SiWi

In light of the campaign, I think I have a couple of good ideas for it: Handling ship classes: right now I find it unnecessary difficult to tell ship classes apart in battle or deployment, because only in the fleet list it tells you the class. Which can be confusion when you have an class which is a upgrade of an existing ships. Easiest solution would be: give the option that the class name is shown next to the name. Another feature would be that ability to create a "name list" for a ship class. The idea would be that if I make a new class I can assign a list of names the game would pick names from. If I build the "Stadt" Class Crusier as germany I could then sort all city names to the class that I see: its named after a city, its a "Stadt" class, while another ist the "Fluss" class and named after Rivers. I find this more convenient then renaming all ships. This would also have the option of using the names the game already knows and adding your own into the list. "Identification book": I made a thread a while ago, that some sort of intelligence mechanic (see here ). Now with the campaign here I like to renew this case. Especially I would like to see a "know ship/class" feature where the game records all enemy ships encountered and identified after ship class. I think that could be a very cool feature, given you in a bigger campaign you could then look up the different classes your enemy has build and counter them or simply guess what new classes could be like base on the old. Fleet policies/Strategies: I would like a feature where I can make general fleet decisions. For example "let magazine open" "+10 reload +20 Flash Fire chance", which would simulate me as Admiral making decisions how the fleet handles. Some of it is in the technologies but I would like designate of ships to each other, so I could build a "romeo and julia" (the Sowjet. Submariens I mean here) dynamic for 2 ship classes. And I would like to given orders for certain ship classes (or just ships) to search certain missions more. For a BC, I maybe want to avoid all battle encounters but rather want raids. A DD maybe is suppose to be a an escort class. And so on. Something which gives me tools to influence the missions I get.

Hi, I want to give my general though about the first version(s) of the campaign. Generally speaking I like them very well and was positively surprise, at least for the first campaigns (before 1920). The Mission generator seems to work okay and usually isn't too unfair. Exception being "ambush" were my TB spawn directly on top the enemy BB that one instanly shot its torpedo and the BB had no chance to doge. Ship class balance seem also to generally work, because the cruiser usually end up fighting other Cruiser so they stay relevant. Both TB and DD's prove extremely useful and powerful even without the Submarine mechanic (which I honestly don't look forward to...) I honestly was also a bit surprise that 2 inch guns are really useful in 1890 and even 1900. There are of course alot of problems but generally speaking I do like playing the campaign. Some of them are know problems (like certain fire angle problems in the ship designer) others are campaign only problem (player given less money to build their own fleet then auto creation). And of course the limitation of 2 nations which have to fight one war in a campaign (I really would like an option to stay in the campaign from 1890 to the end of time line with multiple wars between the two nations) does limit the experience as expected. Still the foundations do look solid to me.

thank you for doing the math I was suspecting it given that even if I go for "medicore" ships and not the best current ships I could, I still end up with less then 5 ships...

I just won the 1920 german campaign with 2 ships...

it surely gives more meaning to certain choices thou I think quality over quantity is still the way to go even if you are outnumber and blockaded for a while

I had no 1920 campaign unlock (won both UK and german 1920) thou maybe they don't count because I "won" though revolution edit: patch fixed it

I think the "mighty jingles" had some old videos on that which explain it.

if not you inform us?

reread the first post

me too. I do expect it to be "messy" in some ways but there is where feedback can come in.

Since you bring this up, that also said all 4 patches would come THIS year. What happen to that?

it is very nice to finally see the first campaign. thou it is disappointing that it starts as "endless ship grinder to the death", and I wonder what I'm suppose to do without ship movement on the campaign map, but at least it is a start and I will give it a try. What I do hope is that the Enemy has a consisting fleet and not that the game randomly creates the ships a new in every battle.

well technically they told us that tall those 5 patches are suppose to come this year. Thou I would be lying if I would say that I'm not skeptical. 2 months is not much time for 5 patches, even in more normal circumstances and the devs do struggle to keep schedule.

I know but what I mean was that the game was that way because it has also the land section/the ability to use ship crews on land. So as I suggested in the OP? DD 1 CL 2 CA 3 ect?

the thing is that I think that they "can't" do that because in Age of Sail those are also the commanding officers if you disembark your crew on land. Which I don't think will be a thing in Dreadnought. I do think that the officers you named are likely but I do think it could be over kill to do that to every DD or even Torpedoboat...

He pick the radio up and gave them a pepp talk? Or did something himself (like Napoleon supposedly aim the cannon himself in 2 battles) Anyway. I do like the idea of trade-offs, especially the example fits very well. Thou I would put those in the "higher" skill tree, while the more straightforward aka only positive skills would be the lower ones.

Hi, given that the 2nd core patch, which is suppose to come this year and after it 2 more patches, shall feature "officers and crews" and think it would be nice to have a little chat about what "we" want and don't want and what we are hoping for. I personally hope that we get some RPG elements for our officers. Now now I do see a potential issue, as that if we look at fleets with 100+ DD alone then Management of Officer skills could be very annoying. Now one potential way to avoid some of that would be to say that the numbers of officers is connected with ship "size" (read as "class") aka that a DD only would get "1 officer" (in the sense as skill-able) while a light cruiser gets 2 a heavy cruiser 3 and so on. Now in the example that still would mean hundreds of officers to control, but it would limit it a bit. Another way would be that only admirals would get skill trees (thou the announcement somewhat contradicts this since it says "officers" not admirals). Or maybe that Admirals have skill trees and officers have perks, but don't level or only level that one perk. Another topic I would like to discuss is "what kind of "skills"" you want? Should it be "active" skill? "Faster reload" for 20 seconds? Or do you want passive buffs "reload +5%"? Or a mixed? I have a feeling that many would object to active skills, because it would feel gameny, but lets see. I think a classic Approach would be to have 3 skill trees, not to unsimilar how TW does it: one for firepower, where better reload, faster aiming time, faster identification ect. are in one for Defence/Speed, with less cooldown for smokescreens, better damage control, less change to detonate ammo ect. one for campaign issues, less upkeep, better movement (on campaign), maybe better chances for certain mission types or prebattle identification. Personally I would like to see mostly passive skill with a couple of active skills sprinkle in. I also would like to see skills which can alter how you use a fleet, depending who commands it. With that I mean things like "better nightvision" or "mine avioder" things that give you different options, because you have that admiral/officer for that fleet. But enough of me, what do you guys think about "officers"?

agree, having the option to have "historical" campaigns and some where "everything can happen" would help the game greatly.

Posting the Roadmap is nice now you have to follow it up with "walk the Roadmap". besides of course the campaign I really hope that the teams does something interesting with crews and officers. RPG elements would at least for me be most welcome, thou I do admit I see that it could be a problem to have 4 officers per each of you 143 DD's...

personally I would love to some soft RPG elements where you have option to skill your admirals, captains or officers. Or different archtypes. One engineer given you more speed another better damage control ect.

Well mr "genius" the US did think they could build 80K tons displacement (mind you, in 1917) and considering that they have the panama canal to consider when designing, the claim of "physicly impossible" seems to be outside of reality. Now "logistical impossible" maybe. But that would be adjusted by campaign mechanics, which are hopefully good enough to do that or at least put serious risk on a "super battleship" doctrine. Also "mr Genius" I have not argued against the focus on core mechanics vs more battleship hulls, I argued against the limitation in the name of "realism", especially since it is still in the realm of thinkable. And bigger ships were and are "thinkable". In fact I wasn't even directly talking to him, until he talked to me directly. Not that you would have notice that because reflecting what you think I'm talking about is more fun then actually read what I wrote. besides it is still funny to me that a certain group here plays outrage, that a game about designing your own ship, allows for unhistorical designs. Don't you guys are better served with a game without a builder that simple provides the historical models of the ships? Why even bother with a ship designer if you only want the historical designs? (notice how I don't argue against working on the core mechanics? probably not...)

so you are against designs that were though of but not put into reality in the name of "realism" in a sandbox "build your own ship" game?

what has the displacement to do with "underlying systems"?

it somewhat amazes me that people are surprise/outrage that a game about building alternative ship design allows to build not historical designs...

they probably landed all in places already flooded...