SPANISH_AVENGER

Even that way I would be happy. We could arrange sessions and Battles in the Forum and go into Custom battles, in a "Battles" section or something. (Example: Thread: anyone wants a BB battle tonight? And people come and agree to play some battles in a custom battle. Forum, Discord, or whatever; custom battles as a whole. I think that would be enough to make an effective and sucessful multiplayer.

I have thought about this way too much: My idea is, it could be 1x by default, but a player can suggest through a button to change the speed, and, if the other player agrees, the change is applied. For example: You (Stormnet) press the 3x speed button, so I get this on my screen: *Stormnet wishes to set the battle at 3x speed. Do you accept the request?* So if I press "yes", the battle goes at 3x until we both agree to change it back to 1x, 2x, or whateverit is agreed, by pressing the desired speed button, a window pops up in the other player's screen with the option to agree or disagree.

In neither WOWS nor War Thunder you can bring your own designs into battle, and they are combat oriented, where you aim and fire the guns and that's pretty much it. Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts isn't about combat, but about crafting ships and see how they fare in battle where they aim and fire by themselves and, in any case, about fleet management and strategy when it comes to maneuvering. A 1V1 multiplayer mode would be a mode full of competitiveness, creativeness, and endless possibilities for the community, I would rather have a dynamic 1V1 multiplayer mode over even a thousand hours campaign, because this mode would offer quite literally limitless fight with limitless creativity and competitiveness. Be it 1V1 single ship battles or 1V1 fleet battles, my point still stands. 1V1 fleet battles would be EVEN BETTER, it would be like Battlestations: Pacific (a game which has no equal in that aspect even after 13 years IMO) on steroids. In any case, in multiplayer, you are comparing your skills in design and strategy to those of another human being, and competing against him or her. That's the appeal of multiplayer to me; the human factor. Saying "if you want multiplayer go to WOWS" is just as wrong as saying "if you want campaign go to Total War", IMO.

YES! All I want is a 1V1 multiplayer mode. Not massive battles or anything, just a simple 1V1 mode. I want to see how well my creations fare against other players' creations. 1 VS 1 duels between two players and their own Battleship designs. IMO, that's THE BEST this game can aspire to, it would be simply amazing.

Yeah... I would like to use the 406mm guns more often, but accuracy is very important to me, and, since 381mm are for some reason far more accurate, and then 432mm are less accurate again, and then 457mm are more accurate again... seems kinda arbitrary tbh

This would bring the game on a whole new level!

Yeah, sometimes I get really weird stuff. Like, I have 12 guns, 54% chance of hit... yet I can sometimes fire up to 10 salvos and score 0 hits, meanwhile the enemy with 16% chance of hit hits me at least one shell every salvo...? And for some reason accuracy drops to 11% without having taken damage to the towers or flooding or anything... Stuff like that

Yes! For example, the bow 5 for example is very modern compared to 1 and 2

Yes! That goes, from more stability, to better speed and acceleration. 3 would be the default one, which doesn't give any specific bonus, it's the all rounder, or maybe 4 would be that 1 and 2, aimed at stability, but at the cost of acceleration and speed And 5, the one that sacrifices stability the most over hydrodynamics

HOW COULD I FORGET THIS!? Thank you for reminding me, I am going to add it! Bow form affects aesthetics, speed and stability: it would give a lot more personality to the ship.

I am glad to see small but relevant details like this!

I see, thank you for the reply! Always impressed and pleased to see Game Labs team staff so involved in the Forums ^^ Just as you said, I went from 1900 to 1919, and the same hull is still available, this time with its full potential unlocked, every few years, more displacement was available. Now I understand how it works!

For example, this hull has a maximum displacement of 15,000 tons, but there seems to be some kind of limitation before it. What is the point of a hull to have a displacement capacity, if you can't use it due to some weird limitation?

I love how close to the community, interactive and receptive this game's team is, compared to others which straight out and mostly ignores their communities.

True! From heavy cruisers to battleships, it was frequent that those zones had thick armor around them too.

Indeed! The trade off of AoN should simply be more chances of flooding due to the unprotected parts being hit below the waterline, overpens on these parts shouldn’t deal the structure damage they currently deal. Alternatively, the amount of damage that could be dealt in the extended parts should have a limit, so that hits there still cause some damage, but couldn’t sink an AoN battleship simply by overpenning its bow repeatedly.

There are some extensive and detailed lists regarding huge reworks of the ship designer, some of them often considered to be too drastic or complex to implement as they would require to rework core aspects of the designer, and denied as they would be "too complex for new players and the A.I"... So I thought I would do a list with what I think that could be simple yet great additions to the current system, easy both to implement and to understand: -Select bow form: each bow would have its own speed and stability modifiers and bonuses. -Ship length, beam and draft sliders: and displacement is modified accordingly, rather than the other way around. I think this would be great, both to make historically accurate ships, and to have more flexibility and control on your own designs. -Divide the belt in three parts: upper, middle and lower belts: This would both increase historical accuracy on ship designing, and provide more flexibility overall. -New citadel type: "sloped all or nothing": with an internal belt, like Iowa class, for example. -Add two separate decks: weather deck and citadel deck. With their respective extended parts. -Make "all or nothing" armor scheme be actually viable: All or nothing scheme was designed so that the "extended parts" of the ship were entirely unarmored, as penetrations there would be meaningless, so that all the armor could be dedicated to the citadel. However, you can't currently use this philosophy ingame, as shells penetrating the unarmored extended parts deal great amounts of damage. I think that, while you are making use of this armor scheme, penetrations on the unarmored extended parts should cause minimal damage, just as it is expected from this armor scheme. -Be able to define the sloped deck armor thickness on the "turtleback" armor scheme. -Armor viewer: it would be the cherry on the top, but I think it would be a great quality of life addition. At very least, a basic armor viewer for each citadel scheme, showing the deck and belt extensions and dimensions. The recent improvements on the ship designer are greatly welcome, and I hope more come soon! 90% of what made me get this game, is the ability to design ships and use them ingame. I get that there are other points the developers want to focus on too, like the campaign, but I believe polishing a final version of a ship designer on its full potential should be the priority, as, as I said, it's the main selling point of the game.

Both... I am obsessed with armor hahah and I find it a bit sad and strange that no matter the value there's always "partial pen" damage However, if that turns out to be realistic, I won't complain. It's just that I find it to be a bit odd that ships with 330mm guns can sink a ship with 1200mm of armor just through partial pen damage (I did that test yesterday), except for some occassional blocks and bounces, and sometimes even full penetrations... I mean, I know partial pen damage is a realistic thing, but right now they seem to have a too large margin IMO... like, I can get that a 800mm pen shell at a range deals partial pen damage to 850mm worth of armor, but a 600mm pen shell at a range dealing partial pen damage to +1200mm worth of armor...? I know all these armor values are unrealistically high for any practical combat suitable ship, but I thought it was the only way to test the armor penetration and damage models, through extreme values

Armor in general isn't too effective currently. I made an experiment, with a Battleship that had NOTHING, but all of its weight dedicated solely to Krupp IV armor thickness. Using the 130,000 ton ship hull. It had a 1,200mm belt and belt extended, and a 400mm thick deck and deck extended, if I recall correctly. Obviously this wouldn't be usable in combat, as it was armed with just two 279mm guns (required to launch) and 16 knot top speed, not a single module installed... all the weight went for the armor, to experiment. And it still got sunk by ships armed with 14 inch guns. Penetrations, partial penetrations... I put the battle at x5 speed and it took just 2-3 minutes for them to sink the experimental battleship. I feel like armor isn't really effective xD Having a 305, 420 or 700mm thick belt doesn't really seem to make any difference, and deck armor, there doesn't seem to be a single thickness where it can stop anything at any range.

Yeah. In short: deck armor is currently useless.

Amazing, thank you for the fast reply!

Am I doing something wrong, or is this totally broken? No matter how much I fiddle with them, there's always a transverse weight offset, most of the times with such extreme values as 100% like here.

Yeah, I agree. There's always port or starboard weight offsets, no matter where I place the turrets, it keeps going from 2% to 14% to +40-70%, it's basically impossible to do it appropiately. Indeed! Deck armor is definetly too ineffective right now. And also agree: in spite of its flaws, I am loving this game and even more where it's heading to!

Very happy to see all the designer improvements and additions! Specially little details, like, now, there are more secondary towers with slots for funnels, now the towers that include barbettes they have details on the barbettes in case you decide not to put turrets on them, so that they don't look awkward and empty... and the higher flexibility is really welcome! I will be looking forward to more patches like this. Ship designer is 90% of the game to me ^^

Am I doing something wrong or something? I am somehow getting MASSIVE% aft weight offsets despite making pretty much symmetrical ships. Dafuq?