ColonelHenry

Again, yes and no. Yes I agree there should be some penalty for having high casualty (maybe you get less gold or your landing forces have lowered morale/easier to be captured for 1-2 turns or something along that line since you get your troops unnecessarily killed) but weapons should be recovered as much as possible. And no, selling a friggin 5th rate for 1 reputation (you can't even take the 5th rate you capture) is unbalanced and ridiculous, you lose more money and men to get it. Again, you should be able to sell it for gold and more reputation. 1 reputation is meaningless.

No and yes. It would be realistic. I mean, after an operation, you should recover as much weapon as possible since weapons are not cheap (at least not cheap enough to be thrown away like nothing). So your "given" troops weapons should be recovered. And yes, the capture mechanic seems very weak and unbalanced atm. You capture an enemy vessel, and you can only sell them for shit. We need to be rewarded in gold for those ships when we sell them back. We gain no cannons/weapons/crew (defectors?)/anything from those captured ships and this should be addressed.

WGR naval combat is literally just Warsaw = auto win most of the time. Their CIWS is like 100% on point in the base game and using aerial launched ASM in that game is like playing a kamikaze rigged zero, resulting in destruction of entire squadrons unless you spam like 5-6 planes (which NATO doesn't get access to spam tactics). Although you can try to play the All Out War mod which kinda fix the naval by swinging the balance toward NATO a little bit with NATO aerial ASM being much better (your ships still die to Warsaw spam). AOW basically throws realistic distance/numbers at the game but the game is clearly not intended for the real world numbers so you have Patriot missiles that has the range... 3 times that of the length of the map or aerial ASM being able to launch immediately from spawn, etc. Back to UA: D having a modern era sequel: No thanks. I don't want to play Look-At-The-Radar-The-Game

Thank you. Also, I kinda enjoy the unfinished chapter 1 despite the countless bugs presented. I do have one tiny bit problem with it: either the ship pricing needs to be a bit lowered or the payout for each mission needs to be higher because many of the later missions require multiple ships as well as a well equipped landing force to be presented for any land objectives, it is impossible to proceed after a few turns. (Posting here because the forum seems to be less active than the UA: Dreadnought one so continuing in the same post should be fine?)

Bloody hell, stop using google translate and actually speak English, else just type in German and then maybe a German speaker might help you. The launcher is in English as well so I have no idea how the **** (sorry I have a problem with idiots) would you expect to understand any of that with your English. I would like to help you but since your English is worse than a vegetable, I'd rather not. Oh and when you ask for help, maybe type something polite next time?

It's so ridiculous that once an enemy ship armor has been depleted and the hull is exposed, any good volley will make the ship explode. Worse yet, the fire radius is utterly bull****. Your ship can be far off and catch one fire splash and then explode or they can be right next to the explosion and nothing will happen... Either make fire deal less damage and make the ignition chance to be much lower as well as the chance for the whole ship to be engulfed reduced even further, OR make explosions extremely less likely to take your ship with it (make the fire radius smaller, at least 4-5 pieces of fire splash hitting a ship in order to ignite)

IJN Haruna defending a convoy in the Pacific

Although I would like to see the debug menu stay, if you guys decided it is an unnecessary/unintended part of the alpha builds then I respect the decision to remove it.

Nah... I use it to build the interwar destroyers like the Farangut and the Somers (not quite accurate due to no superfiring available for destroyers). I can upload those

You can just back to the mission select screen and start the mission up again as much as you want until you get to play as the Japanese. It takes as much as 5 seconds each try so... it's not something you should be skimping over as the flags does make it more authentic. A side note, this ship is utterly useless in many of the scenarios that it could be built. 23 knots in this game is the equivalent of a fk-ing bicycle which is absurd. Enemy ships constantly going 28+

Yea which is exactly what is the current meta??? I am serious. Look at what AIs are building. Anything BC/BB has 17-18 inches batteries. There is no torpedo meta because it is completely useless. If I build anything other than a BB that isn't carrying 18 inches batteries, the enemy 22, 23, 24, 25 inches armor belt will stop my AP rounds. So what's the point of building ships with compromises? Anti-torp II is enough, anything above it is useless because torp isn't even a threat in this game. Also, the problem with big gun meta is that small guns are still completely useless. They can't hit for shit and when they do, the damage is delegated to RNJesus who either make half the ship in red and the other half on fire or one compartment is slightly damage and flooded.

Which is another problem with this game. Min/Maxing. Right now, it's literally the name of the game. AI doesn't build ships with weakness. With every situation involving anything other than CL/DD/TB, the AI will build BC/BB with 20+ inches of armor (more than the f**king Yamato) and 17 or 18 inches batteries. Right now, the game concept is good but the execution is anything but enjoyable. If you build anything other than min/maxing the effectiveness of your ship, you are f**ked. Try building anything other than a Yamato and you lose. I tried 3 Fuso class battleships, can't pen 2 20+ inches belt armor BB in the build a dreadnought WIP mission. Like WTF? This game should strive toward realism and torpedo damage and effectiveness are two of those. I have asked for torpedo to have a manual mode while the AI launch torpedo should be much more inaccurate and should only be effective to scatter the enemy formation. Along side torpedo load and reload nerf, torpedo damage increase 10 times as of now would result in a good torpedo gameplay.

When you let Sen. Tillman loose OMEGALUL A refitted Tillman 4-2 design for WW2 Nothing could penetrate this design, I ended up with a 94% hull but a 2 torp f**ked that to 84%.

Also... I'm still not convinced the current 'meta' of adding the most amount of gun with the biggest caliber available to a BB/BC hull is the best direction for combat. This is ridiculous. Enemy ships will just add 5 triple turret on their ship and 'cheat' the RNG. Since so many round is fired, it's literally impossible for them not to hit after 3-4 salvos. While the player either has to get rid of authentic looking ship and build like I'm playing minecraft on survival or get blown to bits by 1 stray shell from the 40 shells they spam. I don't want to put 5 triple turrets on my ship just so I can beat the AI. Please consider balancing the combat. Suggestions such as accuracy based on crew experience and others stated on this thread should be considered. AI should build ships around a philosophy based on either their country of origin or something else BUT it should not be just to beat the player. If I want to play that kind of game, I'd buy Starcraft or Age of Empire. Here I want some authenticity of the time period.

Alright. Let's talk about torpedo and their ability to damage ships shall we? I've been playing around with torps for awhile now and I think the best, and most logical route to balance them is to give their control to the player. AI torp launch should be a little bit more inaccurate instead of being dead on like they are now. As well as limit torpedo load to their historical values. Why? So then we can add realistic torp damage to the system. I do not believe a ship can survive more than 2-3 20 inches torp hit let alone 6-7-8-9. Yet in this game, BB and BC take torp like they are nerf pellets. Torp hits should be devastating and a ship after 2 torp should be rendered nearly useless and 3-4 hit should result in a DEAD and SINKING ship

@RedParadize You can upload multiple images by uploading them to imgur.com (at least this is what I use). And then after that, right click on the images that you have uploaded and click view image. It will take you to the source link of the image. Simply copy the address (it should end with imgur.com/(random_thingy_magicy).png) and then upload it here using upload image through link. You will have to "view image --> copy link --> paste it here" for each image you upload even if you have uploaded 3 images on imgur at the same time.

It could be fun, but the primary function it would serve now in the development phase is for us to find bug and balancing issues more quickly with newly added features. Sure you can pop into a premade mission but maybe the bug would only happen if a specific set of ship is presence or whatsoever. Or maybe a new ship hull is bugged somewhere and we can test exactly how it is bugged (maybe just against heavy shell that it is bugged or whatnot). This would allow us to give them feedback much more quickly and more precise. The added benefit is that we can have much more fun while doing so

I'd like you guys to focus on a mission editor really. I like the Modern Battleship the most because it has the most variety of weapons to choose from although it does lack the hull variations. Second run would be convoy attack missions (please let us add transport ships in mission editor if it is coming) because it is different than run of the mill snipe fest between 2 BB or whatever. IMO, I don't hate any of the missions but I HATE the timer. Remove it! Please! Any mission is possible but with the timer, it is just... It makes some mission not fun to play to say the least. You have realistic representation of ships. You have somewhat realistic representation of ship combat (although there are many flaws but it is getting there). But the timer DOES NOT reflect any of these design choices. It is working against what you guys have developed. About new missions, I'd like to see more missions where a specific target(s) is needed to be destroy not the entire enemy fleet. Why? Because it gives the player more choice and give them the liberty to approach the mission in many different ways. Like the mission attack an armed convoy. I like it because I can try to play a little defensive and only go for the transport ships or I can damage the enemy CAs and then go for the transport. OR I can go aggressive and sink most of the CA before having the transports for dinner. Each of these styles would require me to use different type of ships, again make more ship hulls available for each missions. Generally, what I see about the other testers is that they don't like many of the restrictions you guys have put on to the system in ship designs, gameplay, mission design, etc. Please consider this. Thanks!

I am seriously unhappy with the nerf to small guns. They are extremely useless as of now. I know that there are others balancing factors being changed thus I will reserve my judgement until the patch drops. However, if it still takes 20 mins to kill a destroyer 2km away with 10 2'', 4 5'', 6 6'' then I think you guys are driving this game toward the wrong direction.

Please remove the time limit on these missions. I can't understand how a game that tries to simulate ship combat has me limited to 45 mins to destroy 1 CA and 5 transport ships?! And that is my destroyer is based on the Clemson Class Destroyer, not some fantasy ship I made up. I had to dance around the CA for at least 20 mins to destroy it with 10 21inch torps (which in itself is ridiculous and should be balanced). And then I have to pray to RNG-Jesus so that my guns would somehow deal enough damage to sink all the transport in time. Like c'mon guys.

I built the Japanese Fusou Battleship Class. I would not recommend using this ship for the seek and destroy mission since you cannot chase the enemy with 23knts (the real WW1 pre-upgrade version). Though it looks pretty nice for the pictures lol

Oh 😅

I built 3 battleship classes. 2 US: Iowa Class and the cancelled Montana Class (I spent less time on these 2 because they are quite impractical with the current 16'' gun damage) but for the Iowa, I got the main armaments and the armor value quite close to the real one; the Montana not so much in terms of armor but still... The other one however, the Yamato Class Battleship, I spent 10 mins trying to get the armor correct. This thing is the only ship that I have successfully used so far to breeze through the mission: well armored, hit like a truck flying through your bedroom window.

Imo, at this stage of development, you guys should add a true ship editor for us to test different systems together. Being able to design ships and pit them against each other would be nice. What these mode will do is help people to spot bugs more easily since we like to mess around a lot. Any oversight or bugs or something along those lines would be easier to report as well since it is easier to replicate. And you guys do not have to add any more different naval academy missions. We will make our own