Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tousansons

Members2
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Tousansons last won the day on February 18

Tousansons had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

109 Excellent

About Tousansons

  • Rank
    Ordinary seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This was especially true the day we learned that the first UA:D dev team was three people. We'll see how this go with the new expanded one, even if it will mostly be slow. Graphics are a good way to attract a portion of the playerbase, for better or worse UA:D is a decent looking 3D game. We'll have to wait and see if they can improve in the areas where he is clearly lacking (ship designer, battle UI), add the missing features (crew, for exemple) and if he can deliver an enjoyable campaign. While retaining it's good look. I agree that it was probably a mistake to go 3D. There se
  2. You already made your choice as the tone of your post is clearly showing. I don't think you'll change your mind and I fail to see the point of your post. Well done, you win. Very bold and courageous comparison. RTW engine is pretty light, allowing a lot of abstraction a game like UA:D can't. But it is also the result of Y.E.A.R.S of active development. Rule the waves is only one game with the engine, they also released Steam and Iron before that who was pretty much only the core battle system with no campaign and only historical scenarios. They had a painfully long beta for the two R
  3. I'm going to nitpick. Putting the best admiral/captain in history in a ship manned by incompetent will only result in mild disaster at best. Crew training is more important on ship level than having some cool name at the helm, even if it "can" boost morale. I know i'm not the best person to talk about "realism" and "accuracy", I'm even more enclined in gamey elements. On the other hand, UA:D is not an historical game. You deviate from history the moment you create your first warship with the nation you choose to play. In UA:D there is no reason to have a Beatty, Darlan, Nagumo or whatever
  4. My mistake then. That show how much I play UA:D these days too I guess. This was defintely a nice touch without the need of any player input.
  5. We have already a few ranging shots when firing at long range against a target, this is automatic. We also have the option to separate Secondaries and main battery target. I'm all for more options in game, on the other hand I'm not sure it would add anything than "more microgestion". Perhaps a toggle on the campaign map that allow to "conserve ammunition" or "always full salvoes". Definitely not an option per ships in battle though.
  6. The long awaited roadmap is here \o/ I'm curious to see how naval dominance will influence a war between two nation and how "victory objectives" will be set. I'm also sad that we'll need to wait more before being able to save design in custom battles. Good luck with 2021.
  7. Modding doesn't work like that. A game is not "tailored" and "balanced" for modding in the first place. The game mechanics and all other elements are designed to work within the game scope, not some fan made content happening after release. There can however be some tools or things making modding "easier", but this is a topic to discuss when the game will be close to release. On the other hand, we can discuss about the fact that hulls/towers are just some historical skins adding bonus to the ensemble. I don't really mind it, although it feels gamey and in the end there is no point in chos
  8. I remember reading that crew and their mechanic was scheduled for the first iteration of the campaign. We all know what happened from there. Still eager to try the new formation mechanics with an hopefully improved pathfinding.
  9. It will become a more valid complaint if the campaign ship with this poor early year hull selection. I'm just seeing them focusing on the more visible and well known ship hulls to keep us waiting while they are working on other gameplay elements. In my opinion it is a bit too soon to complain about them "skipping" anything. Although the development is really slow and I can understand that a few shiny end game new hulls is starting to feel not enough.
  10. If having less copy pasted hull for the year XXXX make the dev team focus more on the numerous core gameplay issues listed in several threads and for a long time. I couldn't care less. For exemple right now I'm more interested in having my copy pasted hull not run into each other when I order some basic movement while retaining some semblance of historical doctrine of the time period. About new player impression, I don't really know. UA:D seems already lost between people expecting to recreate historical ships (and not being able to because it's not an historical game) and those who
  11. What's cool with projects is that they always sounds awesome when they are imagined. Then, 5-10-15 years later if the prototype is finally completed, this sound just like a colossal waste of money and time. Battleships are dead.
  12. Now I'm seriously impatient. Richelieu est très jolie, oui oui.
  13. It's as you said a fix. A bandaid while waiting for a better solution. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely needed right now, but it doesn't add much to the "realism" of naval combat other than being able to sink a crippled ship while stern chasing him.
  14. Kancolle si soo much better than Azur Lane è_é There is also Rule the Waves 2. Choose wisely.
  15. A new formation system and some kind of improvement with the damage model, now i'm impatient to try it out.
×
×
  • Create New...