Siranui

Is 2560x1600 resolution the maximum planned? It seems to be the current maximum. When using the above resolution and 'fantastic' graphics setting, the 'funnel efficiency' is unreadable, as per attached. 'Torpedo Launchers' is on top of it, and there apears to be a partial pixilation of the displayed data. Can we please do something about the entire way 'funnel efficiency' is presented, and the manner in which a User ascertains what funnels are required. It needs prioritising in the UI when on that tab, as tiny text right at the bottom of the stats section is not very useful. A better solution would be to present the funnel capacity required and current efficiency in the middle of the screen when the 'funnel' tab is selected, where 'no mounts' gets shown, for example.

I came onto the forum to provide some quick game feedback after having some 'moments' with the design UI. If my points had been met with community counter-argument and triggered reasonable debate, fair enough. I see someone has now done so, and if I get time I might make counterpoints where it is not a subjective view (although I only really came to the forum to quickly post feedback and didn't really want to make a 'thing' of visiting these forums. I only scribbled a few notes when I played, and don't really want to have to spend an hour dissecting them). However, that's not the response I initially received, which was a quote of the entire post and "The building UI works perfectly imho and most of this suggestions are really not needed" - nothing more than a dismissal, not a discussion. I am now somewhat less inclined provide future QA feedback if I'm going to be berated for it. I simply don't have time to sit on here and defend every observation I've made in playing, at length. I'm also feeling a bit less enthused about the project, seeing as a lot of QoL suggestions are getting eclipsed by volume of fire on the subject of CVs. Perhaps a clear dev statement on the subject of airpower in the game would clarify if this is bandwidth we should be investing time into exploring or not. Likewise discussions on the mechanics could be clarified by being provided a bit more detail about the mechanics. Naval warfare has an awful lot of aspects about it which are not intuitive, and a better understanding of the system and maths behind the scenes. ie: Is sea-state relevant to 'to hit', and does the rolling of a vessel actually change the shell's angle of impact? Do multiple vessels firing on one affect accuracy, et al?

Given that the lack of such information caused IRL naval loses due to the wrong ammo being fired, I'm not wholly convinced that this should be 'player viewable' info during the battle itself. Perhaps an option on a 'realism' menu which we can toggle? At any rate, I believe that a little more transparency in the way accuracy and damage works would be good, even if it was an after-action report. Looking at some of the other feedback, I think we're at the stage where those playing it would be really interested to get a view of some of the mechanics and modifiers behind the game. Any chance of being provided with such a pen and paper overview?.

This was a big green '@' which flashes up on the sea. Will capture next time I observe. A green line from the ship for bearing of radar contacts would also be a welcome addition.

I am not getting into this in depth, but this is a feedback thread, not a discussion thread. Feel free to provide unsolicited feedback on other's comments, but it is exceptionally rude to simply declare that other's issues are non-issues, then table your own suggestions, and state that they 'should take priority'. I reiterate: The build UI is not 'finished' in any manner appropriate for a game of this price bracket. It is clunky and incomplete. If you don't recognise that, then it's exceedingly fresh of you to be lecturing others on the subject of testing.

You are correct, and I need new glasses! Thank-you. Yes, I noticed that smoke only seems to penalise firing at an emitting ship, and that vessels whose LoS is blocked by a smokescreen do not seem to suffer any penalty. This seems odd, as I would like to be able to use my DDs to screen other vessels with their smoke. I have definitely seen false returns on radar on a pursuit mission, where I had LoS to the fleeing vessel, but kept also receiving pings on a irrelevant bearing. Might have been a one-off issue, but I rather assumed false radar returns were programmed in. If not, then I'd like to put that forward as a suggestion: Some manner of error margin and red herrings with early radar equipment.

I assume the big green @ symbols in the game are radar returns - either false or true? Is that correct? This is not stated anywhere, and it can be luck if they are noticed or not. Is this a placeholder mechanic? Perhaps instead of a random character floating on the ocean, we could receive a notification message and a bearing of the returned signal? Additionally, I note that once the game decides its going to give me a false return, it keeps doing so. Is there any way for our radar operators to figure out that they are chasing a ghosts? *** Also: Smokescreens. What am I missing? I press F11 as per the shortcut menu, then the screen flickers grey, then the game continues, with no smoke. As a caveat, I have only tried this on coal vessels. Do I need oil or semi-oil fuel to create smokescreens?

No, it does not. You even contradict this position and acknowledge the failings in the last sentence of your post. The build UI and mechanics are not currently acceptable as a finished commercial product, and - respectfully - I do not require feedback on my QA comments from other customers stating that their suggestions are more important than others and that my issues are moot. That is for he development team to decide.

I appreciate that I can type numbers in, but I would like to see the incremental cost/mass increase. Typing the number in five times is also more bother than it needs to be. A +1" button resolves that.

Also, which are currently firing. That would be very handy. Having just spent another stint in-game, I'd like to reinforce how good it would be to - when viewing enemy ships - in addition to seeing penetration chances and all that stuff, a simple bearing and speed.

Additional commentary: "Well, it was alright last time! ^$%£^£$!!!" I have repeatedly had issues where I have hit 'retry' on a mission, my prior ship is loaded... and some bits are 'badly placed'. Well, it was ok last time we launched! Particularly a problem with main guns on fore and aft towers.

You may, and it is a useful feature, but that's not what I asked for. I want to be able to see the effect of adding each inch at a time, with a single click. The click-to-edit option requires me to click the box, move a hand to keyboard, type and hit return each time I modify, which is about as time-consuming as ten mouse clicks.

I'd like to see the heading of a selected ship, and its current speed. Pretty essential data, to my mind. I'd also like more than 'smoke to the West'. I assume somebody has seen it, so if I received that report on my bridge, I'd be tracking down the person who saw it and asking them to point to WHERE it was, because 'West' is not good enough. We're not in the stone age: Give me an approximate bearing. While we're at it, a quick intercept calculator that I could hit a F-key and bring up would be great: I know their bearing and speed and my own speed, so quickly plot me an intercept bearing, rather than making me have to work it out on the back of a cigarette packet. An easy way for me to tell which batteries are engaged, short of zooming in and looking for muzzle flash. When I am in pursuit, I want to be able to take a bearing which engages rear turrets in a quick and easy fashion. I'm not sure if it already does it, and have not really done much examination, but an adjustable level of initiative for gunners who have alternative targets. ie: If my main target is at extended range on the port bow, do more close ranged batteries fire at other targets of opportunity, either closer in the same quadrant, or in other quadrants. I would not be a happy captain to have directed fire at a BB, only for gun crews on the other side of the ship to be sat on deckchairs watching another BB and doing nothing because it was not my primary nominated target. Appreciate that there are perhaps fire control limitations, but when it's 1km away there's no excuse for those gunners not putting some steel downrange. Is there a mechanical representation for reduced accuracy when multiple ships are firing on one target? If not, perhaps there should be, as it's 'a thing'. Ramming and collision damage, as appropriate. Mostly for the 'blue on blue' fender-benders, but if a DD sits broadside in front of my BB, I want the option of cutting it in half.

Sorting out the build UI, please. The time taken to build is massively inflated by struggling with the AI. QoL changes that are immediately obvious: Buttons for adding an inch of armour to a location at a time, instead of having to click 60 times to add 6". In addition to having the sliders for displacement and speed, have little arrows at each end to add or subtract incrementally. Currently one has to click and drag 'just so' to get things right. Marks on the displacement slider which show us where the vessel will become larger. It is extremely annoying to move the slider down and for guns to be taken off without any warning when this will happen. An indicator which clearly states the funnel capacity required for 100% boiler efficiency. For the UI to highlight exactly which parts are 'badly placed' in a consistent manner. The UI to prevent parts being placed in a 'badly placed' manner in the first place. For it to be clearer which guns will fit where in advance, rather than a matter of experimentation and fiddling about. For components which allow the mounting of others (barbettes and some towers) to clearly state what can be balanced onto them, rather than being a matter of experimentation. For there to be a button which allows the change of calibre of primary, secondary, casement batteries and torpedo tubes with a single click, instead of needing to change each one, individually. The removal of the port and starboard offset if it is not possible to place things only on a single side of the vessel. Surely this mechanic is currently moot? For the game to clearly state what fore and aft offset will do mechanically, and at what thresholds. To be able to click a 'fire arc view' which shows a plan view where all primary, secondary and torpedo arcs of fire can all be highlighted, for consideration. For there to be a way to highlight all guns on a design. Currently, if I want to remove all 2" guns from a build, I have to painstakingly 'find' all of those little barrels by squinting and waving the mouse around, while checking the armament precis to see if I've found them all, instead of being able to directly see where they are. Sort out the annoying bug which tells us that parts are badly placed until we click the 'hull' view, or otherwise backtab out of the current item selection.

You lost me at 'air to air damage', I'm afraid. Which implies that this is not a simple 'just add spotter planes' exercise. Spotter planes do not engage in air to air combat. You want this to be something more. I do not believe this is really the game for those elements. Ultimately, the game defines itself as a project by its title 'dreadnoughts', just as the prior title was 'age of sail'. Explosive shells completely killed age of sail naval tactics. Aircraft carriers - when present - completely killed off the dreadnought era of battleships slugging it out and the associated tactics so I would not expect to see them in this game. It's out of scope of the game's aims. I strongly suspect that this is the reason that the game 'stops' in 1940, just before everyone got the idea that the battleship was going to be obsolete in theatre, when opposed by a carrier fleet. November of that year saw the first naval battle in which one side just launched a carrier strike, and that of course preceded Pearl Harbour in '41. Nobody ever built another battleship once the writing was on the wall. That era - and the manner of fleet engagements which are the scope of this game - ended. Heck: I really do not want to see CVs in this game, or any major air influence in its tactical elements (air scouting can play a part of the campaign, but have no place in the tactical engagement and do not require representation within such). Carriers utterly destroy the entire premise of the game and the core naval tactics employed. Their use and the strategies behind them are of course valid, but would completely dominate play, to the point of eclipsing the very word which defines this title. We can play 'Harpoon' or 'red storm rising' another day, - though I assure you that waving planes off to perform over-the-horizon airstrikes is strategically a lot less fun, especially when the game becomes almost entirely 'dependent on who gets first detection, and becomes akin to 'rocket tag': The first person to locate a fleet and launch an overwhelming airstrike at it wins. Floatplanes and airships can be implemented in a simulationist manner without ever needing to be on the tactical map: Put a floatplane hanger on a ship, then - if the weather isn't awful - there can be a passive modifier to spotting and potentially accuracy. No graphics or air to air combat required. There is a place in the game for that, I believe. TL;DR: Please not in this game. Where armed airpower is able to make any measurable input to fleet actions, it obsoletes everything else. Make 'Ultimate Admiral: Carrier era' another time if there is sufficient interest, and focus this game on its stated purpose, carrying lessons over to future games, as appropriate. 'Dreadnoughts' should dominate the game that bears their name and 'ends' at the end of their era, and 'carrier strikeforce' is worthy of its own, later-set title.