Shaftoe

Let's add something to this list. 6 - Expanded Ship Designer We should be able to design all ships in our fleet before an upcoming mission, not just one.

There are numerous factual evidences contradicting your position. Apparently, reversing can be done without wrecking ship's propulsion. Therefore, "heavy" penalties you are advocating for are not necessarily "realistic". If players constantly switch between flank and reverse, then I agree - some damage might occur due to reckless use. However, you make it sound like damage should occur immediately upon engaging reverse to slow down, so I cannot agree with you. From where I stand, it looks like all you did is merely changed format of the same unacceptable arbitrary limitations.

Before coming to my points, let's address something. While you are free to express your opinion just as everybody else, I would caution you from trying to impose it as the single correct point of view. After all, sometimes people like Cptbarney and Woodrow make convincing arguments against your position - let's respect that. Now, to my points... The game was announced as a realistic naval game. Therefore, your idea of keeping arbitrary restrictions simply contradicts the very premise of this game. Whatever you may think of "casual players" and their choices, you are not entitled to make decisions for them, including limiting their right to choose. To further elaborate on my point, if it is possible in reality, then it should be featured in this realistic game. People (who are not naval experts - just players who want to have fun) should have the means to do what they want, regardless of how stupid you think their actions may be. The game itself should "teach" them what decisions work, and what don't. How to go about something, and what not to do. If use of reverse to slow down is not going to be very useful (or will even be potentially dangerous), then people should be the ones to figure it out, whether by reading a tutorial, or by making this mistake in game. We all paid money for it, based on premise of realism, and objectively, our reality is not constrained by some arbitrary limitations - like the kind you insist on having. And since this is not a multiplayer game, there are no viable justifications for implementing such arbitrary limits - especially against expectations of the community. You wanted to be "intellectualy honest"? Fine. Then accept this: UA:D is a complicated strategy game. People who buy such games are usually quite sophisticated, capable of learning and willing to do so. They don't need arbitrary protection from reality and consequences. They can handle it. And if there are some not very effective or even potentially dangerous solutions in reality, then we as players should have them at our disposal, with all the risks therein. After all, that's the "realism" we paid big bucks for.

1. While damage may occur, it is not necessarily going to be so significant and immediate. Therefore, this approach is extreme and therefore unacceptable. If you want to minimize potential abuse (which is a fair point by itself), then just apply significant penalties to accuracy of deccelerating ships, while minimizing evasion benefits of such maneuvers. Therefore, they will be useful to quickly slow down from full speed to cruising speed (to get accuracy bonus sooner), and to more easily avoid timely detected incoming torpedoes. However, they won't work quite like "WASD hack" you're so afraid if. 2. Don't get me wrong, but your agreement is not required.

While it is a neat little feature, I don't think it's on Devs' list of priorities. And I'd expansion for ship designer to come first, we really should be able to design all ship classes in our fleet, not just one.

Which is exactly my point. This is a game, after all. And not having something so basic looks like an oversight, no matter what arguments could be conjured up to justify it. And while IRL it may be detrimental to the machinery, no amount of conjecture on forum would soundly prove that reverse will not be used to cut the speed in a critical situation. Whatever you may say, in reality - the option is there, and so it is logical (and expected) to give it to players in the game, to use (or not to use) at their discretion. Woodrow said the rest. And I find his arguments more convincing.

My biggest issue with speed (and movement in general) is that ships in UA:D can't use reverse speed to slow down quickly or move backwards. I hope this oversight will be rectified soon (definitely before Steam release).

At this point, light cruisers are EXPECTED to have barbettes and superstructures that'd allow for installation of superfiring turrets.

Add new DD hulls there! DDs and CLs certainly lack more modern hulls. I'd love to see some 20-30 and 30-40s DD and CL hulls, at least for key nations. Also, additional towers (and barbettes) to complement them would be very nice.

I this this scenario is poorly designed. Too much depends on luck.

Tbh they're not very useful anyway. While it's entirely up to you, personally I think it would have been better to have them fixed, thus being more realistic. However, that would require to add an indicator of players to manually aim their fixed torpedo tubes. Yeah, that's extra work, but that'd have gotten you some additional "realism" points and made for some gameplay diversity.

Good find.

I agree that single turrets shouldn't be as wide as doub/triple/quadruple (?) ones. There is no reason for single 14' turret to be as wide as triple 14' would be, and so on.

1. It was Earl Grey, hot. 2. I am a Russian, not a Brit. Their Queen and her royal lapdogs have no jurisdiction over me. Lol. Vashe zdorovye!

Spits tea and coughs heavily

Tbh I don't think there will be MP specifically optimized and balanced for PvP. P.S.

I ran into this bug, too.

But then again, some ship classes cannot be recreated because of forward/aft mast placement. So technically not only barbettes and turrets, but also superstructure need to have a lot more freedom.

Apparently, because devs fear it would break AI ship designs even more. Although dev team cannot claim their game is "historical" if we can't build ships with barbettes amidships. Like Nelson-class or Wyoming-class.

Free the barbettes! Freedom and equality for every barbette! Hoorah!

Tbh rather than seeing this small Dev Team wasting precious time on something like OP's proposal, I would prefer them to simply eliminate glaring issues with AI's ship design (make them more historical, less stupid, etc.) and then handle top priorities on already existing to-do list. Hopefully, implementing ability to design several classes of ships before combat, adding more DD and CL hulls, and finalizing the campaign.

That's quite a statement. What if the goal is to re-create historical ships and try to beat certain scenarios with them? What if for somebody it's all about the looks of 2 fleets mauling each other? Tbh, personally, I don't care whether or not my ships are "meta". So long as they get the job done and I like them, the game is fine by me.

The man just did this in his free time and shared results of the work. Nobody is obligated to use or read it. But I gotta say, what he did is interesting. You know, sometimes people just do stuff like that, the "meaningless work". A lot of hobbys can be described as such. And yet people still do it. It does not warrant public scrutiny, and it does not need to have some high purpose to be valid knowledge or at least an interesting read for those who'd care to check it out. In case you're unaware, jupming into thread out of nowhere and questioning people's hobbies (or other seemingly useless activities) does not make you look good, nor smart. Especially when something you question is well-liked by others (as in this case, judging by amount of likes he received from active part of this community). So, in light of questions you asked him, I would like to ask one of you: what is the purpose of appealing to playerbase's interests here (aside from embarrassing yourself)?

Perhaps... you set your guns on "safe" and they don't fire because chance to hit is very low?

Also, I think more modern destroyers need new superstructure options, including those with integrated barbettes for 5' (and 6' for Germans) turrets. That would enable to to build DDs like Fletcher, Tribal, and so on. Without new superstructures new hulls alone won't be much of improvement.