Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Accipiter

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About Accipiter

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. turn by turn campaign, as opposed to real time, has already been 100% Confirmed, it's in the devblog. and i don't see it likely they will change their minds on that, concidering how much ressources and effort it whould take to do real time. friendly reminder that the entire dev team for this game is a whole 3 peoples, according to one of the past stickied threads. now as much as i want to see a real time campaign like HOI that goes trough the years quickly at peace and slow down to individual days of sailing your fleets around the world during wartime, total war games prove to me that even turn by turn can be fun, and at least feel adequately authentic, if done well. now i've never played naval action or age of sail, but if that has already a working real time campaign, then Maybe just maybe there is a chance they could re-purpose it for this game too without impossibly high developement time, i guess... skesis, you probably already know about it i imagine, but the game you are describing (where the entire ocean and every ship and fleets are modelled in real time, basically like the silent hunter campaign map but where you control the whole fleet) is what the upcoming Task Force Admiral game is trying to accomplish, so i guess we can look forward to that one as well. (PS: with "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts", "Task Force Admiral" and "Sea Power: Naval Combat in the Missile Age" all upcoming, these truly are exiting times for the niche genre of naval warfare strategy games! we rarely ever get new games at all, and now we suddenly have 3 Fantastic looking ones on the horizon!)
  2. no, this is a case of some people just projecting their expectations onto the game as facts, without realizing its THEIR vision and never what the devs stated or advertized. i've seen too, some people (not gonna quote names lol) arguing how UA:D apparently sets out to be "the most realistic and historically accurate naval combat game ever made", i feel bad for them, they are just setting themselves up for disapointment lol 😛 there is this devblog https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/deep-battle-system where they mention "realistic" -spotting and weather -ammo -ballistics, targeting and penetration -damage system though even then, what exactly they mean by "realistic" is open to interpretation, especially if you read each paragraph, you'll see for exemple by "realistic ammo", they just mean ships don't have unlimited ammo in the game, and you need to not fire from too far away to not waste them. they don't mean fully realistic ammo like separate stock of HE and AP shells for exemple, which at least as far as we know doesn't seem to be planned at all.
  3. that's a very good point actually, i never realized it but now that i think about, i've personally only ever used 3 of the explosives that are in the game: TNT/HighTNT when available, otherwise, White Powder if available, otherwise, Ballistite. alot of the explosive choices are just redundant or straight up worse, and not worth using ever. i also think it's Bogus that you are forced to use the same explosive for propellant and for shell warhead, personally, and that all your guns of all calibre need to use the same explosive too, for both AP and HE shells... overall the explosive choice system clearly needs to be looked into and rebalanced/revamped. PS: if you're asking for a reason to use something other than Ballistite, i recommend TNT/HighTNT over it if available, because don't forget that it affects all your guns, and the TNT gives you an amazing balance of having high damage for your secondaries HE, and good AP penetration + AP Damage for your mains at the same time. White Powder or Ballistite is more of a question of personal preference, both are viable and they aren't that different.
  4. since the devs described the campaign as you playing as the Navy Admiral, not the Nation's leader (for exemple: you can't declare wars yourself directly), it whould make sence you'll ultimately not have full control over the negociations and the final call of weather your nation sign or not, nor be able to decide yourself to whidraw from a signed treaty either. yet, it also stands to reason that as the admiral, the nation's leader whould obviously ask your opinion and listen to you, trying to get something as close to what you asked in the negociations, so you should be able to have some influence over the terms. some kind of mini game that goes over several rounds of negociations like the peace treaties in Hearts of Iron 4 could be very fun and original. or at least multi-choice options like arkhangelsk is saying, that whould be really a cool feature. i whould like such choices or events to happen -VERY- frequently during campaign too, so you can influence the AI of your nation's politics and land army rather than having them just do their random own thing with no coordination with you. one exemple of such an event: "the army Marshall is planning a large amphibious landing at "X location" and believe opening this new front could be decisive to winning the war. they are inquiring how confident you are the Navy could gain control of the nearby sea region, and maintain control of it for the following weeks to keep the supply line open, all the while also keeping ships continually on station and available for shore bombardment missions in support of the operation" A : "Extremely confident" (increase probablilities your Army AI will do it) B : "This plan seems risky" (avereage probability your Army AI will do it) C : "I advise against it" (decrease probabilities your Army AI will do it)
  5. -The Suggestion: when one weapon on the ship is "LOCKED" on the target, ALL weapons of that ship should be instantly "LOCKED" as well, regardless of what state of ranging salvo, ladder aiming, ect they were in beforehand. possibly, all ships in a formation (as long as they are, and remain, in the same formation) could get all of their weapons locked even. -Reasonning/explaination: when one weapon is "LOCKED" in game and can fire at maximum accuracy, that means pretty much that they have found the target' range, speed and bearing precisely. since the fire control system system, rooms and team is centralized, as long as the crew knows this, all weapons can then be fired at maximum accuracy at that target. it doesn't matter that the ranging process was done with quick firng secondary guns that have much different ballistics from main guns. all you need to know is target range, speed and bearing, as soon as you know those, there is no need to individually fire ranging slavos then ladder aim for each size of guns, the ballistics of each weapons are obviously known to the crew and they can calculate a firing solution for each right away. as for formations, when one ship in a formation has gotten "LOCKED" on the target, it can communicate the range, speed and bearing of target to other ships of the formation. as each ships in the formation know precisely their own range speed and bearing relative to each other ships in the formation, from there they can also calculate right away a firing solution for their own weapons. and so they should be able to get "LOCKED" immediately as well, or at the very least, get a massive boost to their aiming process and get a full "LOCKED" in just 1 or 2 salvos from there, instead of doing the whole aiming process again on their own. obviously, this should apply only for the ships that are shooting at the same target as the one another ship in their formation has gotten "LOCKED". -a concrete exemple whould be: 2 enemy ships: 1 and 2. 1 formation of 4 friendly ships: A, B , C and D. i get ships A, B, and C to fire at target 1. and ship D to fire at target 2. a short while later, ship B is the first one to get a "LOCKED" on its target, with her 5 inch secondaries. ALL her weapons become instantly "LOCKED" as a result, and ALL weapons of ship A and C as well. ship D is continuing to aim on her own since she has a different target. a short while later, ship 4 get target "LOCKED" on her own. a short while later, target 1 is sunk. ships A, B and C now shift fire to target 2. because ship D already has a "LOCKED" on target 2, ship A, B and C instantly have a "LOCKED" on it as well, and start firing with maximum accuracy. target 2 sunk.
  6. Yo this is amazing! the change to armor and penetration as well as ship damage is much more noticable and makes everyting much more fun! i love this hotfix! best changes yet imo. the only last big gripe i have left with the armor model now is that ship still remain unreasonably tanky when they are showing their bow or stern, because the game doesn't model transverse bulkheads. other than that, all the rest regarding armor feels much closer to where it sould be. the accuracy increase for small guns/secondaries is great too! it may even be a bit too much now, but not sure yet, i need to test it more, either way its current level is still much closer to where it should be than before for sure! oh, one more thing: now that torpedoes are so deadly (as they should be) i whould like to see reloads go away from deck-top torpedo tubes, i think now, even one salvo of torpedoes, as long as you take care to use it well, is more than enough to make even smaller ships a credible threat to big ones. underwater tubes can keep reloads as they had them in real life, and they typically can launch only 1 or 2, not a whole spread, so it's ok. if you really don't want to remove reloads, then i think at the very least the reload time should be VERY long, like 10-15mins or someting like that, so that a TB or DD can't actually just stay at point blank and reload multiple torpedo salvos, and actually needs to go out, wait, and come back later for another torpedo run. keep up the good work.
  7. here is the thing though... ships being total cowards and retreating at even the slightest sign of danger or that the battle might be turning against them is actually totally realistic and authentic behaviour, so i'm kind of OK with it. even just a single warship (even just a so much as a DD, let alone anything bigger than that) is an infinitely precious asset compared to a single plane or tank, it takes A LOT of time and money and crew training ect... to build one, you can't replace them willy nilly, and your nation don't have a lot of them to begin with. people get the distorted opinion from action movies or video games and whatnot that warships are available aplenty and navies won't care about throwing ships away at a relatively non-crucial mission or sacrificing their own ships to sink the ennemies and not care much about casualties, like in a tank or plane fight, but with ships. this isn't the case at all. when they hear "naval battle" most people think of a big clash of warships that shoot at each other untill all or nearly all ships on one side are sunk, but this really wasn't the case, because admirals and commanders are always simply terrified of losing their irreplacable ships, they will retreat at any sign things might go bad. if you look at history, almost All naval "battles" were really just a touch-and-go skirmish between 2 fleets if you get down to it, where some ships on both side were sunk or damaged, then the fleet that took the most initial damage retreats (often abandonning behind damaged or crippled ships to their fate) and that's that. the victor of the battle is the one who did the biggest damage and got the other fleet to run away, but almost always, the bulk of the fleet runs away rather than commit. even at jutland, the biggest naval "battle" in history, the bulk of both fleets didn't really fight when they come in contact to each other full brunt, they almost imediately both turned away, both too afraid to take a decisive battle that whould decide the war in one day. it was mostly just the vanguards that did most of the actual fighting at jutland. battles like Tsushima or Surigao straight where one of the fleets was totally obliterated are the exception, not the rule. at tsushima it happened because the russian ships where too slow and too far away from their home waters, so they couldn't run, even though they tried. at Surigao it was because the japanese ships were literally trapped at the end of a long and narrow corridor (straight), to retreat they would have to turn back the way they came and that whould have been too long. now what the game should do however, is definitely count the battle as won and give you victory if all enemy ships are retreating. then like in a total war game, you can click victory and go on if you want, or you can spend the time to try and catch whatever fleeing ships you think you can catch, then click victory after that. that whould be fine if they did that. but changing the AI to be totally YOLO-Suicidal and throwing away their ships when it's not worth it (like having no problems to sacrifice a damaged Battlecruiser on a commerce raid mission if that means they can sink all transports, rather than retreating the Battlecruiser and sending it to repair) or every single ship continuing to fight a battle that is clearly lost rather than retreating, please no.
  8. an important point too, is that the campaign map aspect of it is confirmed to be turn based, and only the battles that happen each turns are in real time, so something like a total war game's campaign, i whould guess.
  9. pretty much what the title says. World of Warships already gave me PTSD of 2 Battleships standing bow-on 100 metres away from each other and doing zero damage with all shells bouncing. no more pls. this isn't how it ever worked in real life. please don't make another warship game where going broadside to the enemy is a Mistake that only a noob whould do. i was playing around in custom battle today, and a dreadnought hull BB that was sailing away from me, with only 300-something of max armor and not even the best armor quality multiplier (it had like 80%) was totally 100% invulnerable to yamato 18inch AP shells even at less than 2km, it took HUNDREDS of those shells as i put the game in fast forward and kept sailing away like no one's business. all this because ships become invulnerable as soon as they are not broadside, i've seen similar things happen with even cruisers too! this is just wrong. currently the game models angle of the belt but not the transverse bulkheads at all. the result is when the target is bow-on or stern-on, all shells count as if they were hitting the belt (ie: the side belt) at like one or zero degrees of angle. you need to model the transverse bulkheads that close the front and back of the citadel. that way, the more bow-on/stern-on the target is, the worse your angle get on their belt yes, but the easier your angle get to penetrate the transverse bulkheads. just like in real life. being able to set manually their thickness in the ship designer whould be nice, but not nessesary. if you approximate them as having the same thickness as the belt, heh, whatever, it's good enough in my book. but you need to at least model it because this bow tanking is annoying and ridiculous. please tell me this is planed; eventually...?
  10. has anything been done about that???? after playing this new update for 5+ hours now, i'm really not seeing anyting different at all in that area. ships with lots of red compartiments are still as overly tanky as before, DD and TB can still tank way too many hits in addition of being way too hard to hit, just like before. so like, what??? is this in the patchnotes by accident and planned for a future update? i'm confused. what have you done? i really DO NOT see any difference from last version regarding this.
  11. looking very good, can't wait to try it. i second most people here that a skirmish or custom battle mode or something like that, that lets us choose tech levels as well, not just design the ships, and throw in any fleet composition, and also possibly design the enemy ships too, whould be very helpful to test stuff out, and keep us interested a while longer than just replaying the same missions! it's probably too much work for next update i know that. but if campaign doesnt come soon, then this at least should come as soon as possible, whenever it's ready.
  12. torpedo setting is NOT set to every ship in the formation but only the one currently selected, you need to set it individually on each ship. if you select a formation and set torpedo to something other than Normal, then double click on another ship in the formation that isn't the lead ship, you'll see the torpedoes are still set on Normal. you need to double click on every ship in the formation and change it on each of them. note that for some reason, this isn't the case when selecting AP/HE shell, which is automatically changed to every ship in the formation regardless of which one you clicked on when setting the option. also interestingly, when you click somewhere to give a move order, regardless of which ship in the formation you had clicked on, only the lead ship will respond to that move order and the other ships in the formation will follow the lead ship as usual. BUT, if you give a rudder order using the rudder slider, then EVERY ship in the formation will switch their rudder as you imput, regardless of which ship you had selected when setting the slider. the game also doesn't highlight the one ship in the formation that you selected, and i suspect a lot of people don't even know about this and think you cannot select individually ships in a formation, and it always selects the lead ship regardless of which one you clicked on, which as i explained isn't the case. overall formation controls are weird and unintuitive and really need to have a better interface and better AI. please, like i said a couple time, take inspiration from the Battlestations: Midway/Pacific series's formation control system, it was so simple yet so good.
  13. huh... this is strange, i've literally NEVER had the BB target my CL with main guns until after they landed hits on it with torpedoes, that causes it to start targeting the CL, but at this point its too late you already crippled it. it's possible their CL targeted my CL, i'm not even sure because small guns dont do anything anyway, if they did target them they didnt do anything lol. maybe if you do the mission with BB instead of CA that changes the AI's targeting priorities?? not sure, it's weird.
  14. the 2 CL should be under you command too, just click on them, or make sure you didnt acccidentaly clicked the "give command to AI" button on them in the orders bar. this is hands down one of the more poorly balanced and hardest missions right now. i beat it by basically cheezing the AI: after a lot of failures, i noticed the enemy BB is ALWAYS full aggro on your big ships: he never fires on your CL no matter what, except with his useless secondary guns when you get close, but never with his main guns. so what i did was keep the 2 CA that i build relatively far away and made super sure to keep them angled so they bounce as much as possible, then with my 2 CL i just sailed right in his face and torpedoed him at point blank. :x lol the hard part was the 2 Enemy CL: you NEED to sink or at least cripple them right away, even before you start hitting the BB, otherwise, they will chicken out as soon as you start dealing heavy damage to the BB, and you will fail the mission because they are faster than you, no matter what. so i Focused main guns of my CA on their CL (while tanking the BB shots as explained above), and with my CL, i sailed right to the ennemy BB but also tried to torpedo their CL (who were infront of the BB) on my way there. (don't worry their CL are also full aggro on your big ships and wont target your CL either). i managed to torpedo one of their CL destroying his engine, and got a lucky critical engine hit on the other one with my CA. they started runnng away but they were too slow. i sunk the BB pretty quick after that with my CL with torpedoes at point blank, and then i finished their CL with gunfire and torpedoes from my almost dead CA's and CL's. make sure you put a lot of torpedo tubes on your BB or CA that you build, you'll need them more than guns: you can fire those torps on their CL when tanking the BB shots, and also can use them to finish the BB if your CL crippled it but didnt sink it... hope that explaination makes sence, it was quite hard and took me a lot of tries. also, if at the start of the mission you see the auto-build CL they gave you dont have any torpedoes (it happens rarely), quit and retry.
  15. what the ?! O.o this is only a 3 person team ?! wow, i gotta say, even the current state of the game is very impressive for such a small team! very good work so far and keep up the good work then! i just want to say, don't hesitate to ask us more or give us directions if you want us to test something specific or hunt for bugs in a particular area or something like this! anything we can do! we know it's not a demo or even a beta we bought but a very early devolopement version of the game, we want to help!
×
×
  • Create New...