[2inch CIWS + mega dreads]

Do you think you can make guns that are below 2 inch to be auto cannon? Idk how much you can modify the numbers but something along the line if the 2inch gun is modified to be below 2inch, the reload gets better? Would be great to see the german 20mm AA guns and 40mm bofos guns. Right now, the reload for guns like 37mm just don't represent auto cannon even with 1940 tech.

[>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)]

1 hour ago, Steeltrap said:

Any plans to do anything about the Borg sighting?

It's plain, old fashioned bullshit to say a ship can fire at you from 17km away because a DD can see you from 3km away.

That simply WAS NOT THE CASE in any effective measure, or indeed largely AT ALL with the exception of shore bombardment, but that's an entirely different gunnery situation. Not until late into WW2 did ships have effectively fully integrated radar in their fire control suites. Even those continued to train optics on their targets when possible because of issues around radar effectiveness at spotting fall of shot and thus making corrections.

Seeing videos of ships in 1900-1912 doing it is just dumb and lazy. It was equally the case 2+ YEARS ago when I and others raised it.

I've not bothered with the game since it went to Steam, but I've watched videos of others playing. The same old issues with combat remain as best I can see. MAX Bulkheads = Zombie apocalypse fleet, for example.

When things like the specific issue I mentioned get addressed, plus the many other important (with respects to claims of realistic) issues raised, then it might start to look promising again.

Cheers

p.s. Interesting how few of the names around from those times appear to have stuck at it. Can't remember when I last poked my nose into this forum.

Most dedicated players that wanted more realistic depiction in various department of the game have moved on I'm afraid; especially those with access and are familiar with various source materials and are willing to see the game go toward the realism direction.

I know it's falling on deaf ears but my hope of changes toward the battles are:

Change the spotting and modify gunnery system to be more realistic doing away with the current arcady spotting distance, and the wacky -99% target fast speed penalty. Beside the WOWS spotting system, this speed penalty thing is wild. An example: I made 2 Shimakaze vs 1 Baltimore Cruiser (both 1940 tech). I had both design to be very good in game with low pitch and negligible stability problem. And somehow... the Baltimore cruiser failed to kill both DD for 40 mins plus. Both destroyers with 40.5knts, somehow gave my cruiser with the latest radar tech (radar III), armed with 3x3 8inch/55, 6x2 5inch/38, and ~12x4 1.6 (40mm) inch AA gun, a -99% accuracy penalty. I kid you not, both destroyers got within 500m of my cruisers without dying; the 8inch simply refused to fire, the 5inch got off like 3 salvos, and my 40mm AA guns simply missed like 80% of the shot at that moment. It took my 8inch half of its ammo count to actually kill both of these destroyers at 5km. That is neither realistic, NOR FUN to play. I tried having my ship going at cruising speed, I tried it at max speed (33 knts), it did not matter.

Internal fire and fire in general needs to be extremely dangerous regardless of time period. A ship should not be able to put out fire in completely destroyed sections of a ship, not constantly taking out fire like it's as easy as snuffing out a candle.

More pronounced flooding damage. It was great at the start of the last beta testing with ships sinking due to inability to 100% stop flooding. It was a too much however, but a complete nerf (nearly removed outright) was not justified. It made flooding hits dangerous. It just needs more system to work with (like player and AI can focus crew toward dealing with the flooding) so a single lucky flooding hit would not completely sink a BB.

After all of that, the last thing about battles that need a look at is the ship deployment menu at the start. We should be able to deploy the ships like how Total War allow the player to place units at the start. If this isn't possible, at least in the campaign map, allow the player to customize division and what ship leads what division in a fleet; and possible formations that could be adopted before a battle start (with exception of ambushes).

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

2) Technology randomization by Caliber.   Currently there is a pretty obvious flow to the "upgrade" of Turrets.   Your Heavy cruiser better start with 9" cannons because they will be upgraded to Mk2 before any other size.   Make what comes in what order Random for each game cycle...  Leave the unlocking of new calibers (eg 13") in the same general place, but what gets upgraded to the next level in what order could be randomized to prevent min-maxing builds.

This game has the ship building mechanic and instead of expanding on how it would interact with the campaign... they opted for something too straight-forward. In my opinion, the technology that we research should be influence directly by the type of ships that we build or the planning of ships. Instead of just waiting for technology just randomly get better, we should be pushing technology toward a direction by drawing up ship blueprints. It's more work for the devs: like we would need to break up some tech nodes for this to work like separate gun house and the gun itself as an example. But the result would be glorious.

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

11 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Having visible ranges is very good way to balance different classes within the same instance, thus keeping that variety of class each with its own purpose. If all were visible then it’ll be a rapid death of destroyers to cruisers, cruisers to battleships and battleships in a slugfest to the horizon, every battle.

At some point realism has to be balanced for gameplay. If there’s a game with total visibility realism then good on them.

But in UAD even blind-firing enemies challenges the player, you cannot deny that. Sure it’s demanding when you can’t shoot back but that just forces the player to mobilize their fleet to overcome those odds. The whole visibility system/mechanics is integrating with... well… everything, big ask to change. 

More often than not, requests to remove is driven by players who just wants to ‘ease’ the challenge. I’ll be very surprised if GameLabs action such a challenge reduction.

That's just straight up bullshit. I'm sorry but you really need to stop putting words in other people mouth. Nobody who wants a better spotting system wants to dumb the game down, at least the people that I have interacted on this forum. Every single one of us who wanted it changed had given documentations, wrote probably half a PhD. thesis worth of content on possible changes and suggestion to move toward a campaign spotting system. Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true...

Right now, invisible destroyers/TB with broken AI formation only makes it so that the player has to build a fleet that has the smallest number of ships but insanely broken in order to dodge torpedo effectively while killing these ships as fast as possible to get close to their capital ships for the easy kills. Moving magic spotting from the battle to the campaign map will force the player to build a balanced fleet. Not enough DD, CL will make sure your fleet is completely blind because cruiser actions will stop your fleet from scouting thus the game should force the player into disadvantageous fleet ambush battles in those instances. Instead right now, CLs and DDs are glorified temporary magic invisible spotters; that's just terrible gameplay. Nobody benefits from the current system. The AIs that are focusing on CL and DD get stomped by other nations because right now everyone can afford somewhat the same fleet (like somehow A-H getting more ship than the Brits in 1900), and AI auto resolves make sure they lose in the long run. Meanwhile in battle, these invisible ships are there to annoy the player in a shitty way but are almost useless against the aforementioned godly capital ships.

There are so much you could do with campaign map cruiser (light ships) gameplay instead of invisible ships in  battle but I guess I'm just playing an instrument for a water buffalo (or barking up the wrong tree if you prefer English).
 

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

8 minutes ago, aradragoon said:

I agree with the first part but I have to say the last part is just wrong. What is disappointing is despite so many early access games out people STILL have no idea how alpha/early access works.  Yes this is still alpha, the game is NOT feature complete yet. (As evidenced by this update which is in testing and introduces large parts of the campaign)

Alpha will address many bugs but the intent is to keep a relatively stable platform and add all features into the game in a working fashion. Then get a general workability and general balance.

The problem isn't just the bug. The problem is that there are so many bugs I cannot tell which is intended and which is a feature (dead serious). The current problem of partial pen, I noticed it for awhile now, but I wasn't sure if it's wacky armor calculation, AI over-armoring their ships, or as some people now suggest the game is mistaking deck hit percentage with belt hits. We all expect bugs and we're here to test the product. But we can only go so far without the debugging console and everything falls apart within 30 seconds of starting a campaign.

I just hope this game turn out to be good.

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

Yes...I understand it is testing. I just don't think it is worthwhile for current players or devs based on their demonstrated pace of work and all the problems that multiply with each "update." The devs get too distracted by multiple competing demands, and players are routinely disappointed. No one wins. The current model of "gradual progress" every week is obviously failing.

Though I agree with competing demands, communication is good. It is a learning experience for this team and I hope they are taking the right lessons from this game. Specifically, all of these could have been avoided had they pushed through the Covid time, being bought by another company, etc. and actually communicated while delivering updates akin to the current pace. During the Alpha stage, so many dedicated people wanted to give feedback, extremely detailed feedback to the team but more than half of the time all we got was crickets from the dev with nearly no update whatsoever. The smaller but dedicated playerbase would have been so beneficial to this team it's insane that they botched that entire thing.

I don't comment much here anymore just the occasional bug report in-game because I do not want to sound like I'm saying this isn't going anywhere concrete but I have to agree that the bug squashing is getting ridiculous as the game feels like it's being held upright by a 90 years old man trying to balance what amount to a car while rope walking across the Grand Canyon.

Tbh, this beta gave me a hello kittying anxiety attack because the amount of bugs that I encountered and I couldn't write much because I felt hopeless for the devs. I felt like so much potential was wasted, and like 99% of the ideas that so many talented naval history enthusiasts on this forum would never be implemented because they can't even make the campaign AI to actually be an AI and not 10 nested if statements.

Not sure if I should have wrote this...

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

Can we have two sliders for crews? I have 45,000 bench sitters doing nothing after a war with Germany. We should be able to reduce our forces once a war end.

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

1 hour ago, Plazma said:

1890-1900 the TB and DD are too powerfull! 

TB 1890 coins:

-short distance around 6000km

-survivability

But they can rip apart any ship including BB, maybe no 1 vs 1 (always), but 3-4 TB what cost summary 1 mln is able to sunk a BB what cost 4 mln, rarely taking loses (in ships). Low crew and cost alowe you to spam TB and build example 160 while the enemy for this same cost have problem with building 10 BB. CL, CA have similar problems... 

DD 1900 coins:

-Cost (if you lose ship, that happens you lose a lot of money)

-Short gun range (I believe in late 1900 campaign the range will be not sufficient) 

But right now I have battle while I have 7 DD vs 2 BB 1 CA, my ships don't have big problem with taking it down. Only 3 DD was hit and because they are; heavy, medium and light damaged. What is more funny that eneamy BB and CA was sunk because of fire. 

 

https://imgur.com/a/ll4KMRI

 

Right now I think...

3-4 DD can sunk BB

2-3 DD can sunk CA

1-2 DD can sunk CL

The cost of building my DD is 1,8mln and 130 crew, the cost of BB of Britain is 8,2 mln and 1000 crew. The most problematic part right now is no the money, but the crew and here is 7:1 for DD, cost 5:1. With DD I can always run away and the operating range is 15,000km. 

 

Conclusion DD and TB are OP.

YOUR DD and TB might be OP, but the AI's DD and TB sucks so bad the only time they actually do any damage is if you get bullshit unlucky with the current spotting system and random weather conditions working together to make you completely blind. If you nerf them even more... the enemy ships would just be useless, and they already are with the French Jeune Ecole playstyle being completely useless in the campaign for the AI and the French AI usually just get shit on even against Italy or A-H despite having like 110 ships in 1901.

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

23 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

I'm gonna rant a bit more on the topic of guns.  Believe me, I rant out of good will.   Set in stone or not, I may know the answer but I haven't been told it so I'll post anyways.

 

I made a suggestion awhile ago, and that in itself is basically all I want to say here, but the point is guns shouldn't be come up with on a whim, they should be a more long term choice and the player should have true input on designing them.   Any bit of replayability helps.

 

 

I really think we should get a detailed research for guns if they want to go with this kind of barrel length, diameter customization. Remove all the big gun tech and replace them with something like this. Say, we design a ship with 12inch L/55, the game should make it a research within the "big gun" section and it takes time to research the gun, once the gun is researched, the ship hull will take 1 month to complete after everything else is done if the entire ship hasn't finished and the ship is launched. The more 12inch L/55 +- 5 you make, the better that gun is. The bigger and longer the gun is and the earlier the player research those, the longer the research time and it should be long, the research money should probably only affect ~20% research time at max.You can also draw up ship design to research guns without making the ship; and you can only research 2 big guns at the same time to limit spam. You force people to build smaller big guns first by making it so that if the player design a BB with 14 inch guns in 1890 right away, it will take like 5-7 years just to research the base weapon meanwhile they are stuck with an 1880 12 inch starter gun which means the player will definitely lose the game since the AI will literally hit twice as accurate/fast with 1890 weapons within half a year or something. And since they skipped the 12 inch guns, at later dates, they will have to go back and develop 12 in guns if they want advanced 1920s 12 in guns. Right now, the game forces you to go all the way from 10 inch to 20 inch without any control.
And we need large guns that are 14-18inch during the 1890s, those existed in open turret and should be represented with the Mk1 weapons. Move the later turret 14-18 inch guns to Mk2.
Also, this will work nicely with separate gun house technology for better ship building experience which I think is a must have to fine tune ship designs to the player's liking.

This should make the game more about the player choices and their consequences. If the players focus too much on larger guns, they will find themselves heavily outnumbered and outshot by smaller and more numerous enemy ships at the point of the decision made as well as 40 years down the line if they refuse to change.

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

24 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

Well that is realistic.  The British were probably complaining of the same thing during ww1 when the germans kept their fleet in harbor avoiding combat. The hard thing is, realistic  AI is a non fun AI almost by definition. It needs some tuning but one cannot forget that pushing to one side harms the other.

 

Sea Warfare tends to be boring when you have the upperhand. The only way to change that would be a system to  setup an Invasion.  IT can be done, but that is a complex feature to make it right (if you invade a plaace you get resources but you need logistics  running for that place etc).

 

Realistic? Kind of. The problem is that the enemy right now will refuse all battle regardless of the balance of power unless they have like 5 times the force or whatever which is nonsensical because the game will randomly pull one or two out of like 25 Pre-Dreadnoughts that you have in 3-4 large fleets and try to suicide charge you with infinite Torpedo Boats. And problem is that your fleets seem like they do nothing since I am having 10 Pre-Dread, 5 CL, 5 TB blocking the English Channel yet the French and the Brits sail through them like they don't even exist. But as soon as I move one BB for refit, somehow they get intercepted in the North Sea against 2 BBs and escorts which is just the most nonsensical stuff in a strategy game... like how does a fleet gets through a 12 BB, 4CL fleet to attack a lone BB?

[>>> Beta 1.06 Feedback<<< (FINAL UPDATE 6th Release Candidate)]

27 minutes ago, Dave P. said:

I haven't seen anybody complain about the "god mode" button. If you hit "Reverse" not only does your ship stop dead, but it seems like the AI keeps using your original speed/heading to calculate their torpedo trajectories, so any more they fire will pass ahead of you too. It sometimes damages your engines but the crews usually get everything sorted in a couple minutes.

I wouldn't sit there frozen the entire battle - mobility is too useful - but it works to get your heavies past the enemy screen.

I assume this is unintended?

Might work if you are going under the cruising speed. Going at or above the cruising speed usually means your engine is irreparably damaged for the rest of the battle. And depending on the distance that the torpedoes are fired, it would only make sure that you have a damaged engine while eating the other half of the torpedo salvo.

[Clown Car Thread]

23 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:

I thought they had coded the AI not to have empty barbettes?

Surely the AI is fixed when enemy ships can still turn on demand when severely damaged to dodge torpedo. Surely the AI is fixed when they can't even get into formation without re-enacting the loss of HMS Victoria. Surely...

[What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

There's another problem with duds - the perception that the AI is cheating.

If two battleships are facing off with torpedo's and some of your torps are duds but the AI torps hit's home, then the reaction by the player will be that the AI has cheated. No way around this.

It's already hard enough for admins and supporting players to convince players who think the AI is cheating that it's all by player design or lack off. Throw in dud randomization and it will be impossible. 

Duds in a performance designing game isn't going to past very well.

I somewhat agree with this if dud is just straight up a number that can only be affected by random tech advancement chance so if the AI "luck" out in terms of tech discovery, you are fked for no reason (at the start at least). Devs will only need to make slight changes to technology development to fix this.

I want torpedo duds, but most of all, I want to see them be at least 50% less accurate than they are now. Only Seasoned and Veteran skill crews should have like -10% of the current torpedo accuracy. Right now, they are ~90% accurate give or take if the ship does not turn which is absurd.

[What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*]

18 hours ago, Littorio said:

- Lastly, I would still like to see, and have been pushing for since the autumn, an overhaul to visual backgrounds/weather. This is crucial in it's own right for full immersion and for the game to make sense (penalties to accuracy for being in a "full gale" while the sky and sea look normal???). But, it is also a stepping stone on the path to the mythical spotting redo that we all want to see someday. How can we have a true naval wargame with barely any visual differentiation and no true weather?

The game already does not make sense with this "spotting" system. Seriously... Every time I get hit by a torpedo attack because a DD "pop" into existence at 6km going 33knts straight at my BC or BB battle line, I reset because that's just straight up fantasy. And if I have to rely on an "AI" that sometimes decides not to dodge the torpedoes while I have no control over how the ships in my battle line turn then it's just bad design.

I really don't understand how the game wants to be realistic while a 1910 destroyer can be hidden 6-7km away from a battleship line. Look, I do not have a degree in engineering but looking at this chart from Engineers' and Mechanics' Pocket-Book by Chas.H.Haswell (1851):

Clearly, people... smart people in 1840s and very much since people started to travel by boats knew you could see an object... tens of kilometers away given the right condition: clear sky, no overcast. 

In this game, a BB, my most recent case, a German BB masquerading as a BC using the latest 1910 German conning tower/superstructure, in morning, clear sky cannot see a RN destroyer until ~6km in. Look at this drawing of SMS Seydlitz

using the scale on the picture, from the ship's waterline to the spotting top of the front superstructure, the position is ~30m (98.4ft) =~100ft from the water. Referencing the chart above, in good condition, you should be able to see up to 21.2 km (13.23 miles)!!!! And this is not taking in consideration the other ship's height.

The problem with the current gameplay for early time frame is that you cannot SEE where the enemy are or what they are up to unless you use a sacrificial lamb in form of some CL with 5.5 inches of armor so that they could live long enough (5.5-6 in allows 12 in AP round to overpen while HE can only slightly partial pen which is broken - taken from my most 2 recent campaigns) to give you info. And then with later technology, you don't even have to bother with this mechanic AT ALL. It's just frustrating to play with and the design is not even based on reality. Oh and the distance of 19in normal torpedo in 1910 is 6.1km. Thank god the RN only use fast torpedo at 4.1km else we would have stealth torpedo destroyers in 1910 in the middle of the day launching torpedo against a BB at 6.1km...

Certainly, you all you see this as absolutely ridiculous in any game that even touches the word realism/realistic.

@Nick Thomadis I know this is  going to take quite some effort but I would rather see one more, just one, change to the firing mechanic. Make it heavily based on the change of distance between the target and the shooter instead of what we currently have now. Make it so that my huge, tall ships can spot ship at realistic ranges but engaging them would requite my crew to acquire the the correct range and shots at 20km and beyond would require interwar tech. I want to be able to plan my attack going in, not hoping that my ship would "spot" an enemy in time in a naval strategy game.

 

18 hours ago, Littorio said:

- Naval Intelligence anyone? This should be a priority for campaign as it is, far more than simple "expansion." As it stands, test an intelligence system while the game is still relatively small, and uncomplicated. Expansion will just make it harder on the engine, more to keep track of. We need to be able to know what to build against, what vessels the enemy might have in which ports. This was crucial to naval warfare historically, and should be a top priority over simply making the game larger to appease Steam people dreaming of a world war...

Instead make the spotting/info part relegated to campaign/world map mechanics. My CL should be spotting enemy task forces... on the map... on the strategic level. Not spotting a DD 7km away from my BB while steaming like 3 km from it. Thank you for coming to my TEDTALK .

[What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*]

9 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

New Special Gun Calibers: A new design panel will allow you to edit the diameter and length of the gun barrels which will affect the gun statistics and their actual size on the ship. So, for example, you will be able to have calibers such as 13.5 inch for your guns before you research the next bigger 14 inch caliber. The variations of designs now will become extremely enriched, as each ship will look different also on the gun scales.

This is great. I still think we should be able to customize the gun house and the gun itself. Right now in most cases, the single gun turret is the exact same size as its double or triple guns turret except for some low caliber 5-6inch guns. Having the ability to modify the turret house would be great, we could have a larger turret house with less guns but more space for better loading system or longer shells, etc. all affecting the ship performance and hull integrity or whatnot. Is it feasible to develop such system?

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)]

24 minutes ago, slightlytreasonous said:

I feel like 70% losses is higher then you can ever really expect to encounter, and even then high for morale.   I think it should be more 30-40.  Also, I overlook it alot but I do think the timer falls under the class of "pointless block" for campaign battles.  

I feel like this is geared toward making sure torpedo boats and small destroyers do not float on 1% forever. I think we could maybe get different % for different classes of ships with further testing. Like... a BB losing 50% of its crew is very different from a torpedo boat losing like 10 guys out of 20.

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)]

2 hours ago, Terminus Est said:

Scouting and screening with DDs doesn't help? 

Ahhh yes, when your scouting ships needs to get right next to an enemy with 4 tubes/side vs your 1 tube/side. Truly fun.

Joke aside, scouting ships were never used to "spot" the enemy for other ships to fire at. That's WOWS bullshit. They were meant to scout where the enemy fleet are on a strategic level.

Also, this game has a major problem with fleet deployment. You cannot have your screening force be actually screening the side you need when starting. And with all the of the battles I have played, the time it takes me to manage the CLs to get into screening position, I'm already taking BB fire and the enemy are already full send at my location. What's the point then? We need a pre battle deployment on top of this spotting fix

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)]

9 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

As it should be. TBs, DDs, and small CLs (like the ones found on early capaigns) should be oneshotted by main gun hits from BBs. Anything else is simply not reallistic.

I do think the 100% structure damage needed to sink a ship is a bit absurd, it is really due for a rework since the first Alpha version.  I can live with this 100% structure health bar thing, if we had detailed crew mechanics that would result in scuttling or abandonment of ships when the structure or flooding gets out of control. We shouldn't have to 100% destroy a ship for it to be destroyed. People are people and people will want to live, only in exceptional circumstances in which war will provide many out of thousands of days of constant warfare would we see extraordinary action by a few. These few exceptions shouldn't be the norm.

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)]

6 hours ago, Littorio said:

6. Please add more backgrounds and actual, physicalized weather, it is time

7. This will tee up nicely the ever-needed spotting overhaul. If a ship is shelling me, how can he be invisible when I can literally trace his shells right back to him? I move two meters closer and he magically appears? Better towers and optics help you hit better what you can already see, not reveal them magically as opposed to someone else...

Please. For the love of god, the 1890-1910 campaign are just unfun playing as the Central Powers. The new french light cruisers torpedo spam with this kind of 8km visibility at midday is just not even logical, let alone realistic. And on top of that, just with a tiny difference in weather like overcast, and somehow I can't see a cruiser until 6km in. By that time, yea 4 fast torpedoes in 1910 with 100% accuracy might as well be a magic beam from Warhammer universe for all I care.

Please, make spotting how it is IRL. There have been a million posts about this mechanic...
 

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 18, PRE-RELEASE)]

1 hour ago, slightlytreasonous said:

The half a million ton Japanese BB was outright madness.  Any larger then we already can go would be simply beyond a historical.  Please, no.

That ship probably sailed long ago. I just hope we get more realistic systems to make these ships only appear in custom battles.

[>>>Beta 1.05 Available!<<< (Update: 5)]

For the full 1.05 release, sometime in the future, please give us the option to change the ship's length independent of the tonnage. These updates are going toward a good direction. Keep it up!

[Upcoming v1.05 changelog]

25 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@ColonelHenry Find me a single other game where Changelog apply to future unimplemented feature and we gonna talk about credibility. Could it be due to language barrier? sure. I am not gonna pick up a fight just for this. On the other hand, are you happy with the frequency and clarity of the status update we get?

What do you define as "future unimplemented feature"? Because every single online game I have played will have some form of pre update patchnote that could be a week or two before the actual update. One example from a very successful game (that is terrible now) is R6S, just look at how many tweaks and updates they tell you before the actual update. I stopped playing 2.5 years ago but from Y1 to Y4, I am very certain that they released partial patch notes before the real update at least a week, for upcoming changes for that season (4 Seasons/ Year). Hell, look at Squad, v2.12 was revealed all the way back last year, when they released the patch note, all you could do was a single weekend playtest and it took them months to finally get that update out. Is that future unimplemented? Because like 200 people got to play out of thousands and it was blatantly unfinished back then.

[Upcoming v1.05 changelog]

24 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

If its not done, then internally its what you are currently working on.

As far as I know, every single game with regular update will just use a blanket term to tell their consumers/customers what coming whether it's Upcoming, RoadMap, etc. some don't even bother with those and just straight up release the patchnote without even releasing the patch.
 

 

24 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

As I said before, it isn't the core of the issue I have. If it was only that I would not have commented about it at all.

Then why comment... Your credibility as someone who work in the industry can only carry you so far, some dumb people will just take it at that and believe what you say. Most people will read your actual words to see if anything you said make sense. What you have said it that comment makes absolute no sense what-so-ever regarding the topic.

[Upcoming v1.05 changelog]

@RedParadizeThat has to be one of the dumbest take on topic related to gaming I have ever had the displeasure to read. What part of the word Upcoming do you NOT understand?! Bro... are you sure the local chemical laboratory isn't spiking your water with something? I thought the people asking for spreedsheet arcade WOWS gameplay are bad... now you are just batsht insane.

 

[Upcoming v1.05 changelog]

11 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

Agreed about more various hulls/parts, too much of one & the same stuff across many countries for several years.

Another thing that really annoys (in custom battles) is that parts don't go along with years of when real ships (that could be closely recreated with those parts) were built or sailed. For example, if I want to recreate Russian BB Tsesarevich (laid down 1899, commissioned 1903) I need to select mid-1890s with it's technology in order to have visually authentic looking model, because after like 1897 main turrets are different.

This is another thing about the ship design. We should have separate turret housing and gun selection. I would definitely have this game cost like 60 USD or something but it comes with a in-depth shipbuilder rather than middle of the road option that makes it so hard to build ship that looks good, fight good, AND creative at the same time.