Shaftoe

Man, those English 42.5 knots battlecruisers... I hope these crackpot ships won't be here after the fix arrives. Lol. Breaks muh immersion!

I agree. Completely. Was gonna say this myself. But I suppose I might just quote you.

YES! YES!

I really hope Alpha 4 won't be delayed. Gotta get that Hood bismarck'd alright. Lol.

@Skeksis Just keep in mind that time of day (or, to be more precise, lightening), weather, water vapour and sea state can drastically affect visibility. And you can't count it to always be clear and nice. If anything, sea in UA:D often seems quite rough.

Fillers and propellants definitely should be separate choices for all nations.

Relax. Guarding the forum usually doesn't help. Lol.

So, we're supposed to get Alpha 4 this week (unless something goes not as planned), huh? Exciting!

Excellent comeback, sir. Naval aviators of this forum salute you. o7

I think it's still pretty representative of what the game is at the moment. Yes, there is the animation which we don't have and don't need. But there is no message that we could combine different hulls in this video, as the animation is used to show transition from one size and hull time to another, not to infer complete freedom of hull customization. You are grasping straws, @DetCord.

Tbh I think the subject should be widened to larger ships smoke screens.

Still would make a nice feature imo.

You are correct. Prince of Wales DID save herself by timely deploying smoke. Lack of smoke on larger ships, like cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships is completely unrealistic and should be fixed. However, players should be able whether or not to incorporate smoke generators into their designs. Or (additionally) there should be order to set ship engines to release more smoke - at the cost of decreased efficiency. That'd be a highly situative, but quite neat feature, especially if wind will be taken into account.

I believe you do know that % lies on the range from 0 (guaranteed it won't happen) to 100 (guaranteed to happen). The game usually seems to present us with very low hit probability values, below 10%. And yet, it hits. So sometimes it feels like those numbers are not indicative of real chances to hit the enemy. This is why I said that sometimes 4% feels like 40%.

I really dislike those probability values. They are not indicative of the real state of things. Sometimes 4% turns out to be 40%, and so on.

Yeah, purely historical battles with accurately recreated ships would be very nice. A very strong selling point in its own right.

Yeah, I hope we will get it next week without delays, too. Alpha-4 appears to be very promising.

So, off-screen subs, huh? I hope at least recon planes will make it to tactical layer.

In addition to that, could you please look into one visual bug? User location is displayed inappropriately (merged). Just look at my profile and you'll notice "LocationRussia" as opposed to "Location: Russia". Also, there is an error in "landsman" rank name. Should be "landsmAn" (single), as opposed to "landsmEn" (plural).

Oh... Boy, I see what you're trying to do. Let me put it this way: trolling a dev or a moderator isn't a smart thing to do. I mean, they usually have the same entertainment value as ordinary users - if they take the bait, but are much more dangerous when provoked. So, unless you have something really subtle and/or powerful to bring to the table (and in your case, apparently, you don't), I'd suggest you to quit while you still can. Lol. UPD: Yep. The only thing that could have possibly happened - happened. Tbh I don't feel sorry for him. As a troll, he failed completely.

Well said.

That is agreeable. Just make sure that your system accounts for some more interesting ship designs. Like Wyoming class, which is impossible to create at the moment, due to barbette placement limitations.

1. New "Prove your Might" mission needs to include an auto-generated British Battleship (resembling HMS Prince of Wales) to accompany player-designed Battlecruiser (which, in many cases, is going to be a copy of HMS Hood). Otherwise, historicity fades away and some players might feel that this scenario is unfair. 2. Already existing missions "Battleship vs Battlecruiser" and "Attack armed convoy" should feature newly added HMS Hood hull. Hood fanboys would greatly appreciate it. 3. "Main Guns: Shift + Alt + Right Click" - I think using combination of two already used keys is not really convenient, and it could cause errors and misclicks, especially on older keyboards. I suggest to assign main guns targeting to a completely new, unused button, and avoid combinations for such crucial commands in the future. 4. And please, add some new modern destroyer hulls. Other ship types seem to receive a lot of attention, but destroyers are kinda left out. Sure, they aren't as impressive as larger capital ships, but they are important. And at the moment, we literally only have resized versions of the same hull. It's disappointing. At least consider making something simple that would enable us to build things like Farragut, Pr.7 and Type 1936 destroyers.

That's an important issue if the game aims to be historically accurate. Good point.

That is a rather poor argument. Firstly, any feature would require work. If you were to support advanced damage control, an argument could be made that it would be just as historically inaccurate/wrong/whatever, because admiral of task force does not manage DC on every ship under their command. Secondly, spotter planes are critical for campaign and certain scenarios. An argument could be made it'd be better, or at least more immersive to have them on screen, fire hazard or not. Like you said - we can always move them to the stern, lol. Thirdly, only devs can determine which features will or won't make it. Spotter plane is certainly not the least important feature and in opinion of many people, it deserves to be implemented.