DerRichtigeArzt
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by DerRichtigeArzt
-
-
On 7/15/2021 at 7:11 PM, SodaBit said:
I'm really hoping we get a "Save Design" function with the campaign, or at least a few historical presets to use in the campaign for both sides. It's going to be a massive pain in the a** to rebuild a solid design for every mission.
From what I understand campaign is going to work more like it does in rule the waves. No "missions" you just build a fleet and it roams the sea.
-
8 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:
No need. History teaches me everything. I do not need to learn from those who constantly try to rewrite history.
Another way to put it is “History is Written by Victors.” and that's the version of history I definitely have no intention of doing homework on.German equipment was faulty and unreliable. Bismarck's guns destroyed its own radar because of bad shock insulation.
German radar itself was so much inferior to the British one that the brits could just stay out of range of any german ship and pummel it.
Technology was so expensive and complicated that germans never could afford enaugh of anything sophisticated. All that talk about how wermaht was all motorised is german propaganda.
I will grant you that for most of the war they had superior steel but they got outmatched by Americans and the cowboys still wear the crown of the best steel industry in the world.
You can't argue eith facts, if germany was so superior to everyone else they would have won the war. But they were inferior warriors and they have met thier deserved end.
-
On 5/12/2021 at 10:14 AM, Adrian said:
Nick Thomadis can you say something about the Ultimate General Americian Revolution? when will be?
Hopefully after they finish thier current projects. We don't need them to start a 5th project to work on right now.
-
1
-
-
On 5/11/2021 at 4:41 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
The mission generator uses a new pathfinding system which allows to move ships across the globe manually in much more detail, than it was working in our previous internal beta.
New hulls, of earlier pre-dreadnought and dreadnought technology years are scheduled.
see this is what we want, just tell us whats happening every once in a while. its not rocket surgery to just tell us "aw ye we have modelled 2 new hulls and fixed 1 bug, this week, you might expect them beeing added in alpha-x which btw is beeing delayed because a core feature we want for that alpha is acting up, see ya in two weeks"
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Tousansons said:
"Because if it is named "fuso hull" some less creative people will automatically gravitate towards creating a fuso. Those same less creative people will then bash the game design because there is only 1 or 2 buids they can do on a hull."
I don't know how you got to that conclusion with my post. But let's agree to disagree here.
This is just human psychology, tell a human what a toy does and they will only play with that toy the way you described it, give a human a toy with no description and they will discover the possibilities on thier own. Read up, it works on all age groups with toys, tools, software, anything.
-
On 5/6/2021 at 8:12 PM, Tousansons said:
We all know that the first battleship of Imperial Japan is and will always be Kiyoshimo
I don't mind the neutral designation. While a bit gamey, they're here just to give a hint about what the hull/part is, even for that guy who doesn't know what the hell is a Fuso or Borodino.
Because if it is named "fuso hull" some less creative people will automatically gravitate towards creating a fuso. Those same less creative people will then bash the game design because there is only 1 or 2 buids they can do on a hull.
Redgarding the development:
Daum I rambled
TLDR: talk to me more!
Progress can be slow I don't care, if EA, a multibilion company, can release a garbage product and make money on it then a small indie studio who's employees have probably never even seen a bilion dollars combined can have one or two year delay.
Communication is on the whole another(lower) level tho, I would use stronger woridng but lets keep it civil. I am not demanding a patch sized post every day, it would be ridiculous to ask that. But there is a game beeing developed by frozenbyte studios named "starbase" and its head community/ceo/the one who knows aka Lauri, has a rule that no matter how much progress has been made he will post the screen shots of that progress every week. Now starbase is a very complicated game to make, way more complicated that UAD will ever be. And still he posts and informs and guides the community. All we have is a heap of information, thrown at us in a fashion worse than a heap of meat may be thrown at a dog, because a dog at least knows what to do with the meat. We have no context, is this patch smaller because you work on campaign or you went to hawai for 2 weeks to "look for inspiration". Send us screen shots, an unedited video of how a hull design proces works walk around the studio and ask people who they are and what they are working on. Groom the community. Because this whole project is like the dreadnought we are making, right now it, much like the real ones has 3 major characteristics. Speed(development) protection(the community) and firepower(communication)
We all know, as fellow naval passionates, that increasing the speed is not efficient past a certian point. There is nothing we can do, if a feature is not working it cannot be released.
Even the strongest plate can only hold on for so long before it crumbles.
It is the firepower that wins the battle at the end of the day, and right now, our guns are silent. We need stable notifications, lets say every 2 weeks.
Just release some screen shots and future plans and a rough percentage of the core x patch beeing done.
Right now we enter the forum and we are dissapointed that the only activity is major koenig posting a photo of a fish. Or me asking where the next patch will drop. And if someone checks the forum every week this disappointment grows each time. With a 2 week system we would all tune in for a slide show of 5-10 screen shots and a word from our trully and we would be satisfied with what we see. People don't need much to be happy, but not much is more than nothing and noone will ever be happy with nothing.
-
5
-
-
6 hours ago, Aceituna said:
My disappointment is immeasurable. Just another update in the long line of insignificant updates...
I hope you realise that the whole freaking community awaits campaing so would you be so damn kind and tell us approximate dat... no, sorry I know you won't. After all this time I am not that naive anymore. So just have the decency to tell us (paying customers): Is it gonna be till Christmas (I mean Christmas of this year)?
Its gonne be here before the end of summer I can bet on it. The problem with features like campaign is that you can't just make all the devs work on it. Visual artists have no idea about coding, coders probably only focus on this thing working and the ui is probably placeholder,there are facts you have to include in a historically accurate campaign that if done wrong may offend many people. Since campaign is a very important feature that will probably bring the game to steam, it has to work on the 1st try, because there are no second chances on steam reviews. If they hello kitty up the steam ea release, the game will probably die.
-
3
-
-
Devs you alive? We require sustenance in form of update.
-
1
-
-
is this game moving in any direction in any way? Where can I find patch notes?
-
4 hours ago, Tycondero said:
I like the new default rotated secondary gun positions, however the devs should really specify for each tower how the (secondary) guns should be rotated by default for each position. Currently in Alpha11 v80, there are multiple towers with internal gun placements that will get a wrong rotation if used. The guns are rotated so they do not have a correct firing zone and would have to be rotated manually. I can imagine that, especially for the AI, this could give some issues.
From what I have observed this occurs for the following assets:
Main towers:
- Modern Tower V
- Modern Tower IV
- Modern Tower III
Secondary towers:
- Modern Sec Tower III
- Modern Sec Tower II
In addition, I observed that the British "modern battleship I" hull has some issues/bugs regarding the placement of barbettes. For some reason, for the rear turrets, placing a barbette smaller than the "huge superimposed barbette" doesn't fit/work, whereas the huge barbette itself can fit. Doesn't make any sense.
many bugs like this on almost every hull. its like devs handpick what part goes on what ship and none other fit, this approach is doomed tho cuz there are so many parts you cant pake everything by hand. They need to write a script or something that would do it for them.
-
On 2/23/2021 at 7:05 PM, Fishyfish said:
All these new modern hulls, eh.
There's only one set of modern hulls I want, and I'm sure I'll just set off the weebs when I admit this, but I want me some Japanese heavy cruisers. I'd love a Tone, a myoko, a takao, an aoba.. a furutaka,.. but mostly that Tone.
After that no more modern hulls please. Heaps and heaps of old hulls please.
I want more jap hulls because my 1st campaign playthrough will most likely be them due to beeing kinda weak so there is much to build upon. same witch china, spain, aus-hung, italy to some extent and also russia seem to be the most interesting.
-
This fixes so much, I'll be testing it as soon as it comes out, if no major gamebreaking bugs appear this will be the biggest update yet. And it makes the game playable if not for the battles yet, just for the designer alone. Cant wait for design saving so I can start creating my fleet.
-
any guess when alpha 11 drops? kinda dry in here, not a good trait in a ship water boom boom game ya know?
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:
As we are in desperate need of new hulls and parts I would be very much in favor of that
I would be very curious where they want to go with the designer
let's hope for more freedom for the player. Also a database for designs would be nice, AI could use that instead of autodesign to use the ships against us kinda like in spore, it would have to have some freedom to change stuff tho as in campaign it would not always have required tech. but the general placement could still be used and a template.
-
4
-
-
I like that a lot, I also have a sugestion, the forum is really dead, which mwans that the interest in the game is very very low. Naybe you should reach out to some youtubers
(benjamun magnus, deachinifel etc.) to promote the project a little. Not necessarily now, since there is not a lot to do, but at the end on 2021 before Christmas. It would bring in some fresh ideas and clear minds to the community.
I like the roadmap, and especialy the increase in feedback coming and going from the dev team. Hyped for crew and designer improvements. Have a great year lads.
-
2
-
-
lol remember when 10 pages of comments would pop up every patch on 1st-2nd day? ye me neither.
-
On 1/4/2021 at 2:20 AM, Nismodriver said:
Is this game worth the money, is there a chance it will end up unfinished ? I know at this state it won't be worth the money yet, but let's assume they finish the game.
it will get finished but many are worried that it won't reach the depth of rtw2.
-
13 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:
Sorry for being rude, but people like you is how greed wins and projects fail. "I'll eat whatever they shove at me obediently, and throw more money at them if they ask". You are paying them, you should at least ask for a product you've paid for - a product that was and still is advertised as something that current iteration of this game is so far from being yet.
First of all... let's be honest, currently game is not far in development. It's almost just a tech demo rather, they might be too early with releasing it to public. Many parts of it clearly aren't meant to be final, or at least they do look like placeholder parts of in-dev game (even if compared to their other games), if my little experience means something.
Next, if this one is going to be "released" in state of a mess it is today only to be sold again in more finished state later (maybe even multiple times, some other dev team did just that), i won't be buying anything else from them. It's not a new trick, and I can hope that i'm not alone in understanding it. And I hope dev team also understands it.
All that said, apparently proper development of this may take many many years for this small team, i should be more patient with complains and wait what they'll come with.Im just beeing realistic here, game labs is stretched too thin, game may not be far in development, but some of the current systems are probably already hardcoded. I would love to have a game that @1MajorKoenighas envisioned, but unless they drop some of the other projects or hire more peeps we wont get it. Modding support is needed if they want the game to be alive.
-
1
-
-
On 1/6/2021 at 1:38 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:
Hi all!
After leaving my feedback regarding the Ship Designer - in my opinion the most interesting and unique selling proposition of the game - in multiple threads I decided to write up a summary of what I would like to see. The whole thing is aiming to improve flexibility and create more interesting (and less repetitive 😞 ) Designs!
As a Start I would expand on what we can do on the Hull! These steps are marked as H1 to H11:
H1. Hull Selection
Fewer hulls needed as the hull itself becomes part of the design process. Example: tumblehome, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, fast battleship. Each hull comes with a tonnage restriction (eg. something like 20.000 - 50.000 t for dreadnoughts, 30.000 - 100.000 t for fast BBs, etc.).
H2. Tonnage Slider
As today but instead of simply lengthening the hull it would make the hull bigger in the whole (lenght, beam and draft) -> scale in all dimensions instead of just lengthening
H3. Lenght-to-Beam Slider
Change the hull form within the tonnage. Has impact on seakeeping, speed, turning, accelaration, stability, etc.
H4. Freeboard Slider (UPDATED)
Has an influence on stability, buoyoncy and target size (hit propbability of the enemy). Alternatively a simple high / medium / low option as proposed by @Cpt.Hissy . For me it is important that this is represented in 3d meaning a „low“ freeboard ship would sit deep in the water.
H5. Speed Slider
Desired top speed as today. Determines needed power output.
H6. Selection Bow-Section
The bow has influence on seakeeping, speed, stability, etc. and is visually represented in the 3d model.
- Ram pronounced
- dreadnought bow
- straight bow
- slight positive
- pronounced positive / clipper bow
H7. Selection Stern-Section
The stern has influence on seakeeping, speed, stability, etc. and is visually represented in the 3d model.
- cruiser
- round
- transom
H8. Selection Flush deck or step? (UPDATED)
Possibility to add:
- Forecastle
- step
- or flush deckAs @Cpt.Hissy mentioned, maybe there are better ways to achieve that. But in general iT would be good to shape generally the form, and decide if you want a step in the deck, a forecastle or just a flush deck.
H9. Selection Propulsion
As today (triple expansion, turbines, diesel, etc.).
H10. Place machinery Spaces
Machinery space volume required based on all above criteria is calculated and represented as a couple of slices of the hull which can be moved fore / aft to be placed within the ship. These could be split up or placed next to each other, eg. in the center. Machinery spaces will not allow centreline primary guns over them. I would suggest to allow "side" primary gun turrets over machinery space though. Funnels can only be placed over machinery spaces. There should be a couple of seperate sections of these to be placed, eg. three. Machinery Space Section marked yellow (red means no placement of primary guns at the very ends of the ship).
H11. The osther selection boxes could mostly remain as they are in my opinion. However - I don't like the "Bulkheads" Slider at all! It is simply a matter of "the-more-the-merrier" thing. I would replace it with some selection box potentially like the one for double bottom.
General remark to the Armor: I am one of the few who don't mind the armnor settings through thickness on certain parst. However there is currently an issue how the program determines "main belt" - it is the center three sections of the ship regardless of what's inside. I would propose a dynamic "main belt" calculation based on the first main gun or main gun barbette and the last one and including all the machinery spaces.Once the hull is defined we can come to the modules which are currently added in the center section in the lower part of the designer. To give the player the possibility to create much more diverse designs the current modules are split up into more granular categories - named M1 to M7:
M1. Casemate Deck (UPDATED)
Possibility to add an additional deck below the actual superstructure. As mentioned by @Cpt.Hissy a few predefined models would most likely suffice here. It would be great though if the length of the deck could be changed to create longer or shorter ones and if Barbettes could „snap“ into the very ends of the deck (same for the step in the deck btw).
M2. Bridge Module
Lower half of the current "main tower" module. This module includes basic fire control, damage control, spotting, etc. values
M3. Mast Module
On top of the bridge we would put a mast which provides different bonuses to the bridge base values
- Spotting top (mostly spotting bonusses)
- Tripod Mast (spotting and long range accuracy)
- Pole mast (spotting and long range accuracy)
- plus some more modern masts, such as the thick Bismarck mast, the Dunkerque mast, etc. as stylish elements (spotting and long range accuracy)
M4. Rear Tower Module
Mostly like today but it must be easier to combine them with other modules, eg. smaller modules
M5. Funnel Module (UPDATED)
We certainly need more funnely, bigger funnels and so on! But most importantly I want to place funnels ANYWHERE over the machinery spaces and on the superstructure and casemate deck over machinery spaces. And we need these thick trunked funnels and such 🙂
Edit: after thinking about it again and reading the comments I think every machinery section should have their own funnels. So the program should allow for placing funnels anywhere over the machinery spaces. Funnels should „cut“ through casemate decks and bridge structures if possible — with some exceptions like the coming tower part.
M6. Main Guns and Barbettes
With all of the above it become easy: you can place main guns and mnain gun barbettes ANYWHERE on the ship - safe bow and stern and machinery spaces for centerline armament. I would propose to allow side mounted main guns over machinery spaces to simulate that they sit to the side of the engines, boilers and such.
M7. Secondary guns and Barbettes
Secondary Guns should be able to be places ANYWHERE safe the very bow and stern section. It would be awesome if placing such guns could "CUT" into the casemate deck if placed there. No idea how difficult that would be to do.
AI Designs: we discussed multiple times that the AI needs support to avoid these "Clown Car" Designs - well for them just put a couple of hardpoints and presets in the background - but leave the players the freedom!Thanks all for reading and hope you like it!
Great idea. Ge is too far in development to make it happen tho. Imo we just need to settle for what we have now and just ask for guns and barbettes beeing more flexible in thier placement.
And btw I said in some post that machinery space does not exist currently in the game, and proof for that is that you can place guns before you place anything else and thry can run the entire lenght of the ship, so putting amidship barbette is all the more reasonable since it elevates the gun so it does not cut into the engines. My 2 cents here, your idea is great for UAD 2 if the 1st one isna success.
-
what machinery are we even talkimg about? Last I checked there was no machinery category in the designer. there is no "look under the deck feature" the mythical machinery space does not exist. just allow us to place everything how we want to and assume thah engine space is always under the superstructure. ok screw free placement, maybe it is too hard on the tech (tho it works with turets and back in alpha 6 you could even rotate funnels which I want to do again) Just make the hardpoints for everything on the entire length of the ship, screw your magic machinery space we cant even see. it's limiting my player freedom in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME THAT HAS NO CURRENT PLANS OF BECOMING MULTIPLAYER. Give us what we want, and you will swim in money.
-
7
-
-
20 hours ago, gamerfromspace said:
So, are we gonna get any physical features, like hulls, guns, and towers?
Probably, some predreads are needed, if the campaign is to be released we need clear progression.
-
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:
I've missed the point(s), it's the same for every caliber. If a hit is spawned and spawned to do damage, then no matter what the armor is the caliber will do damage.
The 2" guns is only showcasing the fact.
It must be all RNG mechanics and since it has been here from day one, without being addressed, as such an important mechanic, a core, it must be how the game works and therefore, there is nothing to fix!actual testing as in IRL testing of an armored plate againts hundreds of 51mm gun hits. imo even the thickest armor would get ablated after enaugh hits, but nowwhere near as little as in the game currently.
-
2 hours ago, Capilla said:
Yeah, but I would like to be able do it with brit hulls XD
understandable
-
On 12/18/2020 at 3:11 AM, Skeksis said:
@Cptbarney screenshots.
Here's the mighty 2" battlecruiser...
Here's the Kotetus armor...
And here she is after, all banged up, all the heavy armored cells punctured...
This meta has been here from day one, it has been reviewed by the forum from day one, no changes, that must mean that it is the game meta and it's here to stay.
I doubt actual testing has ever been done. But I suspect that steel has its limitations even againts such a small caliber. Also its not like the ai is building such nonsense and nobody is forcing you to do it so it's not a priority to be fixed right away.
>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
I bought into the game for not a small amout of money where I live. I fully expect what I was promised, which is an rtw2 with graphics. anything less and I am refunding.