BobRoss0902

Could we get a sort of middle superstructure? Just adding something in between the main and secondary towers would add so much more to ship design than just pick the best tower, and change up the looks of ships significantly.

To encourage creativity I suggest adding a sort of optional "middle superstructure" that can go in between your main and secondary towers. These could add higher up secondary mount points, make areas to put your funnels on, extend your superstructure, and add to things like identifying speed. While simultaneously giving a minor reduction to gun accuracy in rough seas due to top heaviness. I'd like to be able to choose how many levels there are to a superstructure, or at least how many secondary mounts there are. I'd also think it would be cool to modify the number of secondary mount points on pre-dreadnoughts (within reason) being able to have things like quad deck secondaries where perhaps the bottom ones cannot be used in rough seas. One thing I'd also love is rather than picking range finders as a module you could mount them in a similar mannor as guns so that you can specify how many range stations there are, and what type they are. Now the thing that I would absolutely fantasize about, the guy that your wife is dreaming of would be the ability to get a sort of top down view during construction, and get the ability to directly draw how many bulkheads there are, and where they are located, while still needing room for guns, crew loading systems, etc... A sort of rudimentary form of ship blueprint.

What I would love to see is a system similar to what Graviteam Tactics Mius Front has, where you cannot order your soldiers unless that squad has an alive squad commander, or you have moved a commander nearby them. Basically this means that a bridge hit could mean that unless the ship is within visual/radio range of your flagship it gets taken over by the AI and does what it thinks is best. You could also train crews to be "squadron commanders" where let's say a squad is away from the flagship, then the ship in front of the squad commander gets hit on the bridge/conning tower. You can still order both of them since there is a squad commander nearby in visual/radio range.

Oh yeah also, to the people who just got keys, make sure to check the "promotional" and "spam" sections of your email as it might show up in there. Also you can install the launcher on any computer you need so long as you keep the email saved and know your username and password.

I bought early edition but haven't played in months just because I'm waiting for campaign.

Welcome to the Ultimate Admirals Dreadnoughts forum. This is something that literally *every* person on here has said. Supposedly saving ship designs has something to do with campaign IDK the details.

Is campaign development still on track for November/December or will the training of the new team members mean that it's delayed further?

One thing I'd like to see is instead of showing a percentage of how much weight a module or thing will add, show the actual amount of weight that the item will add.

we already went through the exposition with the early in game betas, and the punishment arc with the delays and lack of communication, but now we are in the redemption arc with some great communication so far, and more devs on the team. I am quite excited.

It seems like we are finally getting the communication we asked for and the things we were requesting between the adding of more devs and the long list of issues thread. I'm quite excited.

Is campaign still on course for release by the end of the year tho?

>Delay AAAAaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAA

https://youtu.be/-FT23AwNPOM One month has passed.

No-one seems to be asking but can we get an update on those Steam keys?

@Nick Thomadis Lots of people have been asking for this, what are your thoughts?

It's the Kerbal Space Program of shipbuilding. It's meant to get you interested in ships, with modular design, cool looks, and acceptable physics, it's not a true simulator, rather it leans more so on the fun factor, after playing KSP I certianly couldn't go out and build a rocket, but it's a wonderful introduction to rocketry, same for this game.

Damn Barney I've never seen you solumn? Serious? IDK the word but it ain't usual Barney posting.

I like it too, in Uboat you can choose your realism settings when you start the game, for example you can pick things like manually setting TDC or have AI do it, and wether it's first person only or more of a management type game. I think that any modern simulator should have options to make it more gamey, like how in IL-2 you can get down to bolt counting, or you can have an easy to play flight sim, depending on how you use the settings.

@Nick Thomadis This right here is the best suggestion, and possibly the easiest fix yet.

In fact if you look at the way a games company is run, the reason why so many companies push pre-orders so hard is because they take that money and invest it. So we are investors in more than one way.

Thing is often times people who want reality don't actually want real, reality. Similar to how in XCOM the game actually rolls in your favor in every difficulty except the most difficult, and everyone calls the highest difficulty bullshit, as well as some of the lower difficulties. Games sometimes have to work in your favor to be fun.

I don't see ant reason whatsoever why someone would go so crazy as to throw mixed battery on any of their ships aside from some pre-dreadnoughts, but even then that's pre-dreadnoughts and they are not known for sound design choices.

A major major issue I see with this game that I think campaign will exasperate, is a lack of a task force system. The whole "screening" system this game has will absolutely fall apart if you need to manage more than one task force. For example in another game Victory At Sea Pacific, in a battle, I sent out my battleship forces while the enemy carriers were doing an air raid on midway, in hopes of catching them off guard, however to deal with the secondary reinforcing squad the enemy deployed, I sent out my cruisers to deal with them, and had my destroyers doing escort duty for my carriers. I would not be able to do this sort of combat in the current state that UA:D is in. Well I could but it would be the biggest clusterf*ck (plz allow cussing on the platform, I am nothing without my cuss words) you've ever seen, as the battle I'm talking about had about 10 capital ships, and about 30-40 destroyers, cruisers, etc... Involved, and that would simply be impossible to manage without a more nuanced formation system. So a high priority on the devs list should be a task force system where you can effectively divide and easily manage your forces, any naval simulator worth it's salt has such a system. Even something as arcady as Battlestations Pacific had one of the best formation systems I had seen, where you got to decide in a special menu exactly what ships went where in the formation with the flagship always in centre, and the enemy AI would pick from a variety of pre-set formations. So a task force system would be imperative no matter how basic, along with a better formations menu as one supersized battle line will simply make it about who has the most capital ships rather than a more nuanced formation system.

At least where I am things have been pretty gloomy lately and this forum has been quite divided as well, so why not a simple topic? What school of thought will you follow in the campaign? Decisive battle? Trade indirection? Fleet in being (if AI allows Fleet In Being to be a viable tactic) Torpedos? (Like what Japan did with the Long Lance) or guns? Large long range ships where you can. Face the enemy ships on your terms, or shorter range smaller ships with less flexibility but you can build more? Ships with many turrets so it's harder to knock out all of your guns, or ships with fewer turrets with more guns per turret for better weight dispersion? Basically what types of ships will you design and what is the thought process behind your naval strategy?

Well yeah, the reason why Japan equipped it's destroyers, cruisers, and some Battlecruisers with so many torps is because the intent was to saturate an area as one set of long range torpedos would be easy to miss by simple standard battle movements. Edit: I thought you meant effective range. Yea early torpedos have small AF ranges, but ya also gotta remember the only ships before post WW2 that had torps that could outrange their guns were some Japanese destroyers with Long Lance torpedos.