Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Ruan

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About Ruan

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The changes to formations is welcome! I do hope it comes with a bit of AI improvements to prevent the collision and oddities when attempting to change from one formation to another.
  2. Nice ideas. I brought up issues with smoke in the past and it seemed to be ignored. One thing I would stress is wind needs to affect smoke. This would add depth to the tactical use and add more interaction of smoke with ships and the environment. Second any ship should be able to use smoke regardless of position or role. Maybe at a funnel and/or engine penalty. Any ship can use it historically so why limit it here. If the simulation, ie wind, is appropriate there wouldn't be any issues of it being over powered. Another point I would maybe say it could be interesting to add is types o
  3. I would have to disagree a bit. In KSP we're given a blank slate and told to build a rocket. If it explodes. tips over, collapses, etc. that's fine and we are given the opportunity to learn from that. In UA:D we're given a template that we modify. With all the "safety" checks in place to prevent any "Well that clearly doesn't work". Now here is the problem with "realism" vs arcade. UA:D is dropped in the middle between these two ideals. It's impossible to have complete realism in a video game, I think we all know and understand that. But some mechanics seem to support "realism" while othe
  4. I really should stop buying games from these guys if this is true. At least consolidate! Push out one game then move on to the next.
  5. You could not play his silly little game and give feedback and criticism. For all he knows he could just as easily be the minority. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with being upset about delays or directions of development and voicing that opinion. So long as your respectful about it.
  6. I would also say, in addition to missing mechanics, that if more and more people are starting to complain then perhaps the mechanics are in contrast to the pitch or description of the game. Which on the steam page is "extremely in depth realistic combat model" but we have something that's, in my opinion, starting to rival WoWS arcade. It's confusing and aggravating when I see the pitch clearly directed towards "realism" and the simulator crowd but then the game doesn't hold up.
  7. It's more than just a lack of content as the problem. Mechanics don't feel right and the direction of the game is unclear. Just having a solid base of mechanics can be enough to keep people playing and having a direction for the game will attract the kind of community you want playing it.
  8. Oof 5-6 months for first version of the campaign and only 2 nations at that. That's not nice to see. I thought you guys were working on it and wanted to release the steam version with the campaign? I'm getting Naval Action flash backs here. The update progress on that game pretty much stalled. Can I expect the same here? Either rate guess I'll shelf U:A for a year.
  9. Without a doubt. At the very least float planes should be added. They're an integral part of the History of Dreadnoughts. I would suspect that if the Devs did add aircraft it would be later after the campaign was completed and possibly as a expansion. At any rate if they want this game to compete with games like RtW2 it's going to need to look at aircraft long and hard. As right now the simulation is vastly inferior to RtW2 and the only thing going for UA:D is visuals. At least from my point of view.
  10. Good to see some love for missions but the increased fund trend is a little worrisome with prospect to the campaign. Can cheaper ships still be viable in some way?
  11. I think you misunderstood what I meant. You and the AI should be able to build the same ships within the same rules. If you can build a 39kn Battleship with 2 9" main guns, so can the AI. If you can build a Nelson class look-a-like on a cruiser, then so can the AI. Rule sets are not the same as algorithms however. The Devs could tell the AI, yes you can build that but maybe you should build something more conventional instead. So the AI might only pop out a wacky design 5% of the time instead of 60% of the time. That sort of thing. I believe this may be what's preventing the changes people hav
  12. The problem with this is it could be confusing to the player. Differing rule sets can make it surprisingly difficult to gauge what the AI can and cannot do and work around it. The second problem is differing rule sets could give the player a substantial advantage over the AI in unexpected or unintended ways.
  13. Yeah, This game is a long way from becoming main stream wargame. I'd guess it needs to at a very least win over RtW. Which I'd say at the moment it wont. But it's still early days so who knows.
  14. Part of me says let us build those silly designs and just apply the appropriate penalties. However, realistically they are so outlandish that just having restrictions would provide the same result with less development. Op does bring up a good point though. The designer is still very ridged with placement. The builder should have rules we need to follow. Like CL can only use 6-8 inch guns maximum or 4in armor maximum. That sort of thing but should give as much freedom within those rules as possible. I honestly feel that the current setup of having a huge number of hulls, super struct
  15. DLC adding in additional parts would be ok but I personally think that parts (hulls, towers, etc) should not be specially designed to pull off unique designs as seen in the Op. We should be able to do that with any part already given. However, that's the problem. The ship builder doesn't support building ships like these in the first place. The builder is to ridged and should be made to allow for creative designs such as seen in the Op and no I do not agree with any argument of "it was done this way" or "They never did that". I say let us do what we want and apply the appropriate penalties for
×
×
  • Create New...