pirate nation for a littany of reasons and you consistently fail to show up to RHB's port battles (owner of baracoa) or even regular defensive port battles. Can you blame them? They even hate you so much in nation that there was a bit of tomfoolery with personal info and such, which I think you remember. It would appear that you have a few options. - Make nice and play ball - Crafting alts - Leave and fight RHB from another nation. (as an ex-pirate this option is rather satisfying) Or craft in Nuevitas where you are still on the list even if we don't like you all that much.
  31. 4 points
    Shhhhh you heard the boy. We aren't allowed to to criticize or give feedback any more/s
  32. 4 points
    I agree with you brother. Bumping Custom Battles upgrades ahead of the campaign would tie the community over in the interim. Such a powerful tool Custom Battles is and will be, especially in re-enactments, it could carry the game on its own too, promoting Custom Battles importance level is 'vital' to the community. PS, we the community is very 'proud' of our ‘community driven’ asset.
  33. 4 points
    Punto 1: Lo único interesante aquí es la respuesta de Sento, haciendo mención a la batalla de mi ciudad natal. Si cualquier lector de este foro viene a Tenerife, estaré encantado de hacerle una ruta por los sitios de interés que tenemos sobre la batalla del 25 de julio (que muy a mi pesar, no son muchos, pero eso sí, son muy interesantes.). Punto 2: Que clase de post es este? Punto 3: En mi humilde opinión, este foro podría ser increíblemente interesante. Hay gente muy formada aquí para poder enseñarnos cosas a la comunidad hispana de Naval Action sobre historia, sobre conocimientos del juego, anécdotas, etc. Lo que estoy viendo es que los que están tomando las riendas del foro son trolls, publicando posts sin un sentido aparente (no hay mas que ver los posts que publica últimamente la persona que ha abierto este en concreto, que lo único que generan es un debate digno de un programa como es ''Salvame'' carentes de interés para gran parte de los lectores del foro.). Lo dicho, y resumiendo, últimamente estoy viendo que un foro como este, que podría ser super interesante, se esta convirtiendo en un gallinero y esto lo que genera es desinterés por leer lo que se escribe aquí e igualmente genera desinterés por escribir algo interesante, haciendo que nos movamos a foros en los que se habla inglés, lo cual dice mucho de este foro. Espero que los moderadores no se tomen esto como un ataque sino como un consejo, entiendo la dificultad y el COÑAZO que es moderar un foro. Un saludo. 😉
  34. 4 points
    Dont forget 5 as a menu cheat/option unlimited torpedos or setting the amount of torpedeos you can have. We defo need mods lol. and a poi mod for torps when they pass nearby lol.
  35. 4 points
    I think torpedo magazine should be divided into four choices: 1. No reload (so you just gonna fire only one salvo of torpedoes that are already loaded into the tubes) 2. One reload (like IJN Destroyers and Cruisers) 3. Two reloads . 4. Three reloads. Torpedo boats should be limited only to No Reload or eventually One Reload, due to their smaller size and displacement in comparision to the DDs and etc. Three reloads should be available only to Super Cruisers, Battlecruisers and Battleships. I think it would be more realistic and balanced. EDIT: @Latur Husky I just realized that he already proposed that idea.... ops
  36. 4 points
    I dont know why we should support the us of alts in this game. its nothing to brag about is it ?
  37. 4 points
  38. 4 points
    Well considering the fact it's our job to provide feedback, i dont see how thats crying about it. Especially when most of that feedback has been massively in-depth as well. And no it won't be three factions as that makes no sense all the factions you play with atm, will be in the campaign at some point. This game has a lot of potential, and with a small dev team this will take sometime to do and get there, but i hope that they do add some of the functions players have been asking for. I mean if they were to make custom battles and the designer more intuitive, that would at least tie peeps over till the first campaign release.
  39. 3 points
    I have a new character that just completed the Final Exam in El Rancho. The character's name is HuddledMasses. All I received from completion of the final exam is a Cerberus note, 10 hull reps, 10 rig reps and 100 rum. I understand the final exam was to be nerfed and the rewards reduced, but this is insane. The tutorial says before you begin the final exam that you will receive two ships and two "rare items." I received none of this.
  40. 3 points
    Sad to read a review like that from a new player. Confusion is still part of the initial experience. https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198326264850/recommended/311310/
  41. 3 points
  42. 3 points
    what about the small HDFs??? when will those fleets drop flags as well?
  43. 3 points
    Looking at the above posts, i think having the ability to save designs, designing more than one ship type, along with enemy ships and also more ship hulls for eahc era should tie us over till the campaign. Even if its like 1-4 new unique hulls or even just new turret and superstructure designs for example. The problem is theres a lack of content to keep people interested and tied over, im not sure if they need to do much 3d modelling for the campaign but if not, hopefully they could do some for custom battles at least. Unless they are just purely steaming ahead with the campaign only, i think some time could be diverted to custom battles at least to provide a considerbly higher level of replayability than what we have now atm.
  44. 3 points
    I lean towards having excellent gunnery with high quality guns at ranges that exceed any other ship. I take the highest quality gun i can get a hold of even if it is not technically the biggest. once the other ships have been weakened the battleships close the distance and seal the fate of the enemy fleet. light cruisers and bellow will be equipped with lots torpedoes to disorganize formations while also countering smaller units. battlecruisers have been a tricky one as I try to make them a "sniper" of sorts and staying behind the battleship line to avoid concentrated fire while also out ranging and outgunning battleships while in a fleet battle. So basically gunnery
  45. 3 points
    The biggest and fatest ships i can get my sweaty hands on. Also if the armour problems aren't solved, den ill go full on bow tanking, with lots of quad turret BB's. And lots of supercruisers as well, and gunboat dd's with gud armour. And some light cruisers.
  46. 3 points
    Standard and fast needn’t be a torpedo type selection. It was something all (most?) torpedoes could be set to do prior to launch. Run The motor faster, for higher speed, burning fuel more quickly with consequential shorter range, or running the motor slower, so the torpedo conserved fuel and ran longer but slower. This setting would be ordered by the Flotilla commander or the ship captain. Other settings included depth. The deeper a torpedo hits, the more destructive its damage effect is and the more likely it is to miss less important destroyers but hit deeper draft capital ships. Having all those super aware destroyers scattering from destroyers that are set to run under them would be a nice touch! Hydrophones, can’t determine the depth a torpedo is running at. While on that line of thinking, hydrophones an Sonar should be heavily degraded when its ship is running at high speed due the ships own hull noise and cavitation masking other noises. The other helpful outcome of downgrading hydrophone/sonar effectiveness at speed is that it means players have a choice to make whether their ships use high speed downgrade the effectiveness of gunnery solutions or travel more slowly to audibly detect torpedoes. They can still use lookouts to spot torpedoes being launched or leaving a wake, but lose the bonus of hearing them as well.
  47. 3 points
    @admin You write you have add more doubloons in specialized fleets, but why is it that Elite ships only drops like 100-200 doubloons ? and the drop rate for navy guns and blomefields has also decreased a lot. Is this a bug or something that went wrong in the coding ? Just wondering, because I have attacked maybe 5 elite ships during this week and no got anything that 500 doubloons in total and obusier
  48. 3 points
    Oh yes 'w' its also a mod in world of warships, where it gets louder as the torps get nearer to a certain level. there will probs be azur lane voice mods and shipfu avatars once the game gets past a certain point. probs on nexus mods or steam workshop.
  49. 3 points
    You can enter flag battle where the Requin is going. You will spawn some distance away, 500m maybe ? Send in one ship, report positions, start entering battle one at a time to bracket the xebec. Ofc it relies on port owner to take action... *rolls eyes* C'mon, we had positional battles in the OW before and we all know how it was easy to trap an enemy.
  50. 3 points
  • Newsletter

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