Skeksis
-
Posts
1,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Skeksis
-
-
And the tally's just keep going up and up and up...
-
1
-
-
Quote
This remove any possibility of having decisive battles.
And remove Jutland.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Urst said:
You are, quite literally, the only person who thinks this
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, mk4m said:
Maybe, for now the AI not fight in formations and not keep formations, almost every battle is big mess. Impossible recreate Tsushima or Jutland.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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% -
3
-
-
1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:
Once again, I have to come here to give the same feedback I have given again and again, and for some reason the devs stubbornly keep ignoring:
The number of ships which can be put on a task force need a hard cap
Hopefully this way the devs will finally notice it, because I have run out of resources in the english language to stress how badly needed is this.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.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, ZorinW said:
Fair point, still not a problem. Especially after the latest fix.
LOL that's because it's just been hotfix.
-
3 hours ago, ZorinW said:
I just don't understand how you guys struggle with the weight. I can build a Bismarck (+more speed and more heavy secondaries) and still stay below her historical tonnage.
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.
-
2 hours ago, o Barão said:
But the question I make is this. Isn't the best interest to have an enemy capable of challenging us in battle? If the mechanic tries to balance both designs and at the same time bring more realism to the game, is that a bad thing? Or you guys prefer to keep playing an arcade game and shooting fish in a barrel?
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
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, The PC Collector said:
My only reasonably guess is that they might need more people giving feedback.
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.
-
On 7/23/2022 at 5:13 PM, havaduck said:
Tension mechanic IS STILL NOT FIXED AND NOT WORKING AT ALL!
12 ships in the baltic where the germans have no ships:
And its a net gain in relations - what?!
Splitting the foces but making sure to outpower the germans in the baltic 10:1! yes thats 10 to fúcking one.
Doesnt do shit. No change in any relations except the merry lets be friends anywhere.
Putting the fleet into the north sea so the main battle fleets are staring at each other and you know, generate tension?
Doesnt do didly dick despite outpowering them 4:1.
Remember when Great Britain nearly declared war on Russia during the Russo-Japenese war that culminated in the Battle of Tsushima when the Russians fired on their fishing trawlers in the North Sea? Meanwhile, I can get the AI to stop licking my ass with enthusiasm because they love me so much with the fleets on the stance that "generates maximum tension".
On 7/24/2022 at 4:58 AM, havaduck said:Thats what I thought and its also exactly what ive been doing. I went to get some groceries and had the game deleted and did a full fresh install.
Coming back, I tried ONCE AGAIN and once again its fúcked. This time I went with an auto generated fleet because I just couldnt be arsed anymore and I figured it would give more ships/tonnage which it did.
So once again, sending ships everywhere:
And it just doesnt do shit.
Some more exercises in futility with different positions:
The entire high seas fleet is in the North Sea and at most is good enough to not have the relations going up.
This is literally unplayable and its been reported with documentation over and over again.
Tension starts at -35, it takes over a year or more to build up to -100.
-
2 hours ago, Grayknight said:
But truth is that it is rapidly geting better and morę complex.
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.
-
15 hours ago, Tréville said:
but just being able to go to war with whoever seems very gamey for what the game is otherwise going for.
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.
-
3
-
-
Quote
PS. If the game, much more rarely than before, seems to stall while generating ships or a windows message appears which says the application is not responding, just choose to wait, and the game will progress. We will repair the remaining issues in a next update.
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!
-
2
-
-
-
40 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Dear Admirals,
We offer another important update which addresses several of your recent requests. More importantly, we have repaired a major portion of the old memory leaks issues, which became more apparent when the campaign became expanded with more features and nations. You should notice a significant improvement in fps performance and much better game stability. There are many other fixes, balances and enhancements which you can read below.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1069660/view/3390665221822194463
Hmm, no save reset, honor and glory to you.
-
12 hours ago, The PC Collector said:
The problem isn't that I can't fight the doomstacks. Is that they make the AI run out of ships stupidly fast. The fact that there are ways to counter it, doesn't invalidate that they are a problem the devs should address ASAP
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.
-
2
-
-
29 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:
doomstacks
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.
-
-
17 minutes ago, Sonar said:
Just an FYI here, don't think too hard on the economy money. The map should be expanding to the entire world right? It doesn't matter what the economy balance is like now, it'll have to be rebalanced later.
EDIT:
Also: Ottomans when?
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.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, o Barão said:
There is no reason to complain here
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.
-
1 hour ago, o Barão said:
values nerf against small ships, that is another topic
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.
-
29 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Yes it is. All guns with less 0.3% accuracy will not engage the target unless you set to agressive.
The main guns are working fine because in this situation, the accuracy value, at this distance is enough for them to start firing. (Above the minimum 0.3% at normal condition)
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?
>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)
in General Discussions
Posted
At a guess, next weekend. 🤞