Skeksis
-
Posts
1,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Skeksis
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
D-Day!
-
5
-
-
-
-
6 hours ago, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:
I am curious as to how the new rudder mechanic will work, I'm assuming depending on which option you choose, it'll just give your ship a large debuff if you decide to cut expenses for the rudder?
Or will it be a little more complex than this?Same.
Both Shaft and Aux Eng already effect (buff) Turning Rate and Circle, is this going to be another buff? (player side).
Maneuverability is a pretty key anit-torp, how is this going effect torpedo balancing? Will this weaken torps in general? Will this give even more maneuverability to the AI?
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Joryl said:
Seems like a lose-lose if they don't communicate people get mad and when they do communicate people get mad....
Yeah, damn if you do damned if you don't!
We have always seen 'fixes patch' after a release, at least one. I think the programming crews are on standby after releases, for at least a week, they're there for critical fixes. Usually they'll drop a major release mid-week so the programmers can rush into action but never before the weekend. Fixed patches drop late week, sometimes Fridays, but they are the fixes and usually don't need to be re-fixed.
If Nick has given his team the weekend off, good on him, no use crying about it.
13 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:Rather it's released properly than a bug fest.
Same.
-
4
-
-
-
23 hours ago, Masonator said:
I like the way Cold Waters did its' campaign, where there's a relatively small list of missions the game chooses from at random, and each mission has randomised enemy fleet compositions, weather and sea conditions, and locations, on a map populated with passive enemy patrols. It achieves a pretty dynamic and spontaneous effect, and I think a similar idea would work pretty well for Dreadnoughts.
I actually like 'Naval Battle Simulator' global map. IMO it's one of the best naval world wide global maps in real time - but absolutely nothing else of that game though, it's crap.
But its global map, in how fleets/ships can travel the whole world, by plotting waypoints, then follow their course and intercepting enemies anywhere in real time, and the map scaling/zooming, it's right up in the top of the best list.
-
22 hours ago, Masonator said:
As of today, these are your campaign expectations. This isn't what I expect at all, and I strongly suspect that you'll be disappointed with the final product. That simply isn't the type of game that GL has ever made before, and they've made absolutely no indications of a course change throughout the Dreadnoughts development cycle. I strongly believe that the campaign(s) will be a (series of) linear storyline(s) set in a single theatre(s) and following a single officer's career, as in Age of Sail, because that's the developer's track record.
I also don't see Dreadnoughts as a strategy game whatsoever. It's an open-ended low-fidelity/"arcade" simulator with some action elements, and that's about it at present. This'll most likely change with the release of the campaign, but see above - I still doubt it will be what you're looking for. I don't know about you, but I play Ultimate Admiral and RTW for completely different reasons and in completely different moods. It's more accurately a competitor to grand strategy games like EU4, HOI4, or Civ than UA:D, in my eyes.
I also object to the idea of Age of Sail's campaign being "linear and scripted scenarios" - it's not, and that's not what I meant. By "scripted scenarios", I meant there are predefined missions with goals and objectives, rather than just "sink all enemies", similar to the Naval Academy mission objectives. While yes, it can be broadly described as "linear" in the sense that it has a story arc and forward progression, the Age of Sail campaign follows a branching path depending on your performance in each mission and their overall outcome, which has direct impacts on your fleet (losing expensive investments into ships and crews, gaining or losing territory, running out of money, gaining experience, etc).
Basically, imagine a long, branching string of Naval Academy scenarios with a world map, XP system, tech trees, and a persistent fleet and budget. That's the Age of Sail campaign, and what I strongly suspect the Dreadnoughts campaign will be. If you're expecting a RTW2 killer or GTA V: Battleship Edition from the campaign, prepare for disappointment.
You know you sound like a company man who's job it is to change the perception/expectations, like marketing.
To be clear, open world:
- Deploy ships anywhere, in any region (global wide).
- Battle generator builds battles base on that deployment.
- Choose/select your own politics/options against nations (war) or for nations (peace).
I.e. not a single predetermined mission.
But if you are right, then the campaign won't be unpredictable as I prefer, then I probably wouldn't play the campaign extensively.
-
2 hours ago, Masonator said:
I think we need to stop with the RTW2 comparisons.
Rule the Waves is an old-school turn-based strategy sim played almost entirely through text. Dreadnoughts is a real-time 3D quasi-simulator drawing inspiration from fking Kerbal Space Program. They're not automatically competitors just because you happen to play both games - get over yourselves. They're not even remotely the same game and occupy completely different niches in the market.
Everyone's speculating about what the campaign will or won't be, and are seemingly deciding their opinions about it before the first playable alpha build is even out. Yes, we've been waiting ages. Yes, the devs have been completely silent about it. Yes, there's still no screenshots, let alone gameplay footage. None of these are positive points, but it doesn't automatically mean the campaign is attempting to "dethrone RTW2" as the premier naval simulator. As detailed, they occupy different market niches and cater to a different audience.
I don't know how many people on this board have played UA: Age of Sail (you should, it really scratches the naval itch for which Dreadnoughts has been slacking), but it's Game-Labs' previous title and is broadly similar to Dreadnoughts in many respects. Its campaign consists of a sequence of scripted scenarios, similar to the existing UA:D Naval Academy but with persistent saves, fleet, maps, and resources between missions (in addition to a full Total War-style land warfare system). Missions provide simplified strategic resources, such as funds, crew experience, and research points, which are used to unlock the tech tree and build better ships.
Based on what we've already got in-game, I'd imagine the UA:D campaign will be very similar in concept, most likely with an expanded tech tree and additional resources such as fuel, manpower, etc.
Both games occupy the same market, as RTS. If you have both games how can you describe yourself as two different markets? By owning both, aren't you a market, just like hundreds of thousands of others, if not millions.
If UAD campaign has change to a linear and scripted scenarios, as you have promoted, it'll be a disaster. As of today, campaign expectations are of an open world, very similar to RTW2 regional map system.
-
5
-
-
WOW, we can now design a fleet in full concert to inflame the enemy like never before. 🙂
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
Ye, im wondering what the devs are doing thats taking up a lot of time. hopefully we see a few more mechanical features, like better armour zones, internal armour. guns that fire in a ordered sequence consistently unless they start taking damage.
and also old boags.
There's alot of new features in this update, wholesale changes too, which would effect things right across the board, including the campaign and stripping it to two nations and a brand new battle generator.
Maybe there's a few more issues than anticipated.
-
16 hours ago, coalminer said:
On the 10% increase, this has also been demonstrated in the past that random numbers are pulled out for "balance purposes". A baseline of what these numbers were based on is not given nor any justifications (e.g. random historic paper so that the community could atleast comment or feedback on the proposed changes) on why such changes. There are numerous sources on the internet on characteristics of naval armour used, couldnt one of these be cited or extrapolated to provide the baseline reference number? Disclosing the numbers would also make it easier for the community to help tweak and refine the armour resistance down the line.
I'm not a game maker but my guess is when developing from scratch, the question to answer must be 'Do we have a game?'
Along with that, UAD draws in the historical enthusiast, naturally too, so while some prefer authenticity, it might not answer the question. Balancing is inevitable. Hopefully the holdup is not this question either!
18 hours ago, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:Will they even BOTHER developing it for that long?
SF will, they'll squeeze this rock to the last.
-
On 9/5/2021 at 7:38 PM, TAKTCOM said:
The same is true for the rest of the countries. 6 ''cannons was standard for pre-dreadnoughts CA, which means that 90% the designs of that time are simply unavailable for players. And to solve this problem, you just need to add one, not two, not five, just one hull which supports 6'' guns in casemates for all nations. Of course, this will not help France, who built completely unique and original CA and need at least two new hulls, and better four.
On one hand other nations aren't important since we not going to play them, and if Dev's stay true to form, not for awhile either!
On the other, glaring disparity would effect the campaign footprint, including perception henceforth (even though the grey matter should be telling us not too until v1.0).
On 9/5/2021 at 7:38 PM, TAKTCOM said:Apparently, the game starts in 1945 and ends in 1890, so this is absolutely logical - sure, first you make the foundation, then the walls, and only at the end the roof.
A certain point of view, another (engineering principal) is to design the roof first, the floors next, then the foundation last, i.e. from the top down, not from the bottom up. But it's really is from every one own view point in the end.
-
On 8/16/2021 at 10:18 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
13x NEW HULLS
- The Italian “Littorio-class Battleship” can now be recreated in a hull base between 45,000 and 75,000 tons for Italy after 1936.
- New Italian “Super Battleship” available after 1936 with a displacement between 76,500 and 92,500 tons.
- New Italian “Modern Battlecruiser II” available after 1935 with a displacement between 39,500 and 54,500 tons.
- New Italian “Large Cruiser II” available after 1929 with a displacement between 32,500 and 42,500 tons.
- New Italian “Heavy Cruiser ΙΙ” available after 1934 with a displacement between 16,500 and 19,500 tons.
- New Italian “Modern Light Cruiser II” available after 1930 with a displacement between 8,000 and 11,000 tons.
- New Italian “Compact Light Cruiser” available after 1930 with a displacement between 6,700 and 8,000 tons.
- New Italian “Hybrid Destroyer” available after 1936 with a displacement between 3,500 and 4,500 tons.
- New Chinese “Super Battleship” available after 1936 with a displacement between 74,500 and 82,500 tons.
- New Spanish “Super Battleship” available after 1936 with a displacement between 75,500 and 87,500 tons.
- New British “Super Battleship” available after 1936 with a displacement between 80,500 and 92,500 tons.
- New Austro-Hungarian “Super Battleship” available after 1936 with a displacement between 89,500 and 101,500 tons.
- New Small Dreadnought available between 1906 and 1918 for Germany and Austro-Hungary with a displacement spanning from 18,000 to 20,500 tons.
Germany CA hulls are disadvantaged from 1900 to 1912. British get a flat deck hull to build from, 'Armored Cruiser V' at 1900, it's an open deck that can have variable placeholders, whereas Germany only gets the 'Armored Cruiser II' at 1894, and this is a superstructured hull, all options are placeholders, very limiting.
The British side is advantaged (with CAs) in both 1900 and 1910 campaign starts. No mention here of any new Germany CA hulls. 1912 is when Germany gets its comparison, 'Armored Cruiser V', after 1910 campaign start, after building the 1910 fleet, the German side would be handicapped. Germany side would have to rebuild all CAs after 24 months, and wait for there build time, crippling it even more, until at least 1914.
Quote- New Conning Tower armor: Now the Conning Tower armor is properly depended according to the weight of the main tower. Previously it was only a crude multiplier of weight and thus it was very light in large warships causing excessive free tonnage.
- Belt Armor weight has been increased by about 10% (it could become rather light in the late technology era).
Without the "free" tonnage and the 10%, which is alot and tonnage we have used up in the past/currently, will ships be under-designed for some Academy Missions? maybe making some missions unplayable. Would every mission have to be re-tested, re-balanced?
-
1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:
Your right. Through out the time I've played this game the A.I makes up three types of designs.
- The Super Heavy- These types of ships are nearly impossible to sink. Seriously have ya'll tried sinking a BB with a 25inch belt with 15inch guns? It's hard and frustrating because you don't the the specs of the ship in custom and academy. These ships make fights drag out longer than needed and can quickly make the fight boring.
- The Glass Cannon- The more common of the three. These ships have basically no armor except on their turrets and plenty of guns. However if you have a well designed ship for example a Bismarck they will be a push-over. Especially if you have super heavy shells on your ship. One clean shot near they're side-armor and they are mostly likely going to blow up or take massive damage to the point they become useless.
- The Balanced- These ships are rarer than the first two but when they appear they are fun to fight against. They actually manage to balance out their guns, armor and equipment. These ships put up a tough fight especially when the A.I decides to work properly. The downside of these ships is that they are rare but still fun to fight.
So that's my list, what do you guys think? Make any changes ya'll want it, I don't mind I would like to hear ya'll opinions.
I think the key to understanding if the AI-builds is on par is observing Academy Missions. Here, the missions have a base criteria/tech to build from. And these are mostly built/scaled correctly to within each mission criteria, i.e. no mission is unplayable.
Other than the year, Custom Battles have a random base criteria/tech, so it's more prone to produce off the scale variations.
Whereas in the campaign, nations should have a similar base criteria to build from and the designs should be scaled accordingly.
One of my theories is that Academy Missions 'mission' is to test the AI as it works under criteria's, hence the focus on late era since it has the most variations and the need for most fine tuning. Plus a few missions placed along the timeframe aswell.
Like Academy Missions, campaign built ships should be on par. With the exception of unforeseen issues (and/or known issues!).
-
1
-
-
>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Skeksis
...