TAKTCOM
-
Posts
274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by TAKTCOM
-
-
3 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:
My ship with stable propellant, good bulkheads, and all kinds of other stuff can explode just...Randomly.
Wait a second, I've seen this somewhere before
If serious, I hope this will not happen in the UA:D. Random explosions are pretty frustrating.
-
1
-
-
The guys go crazy. Not surprising, nothing worth discussing happens in the game last months. YET, not everyone is as apathetic to the future of the UA:D as I am.
P.S. It was funny to read last pages. On the one hand, as I have been interested in the navy for the last five years, I felt very wise and knowledgeable 😄 On the other hand, people remain people, no matter what language they speak. Yes, I've seen similar swearing with similar arguments in Russian😉
-
6
-
-
On 6/16/2021 at 2:17 PM, SonicB said:
In an alternate universe...I could maybe see 7-8" secondaries as realistic by the 1930s and 40s...
You can see 7-8" secondaries on real pre-WW1 ships in mass. Italian Regina Elena have 8" secondaries, austro-hungarian Erzherzog Karl have 19 sm secondaries, hunnic SMS Deutschland have 17sm secondaries, Liberté-class have 194mm secondaries and USS Vermont have 7" and 8" secondaries.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Cruiser Askold after Battle of the Yellow Sea
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:
I mean look at USS Texas. It served from 1914 to 1948, all through refits!
- cruiser Asama in commission: 1899–1945
- cruiser Kasuga in commission: 1904–1945
- cruiser Pamiat' Merkuria (late Komintern) in commission: 1905-1942
- pre-dreadnought battleship SMS Schleswig-Holstein in commission: 1906-1944
etc&etc&etc-
5
-
1
-
-
SMS Beowulf
-
1
-
-
Gneisenau after being hit by a torpedo from Clyde submarine, 1940.
-
1
-
-
Just noticed
This is not a big feature and does not affect the gameplay, but I appreciate it. I was irritated by the walls of text that disappeared faster than I could read them. Thank you.
-
3
-
-
On 12/11/2020 at 2:39 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
The horizontal speed panel was chosen for taking less space and being easier to use.
Well, round version looks much more compact
especially if you use a some interface magic
There a reason why before the digital era most of the instruments on the control board was round.
I didn't think the original interface is bad. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but that's not what I mean. The fact is that this
On 12/10/2020 at 7:53 PM, Nick Thomadis said:SHIP REVERSE MOVEMENT
...player can also use the reverse engines at his own will, by pressing the Shift-Key and clicking somewhere behind his ship....inconvenient, non-obvious and unfriendly to the player. And your interface doesn't support reverse movement. And this is where real ships can help you. Well, Astern propulsion was known even in the era of sail, so in the era of steam, when every ship could move reverse, the engine order telegraph was invented. Half of the scale indicated movement forward, the other half - movement reverse.
In my opinion, this completely solves the problems with both lack of space and ease of use in the game interface. It also supports reverse and looks stylish and atmospheric.
There are a lot of their photos on the I-net, so you can find some really cool ones. Like this one from RMS Queen Mary.
But whatever. The game has tons of imperfections, placeholders and other problems. Now they will be supplemented by inconvenient reverse control. Well, at least we have reverse now.
-
7
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
SHIP REVERSE MOVEMENT
Ships are now able to use reverse engines. This is done automatically when ships have to auto-navigate for evading or keeping a formation. Additionally, the player can also use the reverse engines at his own will, by pressing the Shift-Key and clicking somewhere behind his ship.Hello Nick. What do you guys think of the rework this
into something closer to
-
6
-
-
On 2/22/2020 at 2:17 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
The weight offset across the beam, even if everything is placed symmetrically, is a minor known issue to some hulls, that is going to be addressed in next patch.
Well, it seems that this "next patch" slightly delayed
-
Attack on Mers-el-Kébir
The result of the detonation depth charges on a sunken ship near Dunkirk
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tousansons said:
If having less copy pasted hull for the year XXXX make the dev team focus more on the numerous core gameplay issues listed in several threads and for a long time. I couldn't care less.
It's doesn't work. For example, new patch will include French super-late battleships.
It's not "we can add mechanics, or we can add more ships, pick one." They are adding new ships AND working on game mechanics.
The problem is that most of these new ships are WW2.
As a result, first thirty years we have little choice of ships (or no choice at all) but then, 1920 happens and "few hulls" turns into a hell of a lot hulls.
Why is that bad? Because there are shipbuilding restrictions. For example, for cruisers this is no 6+ inches in casemates. Which was actually typical of this era. 10'' guns on 3k ship? 13'' on 4,4k cruiser?
The ships pre-dreadnought era was diverse, amazing and strange. Real variety. And developers almost completely skip it to ... add another superdreadnought to the dozen already existing???
-
2
-
-
One and same hull for 1898-1919 timeline?
For some reason, developers focus on late game while ignoring early game. I understand that super battleships are cool and all, but this is a late game. Quads, 20 inch cannons and other super Yamato, it's all late game. But early game is a placeholder content. And the player starts early game, not late game. And the first thing the player sees is the placeholders. Great first impression, what can I say.
The situation with battleships seems to be better
but then you look here
and holy moly!
Somehow, "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts" turned into "Ultimate Admiral: 20 inch Quad SuperDreadnoughts". For the complete set, it remains to add the Yamato's ability to fly in space.
But seriously, what's going on? Why this game built from the end?
-
5
-
-
-
In the design, it's definitely a step forward compared to previous announcements.
The news itself is promising. Great is that the developers don't live in an ivory tower and really understand what's going on in their game.
-
1
-
-
Well, it has been a disappointing lack of news on this week. As well as last week, however.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, The Maned Wolf said:
I was just telling you that the campaign isn't a core-mechanic at all but a feature.
Nope. Campaign isn't feature. This is the main game mode.
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:The problem is theres a lack of content to keep people interested and tied over
Yes, I stopped playing for this reason. Some mission I didn’t even run once. I mean, I'm not a big fan "Here we go again". If I were, I was probably playing a skyrmish until I died of old age.
However, I would like to test the real changes in the gameplay. For example:
- obvious problem is the armor model. Armor scheme...well, it does not exist.
You can select any sort of scheme, but it does not affect the actual placement of the armor.
For example, you can choose AoN, but still have lot armor in extended deck/belt, what is the opposite of an AoN idea.
But that is not the main problem. Main problem it's that you can put armor on every inch of your ship. Just compare the two pictures below.
_Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal_(14-15_November_1942)_damage_chart_(U.S._Navy_War_Damage_Report_No._57).jpg)
Yes, even one of the most advanced battleships has turned into “deaf, blind and impotent” mainly from the fire of 8 and 6 inch cruiser shells. And in the game ... well, yes, these 9 inch cruisers just sheeps in slaughter.
Although flooding and flash fire helps with shell invulnerability, but the problem "armor bricks" still there.And this is just one of the problems that affects all game aspects .
-
9
-
-
Depends on the country. I doubt that China or Spain at the beginning of the company will be able to contain a lot of battleships. For first company I think to take something simple , like the United States and see how game works.
Obviously, black powder, iron plates, standard shells and natural boilers must be left as quickly as possible. Obviously, without FCS you will have't hits. Of course, turbines. Everything else ... Depends on too many factors. For example, does the game will display war Jeune École vs traditionalists? Yes, and probably the player will not have so much choice that he can build. No, fine, but what is the size of the naval budget? Again, too many factors.
However, I would like to try the cruisers war. This doctrine never worked in reality, I wonder how it will be in the game.
-
The topic is probably out of date. Since it was created before
Alpha-6
- Diesel engines rebalanced to reflect better their bonuses. Diesel engines will be more important in campaign, but now can be useful in missions too, offering more reliable and cost-effective power plants.
-
2
-
On 6/25/2020 at 9:00 PM, BobRoss0902 said:
There is no-need to be so secretive. Devs need to spend more time speaking with the community...
The developers are three guys. If "devs will spend more time speaking with the community" then the game will be ready not in next year, but in the next appearance of Jesus Christ. Sorry, but I paid for the game, not cool stories about the game.
-
2 hours ago, disc said:
I think we need editable hulls. I wonder why they never appeared, after the trailer.
Editable towers would also be fantastic.
Devs say, that the current system is better.
-
12 hours ago, BobRoss0902 said:
... Russian pre dreadnought tumblehome ships had decent to good stability when not overloaded, but after upgrades most of their belt was underwater, and they had a tendency to want to roll over.
Well...no. Russian pre-dreadnoughts overloaded form three reasons:
- coal, provisions and water overload by order of the high command (Tsushima);
- upgrades of ship project, made in the shipbuilding process. Also bad quality;
-
2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:
We need some italians, spanish, chinese and i think russians. Probs still got some for the other nations still left to go. We need hulls for protected/armoured cruisers too as well. Theres quite a few german pre-dreads as well.
For modern hulls we still need, KGV, Repulse, schearnhorst, Kongo, Cleveland, des memes, worcester, belfast, leander, furutaka, amagi, izmail, littorio, zara, la galissionaire, graf spee, bayern, koenig, jean bart, alsace, alaska. And maybe some paper designs, like stalingrad, vladisvostok, smolensk, monarch/lion, Izumo, baijie, azuma, mince (mainz), alexander nevsky, saint louis, lexington (BC), and anything else i missed out.
Mind you im talking about unique hulls that will bring also, new stuff with them like turrets, towers, bridges etc.
Im also hoping the core mechanics get sorted as well, especially the armour and AP penetration problems and simulating more realistic shell drag and deviation. Plus aiming for velocity as well.
Italy, of course. Their shipbuilders built interesting vessels. Russia on the other hand... yes, the Russian Empire built the first true armored cruisers. But our battleships? nothing special. In my opinion, these was typical ships of their era. Destroyers... well, before Novik was built, in Russia there was there wasn’t so much worth mentioning.
May be, except that guys
They were classified in the Russian Navy as "torpedo cruisers", but with their displacement in ~700 t, 19,6 kn speed, 13mm armor and armament from half a dozen 37-47mm guns plus seven torpedo tubes, it was obviously an early version of the destroyer.
As for China... to the beginning first Sino-Japanese War all of their battleships and cruisers were bought either in Germany or in England. I'm not sure that the game really needs a corvette and a gunboat.
The fleet of Spain at the end of the 19th century, of course, is something funny. These guys really loved the cruisers without armor. However, they have some medium armored cruisers, so why not. Yes, and this archaic battleship.
-
3
-
>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT
The damage model is far from ideal. This applies to many aspects - armor schemes, bulkheads and etc. In my opinion, it is worth waiting for the test company, everything else is still too similar to the World of Tanks patch note:
- tank X, turret traverse speed increased by 1%;
- tank Y, passability on soft soils decreased by 1%.
Nope. In the Soviet Union was used term "fascist" (singular) and fascisti (plural). For the first time i saw the word "Nazi" was King's cycle "The Tower" in 1998, I suppose. The plot came to the crashed Fw.190 and the local asked the heroes:
- Are you NotSee?
Gradually, it became clear, what "NotSee" is distorted "Nazi". There was a note from the translator that "Nazi" is the word that the americans called the germans in WWII. The modern left in Russia can call the Nazis - Nazis, but probably in half of the cases they still use the words "fascism", "fascist" and "fascisti".
From Russia, with love. 😉