Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Tankaxe last won the day on June 27

Tankaxe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About Tankaxe

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ah I was just against that super BBs we're impractical in RTW. But your point is made the AI desperately needs a template system
  2. Micro got how it works in one except for this bit. Not sure about Micro but to other people I hang out in the RTW community the battleship game is essentially over by 1925. No that's not because of carriers but instead that the AI doesn't have super BB templates to counter player ones. Indeed even playing as a non-USA/UK nation such as France, Germany and Russia can consistently come out of fleet actions outnumbered 3 to 1 by the infamous royal navy and win with a battle line of three super BBs. Quality is quantity and RTW has alot more nastier events for non-penetrating hits than
  3. Now your just putting words into his mouth I don't see how Henry is advocating deletion of the AI, nearly everyone here is talking about changing the AI to operate on a separate ruleset from the player. When were told on why we don't have X feature, such as modular ship designer, and the response is because AI obviously people would get upset about the AI. If the AI can't be taught to design ships then isn't it better to just give it templates with customized parameters? Keep in mind we're still getting new testers who feel scammed when the advertised modular ship designer is not r
  4. Ah AI this single topic just feels like it has more control of the project than us tester do lol. From ship design to combat the AI is somehow the prime reason that causes changes that become very controversial here from scrapping the original designer and dictating what ships the player should build. Anyways I still support a sort of template system for the AI to use. RTW had a similar mechanic and they didn't have as many issues with AI designs as UA:D has. Of course, they had a problem with late game AI ships being capped by treaty battleship while the player can build their sup
  5. Trust me everyone is just as confused as you are on why guns with the same caliber aren't unified into one aiming system.
  6. Also important to keep in mind that since the topic of Jutland was bought up that a major fleet action with Jutland like numbers is unbearable without a minimap. RTW gives you plenty of controls to keep large scale fleet battles from being too overwhelming but in UA:D the lack of a zoom out or minimap can easily have your formations spread apart without the player knowing until its too late.
  7. The US in general needs a standard hull to fill out its rather sparse 1914-20s selection. All we got is bigger South Carolina.
  8. Every update I always load up the same fleet battle to highlight the new stuff we are needed to test and to test out the general gameplay. Three battleships Two light cruisers and four to six destroyers in the 1916-1925 range. In nearly every single update their is one constant variable that always happens. The AI will as always be the first to spot my fleet and will have roughly two to four minutes freely engaging my battleships. Finally when I do spot the AIs battle ships (who have already turned to port and forming a lead advantage leaving me to force a turn to follow) the Romulan warbirds
  9. Yep and now imagine the frustration in campaign when the flighty AI runs from every fight because of how speed they stacked on their ships.
  10. Their is literally nothing the AI can do against a properly player built 21kt ship. It sacrifices too much armor just to go fast. Besides campaign is gonna look really awkward if all other nations are sailing at ridiculous speeds for the eras.
  11. That reminds me who back in the early days got a glimpse at the campaign like I did back in day from an old exploit lol. Buggy, unfinished and in alpha of alphas but it was briefly fun before it crashed.
  12. We've all seen it by now but for some reason the AI just keeps prioritizing speed over everything else. Things like a 26kt BB in 1911-14 is pretty eyebrow raising especially when you find that 9" of armor is the only thing protecting it. Makes sense for battlecruisers but something keeps forcing the AI that their battleships must go this fast as well. My solution is simple is that any design will have a speed limit per year so the AI doesn't waste so much weight on speed. The pre-dread era doesn't have any issues so they will be skipped. Early Dread era (1906-1909) will be har
  13. Curious maybe the designer should have a mechanic on the more turrets the more weight spent on a ships citadels as you have more to protect. Though that would require a armor overhaul.
  14. I've been thinking and I'm really concerned about Stillfronts portfolio and the vocal amount of players who like to do meme builds. The only reason the builds are possible is because the designer is a work on progress and I can totally Stillfront bludgeoning the game in that direction.
  15. I think you are over-estimating the overlap between the audiences of UA:D and World of Warships. They don't really compete one is more marketed as a grand strategy game and the other is more of a tactical MMO game. If anything they might nudge UA:D into the direction WOWS direction and that is going to make no one happy. While their targeted audience is 30+ males I don't think anyone here is going to be impressed if we're going to be forced to buy virtual currency and timers. We already have boat loads of the stuff as crappy mobile games.
  • Create New...