.png.4feb4bb38042fed97cfd8aab35ba71ed.png)
Bluishdoor76
-
Posts
223 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Bluishdoor76
-
-
.thumb.png.7bad76d28874e0a6cbdeba3a70a54eef.png)
Ok so far only 1 bug Ive found, theres a hardpoint for secondaries on Bismarck that is off model
-
any eta on which day of the week the patch drops?
-
@Not_Cerberus dont forget Littorio class
-
6
-
-
@RAMJB I'll keep my hopes up then, I do see a lot of potential in this game. We'll just have to wait and see then.
-
My only issue with DLC or waiting for a second game is CVs were a very crucial part of naval warfare and its evolution and I dont know how likely a second installment for UA:D would be. For me the best option is making it be a major major patch release some time way after release. Giving them time to get feedback on the finall product and giving them plenty of time to flesh out the mechanic. Thats my personal opinion of course, the game is shaping out to be great so far.
-
25 minutes ago, Joryl said:
I have to say I am one of them no pitchforks though ( Airplanes at least ) kind of ruins naval warfare as far as ship to ship combat historically so yeah planes are cool in PTO but this game mainly takes place before airplanes became the dominant power pre WW2... now for a DLC I wouldn't mind a WW2 campaign. but base game I would prefer the game not to go into scenarios where you are fighting a navy 200 miles away from your ships with planes I want to see the ships duke it out, i would love subs though.
The end date for the game iirc is around 1942, so WW2 along carriers will eventually be a thing that needs be considered part of the main game. CVs were around way before WW2, HMS Argus was built in 1918 (though not really designated as a CV). Still, I'd enjoy having CVs as part of the main game and not DLC since with CVs and aircraft come along AA weaponry.
-
2
-
-
Well at least we get the infamous "I Detonate Your Pride" and the "HMS Big Dick Energy" to toy around with next patch :D
-
1
-
-
Yeah I saw that lol
Pretty excited about it :3
-
5 hours ago, RAMJB said:
not sure what issue are you referring to. If you're referring to limited position for barbettes and main structures, I'm guessing that yes, it's a hard feature to implement.
Remember that whatever changes are done to the designer might seem simple but the AI needs to be "taught" how to build proper ships that don't look completely ridiculous. Without those anchor points , or with far too many of them, the AI won't know where to place what, and the result would be truly horrendous ships. Maybe "weighing" the importance of the anchor points for the AI to use the most common placements for structures and guns could work, at any rate is a more involved process than what it seems at first glance ;).
Loving the list of changes, btw. The ability of individual targetting for separate batteries has been one of my pet-peeves since I first fired the game up, for instance, so it's really great to see things like those gradually showing up in the game itself :).Right you are, I am an advocate for decreasing the limitations on the builder, but I can definitely see the AI going absolute apeshit with the designs if they were introduced hafl-assed. I do still hope they will work on it and we wont have to wait too long.
-
sad that there is no mention of improvement to barbatte and tower positions but all of this are still a step in the right direction. Also happy that my prediction for a Denmark Strait battle scenario was actually being implemented along side the Bismarck hull. Cant wait to test the new features!
-
19 hours ago, Siranui said:
Sorting out the build UI, please. The time taken to build is massively inflated by struggling with the AI. QoL changes that are immediately obvious:
- Buttons for adding an inch of armour to a location at a time, instead of having to click 60 times to add 6".
- In addition to having the sliders for displacement and speed, have little arrows at each end to add or subtract incrementally. Currently one has to click and drag 'just so' to get things right.
- Marks on the displacement slider which show us where the vessel will become larger. It is extremely annoying to move the slider down and for guns to be taken off without any warning when this will happen.
- An indicator which clearly states the funnel capacity required for 100% boiler efficiency.
- For the UI to highlight exactly which parts are 'badly placed' in a consistent manner.
- The UI to prevent parts being placed in a 'badly placed' manner in the first place.
- For it to be clearer which guns will fit where in advance, rather than a matter of experimentation and fiddling about.
- For components which allow the mounting of others (barbettes and some towers) to clearly state what can be balanced onto them, rather than being a matter of experimentation.
- For there to be a button which allows the change of calibre of primary, secondary, casement batteries and torpedo tubes with a single click, instead of needing to change each one, individually.
- The removal of the port and starboard offset if it is not possible to place things only on a single side of the vessel. Surely this mechanic is currently moot?
- For the game to clearly state what fore and aft offset will do mechanically, and at what thresholds.
- To be able to click a 'fire arc view' which shows a plan view where all primary, secondary and torpedo arcs of fire can all be highlighted, for consideration.
- For there to be a way to highlight all guns on a design. Currently, if I want to remove all 2" guns from a build, I have to painstakingly 'find' all of those little barrels by squinting and waving the mouse around, while checking the armament precis to see if I've found them all, instead of being able to directly see where they are.
-
Sort out the annoying bug which tells us that parts are badly placed until we click the 'hull' view, or otherwise backtab out of the current item selection.
The building UI works perfectly imho and most of this suggestions are really not needed. The most important thing for me atm is removing the harsh limitations on things like towers and barbettes plus more real ship hulls and parts. In battle UI should also take priority over the builder UI since that one does currently have several problems.
-
1
-
Seeing how you guys are adding the Hood as a build-able ship next patch, is there a chance we will also get a Bismarck hull and maybe even a Battle of the Denmark Strait mission alongside it?
-
I think it will also tell you when you have a weapon selected but not placed.
-
@WelshZeCorgiCould be a similar system to that of Battlestations Pacific, where you bring a troop transport near a capture point and once in range the troop transport begins releasing ai controlled landing craft.
-
Only reason I am asking this is because, Age of Sail has ground combat. Now I do not know if this is the same dev team as Age of Sail but, I still wonder if this will be a game mechanic at some point in the future. Of course compared to Age of Sail, Dreadnoughts would have to deal with a far more complex system for ground combat as it deals with the evolution of modern combat as well as the advent of mechanized warfare. I'd also like to see what other people think about this possibility, would you like to see ground combat in Dreadnoughts?
-
1
-
-
In my honest opinion, allowing more creative freedom with the hulls would be the biggest change. I love the game but hardly every return to it because I get tired of ending with the same designs because I cant freely place most parts aside from main guns and secondaries. Other then that the game is amazing and cant wait to finally see some Italian and French hulls and turrets.
Also, and idk if this fits here but, after looking at the other ultimate admiral game I was wondering. Will Dreadnoughts have land battles in a similar vein to age of sail? Of course the time period Dreadnoughts takes place would mean ground combat would be far more complex to what Age of Sail had to deal with so I am very curious as to what course you will take.
-
6
-
-
19 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:
My attempt at a ... well I'm sure you can figure it out. 6 guns is not as good as 8 but she still looked nice in the end. Alas I quickly quit out of this battle once the large fleet of german heavy cruisers came into view and I discovered all of them to be heavily rearmed and rebuilt kaiser friedrich III class hulls from 1890 that I had no interest in fighting.
Cant wait for quad turrets to be added, Richelieu and Alsace are my favorite classes of BBs and really want to recreate them in game.
-
.thumb.png.030b17627d74875f9eefee9d1d583f5b.png)
One more, I present....
USS Sweet Home Alabama
-
Ah yes, thats how secondary t owers and funnels should be placed right guys?
.thumb.png.6ecf1f194ca826923b2ede061e8eff0f.png)
was kind of trying to build an Izumo-class but sorta gave up half way and started messing around.
-
40 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:
Anyone else having an issue where the game goes into full screen but the task bar is still displayed and covers the bottom of the game screen?
@admin nvm, it just suddenly went to full screen while in the middle of a battle. I'm honestly kinda lost as to what it caused it but it seems fine now.
.png.17ebcd3c2c5a6646bafa14553cdb08ac.png)
.png.11cd4f6353f7126e083d26b695566b4e.png)
.png.5d39e0e400bf135a46aabcd75974c07f.png)
>>>"Alpha-4 v67+" General Feedback<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
@Nick Thomadis Actually upon further inspection its not the hull's points. Its the Modern Sec Tower I for Bismarck that has the floating hard point and yes, unusable for secondary placement since they are over the edge of the hull.