killjoy1941

The reason the AI can avoid your torpedoes with impunity is because it has omniscience as an ability. Any AI worth considering would have the same features. The problem with AI isn't making it more accurate, but making it more human. So Nick has to make it more fallible, not less fallible. Altering and changing the AI is something that takes both time and effort, so it's going to be one of the last things changed as this game progresses toward the initial release goal.

Yes, and sometimes it was even worse. Early torpedoes were short-ranged, maintenance-heavy, finnicky weapons which often didn't make it to the target. When they did, they often failed to detonate.

Small devs going quiet after a release announcement means they're working crunch hours.

Because they likely ran out of time to add it as a feature. It happens. A lot. That's often why game devs will make direct sequels - not to squeeze every last penny of value out of a game, but to make the game they had originally envisioned.

Hopefully. The modding scene for the UG/UA games is pretty small and has a high bar for both knowledge and patience, or at least more of both than I currently possess. I would expect something like that later rather than sooner. Even better would be for Nick to get on the DLC train. One can hope, anyway.

Yup. Honestly, Nick and his tiny team bit off way more than they could chew. I'm actually quite impressed by what they did deliver with what's likely 3-5 full time people and no more than 12-15 people total. If we're going to get features like that which would require a fairly large time commitment they probably can't really afford, it would be in DLC - something Nick has not, at least to my knowledge, shown interest in.

I'm aware. I'm saying it's unlikely we will see something like that at this point, and agreeing that it would be a really helpful feature.

This. It's a bit late for big QoL requests, but a basic formation system would've been pretty high on the list if I'd thought about it more.

Tried it and no, it's five years prior to start unless there is necromancy involved.

I'd actually be more than okay with it if the crazy accuracy was an intermittent thing. e.g.: 70-90% for a salvo or two, but dropping off to 5-10% at best most of the time. Most ships that got savaged in WW2 surface engagements either succumbed to a deluge of fire or were obliterated by multiple hits from individual salvos.

I'm really just addressing the part I bolded. I left the rest to retain the context of your post. All of that, literally all of it, was accounted for by USN fire control computers and stable elements. They also accounted for humidity, liner wear, and quite a few other factors as well. Late war USN fire control, especially on modern BBs, was as good as it ever got for big guns. The number of variables accounted for were absolutely nuts. I'm not really trying to challenge your point so much as emphasize that gunnery accuracy was down to the machining of barrel liners, shells, powder manufacturing lots, and firing shock. Iowa class fire control was so good, they retained the upgraded radar systems all the way into Desert Storm because they were designed to be insulated against the firing shock that newer, more precise radar sets just couldn't withstand. Shooting at anything 25km away or more is asking for bonkers luck mostly because it's several orders of magnitude further away than the target is long, to say nothing of beam. It's like trying to hit the bullseye on a dartboard, but the bullseye is the size of a pinhead and you're throwing from across the bar. It's no wonder naval engineers tried to isolate every variable imaginable.

These would absolutely fit into your rebuild category. You're talking about adding/changing magazines, hoists, barbettes, turrets, etc. Texas is getting some of her hull plating replaced, not her armor. To replace her armor (which you'd have to do to change the steel type), she'd have to go into drydock, have her upper hull plating entirely removed, have all of her armor plates removed, have new armor plates installed, and have hull plates reinstalled. That's an incredible amount of work. You're absolutely right about modernizations, though. Just look at the Andrea Dorias and the Conte di Cavours for an example relevant to the game's time period.

Just catching up here... You really are going to try to give the TTE treatment to this game, aren't you? I don't have the time to test for you, but holy s*** do I hope you have the time and passion to pull this off. I really wish I had something more to offer than encouragement, but I don't, so that'll have to do for now.

Yup. I'm just saying that there are alternatives to stat nerfs - it's a game after all. Whatever you choose to do, I'll be playing it anyway as I trust your takes on system revisions.

If possible, make large guns much, much more expensive. 18-20" guns would become vanity projects if the turrets essentially doubled the cost of the ship. Hell, even the necessary barbettes could be made to be expensive. That way you get to keep the accuracy while creating a general disincentive to building large amounts of ships with giant guns.

@o Barão At the risk of giving you a heart attack, might I suggest changing gun accuracy as it relates to caliber to an historical value, and instead using an economic incentive? If extremely desirable techs are particularly costly, you can influence player decisions just as effectively as though you changed the perceived value of those techs by changing their performance. BTW, I really only ever play the TTE mod for WotS. You damn near all of that, and you should be proud of your work. I'm happy to see you here on UA:D.

@Nick Thomadis I think a nice compromise for alliances would be an expansion of diplomatic actions to two, one positive and one negative, and mandatory alliances restricted to 66 relation or higher. Or something like that... That way players could mostly avoid unwanted wars as well as unwanted alliances, but not entirely. Eventually you end up in a war, and eventually you'll have to rescue a dependent friend, at least over the course of 50 years. It would also make the games basic diplomacy game more important.

What would I like that hasn't been mentioned as existing goals? Six months! 1. Small nation diplomacy. Basic influence actions, exclusion from war after alliance, trade agreements. 2. Camouflage. Honestly, you could do three or four types with seriously minor benefits (e.g.: -0.5% enemy accuracy) for flavor. Selectable in the shipyard. 3. Aircraft facilities. I should have put this at #1. Grants a spotting and accuracy bonus. Has tech upgrades. Has visuals, mostly possible since you've followed historical designs. Add tracks, catapults, cranes, hangars where necessary. Have an aircraft fly a loop over the launching ship. Drop random flares over the enemy fleet at night. Make it a DLC if you have to. After six months. Maybe well after... 4. [100% DLC territory] Aircraft in general. Aircraft have tech, and build up like port capacity. Battles like subs, but generate in the battlespace, so the player can watch. AI controls all aircraft, player controls friendly ships. An exclusively friendly aircraft battle makes the player a spectator. 5. [100% DLC territory] Aircraft Carriers and CV aircraft tech: A progression system that allows the design of CVs and CV aircraft tech. Same as #4, but players decide fighter assignment for CAP. Aircraft don't have to be hyper-realistic, and if they're made optional, they don't exist. They just have to fly reasonable courses, attack reasonably, and leave reasonably. I'd pay for it. I'm sure others would too. If you really nail the DLC aspect, the gun purists would never even be aware aircraft exist.

No, that's not how it works. We gave them money on the idea that they would provide a product... maybe. There's no guarantee... None. It's 100% venture capital, but you're paying for an end-state, not a guaranteed product delivery. Go read the fine print you skipped when you agreed to fund their game. You have no guarantees. Honestly? That's how indie game dev works. They try to raise the necessary funds to pay their basic bills, then they spend enough time to accumulate enough work to demonstrate their product, or they fall on their faces. You are one of many VC investments: We are... probably all of 40% of investments. Show how else do we fit into the the dev model? Are you personally going to spend $10mil to guarantee submarines get developed? Should they use money to make that happen? Should they make that illegal? Should they make it an unenforced crime? There is no currency investment stream into game dev enthusiasts. They get no money, no placement, no help of any kind. I dare you to apply for work in this field. I DARE you. It's the province of the dedicated, the passionate, the committed, and the occasional rich...

Those "roadmaps" are dev-hopeful statements in a pre-alpha environment. Kindly source your "Constant broken promises, delays, canceled deadlines as well as lack of communication." and prove it's malicious. I never once cited any such requirement for enjoyment, for anyone. You did, just now. Fill it yourself with documentation. I said we're all venture capitalists, which we are, and that we should govern our expectations, which we should. Go on, prove me wrong. Nick and his team don't owe you jack or shit. You think they do because you spent money. They're not your slaves. Labor = money, and go suck yourself if you think otherwise. I 1,000,000% guarantee you they've spent ten times the work on the things you don't see v. the work you see. If you think being a software dev guarantees you a fair wage, you're a shitbag beyond compare. That absolutely, 100% extends to app development. Especially to game dev, since most people seem to think game dev means millionaires funding talented people at millions. Hint: You're wrong. Again, point me to more than half a dozen player criticisms of the crew systems. No? They don't exist? And the devs actually asked the players to submit that? Oh, I wonder why we have the standoff that currently exists! Go on, be more of an idiot. Please. 🙄 Yes! Precisely! Go tell everyone you know how much of an ignorant team base they are! It works both ways. If the player base treats the devs like trash, they'll stop talking. That's shit, the industry is shit, people are shit, and a few of us make dozens of dollars per commission. Go challenge that, I double, triple dare you.

Honestly, I'd decide we can all stuff it. The smaller the team, the more likely I'd be to ignore public pressure. It do be like that. We're all, every single one, venture capitalists. Have you played the game enough to justify your $60 investment? I'm talking 1:1 here. Every single person on this forum gave Nick and his tiny-ass team money hoping he'd pull off a miracle in an ambitious attempt to make some kind of dreadnaught game. There has never been a single guarantee of success. I got my money's worth. Did you? Did you get a minimum of 60 hours of time out of this demo? I'm guessing that's a likely "yes" as things go. Did you have fun? You're a almost certainly a liar if you say no. You get to demand nothing. You deserve nothing. In terms of usefulness, you are nothing. Have fun demanding game changes.

They've absolutely reacted to player feedback. Nick specifically asked for feedback on the crew system. They got fewer than a dozen useful responses. If I were them, I'd take that into account, ditch the four patch plan, and simply put all my effort into delivering the entire campaign system at once. Then I'd sort it after, deal with bugs, and launch the Steam early access release. Why bother wasting time talking when the players aren't interested in providing the information you request?

Yeah, it's a byproduct of the early access style of design. On one hand small dev teams have a way to get ambitious projects off the ground, on the other most potential players have absolutely no idea how the dev process even works, so they get upset when things take longer than expected or more importantly, don't fit the idea of the product they created in their own heads. The incremental changes are due to feedback coinciding with intended design. That's not too hard. But AI? That's almost always something that gets refined much later in the cycle than where we are right now. We'll probably get some with the campaign since that's supposed to be the larger, official early access introduction to potential players. The rest will probably come after the game is feature-complete. The problem we have is a black box. We can't see their design docs, so we don't know why certain things are a priority and others are not. There's no way in anyone's version of hell Nick is going to make those available for us to paw through. I've seen that done once, and the resulting shitstorm was... unbelievable.

It's almost as though the game isn't finished, or something very like. Also, congratulations. You managed to take a screenshot of no actual use in solving any of the problems you complain about.

I imagine the process to gain crew experience will be naval exercises up to a point, then combat will allow for the final chunk. Right now it seems the idea is to allow players to field untrained ships as a desperation measure, decently trained crews as a normal thing, and highly trained crews as an elite force. At least that's how I see it. It might work differently, but that kind of system would allow older ships to stay relevant for a longer period of time.