Skeksis

At a guess, next weekend. 🤞

And the tally's just keep going up and up and up...

And remove Jutland.

Except for the Dev’s! How easy would it be to code at 10 ships each? But they haven’t. 30-40 ships per side is the peak of players skills, to what the game can challenge the player. The game is simply not going to limit itself to a few comfortable tasks, lets say 10 ships each, that would be ludicrous. E.g. a turn of 3-4 meetings of 30-40 ships each split into 12-15 battles (all straggle battles), That would be an endless series of battles per turn, endless rinse and repeats, no thank you.

So you wanta cut off the hand that feeds the game! Better still, break something that's not broke to improve something else? I don't think so. While unprioritized, my advice is with large engagements use the pause button every few seconds/minutes and step through every ship maintaining helms. a.k.a. git gud and play some ABBA.

New all-time peak, not bad team UADs. oh you should go and see this too, 270 new this month (but probably most of them this week with this release). Last 30 Days 749.6 +270.2 +56.36%

Unfortunately I have to disagree, again! Other than the 50 ship cap per side, DO NOT CAP BATTLES ANY LESS. Monster battles is the BEST PART OF THE GAME. Just 1 vote for the other team. Actually, currently, all battles are rather balanced, some big ones, some little ones, some outnumbered ones, all pretty damn good.

LOL that's because it's just been hotfix.

You've used the wrong hull, Modern Battleship I, it has different towers than the original Bismarck. Modern Battleship II, is the correct hull with correct towers.

This is exactly where NA has gone wrong and this is UADs first step at following suit. I.e. Making too many changes. I agree that Dev's have got everything right so far and I'm one for endorsing as such but IMO this would qualify as a change too far. Throughout, all inflationary weights must be consistent. Sooner or later and as not to repeat, Dev's must start locking down features.

In general all weights are inflated, hulls, towers, turrets, components, etc. Take the HMS King George V hull Modern Battleship I, the lowest available weight is 45000 tons but IRL it was 42000 tons. Some historical hulls are on par but mostly all hulls are overweight to start with. All components are overweight to be balanced for game tonnage designing limitations. But now armor has to be historically accurate but everything else is still above tier. This doesn't make any sense. Armor too has to have its inflated values. -1

Murphy's law struck bad but the upside is Dev’s now know about all the things to avoid. Especially for leading into map expansion.

Tension starts at -35, it takes over a year or more to build up to -100.

Well said Sir. It is better to focus on the bigger picture like the majors added into this patch, new citadel format, custom gun calibers, no immediate wars to start with and peacetimes. All very successful, from a development point of view.

If Dev’s stay on concept, i.e. diplomacy handles the player, then there’s going to be a section of unhappy players who don’t like being dictated too. Such as we have now, e.g. “alliances aren’t working”, “I choose peace but war continues”, “tension isn’t working”, etc. etc. etc. If Dev’s let players handle their own diplomacy (as inspired by RTW2), then it’s most likely everyone would be happier playing the game because it negates complains via own actions. And players still have the freedom to choose the same course as what the diplomacy generator would do anyway (historically). Works both ways. In this case a populist decision would have no impact on meta. IMO, examples like Shogun2 have set the standard (and still holds it too) and forever will mark success by them. Especially sandbox diplomacy. As sandbox you still have the freedom to not do "gamey" campaigns. Though, a war of independence II, does sound interesting.

You know what you could have is a 'sub-processing label', under 'Designing Ships' label, similar to what's in Custom Battles. This will tell the player that the game hasn't stall but is still progressing (but make sure it's updating throughout the process). E.g. There's some feedback on the steam forum of stalled games and "I can't wait" syndrome's. PS: oh yeah... have the hourglass to rotate from time to time!

bumped

Hmm, no save reset, honor and glory to you.

The final end goal is to overwhelm the whole world with naval superiority against different warring nations, to which that should last a full 50 years. That inherently means forcing nations to “stupidly” runout of ships and not to keep those nations furnished with ships for the full 50 years. Otherwise it'll be an endless war of 50 years against the same nation. What we have now is a stabilized timeframe of, lets say about 10-15 years against one or two nations. Expand the map worldwide and stack those timeframes end for end and what we will get is wars against different nations for the full 50 year cycle. I.e. the end goal. So yeah, IMO doomstacks (up to 30-50 ships per side) isn't a problem if we get the odd one throughout the whole 50 year campaign cycle.

Have you tried different campaign tactical options, such as deploying decoy taskforces. These will breakup enemy regional numbers into more manageable groups. Then you only fight battles which have your main battleships.

v1.08.2......a ? Hotfix. Fixed repairing taskforces at sea, only heavily damaged ships return to port now. No notes though, that one went in under the radar. Sorry scratch that, it only works sometimes! Well for 2 battles anyway.

You're right on the money! What we have is a stabilized version for the current mapped nations. I think too the final version will be a completely different beast to what we have now. Probably will shock quite a few players.

That’s your opinion. Mine is with so many players who don’t understand, cataloged by those “complains”, albeit it a lack of knowledge, is there nothing Dev’s can do. The lack of understanding is bought about by (average) players applying common sense to situations and coming up with zero answers. That’s called 'frustration' and it is relevant.

It’s the same topic, if mains can firer so should the secondaries and if secondaries can firer on a targets further away, they should be able to firer on closer targets.

Target Fast Speed, Target Manoeuvre and Target Ship Size combine total is what’s at fault here, stopping guns from firing. Fault because that’s not good gameplay. You're supportive of status quo?