monbvol

Yes, some sort of system where we can set a class name then the game populates ships of that class from an easily edited file of some sort. There are lots of options that should work easily with Unity. XML, json, txt, csv, and probably some others that I'm not able to remember at the moment. I'd also say for the crew system how many you have available and how many you gain per month is rather low. Another I would like to see is not only setting up task forces/fleets is the ability to set roles/missions beyond Sea Control/In Being. Like if I have a cruiser design that I'd like to dedicate to either convoy escort or convoy raiding, it'd be nice to be able to set that and have it matter for campaign mission generation.

I have to add my voice to those calling for some quality of life improvements to ship management(grouping ships into divisions/task forces and assigning roles that way) and making it a bit clearer what your starting budget is for making your own fleet. As far as speed of research I think that will take some looking into once a more extensive campaign is unlocked but some sort of secondary display where you can see what bonuses you've unlocked(like -2.5% weight to torpedo launchers) would most certainly be appreciated. Now that we actually have a framework to more properly judge certain aspects of crew quality I might be able to provide more feedback on that once I get more of a chance to play. I will also say the VP system is a bit off. Just had a fight where I lost a CL but took out 6 enemy transports and drove off the escort but was considered a loss.

*nod* The prime consideration if they are serious about even so much as paying lip service to the notion of being realistic is that the bigger the ship the harder it is to replace and the longer you have to live with the consequences of your design decisions. The Naval Academy does not teach this in any way shape or form. I would dare say with how much randomization there still is in the Naval Academy missions it barely teaches situational specialization.

I tend to agree with the navy man here. In a campaign where you don't always get to dictate what scenarios your ship finds itself in and you have to suffer the consequences of your design choices over a span of years it would be much better to be taught not to overspecialize. Finding a solid middle ground is key. Also running away is often a very valid tactical AND strategic choice. You may not learn as much as if you had stayed and duked it out but when the consequences of victory can still result in your ships being shot up and in serious need of dock time or the losses you sustain coming back to haunt you, never under estimate the value of declining the fight or running away after it has been joined.

I've seen longer development cycles. Either way it will be a most welcome surprise if it happens.

At this point my expectations are so low that a bug ridden barely playable campaign before 2022 will be a welcome surprise. A fully playable campaign but still in desperate need of balance fixes, hull designs, and more than just open ocean to fight on before 2025 will be a welcome surprise.

Last I played no. That has been some time so I am forced to grant it is entirely possible I am no longer qualified to give an accurate answer. But at this point this is straying into topics of conversation best taken over to the Age of Sail forums.

That only deepens my buyer's remorse if I think about it that way.

Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail is also being developed in conjunction with Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnaught. I supported Age of Sail as well but completely lost interest in it when they decided to make a land campaign element part of the game too. If I wanted that I'd still be playing Ultimate General: Civil War.

Unfortunately it has been obvious that a campaign was unlikely in 2020 since before the pandemic IMO. There was just too much not done and not being done in terms of features that they could introduce as stepping stones that they could direct campaign code to or copy/paste into the campaign code. Being able to design more than one ship for custom battle is one. Scripting the Naval Academy missions so you always play as the same nation, face the same nation(obviously changes with the scenario), the same opposing ships in the same configurations(ai autobuild can be for custom scenarios and again designs can change depending on the scenario), and the range setting of your design could let you have some choice on if you started closer in or farther away as favors the build you go with but time to complete the mission increases/decreases with how you set the bar(less range=less time and more range=more time) would be another small stepping stone because you'd need to do this for the campaign too to ensure you always fight the same nation and the SMS Scharnhorst doesn't suddenly become the HMS Nelson going from one fight to the next. Custom Battle design save does confuse me as to why we don't already have it or will not be getting it soon. We already have this for Naval Academy so I'm honestly not sure why the code cannot be used again for Custom Scenarios either by calling the same code or worst case scenario copy/paste but build a new call function around it.

Well not surprised. Clear back when I got this game I did say anything before 2021 for the campaign would be a welcome surprise.

I know I have asked for ways for us players to control more variables and increased scripting in missions so we players can more readily see if things are behaving as intended/historically in the past and it seems pretty clear that we do need such things with the added bonus of many of the things I've asked for us players to have being good stepping stones to test certain portions of what would have to go into the campaign anyway. That we're not getting them is just making certain issues more pronounced and quite simply put in it's current state I would not call this game anywhere near ready for a release as a result.

At this point anything before the end of the year is an unexpected bonus.

A lot of excellent stuff there. It'll be rather difficult for me to wait for Monday now.

As future DLC or something I have no problem with new nations being added later. Indeed I would not argue against three other nations being added that way that even built their own ships during this era: Denmark, Holland, and Sweden.

I guess I see things a little differently. Improving the designer for Custom Battle would be effort you could just copy/paste into the campaign for allowing us players to custom design ships during the campaign. Especially the ability to save designs so there is the ability to populate the campaign with static ships so that we can engage say the SMS Seydlitz in one fight and if it survives to fight again the next fight we can engage the SMS Seydlitz and it'll have the same stats and even damage.

1.) So far there is only the ability to save designs in the Naval Academy missions for later use and there is no easy way to share these designs as yet. 2.) Currently no but this is something I hope they work out soon. 3.) As of Alpha 4 68 this is not currently possible.

Most interesting. Though I find myself having a bit of a thought, something that I think will help for the campaign. To make the Operational Range setting more meaningful for Naval Academy and maybe even Custom Battles have the setting alter the time limit and maybe even impact starting range, the later obviously more for Naval Academy missions. Something to consider for Alpha 6 or maybe even 7. Other than that I am hoping I will finally be able to re-create many treaty heavy cruisers that I currently can't. The Light Cruiser hulls I most certainly look forward to trying out and seeing what can be done with them.

When I go into Naval Academy missions I get performance issues when exiting as well but not in custom missions for some reason. I'll see about doing some digging to see if I can find something helpful.

Still hoping we'll get more light cruiser and destroyer hulls but all in all this looks like it'll add a lot of interesting stuff to keep us held over for now.

You can count me in the camp of I'd like spotter planes and even eventually air power but for the immediate future I consider it a feature that can and probably should be added later with more fundamental features needing addressed first. Which brings me to an additional suggestion that I'd love to see that I can't believe slipped my mind. More scripting for the Naval Academy missions. I'd love to see them be more informative and useful to learn from but to do that I think we need to see the same AI ships(both friendly and hostile) starting in the same positions at the same ranges rather than seeing different designs every time. Maybe even script participating nations, at least for the AI, but that only really depends on how much effort is to be put into national flavor. Plus this would be a good way to make sure for the campaign the AI doesn't just keep randomly generating ships instead of using designs it should already have in service.

I think for me it boils down to: -I would love some more smaller ship options in terms of hulls and components to play with. -Likewise I think many components do need re-sized so you can fit more parts in combination together. -Absolutely would be down for a true custom battle option that gives us far more options for controlling the variables. It would make testing many mechanics much easier and much more reliable. -To get better feedback in battle maybe develop a damage overlay filter so it is easier to see what is damaged/broken. -Likewise someway to see the status of individual weapon mounts. -Instead of torpedo loads being +/-x% change it to a slider or number entry of number of reloads that goes down to 0 so all you have is what is in the tubes themselves and that is it. -So certain treaty era CAs can be built I would alter the minimum armor belt thickness of the modern CA hulls so that you can go below 5"/127mm. Pensacola as an example had 4"/102mm main belt and the York class had even less. -Agree with previous comments about needing to re-work HE and AP more so that AP is more relevant as HE is just too good in far too many situations.

There is some historical realism in having some limitations. Mostly in having to deal with how the associated magazine boxes would be laid out in the hull beneath the barbettes or turret ring diameter and needing to keep the hull form and hull weight to certain specifications. Don't get me wrong I think we do need more freedom in how we place them and it needs to be clearer why we can't setup superfiring turrets on certain designs but certain considerations/limitations about where we can place them should remain.

Rule the Waves(either version) actually handles this pretty much the optimal way. Rather than locking it at ship design or having to change it each sortie it allows you to set default loads that you can tailor in various ways. It strikes a very nice balance of not being intrusive, realism, but still letting you tailor your ammunition loads to the situation you find yourself in. I would hope a similar feature can be worked out for this game.

After giving the new hotfix a few tries I shall add my feedback. Some of the actual parts need their sizes adjusted downward still so that some things can be fitted near the towers and funnels better, including many towers and funnels. AP seems to be performing a little better now for penetration. Once we get a firing range setup I might be able to give better feedback about adjustments for this aspect. Damage for AP shells though still feels a bit underwhelming on large ships with high armor even when they penetrate. I'll have to setup more engagements with smaller ships to see how accuracy of all weapons is faring against small ships. More design feedback is I can't actually make the main armored belt thin enough to replicate some of the treaty heavy cruisers. Likewise I'm struggling to figure out when we can get superfiring setups and when we can't as the barbettes aren't always mountable and there is no feedback to tell us why.