Rak1445

In the early stages of development, one feature that was promised and indeed implemented into a few models was changes of models after being hit. That means, if a funnel is hit by enemy fire, it'll become crooked, a mast would topple, a bridge would crumble. So far, I have only seen this implemented in very few cases, which I'm confident have been forgotten about. As the game is now out of Early Access, I'm worried this feature which I've been looking forward to for literal years has been scrapped. Are there plans to implement full support of this feature?

Also while it's not an extreme priority during alpha, please don't forget to give some love to the UI and HUD. Currently it's sometimes a bit wonky and looks like a mobile game... Would be nice to have it be more immersive.

A fog of war option to the campaign. Prior to a battle, have the enemy strength hidden from the player. "Is this convoy guarded? Is it a few cruisers? What if there's a battleship lurking about? Does the enemy have destroyers?" This will force player to behave more cautiously, take risks - like in real life. You wouldn't have a perfect overview of enemy strength beforehand. This change would add real meaning to spotting.

It seems on an encounter, a pop-up informs the player of the enemy strength in the area beforehand. It would be much better in my opinion if the enemy strength was concealed instead! It would present the player with a much more realistic challenge, and give spotting and target identification a real purpose. Please consider changing it, or make it preferential in settings. I think it would go a long long way.

Nick, I'd like to let you know we really appreciate you keeping us in the loop. Just these few posts you've made over the last 2 days mean a huge change over silence, it's a sign something's happening and the game isn't dead. Please try to keep it up. And although it might be hard, please don't view some of the harsher community reactions here and elsewhere as openly hostile or personal comments - people are simply concerned about the game and can't wait. That said, my fellow players, please try and be reasonable. I know the development time so far has been less than ideal, but some of the reactions I've been reading here are simply over the top. The developers are doing their best with the tools they've been given. Blaming and antagonizing will not get us a better game. As befitting of admirals of the seven seas, do try and act gentlemanly.

Outstanding work!

Good news! Thank you for sharing, Nick

Hey there @Slipshot! The game is not on Steam yet. Nobody has a Steam key so far. All access is exclusively through the Xsolla launcher. A Steam Early Access launch is scheduled in a few months.

Where have coasts been confirmed?

Oh, my apologies. The game is not on Steam yet - the release is scheduled around late autumn. You should have Xsolla launcher access though.

Additionally, for fog of war's sake, I think it would be interesting to have an option to hide certain information about the enemy ships (such as its detailed damage state). This would provide the players with a more realistic challenge, and force them to visually identify and guesstimate its damage from looks alone, just like in reality.

I think more content for all ships is inevitable anyhow, down the line (probably just before release, as the mechanics take precedence at this point). I don't think wanting more hulls and superstructures at this point at the expense of improving core game mechanics is a good idea, in my opinion (that being said, the more hulls and superstructures, the better). Adding corvettes, however, would bring some fresh air to the entire gameplay loop, allowing for more strategy options, and make for a more realistic experience. Those ships did exist, and indeed, were indispensable - the game would be an incomplete experience without them. I wonder how the devs plan to tackle mining and anti-submarine operations without them, to be honest. Gameplay wise, at least in the early access stage, the corvettes could even simply recycle Destroyer hulls and superstructures, but without the requirement for included torpedo launchers, and with buffs for mine and submarine warfare.

I think (and hope) that treaties will appear in the campaign as dynamic events, much like in Rule the Waves. For this reason (being a dynamic campaign event), they are not hardcoded, allowing you to design ships at your leisure without being bound by the treaty. That's at least my interpretation.

Hey, if you bought the Standard edition, you'll be receiving your key next Wednesday by e-mail.

I'm afraid with the current delays and so late in the development process, it's not very likely we'd get all those ship types (although it would be nice to see). I however think that implementing a single new 'corvette' class would encompass many ships' roles, as outlined above, making it a worthwhile pursuit in the long run.

Hello, I have been thining about how spotting could be improved in the game. Currently, once an enemy is spotted, the ship needs to identified in order to see the exact specs. However, a player can easily scroll the camera to the enemy's position, and visually check the ship's class, armament (many players recognize the gun's size from the turret's design by heart), or potential torpedo threat. I think this is something of an exploit, which limits the benefits of actually having to identify a ship first. Even though the player's lookouts have only completed their identification by 11%, the player already knows his target's main specifics. My proposition is to borrow a mechanic from the 'Wargame' series. In that game, once an enemy unit is found (but not identified), its model becomes visible to the player, but without its name, technical data and textures. Essentially, the units looks like a black blob, which is much harder to identify for the player. The textures only appear when the unit has been firmly identified by friendly forces. Here's a quick approximation how such system could work in UA:D: This way, much about the ship is obscured and it's much harder for the player to 'cheat' in this way. Once identification reaches 100%, the ship would become fully visible as on the above picture. I think the best option would be to keep both options possible - the player could then choose which version he prefers in Options. Let me know what you think! Also a disclaimer: pictures have been taken from a video by Stealth17 as I'm currently waiting for my key...

Hello Admirals and Developers! I approach you today with a suggestion to implement additional ship classes into the game, which I feel are missing and would benefit the game significantly, especially when campaign rolls around. My observations are somewhat based on the Rule the Waves model, which I believe has been a significant inspiration behind the development of UA:D as well. 1) Corvettes A general utility vessel of small displacement is missing in the game, I feel - to simplify, let's call it a Corvette. In reality, these ships were the workhorses of the navies, without which not much would get done. Although not as flashy as destroyers and other bigger vessels, they were crucial in keeping the navy ticking. Suggested uses: - gunboats - aviso/dispatch vessels - blockade runners - minelaying and minesweeping - anti-submarine operations - patrol picket boats Gunboats were an essential component of colony policing, their small displacement ideal for projecting power among the natives quickly. The term 'Gunboat diplomacy' speaks for itself! The Korietz gunboat, sunk by the Japanese at the onset of the Russo-Japanese war, is one of such vessels. Minelaying and minesweeping as well as anti-submarine operations are shaping to be a significant feature in the campaign, and although destroyers were capable of performing such actions, these duties were often delegated to specialized utility vessels. See the 1898 'Amur' class of minelayers for example. This would allow the players to purpose-build a specialized vessel for the task, to complement their strategy! I believe these smaller vessels are very charming, and they don't get nearly enough spotlight. Furthermore, I believe them to be necessary for the upcoming campaign! 2) Auxiliaries In peacetime, many governments subsidised civilian passenger liner construction, which would then be built according to their specifications. In times of war, these liners would be pressed into service as auxiliary cruisers. A complement of small and medium guns could be installed with ease, while their high speed being ideal for commerce raiding. See Ural, the Russian merchant cruiser employed during the Russo-Japanese war. I realize we already have armed merchantmen in the game, however I feel it's important to make a distinction between a bulky cargo ship with a gun strapped on it, and a sleek, high-speed yacht or a liner built with auxiliary service in mind. Furthermore, I believe the Torpedo boat class should be extended into the 1940s technology. Currently I believe the Torpedo boats' technology stops around 1908 and is somewhat replaced in its use by the Destroyer, but in reality the navies of the world employed (and built) torpedo boats well into the second world war. See the U.S. PT boats, for instance. Let me know what you think!

Workshop would be awesome and boost the game's lifespan. AFAIK the developers said they'll consider it after full release. Personally I hope for custom ship parts or even custom nations, not just sharing saved designs. That'd be a huge waste.

Dev team is small, but Game Labs is not - they're working on a bunch of games at the same time. There may be a problem with managing resources somewhere in there... Meanwhile, take a look at upcoming Sea Power - the dev team, to my knowledge, is 3 people - and they manage basic dev diaries just fine. I just want to make clear we're not blaming UA:D developers, its not technically their job, but someone up there in the 'chain of command' should take notice and give them a PR person or something.

That's how RTW handles it, I imagine it won't be much different. To my knowledge, however, it does not usually kill off your heavies. You may see a 'battleship torpedoed in port, has to spend X months in dock for repairs' rather than 'your fleet's sunk, lol'. Smaller shipping and especially merchants however will probably be kills.

The developer studio is currently developing !3! games at the same time. A dev team of 3 per project seems super harsh. They should at least hire a PR assistant or something, I really feel there's a communications divide between the devs and community.

For me personally, Age of Sail could have been so much more if it had a dynamic 'open world' campaign like RTW, instead of a series of linear missions.

I agree fully. I believe it's only fair for us to be in the loop about this, and surely an alpha launcher access isn't too much to ask for. As it stands it appears that communication from the developers could be somewhat improved. What are the reasons for the delay? What is the hold-up? Sharing the information with the player base can only strengthen the trust.

Good news! Thank you. However it's still a bit vague - it can be tomorrow or in two months. I understand that many things are yet to be settled, but I feel that should the Steam keys be delayed more than a month, access to the current Alpha launcher would be a good temporary alternative to meet us halfway...

As it appears that the Steam release is pushed back to the end of Summer, I feel it would it be fair to allow standard edition (beta) backers to receive access to the current Alpha version as a compensation. This way, they can contribute to the development and alpha testing, and enjoy the game as early as first half of 2020, as promised. Would such a course of action be possible?