Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2022 in all areas

  1. Just wanted to share another confirmed major feature planned for the next update: - More Shell Options (Choose AP/HE Ratio for Main/Sec Guns, Choose Ammo for Main/Sec Guns during Battle, Different AP/HE Shells such as SAP, Common HE, Super HE etc.
    11 points
  2. I have some things i need to get off my chest. What are we thinking about salvo control? For me, this is quite the dealbreaker, because thanks to irregularity of salvos, you can't really utilize a big broadside the way youd could or want to. COULD, being the operative work here, because gunnery comes of alot worse than it should. Many of you may have noticed this already, but salvos, as they are, have not quite figured out yet what they want to be exactly. The game makes an attempt at firing the guns in salvos, yet refuses to fire more than two turrets in the same breath.
    10 points
  3. Hello Admirals, We are offering an intermediate patch which improves gameplay and fixes various issues, before our planned major update which will include a larger map, more nations, more ships and many other new features. Let's have a look at what this small but very important update has to offer: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/small-patch-v1-03
    9 points
  4. Ramming damage needs a rebalance. I just had one of my BBs ram into an enemy TB. The very tip of my BB rammed into the side of the TB to be more precise. In realiy that TB would have just been split down the middle, but in the game both ships took equal damange and the TB had a little bit of flooding and easily survived the crash.
    8 points
  5. Late pre dreadnought battleships should be able to mount 7" and maybe even 8" casemate guns as secondaries. Geman Braunschweig and Deutchsland battleships, and austro-hungarian Erzerhog Karl battleships mounted 170mm (6,7") and 190mm (7,5") guns, to set an example. Yet, no pre dreadnought hull allows to fit guns bigger than 6" on the casemate mounts. However, Dreadnought hulls allow it, despite no dreadnought/super dreadnouhgt battleship ever mounting guns that big on the casemates. While I'm not opposed to dreadnoughts and super dreadnougts being able to fit 8" guns on the casemates, late pre
    8 points
  6. The game has become in borderland of unplayable now, and is a lot worst condition I can remember during the about two years I've been playing this game. Formation don't work at all anymore. They ships cannot follow the lead ship when there is some maneuvering. Even a simple turn, the ships behind the lead ship turn too early, messing up the formation. After the turn is completed and the following ships are falling in line again, those ships often keep zigzagging for awhile before they finally managed to sail in a straight line. But they have usually fallen a great di
    7 points
  7. The Beta has received another update and it is considered a release candidate for the final patch.
    7 points
  8. Going to link this thread again. Shouldn't take 30-60% more tonnage to duplicate a real-life design's capabilities. Battleship radio equipment should not be more massive than entire fully-furnished destroyers. So and and so forth. Balance pass is needed. Problem will not go away by ignoring it.
    5 points
  9. Secondaries other than 2- to 3-inch casemates are totally excluded from light cruisers until, I think, a much later date. That means you can have at most 4x 2-inch guns or 4x 3-inch guns on the ship. That’s it. In reality, of course, such ships were well-equipped with anti-torpedo boat batteries in addition to their main battery. Secondary guns of at least 2- to 3-inch single open mounts need to be allowed at all dates. We also are still unable to mount 6-inch casemates or 6-inch guns as secondaries on any Armoured Cruiser hulls, even though this was nearly universal in reality.
    5 points
  10. AI continues to be obsessed with absurdly over-arming and badly under-armoring light cruisers: The AI designer seems to be very focused on filling all available deck space with guns. One thing that might help the AI designer a bit is to follow a rule of not placing guns in positions that have firing arcs of less than, say, 120 degrees: But regardless, you can see that this would not be feasible at all in reality due to the area needed to work the guns. If the side guns turned at all to the side, there would be no way for the gun crew to work the gun with the gun in the mi
    5 points
  11. Not exactly feedback from this patch, but I feel that the "semi armoured cruiser" hulls should be revised. No matter how much I look at them, their options for weaponry placement are so poor that I fail to see why would anyone use that hull instead of the other ones. One possible solution for that hull could be allowing main caliber guns in the twin casemate mounts (the ones highlighted) That would not only make that hull competitive, but will also solve a problem I have detected: So far I haven't found any hull that allows casemate main guns, something that was not unheard of in Armoured
    5 points
  12. From my just-started British 1910 campaign where I accidentally let the AI auto-design my legacy fleet, I give you HMS Dread...not! But seriously, this isn't a dreadnought. It's semi-dreadnought with the speed of a pre-dreadnought, and with an absurd mix of secondaries, tertiaries, etc. (I especially love that ultra-efficient use of a 319t barbette).
    4 points
  13. Well... you should have joined the discussion sooner because all of these had been brought up 2 years ago when it was first released in alpha state. The devs had chosen % instead of shell simulation. People had written books worth of feedback on why the devs should switch to simulation but I think it wans't enough. Now, % isn't bad if done correctly. But for the last 2 years, it was barely worked on regarding the gunnery system so... we're here, with a pretty bad gunnery system where shells are just graphical representation. The "real" shell is the %. If it says that the shell hits, it will hi
    4 points
  14. PLEASE let us turn this off... Even in 1.03 ships literally turn stupid if they're close to each other and you even tell them to turn AWAY from each other... It's like instead of collision avoidance it's collision magnetism, they just decide to go straight even if it actually causes a collision instead of avoids it. Would love a toggle on/off for this like the torpedo avoidance toggle, or remove it altogether since I'm going to control my ships anyways. Fun talk! Otherwise, 1.03 has been great! Stream chat loved it!
    4 points
  15. There was a real life armoured Cruiser named Prinzess Wilhelm. Yes, even us germans find this odd, but it is a real thing 😀
    4 points
  16. It is an old visual bug, happening in previous patch as well. We have fixed part of it, but cannot find the last cause that triggers it. It happens when "Pause" is wrongly set in ship design, pausing the mount animations and thus the parts hover on air, but if you exit Design and re-enter the problem is fixed. We need player help to fix this completely. It is hilarious, but players who "mash random buttons" from anxiety between loading screens, can get this error often. We need a definite reproduce method, of what a player frequently does between loading sessions, or during ship design, w
    4 points
  17. My thoughts on the matter judging by my experience of some campaigns as Germany from 1890-1940 with mixed and single-typ fleets: Im also inclined to say that Battles are set up by tonnage with a margin. Wich is a bit stupid, cause the British Fleet cant play out its numerical advantage in battles as it would ( and did in reality). The Only Difference between "In Beeing" and "Sea Control" seems to me that ships with "in beeing" dont hunt down enemy convoys. Every other Mission will also trigger for "In Beeing" Ships.... Wich is kinda odd... Since "in Beeing" means the Fleet stays at h
    4 points
  18. More dynamic background and storms. Playable submarines. Ability to sell or buy ships from allied or friendly nations in campaign mode.
    4 points
  19. These were beta test objects that will not appear in the final build, yes.
    4 points
  20. I totall agree. This needs to be fixed. Right now there are no reason to use above twins, as you get huge accuracy and reload penalties in exchange of only more damage (assuming that you manage to hit) and less room required to pack guns. Also a slight weight save in some cases due to nor requiring barbettes. But in reality, the truth is that tripes and quads were used because the weight per barrel dramatically decreased as you packed more guns into the same turret. Specially from singles to doubles and from doubles to triples, not so much from triples to quads. In fact, the reason why the De
    4 points
  21. We will fix this bug, it revealed an old problem of map bounds, plus other.
    4 points
  22. More orders for ships/divisions are needed. In the current fashion, giving actual orders isn't an option, you can only either control them, or give them to the AI. So there goies my proposal: New movement options Pursue: Like retreat, but doing exactly the opposite: The ship/division will start chasing and attacking the closest enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below. Chase: Like the screen command, but targeting enemies: The selected ships/divisions will chase and attack the target enemy. Overrides firing priority options described below. New torpedo options Prio
    4 points
  23. There is some issues with the latest update. Ship doing 108 knots speed. If i set a division to scout or screen the lead ship will sail backwards. I strongly suggest to fix this issues before this update goes live. Edit: doing 400knots+ and still gaining speed. Not even the world can keep this ship in game. Damn this boy is fast 😁
    4 points
  24. -variable main belt(or citadel) length. -belt and deck armor splitting into belt/deck over machinery/magazine; turret armor splitting into turret face, turret sides, turret back, and turret top; separate rudder compartment armor; editable bulkheads and barbette armor. -triples or quads really don't make much sense rn, 3 triples are heavier than 4 duals and a quad is as heavy as two duals without any of their advantages(high rate of fire and therefore more chances of hitting). If I remember correctly, some versions ago triple and quad setups were actually lighter than their
    4 points
  25. IQ 100 is always the average intelligence; so it is not possible that half of the pop is below that. UA:D is not about sailing around and firing guns/torps, it's about constructing ships, manoevering and naval tactics. Your complaint is like "HoI4 is so bad, you cant control your tanks directly, you just can move armies around. such a bad game lol stupid 1!1!!!11". Maybe you should try out WoWs instead. There are indeed problems with UA:D, and there is a problem with torps. But not that you can't fire them yourself, but that own ship AI is just so horrible bad at aiming.
    4 points
  26. Id like there to be no upper or lower, especially lower limit on the armor for ships. This is especially needed on heavy cruisers or certain BBs and BCs. Some ships historically had lower armor due to treaty restrictions or the need to maximize certain other traits. Things like the Kongo cant really be replicated easily. Or certain heavy cruisers like the Pensacola or Furutaka only have 76mm belts which isnt allowed on Heavys.
    3 points
  27. I really think going for a pre-made ship hull is the second biggest mistake. There is nothing the AI could make using this hull without building HMS Dreadnought that is 1. Historical, because it's HMS Dreadnought hull, you can't do much with the hull because it was built to house exactly the guns and the superstructure, limiting the kind of weapons you could put on it without looking absolutely ass like above. (To clarify as in you cannot put anything outside of the 12inch--> 13inch and still have the ship look like a Dreadnought because everything would be too out of place and either ma
    3 points
  28. Me neither. Im just honest about how i feel bout the current state. if i didnt want it to be better from my point of view, i wouldnt have bothered investing so much time in my feedback and still do. But the reality is this. its not our game, its gamelabs game. And they had (or had not) a vision of what they wanted to accomplish with that game. And given its current state after 2 years it becomes more and more clear that their vision of Ultimate Admiral is not what i (and u? @ColonelHenry) expect from a game named Ultimate Admiral. I think, when u want to develop a game, that its abo
    3 points
  29. So you can tweak them yourself Via the Save 01 file located in C:\Users\*userid*\AppData\LocalLow\Game Labs\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts You need Notepad++ and then look for the Key values, just hit search with your cursor at the start and type Key case specific, and you can ajust the speed yourself.
    3 points
  30. I do not want to go around and bad mouth the game. I do want the game to be good and represents the naval combat of the late 1880s --> 1920s faithfully. The rest be damn because I do not care much about WW2 naval combat without aircraft. Again, going for hit chance isn't bad if you can mask the hit chance well. This game just does not do that good enough so the illusion breaks very easily.
    3 points
  31. Hey Rina, these strange firing behaviors annoyed me in my last battles too. i had multiple occassions where i thought that half of the turret where just passing on their shot entirely although a firing solution was given, very frustrating. But firing not always a complete salvo was also a thing, atleast in the german Navy, to find range quick not the complete salvo was fired on the same range and not all together, but in small steps. Firing a whole salvo and see where it lands is or was kinda a british thing, atleast in ww1, if i remember correctly. as for ur other two points.
    3 points
  32. please, I beg of you. undo the fix that stopped us from continuing after the war was won or had a revolution. we know it breaks the game and we know its not balanced but its nice to have some semblance to a longer campaign. Thank you, a bored player
    3 points
  33. fairly self-explanatory, wouldn't mind to see some rough delivery dates of the major updates. curious to see if how many people here would like the same.
    3 points
  34. I agree completely that CBs should be their own class. As should be Armoured cruisers and protected cruisers. And the Scharnhorst aren't BCs. They were BBs. People oftem mistaken them as being BCs due to their high speed and small guns. But they were designed as BBs. The reason they were equipped with 11" guns was that due to the versailles treaty, Germany didnt had bigger guns available, but the ships were designed with the intention of retrofitting them with 15" guns as soon as they were available. In fact using the same turrets as the Bismacks. However, that retrofit never happened due t
    3 points
  35. Quick feedback about campaign balance. I'm starting to think that maybe Large Cruisers (Alaska, Stalingrad, B-65 and the like) should be their own class. Currently, they're considered Battle Cruisers, but can't compete with interwar BC's, like the Renowns, Kongos, or Lexingtons as designed. If they were designated as Heavy Cruisers, they'd be complete overkill, and be the only viable hull choice in that category. Something like an Admiral Hipper or Country class doesn't stand much chance against a ship armed with 11" or 12" guns. I know that some ships of similar capability were actually cla
    3 points
  36. For coming patches can we have pins in the strategic map showing battles that happen and ships sunk
    3 points
  37. The patch is released, thank you all for the valuable help. Please continue to share your experiences with the latest patch in the feedback thread.
    3 points
  38. The bug that "allowed" you to see the other nations' campaigns also resulted in it being impossible to actually start ANY campaign, including the British and German ones, so the only thing you missed out on was seeing a couple of flags and infinite loading screens.
    3 points
  39. Yes, it bothers me hugely that personnel casualties seem to matter so little. Rate of fire and accuracy should both decrease, maneuvering and spotting should suffer (especially spotting torpedoes, and I still see enemy ships doing right angle turns with all three engines out to avoid torps). The rate of turn at slow speeds is downright insulting bad. This is not how things work and it's something I'd deeply like to see addressed. A ship dead in the water should not be turning 2-3 degrees per second.
    3 points
  40. Some inaccuracies that I have noticed and that should be addressed: - Pre dreadnought hulls don't allow for casemate secondary guns bigger than 6", despite most late pre dreadnoughts mounting larger guns (up to 7.5")in casemates. - Armoured cruiser hulls don't allow main caliber casemate guns, despite being classes that had them. - Same for light cruisers: Despite most protected cruisers and even some early modern light cruisers mounting main guns in casemates (The USS Charleston and USS Omaha come to mind as examples) not a single hull allows such configuration. That specially makes
    3 points
  41. Probably today, if everything is good enough.
    3 points
  42. The true issue, though there is one with how slow losses build up given the apparent damage levels to given ships, is instead how effective many still remain as fighting platforms. If a ship has 10% structural integrity and even 25% of it's crew dead, it's not going to be firing very much. Most of the crew will be dealing with fires, flooding, trying to rescue trapped friends, ejecting fire hazards from the ship, etc. Yes, there are exceptions, but even then their accuracy will decrease. I believe both Hood and Bismark fired a final shot from one of their main battery turrets as they slip
    3 points
  43. Formations work even worse than before. I just had a battle in which I had to detach all of my ships (it was a three CL formation) because otherwise there was impossible to control the ships. Edit: Even detached, ships do not respond to control anymore as soon a freindly ship closer than around two kilometer or so. Please fix ASAP, game is not playable right now. Whatever you guys did with the evasion system has broken the game.
    3 points
  44. The Beta has received another set of improvements/fixes. Mainly on the following: - Battle AI - Auto-Design - Evasion-Formation Mechanics (the most important problems should be addressed) Please check it out, tomorrow we release the patch.
    3 points
  45. The rest of your post deals with some valid points. Though I'd argue for a 'simple gameplay' exemption for it all because even if you 'fixed' your issues with the game, it'd add very little gameplay to the game. Realism, yes; gameplay, no. However, for the part I quoted, it is surprisingly true to real life. Barring catastrophic magazine blow ups, crew are generally not killed during battle. For example, the SMS Lutzow suffered four heavy caliber hits. One even pierced the turret and ignited a propellant charge, destroying the right gun of the superfiring forward turret. The damage was so
    3 points
  46. Torpedoes are not working as they should. But it mainsly to due with damage, floading and your ai shooting torpedoes and lack of ability to change spread. When this game have fire torpedo button we will have big problem.
    3 points
  47. To choose my main guns caliber, I take care about the associated Mark level. I often choose the highest caliber for a given Mark level. All the main turrets are the same (caliber and guns number). To choose my secondaries, I take care about max range and weight. Result is often some triple 178 or 152mm, completed with dual 127 or 102 or 76mm, depending of available slots. I'm far away to use all the allowed mounting points, because of weight of course, and I like to have turrets with large firing angles. Also, especially for main turrets, I try to give them the full 360° rotation capabil
    3 points
  • Newsletter

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