Latur Husky

You can estimate your heading, by checking the compass on top left corner compared to camera position. And your speed is listed on bottom center ship card in it's top right corner. As for the enemy you can estimate their heading using compass and by focusing camera on him, hist speed pops up when you hover your cursor on his image in top panel.

That's a long list xD The game aims to eventually use all the formations orders as player can't effectively control too many ships and will have to group them at some point. Right now battles are small so no wonder why those orders are less useful. Again orders apply to the whole group, you can attach and detach ships between them and decide if you want to control them individually or as a unit. Could be fixed at one point true. Minor issue imo. Very annoying indeed, especially that retreating ship often takes course towards enemy making things even worse. Formation AI is very bad at the moment. It is your job to control the engagement, you got plenty of time for that. If you need you can always group ships to reduce amount of units to control/look after. Bow/aft tubes have super narrow firing angles, they do work, but it requires careful positioning. Not worth the effort to aim specifically to use those launchers. I have to agree tho, torpedoes needs rework, and they often don't fire even in perfect conditions. Those are two different diagrams. The one on the panel shows very detailed info about his damage status and general ship information while the one that pops up next to your cursor shows chance on penetration based on your distance, propellant,gun caliber, angle, range etc. Colour of each compartment represents chance of penetrating hit to that area. UI is a bit clunky, but you can double click on enemy (top of your screen) and the camera will jump on that enemy, you can then select your ship/group from bottom icons by left clicking and issue attack orders while looking directly at the enemy ship regardless of it's distance from you. Components are sorted by technology level some menus sort it from hi to low (Towers/funnels/hulls etc.) some from low to high (Left panel with modules), except for guns and torpedoes which are sorted by type (in this case caliber or number of launchers). Rudder control is a function that I generally don't use, I prefer Right click to give orders where to turn instead using those. Personally used them maybe twice and they worked fine for me. Would be nice to get some UI support for comparison of various modules/ guns etc. It is useful, helps you decide what funnel configuration you want to use. Remember that when module is damaged or destroyed during the battle it doesn't work. So if I take more funnels then I need, I can maintain engine efficiency longer if one funnel gets removed, while I will loose engine power if my only funnel is destroyed. It is part of design proces where you have to balance your ships characteristics taking multiple variables into consideration. Ammo detonations are quite common, and all those options are actually doing a lot to help you stay afloat during battle. Anti torp. helps you survive more hits but has negative impact on your maneuverability, though there are some balance issues. Same goes to multiple hull bottoms. Propulsion upgrades helps you save tonnage by making engine components lighter and improve resistance to damage of propulsion systems in battle, not to make you go faster (though they somewhat do if you think about it), you do that by adjusting designed speed slider and providing enough draft using your funnels. You can adjust armor values yourself, why use automatic button if it takes just a few seconds to do it? There is in fact a field to improve on that function. But it works fine anyway. They could put more precise description of what that module actually does, true. But the games lack tutorials and explanations in many places. Makes it more fun imo, but some might find it very confusing or annoying at times when game doesn't explain exactly the impact of your choices.

Propellants should be changed anyway. Some of them are available way later than they were historically, it is also very confusing mechanics, because many Navies used different propellant to fire shells and different was present in the shells themselves. Some of good examples here are: White powder (Poudre B ) : Historically Developed in 1884, adopted by French Navy around 1890. Was prone to spontaneous early ignition. Modified by adding stabilizer after Iéna and Liberté sunk due to accidents related to it's early ignition (respectively 1907 and 1911). Used by ?French Navy in modified versions up until WWII. In the game available for French Navy in 1904, generally very good propellant with almost no downsides, it actually reduces the chance of ammo detonation... Cordite I: Historically manufacturing started in 1889 with cordite I being first issues for 3-pdr, 6-pdr, 4,7" and 6" guns in 1893 and for 12" in 1895. Much more powerful than previously used Gunpowder and Brown Powder. Studies shown that use of Cordite I caused increased wear to gun muzzles due to high burn temperature. It lead to Cordite I being modified in 1901 referred as MD propellant, both Cordite I and MD were used during WWI and both were stored in poor conditions with their stability deteriorating over time. in 1917 modified once more to improve stability (MC) and adopted by late 1918. In game available in 1906, it is referred as low explosive and it's actually reducing muzzle velocity and penetration, it increases shell damage and shell fire chance though. And is also significantly increasing chance of own magazine detonation which is probably the only historically accurate info about it xD. Cordite II: Historically developed after studies over German RP (Rohr-Pulver) propellant in 1927 and referred as SC (solventless cordite). Used extensively during WWII. It was weaker than Cordite I but it was also significantly safer though not enough considering what happened to HMS Hood. Later on upgraded with hot burning version referred as HSC. In game, available at 1911, referred as more powerful than C1 but safer. Lyddite: Historically used as a filler of HE Shells by many Navies (under different names tho), and it was in use since 1887 - 1889. Becomes very unstable if reacts with metal shell or fuse. In game available in 1900, referred as ultra powerful as explosive charge but very sensitive. TNT: Historically adopted as a shell filler around 1902 - 1903 by German Navy, much safer than Lyddite. Widely adopted by other Navies between World Wars. In game available in 1914, referred to as new standard for AP shell filler. In general it acts as a late tech in the game. In general we got a mix of fillers and gun propellants all together that all becomes available before 1920's, while many of them should be available earlier they should also be split between Gun and Shell propellants allowing for different combinations of benefits and drawbacks. As for gun effectiveness right now, again as long as we are not able to reproduce exactly same conditions there is not much point to compare different guns and declare them OP because there is too many variables and it's all luck based. There are features that will impact how ships react to gunfire in various circumstances like Citadel armor, or armor type... too many unknown variables to say if gun is OP imo. I personally almost don't use Lyddite at all for example, because for me it has proven to be too unreliable, my personal to go for is, White Powder or TNT at the moment... but that's my personal preferences.

Unfortunately your test data is quite inconsistent, you can't decide about effectiveness of a weapon after a single test with so many variables lol... Also until we see actual campaign economy and how effective guns are compared to all variables like cost, weight, crew, tech level etc. Finally I would expect 18" to do far better than 12" in any scenario anyway.... the gap is just too large to even try to compare.

I think what they intend to do is to make hardpoints bound with research mening better tech = more points to use. As you have no control over tech level right now you can't really benefit from it, but I think there was one or two scenarios where you can observe how it works. But they definitely need to add more flexibility/hardpoints to that. Maybe instead of hp it could be area based?

I have similar feeling in few of the missions. AI seems to have god-like gunners while player gets bunch of blind people on board xD Prove your might seems to have that issue for example.

Rangefinders doesn't seem to work properly. Especially stereoscopic ones. They just don't give bonuses at long range rendering them useless, while Coincidence are not giving enough bonus... or I'm doing something wrong here...

replay function would be great addition to your idea, this way we could focus on battle and capture great moments later when we can focus on controlling camera instead.

You guys do realize that it's not only elevation that has impact on gun range but also barrel lenght, amount and type of propellant used, shell weight and type etc.?

Long range accuracy is good for Long range engagements where it gives largest bonuses for your guns meaning it's good if you're using large caliber guns that can damage target at ranges of 15+km, for anything else it is better to get base accuracy bonus as guns benefit the most from it at ranges up to 12km.

I also did a few in my series.

It has been a while since we heard about any game update. Any news? We really need one pinned topic only for Dev's to post news so we won't miss them lol xD there is too much of people discussing if airplanes should make it's way into the game lol....

Wow, do you guys even sleep? >.< Great job with the hotfix, everything works now. At least for me

Today I've tried to go through another mission of british campaign, I think the next one will be snatch. When I tried to prepare some troop transports, I noticed that regardless of ships being fully crewed etc. status of those ships remains as need crew. I think it may be because minimum crew required is set higher than optimal for those ships.

Ok, so now what? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I guess we'll call it a Draw 😂😂

A bit cheeky victory, but win is a win xD

There are a few ships in that configuration, but I'd place my bet on HMS Hood. As for things that would make the game better or more interesting: 1. Mission editor where players can design and share their missions with each other. 2. Save-able designs in Custom battles and maybe ability to share builds in form of a save file or something. 3. Ability to set enemy behaviour in custom battles (like never retreat for example) 4. Ability to design all ship classes in Custom battles both on our and enemy side. 5. Multiplayer battles and later Coop/competitive campaign maybe for up to 4 players perhaps? 6. Land battles/ Naval landings. 7. Replay recording function. 8. Night battles.

Totally agree, There should bee no limits other than hull balance that impacts accuracy and stuff...

With a proper balance of price and upkeep that would work as a good limiter of the amount of CV's that player can have, they'll be a great addition to the game IMO. And it wouldn't require them to be crippled as they are in other games. Truth is they were a game changer and without any doubt they were far superior to anything else, but that's natural way of how things had to be lol... Crying about CV's being overpowered is pointless as war was never intended to be gentleman's duel lol.

Would be great, but rather unlikely to happen. It might not be as easy for them to add as it was in UA:AoS as they might not have proper unit models, mechanics etc... Lots of work to implement, and there is still a lot to do without it.

Ships still tends to be indestructible at times. I just had a battle where I was shelling enemy battleship with 18" guns scoring penetrating hits almost every shot from a long range and She just refused to go down below 25% structure. I eventually used up all my ammunition lol...

They will be but not as actual controllable entity if I remember correctly. You can find more about it on the game's website. Here: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/campaign-or-naval-academy

Everything works perfectly fine My dispute with Content ID has been resolved successfully

Hi, Just been uploading one test sample for youtube and I got informed that one of music titles playing in background is being claimed by Audio Network Plc Title of a music is Seafarer David Tobin, Jeff Meegan It is playing while on mission set up screen for Second Wave mission in British Campaign.