ReefKip

Ofcourse. in no way should resources be taken away from the main stars of the game, the dreadnoughts and the other classes. for CV development. atleast not until all the other classes have been properly fleshed out.

if the devs add the option to Enable/Disable them as a buildable class before you start a campaign, then everybody is happy.And the ones who are not will show themselves as being very irrational people that wanna tell others how to enjoy and play the game. sadly there are a lot of those types on every forum that think their way of enjoying the game is the best way.

While Russia and France seem to be the more logical choice to be added to the campaign, If you look at how much content they have in the form of hulls and other equipment it seems not likely that they are ready to be added yet. They really need to add more hulls to make those nations feel unique and not just a half assed copy of birtish and german hulls with a few unique hulls mixed in. which is what they are currently. I personally hope that they are going to focus more on fleshing out and balancing the fundamental mechanics like spotting,the damage model and the weather system before they proceed in adding more content.

Oke so you think that the current spotting system is fine. despite it being a mess of half working mechanics that don't make any sense whatsoever because you FEEL it improves the pase of the game. despite countless arguments being provided on why its objectively a crappy system? I really think you are playing the wrong game here.What you are describing is WOWS game pase. and you can already find that in a different game.

Totally agree with you. Maybe even as a potential DLC for after the main game is done. I do want to see them in the game eventually. would be cool to build your own carriers and screw around with some hybrid battleships designs. Like the Ise class BB's in the IJN.

Right now with the current spotting system. battles are all about who can poop out the biggest wall of torps without being spotted at fantasy close ranges and suprise the opposing side.... but you think it is worse to have your ships die too fast because of historical accuracy? Am i getting you right?

I am suggesting they are added later down the line after the biggest issues in the game are fixed. not at the moment. If the devs want to add CV. first adding floatplanes to BB's and cruisers is a good stepping stone for that. If not . then floatplanes could still be added but purely for spotting purposes and accuracy bonuses for the ships that are within radio range.of what the floatplane spots. simulating the increase in fire control accuracy thanks to the floatplane giving details through the radio.

Historically TB's and DD's did very well without needing a survivability buff so why would they need one in game that tries to potray history? Anyway TB's should always be part of a bigger fleet and never be THE fleet itself. Every ship compliments eachoter but TB's and DD's punch way above their weight in both how difficult they are to spot and their survivability right now.

Another thing about DD smoke screens is that. unlike the black coal smoke of ship funnels, it does stay rendered even after the DD is not visually spotted anymore. Don't believe me? try it out in a custom battle against enemy DD's. let them come into range. drop their smoke and then disengage. you will notice the enemy DD's dissapearing when you are outside of spotting range, HOWEVER the smokescreen they just laid is still visible. even outside of the spotting range. This means that the game engine is already capable of rendering smoke at large distances. But for some reasons the devs only aplied this for smoke screens. not smoke in general. their reasons for this baffles me. If i can see a DD's smoke screen from 8KM away. then why the hell can't i spot black funnel smoke from a dreadnought at 4KM? They could easely fix this issue by applying the visibility mechanics for smoke screens on just all smoke in general. instead of having this contradicting mess of spotting mechanics we currently have.

Many people wanna see airplanes in the game and i think the best way to implement them first is by adding the technology to add floatplanes to ships. The advantages a floatplane would give you are better accuracy at longer range and ofcourse great scouting potential. Floatplanes could historically also carry weapons like bombs or torpedoes but attacking other ships is not their primary use and should be more of a last resort. The addition of floatplanes will open up a lot of technological possibilities with them and will also justify the addition of AA guns to ships in the game,so that i can finally fill up my empty deckspace with AA guns. If the floatplanes end up working great and are balanced, the devs can use that information and experience to branch out to CV's and start adding them to the game at a later phase. Thoughts?

I know that you can unlock other campaign start dates by winning the campaigns of previous start dates. My point was that you are forced right now to start in 1890 where the combat is extremely slow and inaccurate.which makes it one of the longest and mundane campaigns to complete.

The campaign is decent for a test bed. But there are still some issues that need to be fixed in order to make the game ready to be released on steam early access. without it getting ripped appart on day 1 by steam reviewers. Those are: 1. No glass on the current shipmodels anywhere. this may seem like a small issue but the suspension of disbelieve is broken quickly when looking at your shipmodel longer then 5 seconds and realizing that your bridge has no windows on it at all. 2. Enemy AI is ridiculously accurate with its torpedo strikes while your own AI is not and launches torpedoes at extremely weird angles that are easy to dodge. 3. Give the player the option to start at both 1890 or 1910 in the campaign. Some people like me are not interested in pre-dreadnought naval combat and want to jump straigth into designing true dreadnoughts. Forcing people to grind through atleast 16 years of tech that they have no interest in is just bad game design.

Your ship's spotting range seems to be a circel around your ship that spots everything within it. but when something crosses the circle line and goes outside of it it vanishes. Just like in World of Warships. Things like weather and ship size influences this circle even more. Which is all fine and well for balancing ships in an arcade game like WOWS. but it should have no place here.

Nope it was with daylight and clear weather. not night time.

How is it even possible that my 1900's technology CA cannot spot a DD unless it is at 1,5 Kilometer distance at clear weather? and that in a game that wants to create a realistic potrayal of early 20th century naval combat.... Same situation for BB's spotting other BB's. Its a bright clear day, the sun is shining but no one, literally no one of your 800 men crew notices a floating 170 meters long metal island with 69 barrels sticking out of it coming towards them until it is so close it basicly blocks the sun. This is all with level 5 towers equiped on my BB by the way. Historically DD's did not have cloaking devices that shielded them from being spotted until at point blanc range. Their relatively small size and manouvrability is what kept them alive, But instead they got fantasy World of Warships style concealment on top of that manouvrability making the entire way they play right now pure fantasy.

Will try that out.

Even if i put guns on they don't show up. i tried it on different classes with different guns. very strange. Maybe the upgrade was about improving the rangefinding capabilities of the main tower itself, and not the seperate rangefinding component. the game is very unclear about what you actually get when you research something. like if it is an upgrade for an already existing component, or an entirely new one. A refit system is going to be added in the future. a developer mentoned it in a Q&A a while back.

Does the technology system work for anyone in the campaign? Because for me it barely does and seems very broken. I unlocked rangefinder upgrade in a 1900 campaign but i cannot equip them on any of my ships if i try to design a new one. The only technology that worked for me was the range upgrade for torpedoes. which actually did show up on the Torpedo stats. Without the technology system working properly you cannot evolve designs at all. This is a very big issue for the gameplay.

Anyone else got enemy DD's that simply refuse to sink and sit at 1% floatability despite getting penned and flooded again and again by 11 inch guns? It seems the damage sytem currently favours small ships far more then big ships.Especially where flooding damage is concerned. Can't wait until they have added accurate damage models for ships interior modules. right now it seems the interior is just a damage zone that gives random crits to shells that penetrate through it. an example is a shell hitting a mid ships taking out a turret at the front which is physically impossible. location of penetration does not matter much. Exception to this rule seem to be torpedoes that always only damage the area they hit.

I encountered several big gameplay issues while playing the campaign. 1. The Enemy AI is way to conservative. a lot of the time i engaged in battle the enemy simply said "nope" and decided to cruise away from me. even when they had the advantage in tonnage.Many times i simply could not catch up with them leading to multiple engagements ending in a draw without a single shot fired. This happened to me 6 times in a row last night. Not fun at all. 2. A turn should take 3 or 4 months instead of the 1 month we have right now. It takes way too long to get any new technology researched. Leading to the Pre-dreadnought period lasting too long. making ship design in the campaign extremely boring. doing 3-4 month turns would significantly lessen the time the player needs to spend to be able to evolve his designs. Which is the point of the game. Otherwise its pretty good for an Alpha campaign.

and i quote what we actually see in the game........... which is like i said mostly dreadnought focused content. sure there is attention for the other shiptypes as well. but they clearly take a secondary role compared to the dreadnoughts again look at the amount of hulls and the fact that alot of updates are hyped on things primarly used by Dreadnoughts. 4 gun turrets come to mind. we both don't know what will happen in the future. but what there is right now cleary shows the developers want the game to be focused around them. and the other ships taking a secondary role. anyway. adding carriers would interfere to much with the balance as they are basicly a counter to every ship type. subrarines on the other hand would be interesting to use. as they could be countered by both destroyers and cruisers using depth charges, or even torpedoboats which could also be equiped with depth charges. but on their turn could also counter every other ship type by the use of timing and stealth. what is the counter to a carrier? another carrier. making the late gameplay a boring measuring contest on who has the strongest carrier with the best planes making most other ship types irrelevant. on your first point,more trouble then developing advanced flight models for every single plane you could possibly put on a carrier? i don't think so. the biggest issue i think will be the addition of an underwater area to the maps. but this is still lightyears more easier then plane physics and an accurate representation of them. on your second point. this would be easely solved by an Autoresolve function for the smaller engagements. like attacking purely convoys protected by a few DD,s would be autoresloveable. but at the same time having the option to control submarines if they are part of a bigger fleet of units.

Highly disagree. This game is definitly focused on the dreadnoughts. Seeing that the absolute majority of content in the game is focused on them, This is easely observed from the amount of hull models dedicated to them alone. Sure the game is not only about them. but they are the primary attraction to the game. Higly unlikely we will ever see carriers as this would require flight models to be modeled in as well. maybe as a campaign map only feature. Yes but they are a campaign map only function. not actual units you can control in battle. which is what i am advocating for. And would much rather see then carriers,

I don't even bother with screening or following commands or even putting ships in a battalion together. The AI is just so braindead that in every mission i play ships ether just make donuts or move very far away in a random direction not even trying to follow the command i gave them. To make every ship do what i wish i have to micromanage them all. which is not a problem in small battles. However in big battles with 20+ ships to command this does not work. The enemy AI suffers from the same issues. I don't even need the pop up which tells me where the enemy fleet is located. Just the sound of their ships ramming eachother is enough to pinpoint their location. it,s just so bad. I really hope AI fixes are high up the list of things that need to be fixed. Otherwise gamemodes like the campaign are impossible to take serious.

you can ram by using manual rudder control (the slider) which overides every movement order. atleast the last time i rammed it worked this way. ramming isn't really a viable tactic at the moment as how the damage is calculated is very strange.

while the addition of carriers would be realistic from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense in a game revolving around dreadnoughts. it would be kind of strange to see Dreadnoughts getting outclassed in a game literally named after them. I would much rather see submarines added into the game. like carriers they would add another layer of strategy. especially where convoy raiding is concerned. but they would not challenge the dominance of the dreadnough ship type like carriers would. we already have transport ships so adding the main counter to transport ships AKA submarines makes sense.