bshaftoe

Are the penalties static or can they be derived from some other value? If the second, maybe they can be tied to % of current transports and how much money you are funneling into building convoys? So, first months on a war, where you don't have any losses in shipping, penalties are mild (or if you fight a much less powerful navy). But once you start having losses (that are more likely if you are ganged up by more than one enemy, or fight against a strong navy), penalties can go up QUICKLY.

@o Barão Would it be possible for you to add some kind of suffix at the end of every tech name indicating if a tech is applicable straight away, if a ship needs upgrade to benefit, or if it's only applicable to ships built from scratch? I am talking off my memory, doesn't have my computer in front of me and won't have from days, so I don't remember if we already have anything like that (and then we need to interpret the tech and what we need to do to benefit from it), but I think we don't, and something like: (A)pplicable, (U)pgrade, (N)ew at the end of every tech title would indicate what you need to do to enjoy that tech. Or even a full line at the end of every tech description. This is probably something that the game needs, rather than your mod, maybe Nick sees this.

Ok, then I am happy. Exactly like you, I know that 50+% could only probably happen in very specific circumstances in real life or super-close to "lab test" conditions (maybe stationary or non-"avoiding fire" targets, at exactly the sweet range spot with tense or at least semi-tense trajectory, thinking Bismarck when they were dead in water and pummeled by KGV and Rodney, or also Matapan, maybe?), but I mean, this is a game. It's a lot of fun. Hopefully at some point the magical bonus can be exported and then modified or maybe the bonus can be scripted some how. But I wanted to know if I was doing something stupid (that I am, because I am constantly changing course, or the worst, changing targets, screwing the solution) or if there was some kind of bug. Thanks for the quick response, man.

Probably this has been answered before. Main guns have less accuracy than secondary weapons? (12 inch mk 2, 9 inch mk2 against 3/4/5 inch mk 2, all with coincidence mk 1) Or is it simply than faster firing weapons get quicker to a satisfactory firing solution due to cadence of fire, but main cannons will get there and surpass it eventually?

For some reason I have always thought that when you do that the exe takes you to Steam and ends up updating anyway, but if you confirm this workaround works... well, thanks!

Hi, Probably someone asked this before. Has someone tried a separate installation? For example, duplicating the game folder in steam and installing this on the duplicated folder. I want to see if I can avoid auto-updates in the game. Regards,

That's where I don't agree. A community manager needs to be provided by the company under which you work, not from the development team. Developers are developers, not communicators. In my mind, that responsability is on Game-Labs, not on the Ultimate Dreadnought development team. Maybe you were using "developer" to designate the company and not the development team, and in that case, I agree. I am working also in projects (software), and things like these... should not happen, but happen more frequently that they should. In terms of videogame software projects, there's a good amount of projects taking a lot of time or being cancelled after a successful kickstarter or crowdfunding campaign. At least, this game is being developed and they're working on it, even if it's taking time. That's better than a cancellation, or than a "hey guys, the game is finished as it is". Especially in niche games like this one, that is definitely not a mainstream game, IMHO. This is financially riskier for the company and the team, so they having a small team is the price we all have to pay.

I think that's a consequence of being a small team in a mid size company, with probably no one taking care of communication with community. I mean, I agree that the communication could be better and that dropping small posts to update us would be better, but I also think that if I were in their shoes I wouldn't like to do any extra job that the company should do for me. Especially because it's hard to draw the line where you stop working mainly on the coding/management side of it and end up working more time as a community manager. Anyway, sorry if I was rude, didn't mean to tell you how to post or whatever.

I don't agree with the features working 10% of time, but the definite number would be a separate discussion, and imho, irrelevant to the point. I am not making excuses for them. It's simply reality of early access games: - Early access games build the game while you get the test the alphas and betas. So you're bound to find lots and LOTS, and, really, LOTS of bugs and errors. - All of them, or the vast majority at least, charge you money to do that. If it's wise or not to spend money to be given the chance to help them with the test is a discussion that is to have for all games in early access, not just this one. - To be honest, one mistake they're having is not labelling correctly the phase in which they are. Software is in beta when all or almost all functionalities have been implemented and you're mostly debugging, balancing and maybe optimizing or doing the last passes of optimization to the game. If you're still building features, the software is in alpha or even in development stage. That is where we are now with the game: this game is in alpha, right now. Not in beta. Maybe labelling the game as an alpha would clear some air. - Some of the early access games are in beta state, others in alpha: some are more polished, some are less when they open the access to the general public. But early access is an umbrella term that covers all: not because one of them was super-ultra-polished (for being an early access, I mean), means that ALL of them need to be in that state. - And finally: this is a small team, as far as I know. You cannot compare games in early access developed by a major company with a big team with early access games done by smaller teams. There's a financial reality that makes one being able to develop a game faster, and thinking that, no matter their size, they should be able to write and test software as if they were funded by EA (for example) is, simply, unrealistic and won't happen. Let's not discount the effect that COVID pandemic had on a smaller team like this one. - Addendum to this last point: a game this "niche" would not be developed by bigger companies with more money. The other alternative (Rule the waves) was/is being developed by a company that is much smaller than this one, with no-graphics dating back to the 90s. In short: buying this game in early access and expecting a super polished experience and super fast pace of development is unrealistic.

Because the game is in early access. It's a beta. It's not a finished game.

What's the official discord for UAD? I have seen it referenced, but I don't have the link.

Alternative suggestions: At the start of the campaign and then, very infrequently but still every now and then (maybe every few years, or after a crisis, or after x% industry improvement, whatever condition that makes it infrequent) trigger an event that allows you to choose new hulls. Hulls can be categorized in families (hulls that optimize stability, hulls that optimize speed, hulls that optimize load, gun placement, WHATEVER) and then you choose and switch from one to other. Or convert it in a decision that can be triggered somehow by user but that is very costly in some factors. Maybe you need to retool your shipyards and it costs several years worth of production, or you have to research a new technology for X years, or you have to spend inordinate amounts of money or whatever...

And Spain?

Wars between non-player countries. You don't need to participate, just the game telling you that X country is in war with Y. If you're not an ally, you can simply take popcorn and watch how two of your enemies bleed to deatch. if you're an ally, you can be called into the war. Also, the opposite can happen, and their navies can finish the war in a better shape that they were. This combined with economy should help trimming the growth of big countries, that should be involved in wars more often.

I don't know if that's exactly what was marketed. Let's go to the source: https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes I am highlighting several key phrases. By the looks of it, the campaign administration layer will probably be open world style (no restrictions where you want to place your ships beyond where you have bases), and then you will play missions generated by the game according to where your ships are, where enemy's ships are, tech levels (as detection technologies improve probably the frequency of encounters will also increase, for example) and some other factors. But again, that's the same as RtW. If they include some kind of creating proactive attack missions (for example, I want a naval bombardment in this base on this date) it will be more open-world than RtW where you cannot do that.

Nice to have after the game has a solid single player mode and campaign. Only then.

No, first part I was talking about medium to far ranges. In those, offering your broadside is always better. At close ranges, I'd say it depends on a lot of factors, but optimizing your armor would probably be among the least relevant ones. I can agree with what you say at the end. It's a problem of terminology. If, instead of angling, you had used maneuvering or closing/opening range, nobody would have bat an eye, but when you say angling some will get upset because it seems you're implying that someone at 25+ km should offer part of the bow and the broadside so any hit will hit at 60 degrees against the armor, that is simply, pure bulls***t (if you want to make a game that is a little bit realistic). Because it's true that any ship in naval warfare will be maneuvering a big amount of time in a given battle. To close, open or even tomaintain range, and in response of what the enemy does or trying to make the enemy to do something.

That's true, but that's called maneuvering, not angling. And then, after maneuver to close/open range, they would usually put themselves in a perfect "paralel" line because that's exactly the position in which they are more difficult to hit. Again, if my assumption that adjusting bearing is much, MUCH easier than adjusting range is true (please, someone with more knowledge confirms/rejects it), when you are perfectly "paralel" to the enemy, offering your broadside, he has much more difficulty in hitting you because the amount of possible ranges in which it can hit you are way smaller than when you are heading directly towards him (or away from him). So being in that position, at least in medium to far ranges, will be always the optimum position in terms of avoiding enemy hits. Angling at any angle will always be sub-optimal. Let's use the Bismarck as an example. Bismarck had (according to the wikipedia), a Length of 251 meters, and a beam of 36 meters. Let's use two possible positions to explain what I mean: - Bismarck sails directly towards/away from you. Your target size in bearing is 36 meters, your target size in range/depth, 251m. - Bismarck is perfectly perpendicular to the line from your cannon to it. Perfect broadside. Size in bearing is 251 meters, and in depth/range, 36 meters. - In any intermediate position between sailing towards/away and broadside, you are increasing your size in range, so it's worse than broadside. Since it's much, much easier adjust your fire on bearing that it is adjusting on range, offering your full length for your opponent to adjust his range is always much much worse than offering the full length. He was going to get the perfect bearing in the first shot, but getting the right range to hit you is much more difficult. So you will maneuver to close or open range, and once/while you're in your desired range you will keep your broadside. Obviously, if you can't keep your desired range for longe, you will be maneuvering most of the time, either to go away or close range, but as long as you want to engage, the best position is broadside, because it's the safest for any other. But again, that's not angling: it's maneuvering. They wouldn't angle to offer a smaller target (unless they're at point blank range with very flat projectile trajectories, and then, depending on the relation of forces, your artillery power and armor against what you know of your enemy's). [quote]Hope that clears it up a bit but also what would be the difference between a sniper shooting at 2km or a cannon? The both have to account for the rotation of the earth, wind and weather, while also taking target size into the equation?[/quote] A rifle shooting at 2 km has much flatter trajectory that the typical engagement ranges of battleships or cruisers pre-1945 (the game timeframe). And even then one of the first thing they have to do AFAIK is calculate range and adjust their sights accordingly.

As far as I remember, and take this with a pinch of salt, in (naval) artillery it was MUCH easier to adjust the bearing of your guns that adjusting for the range, at least when not shooting in flat/tense trajectories. It was trivial to point your guns with very extremely high accuracy in the direction of your target, but finding out range and calculating the angle at which your guns should fire with enough accuracy to hit at medium to long ranges was extremely difficult. Even worse, factors that would decrease your bearing accuracy would most likely also impact your range accuracy. So, in your diagram, when shooting at a target that is far, it's more likely you will hit when it's not presenting its broadside, because you can adjust the bearing easily even if it's a narrow profile, and then you can hit in all the length of its hull, and when the ship is close, the opposite will be true. This is, you have more area "in depth" when the target is not broadsiding than when it is. This is: at medium to long ranges, it doesn't make any tactical sense at all not to broadside: you lose half of your artillery (unless you have all your guns in the bow or in the stern), and even worse, you are an easier target. And in close ranges, I'd say it's debatable depending on the armor, amounts of guns you have and all that. All of this not counting torpedoes. In short: angling to become a smaller target didn't make any sense at all at medium/long ranges.

Wouldn't it be much easier to limit the malus of "Target Maneuver" to be a function of the current speed... or even of the current malus of "Target Slow speed"? Or would this just be a patch over a patch? Couple of alternatives: 1. Choose what would be the default speed for hard and evading maneuvers. Let's say 25 or 30 knots. The smaller your speed is in relation to that speed, the more the"Target Maneuver" is diminished. If, so to speak, and using invented numbers, the default malus for "Maneuver" is -25%, you can multiply it by CurrSpeed/25. The lesser curr speed, the lesser the final malus. So if you're evading or turning at the absurd velocity of 1 knot... you will have a malus of -1%. If a destroyer at 38 knots is turning hard to starboard, the final malus will be 38/25 * 25%... or this is... 38% malus. I don't know if I would still keep the speed malus. 2. Simply apply somehow the BONUS you are giving your enemy because you're going slow as a limit factor of the MALUS you're giving your enemy because you're evading/turning/maneuvering. So, for example, quick and dirty thumb estimation: simply substract this factor from the maneuver malus. So... you're going slow, and this makes easier to an enemy to fire at you (it gives them a 28% bonus)... and you're "maneuvering" in a way (hard turn, zig zag, whatever) that would normally penalize your enemy's aiming substracting a 31% of his possibilities of hitting you... With this approach, 31-28 =3%. So the final maneuver malus to your enemy is a mere 3%, because you're going SO slow, that yes, you're turning, but this factor is negligible or almost negligible. Conversely: you're going ultra fast... so fast that the enemy is having a hard time hitting you (malus for speed of -10%). -10 -28 = -38% total malus, because now your speed supports your maneuvering, and not limit it. This is, and in short: simply make the "maneuvering" malus a function of the current speed OR of the current speed bonus/malus.

Being spanish, I can't think of any positive Spain should have in the campaign. Maybe... MAYBE, some kind of advantage in submarines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_submarine_Peral), destroyers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_warship_Destructor and only if you don't take into account that the ship itself was designed in the UK) and if the campaign gets to last (in the first version or the game, DLCs or any potential sequel) to a point in which planes or other aerial vehicles (even if used only for patrols), then maybe helicopters/autogyros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_la_Cierva,_1st_Count_of_la_Cierva). Cannot think of anything else at the starting point of the campaign. But the most obvious negative, apart from low industrial capacity, low wealth, low tech, lack of big shipyards, etc... would actually be huge corruption plaguing the government. If I remember correctly, a great deal of the ammunition shot against the north american ship in the battle of Santiago de Cuba (1898) was filled not with explosive, but with sawdust. It might have been training ammo... or someone who wanted to increase their margins and sold that to the Spanish Navy, not giving a fxxk about what was going to happen. And this might seem far fetched, but it is not. It's completely believable.

I have voted for yes in both cases, campaign and scenarios. I understand (and agree with!) the reasoning behind saying no the campaign, and is that people will complain about the balance and try to push for balance between countries. So I would only have MP in the campaign if historical realism (or plausibility) was the top priority. In terms of the campaign, if there are only resources to make either historical campaigns or other things right, I would prioritize historical campaigns. That being said, if there are resources for a little bit more, I would simply make the campaign scenarios easy to mod, or even release any tool or guide on how to customize campaigns: that way, if someone wants to create balanced campaigns, they can do so. Anyway, I don't know if it will be technologically easy to make a multiplayer campaign with tactical battles: what happens in a 4 players campaign when 2 have a battle and spend 8 hours in a battle, for example? The only way it can works is a turn based campaign, or limiting the MP to two players.