skg02

In Stellaris this is Cntrl-F9. Is there a key combo in UA:AoS that does this? Want to take some screenshots of my epic ship battles.

What I particularly like in this is the delayed reporting mechanism. That alone will make it a superior system. The attention to logistics, industry/tech, and troop/officer development look very good. If this works it will probably be better than anything Paradox is doing or the Total War series.

Can't wait for this. Just got back to UA:AoS. Damn fun. What would be great to see per above is a treatment of French/Indian Wars that captures the crucial use of rivers.

Had this happen with UA:Age of Sail and got no help on that board. Now I'm having the same problem with UA:Dreadnaughts. All my other steam games launch fine off-line. Game-Labs won't launch and crash to desktop. This is not a needs an update issue either - set them all to restricted time window for downloads, no background downloads. I have another game that has a lot of mods that I don't want to connect with Steam because of - the workshop mods update independent of game update and not Steam setting rules. Shouldn't have to worry about this with Game-Labs products, what's going on.

As it turns out the base game update controls are not the issue. I know how to control that. But, as I'd feared its the workshop mods, I run 35 of them on Stellaris, and that's a average to low number compared to others. Workshop mods update no matter what when running steam online. So have to confirm a work-around for that. None of the above addresses what I view to be a GameLabs issue - none of my other Steam games crash like this when I run offline, some of which I haven't played at all. For UA:AoS all I did was check integrity and open it, everything fine, then closed and left it for a few months, then try to open it offline and crash - shouldn't do that.

LAVA. Thx for response. Will watch video to make sure I'm not missing anything on verifying game integrity. Question on your practice and experience with Steam updates and workshop mods - to confirm my impressions. Do you do this my editing the acf file or through the settings menu? Also, if you apply a time limit window for downloads through settings does that apply to the game AND the workshop mods associated with that game or just the game? - that's my biggest concern - running 35 mods can make the game+mods a bit "humpty-dumpty". Also, if you run steam with the time-setting window on for update downloads, that means outside the window you can run steam to check integrity of files without auto-triggering update activity, right?

Have had this happen twice now. Don't open the game for a while off-line after doing successful launch, then try to as I did tonight and game crashes to desktop. None of my other Steam games exhibit this behavior, what's going on? I play off-line to avoid the auto-update of other games, specifically Stellaris (lots of frustration toward pdx right now with their endless changes that break the game I like). Is there a way to check steam files without triggering update of all steam games? Wondering if there's a pathway back to playing the non-steam version of this game - was an early purchaser. If I understand right though, that means having to play with an internet connection, or is that not the case?

The strength of the one I quoted is that its a late war (1944) training manual and it walks you through and breaks down all the parts that go into naval munitions and fire control. I've had an interest in WW2 ships for over 40 years - built a bunch of 1/700 waterlines even in jr. high, but this game has really made me realize how shallow my real knowledge was. The really essential books for this game as base source are two of Friedman's earliest ones I think: One on firepower: Naval Firepower One in general on battleship design - this one should be foundational to anything going on in this game I think - its even got equations and graphs on which designs were established, and a BS check methodology for checking stated info: Battleship Design and Development You can almost use this book practically to design ships. Assuming those are two of your sources of knowledge too? I just got this one:Naval Weapons of World War Two, so planning to read through it for the propellant-bursting charge questions as well. Still also getting through the others - as well - a lot to absorb 🙂. What I'd hope is devs would open up a little more than they've done already on their though processes and make use of the knowledge here on the board more than they've done. People like yourself, Roachbeef, and Steeltrap to name a few that stand out to me.

It would be helpful for devs to clarify a little more on what is what in our choice of ammo "explosives" as they are now. I can track Lyddite, and Cordite ok - the latter seems more like a propellant certainly than a shell filler. But what is "High TNT" - is that TNT with RDX in it? Tube Powder certainly is traceable and its German, but why does that mean heavier, less ammo det chance, and better penetration? I'd be happy with the devs just giving us more of their rough note research and interpretation on this and why they named stuff the way they did, or just bullet point a little more info so we can follow their logic a little more, maybe include the emphasis of a choice such as "Cordite II - mostly propellant oriented." or "Lyddite - composed mostly of picric acid". The questions get more and deeper on this once you pick up and read something like Naval Ordnance and Gunnery for the US Navy.

Nick. Hope your programmer gets well soon, and hope its not the covid plague.

I agree on not letting it out into the wider world before getting it done in workable form on the campaign. I should think the campaign will have to deal with introducing land, islands, coasts, ect. Unless campaigns are just going to be WW1 North Sea like. The armor system and maybe the propellant/explosive system needs work. Reading up on how real armor schemes were really clarifies the need on the armor system.

Here, Here. This is a big one for the advancement of the game. If the omni-direction-choice is too hard for the above. Might be an idea to trial some new naval missions with developer fixed designs rather than AI fixed designs, so some relatively accurate historical battles might be better set-up. These dev-based ship designs then make a start on getting to a ship design data base - some of the first of these ships, if the battles are picked right can go into subsequent new naval missions of this new type.

Just playing Dreadnaughts vs. Modern Cruisers and have to say the way too high speed issue for AI ships is still alive and well. Plain and simple this just needs to be fixed for this game to be a serious treatment of the subject. You've got BC's going speeds that would make some destroyers embarrassed. Its just ridiculous when combined with their supernatural ability to hit at that speed as well - like they are taking no penalty for that high speed. I'm sure these comments are repeated above, consider them reinforcement to the point. Also think the cruiser modelling needs some work so what was IRL can be in the game - 5" twins for US and the standard 4 twin 5" mounts found on Myoko-Takao-Mogami Japanese CA's. This shows up when same tower, different size ship for US and 5" won't mount, but 4" will. Hulls are just a little too narrow now, which I'm wondering whether throws off the roll ratings. Further, seems like there's a constant tendency for a prejudice in the game engine toward a forward weight offset on everything, so the rear turret(s) end up having to be placed in extended armor position and promptly getting destroyed because of it. Again, reinforcement to the point already probably made above I'm sure. Also, looks like some work is needed on AI designs in terms of stack and secondary barbette placement, very Frankenstein at times. Eventually would be good to see US Iowas stack taken out of Japanese design options which especially for Japanese rebuilt dreadnaughts or any other BB's other than modern, should probably go with British WWI style. Really, want this game to succeed, so comments are only meant constructively.

Very good idea.

I think the trick on the forward turrets for the US Modern DD problem described is to use the control button and move the forward most turret forward a little, then things seem to work. Nice work on the Destroyers devs. Notice the flash fire effects are quite significant across ammo types - white powder now isn't so perfect anymore. Tube Powder advantages for risk are now more significant, TNT also better that way too. You really take your life in your hands now going super heavy shells as well. Going forward seems like there might need to be some work on matching turret size with barbette size though on the Italo-French cruisers - turrets are gigantic on tiny barbettes. Haven't checked yet, but all the U.S. style cruisers should allow 5" twins per historic in the last updates, the towers looked the same, but could only put 4" on them, where the historic 5" .38 cals go. Also, need to check out the Japanese rebuilt dreadnaughts - think the stacks should be from the British WW1 selection - in Alpha 5 you could end up with an Iowa funnel on these or the Japanese Yamato/Cruiser style funnel. All the Japanese funnels for WW1 era through to Nagato's should be the British style funnels from WW1.