Skeksis

Suggestion, to clean the map of so many taskforce tracks. Have the trailing point follow the taskforce, this then cleans the map of some of those lines. Generally, we only need to know where the taskforces are going anyway.

You have a point there. While you can influence your government, the AI government has final say. So not full sandbox. Dev's have made a hybrid sandbox, it's different!

4) We need to know fueling rate on each port. ATM you have no idea which ports, i.e. non-home ports, can refuel your taskforces or how fast. 5) Are we going to be able to manually upgrade ports? E.g., Pearl Harbour, 1910 start port capacity is 19600t but I would like to speed up port development to make it a reasonable hub within 10 years, say at least 150,000t.

@Nick Thomadis Is America going to have any other ports around the world? Because Britain, France, Germany, Spain does, and even a couple for Italy around South Africa. They have the advantage of repairing ships close to foreign nations. America, being a major miliary and financial power, you would expect some foreign ports under their control. Also, from a campaign gameplay point of view, America should not be levelled as a hardcore nation, there's already other nations for that. Japan also is in the same boat. I only been running campaigns from 1910 (America) onwards, so feedback is based on that timeframe, could be a thing for 1890 onwards too. And... When allied, shouldn’t nations be able to repair ships in their ports? is this planned? Ok first, the AI doesn’t have to have this ability right away, it can be programmed later, but for the human player, repairing in foreign ports would help the above point but also isn’t it what it was IRL? Did not nations repair allies ships? Seems this aspect is missing from the game. Also. Is a wraparound map planned? - continuous scrolling left or right. It's not user-friendly selecting taskforces on the east coast of America and then scrolling the map all the way left to plot their course into Asia/Oceanica, vice-versa moving fleets other way. And the info tabs are in the way, if you have more than 5-6 wars, there's only a small gap between tabs to select any taskforces station on the far right of the map. Yes, minor QOL issue but it would improve the UI tenfold if implemented.

Several times now the game has crashed/frozen on update missions. Almost in all cases it seems it was after when taskforces were split into others or merged (and maybe a mission was trying to be generated around them). This should never happen too, battle ends while live enemy transports are still visible. Sorry for the late capture but you can just see the un-sunken transports. There are too many things like this above that are unfinished. And as with crashes/freezing, it seems like an unstable version.

I'm alittle surprised too, every single ship can become super augmented and wipe out the AI.

Bug/Exploit. No save refit bypass. You can overweight a refit design and still have it listed in ship designs for refitting. Steps... Refit a ship as per normal, add extra armor etc., overweight the design, do not save design (it won't work anyway), just click exit (do not use escape to leave shipyard)... Click no to discard unsaved designs... Refitted design will now list in ship designs, you can now refit any of those overweight ships, as I have done - to test of cause. My current campaign CL limit is 11500t.

Poll closed due to update.

Effects all nations with distance ports too. Hopefully some map tools are planned but all trial and error for now.

There’s another logic, the contest, or lack of. AI designs are much better now but to add flaws into them is going reduce the contest. This must be a big worry for Dev’s, making sure the AI can challenge the player without hidden advantages (which there are none yet). Humans can make judgment calls on how debilitating flaws are and scrap/replace if needed, can the AI do this too? Flaws in AI ships is another very bad idea.

Now we have to consider fuel and range when designing ships, i.e. will you have enough fuel for the patrol and for 'combat'. Same for combat speed, fuel consumption, max out and you'll run out of fuel very quickly.

It seems that if you park your taskforce outside (or within fueling range) of an allied port, your taskforce refuels. An option. Kinda representing oilers. I don't know what the fueling range is yet or how to view it.

Playing the US I designed barebones DDs, as per usual, 1 funnel etc. like pre-patch... But I've come to realize they don't have enough range, only 6868km, to escort taskforces across the Atlantic, they simply run out of fuel halfway across. A failed design no less. So back to the drawing board, added in extra upgraded funnels, adjusted beam and draught, increased engine efficiency by 273%, got 21078km range. With range they can now escort capital ships right across the Atlantic... Well done Dev's with fuel realism introduction. 👍

Take the overweight flaw. The very main control factor in designing ships, weight, every single component you add to the weight is carefully considered to optimize your design, right down to a single ton, BANG it's now overweight by 7%: Increased costs. Requires more engine power. Decreases maneuverability. Increases target signature. Damn me now why bother designing best optimal. That's just one of them. @Baboulinet @Pappystein @PalaiologosTheGreat, a robust debate best serves the Dev's.

I think design flaws are a very bad idea. Here, the player is designing ships to their perfection, only to have that perfection corrupted by flaws. Perfection and flaws don't mix or can fit together in anyway possible. Naval Action has random designing features (and flaws), 2 to 5 slots, a special trait or not, this suits NA and for things like trading ships and as an MMO, but to carry such RNG into UADs seems more like a company gimmick. The fact is flaws are fixed (or made serviceable) after shakedown cruises before ships are commissioned into service. Also, none of the other ultimate series has such flaws with any of their military units, all successful strategy games, why this one. Remove flaws altogether.

As it stands, the entire Pacific Ocean is excluded from the global campaign. Fleets from Pearl Harbor have to travel through the Straits of Magellan, South Atlantic Ocean, pass Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean and then the South China Sea to attack Japan. Months of tactical timeout. A major reenactment of wargaming, USA vs Japan, completely thwarted!

All testers are on standby, ready to jump into action at a moment's notice.

To keep the US look (style), Dev’s could keep those mid-castle hulks and have Dreadnought III aswell, side by side, then players could have the option of building either or. Suiting everyone. Ditto for Large Armored Cruisers. As noted before, my main point is for gameplay or construction fairness, this should override the status-quo. The real question to answer is, if you had Dreadnought II (USA) and Dreadnought III both available in 1910, which hull would you choose to design? IMO, the majority would choose the latter. Should mention the US CLs in the same timeframe too, though you could argue CLs for all nations need more options. Everyone here who has survived Game Labs development process, has learned not to "get your hopes up"!

Oh, I think some of the gaps in hull lines are down to the fact that modelers are way behind. But as for market demand, US market demand, it's going to require some expediency to fill those gaps, they're too wide. Though, all nations can have a flat deck in 1910 but each nation should have their own variant style, e.g. forwards castle, aft castle, mid castle etc. So then, I don’t think there should be any across overs of those styles. I.e. want to build a style, campaign the nation.

Every nation gets its Dreadnought III flat deck hull by or about 1910, except... Who else, the United States. But instead gets a Dreadnought II (USA) in 1912, South Carolina Class, a built-up superstructure hulk with very little design options. And the US doesn't get any flat deck hulls until 1919, and then gets two of them, Dreadnought III and Dreadnought IV. It seems to me that there is a lack of design options for 1910 campaign starts and a lack of flat deck design options from 1905 (Dreadnought (USA)) to 1919. For gameplay, Dreadnought II (USA) should be push back to 1906, the year when USS South Carolina was laid down, and Dreadnought III hull availability set to 1910 or at least less than 1914. Alot of people are going to be playing the 5 new nations, especially the US.

Sure, the dedicated historical enthusiast few, including Dev’s, will say yes, it’s not historical, but the rest, who are just here to play a wargame including a huge American audience, will say “where are they?”. Playing the US campaign changes everything. If you add the building time and slower cruiser research, a player could be facing 1922-1925 enemy built CAs verses their 1897 US obsolete designs and getting hammered. On the flip side, AI 1897 US CA would be a no challenge from 1910 onwards, a no contest. And that’s what it all boils down to, the contest, i.e. gameplay. In this case gameplay should override historical.

Every nation has there 'Large Armored Cruiser' hull by 1910, except... France, they get theirs in 1914. And the United States, it doesn't get one at all. Their next heavy cruiser hull is 'Heavy Cruiser I' and that's in 1919. So United States gets 'Armored Cruiser IV' hull in 1897 and then the nation has to wait until 1919 for its next improved hull, 22 year gap. While other nations have the advantage of 'Large Armored Cruiser', i.e. advantage of a flat deck to design on. It's alittle unfair. Sourced from custom battles database.

Radical Idea. There is one way to alleviate the grind but to have all the content still in place... When building ships, the "Permanent Upgrades" slots are randomized, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 slots, this results in an endless cycle of building and trading ships without achievement for most players. You hardly ever get 5 slots. Ok, so we add in a new scheme. Shipwright XP Level/Points, Per Ship Rate: 0: Randomized, as per current. 500: 2 Slots. 1000: 3 Slots. 2500: 4 Slots. 10000: 5 Slots. XP: Crafting XP. Per Rate: One Shipwright scheme per ship rate, e.g. 1st rates. Permanent Upgrades slots are no longer randomized but are set to the rate level of Shipwright. Zero shipwright points is for players who don't craft generally, e.g. new players, or who want to play with chance, i.e., the player has to initiate the scheme. If a player initiates a Shipwright scheme, on a particular rate, their built ships will only have the number of permanent slots that their rate Shipwright level is at. The scheme could be bought from the admiralty and then assigned a rate etc. Every other aspect of gameplay remains the same (or every chance aspect), including content (grind) i.e. the resourcing of ships, but what this change would provide is a level of certainly for building ships, players will have a concrete goal in place for achievements. They will play for certainty. I think trading of ships will change alittle, but it will depend on how hefty the grind is for Shipwright points is. But please don't make it too hard. And that's the goal, revitalizing the game but in an promotional way. Dev's, let some things go. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS, there's something wrong with this thread, posts are placed mid topic.

I see there's another new update coming to Naval Action, these look like minor coding examples. So I'm wondering how much GameLabs are going to work this game? could there be larger improvements? Well here's one, IMO, you could address stern camping/raking. I know in early development there were many iterations of the damage model and you guys settled on the current. But maybe there's room for one more development phase, even at this late date. E.g. A. Bow Structure (1/8). Can only be destroyed after bow armor/planking is depleted or if side armor is depleted (and/or penetration) . B.Centre Structure (3/4). Can only be destroyed if side armor is depleted (and/or with armor penetration). C. Stern Structure (1/8). Can only be destroyed after stern armor is depleted or if side armor is depleted (and/or with armor penetration). This means destroying Bow Structure can only be done from the bow or either side/broadside attacks, Stern Structure can be destroyed from the stern or either broadside attacks but Centre Structure can only be destroyed from either broadside attacks (not from bow or stern, unless through armor penetration). Bow and Stern Structures deplete first before Centre Structure. So now a player can still stern rake, camp, and destroy 1/8 of the centre structure but then they have to go or face the broadside to destroy the rest of the centre structure. Very low ranked ships could destroy 1/8 aft against larger ships (or 1/4 if bow rake aswell) but then they would have to go broadside to face the full might of the larger ship broadside. This would restore some balance between ships of different sizes or ranks. However, armor angling would have to be restored to previous values, you couldn't allow centre structure depletion from a bow or stern position. Armor/planking should be a thing. Ships of close rank will still have completive battles, nothing changes there and still be somewhat based on player skills. But taking on a Victory with a Snow would be gone for good.

As Nick already said, set taskforce to high repair level and they should return to port for repairs.