Ruan

That's what I've been saying. If they increased the team and focused on aspects of the game that the current community is most focused on and aspects that the simulator community considers high priority. They could probably sell more copies and maintain a longer life span of the game. There was nothing wrong with Age of Sail release. It was just an ok release. Looking at steam charts, it sold maybe 500-600 copies between steam and other sources after refunds. With 442 top playing in the last 10 months and roughly 200 current players. Compare that to something like 2k peak watching on twitch. That's a pretty low sale rate vs exposure. I know these are pretty weak numbers but it's something I can see and use. That's the problem I've seen with most of their games. Kind of under the radar release and quick drop off. How many people play RTW2? If I was building Ultimate Admiral I would at the very least match that or focus a huge amount of time on improving the weakest point of my direct competitor. In this case the Ship editor and Campaign map/Mechanics.

@Fishyfish Well said. However, I think the studio is a particularly bad position atm and whatever they choose to do, they wont win. So most obvious is it's a steam early access release that alone it an uphill battle and they have to attempt and counter the reputation from a poor release game of Naval Action and ok release of Age of Sail. Their other projects are mostly ok as well. I would say the only good standing release would be the Ultimate General games. Overall most of their games go under the radar in most cases, which doesn't help with funding. Now consider this game's early release. They've already stated the campaign isn't going to be a final release, only 2 nations at first I believe. That's going to be rough. Now stack that with an incomplete sim model, incomplete ship editor (That doesn't even look like the trailer that's still on steam), incomplete AI, etc. The future of this game is looking bleak, particularly if the early access on steam performs or is perceived poorly. I can say, personally, that after dealing with Ultimate General, Naval Action and viewing how this game is progressing and what was advertised on the steam trailer (which is what made me buy into it). This will probably be the last game I buy from these guys. They always have great ideas but poor implementation. Maybe that's from attempting to build so many games with such a small studio? I don't know.

Last I heard they were going to increase number of points you can use to place modules but free placement isn't going to happen. The reason was those modules may interfere with machinery spaces (Please correct me if I'm wrong). I argue that if we could actually build our ships, instead of modifying them, it wouldn't be a problem. I suspect there is more going on, possibly with tech, than the Devs are willing to admit. The project is walking on eggshells. Enthusiasts, History Nuts and sim nuts would be willing to open wallets without questions if they just focused on the simulation and ship design. However, with the direction it's heading now it'll just be another game left in the dust before it even officially launches.

With the current state of the ship builder/editor I wouldn't. The editor was the main feature that attracted me to UA:D and I'm not really impressed. It feels like I'm just customizing a ship built by someone else rather than building my own. The simulation also isn't all that impressive compared to other similar games atm. Task Force Admiral (WW2), Sea Power (Cold War) and War on the Sea (WW2) all look promising in this regard but I've learnt my lesson. Waiting for them to release before buying this time. About the only feature that is keeping me from outright uninstalling is the freedom the campaign may provide. However, the further in development this game goes the less I'm excited about it. I'm not sure the campaign can hold up the entire game if the simulation and editor fall short. At least to me anyway, my opinion.

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.

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 of smoke. Different periods had different kinds of smoke with differing effects and behaviors. For instance some naval smoke screens were "heavy" and would fall into the ocean quickly and would be nearly useless in rain but wouldn't be blown very far by the wind. While other kinds would tend raise into the air.

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 others are clearly arcade in nature, rate of fire for instance. I personally have no issues if the devs go with an arcade like game or with a "realism" game but they need to choose one and go with it. This in between doesn't work and will continue to not work going forward.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 have proposed. Like the proposal to have towers placed on a center line instead of single points. You'll need the AI to be able to also use that line to figure out where to place the tower and still build a functional ship with all the other modules. The best example of differing rule sets I can think of is Rule the Waves 2. You as the player builds ships to a slightly differing set of rules than the AI. The result is the AI can have designs before you would expect them or designs you can't replicate at all. Such as more guns or larger torpedoes, even adding AA or build aircraft. If you want to see it happening you can use the auto design in the ship builder or even better, let the AI build your legacy fleet. Easy example is CL classes. Use the auto to build you one and then attempt to copy it manually. Most of the time it'll spit out an error.