Alcar
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Alcar
-
-
13 hours ago, johnson smith said:
the thing is UK has fewer dockyard compare to USA, not to mention USA have a lot of room for expansion. UK might pump out 1 ship a week but USA that number maybe 5. So giving USA ship construction speed boost is a bit overpower
This is a reasonable point. Instead of construction speed, the USA could simply have the largest capacity. Maybe a radar tech advantage.
-
If anyone is getting a buff to construction speed, it should be 'Murica.
-
3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:
This will be my seventh but im excited, because if its true it will be the first time the campaign is playable and the second time its been revealed (got leaked back in alpha 2 a bit along with quad turrets as well by someone lol).
Would love to see screenshots of the campaign map!
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
Stupid question:
is there any kind of roadmap? I think I heard campaign is next - but what is the plan for this promising game going forward?
Also: how often are we seeing major updates here (again maybe a stupid question - just joined fresh)?
Updates have been averaging 5-8 weeks.
Have not seen a thorough road map, but there have been posts by developers indicating that the campaign will be in the next one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:
Sure, let's bring a thing that killed battleships into a battleship game. I don't see any problems with that.
Pretty much this.
Sure, it would be amazing to have UA:D, Silent Hunter, Sturmovik, and Task Force Admiral all melded into one super game, but let's recognize the amount of work that would require. Lots of man hours!
This is a battleship game. And it will be glorious.
Also, LOL @ skycancer. 😆
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Mooncatt said:
that's really helpful mate and I shall see if u get the same fortune as you have, but why haven't the enemy retreated like they ALWAYS do when I play this scenario? I have no issues sinking one ship and then badly damaging the second ship before they turn tail and run. it then becomes mission impossible. but I will give your build a try!!! thanks mate!
The second ship did start to retreat, but it had gotten pretty close by that point. It would have been a long haul before clearing the range of my 18' guns. Just kept the big guns on it until it sank.
-
1
-
-
Bumping this thread because this mission gets mentioned often in multiple threads. I have been confused because I remembered it being a really fun mission when I bought the game during Alpha 5. I remembered it being like shooting fish in a barrel; in most of the missions, if you let me build a hulking beast with all the tech, they seem easy. This morning I decided to play it again and see if anything changed.
My Ship:
When the mission started, I did not get the usual "enemy smoke to the north" message. Instead, three battleships were already detected. There was no message about it, and I couldn't see them in the distance and haze, but the icon at the top was clickable and zoomed me to them. Perhaps some folks don't notice this.
I opened fire on the lead ship. Started getting smashing hits after the second salvo. I had my ship on a parallel course at cruising speed. No return fire yet. Lead ship heads to the bottom before any shells are fired at me.
Second ship in line is more durable. I score hits but no big penetrations or detonations. Darn thing won't flood, but the structure wears down. I made the mistake of letting them close the distance more than I meant to, and they are firing back with 14' shells. USS New Hampshire giggles at those. Then the destroyers come into focus, but my 6' and 4' secondaries carve them up. I make some course changes occasionally in anticipation of torpedo spreads, but dead men tell no tales and fire no torpedoes. Finally BB #2 sinks due to structural damage.
In the last act, I am taking some damage and am at about 70% structure but no flooding. The fourth enemy BB as arrived, and it hits a lot harder with 17' guns. Due to my maneuvers, it is this tougher target that is facing my broadside, so I target it rather than the weaker BB to my stern. It is basically a 1v1 at this point, and the New Hampshire makes fairly quick work of her. Screen fades to victory, and the enemy had one BB and one DD surviving. I was down to 40-50% structure and 80% float, so I am glad to not have to finish them off.
-
1
-
-
On 5/22/2020 at 8:09 PM, Wowzery said:
This is going to be an interesting aspect of the game. Building a ship knowing that it will become obsolete. Yet you cannot sit back and just not build anything. If you need that defense force, you can't wait a couple of years for that new dreadnought hull, so you might only build 2 or 3 ships of a pre-dreadnought class.
I see the campaign mode adding new dynamics in designing that we're currently not touching on right now. Do you build that one pre-dreadnought, or two cruisers?
Interestingly enough my Sat video (tomorrow 5/22) I focus on build time as the driving force for my battleship. How fast can it be built, and what can I put on it, what factors change build time, etc.
Also, might the second ship of the same class be cheaper? Lots of games model this, that the lead ship costs more because of the design process and the industrial capabilities being brought to bear on it. Each ship after should get a slight price saving since that capacity already exists.
-
4
-
-
While talking turrets, it would be cool to be able to put secondaries on top of them like this. I think the North Carolina had a 40-mm quad up there, so obviously some size restrictions would apply.
I know secondaries aren't very popular on the forums, but I have had success with them, and ships look empty without them.
-
5
-
-
On 5/12/2020 at 7:09 PM, Jatzi said:
So when the first version released there was a bug that let you play the campaign. You couldn't save at all and it was very much a work in progress but yeah you could play it. I and I think a few others mentioned it on here obviously awhile ago. Probably why it got patched, my bad. But yeah unless they made massive changes it'll be basically RTW 1 with 3d graphics. I saw some things that looked like they were gonna expand on some stuff a little more. I think somewhere I saw a screenshot from someone, one of the devs or someone else, that showed the start of a war. The player was building ships for a minor nation and had siezed those ships at the start of the war in order to use them. This is a vague memory and for the life of me I cannot find the screenshot so take that with a grain of salt. But that sort of thing happened quite a bit so I hope it's actually a thing
I'd love to see those old screenshots if anyone has them.
Or maybe the devs could share some teasers, like a screenshot of the map screen or something. 🙏
-
1
-
-
How long did 'BB Wettin' survive? 😆
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Aceituna said:
I honestly don't think academy needs some rework or improvement.
1. Academy missions are supposed to be hard And unbalanced because they Are supposed to teach you how to act in difficult situations.
2. Maybe it's just my opinion but honestly Will Somebody play academy missions after campaing is out?
1. Agree completely.
2. I enjoy them, but I doubt it I will touch them. Perhaps I will clear them all again when it is released on Steam just to get my green check marks back.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
It must be a Mark5 compared to Mark4. Can you recheck that?
Yes, it is the Mark5 for the 9', Mark3 for the 8', and Mark4 for the 10'. Seems some might be out of place in the tech progression.
-
The 9' turrets seem a bit too big on this 1925 heavy cruiser. Shown with an 8' to the left and a 10' to the right.
-
1
-
-
So far my record for "Mission Impossible" is to put 21 24-inch torpedoes into the BB and have it just smile back at me. The rest of the new ones have been easy enough. Any tips on this one?
Only needed one try to beat each of these:
Near Jutland
Modern vs. Old Destroyers
Torpedo Bonzai
-
Known, albeit hilarious, bug that they are fixing soon. 😁
-
My first thought was that you were mistaken in some way.
But I just exited a custom battle in which a light cruiser, listed as having just a single underwater tube, fired a spread of three torpedoes at me. Perhaps there is a bug.
-
-
So...what would be a normal number of times to refresh this forum each day in the hopes of seeing an "Alpha-6 Feedback" thread?
Asking for a friend.
-
2
-
-
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I do find my secondaries useful against smaller vessels. I love putting the big guns on a primary target and the secondaries on a destroyer. Usually they take care of business.
That said, I do find a destroyer much scarier to my capital ships than a battle ship in most missions, so that indicates a problem...
-
4
-
-
43 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:
While I would appreciate more towers, or superstructure in general, not necessarily only towers, it is not always "newer is better". For example the chage masts on earlier US battleships have inferior accuracy bonus, but better torpedo spotting.
Or in other cases you might want to have the "worse" main tower, because it does not come with an integrated barbette that can't fit the gun you want.
Also most "better" towers also make you more visible, so if you want a sneaky ship, or one meant for point-blank torpedo attacks, the older towers are the much better choice, since they might not give you the aiming bonus, but make you harder to hit and save on budget and weight.
In some cases I also noticed that the best towers take up so much space that you can't fit an additional funnel.That is a good point I had not thought of, the sneaky ship! I almost always select my towers based on the accuracy modifiers.
You're certainly correct as well about the utility of some towers, either giving more deck room or having a built in gun mounts. Often with those they restrict my main guns to smaller than I want, however.
I am merely suggesting some effectively equal towers in technology or footprint but with varying bonuses, i.e. long range versus base accuracy, etc. and different cosmetic options. Perhaps this is easier to do than new hulls.
-
Lots of threads asking for more hulls, but another avenue for ship variety would be adding additional tower options. This would be particularly interesting if there were real choices to be made rather than a linear progression of 'newer = better'.
For example, looking at USA battleships, the 'Modern Tower I' is available at much earlier years than any secondary towers that visually match it. The 'Modern Sec Tower I' and 'Modern Sec Tower II' look really odd next to it.
Living in North Carolina and having a museum ship to visit nearby, I'd love to be able to build her. Existing hulls work fine, but some tower options could bring her to life.
-
16 minutes ago, madham82 said:
Yea bow and stern damage models are facing similar issues. I know there are some tweaks coming in the next patch, so will have to revisit.
I understand trying to make a mission challenging, but at the same time the AI is behaving in a manner not consistent with any naval tactic. I have watched countless times after just a couple of good hits, the AI BB/BC completely turn around and leave the rest of their fleet. The AI is not seriously damaged and still a threat, especially with it's combined fleet. It would be one thing if it was withdrawing to break contact and re-engage at a better time/position. But that isn't the case, it runs the entire time away from the player on map with no boundaries. If there is no retreat zone, what purpose does this behavior serve other than to try and ensure player loses due to time constraints? Can you imagine an admiral telling his entire fleet, "Look that one enemy BB really hit us, so we are out of here. Hope you guys fair better!" That's essentially what the AI is doing in these situations.
In real life, anyone who declined battle and left the area lost the battle.
You are right, that AI behavior is pretty odd, leaving the smaller ships behind. Perhaps we can explain it away in that the capital ship is worth so much that the enemy admiral wants to preserve it at all costs. Coincidentally I was just reading last night about the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto effectively leaving its cruisers behind to be slaughtered by British battleships, but in their defense, they didn't know the strength of the British force.
I'm confident that in a campaign setting that outcome would be a win for the player, forcing the enemy to flee.
-
I've read a lot of discussion on the campaign and what people expect or want to see, so I'll add a few ideas of my own. My hope is that these are not overly complex or game-breaking.
Diplomatic use of naval assets: It would be fun to 'show the flag' by sending ships to various parts of the world. Lots of history of this, most memorably for my country, our Great White Fleet circling the globe.
Christening ceremonies: This doesn't have to be much, even just picture popping up showing the launch of a capital ship or a bottle breaking on a bow with a little message. The little event messages that pop up even in very old Total War titles is what I am thinking here.
Naval intelligence: It would be fun to get messages about rivals like, "This nation is planning a new class of large battleships," or, "This navy is expanding its destroyer fleet in the coming years," so that we can respond with our own plans.
Flag ships: I know we have a mechanic about this in battles, but the thing I most look forward to is designing ships and then coveting them for years and many battles to come. The current missions are great, but I do not feel invested in my ships since they will be gone whether I win or lose. The capital ships should feel special, and the loss of key ones should have a profound impact.
Start or end date flexibility: When I first heard about this title, I was only mildly excited because the name and bits of information I heard pointed towards WWI and earlier technology. Granted, just playing this has made that era much more interesting. When I learned that WWII tech and the evolution to it was going into the game, it became a must have. I just hope that later tech, that we all enjoy so much in our academy and custom missions, isn't relegated to the very end of the campaign. Perhaps an options to start a campaign in 1918 to get there sooner, or if the grand campaign will give me time with my shiny toys, I'm all set.
Loving the game so far. Can't wait to see how the campaign is structured.
-
4
-
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts - Steam Release Plan Update
in General Discussions
Posted
I couldn't be more disappointed. We expected the campaign with Alpha 7. Instead, Alpha 7 gave us.. nothing. So we assumed it would be the next patch.
I'm a teacher; summer is gaming time. With this new timeline, I expect to not be playing this game, or checking this forum, again for a year. If ever.
😥