DougToss

That’s in line with the gunnery tables and historical tests and combat experience! Firing guns at sea is really hard and 33lb shells can’t sink 300t warships easily.

Wouldn’t it be possible to have hull form settings or sliders, so you can place your sections and then the meshes will be deformed to get the lines you want? X-Plane and Simple Planes do this with wings and fuselages.

Whatever the development history is, I think it will be interesting to know since more ambitious naval games that were announced later (War on the Sea, Sea Power, Task Force Admiral) may beat them to market. The RTW2 expansion may as well, they've been good about showing their progress. Having said all that, and NDAs aside, it would be bad form to tell tales out of school now. The industry is small, you don't want to get a reputation for running your mouth and all, but I do wonder if there is more to the troubled development of this title than just technical hurdles. We don't need specifics on the why's, but it would be nice to know what's going on. That's something that I think the community here and on steam is unified on at this point.

You know I didn’t think about it in terms of historical determinism, but it’s an interesting philosophical point that even if the player runs the Japanese Navy entirely differently from 1890 on, by the 1930’s, Japanese ships will always be stealthy because of those hull characteristics. So even if you wanted a navy to slug it out at close range, the hulls you’re given preclude that, or at least aren’t the best hulls for what you want to do. @Steeltrap, you’d understand the tech far better than me, but Automation is able to port player designed cars into BeamNG where they have fully deformable soft body physics, and detailed driving models etc. Might be worth a look for how to port designs into a complex physics image and damage model.

And an Ultimate General: Revolutionary War iirc

The frustrating part is that those people have moved on, but their influence remains. When you get down to it the “Core” audience is naval enthusiasts - the people still on this forum after all that’s happened - and the “Bandwagon” arcade players moved on to other titles at the first speed bump. Any game benefits from people who will buy games they see under “New & Trending” on Steam, but basing design decisions on them, when they’ve already gotten bored and moved on, is frustrating. It’s no mystery, we know that channels streaming this game attracted this crowd, but slow development caused streamers to move on, and their audience with them. I want this game to sell well. I want there to be hype and great Steam reviews, but all of that requires a solid game underneath it all. I’m not at all insisting on a title for purists, only that hurting relationships with the “Core” community has put this game in troubled waters as they are now the only people left, and aren’t particularly happy. They’re also the ones who would be leaving those initial Steam reviews that the hype and Bandwagon crowd coalesce around.

The emphasis on very late battleships seems like a fool’s errand if everything else is stacked against the player sticking with the game that long.

If I remember, the issue was the AI was unable to use it well. Of course, since the AI is unable to use the current, stripped down version well either, I’ll say again that a lot of time, effort and bugs could have been spared by having the AI use templates while the player freely designs - exactly how RTW solved this problem.

There’s a really cool upcoming game you should check out! Oh…

I’m just confused about how we got to this point. What made Japanese ships stealthy? Who could have machined reliable gas turbines and why in the 40’s?

I missed out on this earlier campaign. Why was it torn down? What was wrong with it? What’s the point of a feedback forum if nobody knows what’s being done, what the roadmap is, and what changes are being implemented and why?

I’m by no means a Project Manager, and we certainly haven’t seen a roadmap, but - Wouldn’t nation by nation, decade by decade make the most sense? I’m confused about the work devoted to assets both late in the game and not in the campaign.

If I’ve learned anything from being on this forum, it’s that those people are not enthusiasts in the same way as Jutland Pro,Totem Games, Victory at Sea, Silent Hunter, War on the Sea, RTW, CMO players. WOWS and WT are ultimately shooters. Still, pedantry aside, any community needs community engagement and a community manager. I peeked over at Steam and things are just as, maybe more, tense over there. It’s something that needs to happen as development stretches into 2022.

They brought their site back earlier this year… only to abandon it. Why they won’t bring their games to Steam and insist on their own weird DRM, I couldn’t say. It’s infuriating lol.

Stormworks absolutely shows how Early Access can work: Frequent communication, frequent patches even for an item or two, strong engagement and reception to feedback, Dev Q&As and streams, WIP work shared and altered if need be etc. I think I bought stormworks around the same time as UA:D, and whenever I open my Steam Library, I have a positive association with it when I see their updates. It often gets me to stop what I’m doing and play, create workshop content, write guides, contribute to discussion. That’s what a difference it can make.

Lol I mean, I just kind of chuckled because that’s SNCO mindset, but I take your point. It’s weird seeing it online, for sure, but unlike your formation SM, he can’t give you a hard time - so there’s that! Mostly I agree that communication is the way out of this jam.

I’m happy with the patch notes, and particularly the write up. It’s appreciated, and I’m looking forward to seeing how that North Sea campaign comes together. e: Though if @Shiki is right, a lot of the underlying systems might remain flawed. I’ll test this build and check in when I have a feel for it. I want to reiterate that the firm and vocal feedback from the community comes from a place of seeing what’s possible, and I don’t think should be taken as discouragement, but rather encouragement to pay attention to neglected areas. I know it’s hard to balance praise and criticism, but I also think there are many things - communication being the key one IMO - that can be improved regardless of progress on the patch. Still, this shot in the arm was needed for sure. ee: I think the 1.0 version number may be unearned, or at least premature. I don’t know how these things usually work, but would it be amiss to say that the game systems so far remain in need of work? An updated roadmap would go a long way towards identifying what feedback has been received and how recurring concerns are being addressed. eee: The toxicity thing bothers me. This board has no moderation - we had someone singing the praises of Croatian Fascism until they got bored and moved along with no mod action. There is no engagement with the board from Devs. Without Devs steering or participating in discussion, it’s impossible for anyone posting to know what, if anything, is being addressed. I don’t see how the tone could be better in the absence of any response to feedback. If people feel heard they speak less forcefully. That overlaps with ad hominem toxicity towards “The Devs”. When the developers are silent and invisible, their feelings and perspectives can’t be taken into account because they aren’t known. Someone who just started following the game couldn’t moderate their feedback by what they know of @Nick Thomadis, and give a more charitable interpretation of events, because they don’t know him from Adam. They can’t say or think “I know Nick takes our concerns seriously, let’s not assume he’s ignoring us or acting in bad faith”. How could they? Saying that neglected community forums are toxic *and therefore feedback has been dismissed* gets the causal relationship backwards, and is only salting the wound. I worry it won’t help repair the rift forming here. I don’t know, I suppose my larger point is that none of this is happening in a vacuum, and engaging with the community is probably the best way for future development to be well received. @Nick Thomadis please consider taking on @Cptbarney as community manager or something, as he’s the only reason I come back here. I can’t think of a better person to act as a go-between here, and on Steam, to start rebuilding a positive relationship with the community - and if he had mod privileges - a less toxic community as well. It’s something your team badly needs, and he’s already been doing it while in the dark, for free. Just saying.

One of the reasons why military life in garrison is filled with busywork is that nothing is more dangerous than bored soldiers, or ones who are not receiving direction from their leadership. Even if it means sweeping the gun sheds and oiling recuperators all day, it gives Joe something to do. What I see here is a solid community of naval enthusiasts chaffing for lack of things to do, and without leadership from the devs to productively steer feedback. Apologies to @arkhangelsk for biting his head off. I think I speak for many people here that I’m hoping for an update, and to have new things to provide feedback on, and to see that past feedback has been received.

Mostly directed at Skerskis or whatever, and I apologize for assuming you were trying to prop up broken gunnery as a feature, not a bug. Also going to bat for @jimh a bona fide SME, who was dismissed out of hand for no reason I can see. All of that to say, it was inappropriate, and I’m sorry for taking it out on you @arkhangelsk. Still, I generally like what you have to say, as I’ve said before you seem to be one of the people here who knows his sources, so even if we differ on the philosophy of it, I think your feedback has been positive and I don’t want you to think I have personal animosity towards you. I don’t, I apologize for the tone, and for taking my frustration out on you. It was uncalled for, and you’re a valued member of this community.

@Commander Reed, @Draco Nobilis - I’ll own this, I should have done this a while ago on this, and a few other issues. Good on @madham82 for leading by example, I’ll follow suit. I’m happy to discuss whatever, but I’m not going to get sucked into bad faith, disingenuous gish galloping.

The reason is simple: I don’t think everybody is making arguments in good faith, and when they go on to derail any discussion that does happen, it wears away at civility. It abrades goodwill. I agree with your sentiment, but I hope you can see both that I’m trying, and where I’m coming from - in wordcount alone.

You insult yourself with every post like this man, idk what else to say. It’s going to be very lonely being the only person playing this game if the solid feedback here and on steam is discarded in favour of your ass kissing. You’re being hello kittying Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin here, only you’re stalling the game getting better for absolutely no reason that I can see. I’m sick of you hello kittying filibustering the feedback forum by trying to shout down or shut out feedback. If you’re content that the game is perfect as-is, hello kitty off and let us provide feedback. Don’t trouble yourself by reading it. Jesus Murphy.

They literally add mechanics in every patch. If you had said that earlier, there’d be no crew system. What the hell are you on about man? What’s the point of a pre-release, a hello kittying testing forum, if everything is “done and dusted”? lol they better be paying you for this shit, you’re degrading yourself.

It would just mean formations sail into effective range… which is exactly what happened. At Jutland, often shooting opportunities were fleeting and the whole battleline was not engaged at once. It’s no different than a turret not being able to come to bear on a target, it happens. Yes. Precisely! That’s what we want! Knowing that the enemy is out there ≠ shooting them. Bingo. Visibility is one of tens of features that had better not be what’s planned for release! In what universe is the current state of the game acceptable?

Well @Tousansons - first of all, much appreciated. If only… Second - it could not have come at a better time for the forum. I think we’re close to a breaking point here.