Skeksis

If this is the case then what should happen is that the lead should only change if the engines are damaged or if the speed has been greatly affected. And I repeat... ‘Better still if we could slide the ship cards within the division row ourselves then we could set the lead ship, even organize the whole row’. And have the ability to toggle between auto-organizing and manual organizing ship division order (per division). Manual organizing would mean that if the lead slows, the whole division would slow too and it’s then up to the player sort, i.e. micromanagement.

It happen again, (1) after reorganizing ships by dragging & dropping, the utmost capital ship won't set as the lead ship, this issue is actually more consistent. (2) Also trailing ships won't speed up into formation, see BB in the back, its speed stays at the division speed and won't speed up... France vs Germany mission. Another issue, (3) if you have the division situation above, with the speed lowered for e.g. 16kn, then detach the BB (possibility detaching any ship), the speed of the detached ship won't increase above the previous division set speed, in fact below shows the speed is actually dropping... France vs Germany mission. (4) If you have two screens and the game is running in the primary, at fullscreen, then if you click or use the secondary screen, UAD automatically minimizes, there's no need for this, could this be fixed too, please.

This is something I’ve started to echo aswell, RTW2 has it. Planning ahead into the campaign and late campaign, battles aren’t going to take few minutes to solve, like you said 'hours', battle saves is a must have.

French magnificence, all 20 barrels of it...

Though there was a capital ship issue... The screenshot shows the DD as the lead ship, couldn't change it, didn't know how, wasn't consistent. At the very least the utmost capital ship should be the default lead. Better still if we could slide the ship cards within the division row ourselves then we could set the lead ship, even organize the whole row. FYI the division was formed by dragging & dropping ship cards. Suggestion 2. It takes some time to re-organize the fleet into divisions and for those ships to steam to there destinations once the battle has started. Campaign-wise there might not be enough time to re-organize the fleet at the beginning of the battle and thus putting us at a disadvantage. Pre-organizing the fleet in load screen would be a real helpful battle prep feature...

Scout formations worked very well, I was able to control the whole fleet with one capital ship. Here the scout divisions fell behind alittle so I turned the lead division back into the scouts... then turned the lead around to head back out... In general, the scouting divisions maintain there distance from the enemy while station keeping on the lead, this maneuvering was a pleasure to command and watch, very nice.

I hope there’s an option for screening ships to screen on the side of the fleet that would put themselves between capital ships and the enemy, automictically that is. Or at least manual option of starboard and port side formation… Also while in formation and to the enemy side, are smokescreens effective?

"Peace is a lie"

If battles are going to last longer than 1 hour then saving the campaign during a battle is a must have, i.e. saving during a turn. IMO I think for example if some battles were to take 2-3 hours+, then that would be a very hard ask for players who don't have that sort of free time to continuously play the battle all the way through to the end, especially for fulltime workers and family oriented players, of whom only get a couple hours at night, if that. And there is a possibility that during a turn there could be multiple battles, of which each could take hours to solve. I think this should be written into the save structure very early on, if it is not already there. Ditto for Custom Battles.

In Grand Tactician, you play out the battle in real time, then when you return to the campaign that battle is timed out for that battle duration, nicely done I have to say. But that game campaign is in real time, this campaign is turn based, therefore the battle generator would create battles at each turn and you would then complete those battles in sequence.

I can see this working within an RTW2 format, each region to have specialized fleets, 4, the battle fleet, defensive, supply convey and anti-submarine fleet, players would then send ships to those designated fleet types, the battle generator would then work up battles for each of those fleets. Auto-solve battles for anti-sub though.

Probably not going to happen but I would have like to see more logistic, e.g. ammo and fuel dumps with supply ships/conveys sent to stock up regions and their fleets. Games of todays world don’t include logistics anymore but it is very much part of armed forces. If RTW2 inspired, then these logistics could be a thing, per region that is. Designer tool with its range and ammo setting suggest it’s a possibility. It would add an strategic level, and a realistic level too, since warships across the other side of world should be supplied by conveys. But I think the team would have to build this mechanic from scratch, it isn’t part of RTW2.

Good game campaigns are made on their strategic level cast upon an open world environment, not linear ones (IMO). Strategic = lots to do!

Consider… Closed alpha, nobody plays, not nothing, no forum, no feedback, zippo. Open alpha, everybody plays, we’re in the know, our feedback might make it into game, make a difference, win-win for everybody. On behalf of those who appreciate the opportunity to participate, we thank Dev's. PS, here's hoping the campaigns (each nation) are going to be at least 200+ hours each.

If Dev's have settle on armament and damage model, then I can’t see why they can’t run all the way to the first campaign draft. Forget sporadic updates for the time being, go straight to the campaign. We can shake down the game then. This way the hype can build continuously from the draft rather than trying to build it in irregular iterations (updates without replayability).

Anybody can review gameplay videos to get to the truth of the matter, most people do before purchase.

There notes was a summary of 2 months, I assume the past tense.

Interpreting the future from something that’s 2 months old is a ‘great task’ indeed! The only thing I’m going to predicted for this update when it comes out, is that the game mechanics are going to be set in concrete, there aren't going to any changes thereafter, including damage model etc, Dev's will run with what they have.

Just teleporting in from Grand Tactician.. hmm ok nothing......poof

Menu ships seems to be pre-modeled, not AI generated nor designer tool created either. HMS Dreadnought menu-model is different too.

I don't think the scope of game is fine turned enough for all those hull adjustments. Even if it was, those adjustments could only amount to very little buffs here and there, else if they were too much and you add in all the other sliders and components buffs already in-game, stacking would be problem. And once those adjustments have been minimalize to solve stacking, the whole overall implementation wouldn't be worth it. The current hull adjustments suits the current scope.

It’s a common request but I think there has to be a big advantage for narrower hulls otherwise everyone would just slide to the widest to fit the best armament. And if players are doing that, then the Dev’s might aswell supply the widest. I don’t see any pressing need for beam adjusters. ...widest also equals Dev’s game limit of design for those hulls, it's probably the easiest limitation system for them to implement (to keep the campaign balance throughout).

It’s more likely re-works forced out more re-works, if not then there been a disaster! We’ll know what's what when and if they add more notes to the update.

What is the difference between your suggested “pitch” penalty and the current font/aft offset? Nothing right, they're the same thing, except the offset that shown is a 'general user warning', to let users know that there are penalties, apposed to be listed within the general stats of which would be harder to determine or not even listed at all. General warning helps the layman and is a lead for new users that stats are important, it’s helpful. Also it’s something for the designer to achieve, to bring their design back into balance (more interaction). Removing warnings could result in extreme alts without the user really knowing what’s going wrong… With help...