ColonelHenry

Bull-ducking-shit. To keep us updated. Yea to keep us in the dark for months on end about campaign details, in addition to total silence in between patches. You think I can't see that? Excuse my words but I am not going to waste my time using "nice" words only to be insulted by lies and misdirection. Typical snakes, lying and twisting words to people face like it's their second nature. And I dare you, make a pole that is fair and square no interference from the devs, see how many people who paid for the E.A privilege would want to be able to directly help create a strong foundation for the game with informative conversations with the dev team once or twice a month with real and realistic impact on the development instead of this mess. And yes I still maintain that a lot of people who wants this game to succeed would rather wait until next year if it means the points above are met.

And, what are we testing in this campaign that is worth 2 years of waiting? We have been "testing" and giving constant feedback for random shit fighting to the death like it's Warhammer fantasy; And now the campaign is less random shit fighting to the death like it's Warhammer fantasy. Still the same mechanics, again, for the last 2 years. Had we been informed in a bi-weekly manner regarding the game's development, we could wait until next year to test a fully working campaign, just keep us updated with your progress, and let us help you build the mechanics of the game for god's sake. Stop throwing shit at us to see what stick and then call that influencing the development.

I would dare say lack of hulls for 1890-1925. Like... up until like 1920s, you can't even build a not copy-paste light cruiser between the the major factions. One of the most important type of ship, use to project imperial power in far away colonial waters... and it's like 4 hulls, and 2 of them are copy-paste of each others just resized. And there's no variety. We have told them to do away with this adding hull and focus on giving us a full on ship designer since the beginning, 2 years ago. All we got was a promise to make the designer more open... and what we got was the bare minimum. How is that even... like... how can someone defend this?!

The "game" that I thought up in my head based on 13 times or how many time it was the word realistic is mentioned. I guess I could sell you a service that advertised hot young blondes 13 times, and I give you old ladies in their 90s, and turn around after you have paid your money uttering "that it was all in your head". Again, I thought this type of game would garner the crowd that do not insult others intelligence. What a joke.

What made me engage with this forum in the first place was the fact that many of your (AND MANY OTHERS) feedback regarding: 1. Realism 2. Lack of content for the advertised era (literally in the name, imagine playing Rome Total War and the real game is set in Eastern Roman Empire in 1400s) 3. Lack of update from the team. was all disregarded by the devs. And now they call us "toxic" because we paid for a product and we expected them to keep their words. Ridiculous. And now, after TWO YEARS, they turn around and say they acknowledge that people wanted content for pre-dreadnought. What an insult to people intelligence.

As much as I understand what you mean, I do not, and will not watch as people hide behind the veneer of "nice" words to insult others. To me, it is worse than using less than savory words. Anyway, let's move on and hope that the devs actually make this game as realistic as the 13 times it was plastered on their advertisement page.

Ah I see, you are one of those. Unfortunately, you are one of those who would rather take a snake than an elephant because the snake is smaller. His words are nothing but dismissive toward others. As if that isn't insulting other people. Oh waittt, you can't argue with me with that point, so you attacked my character, just like I did with him. OHHH META DUDEE. Also, I do not randomly attack other people unless you implied that I am a crook but going out of your way to insult other people without bases is not in your nature. Or what is it? Implying insults isn't insult? And of course, you cannot refute the point that Skeksis continuous dismissal of other people feedback based on random "video game mechanics" that he made up. But heyyyyyyyyy, I was not the one who started this argument without substance. When any substance given was dismissed by the other party, why bother?

OR maybe, before saying anything, use a little bit of the thing called brain, and think about how the word "irrelevant" is used in this context. I thought a realistic game would garner the crowd that has a bit... less dense? I used "irrelevant" to mock his frequent use of the word to QUICKLY and INSULTINGLY wave off people valuable (some are less, some are more than his) contributions to the discussion. And frankly, if he likes to call everyone irrelevant, maybe perhaps he should be called out for it? Oh but I don't know maybe you just like his arguments more than I do and took it a little bit too personal. P.S: Seriously, do I have to explain the usage of words to people on a forum about a military game now? No wonder people left

Came back to see any glimpse of hope for this game, maybe a single stream of photon at the end of the tunnel. Turns out people are still arguing with this "irrelevant" Skeksis. Every argument with this guy boils down to "The game satisfies my WoWS monke brain so anything else is irrelevant because my arbitrary video game mechanics that I pull outta my ass said so". Topkek. Also, still silence from the devs. Welp maybe "irrelevant" Skeksis can tell us how that's irrelevant for a naval sim game set during the first half of the 20th century.

Welp now I know why the game is like this. I bought the wrong game I guess. Maybe I should just stop hoping for a good historically authentic and realistic naval game. Waited for a whole year and all I get are 50k ton ships shoving in my face in a so called Dreadnought I'm not going to waste my time further when the devs are enabled by people who have to get their dopamine rush from COD like gameplay. This is the last post I'm going to post about this game directly. It's not like the devs care about a few players who want the product to actually deliver with some substance anyway. Since that's the case, BatChest QUADRUPLE 20 INCH SO COOL BatChest I LOVE SUPER BATTLESHIPS BatChest CAN'T WAIT TO MAX OUT ALL THE STATS OF MY SHIP TODAY BatChest RANDOM AI IS SOOO CHALLENGING BatChest I CAN'T GET ENOUGH EXPLOSION BatChest Enjoy your superdreadnought vs supercruisers vs superlightcruisers gameplay because that's all you're going to end up playing otherwise it's not optimal to kill the AI superdesigns fast enough. I'll stick to Age of Sail, this one is a lost investment.

Again, what you spent that entire time writing has already been discussed long before this conversation started. The designer to which the devs have been adding stuffs that are borderline fantasy. We have voiced our frustration many times and it had fallen on deaf ears or ears like yours. What the "AI" are making is because the ship designer caters to: gamey-arcady numbers and AI inability to consistently design a ship with flaws and advantages correlating to real life. Destroyers with as many guns as possible in game are effective against other destroyers are simply because the devs allowed these ships to be built with no downside other than when not enough "protection" is applied, they get ammo detonation or flash fire and die. This aspect of more and bigger = better is EXTREMELY easy to translate to video games. I mean ffs, that's why most action orientated FPS at least let you use a "minigun" of some sort. It's fun, it's crazy, it's cool and irl of course the minigun would shred anything that isn't a modern IFV or tank which is usually the case in games too. The problem is when you let players use these "miniguns" and walk around, it's not realistic and for most games, that's fine. For UA:D, that's not fine. Because it is being as advertised with "realism" at the forefront. And to be frank, the devs are not doing it. They translated the bigger and more = better into this naval game without giving any realistic downside to having so many guns. Having many guns = easier flash fire? No worries, add a bit more protection and you basically nullify enough flash fire to kill your well balance designed enemy ship before they could deal enough damage to you. A realistic game can't translate the realism part of more and bigger = better... Well you get the 9 5 inch guns destroyers in tripple barrel config. And then there's the AI themselves. Literally said by devs they couldn't get it to work with a more complicated ship designer. I do not need to say much more about this. We want a better designer. That's all. And I can assure you, if the AI actually build ships like HMS Invincible, I wouldn't be calling the AI designs out like this. 4x12 inch double barrel turrets that are at least somewhat protected =/= 5x12inch double barrel turrets 3 of which are in the 2 inch extended belt area =/= 3 quadruple 18inch turrets with 15 inch of belt armor and 28knt (which is just fantasy at this point cmon)

You know 'em 13 destroyers built with double barrel DP 5 inch guns out of 169 destroyers built of which the rest were armed with single barrel long 5 inch guns during 1930s = typical US destroyers had double barrel turrets even though the destroyers in WW2 that would be mass produced with the double barrel DP wouldn't be entering the war until 1944.

Don't put words into other people mouth like that. That's insulting and I'm not going to stand for it. Having a design bank doesn't mean throwing the AI away. No one is talking about completely delete AI or whatever. We still need this "AI" to provide variety and I think at least most people here would agree with. What we do not agree with is the fact that the current "AI" is bad at designing ships that LOOKS authentic or competent half the time. We also do not agree with how the designer is being gutted just so this "AI" could barely work. Of course, you can't refute our designer complaint because you can't OR you like what it is currently because you like designing super-this, super-that and of course, the current direction of the game is 50 super-thisthat every content update. (how does it feel to get words put into your mouth?) A lot of people bought this game to stay away from WoWS or to support a more realistic naval game but I digress, SUPER-WOWSERS give people that dopamine rush better than a well designed, time consuming, realistic design. If this is what the game is going to be, here, I have this to say to the devs and the people who like to put down 60-70k ton BB everyday.

I think it's either because they built low visibility ship (like using smaller towers, lower weight barbettes, smaller funnels, etc). But most of the time when I build BB with radar, the enemy always get spotted. You might want to give us a few images. I do agree however about DD, CL clashes always end up with enemy ships going "invisible" which is dumb as hell because they are like 7-8km away... how can our ship NOT see them is beyond me. And this needs to be addressed.

No report of AI failure... The fact is that the AI is being allowed to cheat most of the time with superior tech, numbers, or whatnot. That's not hard because they build good ships, it's handicapping the players. Jesus Christ, do I have to spell it out to people in the year 2021? Read my arguments again. I, too, agree that there has to be variety. And "AI" <-- seriously, there's no "AI" it's just the program putting strings of code together - can help with that variety. All I'm saying is that there need to be MORE parameters that control how the "AI" is putting stuffs together. Adaptive AI... look, if you spend a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of effort, yes in theory, you CAN make something that is really good at mimicking human behavior BUT all we get is a "hit or miss" AI and a barebone, restrictive, gamey-arcadey-WoWS feel from the designer to the gameplay. IF that's what you enjoy, OK, say so. The ship designer for the player could be so much more. I don't hide behind elaborate arguments, what I want from the game is this and this is what sold me the project: A realistic, expansive war ship designer that could be played by folks who aren't designing ships for a living. And since the AI has been the ONLY obstacle for the project to head toward the direction I supported when I paid my money, I will voice my frustration here plain and simple. I will say this one last time, THE AI IS JUST PART OF THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS THE SHIP DESIGNER IS SO FRUSTRATINGLY RESTRICTIVE DUE TO THE AI INABILITY TO DESIGN ANYTHING COMPLICATED AND THUS SOMEHOW THE PLAYERS ALSO HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED LIKE THE AI (WHICH, POLITELY SAID, IS BAD GAME DESIGN). BUT SOMEHOW, WITH SUCH A SYSTEM, THE AI STILL MAKE WACKY, UNREALISTIC, OVER-THE-TOP BORDERLINE FANTASY SHIPS. THIS DOES NOT HELP AT ALL WITH THE DEVS PUMPING OUT SUPER-THIS, SUPER-THAT PATCH AFTER PATCH NEGLECTING EVEN THE EARLY DREADNOUGHT ERA THAT THE GAME ADVERTISED. WE WANT A CHANGE OF DIRECTION. There. I probably spoke for a few people here who are feeling as frustrated.

I agree about the weather. Look at Ultimate Admiral Age of Sail, the missions that take place during stormy weather is good game mechanic design that directly mimic real life condition during stormy weather for combat of the period if not a bit simplified. See, I'm fine with simplification of realism to make a game playable, but it has to be realistic in the first place.

"typical US Destroyers" as in the 8 Porter Class Destroyers and what, 5? Somers Class built during the 1930s right before WW2... So 13 destroyers that has the shorter double barrel turrets. In comparison (according to wikipedia), 143 other destroyers built with single barrel 5 inch guns turrets during the same time period. And that's not including similar number of Fletcher class built during WW2. We're talking about early 1930s and before that. Even in WW2, no "typical" destroyer carried triple barrel turrets. If you want to play the numbers game, there you go. But that's not the point. Like I said, I'm fine with people building these ships BUT if I have to build these ships to play the game because suddenly WoWZers (BatChest) want his ship to look like an artist rendition of his failure at high school physics, then I want my money back because this was not the "realism" that I was sold on. Plain and simple.

YES. Exactly, the penalty of adding more guns onto your ship does not make a big impact. Many of these "super" designs people post would probably roll over the moment they hit the wave like Vasa but 1940. Worst still, the "penalty" that is exploding into chunks of steel still does not deter the AI from building these kind of ships. So yes, please make the AI build better ships. Thanks for helping me to write these. Why navies didn't build quadruple 5 inch turrets and put them on destroyers or 100 20 inch guns on battleship can... you know what, I'm not going to say anything further because everything that had been said. It's up to the devs. Really. You get the point.

"rules of their world"... folks, this is why when you make a "realistic" game set in a HISTORICAL settings, you listen to people who are really interested in the "historical" part not Ronald McDonald in McDonaldland. Else, might as well make a WoWS: But You Can Build. How long can human player remain honorable? Excuse me? I guess zoomers brain are built different but when I play a singleplayer game, I don't intentionally break the AI so I can see "YOU WIN" as long as the game is well made and fair.

@DougToss @SonicB At least there are still people who do not want this game to turn into a clown fiesta. Maybe there's hope that the end of the project if devs listen to the right people. What I want from the game is this: a robust ship designer where you can build anything you want. You want meme ships? Go for it. You want to recreate ships that served during 1880s to 1945? Sure. You want to create your own naval doctrine and reflect that through your design? Mahan, get tf outta the way. In order to have this game, the devs need to stop adding more 50-60k ton hulls. In fact, this current system of adding Hulls that are barely visually different other than a resize is not sustainable. Why can't I select an Iowa hull and resize it to whatever size I please? Why do I have to increase tonnage to an arbitrary number and suddenly my ship is 100-200ft longer? It doesn't make any sense. We need more control on our design. Better armor layout. Better guns placement mechanic. A double-barrel turret should be SMALLER than a triple-barrel turret. Real, adjustable barbette armor. It's been a year and we get none of that. Instead we only get more content for things that barely matters (BIG SHIPS BatChest, BIG GUNS THAT WERE NEVER USED BatChest, WOOWWWZERS my 4 20inch guns killed a destroyer 20km away SOOO COOL BatChest) Enough about the designer, the AI... again @Skeksis... I really don't understand how you could see the AI building ships from scratch as good. They will never be able to compete with humans on their own because they will always have some glaring issues that would be exploited instantly. And if you want the AI to always build massive ships, max tonnage, max gun, max armor, then I might as well stop the conversation here. What we should push for is to retain the AI ship building but that AI must have some parameters that guide it... aka a ship design bank. There will still be variety but real and authentic variety not throw darts blindfolded variety. How is that bad?

Thank you for proving my 3rd point.

Are there improvements? Absolutely! Went from "not even worth my time" to "eh, gamey, workable, whatever". And again, it's not improvement in a VACUUM. It's improvement but with the detrimental to players' ship designer being as braindead as the AI. There I said it. First enemy ship: giant quadruple turrets are literally not protected by the main belt because of 1. AI fails 2. the ship designer sucks 3. I HECKIN' LOVE FIGHTING SUPER BATTLESHIP BatChest Second enemy ship: again, failure to protect turrets, that aft turret is just disgusting on many level. Again, AI giving their ship way too many guns, that would explode spectacularly (sure maybe yours armor it enough against your shell idk but if it's 3-4/10 it's still terrible and for what? shitty ship designer?) Third enemy ship: I swear to god, this is one of the most annoying things I see in game. Destroyers packing double, triple turrets design 8/10. LIKE WHY? I play interwar and my god, triple 4 inch guns, or dual double 4 - 3 inch guns at the front. I mean... did those turrets exist? Yes. But most destroyers have single barrel 5 or 4 inch guns. And if it's double turret design then there sure as shit weren't 5 double turret waiting to screw me over every time I like to design something reasonable. Thus I either have to make CLs to deal with them, or design my destroyers as atrocious looking as the AI. Then why should I bother? I might as well do something else.

Devs BARELY talk in other discussion topics, if we want their attention, we use this topic just fine

I don't think you can design the enemy AI... at least not in the patch note

You don't like watching 3-5 ships fighting from 30-25km away and die instantly from the first hit within 4 mins of engaging each other? How dare you!?