Jatzi

Just something that'd be nice to have is in the UI when you mouse over the gun image during combat, on the ship characteristics part, you can see the number of guns and turrets for that caliber. You'll be grouping up same calibers which is nice but still it doesn't tell you the layout of them. I'm left counting the turrets and guns per turret to get a sense of how many weapons the ship has. The format would be 14x1 or 3x3. Number of turrets on the left and guns per turret on the right. It's been brought up on here before and it's a low priority thing, but if you're gonna be working on grouping the same calibers together than why not just add this little UI tidbit EDIT: It's already in with this latest beta patch. Nvm my bad

Lmao this isn't the first time I've talked about this. I know for a fact I've mentioned it before on here. Not my fault if you can't find it. Nor am I the only one to talk about it, I didn't discover the bug for instance. I think I'm just the only one left who still gets on the forums occasionally. I know Alekius kept the build with the bug in there and has played it since they patched it out, but he doesn't come here nor will he post a vid about it for obvious reasons. EDIT: 2 seconds of searching through my recorded posts in 2019 and I found it lol. Alpha 1 v60 on October 12, 2019. Lmao I think I was the first person to say it on the forums probably alerting them to the existence of the bug and the next day you couldn't do it anymore. My bad.

I believe it was in one of the patch notes that they get rid of it. Like V2 or 3 they said something like patched a bug that allowed access to an early version of the campaign or something like that. @Terka1917 You could be right. I don't know, after all this time and with what they're giving us I highly doubt they kept the old campaign. After two years of no campaign when I hear remade from scratch I think they scrapped it. It only makes sense. Especially with how they're releasing it. Yeah it's possible they could get useful info about certain aspects of the campaign from just an endless brawl between two nations in one sea zone. Be a good test of a battle generator I guess, maybe an economic system. But honestly, just imo, if they had anything more than they do I feel they'd release it. Assume it's still mostly RTW-esque. You get far more out of a test including multiple nations and sea zones than you do just two nations in one sea zone. And they've said the economy is rudimentary, the tech is half finished, no diplomacy, limited ship movement. Those first 3 are the main things you could test with a limited campaign release. To me this means a few things, the campaign is extremely far from being finished, we're getting what is done, and two their vision has likely changed. I think in 2020 when they "reorganized" someone was telling them to take the game in a certain way, someone disagreed and quit or got fired and their work, i.e. the campaign, got thrown out along with them. Maybe they were already talking to that company that bought them and wanted to shift the game a certain way to appeal more towards them, help convince them to buy game-labs.

To Taktcom it was like the 1st or second version. So 2019. The original campaign was advertised to basically be RTW with 3D graphics. Those I know who play RTW fully considered, and the talk on the forums followed this trend at the time, that they wouldn't just copy paste the game but would take the general concept and improve on it. That means operational control rather than a random battle generator, AI wars, more interactions with minor nations(like the ability to build ships for minor nations and potentially seize them during war), more in-depth alliance systems and better allies in combat(this kinda goes hand in hand with AI wars). That is a lot, at the very least we expected RTW with 3d graphics, at most we expected a better game than RTW. The leaked campaign was basically RTW with 3d graphics. That simple. Not finished and unpolished but that was what it was. I'm not a game dev but I'd say it was no more than a year from being finished. All the nations were there though I can't remember if all were actually in the game when you played or if it was limited to 5 or so like RTW does. You had sea zones, diplomacy through random events that popped up every turn, like half the tech tree was done, you had a budget and economy like RTW( not a crazy in-depth economic system, you know what I mean if you've played RTW at all). I saw a screenshot from someone building ships for a minor nation like I described above, I've looked for it multiple times but can't find it. It wasn't stable and there were no saves so it was hard to progress really far. I made it like 3 years in, went to war with the US as the UK. Lost a legacy pre-dread to some TB's in the Atlantic(V1 TB's were lethal to kinda everything-secondaries were so bad). Random events cost prestige, there were threat levels and if it got high enough you went to war. If you've played RTW it was that but it unpolished and looked cooler. 2 years later and they're giving us less than that. Far less. They said they scrapped that whole campaign. And have given almost no details on why or what replaced it except for what it doesn't have.

We're not getting the game that they advertised and that I've played. The campaign was leaked through a bug in the first like two versions. Besides the fact that it used the same style of battle generator that RTW uses it looked good. It looked like what I wanted and what they advertised. I at least am not upset because I'm not getting what's in my head. I'm upset we had what I wanted and what they said theyd deliver, and they threw it away for a duel to the death in an empty map with half the tech and barely any predreads. Of course this isnt the final version but if they threw out the original idea what are we getting? They havent said and from the look of things it's not gonna be good EDIT: Also just going back reading some comments. Ppl are supporting them trashing the old campaign and saying oh this is so bare bones cuz they had to throw out the old campaign. Makes sense it's bad. Why did they throw it out? I'll say it again I've played some version of the original campaign. It wasnt finished or polished but it was good. It was what they advertised originally before early access. Whyd they scrap it? They've given no reason for getting rid of a seemingly fine campaign

I want to be excited for this news but I'm just not. It doesn't sound at all like the game I bought. I played the leaked campaign, I have no idea how that compared to the full vision at the time but I liked it. Now to hear it was totally thrown out and replaced with something that sounds most definitely lesser is just sad. This doesn't sound at all like what the game was marketed as, still marketed as I may say. And it's been well over a year now where you've "just been working on the campaign" and this is it? No peace, no diplomacy, no overall map, no complete tech tree, just a random duel to the death? I'm obviously not privey to the details of what's been happening with your company because that just doesn't make sense. I'm aware this is early access and being disappointed because the dev decided not to make the game that you bought is the name of the game. Which is why I'm never buying an early access game again. It's also why I'm strongly considering never buying a games-labs game again, this development has been so bad I don't trust the company anymore. Guess Ultimate General and Age of Sail were flukes. Could we get a solid explanation of why the previous campaign was entirely thrown out? It honestly seemed good, wasn't complete obviously but it looked good. Exactly what I, and everyone else I know that bought the game, wanted. Even the steering gear part being added is probably going to be non-sensical just like the different rudder options. I looked it up, as far as I can find the biggest difference between the different types of rudders has to do with what happens when the rudder jams. But for some reason, in a naval game that tries to say it prizes historical accuracy, rudders can't be jammed. Amazing work. I could go on but I don't trust this to be good after hearing the previous iteration was scratched

You can't have a game where we know the entirety of the enemy design and their speed and heading and damage status and then say oh we aren't giving you a map for realism purposes. No. Just no. This is the games major issue, sometimes it wants to be arcadey, sometimes it wants to be hardcore. Most of the time it just ends up being arcadey but looks hardcore. You can't have both and the devs should have picked a route long ago. Toeing the line just alienates both crowds Also about the miss-IDing thing, I feel if a ship is miss-ID'd then the model should change. Especially if the specific class of the ship is miss-ID'd and not just the type. That doesn't happen, just the type and only at first, but that's another thing-we should mistake one battleship class for another sometimes. If they're similar looking. I've talked about this in other threads. Give it a probability based off of the superstructure design and the gun layout.

A large mistake for sure. Sadly

So crew is finally here and it's cool. It's nice to see hits take out some crew members. But I have issues with it. I know it's the first version, I'm aware of that. And I know the focus isn't going to be in making it all that complex right now. I'm fully aware of all of that. But I want to take about where I think it should go from here after playing a bit. Just a bit, few hours so this stuff might change once I play more. The biggest thing to me is the attritional nature of the crew losses. You lose a guy here, another two over there. All throughout the battle. But it just doesn't make sense for it to work like that. Giant explosions are happening inside tight spaces, anyone inside a compartment a decently sized shell would probably be injured to some degree right? There are certainly situations where maybe a gun gets knocked out and only 1 or 2 members of the gun crew get wounded. Sure. You can always play the what if game with stuff like this. But when I see a hit on the very bow of the ship kill 2 people, another penetrating engine room hit kill another 3 but then an overpen on a torpedo launcher kills 12 I know it's not right. Why would ppl be at the very bow of the ship? I know there are internal rooms there obviously and maybe some ppl would be there during combat but I have a feeling if you shot at the bow of a ship endlessly you'd keep getting crew kills. It seems to me that there's an overall pool of crew and each hit has a chance to kill some and there's probably a dice roll to see how many die and whatnot. Certain modules getting hit naturally result in more deaths, more dice for those modules I guess. And that's fine for now. But I'd really like to see crew be localized to parts of the ship. Like if you put a 12in turret on a ship it'll have like 30 crew. And if it gets destroyed then among those 30 crew some number gets killed or wounded, likely a large one I'd imagine but not necessarily. Not just from a overall ship wide pool but from that specific turret's crew pool. Because it's weird to see a torpedo launcher or gun get destroyed and the total number of crew manning their battlestations for torpedoes or secondary guns stay at 100%. Like I just killed 3 torpedomen presumably, are there extra's or something? I mean maybe but like ships don't just have extra crew sitting in a waiting room until they're needed. They'd be out at their battle stations lol. I just don't want to repeatedly see penetrating hits to things like engine rooms that flood the entire compartment but only cause 2 casualties. Or 1. It's just so unrealistic it takes me so out of the game. Flooding especially would really get people, even more so during the pre-dreadnought era I imagine. I want to see crew die to fire. I want to see crew training affect deaths in situations like fighting fires or having compartments flood out. A poorly trained crew should lose more ppl to a flooding compartment than a veteran crew who knows what to do in that very terrifying situation. Also are crew casualties just deaths or do the numbers include wounded? Because wounded numbers are generally very high, humans are squishy and don't do well in explosive environments. And most wounded probably can't crew a ship any better than the dead guys. So yeah localize the crew to their specific modules. That way, when said modules get hit the correct number of people get hurt. More casualties in general I think. I completely destroyed the citadel of a heavy cruiser and literally the second before it sank it'd only lost 69 crew. After every engine getting destroyed, the rudder as well. Multiple guns and torpedoes gone, the entire ship is flooding, 180+ hits, many of them penetrating 8 and 12in hits. And only 69 losses out of 570. Another thing, sorry. Not really related to crew but turrets need to jam. And rudders. Damaged turrets, while killing some crew should also actually damage the turret, potentially jamming it. If crew losses are localized to specific turrets and whatnot then you can have said losses apply debuffs to specific turrets which would be interesting. A ship with some turrets damaged and unable to fire in sync with the others making salvo fire hard to do would mess up all sorts of things I imagine.

It's not even really a lose lose. If a patch is buggy we know we can expect a hotfix fairly soon, they do one basically every patch to address major bugs that pop up. We all know this by now and it's honestly a fairly standard thing. Ppl only seriously complain about bugs when they don't get fixed. And in that camp falls object placement on hulls. It's not horrible because they have been addressing specific instances of this turret or that tower not fitting. Those kinds of bugs keep happening though which is the issue but again not that big of a deal rn. So yeah the buggy release argument does not hold water imo. The only game development I know of where ppl actively complain about buggy releases is Star Citizen and that is a special case by far. A very unique brand of messed up development.

The reason the RTW comparisons exist is because if you go back and read the original blog posts about the intended game mechanics it's basically RTW with 3d graphics. Not a bad thing. But the fact is RTW is it's direct competitor. The original stuff about the game presented it not like Age of Sail but like RTW. Which makes them competitors. They've said nothing to change that assumption, I think the intention has changed, but they've said nothing to that affect. And so the RTW comparisons will continue until we have reason to think they no longer should be compared. Frankly, if they gave us Age of Sail but with dreadnoughts I'd be unhappy. I wanted an improved 3D RTW, everyone else I know that plays the game did too. That's what they promised when they began selling early access. Calling UA:D a quasi-simulator drawing inspiration from Kerbal Space Program is a massive stretch lol. It's an arcade game that's dressed up as quasi-simulator. Games change in development sure, but I think it's safe to say if you begin selling an early access title and then fail to deliver on what you said you would you have failed. That's the risk of going into an early access, I'm never doing it again. But yeah, I've heard some people defend companies that deliver something different than what they promised but nah. That shouldn't fly. And I mean damn it didn't fly with the Naval Action crowd lol. This feels like a repeat of that. I hope I'm wrong but yeah

Lol that's the opposite of what Im thinking we're going towards.

The sun will die before we get the campaign at this rate

We've had different experiences with RTW 2 lol. I mean sure sometimes, very rarely stuff like that happens to me. But mostly I get CL v CL fights, or BC vs BC or CA vs CA. Sometimes CAs or BCs show up against my CLs or CLs show up against my CA but very rarely and usually I can run. Sometimes not but so what? I read on the forums about people complaining about battles not going their way and like yeah that's probably the point. The game would be pretty boring if you always won. And A BC running up against CA's and CL's isn't like a bad thing, that's who theyre supposed to fight. BB's show up sometimes as a support force in cruiser actions, on both sides. Usually not hard to avoid so it's whatever to me.

Aircraft should be in the game but they won't be added. The development of this game has been rocky lol. So they won't be added. From the very beginning I've said it should be like Rule the Waves and Rule the Waves 2. Rule the Waves 1 had no aircraft, 2 does. Complete this game then maybe add them or make a new one that has them or whatever. As of right now though aircraft don't even factor into the equation with all the issues the game has, how far it needs to come.