Tousansons

Why quote my post who have nothing to do with what you're trying to say then? Perhaps you misunderstood it? I don't mind neutral designation and I think using real names can be confusing for some. Also other posts already stated that UA:D is not historical so there is no real point in using real name on hulls/part.

"Because if it is named "fuso hull" some less creative people will automatically gravitate towards creating a fuso. Those same less creative people will then bash the game design because there is only 1 or 2 buids they can do on a hull." I don't know how you got to that conclusion with my post. But let's agree to disagree here.

Naval Action is pretty much a multiplayer game with microtransaction and a whole lot of grind. If they can make a game like that, it's not hard to switch to mobile games. Buying "cheap" and somewhat experienced programmers/artists and probe the mobile market with them is not unheard of. Keep in mind that it is too early to claim that these horror stories will happen, but corporate history is grim enough to be concerned by these kind of move. Yet. Now for the big reveal about a multiplayer game where you design warships and fight in Le epic 15v15 battles.

On the contrary, I think most of the people still here have a genuine interest in the game and at some point want it to succeed. They see a post about a new upcoming patch and take some of their time to write what they think about it. The fact that it is not necessarly positive doesn't mean that they don't care. The issue is not the delays or complexity. 5 months into 2021, the first core patch stated for release is still a mistery for the players. Like I wrote a few post earlier, why not let us see what the progress in this area look like? We could talk about it, see that something is indeed worked on, ect.

There was discussions and there is still some from time to time now. But you can't really discuss when you have nothing on the plate. These past months, we have really nothing to write about because Game labs have not really shown any progress in the real meat of the game (it's campaign). Forum deterioration is not only due to players, like you seem to point (correct me if I'm wrong) It's usually a lack of communication between devs -> players, a lack of moderation and of course, internet people being internet people. Invitation only is not a good solution mid to long term. At best it will create an echo chamber where only one set of ideas are the norm.

We all know that the first battleship of Imperial Japan is and will always be Kiyoshimo I don't mind the neutral designation. While a bit gamey, they're here just to give a hint about what the hull/part is, even for that guy who doesn't know what the hell is a Fuso or Borodino.

Enthusiasm is nice and all but is there really some progress in visible development lately? It is basically the same patch note as the previous alpha: new hulls, some fixes, some "balancing", change in AI behavior and auto-build... Perhaps some small bits of informations about what is being worked on in parallel of these filler patches could make us players a bit more interested in them?

Fuso, "not exactly" Tone and fires. Some things to check while waiting. I'll be ready :D.

No. It doesn t add much and the time period is already too wide for this game. No need to bloat it even more.

A decent (and slightly old) BC is not that expensive and can scout or raid like a cruiser because of her speed. Right now if one 1910+ BC engage 2 1910+ cruisers, I'm pretty sure she can either win in a few hit or flee if needed. Better yet, an even older 1910+ refitted BC can still old herself very well against more modern 1920+ cruisers and this time, her initial price has been washed away by 10 years of active duty. BB's and BC's cost more in theory, but they can remain active and relevant way longer than DD's and cruisers, especially without the threat of air power. RTW has the same "problem" that cruisers are too expensive for their theorical value. You still build some, but they're clearly not meant for front line and used exclusively for commerce raiding/prestige farming. Also the fact that cruisers can face BC's in cruisers engagement doesn't really help them. While money can be important, I prefer limiting factors like naval treaties and geographic limitations like port/dock size in more remote areas.

All the cruisers/DD's lovers hope that too. We just need to be prepared for disapointment in this area. We'll see how treaties go. But in a naval game about dreadnoughts I think most "big" battles will be fought and won by BB's and BC's. At the very least it will be more cost efficient and less risky, depending on the AI quality. Cruisers in a BB fight are asking for troubles. And if there is not enough restriction, why scout/raid with a CA/CL when you can do it with a BC?

Hard to define a winning strategy with so few information as to how campaign will go in terms of objectives/numbers of war, ship requirement, technology randomization, naval treaties, ASW patrols, commerce raid and so on. Following the line of BB during peace and DD during war is indeed the safe bet. The probable money surge in war time is also a good moment to start new lines of BB's that will be finished when war is over, repeating the cycle. "If" they follow the RTW formula a bit too closely. BB > BC > DD. The rest is just score pinata or locked in ASW patrol/commerce raiding.

Feel free to expand it.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about download speed.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought is still advertised as a game of "what if". Super BB's and techs are as much needed as old pre-dreadnoughts. If they focused early on moderns, superships, 20 inches and quad guns, we can hope they will now fill the gaps in earlier dates. Especially with the first pass on the campaign "soon". Blaming players is a scapegoat. The devs are sole responsible for their actions, their target audience and advertising. It's also their fault if we keep asking for better armor/penetration, better ship designer and all they deliver is bandaids with tweaks we should see only in a completed game.

Tweaking doesn't need to make sense. These value can probably change in the next patch if there is someone vocal enough to start a new thread about it. Changing numbers is easy and can please a few people. Yes, it sounds bad because it is. I'm against these changes since the beginning. There is more important things to do, these kind of changes just confuse everyone as to what the final product will be.

R&D and enemy economy is hard to figure out with fixed ship design, I agree. While i'm sure something can be done to show an AI strugling to rebuild a navy after a long and costly war, be it with less ships or skipping some types entirely. I'll personnaly have to wait and see what the campaign is all about before offering elegant solution on "how" the AI will build these fixed designs. On the other hand, we also don't know how random design will handle this situation either. In theory it is indeed better, "if" it can be smart enough. Which I have my doubts on seeing how the differents AI works right now. An interesting point that could effectively work with random designs from the beginning. while fixed design will require some time to be added to the game (hence why I first wanted a pool expanded by developpers and players) My opinion on the matter could very well change if I'm under the impression that the current AI designer can do something interesting about that. But like the above, I'm waiting for the first pass on the campaign, is it interesting to fight against slightly different random designs each time or not? This was my initial question. edit: never write when in a hurry.

The player will build ships according to it's most likely enemy, with the best technology and best use of it's money. There is nothing universal, god like or death star. Re-read what I am writing. I'm not even talking about AI design here, but player design choices in response to a percieved threat. Technology will be different depending on the nation, probably even somewhat randomized during a playthrough (this is in the game campaign description) Depending on your wars, your losses, events and diplomacy, I don't see money being a fixed value either. I said from the begining that fixed design will improve gameplay by offering things like better flavor to nations and why not allow in the future a better player ship designer. Random design doesn't add enough to the gameplay, this is what I said. A random number of gun is still just a random number of guns. Fixed ship design will also build ships with X*X inches and the player will react to them. What is your point here? I never said something about guns and calibers having no impact.

Yet it is still a "best" ship with all these factors in mind. Don't you agree? Technology, events, money, player ships built is variety and create replayability. A random number of guns is just a random number of guns. Painting a ship in red instead of green add nothing. Do I need to repeat the same things every time?

Literally what I wrote: And: What does money change? Regardless of the type of AI ship design (random or fixed) a player is asked to build the best ship with the best technology and money available against a percieved menace. It's not up to me deciding how this factors will come into play, good game design will make sure you can't just have a death star for five euros and will also make sure to punish a player over ambitious counter to a specific ship. Again, technology, events, ressources, etc. My initial post is about removing the random AI ship design and replacing it with a fixed one, not deciding how the campaign will work (we have a pretty clear explanation in the front page) A fixed AI design can still create easier uniformity or flavor to a nation navy, facilitate player assessment of a threat with clearer enemy ship patterns and liberate the player ship designer to allow greater flexibility. I get the initial concerns about replayability but in my opinion the campaign environnement should already offer enough branching with events, ressources, player built ships and diplomacy to create it, not because of a number of guns, but because of player choices.

If the tech tree is just "better" techs allowing "better" parts, the player will build the "better" ships and in the end use the "best" combo with it's available technology against the percieved enemy menace. The type of AI ship design doesn't really come into play here, in the end the player have to build "better" if he want to win. Real life navies usually tried to build ships with the idea of defeating their most likelly opponent. In a strategy game, intelligence of what the enemy is doing is an important part of game design. I doubt UA:D campaign will not allow the player to atleast have some informations about other nation ships at any point.

In ditching AI random ship design, we can still improve "replayability" by making player choices matters more than a random generator. Be it by diplomacy, events, technology, ect. I believe there is more interesting ways to create content in a game than a random number of guns and armor thickness in a hull.

Something is bothering me since I started playing at the start of Alpha. What is the point of the random (and sometimes nonsensical) AI ship design? Does it add something of value to the game other than the "easy" way to make the game create ships? Is it here to stay? With the current AI design, naval academy can be a dice roll not only because a naval engagement is often random, but because ship design are also random for your friendlies and the enemy. The puzzle nature of the mission lose some of it's meaning if we can win due to the AI ship design doing some mistakes. Custom battles are the same, we can't really try out cool ships if the enemy often create some unbalanced ones against them. Testing in general is also more time consuming because of that. How will the campaign AI work? With the current designer, is the AI able to create some sort of uniformity and "doctrine" of ships in a fleet? Can it keep the pace during 40 years? Finally, without some kind of pattern, adapting player design to fight efficiently against AI ones will be hard. Right now, I'm still not impressed by AI design and think it is detrimental to the game, even after several patches and improvement. There is only a few cases where procedural and random add something in term of gameplay and in my opinion enemy generation is not one of them. A solution for the long term developpement of the game is to abandon the random AI designs and settle for something simpler and easier to balance. A pool of designs per types and nations that can be expanded as the game improve, either by developpers or players input. I think this solution will add flexibility in both difficulty selection and interesting enemy ships in campaign and naval academy. Enemy fleet could be designed to work better together in term of speed, armament, range. Like the real navies tried to do. And most importantly, it also could lead to more drastic change in the ship designer itself, allowing greater freedom for the player without the risk of the AI being unable to create something decent. PS: I think this is more related to AI and it's general effect in the game than the ship designer itself. If some of you think differently, feel free to move the topic in the shipyard.

The game should first let us build Dreadnoughts before fantasy floating fortresses with guns. We need some form of limitations.

If we have carriers or fantasy land warships. I'm confident missiles will not break balance more than that.